Daeron the Daring

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

So what is the solution when Hamas continually uses human shields. Outside of just telling telling everyone to leave and encouraging them to do so, what is the alternative.

https://youtu.be/Vr0bBuI8HKM?si=sm-KvBKGQoMOlzFC

You have to shout "It's coming right for us", so that you won't piss off democrats.

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

So we've moved from "Israel didn't attack the hospital" to "it's fine Israel attacked the hospital, they did warn you."

Didn't take long did it?

It's always just convenient for Israel and IDF.

They've been giving us all the reasons to expect them to spread misinformation, but when they fall short of covering that up, they just made a mistake. It wasn't intentional, and they openly feel sorry about it (sometimes).

Of course the palestinian rocket will malfunciton and hit a hospital during the largest Israeli bombing campaign ever. When else.

But then again, if Israel did it, they deserved it anyway, since it was a base of operation for Hamas, conveniently once again.

9 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I think something is wrong with the number of journalists dead.

Yes, but have you considered the fact that Hamas wants to kill every jew? Why doesn't that bother you?

27 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Lol, I just KNEW you'd come back with this answer, purposefully missing the point? 

I mean are Iran or the Palestinians going to ensure that Gaza isn't a platform for terrorism?

So what kind of Palestinian/Gazan legal body you imagine will have the capability or explicitly given role to police the area?

We're explicitly talking about Israel taking control over that. 

A single civilian citizen can only be responsible for himself and for underage children who are legally their responsiblity.

If you were to ask: Who's gonna ensure that there will be no armed/violent struggle of palestinians for their right to self-determination, then you would possibly have to ensure many things you would collectively call a process of emancipation. Otherwise, under international law, there's an extent to which their (violent) struggle is justified, anything outside those boundaries can be classified as terrorism. 

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah I only see apartheid under a “one state” solution, or ethnic cleansing with the way Israel’s heading. 
 

You mean the end of it? I assume.

1 hour ago, House Balstroko said:

It’s going to have to happen at some point. Best to start ASAP. Logically, it can’t happen overnight, due to the sheer scale. Israel should work on a timetable. 

Not necesarilly. Israel is way too deep into Gaza.

If they wanted to dismantle the settlements they supported and armed there, it would be a blood bath, like someone said before.

The existence of the settlements is one of the main reasons behind a one-state solution, which would not require the dismantlement of settlements (because of freedom of movement for everybody).

However, it's way too unthinkable for Israeli leadership, because it would mean the absolute emancipation of palestinians, responsibility taken for the citizens of Gaza, as well as the rebuilding of the place, a right to return, and a creation of a (truly) secular multiethnic democratic state without apartheid. 

The two-state solution, in contrast, is essentially meant to divide the palestinians at this point, as well as creating more violence.

50 minutes ago, Crixus said:

The West Bank atrocities are necessary by this yardstick, being supported by said government.

Noo, you can't just put the actions of a single legal entity in the same bag. That's almost like the same people decide to do both, and that would mean the two issues would fall under the same (or at least similar) policies and patterns it operates with, which is clearly not true, because that would mean bad bad things.

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

Although they don't acknowledge it, they must know that this bombing campaign is creating the next generation of terrorists.

In a scenario when Israel intends to continue it's ongoing policy regarding palestinians, it's directly beneficial for them, because they have been cracking down on less violent and (much) more reasonable liberation movements, all the while propping up radical movements, to have the public not see a ground of cooperation to reconciliate. The dehumanization didn't start with October 7 or Hamas.

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

This is why many Israelis see no partner in peace.

Man,the israelis really want peace, but you can't have it with palestinians, you know how they are.

32 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Goddamn that sounds depressing. We’d let Israel do more horrific stuff in the best case or join in on the worst case.

Wouldn’t those people be the easiest to frame as merely loyal lap dogs for the occupiers and thus easiest to rally against?

Don't like 80% of West Bank palestinians see the their leadership as a mere extension of Israeli authority/interests, who haven't been fairhfully representing their interests for a long time now?

It's easy to see why, and it's hard to see how Israel could make anything different for gazans.

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

One wonders, is it possible for Hamas to do something that would cause the people in here that defend or minimize Hamas crimes to condemn it?

You miss the point. Hamas is the ethanol here. You're better than them, you get the pass.

31 minutes ago, Ran said:

It really takes no gymnastics. Contrarywise, the gymnastics to me seems from the other side entirely, which seems to believe that Hamas will go away with minimal effort and minimal collateral damage or, vice versa, they are in fact an integral part of the future of a Palestinian state.

I am yet to see someone actually say that here. I think all opinions have ranged between that the military intervention is a must (and that Israel is doing just what he must) and that it shouldn't happen, because it won't make Hamas go away, just strenghten the grievances,or at best lays ground for another terrorist organization to take over.

37 minutes ago, Ran said:

I don't go around linking whatever comes blathering out of the mouths of XQC, Ethan Klein, or Wubby, and I don't cite other members of the forum as people who are experts. 

Even with your expressed stance, you just can't compare those to Hasan. That you seriously group these people's validity to his shows how much you're ignorant or intentionally misleading.

39 minutes ago, Ran said:

But we don't need to import more non-experts into the conversation.

Yea, sure. Let's say you have a fair reason an opinion to hold that stance. Let's even say he is nothing but professional.

But then why the hell would you yourself discredit the studies of UN approved NGOs and social studies who do say Israel is excercising genocide? Like bro, you literally told me (it was like the first or second thread when there was a discussion abiut this) they are not fucking trustworthy. They are professionals by any human merit. The only small objection one can have is that these orgs and studies come from places (countries) that don't align themselves geopolitically with Israel. Which to me raises the (poetic) question of why there isn't pressure from Western countries to have legal bodies take investigations on these matters. Countries who do geopolitically allign themselves to Israel.

1 minute ago, Ran said:

The IDF will literally call people to urge them to leave prior to a strike; no other military force in the world does this.

There we go. IDF has the moral superiority over all militaries, ever.

17 minutes ago, Ran said:

His profession is Twitch streamer. 

Henry Kissinger has a poli sci degree, too, but alas, no Twitch stream (he's more of a Facebook Live guy, I'd guess.)

So everybody using certain social media platforms have no validity to their opinions, maybe because the nature of the content shared there? 

I guess we should all stop having conversations and threads, because why could or should anybody share any of their views on a page dedicated primarily for discussing fantasy novels, if a streaming platform is not good enough of a place to share your professional opinion.

17 minutes ago, Ran said:

Pardon me for thinking that someone linking a Twitch streamer has a paucity of good sources to draw from. 

No, you pardon me for thinking anybody would care about it, because people clearly don't give a fuck about what others think. Nobody's here to change their minds, we're just not that way.

17 minutes ago, Ran said:

Hamas leaders in Doha should take that advice. They certainly believe that the people of Gaza owe their lives to the the cause of wiping out Israel.

You can bet your life's savings it will be the first thing I'll mention them if I meet just a single Hamas leader (residing in Doha or Hell itself), but I was engaged in a conversation with you.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

If a Twitch streamer is your go-to for making sense of the world, you need a lot more exposure to discourse than this forum can give you.

It's interesting of you to say that, first because of your complete dismissal of his professional status as someone with a degree in communication studies and political science as well (which makes him more than relevant to form a professional opinion about the matter, certainly at least as relevant as any journalist or politician), but also because you make the assumption that this is my single source of information, altough he himself can give an insightful view on numerous subjects along with giving a platform to many professional voices, which I deem to be more than sufficient for your average citizen.

But I'm maybe at fault for expecting anything of you at this point (not that I had a specific target audience when I made the decision to share the video here), but an attempt of discrediting anyone (be it fucking legal bodies and professionals of any quantity) with a heavy criticism over Israel's recent actions. 

Maybe a decent level of exposure would be to go to Gaza, so that you can finally grasp (at least a fraction) of what the people there have to go trough, and you can finally start realising that they don't owe Israel their fucking life, or anything else of any capacity. I think you're in a slighly larger need of that than me.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

The people of Gaza need to be given the chance to choose, and Hamas does not allow them to do that.

How about we give them the chance to choose between wether they want to be bombed for their freedom (Israel seems to have made itself the deliverer of it, according to you) or not? 

It's a long stretch to assume palestinians want to happen what's currently happening, even with the supposed (but absolutely not and nowhere near guaranteed) positive outcomes.

It's even more outlandish to think that Israel is doing this for the sake of the gazans. They do it for security reasons, and I'm pretty sure there are options to achieving that with less civilian casualties.

I mean, is every country on Earth with a militarily threatening neighbour engaging in open warfare? It doesn't seem to me that way.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

Not so radicalized as all that:

Being in support or in radical support of something are different. The supporters of Hamas are radical, and it's Hamas' absolute priority to marginalize it's political opposition.

There are things I support, and there are things I would (maybe) die for.

Everybody excercises different levels of importance, and it comes naturally that gazans have much more important things to worry about than who they are represented. And on top of that, it's not like they have any reason to believe cooperation with Israel has all that many benefits. 

Sure, it's important to note that Hamas are not only authoritarian, but opressors too to many. In light of that, of course the majority would like a change, but that doesn't mean they tie their (current and past) situation to Hamas, and not Israel. Even if they do, I'd say very disproportionately.

39 minutes ago, Ran said:

I just don't understand the cognitive dissonance of the people who are 100% behind resistance to Israel by Palestinians and then the pretending that Palestinians could never resist their own local, homegrown oppressors.

The distance in power between Hamas and local Gazans is far less than the distance in power between the IDF and Hamas. As of 2005, 125,000 guns were in private hands in Gaza. In 2020, the proliferation of arms in private hands was said to be out of control, contributing to street violence and civil unrest.

But I'm not talking about a revolt. Are Gazans pressing local Hamas officials to release supplies from Hamas's stockpile? Are people agitating and asking Hamas to end the war? I hope they are, just as people in Israel are urging the government to end the war.

You may ask, do I know what happens to dissidents in Gaza, and sure, I was the first to point it out in these threads. But the people of Gaza also know what IDF bombs and failed militant rockets does to them. 

I think we should all hope that Hamas feels internal pressure to end the conflict expeditiously, just as it feels external pressure to end the conflict.

I think, beyond the fact that Gazans are extremely radicalised for obvious reasons (which does give clout or a level of justification for Hamas' actions to the gazans), it's debatable even from an objective point of view if Hamas is a bigger existential threat to them than the actions of Israel. Expecting them to reach or share that viewpoint on a large enough scale to achieve anything (positive and significant) is similar in possibility to expecting God to descend down to Earth and make everything alright. (I'd say more people believe globally in the possibility of the latter)

22 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Wait what. Honestly, there is 0 chance GRRM is going to have Petyr Baelish have sex with Sansa Stark. It's not happening. He pushes boundaries, but he is not going to push that boundary. You act as though Sansa has no agency either, I think Sansa would murder Petyr in his sleep rather than let that happen. 

I mean, I personally don't, but many people see the possibility of Petyr trying to push things that far. The reason I mentioned it was because it is quite common for people to think Petyr wants just that. 

In no way I meant to imply that Sansa can put no pressure on the course of events affecting her, particularly this possible one.

54 minutes ago, Dofs said:

I did not say they are the same thing, I said they are overlapping with each other.

And then you said:

3 hours ago, Dofs said:

In many places ethnicities and nations are the same thing.

Anyway.

54 minutes ago, Dofs said:

This is an argument I never truly understood.

Another thing to learn more about. Good night!

1 hour ago, Dofs said:

An ethnicity and a nation are overlapping definitions.

And still, they are not the same thing. I am an ethnic hungarian, and part of the romanian nation, as a minority born and living in the country of Romania as a full-right romanian citizen. I cannot identify as an ethnic romanian, because I couldn't even prove to be one as far as my ancestor's legal records go back. I mean, I could, I'm allowed to, but that doesn't change reality.

1 hour ago, Dofs said:

In many places ethnicities and nations are the same thing.

They are never the same thing, because an entirely homogenous country on planet Earth does not exist.

1 hour ago, Dofs said:

The fact that you are saying that there are no actual nation-states in the world just shows that you and Varysblackfyre321 are using some fantasy definitions of the word that have little to do with reality.

No, it shows that I am aware of the actual meaning of the word. The ethnic romanians that dream of an actual nation state in my country call for entire assimilation or revocation of citizenship in case of its minorities, because their ideal Romania is a state only for romanians that identify as ethnic romanians. (Look up AUR

So when there are people who actually use the term in its actual meaning, you shouldn't be, because you are the one with the fantasy that the term in its original meaning means nothing to noone.

1 hour ago, Dofs said:

Israel behaves like your standard nation state

I wouldn't go as far as saying that racial segregation or treatment of minorities as second-grade citizens is a standard that countries you classify as nation states (particularly) in Europe use as a norm within its own borders.

Edit: On the other hand thou, don't worry, I condemn the neo-colonialism/imperialism that european/'western' countries exercise outside their borders to this day, including that of Israel.

1 hour ago, Dofs said:

Almost every country in the world would behave the same way.

It's rich of you to think that, but even richer is to think that this makes anything right or justifiable.

1 hour ago, Dofs said:

Talking about some ethnostates with some fantasy definitions of the word that have no bearing to real life is really not useful and is just distracting from the whole thing.

Maybe educate yourself then, so that you can arrive to a realization that there are people everywhere, actually believing in the righteousness of the real concepts of nation-states and ethnostates, and you shouldn't be using those terms to express something different.

1 hour ago, Dofs said:

What do you think is en ethno-state?

An ethnostate: a sovereign state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group.

A nation-state:A nation-state is a political unit where the state, a centralized political organization ruling over a population within a territory, and the nation, a community based on a common identity, are congruent.

I think you made the mistake of thinking an ethnostate is the equivalent of a nation-state. Furthermore, there's not a single country on Earth that's actually a nation-state, aka has an entirely homogenous population.

There are very homogenous countries in Europe, yes, but they also have a very heavy reason why they are that way, on almost every occasion.

Some countries do get called a nation-state (or self-proclaim as such), though, but in the sense  that "this is the country that's composed of the homelands (or parts of it) of this nation". But not exclusively, of course, since certain regions cannot be recognized as a homeland of a single nation/ethnicity. (Altough that's something that far-right thinkers actively try to push for)

24 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

Well, no; the right is a generally speaking certainly also problematic, but these recent antisemitic  attacs are a reaction of the recent situation Israel-Hamas and the right is not as invested in this as the left and arabic minorities in Europe.

Well, it's hard to not have more antisemitism, when the tought of Israel/israelis lands in much more people's minds than usually, because of the ongoing conflict. 

In that fashion, more people express antisemitism towards palestinians as well. 

But that is true in all situations. Where I live, calling someone ukrainian or russian had become a curseword because of the war. Calling someone a jew had never stopped being one.

What I referred to was the shift in the popularity of social trends towards a more xenophobic/discriminatory attitude over the past years. On top of people becoming more and more polarized, more people shift towards the political right as well. 

What I'm saying is that antisemitism had been growing for a long time, regardless of the current situation, which obviously does create a 'spike' on a hypothetical graph that measures just that.

35 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

here one article about the rise in antisemitism

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/oct/20/a-lot-of-pain-europes-jews-fear-rising-antisemitism-after-hamas-attack

 

from the article:

"Seeing the hostilities against Jewish people elsewhere in Europe, Pavoncello said: “It feels as if we’re going back in time. People say it’s not antisemitism but anti-Zionism. But at the end of the day, this is the outcome.”

Maybe that has to do with the political scale shifting more and more towards the right these days on a global scale?