These countries have also sanctioned the US, though not in response to the conflict. Sanctions work both ways, you see. However, multiple countries have called for sanctions against Israel and multiple countries have placed tariffs on Israel, Turkey being the most prominent. So there we go, then, justice solved, there’s sanctions and tariffs.
I can only imagine why you might be actively avoiding that topic, even going so far as to clip out the main post and obfuscate the context, including describing the french OP as “anti-Islam”.
These countries have also sanctioned the US, though not in response to the conflict.
I’ll wait for you to tell me which of the sanctions you’re referencing prevent the US from conducting business or financial transactions with major trade partners and that have the weight of the UN Security Council behind them, such as the ones for Iran, China, and Russia, and which have the adherence of the UN and its member states.
A council who’s mission is to promote world peace through unity should be able to pass sanctions against member states that are egregiously culpable for war crimes against civilian populations and genocide. Yet here we are still waiting
No context justifies calls for violence.
Still waiting for your opinion on the cartoon you decided wasn’t worthy of inclusion. I’d settle for your opinion on Islam as a whole, since you seem keen on highlighting islamic terrorism but loath to mention christian, jewish, and secular terrorism.
Oh, so now you’re changing what kind of theoretical sanctions you want. That’s convenient because there are none, and likely won’t ever be any. Good job, you’ve won, you just needed to change your point – Twice. Maybe you should threaten me with being off-topic again? It’ll save you from this embarrassment.
Embarrassment, such as believing the UN stands for peace. The UN has never stood for peace. It has stood for legal means of warfare and applying a coat of paint on bloodshed, so it’s official bloodshed instead of your standard bloodshed. Got an issue with this? I do too, but it’s the best the world has and will most likely be the best we will ever have: flimsy laws and stern letters.
It can be fixed, though. All it requires is for Hamas to declare itself government and surrender. And for the PLO and Hamas (and the many different militant factions) to come to conclusions if Gaza and the West Bank are the same Palestine. Hamas won’t do this, though, because then they’ll be like the Taliban. It turns out terrorist tactics and forces don’t tend to function when there are annoying rules you must follow and an appearance of lawfulness you need to keep, as per the UN. Turns out using civilian infrastructure and targeting civilians is a war crime (I need to mention that this is also a jab at Israel, because I know for certain that you try to use this comment as a gotcha, lol)
Still waiting for your opinion on the cartoon you decided wasn’t worthy of inclusion.
I don’t care about it. Nothing justifies violence. Why do you struggle to comprehend this?
I’d settle for your opinion on Islam as a whole, since you seem keen on highlighting islamic terrorism but loath to mention christian, jewish, and secular terrorism.
Oh god forbid I highlight Islamic Terrorism about a conflict between Israel and Islamic Terrorists, deary me. You want me to mention the Christian Terrorists, too? What, all one of them? He threw a stone into a window when he was drunk.
This is a lot of waffle as you try steering yourself away from admitting you were insinuating France deserves violence. If I was you, I’d just drop the whole thing and hope people forget this blunder–Works for me.
It just occurred to me that ‘[a christian terrorist] threw a stone into a window when he was drunk’ appears like a reference to Kristallnacht… If it is, then holy fuck is that a crazy euphemistic way of recalling one of the most famous antisemitic Nazi riots in history (if you’re thinking of Nazi’s being motivated by their christian beliefs then why stop at Kristallnacht, why not include the entire Holocaust?). If that isn’t a reference to the November Pogroms, then I have absolutely no idea who you’re talking about. Either way, you seem to have conveniently left out a couple millennia of violence conducted in the name of Christianity…
It’s about how stupid it is to raise attention to Christian Terrorists when it comes to this conflict. There ain’t any Christian terrorists in Gaza, nor in Israel, or anywhere in the Middle East that can affect the conflict.
Oh, so now you’re changing what kind of theoretical sanctions you want.
I’ve not changed anything, except put a finer point on what i’ve been saying from the outset - that Isreal, the US, and the other genocide collaborators should face justice for the terror and suffering they’ve caused in Palestine. Whatever sanctions already in place have not changed Israel’s ability or motivation to continue their genocide, so more and stronger punitive action is needed. One “official” route - a minimum standard of justice - would be UN sanctions supported and adhered to by western UN member states. The UN’s refusal/reluctance to do so is kind of the broader analytical point that I don’t feel you’re ready to discuss.
The UN has never stood for peace. It has stood for legal means of warfare and applying a coat of paint on bloodshed, so it’s official bloodshed instead of your standard bloodshed.
Finally a point of agreement. The UN and NATO were both created to legitimize the violence and statecraft of western-allied nations against a shared ‘enemy’. Perhaps i’ve been too tongue-in-cheek for you - the sanctions and punitive actions taken by the western world through the UN have always been against the US’s preferred enemies, and have always selectively ignored actions taken by the US and others, even when the evidence of war crimes and genocide are overwhelming. And yet it would be foolish to deny that the UN is the only collective body with any real weight, and there are certainly none that stand meaningfully opposed to western hegemony.
It’s important context for someone on the left, because to those who stand opposed to western crimes then have no “official” path to justice. You can take from that whatever conclusion you like.
All it requires is for Hamas to declare itself government and surrender.
Look at how selective you’re being with your condemnation.
I don’t care about it. Nothing justifies violence. Why do you struggle to comprehend this?
Clearly not “nothing”, if you stand in support of Israel’s war and occupation of Gaza. There are some forms of violence that you clearly recognize as legitimate. I don’t struggle to understand what you’ve said, I struggle only to show you the contradiction in your omissions.
Oh god forbid I highlight Islamic Terrorism about a conflict between Israel and Islamic Terrorists
A true “neutral” liberal would say that it is a war between jewish terrorists and islamic terrorists. I don’t even care that your sympathies lie on one side of the conflict or the other, but I do take issue with your cowardice to acknowledge it. There are no good guys in this conflict, and there’s a choice you’ve made here that is consistent with all of your other comments on the topic that shares a striking resemblance with the sentiment expressed in the cartoon you refuse to acknowledge.
As the moderator of a community nominally dedicated to opposing hate speech, you sure do seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Muslims.
Look at how selective you’re being with your condemnation.
I’ve condemned both. What are you talking about?
Clearly not “nothing”, if you stand in support of Israel’s war and occupation of Gaza.
I do not.
A true “neutral” liberal would say that it is a war between jewish terrorists and islamic terrorists.
I’m not a liberal. What do you want me to acknowledge? That the conflict could’ve been avoided? I’ve ranted about the conflict before. If you’re apparently an expert on my opinions or how I’m biased, you should already know my opinions.
You still don’t understand. No context justifies violence against innocent people. You demand a lot from me, so now I will demand something from you. Say, “No context justifies violence against innocent people.”
As the moderator of a community nominally dedicated to opposing hate speech, you sure do seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Muslims.
Where is the hate speech towards Muslims? You have to supply some now if you’re going to make these accusations and explain as to how they are hate speech.
Where the fuck did you do that? Must’ve missed it in all the obfuscation and deflection, help me out and point me to it. I’m not an avid follower of yours, so if it happened in some other thread just assume I didn’t see it.
You’ve conditioned the end to Israel’s genocide against Palestine on Hamas’s surrender, but apparently have no conditions for Israel ending their own hostilities. You’ve deflected accountability away from Israel by saying ‘whatabout’ Iran/China/Russia, even as they are already being held to higher standard and face far more severe consequences for their once removed involvement (by an order of magnitude. It is not close.), and have made no indication that Israel deserves accountability of the same -if not more severe- magnitude. You’ve decontextualized the violence conducted by Israel and the US and western powers that define the current conflict, and gone out of your way to remove displays of bigotry and hate against Muslims.
Clearly not “nothing”, if you stand in support of Israel’s war and occupation of Gaza.
I do not.
You repeatedly placing the blame on resistance groups and selectively using the term ‘terrorist’ against them -while avoiding using the same term to describe Israel and their slaughter of innocent civilians - certainly says otherwise. I’ll accept any application of the term ‘terrorist’ or ‘terror’ to the current Israeli occupation force as evidence of your opposition to their war. Even any clear indication that Israel is ultimately responsible for their own acts of genocide as evidence of your opposition. If you can clear that up then maybe we can part ways.
You still don’t understand. No context justifies violence against innocent people. You demand a lot from me, so now I will demand something from you. Say, “No context justifies violence against innocent people.”
I’ll be as clear as I can be: unprovoked violence is always wrong, but I do consider hate speech to be a provocation. If a Nazi is standing on a corner spouting antisemitic slurs at passers-by, I think that Nazi is liable to have his lights put out. I wouldn’t tell someone to go do it, but I certainly wouldn’t direct my condemnation towards the person who threw the punch and then intentionally obfuscate the hate speech that immediately preceded it in my recounting
Where is the hate speech towards Muslims? You have to supply some now if you’re going to make these accusations and explain as to how they are hate speech.
The cartoon you’ve repeatedly dismissed as unimportant is hate speech. It’s Islamophobic propaganda, and it borders on genocide denial. It renders passive and absent the genocide and famine that Israel is committing and holds up a racist and inaccurate religious practice as abstractly culpable for a horror Israel has chosen to commit themselves. I won’t say it justifies calls to violence, but it absolutely does matter. It is important context to someone who would otherwise believe the call to violence was unprovoked. That cartoon was a provocation.
A part of understanding liberation movements is acknowledging that the oppressed minority is always held to a higher standard than the oppressor group, and in no thread has that been made more apparent than this one.
Where the fuck did you do that? Must’ve missed it in all the obfuscation and deflection, help me out and point me to it. I’m not an avid follower of yours, so if it happened in some other thread just assume I didn’t see it.
You can go digging in my comment history to find my views on it. i ain’t gonna repeat myself for you. I’m also not going to humour you by writing up entire paragraphs. Focus on a single thing, and I’ll respond to it.
If a Nazi is standing on a corner spouting antisemitic slurs at passers-by, I think that Nazi is liable to have his lights put out.
Are you sure, absolutely sure you wanna use this particular example? Cuz you’re gonna be dunked dude :v
Damn, OP is a psycho. Thanks for fighting the good fight; you’re a far more patient person than I.
These “anti-tankie” folks seem completely incapable of nuance. Either you support everything the west does, or you must be a tankie who doesn’t believe in Tiananmen Square. There’s no third option it seems.
The dominant ideological position of any system never requires a rational, coherent, or consistent analysis. All they need is a post-hoc rationalization of their ideology by nature of their dominance at the top, and a rejection of all violence outside their hegemony.
It’s the rhetorical equivalent of scoring just enough points to win and then taking the ball home with you. They deny everyone else the means of establishing a competing worldview by prohibiting the exact same violence they used to establish themselves as the dominant system.
None of these liberals really see the inconsistencies or contradictions of the ideology they’re defending, assuming they try to see them at all. Most of them simply resign themselves to an unjust world because ‘that’s just the way it is’. There’s no other way to break through to them other than slowly and patiently challenging them, and even then, most will never really see it. I don’t know if goat will ever see reason but maybe a few in his community will, assuming he doesn’t ban me for the constant pestering.
These countries have also sanctioned the US, though not in response to the conflict. Sanctions work both ways, you see. However, multiple countries have called for sanctions against Israel and multiple countries have placed tariffs on Israel, Turkey being the most prominent. So there we go, then, justice solved, there’s sanctions and tariffs.
No context justifies calls for violence.
I’ll wait for you to tell me which of the sanctions you’re referencing prevent the US from conducting business or financial transactions with major trade partners and that have the weight of the UN Security Council behind them, such as the ones for Iran, China, and Russia, and which have the adherence of the UN and its member states.
A council who’s mission is to promote world peace through unity should be able to pass sanctions against member states that are egregiously culpable for war crimes against civilian populations and genocide. Yet here we are still waiting
Still waiting for your opinion on the cartoon you decided wasn’t worthy of inclusion. I’d settle for your opinion on Islam as a whole, since you seem keen on highlighting islamic terrorism but loath to mention christian, jewish, and secular terrorism.
Oh, so now you’re changing what kind of theoretical sanctions you want. That’s convenient because there are none, and likely won’t ever be any. Good job, you’ve won, you just needed to change your point – Twice. Maybe you should threaten me with being off-topic again? It’ll save you from this embarrassment.
Embarrassment, such as believing the UN stands for peace. The UN has never stood for peace. It has stood for legal means of warfare and applying a coat of paint on bloodshed, so it’s official bloodshed instead of your standard bloodshed. Got an issue with this? I do too, but it’s the best the world has and will most likely be the best we will ever have: flimsy laws and stern letters.
It can be fixed, though. All it requires is for Hamas to declare itself government and surrender. And for the PLO and Hamas (and the many different militant factions) to come to conclusions if Gaza and the West Bank are the same Palestine. Hamas won’t do this, though, because then they’ll be like the Taliban. It turns out terrorist tactics and forces don’t tend to function when there are annoying rules you must follow and an appearance of lawfulness you need to keep, as per the UN. Turns out using civilian infrastructure and targeting civilians is a war crime (I need to mention that this is also a jab at Israel, because I know for certain that you try to use this comment as a gotcha, lol)
I don’t care about it. Nothing justifies violence. Why do you struggle to comprehend this?
Oh god forbid I highlight Islamic Terrorism about a conflict between Israel and Islamic Terrorists, deary me. You want me to mention the Christian Terrorists, too? What, all one of them? He threw a stone into a window when he was drunk.
This is a lot of waffle as you try steering yourself away from admitting you were insinuating France deserves violence. If I was you, I’d just drop the whole thing and hope people forget this blunder–Works for me.
It just occurred to me that ‘[a christian terrorist] threw a stone into a window when he was drunk’ appears like a reference to Kristallnacht… If it is, then holy fuck is that a crazy euphemistic way of recalling one of the most famous antisemitic Nazi riots in history (if you’re thinking of Nazi’s being motivated by their christian beliefs then why stop at Kristallnacht, why not include the entire Holocaust?). If that isn’t a reference to the November Pogroms, then I have absolutely no idea who you’re talking about. Either way, you seem to have conveniently left out a couple millennia of violence conducted in the name of Christianity…
It’s about how stupid it is to raise attention to Christian Terrorists when it comes to this conflict. There ain’t any Christian terrorists in Gaza, nor in Israel, or anywhere in the Middle East that can affect the conflict.
I’ve not changed anything, except put a finer point on what i’ve been saying from the outset - that Isreal, the US, and the other genocide collaborators should face justice for the terror and suffering they’ve caused in Palestine. Whatever sanctions already in place have not changed Israel’s ability or motivation to continue their genocide, so more and stronger punitive action is needed. One “official” route - a minimum standard of justice - would be UN sanctions supported and adhered to by western UN member states. The UN’s refusal/reluctance to do so is kind of the broader analytical point that I don’t feel you’re ready to discuss.
Finally a point of agreement. The UN and NATO were both created to legitimize the violence and statecraft of western-allied nations against a shared ‘enemy’. Perhaps i’ve been too tongue-in-cheek for you - the sanctions and punitive actions taken by the western world through the UN have always been against the US’s preferred enemies, and have always selectively ignored actions taken by the US and others, even when the evidence of war crimes and genocide are overwhelming. And yet it would be foolish to deny that the UN is the only collective body with any real weight, and there are certainly none that stand meaningfully opposed to western hegemony.
It’s important context for someone on the left, because to those who stand opposed to western crimes then have no “official” path to justice. You can take from that whatever conclusion you like.
Look at how selective you’re being with your condemnation.
Clearly not “nothing”, if you stand in support of Israel’s war and occupation of Gaza. There are some forms of violence that you clearly recognize as legitimate. I don’t struggle to understand what you’ve said, I struggle only to show you the contradiction in your omissions.
A true “neutral” liberal would say that it is a war between jewish terrorists and islamic terrorists. I don’t even care that your sympathies lie on one side of the conflict or the other, but I do take issue with your cowardice to acknowledge it. There are no good guys in this conflict, and there’s a choice you’ve made here that is consistent with all of your other comments on the topic that shares a striking resemblance with the sentiment expressed in the cartoon you refuse to acknowledge.
As the moderator of a community nominally dedicated to opposing hate speech, you sure do seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Muslims.
I’ve condemned both. What are you talking about?
I do not.
I’m not a liberal. What do you want me to acknowledge? That the conflict could’ve been avoided? I’ve ranted about the conflict before. If you’re apparently an expert on my opinions or how I’m biased, you should already know my opinions.
You still don’t understand. No context justifies violence against innocent people. You demand a lot from me, so now I will demand something from you. Say, “No context justifies violence against innocent people.”
Where is the hate speech towards Muslims? You have to supply some now if you’re going to make these accusations and explain as to how they are hate speech.
Where the fuck did you do that? Must’ve missed it in all the obfuscation and deflection, help me out and point me to it. I’m not an avid follower of yours, so if it happened in some other thread just assume I didn’t see it.
You’ve conditioned the end to Israel’s genocide against Palestine on Hamas’s surrender, but apparently have no conditions for Israel ending their own hostilities. You’ve deflected accountability away from Israel by saying ‘whatabout’ Iran/China/Russia, even as they are already being held to higher standard and face far more severe consequences for their once removed involvement (by an order of magnitude. It is not close.), and have made no indication that Israel deserves accountability of the same -if not more severe- magnitude. You’ve decontextualized the violence conducted by Israel and the US and western powers that define the current conflict, and gone out of your way to remove displays of bigotry and hate against Muslims.
You repeatedly placing the blame on resistance groups and selectively using the term ‘terrorist’ against them -while avoiding using the same term to describe Israel and their slaughter of innocent civilians - certainly says otherwise. I’ll accept any application of the term ‘terrorist’ or ‘terror’ to the current Israeli occupation force as evidence of your opposition to their war. Even any clear indication that Israel is ultimately responsible for their own acts of genocide as evidence of your opposition. If you can clear that up then maybe we can part ways.
I’ll be as clear as I can be: unprovoked violence is always wrong, but I do consider hate speech to be a provocation. If a Nazi is standing on a corner spouting antisemitic slurs at passers-by, I think that Nazi is liable to have his lights put out. I wouldn’t tell someone to go do it, but I certainly wouldn’t direct my condemnation towards the person who threw the punch and then intentionally obfuscate the hate speech that immediately preceded it in my recounting
The cartoon you’ve repeatedly dismissed as unimportant is hate speech. It’s Islamophobic propaganda, and it borders on genocide denial. It renders passive and absent the genocide and famine that Israel is committing and holds up a racist and inaccurate religious practice as abstractly culpable for a horror Israel has chosen to commit themselves. I won’t say it justifies calls to violence, but it absolutely does matter. It is important context to someone who would otherwise believe the call to violence was unprovoked. That cartoon was a provocation.
A part of understanding liberation movements is acknowledging that the oppressed minority is always held to a higher standard than the oppressor group, and in no thread has that been made more apparent than this one.
You can go digging in my comment history to find my views on it. i ain’t gonna repeat myself for you. I’m also not going to humour you by writing up entire paragraphs. Focus on a single thing, and I’ll respond to it.
Are you sure, absolutely sure you wanna use this particular example? Cuz you’re gonna be dunked dude :v
Careful not to betray your commitment to nonviolence, bud.
(still no acknowledgement of the Islamophobia of the cartoon)
This is yours, not mine.
yes, I saw your report, I appreciate it. Do more reports
Damn, OP is a psycho. Thanks for fighting the good fight; you’re a far more patient person than I.
These “anti-tankie” folks seem completely incapable of nuance. Either you support everything the west does, or you must be a tankie who doesn’t believe in Tiananmen Square. There’s no third option it seems.
How is defending calls to massacre innocents ‘fighting the good fight’
What’s wrong with you? Clearly you haven’t spent much time in the community. Many users are very much opposed to Israel’s actions – I know I am.
I’m not defending the massacre of innocents any more than you are.
Good.
The dominant ideological position of any system never requires a rational, coherent, or consistent analysis. All they need is a post-hoc rationalization of their ideology by nature of their dominance at the top, and a rejection of all violence outside their hegemony.
It’s the rhetorical equivalent of scoring just enough points to win and then taking the ball home with you. They deny everyone else the means of establishing a competing worldview by prohibiting the exact same violence they used to establish themselves as the dominant system.
None of these liberals really see the inconsistencies or contradictions of the ideology they’re defending, assuming they try to see them at all. Most of them simply resign themselves to an unjust world because ‘that’s just the way it is’. There’s no other way to break through to them other than slowly and patiently challenging them, and even then, most will never really see it. I don’t know if goat will ever see reason but maybe a few in his community will, assuming he doesn’t ban me for the constant pestering.
We’ll see.