Feel the Bern! :fire:

We need to clone that guy. He's amazing.

I should clarify I don't think anyone here is celebrating in that manner.

Including you.

There are memes out there in the wild that are.

Wikipedia is biased and should not be used as a neutral source. I have a bone to pick.

The term "West Bank" encompasses the historic territories of Judea and Samaria — territories with thousands of years of Jewish/Hebrew history.

To just blatantly claim that the "West Bank" (a term only in use for a few decades) is "occupied Palestine" is nonsense, historically. There has never been a Palestinian state or a Palestinian nation. The term "Palestine" historically refers to the geographical or topographical characteristics of the region.

As you noted -- "We aren't going to agree here"

And that's OK for the purposes of this discussion. Since I get my information from people from Gaza it's very likely that my information is "very biased" in my favor. Almost like that's why I believe what I do.

I don't want to judicate the boundaries because I don't have a personal stake in terms of which where etc., and I'm not even close to being worthy of negotiating that.

These events are important to me for the reasons outlined -- I'm not going to pretend to be the guy who can speak on every legal thing, but I will honestly answer your questions with respect to why I'm saying what I'm saying (and noting when I'm out of my depth)

The ongoing genocide in relation to the sensationalist murder is what causes the feeling of the absurd in me.

Where the lines get drawn after the genocide stops is less my interest, and stopping the weapons from continuing that is more my interest -- but these are moments in a reflection on political violence.

When and where?

Suppose 100,000 of your people were indiscriminately killed and you still lived.

Time to register to vote?

You're falling into a false argument. Why do people cut off their genitals? Because they feel socially-ostracized. Have you ever been a child once in a modern day school with low-income people? Even having any sense of morality gets you called a "snitch" or a "girl", and basically physically harmed IF you're smaller than the person. It's a cycle of useless people fornicating because they have no self control, often the largest "Strongest" what they call alpha, despite having the brains of rocks and no real purpose since 800 B.C. when the lever and pulley was invented. They can't cope with society. They were made to be slaves. To work, to use their size to lift heavy rocks under the command of a king. They have no purpose in modern society. They don't know how to raise kids. They get pleasure from seeing people, anyone, random strangers, suffer. It gives them "purpose," The things that bring an intellect joy and a sense of harmony, give them anger. The things that give us a sense of disgust and horror, bring a smile to their face. They are incompatible with modern society. — Outlander

I think this is a bit much.

You may not recognize it as transphobia, but you're talking the points up front while ending with classist points.

Sorry, my point being, no person who was not bullied or exposed to the idea that "oh you might be a girl, since you act like one" has ever once considered the idea that they were not born into the right body. Not a single one. — Outlander

And yet this is false.

Unless you can read minds?

Still -- this isn't the question at all.

I noticed there was an uptick in propaganda trying to tie Utah boy to "Trans influence" -- but I'd interpret that as yet another attempt to demonize a minority group and not take responsibility. Or divert it somehow to something to be angry about rather than think it through.

Just look around. Why are all the "transgenders" skinny, awkward people who just didn't fit in. It's not a coincidence. It's psychological bullying and deformation of the human mind by physical and emotional trauma. How can you not see that? How can anyone not see that? — Outlander

No more "transgenders" talk from here out, please.

It's a propaganda point in the sensationalist murder. Trans people are afraid because they're getting demonized again -- but they ought not be grouped with a person who shot someone for funzies.

If you check with the pro-Palestinian movement leaders like @NerdeenKiswani on X, the new death count is 700k with 400k babies dead. According to AI, there are not even 400k Palestinian babies in Gaza, but don't let that get in your way as a Palestinian activist. Push the numbers, yell the slogans, move on.

Last time I checked, it was 60k; now, apparently, it's 100k. Whatever the count is, it includes Hamas terrorists in a large count, given that it is what Israel is targeting. Gaza's figures do not differentiate between combatant and civilian because such a distinction is meaningless to them. Such distortions are run of the mill for the movement.

Can you imagine if we had this reporting in previous wars? I suppose it would be akin to "50k Germans indiscriminately killed" during Battle of the Bulge. Civilian, combatant, whatever, throw it all in one figure.

When a Hamas terrorist dies, the world is improved.

Yeah -- I've seen other reports too I've been sticking to the "conservative" ones because the topic is controversial, and really even the small counts were enough to my mind to justify my sorrow.

I am also sad for the innocent Palestinians. I am sad for the innocent in all wars. Such is war.

My apologies for the confusion. I only read a couple posts on the last page. I wasn’t aware there was a longer conversation there. — NOS4A2

S'all good.

I do disagree because I do not believe the good and the bad can be found in thoughts, only actions. For instance, the assassin may have had the most beautiful thoughts ever conceived. Perhaps they were so good that he opposed fascism and the spreading of hate. Kirk, on the other hand, wanted to bring back the death penalty, and probably believes you or I will go to heaven and hell. Those are bad thoughts, in my view. But from the stories of Kirk I’ve been reading the last couple days, he was very kind. As far as I know he never hurt anyone, and gave a platform to opposing views. The shooter, who apparently opposed fascism, murdered someone in cold blood. So who is good or bad?

Yearp. That's the question -- less with respect to these individuals that sparked my feelings, but more with respect to ourselves: Who is good or bad? How do I agree or disagree with either response? Celebration because he spread hate, or condemnation because we're guilty of way more violence, in the big picture?

In some sense, to take the gun-control side, we could argue that we're all guilty for not regulating weapons well enough that a young boy hopped up on propaganda would not be able to shoot a celebrity for funzies.

But that's the sub-plot I'm asking for -- the main plot I'm asking is "Where and when?", but more with a reflection towards an uncomfortable aporia

In my view there is an increasing conflation between words and deeds in Western moral literature and it leads directly to these sorts of acts.

I don't think the thoughts are what does it as much as the material conditions.

Words/Deeds have been a question since at least 1900 in "Western moral literature".

The increase in random gun violence predates those questions -- whereas the proliferation of firearms coupled with a society that is actively engaging with violence (and thereby must find justifications for violence) leads to an every once-and-again one-off murder, especially when bifurcation alienates people through class divisions, and the internet spreads not news but propaganda to incite feelings that young men often aren't good at handling.

When a Hamas terrorist dies, the world is improved. — BitconnectCarlos

I disagree.

That'd count as an example of "genocide": MW: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

Hamas is a political group.

Something like "When a Republican dies the world is improved" would fit here.

Or even "When a Nazi dies the world is improved"

Only the Nazis did the genocide, so it is false to lament the death of a Nazi.

Whereas here we have the IDF carrying out the deliberate and systematic destruction of Hamas while killing anyone that gets in their way.

They don't use nukes because they want the land, not because they have restraint.

They don't use airpower because the land is close enough that artillery does the job.

It's not restraint -- it's systematic.

There's one thing here that I think is important to distinguish: this is not a war.

A war is between two countries that recognize one another.

Israel uses the UN definition to declare war on Hamas, but when they controlled the occupied territories they applied two levels of citizenship and deeply controlled who got in or out of the West Bank or Gaza.

It's not like Hamas just decided to be evil. There are reasons for why they were voted for that lead up to Oct 7th.

So as long as they "obey" the restrictions that continued to expand settlements they would not be bombed, but they weren't citizens of Israel as much as an apartheid.

Jon Stewart
https://youtube.com/shorts/OvjsN7h1Zc8?si=ZdYk_0Rt6e0To95o

That'd count as an example of "genocide": MW: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" — Moliere

Then that is not a good definition of genocide. Sometimes political groups need to be systematically destroyed. If the destruction of Nazi Germany is genocide then nothing is genocide.

If the destruction of Nazi Germany is genocide then nothing is genocide. — RogueAI

That's not what happened. There was a war between different powers and people were tried after a government surrendered. The destruction of "Nazi Germany" is not the same as the systematic hunting down of anyone associated with "Hamas" to the point that it's OK to kill unarmed civilians and topple down Hospitals or civilian living quarters or stop aid from coming in to starve out anyone that might be associated in order to take over the land.

Hamas isn't the fascist in this scenario -- they're not really a "liberal democracy", but they're not "Nazi Germany" -- not even close.

The destruction of "Nazi Germany" is not the same as the systematic hunting down of anyone associated with "Hamas" to the point that it's OK to kill unarmed civilians and topple down Hospitals or civilian living quarters or stop aid from coming in to starve out anyone that might be associated in order to take over the land. — Moliere

That is different than hunting down and killing Hamas. I have no problem eliminating Hamas if it can be done without collateral damage or without the goal of stealing land. I see your point that Israel's goal is not just the elimination of Hamas at this point, and they are unable to do it without killing huge numbers of innocents, and what they are doing my fall under the definition of genocide.

I don't see how it matters what we call it.

Playing Devil’s advocate, Likud’s actions make internal logical sense. Ideally, the Palestinians would just go away, to Egypt or anywhere else, they’d take over Gaza and West Bank, there’d be a buffer zone between neighboring countries, and that would be the end of it.

This is the OBVIOUS goal. Eliminating Hamas never was. October 7th was a pretext to just take it all once and for all. Fortunately, the world really isn’t buying it— yet they’ll push on through until every Palestinian is dead or displaced. They’re making Gaza an unlivable hellhole.

At this point, if I were Palestinian I’d just move out of there. They’ve lost. The problem is, there’s nowhere to go.

So this genocide (oh, sorry, I mean ethnic cleansing) has nearly succeeded. A few thousand more dead babies (oops, I mean Hamas combatants) and destroyed buildings should do the trick over the next few years. All with the weapons and support of the US.

A war is between two countries that recognize one another. — Moliere

So the Civil War wasn't a war? Or the Revolutionary War, for that matter.

It's not like Hamas just decided to be evil. There are reasons for why they were voted for that lead up to Oct 7th. — Moliere

Hamas is a hardline Islamist group that follows hardline Islamist ideology. At its most basic level it is simply seeking to expand the territory of Islam under hardline rule — nothing new in the history of Islam. Hamas isn't shy about this.

Nor is Hamas all that different (although a little more extreme) than "secular" organizations like the PLO, which also sponsors terror attacks.

Whereas here we have the IDF carrying out the deliberate and systematic destruction of Hamas while killing anyone that gets in their way. — Moliere

If a German civilian were to "get in the way" of the Allies killing the Nazis, that civilian becomes a legitimate target. He has chosen a side.

Anyway, yes, Hamas and the Nazis are/were both political groups. Political groups deserving destruction.

Hamas isn't the fascist in this scenario -- they're not really a "liberal democracy", but they're not "Nazi Germany" -- not even close. — Moliere

No, but they're people. And you know what that means. I said it before, I'll say it again. "In this world, The only difference between the benevolent king and the evil king are two things: Opportunity. And Time."

Meaning, both people would gladly perform the same acts upon one another, given the opportunity. It simply happens to be one who is able to instead of the other right now. And they both acknowledge and admit that. Therefore, that happenstance transient fact is neither something to praise nor condemn. It's just "what is."

The problem is false religion. And yes, I say that as a practicing theist. They need to consider their religion as a "lifestyle choice" akin to a hobby. The problem is they think it grants them real authority over others in the real world. Maybe it did once upon a time. To not be an "infidel" because you obey what an alleged god king or "prophet" said, supposedly. Most religion is war propaganda to make you comfortable with death, whether delivered to you, or delivered by you.

Basically, allegedly, as far as my understanding goes, Israel is a "democracy" and Hamas has ambitions of a religious caliphate. No elections. Hereditary rule. The problem is, they are not kings. They do not come from royal lineage. Or at least, if they were, they are now crestfallen. Like most empires, the lower class/laborers/non-royalty ended up revolting against and deposing the True divinely appointed-leaders, thus damning their entire people, at least removing their blessing and protection turning their future society into little more than a seedy band of thieves and murderers in the eyes of the divine. Any God-established people or empire that does that loses their status of Nationhood to the only Authority that counts (albeit sometimes temporarily). Sure, they can prop it up for a while (with the blood of the Saints I.E. the Innocent). But it never lasts. Second problem is, if they were ever to become this "empire" they likely genuinely believe a Higher Power wants them to and will ensure they become, they won't stop growing from there, thus threatening the future stability of not just the region but the entire world. In the age of nuclear weaponry, that is no exaggeration. You have to kill the dragon while it's young. Any knight will attest to this fact.

Seriously, while it may seem the opposite, it's literally the difference between democracy in the region and fascism where unworthy men born from false kings control the lives of all, especially women and "gay people" (*cough* intellects who aren't brain-dead slaves who actually appreciate art and poetry over primal acts of pleasure). If they weren't from a false lineage and were real kings, that would be fine. There would be no problem. But they're not. So democracy will inevitably replace whatever system they have or intend to have. The only question is, how many have to die before then, something only they can answer and have full control over. Only question is how many more of their own will they choose to sacrifice for an ill-formed and false cause. So don't get it twisted.

Dude. In reality. All they have to do is become a true democracy and let McDonald's set up shop. They do that, all this killing and war goes away overnight. But they won't. Because they believe, (I would hope truly) that they are doing the right thing and fighting against the powers of an evil world thus ultimately pleasing some Higher Power. Not unlike myself. Shoot. Maybe they are. But guess what? Maybe they're not. That's all someone who believes in much of what they purport to believe can really say looking from the outside in.

I often wonder how the normalization of violence figures into this sort of messaging. There is a blatant political device in particular instances such as pardoning all of the participants in 1/6. But that does not add up to a possible future. The whole theater is oddly barren.

So the Civil War wasn't a war? Or the Revolutionary War, for that matter. — BitconnectCarlos

Naw, that's dumb.

There are significant differences between those and what's happening here, though, such that the "war" designation isn't exactly apparent to me.

Suppose South African Apartheid.

I see that situation as much closer to the situation in Israel -- Israel offers different rights to Jews than to non-News. Palestinians are segregated into different locations within the state of Israel. This is largely due to a desire for an ethno-state -- i.e. Arabs over there and Jews over here.

Suppose that South Africa, in response to a political act of terrorism on white people, set up artillery and began to systematically eliminate the Black neighborhoods in retaliation. Further suppose that they continued to bombard the schools, hospitals, journalists, civilian living quarters, universities, places of worship, etc. in the name of defeating the political group responsible -- how many non-combatants and places unrelated to combat can be purposefully annihilated before this stops being a "war" and starts being a "genocide"?



Part of me is also hesitant to describe this as a war on the sheer basis of firepower. If you hold a firing line to keep people within a place where you're going to bombard them regardless of their political orientation are we really engaging in war? Or is this Dresden extended over a longer period of time? Gaza is under siege while being bombarded. Part of the tools being used here are starvation to inflict mass punishment.


There are other means of genocide in play here too: if one targets people who have knowledge, such as doctors, journalists, teachers, scholars, holy persons, and legal authorities then it will be harder for the genocidaires to be persecuted -- if you destroy the evidence and the knowledge of a people then you can tell the story as you want. Consider "Go West Young Man" as a result of the United States' genocide.



So my theory of war needs refinement, but I don't see an apt comparison to either the United States' civil war or its revolutionary war.

Meaning, both people would gladly perform the same acts upon one another, given the opportunity. It simply happens to be one who is able to instead of the other right now. — Outlander

While a penchant for violence is a part of human nature I do not think that people are sitting around waiting for their turn at the genocide stick. That's an entirely cynical view whereby we can dismiss any genocide on the basis that "Well, if the people who are being killed now had the opportunity, they'd be the genocidaires. So what's the difference? Let the genocide go on"

I often wonder how the normalization of violence figures into this sort of messaging. There is a blatant political device in particular instances such as pardoning all of the participants in 1/6. But that does not add up to a possible future. The whole theater is oddly barren. — Paine

I get the sense that the 4chaners et. al. just want to agitate people to kill others in order to cause a sense of terrorism. I don't think they care which side does it; what they care about is the terror, and the lack of culpability for themselves. They want to inspire others to carry out random acts of violence.

This is functionally speaking -- the ideology is hard to decipher, but that's on purpose. This is part of why I think of it as a fascist underground: fascists purposefully use duplicitous messaging with the intent of destroying social bonds with the state such that they can take over the state without a real political program other than hatred for the other, a desire for punishment, and the willingness to utilize the powers of state to carry out that mission.

Fascism is a cult that worships death for its own sake as a means to purify the population.


At least, that's my perception. It's terribly hard to track details on the actual people -- this is just what the part of the internet looks like that looks similar to what thus far this assassin at hand.

That is different than hunting down and killing Hamas. I have no problem eliminating Hamas if it can be done without collateral damage or without the goal of stealing land. — RogueAI

Ehhh... given what we see right now, it really isn't possible to do that. This is what the Israeli government is pursuing in the name of routing out Hamas.

So this genocide (oh, sorry, I mean ethnic cleansing) has nearly succeeded. A few thousand more dead babies (oops, I mean Hamas combatants) and destroyed buildings should do the trick over the next few years. All with the weapons and support of the US. — Mikie

Oh, I disagree there. It can still be stopped. There is still resistance.

While a penchant for violence is a part of human nature I do not think that people are sitting around waiting for their turn at the genocide stick. — Moliere

Of course not. To see reality for what it is requires living an examined life. Basically, it requires not being a mental invalid. Unfortunately, most people are exactly that. The average person is little more than a (barely) functional "r-word". And boy do I mean barely. There are just more of them right now so they effectively control the world. That's why it's in chaos. The intelligent are afraid to speak out because they know their life is infinitely and exponentially more valuable than even 10,000 of the commoner and so must do so to remain alive, not just for their own sake, but for the sake of the world. Since the depraved are violent by nature. If intellectual people, like those who post here, were the majority, and saw how the current majority behaves. They'd be locked in a cell for their own safety.

They don't "want genocide" they want "stuff" and the "feeling" (glory?) that genocide happens to provide. And also happens to be the only way to achieve these things. It's very simple.

Basically, we're watching two little children, one much larger, fight one another. It's time for the adults "the world" to step in and break it up.

There are significant differences between those and what's happening here, though, such that the "war" designation isn't exactly apparent to me. — Moliere

How can the Civil War be a war to you? The North didn't recognize the South as an independent country.

I see that situation as much closer to the situation in Israel -- Israel offers different rights to Jews than to non-News. — Moliere

Tell that to the Israeli Arab muslims who serve in Parliament and as judges and professors with full rights.

Palestinians are segregated into different locations within the state of Israel. This is largely due to a desire for an ethno-state -- i.e. Arabs over there and Jews over here.

I can't tell whether you're talking about Israeli arabs or Palestinians.

Suppose that South Africa, in response to a political act of terrorism on white people, set up artillery and began to systematically eliminate the Black neighborhoods in retaliation. — Moliere

I'm not entertaining this because Israel is not South Africa, nor has Israel begun bombing its own neighborhoods. Gaza is not an Israeli neighborhood or region. It is a territory possessed by an enemy political group that openly seeks the complete destruction of its neighbor and to establish hardline Islamic rule.

Did apartheid SA have blacks in Parliament? In high positions in society?

So my theory of war needs refinement, but I don't see an apt comparison to either the United States' civil war or its revolutionary war. — Moliere

:up: Keep in mind that over 10,000 rockets have been fired indiscriminately into Israel from Gaza since 10/7 and that 10-20% of these misfire and end up landing in Gaza itself. In any case, whether we call it a war or a protracted conflict doesn't matter much to me... although near 1,000 Israeli soldiers have been killed since 10/7 but ultimately 'war' or 'protracted conflict' both fit.

How can the Civil War be a war to you? The North didn't recognize the South as an independent country. — BitconnectCarlos

Does it matter? If you won't accept South Africa as an analogue, then ought I to accept the civil war?

I told you the differences I saw. I used South Africa because it's another colonial project.

With the States you have two colonial governments fighting. If I were to analogize something in the United States I'd say it's how we treated the Native Americans and Blacks rather than the Civil War. They were less than second class citizens, for the most part.

Tell that to the Israeli Arab muslims who serve in Parliament and as judges and professors with full rights. — BitconnectCarlos

What about the ones that don't have full rights?

Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_citizenship_law#Status_of_Palestinian_Arabs

They were forced from their land and required to apply for citizenship with Israel and if they couldn't -- which most didn't -- they lost their property.

Technically speaking they're not citizens so it's not a "second class citizen" de jure -- but it is de facto.

I'm not entertaining this because Israel is not South Africa, nor has Israel begun bombing its own neighborhoods. Gaza is not an Israeli neighborhood or region. It is a territory possessed by an enemy political group. — BitconnectCarlos

Here's the part where Israel gets duplicitous. Prior to Oct 7th they wouldn't recognize their statehood. After Oct 7th they still won't recognize statehood, but they'll declare war on them as if they are a state. In times of peace they are controlled by the Israeli government, in times of war they're a fully independent nation.

Under apartheid they slowly drive out Palestinians with expansions of colonies. Under war they kill indiscriminately while holding a siege to keep people in an area where they can be slowly eliminated. This is all part of a history of slowly expanding and taking over Palestinian lands by any means necessary.

Drop the analogy if you wish. It was thinly veiled. The part that sticks, from my perspective, is that Israel effectively treats the Palestinian territories as an open air prison in "peace times", and a kill zone in "war times".

Keep in mind that over 10,000 rockets have been fired indiscriminately into Israel from Gaza since 10/7 and that 10-20% of these misfire and end up landing in Gaza itself. — BitconnectCarlos

... you realize that this comparison isn't in Israel's favor, yes?

In any case, whether we call it a war or a protracted conflict doesn't matter much to me... although near 1,000 Israeli soldiers have been killed since 10/7 but ultimately 'war' or 'protracted conflict' both fit.

My thought is that this is not a war, but a systematic erasure of another people for the purpose of obtaining land and punishing them en masse for voting for Hamas. I.e. a genocide.

Even if the Nazis were evil they kept Germany after the fact. Heidegger even got to stay a part of the party until it was legally dissolved.