Jace, Extat

Gimme the Browns over the Texans.

Chiefs over Dolphins

Steelers beat the Bills

Cowboys will beat the Packers

Lions over the Rams

And give me the Bucs over the Iggles

Yeah 2023 was a dumpster year for me too. Here's to a better 2024!

20 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

So what you're saying is that you're saying there's a conspiracy afoot? 

Baaaaah! You got me! 

Although mine is really just technical in nature. Unless you're saying that there's something... special... and conspiratorial about the U.S.'s actions?

Some... factor... that wasn't at play with the Somali pirates??  

12 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

But attributing the attacks as just random piracy fits neither the attacks nor the response to the attacks. It just seems a genuinely bizarre thing to claim. 

Calling them pirates or terrorists allows for use of military force without getting the congress involved, at least in America. 

14 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

"random" ships...ok

12 hours ago, polishgenius said:

random ships lol come on. 

Bolding added. 

That sounds to me like they're suggesting it's not "random" at all.

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Houthi’s are pirates attacking random ships.  They are being treated like pirates.

Yeah, I know that. But @polishgenius and @Conflicting Thought make it sound like there's conspiracy afoot. 

Spill! Spill! Spill!

Gimme a day to set up a new account. 

It tastes sweeter to know I'm taking it from Ty. 

Wait, what's the emphasis on "random" ???

*GASP* 

The Prince of Thieves has come again!

2 hours ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

I remember playing inquisition way back in 2014 and thinking it was alright until Witcher 3 came out a few months later and then I realised just how much of a turd DAI is in comparison.

No man, BioWare’s last great game was Mass Effect 3. 

I have on no less than 4 occassions reinstalled DA:I, got a few hours in, and then uninstalled. It's just so fucking... 

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Those are such different games it could be argued it comes down to a matter of taste as opposed to objective measures of quality. All I can say is I've played DAI more times than I've played The Witcher 3. And I still haven't played the version where the Hero of Ferelden marries Anora, becomes king, keeps Logain alive and makes him do the dark ritual with Morrigan, Hawke romances Anders and the brother is a templar, and the Tal-Vashoth mage inquisitor sides with the templars.

Man DA:O was the best. I'll never forget my first playthrough as a mage, realizing that I was getting a Dune ending because I'd romanced that derp Alistair. He married Anora, but I owned that D.

Of course in all subsequent playthroughs I was of correct stature to become the Queen and hero of Ferelden 

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So Korea-like stalemate or Russia win it is then?

At least until a new doctrine is developed. As-is combined arms is no longer viable. Tanks are deathtraps, too easily vulnerable to handheld anti-tank weapons. And even the most (almost) modern planes are no match for modern anti-air. 

Add to the fact that the whole battlefield is visible from drones...

This one is tough. 

I worry about Trump taking office and leaning on Zelensky to make peace under hard terms a year from now. The Ukrainians are not going to be able to mount any kind of summer offensive that achieves a breakthrough in 2024.

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

After Trump suggested she is Constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States because her parents weren’t citizens when she was born (inside the United States) while Trump plans to attack birthright citizenship?

How would that work?

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/10/1223940451/donald-trump-birther-nikki-haley-citizenship-president-14th-amendment

He's Trump, dawg. He'll loom over her at a podium and shout "Look at my Indian American!" And that'll be that.

17 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

She’s not sycophantic? Why? Just because she isn’t attacking him right now? All right then, good luck w/ that. 

I'm graspin' at straws, sister 

The hour grows late.

You're not wrong, but at this point I'm just desperate that there be someone with access to him who isn't utterly deranged or sycophantic. 

So do we think Haley is Trump's VP? 

There might actually be an argument that she should take the gig if he offers it to eventually protect the republic from him. 

Pence didn't save the country or anything on Jan. 6th, but he did the right things and helped facilitate the transfer of power as was his duty. 

I love you too, commie. 

@Kalbear

Quote

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Extat! 

Quote

 

What does that matter? Does what someone else wants (not can do, but wants) justify any action? 

 

It matters when that group demonstrates follow-through and capacity of action. Hamas did that. Deterrence only works when potential aggressors believe that there will be consequences for their actions that actually threaten them. Ukraine, right now, is proof of this.

Quote

 

To me this seems so absurdly reductionist and caustic. Especially the part about accepting any breaking of international laws to achieve aims. That's a very pragmatic, vigilante viewpoint and one i get, but it also should have consequences

Well, I suppose the greatest crime of Hamas then was exposing the post-WW2 world order as a polite fiction. 

I don't even mean to be glib by saying that. I thought everybody else knew. 

Maybe it bears repeating, but I don't mean to argue that Israel is morally unimpeachable or obeying international law... I'm arguing that they are behaving exactly the same as any other power would behave. Better, actually. At least better than America.

19 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

 

 

and not see how this can be applied to israel form the perspective of palestine. israeli goverment is a terrorist one, comiting thousands of atrocities, killing thousands of kids, women and men mayority civilian for decades, illigaly arresting children and adults, etc, etc... so everything else is secondary to the  goal of taking these people out of power, including international law...that works to no? and if not what is the difference bewtween the two. like who is furthering palestinain safety? 

edit: meant to quote jace

That rebuttal might fly if Hamas were not a jihadist organization. They don't care about taking care of Palestinians, they care about killing Jews.

11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

 

Yeah... You really don't know that, you're just making shit up to fit your own pre-conceived notions about this conflict.

 

What? I'm dealing with some imagined colonizer out-grouping of Jews to justify sensless slaughter and you're gonna pretend I'm making up the fact that Israel didn't want war? Dawg, if they wanted a war there have been hundreds of missiles they could use as justification. 

Really, you think Israel wanted this war???? They were attacked 

14 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

 

And.... that's how you justify everything and anything. It's not even a slippery slope, it's the bottom of the hill.

The moment you claim a state can violate "international law" (or any other legal or moral framework) in the name of security... Well, you've given almost limitless possibilities to states.

 

Well, from the bottom of the hill here...

Am I incorrect?

"This is a description of a mechanical phenomenon..." 

31 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

 

Under your logic, there is none. That's why it should never ever be be pushed to its "logical conclusion."

I mean this is just ass-over-teakettle wrong, man. 

I mean, when an enemy attacks you, you destroy them and whatever apparatus that enabled them to attack. That is called war, specifically a defensive war. Which is what Israel is doing. 

It is not Israel's fault that Hamas treats its own citizens as hostages and hides among non-combatants. 

I'd rather be governed by a glass of water than by Michele Obama. 

But then, I'd rather be governed by a bowl of shit than Donald Trump...

Who's to say what's decent these days?

2 hours ago, Mudguard said:

Any ceasefire Israel had with Hamas had long ended before Oct. 7th.  Hamas has been launching hundreds, if not thousands, of rockets at Israel for at least the past 5 years, and Israel has been killing hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza each year over the same time period.  I think the ceasefire after the last big blowup lasted maybe a year or two, before hostilities continued.

Sure, but Israel wanted to avoid all-out war until Hamas forced their hand. 

2 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

Yeah, I have heard it, and it's pretty gross, I'm not going to defend that guy. That said, because Israel is The Jewish nation. When a country proudly proclaims itself to be based on a Jewish identity that is inextricably linked to the state of Israel. it's hardly surprising that someone who has been radicalized to the point that they are willing to go out and kill 10 people would think Jew=Israeli. In fact, this is actually why many anti-zionist Jews make the argument that Israel's actions, coupled with its insistence on making Israel inseparable from Jews, actually breeds more resentment and makes Jews in the diaspora more unsafe.

The average Palestinian may not use the word "colonizer", but when they talk about Israelis and Israel, that is what they mean.

While I don't doubt that your heart is in the right place trying to paint Hamas as oppressed liberators, I'm going to literally take their word on this one.

21 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

But a really funny brother plus Billy Beer?

Well family is its own reward, eh?

35 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

I'm not excusing terror at all. My position is, no matter what the other side did, you do not descend into their level and dish out group punishment, civilian harm, or ethnic cleansing. I just don't throw that judgement selectively, and hold both Israel and Hamas accountable to the same standard. Hamas fails. But so does Israel.

If so, then at least Israel failed as the last possible option. They didn't want to invade Gaza, they don't want to occupy it. Hamas does want to kill Jews as a matter of course.

37 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

 

The "logical conclusion" here is violation of internation humanitarian law, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, rape and murder, dude. WTF?

 

The logical conclusion is that Hamas cannot remain empowered. Everything else is secondary to that goal, including international law. Because international law doesn't further the safety of a state's citizens. 

46 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

 

What's the difference? I don't see one in your framework.

You don't see a difference between Putin's Russia invading Ukraine and Israel defending itself from Hamas? 

Fascinating.

44 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

All Israeli violence is appropriate and justified, but all Palestinian violence is unjustifiable and can only be chalked up to uncivilized barbarism and certainly not in service of any political project or aims outside of baseless antisemitic slaughter.

This is always how the colonizer vs colonized dynamic plays out, especially when the colonized are brown. This of course ignores the violence inherent to colonialism and necessary to its maintenance. The actions of Hamas on October 7th were reprehensible, but to pretend it happened in a vacuum is to perpetuates a fiction, a warped view wherein Israel is attacked for their Jewish identity, rather than because they have given the Palestinian people legitimate reasons to hate them, a reason to associate the Star of David, which is emblazoned on the flag carried by their oppressors, with an oppression that must be resisted. 

 

But they are attacked for their identity. Have you heard that phonecall one of the Hamas, ahem, liberators made to his parents. He's cheering and shouting "I killed ten Jews!" He ain't talkin' about colonizers.

21 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

So nothing happened for 50 years, and Hamas suddenly started this war?

What you're conveniently ignoring is that the "this is war, what can we do" narrative is flexibly used by bad actors on either side, in this war and others. And if your best defense is "they started it" you deserve the same treatment a kid making that pathetic excuse gets. 

Israel pulled out of Gaza, held to a ceasefire for over a decade, and for their trouble their people were butchered and carried away. You're citing things half-a-century gone to excuse terror.

Bad actors can reach logical conclusions. Just because Donald Trump might admit that the sky is blue doesn't mean I need to start reinterpreting the color spectrum. 

Saying "but a badguy might say that" is a pretty naieve way to look at anything. Of course there's a difference between Russia saying they have no choice but to attack Ukraine, and Israel defending itself from Hamas. C'mon now!

Eta: improper word use

44 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Ok, and can Hamas or a Palestinian citizen say this? And if so, would you agree with them?

Put another way, your framework justifies all kinds of future atrocities and civilian murders in Israel by Hamas or some other Palestinian organization. So when/if those are committed, are you committing to offering this same defense then?

No, Israel is defending itself from Hamas. That is why their actions are defensible and Hamas' are not. 

Hamas started this war.