The only person here entirely outside of the overton window is the only guy you seem to agree with. — Benkei
... Except Iraq, Afghanistan, Kurds, Libya, Egypt and Islamism in general have all been discussed. It gets plenty of attention really but as Baden pointed out, more whataboutism. — Benkei
You're telling me Andrew4Handlel is the only person in the discussion who is outside of the overton window and who I agree with? — BitconnectCarlos
I almost never see Egypt or Jordan or how Hamas treats its own people discussed. If someone does introduce Hamas oppressing its own people it's always either me or Andrew. I cannot remember the last time I heard Egypt or Jordan or Qatar mentioned here. Afghanistan and Iraq are only relevant because of the west's involvement. — BitconnectCarlos
The Jewsih historian Illan Pappe has a whole book documenting the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, which has not stopped to this day. And likely-Prime Minister elect Bennett is on record saying that he wants to annex 60% of the West Bank. So there's that. — StreetlightX
"In retrospect, it is clear that what occurred in 1948 in Palestine was a variety of ethnic cleansing of Arab areas by Jews. It is impossible to say how many of the 700,000 or so Palestinians who became refugees in 1948 were physically expelled, as distinct from simply fleeing a combat zone."
Yes, you seem to vascillate between reasonableness and defending the indefensible. — Benkei
The only reason you bring up Hamas is as a red herring in this thread. "But they do it too!" As if that makes everything ok.
If you want to discuss Hamas, start a thread on it and then every time you point out something they did I'll just say: "Yeah, but Israel did this therefore totally legit!". Or maybe I won't... I suspect you barely know anything about Hamas since you were obviously not aware they've already stated multiple times they'd accept the 1967 borders as a compromise. — Benkei
What is the current source of the oppression of the Palestinians? The answer to that would be Israel and Hamas and the PA, but also the Arab countries which are complicit in not helping their fellow Arabs. To only focus on one of these sources skews the conversation. — BitconnectCarlos
I'm just curious the thought process and reasoning here as I think it would reveal a lot of the beginning positions of the participants. — schopenhauer1
But any nation that's occupied is justified in fighting against said occupation. — Baden
JFC, at least read the post that replied to you. You have the attention span of a fucking budgie. — Baden
I'd rather see non-violent resistance in any conflict, not because I have any sympathy for occupying military forces but because civilians, including children, on both sides usually bear the brunt of these kinds of conflicts. — Baden
Nobody is justified in targeting civilians either overtly (Hamas) — Baden
Just as BitconnectCarlos cannot use the defense "But this is justified for X" (in this case security), — schopenhauer1
are you willing to say that the Palestinians should use other options than violence or would you similarly use the defense "But this is justified for X". — schopenhauer1
If Palestine is justified because they don't have as many weapons or whatnot. Is it always the case then that,
IF a country has less weapons than another country, they are allowed to use whatever means to get their ends? — schopenhauer1
Again, kind of wishy washy. — schopenhauer1
Nobody is justified in targeting civilians either overtly (Hamas) or covertly (Israel).. — Baden
are you willing to say that the Palestinians should use other options than violence or would you similarly use the defense "But this is justified for X". — schopenhauer1
Me: Nobody including Hamas is justified in targeting civilians
Small distracted fish: So, you are justifying Hamas killing civilians
Me: Read what I wrote.
Small distracted fish: Sounds like you are OK with Hamas killing civilians. — Baden
No, it's as clear and unequivocal as day. — Baden
Look, if you don't understand English, you don't belong in this conversation. — Baden
I'm going to answer this. This time, please listen. A) The labels do not matter. Whatever I say applies equally to any party in a similar context. B) Violence is sometimes justified and sometimes not justified C) Options other than violence should always be considered first. D) If you want to know whether in a certain scenario, I think violence would be justified, give me the precise scenario. — Baden
Ok, that's what I wanted to know. So what part is justified, exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years? — schopenhauer1
Yes, "Rather not" in any use in the English language is pretty damn wishy washy. — schopenhauer1
Nobody is justified in targeting civilians, either overtly (Hamas) — Baden
So what part is justified, exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years? — schopenhauer1
So the precise scenario is the actions of Hamas/Palestinian fighters over the last 30 years. — schopenhauer1
Show me the "rather" in that sentence. — Baden
But any nation that's occupied is justified in fighting against said occupation. I'd rather see non-violent resistance — Baden
The two sentences are different. The first sentence clearly refutes the idea that I support "exactly" what Hamas has been doing for the past 30 years, seeing as that, by definition, includes targeting civilians. The other sentence as it came after the first one is contextualized by the first one. — Baden
"What part of what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the past 30 years is justified?" then you need to rephrase your question. The way it's phrased currently means "Is exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years justified?". The former (which you didn't ask) is an information question and the latter (which you did ask) a yes/no question, the answer to which, as I mentioned, can directly be inferred from my previous posts. — Baden
Let's say this is the case:
Israel is unjustified to use the bombings they have been in pursuing "security".
Would you all agree that with this then?
Hamas/Palestinian fighters who use violent means to get their ends are unjustified? — schopenhauer1
Let's start with that and slowly make progress. — Baden
I said show me the "rather" in that sentence. See that one, the one I just quoted above. — Baden
But any nation that's occupied is justified in fighting against said occupation. I'd rather see non-violent resistance — Baden
No, I don't see a "rather" in that sentence. That alone is a strong condemnation — schopenhauer1
Yes, Baden thinks Hamas/Palestinians are equally unjustified (even if they have fewer weapons/power). — schopenhauer1
Honestly, you are probably the least able of anyone I've ever debated here to understand basic English or logical connections. — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.