Best to argue by attacking the commentator for not being sufficiently comedic. — Merkwurdichliebe

Seem to be a common tactic..

The bit about Ireland is completely and utterly wrong, but whatever, it's light entertainment, so I don't expect him to know anything about that or bother finding out. It's not the point of the show. Ditto with the Middle East and the context there. He might get something right or not randomly. But most people, I presume, watch his show just to relax and have a laugh not to fact check it. Which is fine.

Seem to be a common tactic.. — schopenhauer1

Whatever you do, don't address the actual topic :wink:

The bit about Ireland is completely and utterly wrong, but whatever, it's light entertainment, so I don't expect him to know anything about that or bother finding out. It's not the point of the show. Ditto with the Middle East and the context there. He might get something right or not randomly. But most people, I presume, watch his show just to relax and have a laugh not to fact check it. Which is fine. — Baden

Yes, I heard you say that, but you didn't provide your reason for your disagreement. As far as the show, yea I generally agree. He isn't writing all that material. He probably gives his main outline and other people fill in some historical context is my guess, though he is quite informed. But I have yet to see what was wrong there. As you stated, it has to be short so he can make his point. He isn't giving a lecture on every conflict, but a broader understanding about conflict, coping, and at some point compromising and the result of the lack thereof.

Have we not being addressing the topic for 155 pages? But please just spell out the new and incisive contribution Maher has made here and of course we can debate it.

Yes, I heard you say that, but you didn't provide your reason for your disagreement... I have yet to see what was wrong there. — schopenhauer1

It's not disagreement. He just got it totally wrong. The whole island of Ireland was fully under the control of Britain and then we fought a war of independence in which we negotiated away N. Ireland at which point the Free State, now the Republic came into being. It was not a case of Ireland being free (having the whole island to ourselves) and then Britain came and took N. Ireland (our tip) away when it became a colonial power. As I said, he just made that up. The fact that you took it seriously without doing even two minutes research on it, is a major weakness that I guess extends to your understanding of Israle/Palestine. Get your facts from books or other reliable sources, not second rate comedians. Also, don't double down when someone points out you're wrong as if Maher is some sort of a reliable source.

@Baden Anyways, videos are meant to be watched. There are demographics and timing things, and jokes made that are not really understood through just reading the transcript. I just ask that you watch the video first before you really judge minutia that often is there as a setup for a joke.

I have work to do. I'll come back to this tomorrow.

It's not disagreement. He just got it totally wrong. The whole island of Ireland was fully under the control of Britain and then we fought a war of independence in which we negotiated away N. Ireland at which point the Free State, now the Republic came into being. It was not a case of Ireland being free (having the whole island to ourselves) and then Britain came and took N. Ireland (our tip) away when it became a colonial power. As I said, he just made that up. The fact that you took it seriously without doing even two minutes research on it, is a major weakness that I guess extends to your understanding of Israle/Palestine. Get your facts from books or other reliable sources, not second rate comedians. Also, don't double down when someone points out you're wrong as if Maher is some sort of a reliable source. — Baden

Oh yeah, he wasn't going to discuss all that in an 8 minute segment. Just watch the video.

But, to be fair, it depends in what part of the history you are discussing. Yes, Britain "controlled" Ireland, but they "settled" Northern Ireland much earlier than Ireland's independence movement, which depending on how we are looking at the history, is why the conflict is a thing in the first place. But yeah, maybe the exact wording doesn't quite fit that narrative, but it is true that Ireland wanted all of it under the Republic of Ireland, including Ulster County, and Britain said no, we retain that.

Have we not being addressing the topic for 155 pages? But please just spell out the new and incisive contribution Maher has made here and of course we can debate it. — Baden

Have we? I must have missed it.

Maher spells out nothing new. He only reminds us of very obvious historical truths.

Maher spells out nothing new. He only reminds us of very obvious historical truths. — Merkwurdichliebe

:up:

So a familiar debate tactic is to focus on some wording issue. Thus the main idea is lost to fighting over the trees and not the forest. I don't even agree that Maher was wrong on this, but even if I did, that would be the tactic you are bringing up. I actually think he did quite good cramming a lot of conflict-history in a short amount of time to make a broader point about getting over what one perceives as historical wrongs over land and whatnot. The Israeli-Pals issue is no different than what has happened and in the past people have coped, dealt with it, moved on, compromised.

"The Irish had the entire island to themselves,
1:14
but the British were starting an Empire,
1:16
and well, the Irish lost their tip."

It's totally made up if he means as he seems to we had the entire island and then the British took N. Ireland (our tip). That's not at all what happened. — Baden

The British were "starting" the empire, by settling the Scottish/Northern English Presbyterian/Anglican / Protestant immigrants. They were "maintaining it" by keeping Northern Ireland in the negotiation for the Republic of Ireland being independent (sans an Ulster County not just Ulster county but the area of ulster containing those counties..).

Yes, Britain "controlled" Ireland, but they "settled" Northern Ireland much earlier than Ireland's independence movement, which depending on how we are looking at the history, is why the conflict is a thing in the first place. But yeah, maybe the exact wording doesn't quite fit that narrative, but it is true that Ireland wanted all of it under the Republic of Ireland, including Ulster County, and Britain said no, we retain that. — schopenhauer1

No, that's not how it happened either and Ulster is not a "County" and you have no clue what you're talking about but if you would like to know something, you can read this. We are off topic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland

Good night.

No, that's not how it happened either and Ulster is not a County and you have no clue what you're talking about but if you would like to know something, you can read this. We are off topic. — Baden

Cool, sorry yeah I used Ulster province as a shorthand for the name of the six individual counties that are under the British (versus the remaining 3 under Ireland), my bad. And saying "You have no clue what you are talking about" is not helpful, even if you think you are right, which you aren't :).

The whole reason for the claim of Northern Ireland by Britain is the settlers, so no :roll:

And yeah, I get the counties and provinces mixed up. Mea culpa

The re-conquest was completed during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I, after several brutal conflicts. (See the Desmond Rebellions, 1569–73 and 1579–83, and the Nine Years War, 1594–1603, for details.) After this point, the English authorities in Dublin established real control over Ireland for the first time, bringing a centralised government to the entire island, and successfully disarmed the native lordships. In 1614 the Catholic majority in the Irish Parliament was overthrown through the creation of numerous new boroughs which were dominated by the new settlers. However, the English were not successful in converting the Catholic Irish to the Protestant religion and the brutal methods used by crown authority (including resorting to martial law) to bring the country under English control, heightened resentment of English rule.

From the mid-16th to the early 17th century, crown governments had carried out a policy of land confiscation and colonisation known as Plantations. Scottish and English Protestant colonists were sent to the provinces of Munster, Ulster and the counties of Laois and Offaly. These Protestant settlers replaced the Irish Catholic landowners who were removed from their lands. These settlers formed the ruling class of future British appointed administrations in Ireland. Several Penal Laws, aimed at Catholics, Baptists and Presbyterians, were introduced to encourage conversion to the established (Anglican) Church of Ireland. — Ireland Article

It is the paragraph in bold that I wanted to claim makes that statement right in terms of Britain colonizing (starting the empire), and not just controlling the region. Hence, "maintaining" that foothold was what happened by keeping Northern Ireland. So yeah the conflict of political control is one thing, but then the colonization part can be said to have been the main sticking point for why it is claimed as part of the British Empire and not the Republic of Ireland.

A million Greeks were shoved out of Turkey in 1923,
2:05
a million Ghanaians out of Nigeria in 1983,
2:08
almost a million French out of Algeria in 1962,
2:12
nearly a million Syrian refugees moved to Germany
2:15
eight years ago. Was that a perfect fit? — schopenhauer1

As usual, telling you agree with idiots and claim "impartiality" and "objectivity" so you can ignore anything that doesn't comport with your view because they are by definition subjective in your tiny reptilian brain. Really, the red flag is when you agree with what tim wood says, because we already know for 3 years he has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to this conflict.

The reason why all these comparisons fail is because unlike Nigeria, Algeria and Turkey, Israel has no rightful claim to all the land from the river Jordan to the sea. It never had so it is in fact invading land that isn't theirs and occupying it. That is the crime of aggression for which Germans were hanged at Nuremberg. A crime so egregious that the law criminalising it was written after it was committed just so they could sentence them.

And Syrian refugees chose to flee, there's no obligation for them to do so and they would have every right to stay where they are and demand safety and security.

I actually think he did quite good cramming a lot of conflict-history in a short amount of time to make a broader point about getting over what one perceives as historical wrongs over land and whatnot. The Israeli-Pals issue is no different than what has happened and in the past people have coped, dealt with it, moved on, compromised. — schopenhauer1

Yup. Exactly the point.

So a familiar debate tactic is to focus on some wording issue. Thus the main idea is lost to fighting over the trees and not the forest. — schopenhauer1

And when you call them out for it, they always seem to cut and run...case in point:

Good night. — Baden

And then look behind you and you see @Benkei who also didn't get the point of the video.

The reason why all these comparisons fail is because unlike Nigeria, Algeria and Turkey, Israel has no rightful claim to all the land from the river Jordan to the sea. — Benkei

Um, not sure what video you watched, but Maher isn't making a claim that Israel has a right to the land from the river Jordan to the sea. Rather, it's quite the other way he is criticizing (and it's aimed mainly at college kids, leftists, and "useful idiots").

It never had so it is in fact invading land that isn't theirs and occupying it. That is the crime of aggression for which Germans were hanged at Nuremberg. A crime so egregious that the law criminalising it was written after it was committed just so they could sentence them. — Benkei

This just isn't even coherently connected to anything about the theme of that video. Out of all the people debating thus far, it is you who might want to internalize and really grapple with what he is saying. You seemed to have missed the point if you even watched it.

who also didn't get the point of the video. — schopenhauer1

He got the point of the video. He is just regurgitating the programming of the college kids, leftists, and "useful idiots" so he can avoid addressing the actual point.

Peculiar that he never mentions the multiple times Israel tried for a two state solution and was outright rejected. I believe Maher mentioned it though. No ambiguity about it.

The point Maher tried to make fails because the analogies he's using don't work. But as usual you're too dumb to unpackage the argument. Kind of like an anti-natalist thread: you never get anywhere because basic logic is beyond you.

Being left apparently nowadays means having principles.

I very much doubt he does — Baden

It’s probably Bill’s worst editorial he’s done in years. I was cringing at certain points. No historical knowledge whatsoever, just slogans. That this is being dragged out as an example of “good points” shows exactly the kind of lazy thinking behind most posts. So be it.

But yeah — not even worth 8 minutes.

Really, the red flag is when you agree with what tim wood says, because we already know for 3 years he has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to this conflict. — Benkei

Being an old NE wasp, I can only claim to know what has been reported - when it was reported - from various sources. And it is true that you have not troubled yourself with paying any attention to what I've written here. But allow me to try a different tack:

Broadly speaking, the actions of peoples can be divided into those they choose and control and thus bear at least some responsibility for, and those which are theirs willy-nilly due to imperatives of culture, heritage, history, circumstance, and for which perhaps they do not bear full responsibility, although to be sure they may very well bear the full weight of consequence.

Now to be as brief as possible. I buy the idea that Palestinians are up against it and have been for around 75 years, give or take. But what are the choices they have made? The record speaks for itself. That is to say, imho, the Palestinians have for three-quarters of a century at least made choices that have done them no good, that they did not have to make; that is, real choices.

And it is not clear to me what real choices the Israelis have had. They get to defend themselves against enemies who by thought, word, and deed are committed to their annihilation. And should the Israelis slacken even a bit, the Palestinians are there to remind them with murder and mayhem. Is this pas de deux a thing of beauty? It is not.

And October seventh happens. I am of the view that sometimes events are so terrible that there is no need to look behind them for the purposes of addressing and responding to them. That is, Hamas made their own free choice and the Palestinians are now paying a terrible, and predictable, price. This show, in its entirety, is all Hamas's production. And in principle, I would like to think, the Palestinians can end it in a moment by merely surrendering their goals of murder, and surrendering the current crop of murderers. Nor do I see how Israel can reasonably unilaterally stop before their own goals are met.

This business of 7 Oct. being done, when it is done, then we can all hope that insanity will start to come to an end. I have opined earlier that the Palestinians may well find that their best friends and allies will be ultimately the Israelis themselves, when and if the poison is washed away.

Israel has no rightful claim to all the land from the river Jordan to the sea. It never had so it is in fact invading land that isn't theirs and occupying it. — Benkei

I am under the impression, got from a variety of sources, and subject to correction, that much land owned by Jews in Israel was legally bought. What say you?

Being left apparently nowadays means having principles. — Benkei

Yes it does, specifically the marxian principles of critical consciousness.

Anyway, I guarantee you ssu who is an intelligent commentator will not find this impressive either. — Baden

What is impressive is that as Netanyahu's Likud party had as it's party platform "River to the Sea" and also the platform "No two state solution ever", hence all the later part would have worked just fine if you would change the Palestinians and the Jews, like the "Jewhaul", to "Arabhaul". Of course the part:

5:55
As my friend, Dr. Phil says, "How's that working for you?"

The answer would be: it's working quite well!

Yes, Hamas and Likud share quite a lot together.

And yes, the history of Ireland isn't correct (but who cares about that in America). Also somehow from the part where historical events were listed with the argument "Deal with it" / "Just move on..", the Holocaust was somehow forgotten, only a reference to pogroms in Russia was made.

So no, things aren't just in the category of "it happened, so just move on".

What is impressive is that as Netanyahu's Likud party had as it's party platform "River to the Sea" and also the platform "No two state solution ever", hence all the later part would have worked just fine if you would change the Palestinians and the Jews, like the "Jewhaul", to "Arabhaul". Of course the part:

5:55
As my friend, Dr. Phil says, "How's that working for you?"

The answer would be: it's working quite well!

Yes, Hamas and Likud share quite a lot together.

And yes, the history of Ireland isn't correct (but who cares about that in America). Also somehow from the part where historical events were listed with the argument "Deal with it" / "Just move on..", the Holocaust was somehow forgotten, only a reference to pogroms in Russia was made.

So no, things aren't just in the category of "it happened, so just move on". — ssu

So I knew you were going to bring up the Likud part there.. It would make sense if it was symmetrical but the point he was making isn't symmetrical. His point was that for most of those 75 years one side (the Israeli side) made overtures for peace and the other side never took any deals, even when they lost over and over in armed conflict and were in a position where if they took it, they would have gotten much of what they wanted. His point was that eventually, people move on. If I was forced out of my house, and let's say there was 700,000 people also forced out (and that's not even necessarily that straightforward a story), if I got to war over it a bunch of times and lose, and then there's deals made where I could get something else and I don't take it, at that point, my whole identity as this or that nationality is no longer functioning other than purely from a place of grievance and revenge. It wouldn't help if I am educated from birth a narrative that completely denies anything historical about the other side OTHER THAN that they are occupiers. Welp, there we have it. A psychology that cannot move on. At the end of the day, coping is what is needed. It psychological. None of this shit is real except for the extent which people cannot move forward with their lives. It's psychological as much as anything. But people will reify it to no end.

I say this as someone who wants to see the conflict end, wants minimized civilian casualties, and is not a fan of Netanyahu or Likud. But none of that negates the much of that responsibility before and on October 7th on the Palestinian side. Israel got shifted to the right because there was very weak moderate partners (Arafat for example), and their right wing wasn't just "right wing" it was "blow people up" . You play with fire and vote in a group that does this, you now have a group that will destroy all dissenters, enforces strict religious rules, and puts most of its funds into violence rather than development.

But @tim wood has laid it out really well here:

And October seventh happens. I am of the view that sometimes events are so terrible that there is no need to look behind them for the purposes of addressing and responding to them. That is, Hamas made their own free choice and the Palestinians are now paying a terrible, and predictable, price. This show, in its entirety, is all Hamas's production. And in principle, I would like to think, the Palestinians can end it in a moment by merely surrendering their goals of murder, and surrendering the current crop of murderers. Nor do I see how Israel can reasonably unilaterally stop before their own goals are met.

This business of 7 Oct. being done, when it is done, then we can all hope that insanity will start to come to an end. I have opined earlier that the Palestinians may well find that their best friends and allies will be ultimately the Israelis themselves, when and if the poison is washed away. — tim wood

And yes, the history of Ireland isn't correct (but who cares about that in America). — ssu

Also I did explain here how whilst in an 8 minute video, even that could still be construed as "correct" as it is acknowledged that the British at various points "controlled" Ireland, some times more ironhandedly than others (was it Lords, or was it mainly chieftains, or was it now Dukes from England.. it waned and waxed over time).. But that the current conflict really started with the settlement of in the late 1500s of Scotch and English into Northern Ireland, kicking out the Irish Catholic landlords etc.. "This" can be considered what he meant with his very brief comment (really more of joke punchline) for "wanted to start an empire". Yes, British already controlled it, but it was that that is much of the reason the conflict specifically over the holdout of Northern Ireland has played out the way it did.

identity as this or that nationality is no longer functioning other than purely from a place of grievance and revenge. — schopenhauer1

That says it all. Probably why the woke leftist victim mentality is so keen to symp for Hamas. Peas in a pod.

Delete

And when you call them out for it, they always seem to cut and run...case in point: — Merkwurdichliebe

It was 12 midnight and I had an important meeting the next morning. Should I spend more time trying to convince someone on here that a comedian was wrong about some of the basic history of my country when they just don't want to believe that? I mean this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pale is all anyone would need, but then I'd just be inviting more off-topic conversation. Maher's statement that Ireland had the whole island to themselves before the plantation period (per Schopes most charitable analysis of what he was saying) is 100% wrong. Not 99%, not 80%, but 100%. They didn't. Look at the map (e.g. "Land held by English King"). His related statement that the start of this foreign intervention in Ireland was Britain coming and taking the tip (N. Ireland) of Ireland is also factually wrong. 100% (e.g. The Pale was on the east coast not in the North). The two things are wrong. Nothing to do with lack of detail, misphrasing. They're just completely wrong. Anyone who made those claims in an exam on the history of Ireland would fail on those points, but someone doesn't want to believe that it's possible Maher (or more likely his writers) are just doing comedy and actual facts don't matter to them. That person wants to take it seriously. I don't know why but there's little point responding further to them.

(Even the first plantations weren't in Ulster but in the midlands. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland . )

What is impressive is that as Netanyahu's Likud party had as it's party platform "River to the Sea" and also the platform "No two state solution ever", hence all the later part would have worked just fine if you would change the Palestinians and the Jews, like the "Jewhaul", to "Arabhaul". Of course the part:

5:55
As my friend, Dr. Phil says, "How's that working for you?"

The answer would be: it's working quite well!

Yes, Hamas and Likud share quite a lot together — ssu

:up: