The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

I'm cold
Lets organize a book burning!!

We can start with Jel's diary for kindling, then drop Nola's on.

[Falcon Horus]

We can start with Jel's diary for kindling, then drop Nola's on.

Jel's diary might call up on all of hell to rain down on us, I'd start with Nola's.

[Gatefan1976]

Jel's diary might call up on all of hell to rain down on us, I'd start with Nola's.

But Nola's spans millions of years!!

[Coco Pops]

Those Belgians who left for Syria to fight, or join IS to fight with them, loose their rights and are no longer considered citizens. If and when they return, they are arrested upon arrival and imprisoned on terrorist charges. A thread assesment is made and if they are deemed a risk to society they are being kept locked up. If the assesment is positive and the person is not deemed a thread, they are parroled in a manner of speaking (which has happened to one so far).

We're too soft to do that in Australia

[Falcon Horus]

But Nola's spans millions of years!!

That'll burn a while. Excellent.

[Gatefan1976]

We're too soft to do that in Australia

What Australia do you live in??

[Coco Pops]

What Australia do you live in??

the same one you live in. I think our justice system would be too soft to such people.

[KEK]

So it turns out the story about Darren Wilson having a broken eye socket was a complete fabrication from a conservative blogger.

[Gatefan1976]

the same one you live in. I think our justice system would be too soft to such people.

What would you propose Co-co?
We don't want the A-hole who decapitated people back, there is discussion about not allowing his 3 kids back because they are probably damaged goods by now.
The second that stain picked up a weapon in the cause of ISIS, he gave up his citizenship in the eyes of "Joe Citizen of Australia".

The only "harder" we could be on these people is if we walked into their lives HERE and played thought police, and I'm sorry I am not so scared that I will give up my thoughts to the cops.

[Womble]

But their views are not MY views, and it Angers me that you lump them together. I can flippantly agree with both of them, AND see their point as well. People get upset with the -perceived- arrogance of Judaism and you really are not helping that perception by saying stuff like "alien politics"

Okay. So "people get upset with the -perceived- arrogance of Judaism"? You're almost acknowledging the role of anti-Semitism in anti-Israel views. One more step forward and we can have an actual discussion.

People ARE actually trying to see your POV. It may not be accurate, but they ARE trying.
If you cannot give them kudos for that, WHY on earth should they give a left nut about you?
It does not matter if they are "right", it's that they TRY.
Do you feel me dude?

I wonder why these "people" - absolutely random unconnected kibitzers like Falcon Horus who decided to boycott Israel currently give so much more of their left nut about Israel that they do about every other conflict where ten times more people die. Doesn't it tell you that all sorts of "neutral observers" don't start from a neutral view to begin with?

Israel blows innocent people up. You don't mean to, but you do.
is that Candid enough?
Or is it some kind of Anti-semetic/anti Jewish bull??
How uncompromising do you want to get here dude?

All the way. Have Americans, Brits or Aussies done a better job not blowing up innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq than Israel does in Gaza? Has anyone ever done a better job fighting a war in a similar environment? If not, then where does it leave your criticism?

Should I view the Jewish press of wanting to exterminate Palestine the same way?

You won't find much of that, that's the thing. Arab calls for genocide are commonplace and mainstream. They come from their ambassadors to countries like Iran and Lebanon and from the people in the street flashing three-fingered salutes because three Jewish kids were kidnapped and murdered. "Jewish press of wanting to exterminate Palestine the same way"? Go find some.

That the response from the English to go to Dresden, or Hiroshima/Nagasaki was a fracking GOOD IDEA??
NO, freaking HELL NO.

Why not?

If I did not care, I would not respond.

It's the internet. Not much reason needed for responding.

How do you think I feel as a pagan with even less support, but willing to withstand the BS?

When was the last time someone reached for a pitchfork in your presence?

[Gatefan1976]

Okay. So "people get upset with the -perceived- arrogance of Judaism"? You're almost acknowledging the role of anti-Semitism in anti-Israel views. One more step forward and we can have an actual discussion.

Not at all.
One more step BACKWARDS towards not caring who is in the firing line would make this an interesting discussion. What you must keep in mind here is that a lot of the people who are reacting to what is going on in Israel/Gaza don't really CARE about who is involved, or their histories. All they see are innocent people getting killed. They probably see the genocides in South Africa and Syria (for example) the same way, A tragic loss of human life, not Jewish life, or African life, of Arabic life, just simple, uncomplicated HUMAN life.
Can we not mourn for that simple thing? MUST we attribute greater value to "them that are like me"?

I wonder why these "people" - absolutely random unconnected kibitzers like Falcon Horus who decided to boycott Israel currently give so much more of their left nut about Israel that they do about every other conflict where ten times more people die. Doesn't it tell you that all sorts of "neutral observers" don't start from a neutral view to begin with?

I think that sometimes they don't care about the race, creed or colour of a person, all they care about is the person.

All the way. Have Americans, Brits or Aussies done a better job not blowing up innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq than Israel does in Gaza? Has anyone ever done a better job fighting a war in a similar environment? If not, then where does it leave your criticism?

Has there ever been a similar situation in the "modern theatre" of war?
Even still, criticism can be levelled, unless you consider yourself above it. Are you beyond reproach?

You won't find much of that, that's the thing. Arab calls for genocide are commonplace and mainstream. They come from their ambassadors to countries like Iran and Lebanon and from the people in the street flashing three-fingered salutes because three Jewish kids were kidnapped and murdered. "Jewish press of wanting to exterminate Palestine the same way"? Go find some.

I can find PLENTY of press justifying retaliatory strikes based on those three kids, with a higher death toll. As for "Exterminating Palestine", there is enough around to find it pretty easily. I won't say it represents the majority of Israeli thought on the matter, but it DOES exist, and you cannot deny that it does. I can find press that see's children coming over the southern borders of the US as a INVASION. I don't think that most US citizens think that kids fleeing potential murder, rape and slavery are a invasion force.
Another thing you MUST consider is that -most- people are simply unaware of the history surrounding Israel, or more specifically, holy sites such as Jerusalem. ALL they see is two groups being b'stards to each other over religion, and they don't even know about the religions involved to any more degree than what they may have heard as children. How can you give them traits such as Anti-semetic or Anti-Jewish when they have no clue about such things?? At best you can say they are ignorant, and you can educate the ignorant, you cannot educate those who wilfully HATE you, and here we agree.

Why not?

Is that a rhetorical question?
If it is, I'll let it go, if not, PM me, because I won't answer that on an open board for the sake of others. Suffice to say, all such methods are employed to make things easier, and mass extermination of the greater territory known as the "Middle East" would make a lot of people's life "easier", but easy is VERY rarely the best answer, nor is it usually humane.

It's the internet. Not much reason needed for responding.

I am not the internet.

When was the last time someone reached for a pitchfork in your presence?

A pitchfork??
Never.
A fist, some rocks, a bottle??
Not as long as I would like.

[Gatefan1976]

A personal aside here.
Calling FH a Kibitzer is an unfair use of the term. As a member of a community that has also been derided, attacked and seen as somehow "unclean" and "sub-human" and "unworthy of life" for simply being who she is, I would think you would have more time for her opinion, weather you agree or not.

Celebrate your similarities, not your differences.

On that note, I am now wondering why I ever cut my hair, or gave up on the leaf, cause that's some serious hippy like flashback

[Womble]

A personal aside here.
Calling FH a Kibitzer is an unfair use of the term. As a member of a community that has also been derided, attacked and seen as somehow "unclean" and "sub-human" and "unworthy of life" for simply being who she is, I would think you would have more time for her opinion, weather you agree or not.

A kibitzer is a non-participant person, offering unwanted and useless advice or commentary. I say it's an apt description.

Comparing calling someone a kibitzer to declaring someone subhuman or unworthy of life is distasteful and manipulative.

[Gatefan1976]

A kibitzer is a non-participant person, offering unwanted and useless advice or commentary. I say it's an apt description.

Comparing calling someone a kibitzer to declaring someone subhuman or unworthy of life is distasteful and manipulative.

I would say it is apt in the way you used it.
If you just wanted to say "back seat driver", why not just say that?

[Womble]

Not at all.
One more step BACKWARDS towards not caring who is in the firing line would make this an interesting discussion. What you must keep in mind here is that a lot of the people who are reacting to what is going on in Israel/Gaza don't really CARE about who is involved, or their histories. All they see are innocent people getting killed. They probably see the genocides in South Africa and Syria (for example) the same way, A tragic loss of human life, not Jewish life, or African life, of Arabic life, just simple, uncomplicated HUMAN life.
Can we not mourn for that simple thing? MUST we attribute greater value to "them that are like me"?

That is, quite simply, a lie. An attempt to resort to groundless projections in order to divert attention from the obvious: most people's reaction to any conflict where Israel is involves is completely different- usually opposite- from these people's reaction to conflicts where Israel is not involved

There are no hundreds of thousands marching through the streets of London. Paris etc. protesting Assad's slaughter in Syria. There simply isn't. There is no movement to boycott Syrian products, artists or academics. The mind-boggling slaughter committed by ISIS did not elicit one hundredth of an outrage that's being directed at Israel every time a Palestinian gets a bruise in Gaza or in the West Bank (it's only those Palestinians that anyone cares about; slaughter a camp of them in Yarmouk, Syria, and not a blip shows up on the "pro-Palestinian" radar). Genocides in Congo, Darfur and Rwanda, occupations in Tibet, Cyprus or Ukraine- not a single other conflict receives the same amount of news coverage and incites the same amount of rage. There's very obviously a different yardstick being used.

If you examine the posting history of anyone criticizing Israel, you will usually not find a pattern of criticising any fighting state proportionate to the number of innocent people killed. You can test it with Gateworld's search function, including on your own posts.

Has there ever been a similar situation in the "modern theatre" of war?

If there wasn't, then your criticism is less valid still. But loosely comparable situations existed, including very recently. Iraq, Syria, Sri Lanka, Kosovo.

Even still, criticism can be levelled, unless you consider yourself above it. Are you beyond reproach?

Beyond reproach- no. But setting a knowingly unrealistic moral standard in order to condemn someone for failing to measure up is not the kind of criticism that deserves to be treated with any seriousness or respect.

I can find PLENTY of press justifying retaliatory strikes based on those three kids, with a higher death toll. As for "Exterminating Palestine", there is enough around to find it pretty easily.

You keep on saying it... instead of finding it. What gives?

I won't say it represents the majority of Israeli thought on the matter, but it DOES exist, and you cannot deny that it does.

There is a world of difference between an opinion that "does exist" on the far fringes of a society and an opinion that dominates the society.

The inarguable fact is that in the Palestinian society (and in the Arab world in general), there never was a "peace camp". The calls for genocide of Jews are routine and uncontroversial, while anything that can be construed as sympathy for Jews elicits immediate bloodlust. The most liberal and moderate Palestinian leader, if placed on the Western politican spectrum, would be slightly to the right of the neo-Nazis. The Palestinian people - you know, the innocent ones- are the same ones who cheer and hand out candy in the streets to celebrate succeessful murder of Jews. So long as this self-evident and straightforward fact is not acknowledged, all discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict is pointless pretense.

Israel, or more specifically, holy sites such as Jerusalem. ALL they see is two groups being b'stards to each other over religion, and they don't even know about the religions involved to any more degree than what they may have heard as children. How can you give them traits such as Anti-semetic or Anti-Jewish when they have no clue about such things?? At best you can say they are ignorant, and you can educate the ignorant, you cannot educate those who wilfully HATE you, and here we agree.

Ignorance is poor excuse when one claims the right to judge and condemn. without bothering to learn the facts.

And to be honest, such people don't really want to learn. They sometimes say they do, but once you start explaining things, they grow desperate to shift the discussion back to high-voltage emotional appeals. Discussing the layout of the Mountain aquifer just isn't as exciting as screaming bloody murder about the violation of Palestinian water rights. There is a psychology to these discussions that I have been observing for decades, and I have to say that facts barely factor into it.

Is that a rhetorical question?
If it is, I'll let it go, if not, PM me, because I won't answer that on an open board for the sake of others. Suffice to say, all such methods are employed to make things easier, and mass extermination of the greater territory known as the "Middle East" would make a lot of people's life "easier", but easy is VERY rarely the best answer, nor is it usually humane.

No, it's not a rhetorical question at all. It's a question of whether or not the true balance of lives saved vs. lives lost has been considered.

It's a very unpopular thing to say, but definitively ending a conflict through overwhelming force saves more lives in the long run than letting it fester for decades through well-intentioned restraint.