Choosing to be ruled by Hamas has led to some disastrous consequences for the Palestinians. — RogueAI

What a gross viewpoint.

So the thousands of innocent children murder by Israeli forces should have known better 17 years ago. Got it.

By that logic, the Israelis who died on October 7th were also learning some “hard” lessons for electing a terrorist government. Glad to know you’re cool with Hamas’ actions.

How about saying that you’re against Israel’s concentration camp?

I don't think bulldozing homes or all the articles you want to send my way amount to what Hamas did, so you can save the copy-pastes. We know the difference. — schopenhauer1

Yes, we know that killing THOUSANDS of children and killing DOZENS of children is indeed a difference.

one tribe says that it wants to stand down and recognize the other but the other has to give up some things, and the other refuses, what of it? Who is in the right there? Take out the names and it just looks like who is willing to compromise and who isn't. — schopenhauer1

If we buy into the nonsense that it’s been the Palestinians refusing peace all these years, would this justify supporting the apartheid state that establishes concentration camps?

I don’t think Israel citizens should be killed or punished for having an extreme right wing government— do you agree? If so, we should also agree that the Palestinian people should not be killed or punished for their government’s actions.

Anyways, that notion that Israel just all up and did this to the Palestinians and like it hasn't been a succession of events, is misleading and shortsighted. — schopenhauer1

Sure — saying the Nazis “up and did this” to the Jews is equally misleading and shortsighted, I suppose?

Give me a break. Gaza is — and here I’m echoing Finkelstein, as he’s absolutely correct — a concentration camp. Yes, there’s a long sequence of events that led to this monstrosity, which is true for literally everything. To then show up and declare how “shortsighted” it is to believe it’s unlike any other event in the world is…incredible.

Why not say what you mean? “Palestinians deserve this.”

Rapists like locusts from the sky first, Israeli tanks second. — Hanover

No: occupied territory turned concentration camp first by government/military of Israel (not innocent children), reaction on October 7th (which I also condemn) by Hamas (not innocent children), and now a barbaric slaughter of THOUSANDS (not dozens) of children and women by the extreme right-wing government of Israel, enacted by the IDF and their psychopathic leaders.

You joke about how ridiculous it sounds that Israel suddenly woke up and started bombing for no reason— yet apparently without a shred of awareness seem to believe Hamas woke up on October 7th and decided to kill and capture innocent people.

I'm protecting the walls of Israel, a democracy from an invasive force. — Hanover

Invasive force? So the concentration camp we call the Gaza strip — that’s the “invasive force”?

The children were killed because Hamas declared war on Israel and its values and put them in harm's way. — Hanover

So Iraq should have had a right to murder American children, since they’d be “defending” themselves too.

Hilarious that the occupying country, with 1000 times the military power of Hamas and backed by the most powerful military power in the world, has to murder innocent people because they’re scared.

“Defense” has been used for decades to justify atrocities. Sorry to see you’re taken in by such a flimsy excuse because it’s your own country supporting it.

I'd suspect there are none here who would choose to live in a Palestinian controlled country over an Israeli controlled one — Hanover

If a Palestinian-controlled country existed, this would be fair. But since it doesn’t, there’s nothing to compare it to. Would I want to live in Gaza? Of course not. But not because of Palestinians.

The point here is that equality is not a wedding vow, and it is worth admitting that we (meaning the West and its values) are superior to others, in terms of morality, technology, civility, and in every way possible. — Hanover

It’s hard to believe this is still admitted to so freely.

We’re superior in “every way possible” here in the West. Yeah, I guess if one really believes this, then it’s possible to justify killing thousands of children — in defense of those superior values, of course.

If the IDF is doing the killing, it is good killing. If Hamas is doing the killing, it is bad killing. — Baden

Yes— because the IDF kills babies with good intentions. That makes it a lesser evil. I think I’m getting it now.

Everything was good in fact until suddenly on Oct 7th the bad guys appeared for no reason and attacked the good guys for no reason so the good guys had to respond to defend themselves by killing the bad guys and destroying the city and killing as many people as they needed to there to get all the bad guys, who keep multiplying by the way, so this could take a while. — Baden

Israel basher!

Israel bashers — RogueAI

Bye.

Do you really want to go with this line to justify genocide? (Even de facto genocide?)

And to anticipate: yes, I think Dresden was a war crime and immoral.

The Sudanese.

:rofl:

Should be in prison. I hope this causes him a great deal of suffering. At least in proportion to how much he’s inflicted on others with his baseless lies.

So now several times the number of people killed in 10/7 have been murdered in Gaza. But it’s cool, because the intentions were good. Good guys never deliberately kill children. Or maybe they do, but it’s because they have no choice. Hamas is using them as human shields.

How depraved.

The former president enjoys some clear advantages. About a third of Republicans are fiercely loyal to him, meaning that he has the unwavering support of a small but potent segment of the broader electorate. Once he is presumably crowned the Republican nominee, which seems inevitable and will probably occur by Super Tuesday, the GOP’s electoral and fundraising machine will whir into motion on his behalf. In all likelihood, the leaders in his party will unite behind him. Large numbers of Americans will vote for anyone running as a Republican against a Democrat.

Trump’s media supporters, above all at Fox News, will offer support, propagating a set of myths about his record in office, particularly the supposedly great economy over which he presided. Trump will be able to run as both an incumbent, because he’s a former president, and an “outsider,” as in 2016, because he is out of office. That will make his attacks on the “deep state” and his own persecution narrative more convincing. Trump intends to use his various criminal and civil trials as proof that “they”—the Biden administration—are going after him because he represents “us”—his voters. A certain segment of the public will buy into these messages.

https://apple.news/AEOopt4aoSqOq-F3n-FsxMQ

At least the house members you cited are acting in good faith, unlike the last ones. — NOS4A2

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Asking universal human questions, which is philosophy (in my view), is mostly irrelevant unless you DO something with it. Otherwise it’s more hobbyism.

How frustrating it must be to the Trump cult when the media, or people, yawn at their homegrown delusions.

A sham impeachment inquiry opened, in obvious retaliation for the legitimate impeachments of the degenerate con man. :yawn:

Jesus, are there still people trying to square the circle regarding Trump? Apparently.

Hilarious.

They must be really worried, to commit to beginning to maybe think about actually doing something at some point, after only 28 summits. — unenlightened

And the media celebrates and flogs themselves over how mean they were to the fossil fuel executive who led the summit.

In a First, Nations at Climate Summit Agree to Move Away From Fossil Fuels

Meh.

I don’t think anyone needs or deserves more than that and even if I did I still think anything beyond that would be detrimental to society as a whole. — Captain Homicide

But what about “freedom” and greed self interest and, most important, “incentive”? Who will want to innovate and be an entrepreneur if they don’t have the possibility to hoard more wealth than half the world population combined?

Unacceptable. Because liberty. Freedom. Socialism. Big government. So forth.

Trump tried to overthrow the fairest election in recent times. On top of being a fraud and laughingstock for decades, prior to barely winning the electoral college against a terrible Democratic candidate, he’s also a traitor to the United States.

Just like to remind everyone of the facts once in a while. Laughing at, and engaging with, members of the Trump cult is fun though.

I’ll do it— if there’s more than one slot :grin: . I’ll likely test your resolve with the whole “I won’t get bored” thing, though.

Andover, Massachusetts. Mostly Italian descent, with some Irish. Lived mostly in New Hampshire as an adult.

Henry Kissinger, 100.

Charles Munger, 99.

Maybe if you didn’t sound like a spoiled adolescent with delusions of grandeur, it’d be worth taking your claims more seriously.

albeit very novel and perhaps earth-shaking — ken2esq

:brow:

.baby don't hurt me, no more.

(I'll put that up front so no one else feels tempted.) — Count Timothy von Icarus

I was thinking it.

My working definition is caring about someone’s well being, and wanting to see them flourish.

If Trump is re-elected, we may very well be doomed. It’ll do irreversible damage— especially to the environment, where we have already lost 30 years thanks to the kind of denialism he embodies.

But yes, it’s possible. Unfortunately so.

They’re shooting less-than-lethal rounds into people’s faces. — NOS4A2

If they are black, it wouldn’t be “less than lethal.” There should consider themselves very lucky indeed.

We saw an angry mob fired up by Trump's rhetoric and the Big Lie about the election being stolen! And their purpose wasn't to protest, it was to disrupt, otherwise they would have never attempted to enter the Capitol building itself. — GRWelsh

Exactly. One point does have credibility, in my view: that militia were “leading the way,” so to speak. Oath Keepers, etc. That’s not a surprise, though, and doesn’t negate why people were there to begin with: they were whipped up into a frenzy by lies of a stolen election. Given that they actually believed that stupid bullshit, it’s no wonder they wanted to storm the Capitol.

They'd scoff at the notion that the US didn't intend to "conquer" Iraq but only to fight terrorism. If we tried to argue that the US had no imperialist ambitions in Iraq and merely reacted to "reasonable security concerns", that really the "most direct cause" of the invasion was the alignment of Iraq with the supporters of radical Islam, they'd laugh us out of the room. — Echarmion

This is a good point. You’re forgetting two things, though: first, I’m not trying to justify Russia’s actions. In fact I’ve condemned them all along. I think it’s both morally wrong and strategically stupid, as they’ve now pushed even more countries into the hands of the US.

Secondly, when analyzing the justification given by the aggressor state, you look at the evidence. The justification for invading Iraq (connections to 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, etc) turned out to be completely bogus. And the goal wasn’t to conquer Iraq anyway. The actual reason, in my view, was economic.

So in Russia’s case, is there any evidence that NATO is a major factor? Yes, there is. Doesn’t make it correct or rational. Furthermore, it doesn’t make it the only cause.

Saying the US invaded Iraq because the US is evil and George Bush is a madman wouldn’t be a strong argument. Likewise, rejecting that thesis wouldn’t justify the actual (well supported) reasons.

So the whole 'conquest' argument is a strawman. — Jabberwock

Okay— so Russia didn’t plan on conquering Ukraine. Glad you don’t think so. It’s hardly a strawman, though:

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has continued to harbor significant resentment against Independent Ukraine, the country it still thinks of as a critical part of ‘Mother Russia’. It therefore considers the conquest of Ukraine as being vital for the restoration of its so-called “Historical Russia”.

https://war.ukraine.ua/why-is-russia-invading-ukraine/

'Russia has no concerns' - what could that mean? — Jabberwock

As long as it’s not right next door in Ukraine. NATO had already expanded at the time of this quote. The worry wasn’t about Lithuania or Estonia — although there are reports that this was hardly celebrated.

What could “Russia will organize its military policies accordingly in connection with NATO nearing its borders” mean? “Yes, please, set up shop right next door to a country we view as incredibly important to us?”

It’s hard to understand why people are so confused about why NATO, or general US influence (including economic influence), in Ukraine would be considered a negative thing in Russia— even if “emotional” and irrational. I don’t think anyone serious denies this, leaving aside for a moment whether it was a major factor in the war (as I maintain) or a minor/nonexistent one.

Your racism sure does shine through sometimes.

This highly edited video makes me wish the police had used even greater force. Something similar to the force they use against peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstrators anyway.

This video only shows their restraint. Those imbeciles should have never been there anyway. They’re very lucky they weren’t mowed down.

I’m sure the police would have had such restraint if the crowd were black or Muslim. I’m sure they would have been allowed to stroll into the Capitol and shit in the hallways too.

Do you know how many Soviet troops have initially attacked Afghanistan? — Jabberwock

In ‘79? I have no idea. 70/80 thousand? What’s the point? Afghanistan was a population of maybe 14 million people and the situation was much different. Ukraine has 40 million people or so.

So you’re really going to argue that Russia wanted to conquer Ukraine, eh? Maybe Putin really is that stupid— but in any case there’s no evidence for it. There were other reasons for invasion. Conquest wasn’t one of them.

So your beloved Burns says that NATO enlargement is used as a political tool to gain support from Russian nationalists — Jabberwock

It can be used that way, of course. And I’m sure it’s a very emotional topic. I would assume the same would be true for the US if China were running military drills in Mexico. Wouldn’t make the US right to invade Mexico, but I think the least we’d say is that it would be a major factor.

Which we apparently can’t say about Russia— because Putin is a madman bent on conquering Ukraine with 190 thousand troops.