BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Topic started by: Fenris on May 13, 2024, 11:30:29 AM
-
Joe Biden turning out to be a real piece of work.
He's offering Israel information on the location on Hamas leadership in Gaza, on the condition that Israeli troops leave Rafah.
This means that he has information on terrorist leadership that he's withholding from Israel, a US ally.
Imagine if in early 2002, the Mossad had information on the location of Osama Bin Laden. And they withheld that information from the US government, pending political considerations. The public would be aghast, and rightly so. But because it's Joe Biden, nobody cares.
-
Biden has always been a nasty bit of cloth.
Now he's nasty and demented and incompetent.
Prayers for Bibi and the IDF, because it looks like they go the last mile alone.
-
Prayers for Bibi and the IDF, because it looks like they go the last mile alone.
Never alone.
Psalm 20: Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.
-
True
-
Joe Biden turning out to be a real piece of work.
He's offering Israel information on the location on Hamas leadership in Gaza, on the condition that Israeli troops leave Rafah.
This means that he has information on terrorist leadership that he's withholding from Israel, a US ally.
Imagine if in early 2002, the Mossad had information on the location of Osama Bin Laden. And they withheld that information from the US government, pending political considerations. The public would be aghast, and rightly so. But because it's Joe Biden, nobody cares.
I suspect the situation is that Republicans have no time for Biden anyway, moderate Democrats are unhappy with him but reluctant to vote against him because they consider him better than Trump, and the pro-Palestine fringe on the harder left don't see anything wrong with making life difficult for the pesky Joos.
It seems more commentators, political and economic, are describing Biden as a weak leader seldom missing a chance to demonstrate that the US is a weak nation under his "leadership".
-
Biden and crew are working hard to ensure that Hamas survives this war, for what reason I cannot understand.
Gaza isn't Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. It's not on the other side of the world from Israel; it's only a few miles from Israeli population centers. Israel can't just declare victory and leave. And Hamas is still holding hostages.
And yet the SecDef said yesterday "Israel must leave Gaza".
Biden administration today said that after the war there needs to be a coalition government that includes Hamas.
-
This current crew in DC is either dumber than a box of rocks or simply evil, or both.
No concept of terrorism.
No concept of racial hatred.
No concept of barbarism.
It has to be intentional, because surely no one can be that ignorant or stupid otherwise.
-
Like all those people who protested a music competition (Eurovision) to protest a war started by the massacre of a music festival. It is so absurd. This is how the "Never again" starts turning into "Okay maybe one more time".
-
Like all those people who protested a music competition (Eurovision) to protest a war started by the massacre of a music festival. It is so absurd. This is how the "Never again" starts turning into "Okay maybe one more time".
That then turns into "Okay, maybe one more time if I get to watch" which turns into "Okay, maybe one more time if get to do the deed."
Mankind itself is the greatest proof of Satan.
-
People are blind to the fact of the spiritual nature of the apparent never ending conflict.
-
That then turns into "Okay, maybe one more time if I get to watch" which turns into "Okay, maybe one more time if get to do the deed."
And all those people who say "Well if I were in Nazi Germany what I would have done is..." are showing us exactly what they would have done.
-
Like all those people who protested a music competition (Eurovision) to protest a war started by the massacre of a music festival. It is so absurd.
The obliviousness is quite remarkable.
As is the impossible standard that Israel is held to.
And the fact that there are numerous wars going on that everyone seems unaware of.
-
The heroes in the IDF just recovered the bodies of six Israeli hostages. On, Hersh Goldberg-Polin, was an American citizen.
They were all executed with a bullet to the back of the head. The executions took place within the last 48 to 72 hours.
That's right, Hamas is executing hostages.
-
But I’m sure the left will say that they are mostly peaceful executions
The brutality of Hamas is indisputable evidence of the existence of evil.
As far as this administration thinks?
“American citizen murdered?
Meh.
American JEWISH citizen murdered.
Well’ he probably deserved it.”
This administration has much blood on their hands and they will answer to God , King of the Universe for their evil.
-
It is curious to see what response the US offers to a terror group executing US citizens. One might hope for a response more forceful than "oh dear, never mind, here's a few billion dollars worth of free stuff".
-
Joe Biden turning out to be a real piece of work.
He's offering Israel information on the location on Hamas leadership in Gaza, on the condition that Israeli troops leave Rafah.
This means that he has information on terrorist leadership that he's withholding from Israel, a US ally.
Imagine if in early 2002, the Mossad had information on the location of Osama Bin Laden. And they withheld that information from the US government, pending political considerations. The public would be aghast, and rightly so. But because it's Joe Biden, nobody cares.
Given the general lack of support for Israel and pro-Palestinian sentiment demonstrated by the Democrats, why is it most American Jews favor that party over the Republicans? I don't get it.
-
Two responses.
From the (P)resident: can I get some more ice cream?
From the vice (P)resident: how can I use this to get more Hamas supporter anti Israel votes?
-
Given the general lack of support for Israel and pro-Palestinian sentiment demonstrated by the Democrats, why is it most American Jews favor that party over the Republicans? I don't get it.
I don't know that your assertion is true, or if it will or has continued to be true throughout the evolution of this war...but regardless I have some ideas. Perhaps many American Jews consider themselves American and feel about Israel the same way that I feel about Cuba or some non specific location in Africa; that is to say I wish them all the best, but I am an American not a Cuban or African.
On a more sinister note, the Republican party, and conservative population more generally are perceived by some to have an antisemitism problem. To some folks it can appear that there is a population within the party that is zealously pro Israel for reasons that are perhaps...eschatological in nature. Some people find that disturbing and it sort of rings hollow to some people. Finally, to some folks it may appear that while on the one hand some segment of the republican population is very pro Israel, they are bedfellows with other republicans that are vociferously anti-Semitic. It can, to some folks, give the appearance that when it comes down to it that matters of politics supersede the prerogative to eliminate the antisemitism within their own party; And they therefore are implicitly supporting antisemitism while explicitly condemning it. I mean that could be how some people see it.
-
It is curious to see what response the US offers to a terror group executing US citizens. One might hope for a response more forceful than "oh dear, never mind, here's a few billion dollars worth of free stuff".
Do you mean that the admin might offer money to Hamas or to Israel or just generally throw money at both? I'm curious to see how this shakes out too.
-
It is curious to see what response the US offers to a terror group executing US citizens. One might hope for a response more forceful than "oh dear, never mind, here's a few billion dollars worth of free stuff".
Do you mean that the admin might offer money to Hamas or to Israel or just generally throw money at both? I'm curious to see how this shakes out too.
Supporting an ally in a fight against a terrorist opponent is a different proposition to giving lots of humanitarian aid with no checks and balances to make sure it isn't funding the terrorist you're allegedly opposed to.
But then after the stunning achievement of spending 20 years and trillions of dollars to replace the Taliban with the Taliban it's hardly surprising we seem unable to get it right elsewhere.
-
It is curious to see what response the US offers to a terror group executing US citizens. One might hope for a response more forceful than "oh dear, never mind, here's a few billion dollars worth of free stuff".
Do you mean that the admin might offer money to Hamas or to Israel or just generally throw money at both? I'm curious to see how this shakes out too.
Supporting an ally in a fight against a terrorist opponent is a different proposition to giving lots of humanitarian aid with no checks and balances to make sure it isn't funding the terrorist you're allegedly opposed to.
But then after the stunning achievement of spending 20 years and trillions of dollars to replace the Taliban with the Taliban it's hardly surprising we seem unable to get it right elsewhere.
I mean, yeah those things are quite different...that is why I asked for clarification. Thought I also think that there are also meaningful distinctions between directly handing Hamas money in the "oh here is some free stuff" kind of way, and providing humanitarian aid that also ends up inadvertently providing them with material resources or benefit. It is imo one of the most vexing things about effectively combating terrorism.
At the risk of doing a thing that people dislike, I'm going to use a pop culture analogy. There was a cartoon when I was a kid called Gargoyles. Anyway the main villain was called Xanatos, and he was like a super genius. His plans were often set up as such that he had multiple ways to come out with an advantage or benefit, so even if you 'beat" him, he still benefitted in some way. All of that to say, if aid is provided, there aren't that many realistic ways to completely eliminate aid inadvertently providing the terrorists with some benefit. That isn't to say we should throw our hands up and not take any reasonable steps to prevent it, I'm just pointing out that its a problem that is easy to criticize, but much less easy to actually address.
I'm also not saying that Hamas is full of super geniuses either, its just that figuring out how to exploit or create these opportunities in these areas is kind of the whole terrorist /guerilla ethos. Its sort of like limiting a kid's screen time or something similar, while you have an actual job and responsibilities, their whole summer revolves around figuring out how to circumvent whatever solution you put in place to keep them off the iPad while you are at work.
On the other hand, not providing aid, or not providing 'enough' aid works in their favor as a recruitment/radicalization tool; as if to say "look at the suffering they cause with their bombs and armaments and they spit in your face by offering nothing or practically nothing to feed your children" or whatever. that is an oversimplification, but I hope you get my point. It is the asymmetrical advantage that 'they' have as a counter to the overwhelming advantages that 'we' have.
So all of that previous stuff was just me trying to express my opinion that its a hard problem, and you are free to think differently on the matter of course. More directly though, I want to push back on the idea that we are or plan to "[give] lots of humanitarian aid with no checks and balances to make sure it isn't funding the terrorist". While you are free to assert that the checks and balances are insufficient to prevent any and all aid from benefitting Hamas (they are), it is simply not true that there are no mitigation measures employed (there are). I am fully open to you providing some specific examples of aid that was provided with no mitigation strategies whatsoever put in place so that we can discuss the in detail. The best example that I can think of were the food airdrops, which were widely criticized by aid organizations, not so because they helped the terrorists, but because they didn't really help anyone in any significant way. Either way that is what I see as the best fit for your criticism and it doesn't remotely meet the criteria of a "few billion dollars worth of free stuff".
-
You make some interesting, and arguably valid points here.
It is tricky to help the civilians without helping the terrorists. Historically it seems when western nations offer help intended for civilians it ends up in the hands of people for whom it was not intended - whether it be Hamas taking the humanitarian aid now or the African governments in the 1980s demanding import duties on humanitarian aid for their people. It suggests that western governments aren't very good at targeting aid at all, which maybe might be an early point to be addressed before sending ever-more of it out there.
If humanitarian aid helped the civilians and provided a very modest side benefit to a few of the terrorists that might be considered acceptable. I guess it would be the reverse of collateral damage in a way. The question is how much of it goes to civilians, and how much of what goes to civilians ends up offering as much benefit to Hamas as it does to the civilians. If the people need provisions and ordinarily Hamas would be responsible to supply them, us supplying them saves Hamas from doing so, freeing up more money for them to spend on weapons. So the humanitarian aid we send in might as well be a bunch of guns and rockets shipped directly to Hamas.
Air drops are the kind of thing that create all sorts of problems. I forget which African nation it was that received airdropped aid during my teenage years, but it seemed whatever was done caused complaints. If it was dropped in populated areas the people complained that it was landing on stuff and damaging it. If it was dropped away from populated areas they complained they couldn't get to it before other people took it all. Sometimes you can't win even when you are handing out free stuff.
-
You make some interesting, and arguably valid points here.
It is tricky to help the civilians without helping the terrorists. Historically it seems when western nations offer help intended for civilians it ends up in the hands of people for whom it was not intended - whether it be Hamas taking the humanitarian aid now or the African governments in the 1980s demanding import duties on humanitarian aid for their people. It suggests that western governments aren't very good at targeting aid at all, which maybe might be an early point to be addressed before sending ever-more of it out there.
I do not know how bad things were in the 80's or how pervasive the issues were, but I think that what is more important is whether or not it would be accurate to use the failures that occurred in the 80's as a critique of current implementations. It only works if the same conditions for those failures exist in current scenarios and if the same mitigation strategies, tactics and mechanisms are currently being employed (or not employed). I cannot say that is the case, but perhaps you believe that this is the case. If that is your position I would only ask that you provide your reasoning, or ideally some sort of mechanism for me to asses your statements more thoroughly.
If humanitarian aid helped the civilians and provided a very modest side benefit to a few of the terrorists that might be considered acceptable. I guess it would be the reverse of collateral damage in a way. The question is how much of it goes to civilians, and how much of what goes to civilians ends up offering as much benefit to Hamas as it does to the civilians. If the people need provisions and ordinarily Hamas would be responsible to supply them, us supplying them saves Hamas from doing so, freeing up more money for them to spend on weapons. So the humanitarian aid we send in might as well be a bunch of guns and rockets shipped directly to Hamas.
I mean, of course that is the question, but it seemed to me that you were asserting that billions of $$$ in aid were being supplied to Hamas more or less directly because there were no checks and balances in place. What is the basis of that assertion?
I do think it is interesting to consider whether or not Hamas feels any responsibility for basic needs of their human shields, and if they expend any resources on supplying those needs, and if they are even remotely equipped to meet them. I do not have a lot of solid personal research to found my opinion on, but i'd speculate that the answer is more or less 'no' to all of those things.
I can't say that I agree that the humanitarian aid in the scenario you've described is akin to shipping guns and rockets shipped directly to Hamas. It is like sending or at least maintaining bodies, bodies, bodies. I can give you that some of those bodies will use guns and bombs and such. Alot of them will just be there muddying the political and literal battlefield for the side that at least makes some token and some real attempts to avoid massacring non-combatants.
I think that there lies the rub, Of course providing no aid whatsoever has its set of advantages, but in any realistic evaluation you then must admit that it also has its disadvantages. Personally, I tend to think that if humanitarian aid during an armed conflict was easy to choose and easy to do then everyone would do it. It is in every way above and beyond, and it has its costs, not just the 'I had to get up early' kind, but real difficult existential costs. I thought that at the heart of it, this is why we hold ourselves as exceptional for choosing to do so.
Air drops are the kind of thing that create all sorts of problems. I forget which African nation it was that received airdropped aid during my teenage years, but it seemed whatever was done caused complaints. If it was dropped in populated areas the people complained that it was landing on stuff and damaging it. If it was dropped away from populated areas they complained they couldn't get to it before other people took it all. Sometimes you can't win even when you are handing out free stuff.
I mean, I'm not mad at anybody who is pissed that an airdrop crushed their cow or god forbit their wife. Air drops have their place, but like anything else, it's not always the right tool for the job. I think they are oft overused because the public likes that image of a bunch of sad dusty people dancing like dervishes upon seeing those boxes drop down from the sky. They are also one of the easier things to pull off, especially with modern logistics and tech. all I'm saying is that complaining that you can't win with it is a bit like complaining that people are mad at you because the only cutting tool you ever use is a jigsaw....its great for plywood, but it was a hell of a way to ruin the cake at my 6th birthday party.
-
Given the general lack of support for Israel and pro-Palestinian sentiment demonstrated by the Democrats, why is it most American Jews favor that party over the Republicans? I don't get it.
Most American Jews are secular (although that is changing via demographics). Secular Jews tend to me more socially liberal and also, lacking a religious mission, seem to pick up the political one of liberalism.
Religious Jews are much more Republican in value and voting.
-
On a more sinister note, the Republican party, and conservative population more generally are perceived by some to have an antisemitism problem.
So, a few things.
Firstly, religiously observant Jews who are easily identifiable via clothing and looks are far more likely to be the targets of antisemitic behavior. Yet they vote Republican. So they don't see this antisemitism problem on the right.
Secondly, in America today it's the left that has unashamed blatant antisemitism. AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashid Tlaib, the "Pro Palestinian" (anti-Israel) contingent on college campuses, etc. The White House has been far harder on our Israel than on the terrorist group Hamas and their Iranian sponsors.
I think the secular, liberal Jews, who can't get over their preoccupation with antisemitism on the right are going to be in for a rude awakening.
-
I'm also not saying that Hamas is full of super geniuses either, its just that figuring out how to exploit or create these opportunities in these areas is kind of the whole terrorist /guerilla ethos.
This assumes that it's America's problem to fix. Why not let the IDF just have at it?
The only real, permanent fix, is regime change in Iran.
-
Given the general lack of support for Israel and pro-Palestinian sentiment demonstrated by the Democrats, why is it most American Jews favor that party over the Republicans? I don't get it.
Most American Jews are secular (although that is changing via demographics). Secular Jews tend to me more socially liberal and also, lacking a religious mission, seem to pick up the political one of liberalism.
Religious Jews are much more Republican in value and voting.
That makes sense. It's just too bad so many don't realize their on the wrong side.
-
So, a few things.
Firstly, religiously observant Jews who are easily identifiable via clothing and looks are far more likely to be the targets of antisemitic behavior. Yet they vote Republican. So they don't see this antisemitism problem on the right.
O, I don't really know any religiously observant Jews, or really non observant Jews...or really any other kinds of people either. I don't doubt that you are correct that religiously observant Jews tend to be Republican, religiously observant Christians tend that way as well in my expirience. Anyway, I don't know that them not seeing the antisemitism or at least reacting as if they do not see it is a particularly good metric for concluding that there isn't any (or isn't much, or whatever threshold we're talking about). It's sort of like how lots f conservatives will argue that the democratic party is racist toward black folks, but arguably a majority of black people would disagree...well to some degree, if they are anything like me they think that America is chock-a-block with all manner of racisms that don't confine themselves to donkeys or elephants. Anyway, I don't think it would make sense to say that the democratic party, or the left doesn't have a racism problem because all the blacks are over there being black and stuff...you know? Likewise, I don't think its a good argument for the Jews either. Its also pretty gross when either or any side hold up their tokens like "Hey look we have some too, except ours are actually the good ones". I'm not accusing you of tokenizing your own people of course, I'm just saying it's the kind of racist sleight of hand that I've found myself buying into; and I probably will again in the future if I'm honest, because it is so very ingrained in me, because it is ingrained in American culture...maybe even humanity....idk
Secondly, in America today it's the left that has unashamed blatant antisemitism. AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashid Tlaib, the "Pro Palestinian" (anti-Israel) contingent on college campuses, etc. The White House has been far harder on our Israel than on the terrorist group Hamas and their Iranian sponsors.
I might not disagree with you on every point here if we were to get specific, but past discussions have me reticent to accept that we would assess every case in the same way. For instance I'm harder on Israel than I am on Hamas in the sense that I have actual expectations of Israel, where I do not expect to find enough compatible values with Hamas for such expectations to be particularly meaningful to discuss usually. I have found that you don't take too kindly to that attitude.
I think the secular, liberal Jews, who can't get over their preoccupation with antisemitism on the right are going to be in for a rude awakening.
Ha, yeah again we probably agree on this conclusion, but the walk we take to get there is quite different. There are lots of people lying to themselves about racism or if I'm being generous they are deluding themselves or if I'm being overly generous they have been convinced of a definition of racism that allows them to think themselves precluded. I have no expectation of a reckoning of self reflection though, because at the end of the day racism is too attractive and useful of short circuit to the kinds of conclusions that people want to draw for one reason or another. Sadly the Jews are like the duct tape of racism, who's at the heart of this weird far-right conspiracy? But also Who's pulling the strings of this far left conspiracy? Like how is it possible that diametrically opposed ideologies could all lead back to the Jews? Well, I mean I guess you guys could actually be behind everything...or there are supernatural forces at play...or like other racisms, Jews are a way to not address the real problem, the thing that is the hardest...being a better person.
-
I'm also not saying that Hamas is full of super geniuses either, its just that figuring out how to exploit or create these opportunities in these areas is kind of the whole terrorist /guerilla ethos.
This assumes that it's America's problem to fix. Why not let the IDF just have at it?
The only real, permanent fix, is regime change in Iran.
You know, its funny, a few days before the hostages were murdered, I came back to this site to read back over some of our threads (and others). I was searching for something that I had been thinking about for the last month or 2, but I had been avoiding it as it didn't seem like putting in a bunch of time re-reading threads would net me anything beneficial.
Okay, I say that to say, I think that this is a much more honest assertion about what would be a 'permanent fix' than wiping Hamas from Israel ever was. Of course I do think that even this fails to acknowledge that the problems are actually broader even than Iran, but at least it acknowledges that anything short of this is just mowing the lawn at best.
But, okay regime change in Iran, how does that happen, what is the character of the regime they're changing to, and what effect do you expect that to have permanently? I'm not asking you for a detailed analysis or anything, neither of us are experts here, I'm speaking very broad strokes here, I just want an idea of what you think would broadly go down in the best case scenario...what does that all look like.
-
You make some interesting, and arguably valid points here.
It is tricky to help the civilians without helping the terrorists. Historically it seems when western nations offer help intended for civilians it ends up in the hands of people for whom it was not intended - whether it be Hamas taking the humanitarian aid now or the African governments in the 1980s demanding import duties on humanitarian aid for their people. It suggests that western governments aren't very good at targeting aid at all, which maybe might be an early point to be addressed before sending ever-more of it out there.
I do not know how bad things were in the 80's or how pervasive the issues were, but I think that what is more important is whether or not it would be accurate to use the failures that occurred in the 80's as a critique of current implementations. It only works if the same conditions for those failures exist in current scenarios and if the same mitigation strategies, tactics and mechanisms are currently being employed (or not employed). I cannot say that is the case, but perhaps you believe that this is the case. If that is your position I would only ask that you provide your reasoning, or ideally some sort of mechanism for me to asses your statements more thoroughly.
Having worked with a couple of government departments over the years the levels of waste are terrifying. During my school days my school did very well out of a government laboratory that had a tendency to throw away scientific equipment that was apparently perfectly serviceable but they bought too much. It was a matter of fortune that one of the staff in the lab had connections to the school or it would have literally gone in the trash. One might wonder why they bought so much more than they needed, or why they couldn't keep things that were expendable (glassware etc) but apparently that's not how it worked. It had to be thrown away.
Later on I worked for a company providing contract services to a government department and the amount of money we soaked up from them because they had to spend it on something, anything, was remarkable. For good measure we'd soak up a load of money they apparently had to spend in a hurry to do a pilot study, then once the pilot was done we had a basis for doing further work that cost them more.
It's entirely possible that there are checks and balances now that didn't exist then. But given the common theme is government I highly doubt it, and given how much extra the government spends now compared to then I find it hard to believe that they suddenly learned to do things efficiently. It's easy to spend someone else's money.
If humanitarian aid helped the civilians and provided a very modest side benefit to a few of the terrorists that might be considered acceptable. I guess it would be the reverse of collateral damage in a way. The question is how much of it goes to civilians, and how much of what goes to civilians ends up offering as much benefit to Hamas as it does to the civilians. If the people need provisions and ordinarily Hamas would be responsible to supply them, us supplying them saves Hamas from doing so, freeing up more money for them to spend on weapons. So the humanitarian aid we send in might as well be a bunch of guns and rockets shipped directly to Hamas.
I mean, of course that is the question, but it seemed to me that you were asserting that billions of $$$ in aid were being supplied to Hamas more or less directly because there were no checks and balances in place. What is the basis of that assertion?
I do think it is interesting to consider whether or not Hamas feels any responsibility for basic needs of their human shields, and if they expend any resources on supplying those needs, and if they are even remotely equipped to meet them. I do not have a lot of solid personal research to found my opinion on, but i'd speculate that the answer is more or less 'no' to all of those things.
Not so much an assertion that money was handed directly to Hamas although given the general lack of checks and balances I've experienced from what I've seen of government spending it wouldn't surprise me at all if our end of the arrangement is little more complex than "give lots of money" and the other end of the arrangement was that a non-trivial portion of that money ended up misused. Which leads on to....
I can't say that I agree that the humanitarian aid in the scenario you've described is akin to shipping guns and rockets shipped directly to Hamas. It is like sending or at least maintaining bodies, bodies, bodies. I can give you that some of those bodies will use guns and bombs and such. Alot of them will just be there muddying the political and literal battlefield for the side that at least makes some token and some real attempts to avoid massacring non-combatants.
If you have a notional government that has the usual governmental responsibilities for looking after the people, any money given to them to help look after the people frees up other money to buy guns. It's a somewhat crude analogy but if you think of the rather stereotyped welfare leech (the kind who can't afford food for their kids but can afford cigarettes and alcohol), giving them money so they can feed their kids is great in theory - nobody wants to see innocent children starve - but it doesn't help much if that money ends up being spent on more cigarettes and more alcohol. You can mix-and-match any financially irresponsible person - I've known people who couldn't afford to fix their roof but could afford to buy a brand new car, people who couldn't afford $100 to learn a new skill but could go through a $50 case of beer literally every week, people who couldn't afford to settle their outstanding bills but could afford endless junk food and so on.
I think that there lies the rub, Of course providing no aid whatsoever has its set of advantages, but in any realistic evaluation you then must admit that it also has its disadvantages. Personally, I tend to think that if humanitarian aid during an armed conflict was easy to choose and easy to do then everyone would do it. It is in every way above and beyond, and it has its costs, not just the 'I had to get up early' kind, but real difficult existential costs. I thought that at the heart of it, this is why we hold ourselves as exceptional for choosing to do so.
There are advantages and disadvantages to most situations. It's just that some disadvantages involve making it easier for enemies to shoot at allies.
Air drops are the kind of thing that create all sorts of problems. I forget which African nation it was that received airdropped aid during my teenage years, but it seemed whatever was done caused complaints. If it was dropped in populated areas the people complained that it was landing on stuff and damaging it. If it was dropped away from populated areas they complained they couldn't get to it before other people took it all. Sometimes you can't win even when you are handing out free stuff.
I mean, I'm not mad at anybody who is pissed that an airdrop crushed their cow or god forbit their wife. Air drops have their place, but like anything else, it's not always the right tool for the job. I think they are oft overused because the public likes that image of a bunch of sad dusty people dancing like dervishes upon seeing those boxes drop down from the sky. They are also one of the easier things to pull off, especially with modern logistics and tech. all I'm saying is that complaining that you can't win with it is a bit like complaining that people are mad at you because the only cutting tool you ever use is a jigsaw....its great for plywood, but it was a hell of a way to ruin the cake at my 6th birthday party.
[/quote]
... which leads into another issue, when trying to get aid into politically unstable areas. If you airdrop it you can drop it more or less where it's needed, but then people complain that either it lands too near and causes harm, or lands too far and they can't get to it. If you take it in some other way (trucks, trains etc) it's vulnerable to being raided by local warlords or even the national armed forces if they are short on supplies. Which goes right back to the issue of whether there's any point sending food for the people if it's going to end up feeding the warring factions so the battle can go on longer and cause more humanitarian suffering.
-
Having worked with a couple of government departments over the years the levels of waste are terrifying. During my school days my school did very well out of a government laboratory that had a tendency to throw away scientific equipment that was apparently perfectly serviceable but they bought too much. It was a matter of fortune that one of the staff in the lab had connections to the school or it would have literally gone in the trash. One might wonder why they bought so much more than they needed, or why they couldn't keep things that were expendable (glassware etc) but apparently that's not how it worked. It had to be thrown away.
Later on I worked for a company providing contract services to a government department and the amount of money we soaked up from them because they had to spend it on something, anything, was remarkable. For good measure we'd soak up a load of money they apparently had to spend in a hurry to do a pilot study, then once the pilot was done we had a basis for doing further work that cost them more.
It's entirely possible that there are checks and balances now that didn't exist then. But given the common theme is government I highly doubt it, and given how much extra the government spends now compared to then I find it hard to believe that they suddenly learned to do things efficiently. It's easy to spend someone else's money.
Well, yep if all of that went down just as you've described here, then it certainly sounds like a textbook example of government waste. I should point out that that did not clarify anything about the humanitarian aid waste from the 80's that you were referencing. I guess the difficulty I'm having is that while you have plenty of experiences, and what I presume are circumstances of African aid mishandling that you remember reading about from the 80's...but what I'm not getting is any impression that you have done anything to find out if things are still the same as the things you remember. I understand your skepticism, of course, no person in their right mind doubts government waste here in the US, but why not make some effort to find out what exactly is going down with humanitarian aid today, how it actually works and how that compares to the 80's situation...and if the 80's were actually as you remember them?
Not so much an assertion that money was handed directly to Hamas although given the general lack of checks and balances I've experienced from what I've seen of government spending it wouldn't surprise me at all if our end of the arrangement is little more complex than "give lots of money" and the other end of the arrangement was that a non-trivial portion of that money ended up misused. Which leads on to....
Implications\assertions, tomato\potato lets call the whole thing a notion based on a lack of trust in the aid efficacy of our government, the UN and international aid organizations based on your assessment of your personal experiences and the news and such that you have consumed over the years. Still, would I be off base in asserting that you are happy to claim that the problem in the 80's was that there were no checks and balances, and that this same lack of checks and balances exist today, without actually doing anything to verify that that was and still continues to be that state of affairs?
I mean, when I imagine something simple like how aid workers might have been able to communicate the conditions on the ground in the 80's, it is quite different than it is now...I imagine. Like, in 1986, what means were there to communicate with other aid teams in the area or with HQ? If you were set upon child soldiers or whatever, cutting off communication could have looked quite a bit different, perhaps simpler in the 80's...I mean, these are just the sorts of things that stir my imagination. I also wonder if aid organizations not only took advantage of the, well, advantages of living in 2024, but learned anything themselves in the intervening decades. The government may think waste is yummy, but who are these weirdos who actually put on a reflective vest and a hardhat (i'm imagining that's what aid workers wear, because its fun) and get airdropped directly onto people's goat farms (also I imagine that is how they arrive because, fun) to actually organize and deploy the actual aid...Have they made a single change in how they operate since the 80's? It seems like it would be in their best interest to do so, that is if they are actually there because they actually want to provide aid, and not secretly just want to help the enemy keep doing enemy stuff. These are the sorts of things I might investigate if I were so inclined, but that is just me I suppose. Like how does aid even work? Well, anyway I'm just thinking out loud.
If you have a notional government that has the usual governmental responsibilities for looking after the people, any money given to them to help look after the people frees up other money to buy guns. It's a somewhat crude analogy but if you think of the rather stereotyped welfare leech (the kind who can't afford food for their kids but can afford cigarettes and alcohol), giving them money so they can feed their kids is great in theory - nobody wants to see innocent children starve - but it doesn't help much if that money ends up being spent on more cigarettes and more alcohol. You can mix-and-match any financially irresponsible person - I've known people who couldn't afford to fix their roof but could afford to buy a brand new car, people who couldn't afford $100 to learn a new skill but could go through a $50 case of beer literally every week, people who couldn't afford to settle their outstanding bills but could afford endless junk food and so on.
Hmm. I um, so what exactly is it that you are asserting here? Like are you saying that humanitarian aid lacked checks and balances in the 80's and that made aid a bad even counterproductive endeavor back then, and today in 2024 the exact same lack of checks and balances that were the fundamental flaw in our aid operations still exist unchanged since the 80's? I find it informative that you chose the classic 80's welfare cheat as your touchstone. I believe some wiseguy once said "the frauds and cheats will always be with us, because there aren't any checks and balances in place. H.R -230.7.2 B". Okay, that was a little bit of waggery, but it is one thing to say that we are being absolutely negligent in our humanitarian aid efforts and have made no moves to rectify this negligence in the last 4 decades, and something else entirely to concede that humanitarian aid is intrinsically susceptible to fraud and misuse. I can give you the latter, but the former just seems to be a things you're saying because...well, how else to put this....the 80's seem to have damaged your faith in humanity...or at least humanitarian aid. So, I ask again, what is it that you have seen in, idk, this century regarding humanitarian aid operations that makes you so sure that at least in this regard we are still living in the 80's? have you even checked?
There are advantages and disadvantages to most situations. It's just that some disadvantages involve making it easier for enemies to shoot at allies.
Well, I mean, yeah, when you say it like that it exposes my point as shallow and obvious. I hope that it has been clear that I do recognize and grant that humanitarian aid is not something that you do when you are absolutely prioritizing your direct military goals, because it will in all likelihood provide some support or respite to the enemy. There are no checks and balances that would entirely eliminate this risk. It is a thing you, or we choose to do, not because it is easy, or even because it is hard, but because we consider it a greater moral imperative both because of and in spite of the predictable peril.
... which leads into another issue, when trying to get aid into politically unstable areas. If you airdrop it you can drop it more or less where it's needed, but then people complain that either it lands too near and causes harm, or lands too far and they can't get to it. If you take it in some other way (trucks, trains etc) it's vulnerable to being raided by local warlords or even the national armed forces if they are short on supplies. Which goes right back to the issue of whether there's any point sending food for the people if it's going to end up feeding the warring factions so the battle can go on longer and cause more humanitarian suffering.
Well, if you were expecting me to pretend that there were easy solutions, then I'm sorry to disappoint. My point about airdrops is simply that they are not always employed effectively. What you've done here is describe a situation where there is going to be some negative consequence to any action taken, which is realistic and much like in our personal lives it is frequently decided by asking which if any of these consequences am I willing to live with? If I'm just hip shooting here, I'd be perfectly willing to take the heat for smooshing up some guy's barn or whatever if it meant getting medical supplies to the local hospital or whatever. Again, if that guy is pissed at me about it, he has every right to be, I broke his barn.
You are a good Christian man, I'm sure you've helped people that were not appreciative in the moment, but later saw that you were doing them a solid. I'm sure you've helped people that still resent you for sticking your nose in their business. If you've done it enough times I'm sure you've made an attempt or 2 at help and it turned out that you were more hinderance than help for one reason or another. Perhaps you learned some things from those situations, maybe you became more careful, maybe took more or different steps in evaluating who you help or how you help, maybe you took some classes or whatever...but did it stop you from helping at all? would I be correct if I found some guy that didn't like the way tango 'helped' him in 1984(or some earlier period in your Christian walk), and apply any in all mistakes that you made back then as the reason you absolutely cannot be trusted today? I mean you may be exactly the same, but would it make sense for me not to verify? This too is a crude analogy, because humanitarian aid isn't just one guy, it is systems of people, technologies, philosophies and legal structures...I know folks round these parts like to keep it simple, but it is imo complex.
-
I'm not accusing you of tokenizing your own people of course, I'm just saying it's the kind of racist sleight of hand that I've found myself buying into;
You've meandered all over the place without addressing what I said.
There is antisemitism on both the left and right. But the left pretends it's only on the right, even though religiously observant Jews who are easily identifiable and far more likely to be victims vote right.
I might not disagree with you on every point here if we were to get specific, but past discussions have me reticent to accept that we would assess every case in the same way. For instance I'm harder on Israel than I am on Hamas in the sense that I have actual expectations of Israel, where I do not expect to find enough compatible values with Hamas for such expectations to be particularly meaningful to discuss usually. I have found that you don't take too kindly to that attitude.
Gee, why wouldn't I take kindly to that attitude?
The individuals I named above don't hold Israel to a "higher standard". They accuse Israel of committing the very crimes that Hamas does, all while ignoring what Hamas does. This bothers me. It should bother everyone.
Sadly the Jews are like the duct tape of racism, who's at the heart of this weird far-right conspiracy? But also Who's pulling the strings of this far left conspiracy? Like how is it possible that diametrically opposed ideologies could all lead back to the Jews?
I dunno, because racists can be anywhere on the political spectrum?
-
But, okay regime change in Iran, how does that happen,
I'll tell you how it doesn't happen. You don't issue a ten billion dollar sanctions waiver every six months, even after Iran funded the largest mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust.
what is the character of the regime they're changing to, and what effect do you expect that to have permanently? I'm not asking you for a detailed analysis or anything, neither of us are experts here, I'm speaking very broad strokes here, I just want an idea of what you think would broadly go down in the best case scenario...what does that all look like.
The Iranian people are pro west, pro democracy, and I believe, pro Israel. If the government run by the Islamic fundamentalists were to collapse, I believe that the elections held afterwards would produce a vibrant and free society that will be a benefit the whole world.
-
You've meandered all over the place without addressing what I said.
There is antisemitism on both the left and right. But the left pretends it's only on the right, even though religiously observant Jews who are easily identifiable and far more likely to be victims vote right.
And many on the right will pretend that its only on the left. I took your example about religiously observant Jews voting right was an explicit assertion that the right doesn't have an antisemitism problem. I pointed out that that was a poor proof and something that some people use to tokenize both of our peoples while simultaneously harboring hatred or at least apathy toward them.
If you are saying that there are anti-Semitism problems on both the right and the left then I wholeheartedly agree with you, but it seemed to me that you were attempting to dismiss the existence of a antisemitism problem on the right by pointing to the voting patterns of visibly Jewish people. If that isn't what you were doing then, okay, but I do not know what it is that you were actually trying to get across to me. Its not as bad on the right?
Gee, why wouldn't I take kindly to that attitude?
The individuals I named above don't hold Israel to a "higher standard". They accuse Israel of committing the very crimes that Hamas does, all while ignoring what Hamas does. This bothers me. It should bother everyone.
I might accuse Israel of committing crimes too, or at the very least I might argue that there are cases of gross maltreatment of the Palestinian people (I'm not an international crime doctor). I have criticisms of Israel, and I do not disagree with every criticism from the people you've listed. Do I and anyone else have to preface any criticism with "before I start Hamas is the worst"? That is rhetorical, I know you don't want anything so silly, but I genuinely don't know how I can criticize Israel without upsetting you. Is the opinion that Israel (as a country, not down to a man or anything) has wronged the Palestinian people in any way without it being considered anti-Semitic or even anti-Israel by you? If that is a possibility then I can attempt to put some margins around my statements so that we can actually talk about this without causing the usual animus between us, if you can tell me what you need.
I dunno, because racists can be anywhere on the political spectrum?
We are in agreement that racism crosses isles far more easily and frequently than our government does. This does make me wonder then, what was your point about religiously observant Jew votes meant to imply or assert about racism/antisemitism on the right?
-
Well, yep if all of that went down just as you've described here, then it certainly sounds like a textbook example of government waste. I should point out that that did not clarify anything about the humanitarian aid waste from the 80's that you were referencing. I guess the difficulty I'm having is that while you have plenty of experiences, and what I presume are circumstances of African aid mishandling that you remember reading about from the 80's...but what I'm not getting is any impression that you have done anything to find out if things are still the same as the things you remember. I understand your skepticism, of course, no person in their right mind doubts government waste here in the US, but why not make some effort to find out what exactly is going down with humanitarian aid today, how it actually works and how that compares to the 80's situation...and if the 80's were actually as you remember them?
I'm not sure what you're asking for here. I've seen government waste firsthand, I've seen evidence of government waste just about everywhere I've seen government, but you seem to be asking me to seek out evidence of government waste?
Implications\assertions, tomato\potato lets call the whole thing a notion based on a lack of trust in the aid efficacy of our government, the UN and international aid organizations based on your assessment of your personal experiences and the news and such that you have consumed over the years. Still, would I be off base in asserting that you are happy to claim that the problem in the 80's was that there were no checks and balances, and that this same lack of checks and balances exist today, without actually doing anything to verify that that was and still continues to be that state of affairs?
If you're asking whether I've got some inside view to the workings of government to verify that things are no better now then I'll openly say I don't. What I do see is that we pay ever-more in tax and get ever less in useful spending from government, so it's pretty easy to see that overall governments are getting more wasteful. Given government waste is observable just about everywhere government can be observed it would be remarkable if foreign aid were some shining bastion of efficiency and targeting in the midst of a quagmire of ever-rising waste. But if you're asserting that it's possible, I suppose it is. It just doesn't seem very likely.
I mean, when I imagine something simple like how aid workers might have been able to communicate the conditions on the ground in the 80's, it is quite different than it is now...I imagine. Like, in 1986, what means were there to communicate with other aid teams in the area or with HQ? If you were set upon child soldiers or whatever, cutting off communication could have looked quite a bit different, perhaps simpler in the 80's...I mean, these are just the sorts of things that stir my imagination. I also wonder if aid organizations not only took advantage of the, well, advantages of living in 2024, but learned anything themselves in the intervening decades. The government may think waste is yummy, but who are these weirdos who actually put on a reflective vest and a hardhat (i'm imagining that's what aid workers wear, because its fun) and get airdropped directly onto people's goat farms (also I imagine that is how they arrive because, fun) to actually organize and deploy the actual aid...Have they made a single change in how they operate since the 80's? It seems like it would be in their best interest to do so, that is if they are actually there because they actually want to provide aid, and not secretly just want to help the enemy keep doing enemy stuff. These are the sorts of things I might investigate if I were so inclined, but that is just me I suppose. Like how does aid even work? Well, anyway I'm just thinking out loud.
Aid seems to take many forms. Some of it is about feeding starving people. Some of it is about a tax write off. I remember (yes, I know, we're back to memories) back in the 1980s when for some reason national governments felt that they had to offer aid to starving African nations, and ended up paying import duties to be allowed to ship the food to the starving people. But when private individuals got involved they didn't play that game and simply offered the aid to a different country.
And of course some of it seems to be about offering money to countries who then appoint well connected individuals to the boards of particular companies and pay them remarkably high salaries for apparently not doing very much at all, which naturally wouldn't have anything to do with turning public money into private profit. Because, you know, foreign oil and gas companies frequently hire those who have no experience with oil and gas and don't speak the language. Happens all the time.
Hmm. I um, so what exactly is it that you are asserting here? Like are you saying that humanitarian aid lacked checks and balances in the 80's and that made aid a bad even counterproductive endeavor back then, and today in 2024 the exact same lack of checks and balances that were the fundamental flaw in our aid operations still exist unchanged since the 80's? I find it informative that you chose the classic 80's welfare cheat as your touchstone. I believe some wiseguy once said "the frauds and cheats will always be with us, because there aren't any checks and balances in place. H.R -230.7.2 B". Okay, that was a little bit of waggery, but it is one thing to say that we are being absolutely negligent in our humanitarian aid efforts and have made no moves to rectify this negligence in the last 4 decades, and something else entirely to concede that humanitarian aid is intrinsically susceptible to fraud and misuse. I can give you the latter, but the former just seems to be a things you're saying because...well, how else to put this....the 80's seem to have damaged your faith in humanity...or at least humanitarian aid. So, I ask again, what is it that you have seen in, idk, this century regarding humanitarian aid operations that makes you so sure that at least in this regard we are still living in the 80's? have you even checked?
Do you believe government is any more efficient now than it was 20, 30, 40 years ago? On what basis would you argue that government has reduced waste? Are there fewer welfare cheats now than then, when more benefits are available? Is there less waste in government departments than there was then? If you want to believe that then go ahead, but I'd love to know why government spending keeps rising and we, the longsuffering serfs who fund it all, get ever less for our taxes.
Well, I mean, yeah, when you say it like that it exposes my point as shallow and obvious. I hope that it has been clear that I do recognize and grant that humanitarian aid is not something that you do when you are absolutely prioritizing your direct military goals, because it will in all likelihood provide some support or respite to the enemy. There are no checks and balances that would entirely eliminate this risk. It is a thing you, or we choose to do, not because it is easy, or even because it is hard, but because we consider it a greater moral imperative both because of and in spite of the predictable peril.
... and it makes sense to be very deliberate in targeting aid to make sure we're not providing comfort to our own enemies in a war zone, no? In a war zone if you feed and arm your enemy during the war it just makes it more likely the war will drag on longer, resulting in more civilian suffering.
Well, if you were expecting me to pretend that there were easy solutions, then I'm sorry to disappoint. My point about airdrops is simply that they are not always employed effectively. What you've done here is describe a situation where there is going to be some negative consequence to any action taken, which is realistic and much like in our personal lives it is frequently decided by asking which if any of these consequences am I willing to live with? If I'm just hip shooting here, I'd be perfectly willing to take the heat for smooshing up some guy's barn or whatever if it meant getting medical supplies to the local hospital or whatever. Again, if that guy is pissed at me about it, he has every right to be, I broke his barn.
Sooner or later it comes back to a simple question of whether people want help or not. We've got two different concepts here, one is general help to a nation that is suffering famine/crop failure/other disaster that causes widespread suffering while the other is a war zone in which we want to reduce civilian suffering but don't want to support the enemy. It's really hard to work with people who expect to dictate what aid is delivered, where it's dropped off and how it's dropped, especially when no combination of the above ends up working for them.
You are a good Christian man, I'm sure you've helped people that were not appreciative in the moment, but later saw that you were doing them a solid. I'm sure you've helped people that still resent you for sticking your nose in their business. If you've done it enough times I'm sure you've made an attempt or 2 at help and it turned out that you were more hinderance than help for one reason or another. Perhaps you learned some things from those situations, maybe you became more careful, maybe took more or different steps in evaluating who you help or how you help, maybe you took some classes or whatever...but did it stop you from helping at all? would I be correct if I found some guy that didn't like the way tango 'helped' him in 1984(or some earlier period in your Christian walk), and apply any in all mistakes that you made back then as the reason you absolutely cannot be trusted today? I mean you may be exactly the same, but would it make sense for me not to verify? This too is a crude analogy, because humanitarian aid isn't just one guy, it is systems of people, technologies, philosophies and legal structures...I know folks round these parts like to keep it simple, but it is imo complex.
I'm not sure quite what you're saying here but I'll take a shot at addressing it.
If I try to help someone who gets resentful about it then sooner or later I'll stop helping them. If I try to help and get ignored I'll stop helping. I won't necessarily try to stop helping other people.
If I tried to help someone and ended up doing more harm than good maybe I'd learn from that. If I gave a drug addict some money so he could pay his utility bills and not be left without power and water, and he decided to buy drugs and overdosed, maybe I'd be more careful handing out cash to addicts in the future. But flip the situation around, if I had persuaded you to give me money so I could help the addicts, and you found out that a recurring theme was that I gave money to an addict who used it to buy more drugs and died of an overdose, at what point would you stop handing me money to continue with my failed mission?
The difference with government is that we don't have the option to stop handing them money to continue with their failed missions.
-
I'll tell you how it doesn't happen. You don't issue a ten billion dollar sanctions waiver every six months, even after Iran funded the largest mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust.
Okay. Fair dinkum.
I feel that last time we spoke on this issue, you were pretty adamant that destroying Hamas in Israel could be effective and could be accomplished without involving any other powers/ organizations /governments in the region. Have you evolved on this issue? Is the solution now, in your mind to wipe out Hamas in Israel and regime change in Iran? Is that the full extent of it, and do you expect any knock on effects or potentially other parties getting involved? I may be misremembering your position, if so I'm sorry, but either way some clarity on what you think today.
The Iranian people are pro west, pro democracy, and I believe, pro Israel. If the government run by the Islamic fundamentalists were to collapse, I believe that the elections held afterwards would produce a vibrant and free society that will be a benefit the whole world.
Right on, so, does this involve a military occupation or something? Like okay, the way you've presented it it seems like you think that the IDF can just do this, but that the US or maybe NATO is holding them back from this thing they can totally do and will definitely work.
Like yes, if the regime collapsed in Iran, and the people were able to hold elections and they voted in non-fundamentalist or god forbid even a secular government in then that could be nice, but why do you think that is a thing that the IDF could just do if it weren't for the US or whatever? or do you think that? can you just elaborate, please?
-
I feel that last time we spoke on this issue, you were pretty adamant that destroying Hamas in Israel could be effective and could be accomplished without involving any other powers/ organizations /governments in the region. Have you evolved on this issue?
I said "destroying Hamas in Gaza", not Israe. And it's well on its way to completion. Regime change in Iran is beyond Israel's capabilities, and realistically, it should be a mission adopted by the free world. Alas, they would rather break bread with the religious fundamentalists running that country than work on ousting them from power.
Right on, so, does this involve a military occupation or something?
It involves at a minimum applying political and economic pressure. Which is not happening.
Like yes, if the regime collapsed in Iran, and the people were able to hold elections and they voted in non-fundamentalist or god forbid even a secular government in then that could be nice, but why do you think that is a thing that the IDF could just do if it weren't for the US or whatever? or do you think that? can you just elaborate, please?
I have no idea why you think I said anything like this. I never did. This is one of those time when you just run your keyboard and send out a stream of consciousness rather than well formed ideas.
Israel is a very small country, with 9.5 million citizens. Iran has 88 million citizens.
Israel is 8,550 sq miles, Iran is 636,372 sq miles.
Iran is a menace not just to Israel but to the middle east and the free world. It would be nice if some country in the rest of the world took care of trouble, for a change.
-
Iran is a menace not just to Israel but to the middle east and the free world. It would be nice if some country in the rest of the world took care of trouble, for a change.
I hear the Taliban came into possession of some fairly advanced weaponry in the last few years. Maybe they could do it.
-
I'm not sure what you're asking for here. I've seen government waste firsthand, I've seen evidence of government waste just about everywhere I've seen government, but you seem to be asking me to seek out evidence of government waste?
I was asking you specifically about what failures of checks and balances you are aware of or referring to regarding Aid in Gaza during the current conflict. I mean, I get the impression that you have no examples and you distrust the government to make sufficient efforts to mitigate fraud, theft and waste and you feel no need to verify any specific claims about what is currently happening because you believe that fundamentally the government is broken so any and all efforts made by it are doomed to fail?
If you're asking whether I've got some inside view to the workings of government to verify that things are no better now then I'll openly say I don't. What I do see is that we pay ever-more in tax and get ever less in useful spending from government, so it's pretty easy to see that overall governments are getting more wasteful. Given government waste is observable just about everywhere government can be observed it would be remarkable if foreign aid were some shining bastion of efficiency and targeting in the midst of a quagmire of ever-rising waste. But if you're asserting that it's possible, I suppose it is. It just doesn't seem very likely.
No, not an inside view. I'm asking if you have made any efforts to specifically discover what issues were faced in delivering aid to African nations in the 80's and what the causes of those failures were? Then have you made any efforts to discover how aid is done in 2024 and what issues they face today, and how they fail? Then have you made any attempt to compare and contrast that information to determine if in fact a failure of checks and balances is an accurate description of the failures and if there has been no meaningful change in the last 40 years. For me this would be the bare minimum that I would need to have any confidence in an assertion like yours (not saying I wouldn't argue without it, but that is just me bickering for sport)
Aid seems to take many forms. Some of it is about feeding starving people. Some of it is about a tax write off. I remember (yes, I know, we're back to memories) back in the 1980s when for some reason national governments felt that they had to offer aid to starving African nations, and ended up paying import duties to be allowed to ship the food to the starving people. But when private individuals got involved they didn't play that game and simply offered the aid to a different country.
And of course some of it seems to be about offering money to countries who then appoint well connected individuals to the boards of particular companies and pay them remarkably high salaries for apparently not doing very much at all, which naturally wouldn't have anything to do with turning public money into private profit. Because, you know, foreign oil and gas companies frequently hire those who have no experience with oil and gas and don't speak the language. Happens all the time.
I think that is a good point, there are many forms of aid and unfortunately many forms of fraud and profligacy. This specifically is not a point of conflict for us, I more or less wanted to know if the entire basis of your assertion was...well all the stuff you put forth, or if you had some current examples of failures and if you could connect them with all the stuff about the 80's in a manner that supported your assertion outside of what you've asserted about nothing having changed. It boils down to the question of whether or not you did any investigation at all, and if so what?
Do you believe government is any more efficient now than it was 20, 30, 40 years ago? On what basis would you argue that government has reduced waste? Are there fewer welfare cheats now than then, when more benefits are available? Is there less waste in government departments than there was then? If you want to believe that then go ahead, but I'd love to know why government spending keeps rising and we, the longsuffering serfs who fund it all, get ever less for our taxes.
Yes in some ways it is, sometimes. The DMV now, vs the DMV when I was a teenager first getting my license is like night and day....or at least night and dawn. There are probably way's that you could measure it that would give you any answer you want, are we talking waste per dollar, waste as a fraction of GDP, waste adjusted for inflation...and so on. Though you won't catch me arguing that the government is overall more efficient than it was in 198X, because like, yeah probably not. I think the issue here is that I'm asking you about something specific, and your example is general. I thought that you were making a specific claim, but i'm beginning to believe that you don't actually care about any specific claim, you just kind of think the government stinks (I don't blame you, but it isn't what I'm doing).....
buuuuuut, This response took so long because I did a lot of research to talk about welfare, but ultimately I decided that writing 20 pages about why I believe that you are at times blatantly wrong, and at times mischaracterizing the state of affairs might not be something that you were actually interested in engaging with. Can you honestly say you want to invest time in having the actual conversation/debate?...or do you already know that the state of welfare...or the welfare state is precisely how and what you think it is? Its fine if you want to keep it to the stuff you saw in the 80's, what you read in passing , and who you saw do some petty fraud at the grocery store...but i'm not interested in that, your personal expirience is unassailable, at least by me it is. There is no evidence that I could access that will change what you remember happening, all I can do is talk about what is proven, what is studied, what statistical information has been collected. I grew up on welfare for years, I could talk about the overwhelming number of honest welfare recipients that I knew, but honestly what does that do, You know there are honest people, and I know there are frauds.... I'd like to talk about the the giant of welfare, not either of our personal impressions of it.
... and it makes sense to be very deliberate in targeting aid to make sure we're not providing comfort to our own enemies in a war zone, no? In a war zone if you feed and arm your enemy during the war it just makes it more likely the war will drag on longer, resulting in more civilian suffering.
to me this is a specific claim, this whole discussion could be boiled down to this:
Tango: Aid in Palestine today is not deliberately targeted in such a way as to prevent providing aid to Hamas.
Me: Why do you say that?
Tango: Because that's what happened in the 80's
Me: Are you sure?
Tango: Yes, I personally saw the government throw away a perfectly good Erlenmeyer flasks and a whole vacuum distillation apparatus.
Me: But how do you know that nothing has changed with humanitarian aid.
Tango: Because the government is involved.
Again, I'm being absurd, but I really don't believe that we are trying to get at the same thing.
If you feel made fun of by this, its not my intention, but a genuine distillation of my impression of your position, so I'm not going to insult you are myself with an apology either. Instead of taking it personally if that is how you are feeling, please elucidate the nuance of your position that I'm missing.
Sooner or later it comes back to a simple question of whether people want help or not. We've got two different concepts here, one is general help to a nation that is suffering famine/crop failure/other disaster that causes widespread suffering while the other is a war zone in which we want to reduce civilian suffering but don't want to support the enemy. It's really hard to work with people who expect to dictate what aid is delivered, where it's dropped off and how it's dropped, especially when no combination of the above ends up working for them.
so, we're agreeing?
I'm not sure quite what you're saying here but I'll take a shot at addressing it.
If I try to help someone who gets resentful about it then sooner or later I'll stop helping them. If I try to help and get ignored I'll stop helping. I won't necessarily try to stop helping other people.
If I tried to help someone and ended up doing more harm than good maybe I'd learn from that. If I gave a drug addict some money so he could pay his utility bills and not be left without power and water, and he decided to buy drugs and overdosed, maybe I'd be more careful handing out cash to addicts in the future. But flip the situation around, if I had persuaded you to give me money so I could help the addicts, and you found out that a recurring theme was that I gave money to an addict who used it to buy more drugs and died of an overdose, at what point would you stop handing me money to continue with my failed mission?
The difference with government is that we don't have the option to stop handing them money to continue with their failed missions.
I think we understood each other here. I was just attempting to get you to think about your failures and successes and your own growth, and why it would not be fair to you to claim that mistakes you made in humanitarian endeavors are reflective of your current ability.
Overall, My only point of contention is in the idea that the humanitarian aid in Palestine is a hopeless and failed mission. Your only rationale for that seems to be that 'they' have failed before, so you see no reason why it would be any different without pointing to any specific failures.
-
I said "destroying Hamas in Gaza", not Israe. And it's well on its way to completion. Regime change in Iran is beyond Israel's capabilities, and realistically, it should be a mission adopted by the free world. Alas, they would rather break bread with the religious fundamentalists running that country than work on ousting them from power.
I suppose, but do you believe that this is some kind of long term solution and that this project to destroy Hamas in Gaza carries with it a significant chance of bringing in other regional powers, particularly Islamic. I mean, again I may be misremembering, but I felt like my position was that it is essentially a Sisyphean task as not only will the measures taken to 'eliminate' Hamas generate new radicals or those susceptible to radicalization, but that the surrounding powers will likely involve themselves in myriad ways making the eradication at best a temporary relocation/rebuilding phase...That is if Israel's plans essentially end at eradicating Hamas and does not address the underlying issues (at least the ones that are within their purview to effect). So, do you currently disagree with any of that?
Right on, so, does this involve a military occupation or something?
It involves at a minimum applying political and economic pressure. Which is not happening.
Like yes, if the regime collapsed in Iran, and the people were able to hold elections and they voted in non-fundamentalist or god forbid even a secular government in then that could be nice, but why do you think that is a thing that the IDF could just do if it weren't for the US or whatever? or do you think that? can you just elaborate, please?
I have no idea why you think I said anything like this. I never did. This is one of those time when you just run your keyboard and send out a stream of consciousness rather than well formed ideas.
Ah, yes. I wrote a thing that wasn't clear and articulate. thank you for pointing that out to me I will try to be more clear.
Israel is a very small country, with 9.5 million citizens. Iran has 88 million citizens.
Israel is 8,550 sq miles, Iran is 636,372 sq miles.
Iran is a menace not just to Israel but to the middle east and the free world. It would be nice if some country in the rest of the world took care of trouble, for a change.
Okay, I got the impression that you were saying that the US or NATO or whoever was holding back Israel from doing this because a few posts ago you wrote:
This assumes that it's America's problem to fix. Why not let the IDF just have at it?
The only real, permanent fix, is regime change in Iran.
So hopefully you can see how I got confused and thought that you believed that the IDF could affect a regime change in Iran.
For the sake of clarity , could you please lay out what 'problem' the IDF can 'have at' that will not involve the US and require nothing of us? I'm genuinely befuddled.
-
I suppose, but do you believe that this is some kind of long term solution and that this project to destroy Hamas in Gaza carries with it a significant chance of bringing in other regional powers, particularly Islamic.
Do these regional powers have a name?
Are they already involved?
That is if Israel's plans essentially end at eradicating Hamas and does not address the underlying issues
What underlying issues?
For the sake of clarity , could you please lay out what 'problem' the IDF can 'have at' that will not involve the US and require nothing of us? I'm genuinely befuddled.
The "have at it" was specifically about Israel destroying Hamas.
It isn't Israel's job to affect regime change in Iran, nor should it be. There's no reason why the US, EU, and American allies around the world can't collapse the Mullah regime in Iran, probably without even firing a shot.
-
I'm not sure what you're asking for here. I've seen government waste firsthand, I've seen evidence of government waste just about everywhere I've seen government, but you seem to be asking me to seek out evidence of government waste?
I was asking you specifically about what failures of checks and balances you are aware of or referring to regarding Aid in Gaza during the current conflict. I mean, I get the impression that you have no examples and you distrust the government to make sufficient efforts to mitigate fraud, theft and waste and you feel no need to verify any specific claims about what is currently happening because you believe that fundamentally the government is broken so any and all efforts made by it are doomed to fail?
I have no specifics about Gaza, I thought I'd made that clear. I do have experience of government waste (the specifics of the wasted equipment was just one such example - there are many more), and I see the trend in government to be that anything they do costs more and delivers less, so I have no reason to assume that things are better now than they were before. Maybe some specific forms of waste are reduced but I think we can be confident that other forms of waste will have appeared.
No, not an inside view. I'm asking if you have made any efforts to specifically discover what issues were faced in delivering aid to African nations in the 80's and what the causes of those failures were? Then have you made any efforts to discover how aid is done in 2024 and what issues they face today, and how they fail? Then have you made any attempt to compare and contrast that information to determine if in fact a failure of checks and balances is an accurate description of the failures and if there has been no meaningful change in the last 40 years. For me this would be the bare minimum that I would need to have any confidence in an assertion like yours (not saying I wouldn't argue without it, but that is just me bickering for sport)
The issues faced in the 80s are sufficiently long ago now I haven't felt any need to explore in any further detail. I don't know I'd even call it a failure of checks and balances because that would imply the existence of a desire for checks and balances. A part of government waste, in my experience at least, stems from a sense that the government must do something about a situation even when all it achieves is enablement.
I think that is a good point, there are many forms of aid and unfortunately many forms of fraud and profligacy. This specifically is not a point of conflict for us, I more or less wanted to know if the entire basis of your assertion was...well all the stuff you put forth, or if you had some current examples of failures and if you could connect them with all the stuff about the 80's in a manner that supported your assertion outside of what you've asserted about nothing having changed. It boils down to the question of whether or not you did any investigation at all, and if so what?
If I had a shred of faith that government now was even remotely better than government then I'd be more inclined to consider it. Generic observations lead me to conclude that government is usually the least efficient way to accomplish anything (even when government does actually accomplish anything useful).
Observations aside, when a nominal government (such as Hamas) has conflicting requirements, namely the problem that they want lots of guns and bombs to harass the pesky Joos across the border and the irritation that the Gazan people have this silly idea that they might like to, you know, eat some stuff and not die of starvation, they have to figure a balance. There is only so much money so they use some to buy guns and some to buy food. If a friendly government comes along and gives them some food for free, it frees up money to buy more guns.
Yes in some ways it is, sometimes. The DMV now, vs the DMV when I was a teenager first getting my license is like night and day....or at least night and dawn. There are probably way's that you could measure it that would give you any answer you want, are we talking waste per dollar, waste as a fraction of GDP, waste adjusted for inflation...and so on. Though you won't catch me arguing that the government is overall more efficient than it was in 198X, because like, yeah probably not. I think the issue here is that I'm asking you about something specific, and your example is general. I thought that you were making a specific claim, but i'm beginning to believe that you don't actually care about any specific claim, you just kind of think the government stinks (I don't blame you, but it isn't what I'm doing).....
Measuring waste is an inherently difficult thing to do because the people responsible for it are unlikely to cooperate with measuring it. There's also the question of how much waste is acceptable because the simple reality is that a degree of wastage is inevitable. I'll wager that most people would admit they don't necessarily eat every single piece of food they buy, or spend every single dollar efficiently, or always achieve the best possible interest rate on their savings/loans/whatever. But where we might be forgiven for overlooking a bank account paying 4.85% interest while our money is parked earning a mere 4.75%, we might be inclined to ask questions if our savings were left to languish in an account earning 0.02%.
buuuuuut, This response took so long because I did a lot of research to talk about welfare, but ultimately I decided that writing 20 pages about why I believe that you are at times blatantly wrong, and at times mischaracterizing the state of affairs might not be something that you were actually interested in engaging with. Can you honestly say you want to invest time in having the actual conversation/debate?...or do you already know that the state of welfare...or the welfare state is precisely how and what you think it is? Its fine if you want to keep it to the stuff you saw in the 80's, what you read in passing , and who you saw do some petty fraud at the grocery store...but i'm not interested in that, your personal expirience is unassailable, at least by me it is. There is no evidence that I could access that will change what you remember happening, all I can do is talk about what is proven, what is studied, what statistical information has been collected. I grew up on welfare for years, I could talk about the overwhelming number of honest welfare recipients that I knew, but honestly what does that do, You know there are honest people, and I know there are frauds.... I'd like to talk about the the giant of welfare, not either of our personal impressions of it.
Welfare is just an example of an area of government waste rather than the primary focus. I had some experience of the welfare state several years ago before I got myself into employment and it was an utter farce. My experience is that people who were trying to find work were endlessly bothered while the people fiddling the system were largely ignored. As you say there are people who are honest and genuinely trying to improve themselves, there are people who are defrauding the system, there are people who are held down by the system, and there are people who find the system provides an adequate lifestyle compared to what they might earn by working. But this isn't so much about the welfare state.
... and it makes sense to be very deliberate in targeting aid to make sure we're not providing comfort to our own enemies in a war zone, no? In a war zone if you feed and arm your enemy during the war it just makes it more likely the war will drag on longer, resulting in more civilian suffering.
to me this is a specific claim, this whole discussion could be boiled down to this:
Tango: Aid in Palestine today is not deliberately targeted in such a way as to prevent providing aid to Hamas.
Me: Why do you say that?
Tango: Because that's what happened in the 80's
Me: Are you sure?
Tango: Yes, I personally saw the government throw away a perfectly good Erlenmeyer flasks and a whole vacuum distillation apparatus.
Me: But how do you know that nothing has changed with humanitarian aid.
Tango: Because the government is involved.
Again, I'm being absurd, but I really don't believe that we are trying to get at the same thing.
If you feel made fun of by this, its not my intention, but a genuine distillation of my impression of your position, so I'm not going to insult you are myself with an apology either. Instead of taking it personally if that is how you are feeling, please elucidate the nuance of your position that I'm missing.
I think I covered this above with the section about budget line items for guns and food. Yes, that's a hideous oversimplification but if you want guns and you want food, someone giving you food means you have more money for guns. So even if we're not throwing fistfuls of C-notes out of helicopters over Gaza, it makes sense to check that food is going to civilians that need food and not to terrorists who managed to feed themselves with foreign aid and can now afford a shiny new RPG, no?
I think we understood each other here. I was just attempting to get you to think about your failures and successes and your own growth, and why it would not be fair to you to claim that mistakes you made in humanitarian endeavors are reflective of your current ability.
Overall, My only point of contention is in the idea that the humanitarian aid in Palestine is a hopeless and failed mission. Your only rationale for that seems to be that 'they' have failed before, so you see no reason why it would be any different without pointing to any specific failures.
The mistakes I made in the 1990s aren't necessarily indicative of where I am now, as long as I learned from the mistakes. The crucial thing is learning from mistakes. Does government learn from mistakes? If I refuse to learn from the mistakes I made 30 years ago and continue to make them today then the mistakes I made in the 1990s are indicative of where I am now.
-
Do these regional powers have a name?
Are they already involved?
I mean, my original contention-- as I recall it-- was that 'they' were always involved to one degree or another, but obviously Iran is more blatant these last few months...but I mean to me its not like Iran was like some big secret or some big surprise before.
But, to my question, again as I remember it, it seemed that you were asserting that wiping out Hamas was a thing that could be done without much if any consideration given to any of the other possible contributions that I mention in my post. Do I have you wrong? what are your thoughts?
What underlying issues?
Mainly I'd say the treatment of Palestine and Palestinians. Even if we just consider the change of status quo that will be the result after this war ends (if it ends in a way where this is even relevant) What Israel does will be critical, just wiping out Hamas in Gaza (again not a thing that makes a whole lot of sense as stated) isn't going to address the grievances of the Palestinian people and is as I said, tantamount to cutting the grass.
The "have at it" was specifically about Israel destroying Hamas.
It isn't Israel's job to affect regime change in Iran, nor should it be. There's no reason why the US, EU, and American allies around the world can't collapse the Mullah regime in Iran, probably without even firing a shot.
I've never toppled a regime outside of video games, but I've read about it, particularly relevant here is America's coup happy 50's. If there is one thing I would say about it, it is that the only thing more difficult than doing a successful coup/forced regime change, is getting the pieces to fall where you want them to in a way that benefits you in the long term. Many folks will argue that the first time the US toppled an Iranian regime it worked for a bit and then either directly or circuitously led to the Islamic resolution that led and fed right on into where we are today. Of course the coup wasn't the only thing, but I think it provides some context for the way I view your suggestion of regime change. That is also not to say that the hands off (somewhat deluded) approach that was taken with say 'Arab Spring' was a better way to handle it, it wasn't. I should say that the kind of influence that the west wanted to wield in 'Arab spring' wasn't possible, precisely because of the deep seated mistrust of the US/the west that was--if not engendered--solidified in the 50's coup. I think that Arab spring highlights something else too, social media and the way propaganda can be wielded with a reach and efficacy that was not available during the golden age of America's regime toppling career.
I think those points are important, because I believe that if there is even the whiff of western influences steering the destiny of Iran, not only will there be organic revulsion at that prospect, but I believe that there can be an effective propaganda campaign that can steer a regime change in a direction that is hostile to people and ideas that would facilitate the goals of the west; And that is just considering a failure mode where an engineered collapse is stable enough for those things to even matter. In my opinion it is entirely possible that it sets off a chain of events that leads to an even larger, more deadly, more untenable conflict over an even broader area involving even more interests.
Next, I have to push back on what appears to me to be your idea that Israel could somehow be emancipated from the restraining forces of the west to eliminate Hamas in Palestine without greater repercussions in the region that would directly or indirectly impact American interests. What I mean to say is that it is not unreasonable for America to postulate that if we let Israel 'have at it' that those actions might force our hand to intervene because other radical Islamic forces and/or governments will involve themselves and escalate the conflict. Even if we pretend that Israel itself is not directly relevant to American interests (it is), It matters what Israel does in this war.
Likewise attempting to somehow untether actions that the US and allies would make to change regimes in Iran from Israel is unreasonable. Israel would be critical to the success of any such operation, in expertise, in intelligence information, and in resources. Moreover it would make no sense that Israel would not want to be directly involved and have the ability to very meaningfully effect any such plan at essentially every level is not reasonable. Even if I gave you that Israel has no responsibility (they do), I cannot give you that they would not accept or take responsibility in something that so directly affects them. I don't know that it is anyone's job per se, but even if Israel isn't the construction manager, they are definitely a foreman on the job site.
So from my standpoint it seems that you are still trying to compartmentalize things that are obviously interrelated and contingent. Perhaps, Iran's regime could be toppled without a shot fired, perhaps...but it doesn't make sense from any direction to pretend that Israel wouldn't be a major pet of that. Even with Israel's involvement I wouldn't give and engineered regime change any sort of guarantee in the short term or in the long term
I hope that clarifies my thoughts somewhat. and I hope you take the time to clarify your thoughts to me.
-
I'm not sure what you're asking for here. I've seen government waste firsthand, I've seen evidence of government waste just about everywhere I've seen government, but you seem to be asking me to seek out evidence of government waste?
I was asking you specifically about what failures of checks and balances you are aware of or referring to regarding Aid in Gaza during the current conflict. I mean, I get the impression that you have no examples and you distrust the government to make sufficient efforts to mitigate fraud, theft and waste and you feel no need to verify any specific claims about what is currently happening because you believe that fundamentally the government is broken so any and all efforts made by it are doomed to fail?
I have no specifics about Gaza, I thought I'd made that clear. I do have experience of government waste (the specifics of the wasted equipment was just one such example - there are many more), and I see the trend in government to be that anything they do costs more and delivers less, so I have no reason to assume that things are better now than they were before. Maybe some specific forms of waste are reduced but I think we can be confident that other forms of waste will have appeared.
No, not an inside view. I'm asking if you have made any efforts to specifically discover what issues were faced in delivering aid to African nations in the 80's and what the causes of those failures were? Then have you made any efforts to discover how aid is done in 2024 and what issues they face today, and how they fail? Then have you made any attempt to compare and contrast that information to determine if in fact a failure of checks and balances is an accurate description of the failures and if there has been no meaningful change in the last 40 years. For me this would be the bare minimum that I would need to have any confidence in an assertion like yours (not saying I wouldn't argue without it, but that is just me bickering for sport)
The issues faced in the 80s are sufficiently long ago now I haven't felt any need to explore in any further detail. I don't know I'd even call it a failure of checks and balances because that would imply the existence of a desire for checks and balances. A part of government waste, in my experience at least, stems from a sense that the government must do something about a situation even when all it achieves is enablement.
I think that is a good point, there are many forms of aid and unfortunately many forms of fraud and profligacy. This specifically is not a point of conflict for us, I more or less wanted to know if the entire basis of your assertion was...well all the stuff you put forth, or if you had some current examples of failures and if you could connect them with all the stuff about the 80's in a manner that supported your assertion outside of what you've asserted about nothing having changed. It boils down to the question of whether or not you did any investigation at all, and if so what?
If I had a shred of faith that government now was even remotely better than government then I'd be more inclined to consider it. Generic observations lead me to conclude that government is usually the least efficient way to accomplish anything (even when government does actually accomplish anything useful).
Observations aside, when a nominal government (such as Hamas) has conflicting requirements, namely the problem that they want lots of guns and bombs to harass the pesky Joos across the border and the irritation that the Gazan people have this silly idea that they might like to, you know, eat some stuff and not die of starvation, they have to figure a balance. There is only so much money so they use some to buy guns and some to buy food. If a friendly government comes along and gives them some food for free, it frees up money to buy more guns.
Yes in some ways it is, sometimes. The DMV now, vs the DMV when I was a teenager first getting my license is like night and day....or at least night and dawn. There are probably way's that you could measure it that would give you any answer you want, are we talking waste per dollar, waste as a fraction of GDP, waste adjusted for inflation...and so on. Though you won't catch me arguing that the government is overall more efficient than it was in 198X, because like, yeah probably not. I think the issue here is that I'm asking you about something specific, and your example is general. I thought that you were making a specific claim, but i'm beginning to believe that you don't actually care about any specific claim, you just kind of think the government stinks (I don't blame you, but it isn't what I'm doing).....
Measuring waste is an inherently difficult thing to do because the people responsible for it are unlikely to cooperate with measuring it. There's also the question of how much waste is acceptable because the simple reality is that a degree of wastage is inevitable. I'll wager that most people would admit they don't necessarily eat every single piece of food they buy, or spend every single dollar efficiently, or always achieve the best possible interest rate on their savings/loans/whatever. But where we might be forgiven for overlooking a bank account paying 4.85% interest while our money is parked earning a mere 4.75%, we might be inclined to ask questions if our savings were left to languish in an account earning 0.02%.
buuuuuut, This response took so long because I did a lot of research to talk about welfare, but ultimately I decided that writing 20 pages about why I believe that you are at times blatantly wrong, and at times mischaracterizing the state of affairs might not be something that you were actually interested in engaging with. Can you honestly say you want to invest time in having the actual conversation/debate?...or do you already know that the state of welfare...or the welfare state is precisely how and what you think it is? Its fine if you want to keep it to the stuff you saw in the 80's, what you read in passing , and who you saw do some petty fraud at the grocery store...but i'm not interested in that, your personal expirience is unassailable, at least by me it is. There is no evidence that I could access that will change what you remember happening, all I can do is talk about what is proven, what is studied, what statistical information has been collected. I grew up on welfare for years, I could talk about the overwhelming number of honest welfare recipients that I knew, but honestly what does that do, You know there are honest people, and I know there are frauds.... I'd like to talk about the the giant of welfare, not either of our personal impressions of it.
Welfare is just an example of an area of government waste rather than the primary focus. I had some experience of the welfare state several years ago before I got myself into employment and it was an utter farce. My experience is that people who were trying to find work were endlessly bothered while the people fiddling the system were largely ignored. As you say there are people who are honest and genuinely trying to improve themselves, there are people who are defrauding the system, there are people who are held down by the system, and there are people who find the system provides an adequate lifestyle compared to what they might earn by working. But this isn't so much about the welfare state.
... and it makes sense to be very deliberate in targeting aid to make sure we're not providing comfort to our own enemies in a war zone, no? In a war zone if you feed and arm your enemy during the war it just makes it more likely the war will drag on longer, resulting in more civilian suffering.
to me this is a specific claim, this whole discussion could be boiled down to this:
Tango: Aid in Palestine today is not deliberately targeted in such a way as to prevent providing aid to Hamas.
Me: Why do you say that?
Tango: Because that's what happened in the 80's
Me: Are you sure?
Tango: Yes, I personally saw the government throw away a perfectly good Erlenmeyer flasks and a whole vacuum distillation apparatus.
Me: But how do you know that nothing has changed with humanitarian aid.
Tango: Because the government is involved.
Again, I'm being absurd, but I really don't believe that we are trying to get at the same thing.
If you feel made fun of by this, its not my intention, but a genuine distillation of my impression of your position, so I'm not going to insult you are myself with an apology either. Instead of taking it personally if that is how you are feeling, please elucidate the nuance of your position that I'm missing.
I think I covered this above with the section about budget line items for guns and food. Yes, that's a hideous oversimplification but if you want guns and you want food, someone giving you food means you have more money for guns. So even if we're not throwing fistfuls of C-notes out of helicopters over Gaza, it makes sense to check that food is going to civilians that need food and not to terrorists who managed to feed themselves with foreign aid and can now afford a shiny new RPG, no?
I think we understood each other here. I was just attempting to get you to think about your failures and successes and your own growth, and why it would not be fair to you to claim that mistakes you made in humanitarian endeavors are reflective of your current ability.
Overall, My only point of contention is in the idea that the humanitarian aid in Palestine is a hopeless and failed mission. Your only rationale for that seems to be that 'they' have failed before, so you see no reason why it would be any different without pointing to any specific failures.
The mistakes I made in the 1990s aren't necessarily indicative of where I am now, as long as I learned from the mistakes. The crucial thing is learning from mistakes. Does government learn from mistakes? If I refuse to learn from the mistakes I made 30 years ago and continue to make them today then the mistakes I made in the 1990s are indicative of where I am now.
Nah Tango, you've been clear, I just sometimes--haha, who am I kidding?-- I just always read between the lines when I should just read the lines. That is on me not you because I've had enough of these conversations to know that there is no more to this. Thanks for you time brother.
-
OK, mister... Who are you and what have you done with our "Oscar."...
:o :o :o
-
OK, mister... Who are you and what have you done with our "Oscar."...
:o :o :o
Haha, I guess he's been slowly disappearing for a while, like the McFly family... but not completely, because like, Back to The Future was my goto analogy...at least it wasn't batman though.
-
But, to my question, again as I remember it, it seemed that you were asserting that wiping out Hamas was a thing that could be done without much if any consideration given to any of the other possible contributions that I mention in my post. Do I have you wrong? what are your thoughts?
Just wipe out their military in Gaza. Nothing else matters.
Mainly I'd say the treatment of Palestine and Palestinians. Even if we just consider the change of status quo that will be the result after this war ends (if it ends in a way where this is even relevant) What Israel does will be critical, just wiping out Hamas in Gaza
The Palestinians made their choice and threw in their lot with Hamas. Nobody was worried about German or Japanese civilians during the second world war, because there was a war to be won. Why is this any different? Where is all the care and concern for Israeli civilians?
isn't going to address the grievances of the Palestinians
Their grievances are addressable. All they have to do is come to the table with reasonable demands, like a state next to Israel, when they are asking for a state in the place of Israel. All they have to do is be willing to live together in peace, instead of using the land they're given to launch further wars.
Israel doesn't have any obligation to give territory to people who want to murder them.
I think those points are important, because I believe that if there is even the whiff of western influences steering the destiny of Iran, not only will there be organic revulsion at that prospect, but I believe that there can be an effective propaganda campaign that can steer a regime change in a direction that is hostile to people and ideas that would facilitate the goals of the west;
The people of Iran want to be free of the Islamic fundamentalists that run the country. They are pro-democracy and pro-west and even I believe, pro-Israel. They would be happy to have help from the west to remove the lunatics that run the country. But we'll never know, because the west is too busy propping them up.
Next, I have to push back on what appears to me to be your idea that Israel could somehow be emancipated from the restraining forces of the west to eliminate Hamas in Palestine without greater repercussions in the region that would directly or indirectly impact American interests. What I mean to say is that it is not unreasonable for America to postulate that if we let Israel 'have at it' that those actions might force our hand to intervene because other radical Islamic forces and/or governments will involve themselves and escalate the conflict. Even if we pretend that Israel itself is not directly relevant to American interests (it is), It matters what Israel does in this war.
Israel has no obligation whatsoever to subsume their national security to what you perceive as "American Interests". What's more, I think you're totally wrong. A strong Israel is better for American interests in the region, and a weak Israel is worse.
Likewise attempting to somehow untether actions that the US and allies would make to change regimes in Iran from Israel is unreasonable. Israel would be critical to the success of any such operation, in expertise, in intelligence information, and in resources. Moreover it would make no sense that Israel would not want to be directly involved and have the ability to very meaningfully effect any such plan at essentially every level is not reasonable. Even if I gave you that Israel has no responsibility (they do), I cannot give you that they would not accept or take responsibility in something that so directly affects them. I don't know that it is anyone's job per se, but even if Israel isn't the construction manager, they are definitely a foreman on the job site.
This is laughable. Israel has *responsibility* to affect regime change in another country? Who else has this responsibility ? Who gave Israel this responsibility? What responsibilities do people in other countries have?
I hope that clarifies my thoughts somewhat. and I hope you take the time to clarify your thoughts to me.
Yeah you've clarified your positions. They're bizarre.
-
Just wipe out their military in Gaza. Nothing else matters.
Well, It has been well understood by me that this is you believe this is the highest priority, but what I've been trying to get at is if you can see any consequences or fallout from setting this as the highest priority where nothing else matters. I get it if you are saying that you don't care about any possible consequences or precipitants, but I'm asking if you can envision any reasonably predictable repercussions.
The Palestinians made their choice and threw in their lot with Hamas. Nobody was worried about German or Japanese civilians during the second world war, because there was a war to be won. Why is this any different?
I don't believe that the argument that "since they didn't do it in the 1940's, so we shouldn't either" is especially compelling. Regardless, Of course people worried about German and Japanese civilians and made at least some decisions based on post war civilian considerations. Pretending that the world had some single monolithic opinion about civilian casualties back then is not only incorrect, but even if it was correct they also thought radium and lead were great paint additives, so maybe their positions were not entirely unassailable.
Anyway this is all beside the point, I was mostly talking about the post war concerns between Israel and Palestine. Even If Israel manages to destroy and drive Hamas out of Gaza the reasons why they came to power will still exist and may even be exacerbated, and that is a problem. if Hamas as an organization is wiped out completely, and nothing changes in the relationship between Israel and Palestine then a new Hamas can find fertile soil to grow and we'll be doing this all over again in 15 or 20 years.
Where is all the care and concern for Israeli civilians?
It seems to me, and this is just my opinion that "care and concern for Israeli civilians" in your mind must come in the form of "Just wipe out their military in Gaza. Nothing else matters.". My concern that there is a legitimate risk that this will escalate and or repeat and kill more Israeli civilians is concern. I think that it is possible that both Israeli's and Palestinians and folks around them both stand to lose many more civilians over many generations.
Their grievances are addressable. All they have to do is come to the table with reasonable demands, like a state next to Israel, when they are asking for a state in the place of Israel. All they have to do is be willing to live together in peace, instead of using the land they're given to launch further wars.
Israel doesn't have any obligation to give territory to people who want to murder them.
oh, does Netanyahu support a Palestinian state these days?
The people of Iran want to be free of the Islamic fundamentalists that run the country. They are pro-democracy and pro-west and even I believe, pro-Israel. They would be happy to have help from the west to remove the lunatics that run the country. But we'll never know, because the west is too busy propping them up.
sounds easy when you say it like that. Do you believe that it is as simple and primed for success as your post indicates, if so Why?
Israel has no obligation whatsoever to subsume their national security to what you perceive as "American Interests". What's more, I think you're totally wrong. A strong Israel is better for American interests in the region, and a weak Israel is worse.
you did not understand the thrust of my statement. My point was that Israel's actions are likely to affect the US therefore it makes sense for the US to care how Israel acts. You are right, Israel is an adult and is free to disregard anything the US says. In a very real sense the idea that they are being held back is actually just Israel holding themselves back because they do not want to face the consequences if disregarding the US. Pretending that our countries interests are not tied to each other is kind of pointless just like pretending that wars against terrorists organizations are as simple as 'wipe em out over there' and you're done. I don't think that the US wants Israel weak, but I do not think they are exactly aligned on what that means.
This is laughable. Israel has *responsibility* to affect regime change in another country? Who else has this responsibility ? Who gave Israel this responsibility? What responsibilities do people in other countries have?
I'm saying that overthrowing the Iranian government is as much Israel's responsibility as it is the US or EU's. Personally I think the proposition of an engineered coup is extremely fraught and carries with it the great risk of going terribly wrong and leaving the area worse off in the long run. At least Iran's current tyrannical government is kind of stable and sort of predictable. I don't trust any of those governments to do it, but much less to do it alone. At least together it has a higher chance of success. It makes no sense to me that anyone would engage in such a project and Israel would just sit it out when it would directly impact the country....but again I don't think its a great idea regardless.
Yeah you've clarified your positions. They're bizarre.
I think its bizarre to have lived through 9/11 and America's ventures in the middle east over the last 20 years and not have any sense of consequences of actions. I mean idk how old you are , but like didn't you live through like the 80's, were you alive for the Islamic revolution? I don't know how your take on everything is so simplistic.
-
Well, It has been well understood by me that this is you believe this is the highest priority
It IS the highest priority.
Imagine if after 9/11 someone said that wiping out Al Qaeda wasn't the highest priority.
Imagine if after 12/7 someone said that toppling totalitarian Japan wasn't the highest priority.
but what I've been trying to get at is if you can see any consequences or fallout from setting this as the highest priority where nothing else matters. I get it if you are saying that you don't care about any possible consequences or precipitants, but I'm asking if you can envision any reasonably predictable repercussions.
I don't care. That's the world's problem, not Israel's problem.
Jews were murdered for being Jews. We're not going back to where that was normal. Don't attack Israel and nothing bad will happen to you. Simple equation.
I don't believe that the argument that "since they didn't do it in the 1940's, so we shouldn't either" is especially compelling. Regardless, Of course people worried about German and Japanese civilians and made at least some decisions based on post war civilian considerations.
No, they didn't.
On March 10, 1945, the US Air Force dropped 1700 tons of fire bombs on Tokyo. The attack killed 100,000 Japanese people and injured another million, almost all civilians.
Anyway this is all beside the point, I was mostly talking about the post war concerns between Israel and Palestine. Even If Israel manages to destroy and drive Hamas out of Gaza the reasons why they came to power will still exist and may even be exacerbated, and that is a problem.
The reason they came to power is because their platform of genocidal intentions are popular with Palestinians.
After world war 2 nobody asked "why did the Nazis come to power?" Instead the allies went about deNazifying Germany. Gaza needs to be "De-Hamased" or all this was for nothing.
It seems to me, and this is just my opinion that "care and concern for Israeli civilians" in your mind must come in the form of "Just wipe out their military in Gaza. Nothing else matters."
It seems to me that you express concern for Palestinian civilians and not Israeli civilians.
Why is that?
My concern that there is a legitimate risk that this will escalate and or repeat and kill more Israeli civilians is concern.
So you think Israel should tolerate the murder of her citizens, because if they act against entities that murder Israeli citizens, even more Israeli citizens will be murdered?
Really?
oh, does Netanyahu support a Palestinian state these days?
After 10/7 no one should support a Palestinian state.
They have to prove that they're ready. And they're not. Really, really not.
sounds easy when you say it like that.
Maybe it is easy. We won't know until we try.
you did not understand the thrust of my statement. My point was that Israel's actions are likely to affect the US therefore it makes sense for the US to care how Israel acts.
And yet the US government has been wrong, completely wrong, on every single detail of this war. So butt out already.
I'm saying that overthrowing the Iranian government is as much Israel's responsibility as it is the US or EU's.
The Mullahs in Iran have an unhealthy obsession with Jews and the state of Israel. That does not make it "Israel's responsibility" to remove them. Was it the Jews responsibility to remove Hitler from power?
I think its bizarre to have lived through 9/11
"Lived through 9/11? I was there. As a first responder.
and America's ventures in the middle east over the last 20 years and not have any sense of consequences of actions.
I know there wasn't another 9/11 scale attack over the last 20 years. So, mission accomplished?
-
In case you missed it….
The Mossad boys are crawling on the floor laughing right now….
https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2024/09/17/graphic-content-warning-hundreds-of-hezbollah-members-wounded-when-pagers-explode/
Confirmed from
Multiple sources including some USMilitary
-
I'm hearing as of right now, 2500 injured, 200 seriously, 8 fatalities. So far. Some VIPs including members of the Lebanese government and the Iranian diplomat to Lebanon.
-
Oops.😬
-
Updated figures, 3,000 injured, 50 critically, 10 fatalities.
-
At least 18 senior Hizbullah members in Damascus, Syria, are in critical condition.
-
That’s a really amazing psyop and kinetic strike…
-
It IS the highest priority.
Imagine if after 9/11 someone said that wiping out Al Qaeda wasn't the highest priority.
Imagine if after 12/7 someone said that toppling totalitarian Japan wasn't the highest priority.
okay.
I don't care. That's the world's problem, not Israel's problem.
Jews were murdered for being Jews. We're not going back to where that was normal. Don't attack Israel and nothing bad will happen to you. Simple equation.
You've made I clear that you do not care, and have no interest in actually discussing my question, I will no longer pursue this line of questioning.
No, they didn't.
On March 10, 1945, the US Air Force dropped 1700 tons of fire bombs on Tokyo. The attack killed 100,000 Japanese people and injured another million, almost all civilians.
So, your assertion is that because on March 10, 1945, the US Air Force dropped 1700 tons of fire bombs on Tokyo, we can conclude that the US never made any decisions based on post war civilian considerations at any point throughout the entire war? In my mind a single example where the US made any decisions based on post war civilian considerations at any point throughout the entire war would immediately invalidate that assertion. I think I'm once again immersing myself in a pointless argument where details don't matter.
The reason they came to power is because their platform of genocidal intentions are popular with Palestinians.
After world war 2 nobody asked "why did the Nazis come to power?" Instead the allies went about deNazifying Germany. Gaza needs to be "De-Hamased" or all this was for nothing.
I think you are using blanket statements to illustrate your point, but that any counterexamples won't matter because you believe that your statements are fundamentally true if not precisely true. for example, 'Nobody asked' I take it means that 'Any inquiry into the Nazi's rise to power was not of the type or degree that the job of deNazifying Germany was impeded'. If this is all you meant, then I don't want to get caught up in the details of what you said vs what you meant.
If I haven't mischaracterized your meaning, then I can agree that learning the reasons for Hamas' rise to power should not take priority over preventing them from visiting further violence on Israel. I do not think that these are wholly separate endeavors though, effectively De-Hamasing Palestine means understanding how it became Hamased in the first place. If as you said 'The reason they came to power is because their platform of genocidal intentions are popular with Palestinians.' Then killing every Hamas member will still leave you with popular notions of genocide in Palestine. Asking why genocidal intentions are popular with Palestinians is IMO a good question to ask if you want to eliminate the conditions for a future Hamas or Hamas like organization.
It seems to me that you express concern for Palestinian civilians and not Israeli civilians.
Why is that?
I have to ask, in your opinion what would it look like for me to be expressing concern for Israeli civilians? If you believe that If I cared about Israeli citizens, then my opinions would be more aligned with your, then I think you have your answer. I think that most of what you say ranges from simplistic to inaccurate to myopic. I believe that in the long run your sort of thinking doesn't lead to safer Israeli citizens, it leads to a cycle of violence that could very well culminate in the destruction of Israel. I feel that it is safe to say that you do not agree, and you have no capacity or desire to see anything from my perspective, so I would say that this is why I seem uncaring to you. IOW I do not care in a way that makes sense to you, so it seems that I don't care at all.
So you think Israel should tolerate the murder of her citizens, because if they act against entities that murder Israeli citizens, even more Israeli citizens will be murdered?
Really?
Case in point. I have not now nor have I ever asserted that Israeli's should tolerate being murdered. I'm talking about how they react to that, You seem to think that If the reaction isn't the narrow one that you deem to be the only suitable one then it is tantamount to tolerating being murdered. There really isn't any room for discussion with you.
After 10/7 no one should support a Palestinian state.
They have to prove that they're ready. And they're not. Really, really not.
Did he support it on 10/6 ?
Maybe it is easy. We won't know until we try.
Sure, this is true. I'm more interested in why you believe it would be easy....but at this point I have not real expectation that you have some detailed analysis that has lead you to this conclusion....so unless you plan to surprise me , then I don't need to continue this line of questioning.
And yet the US government has been wrong, completely wrong, on every single detail of this war. So butt out already.
Nah, The US can tell Israel what it wants, and Israel as you pointed out is not obligated to listen. The only thing stopping Israel from 'having at it' is the fear of consequences.
The Mullahs in Iran have an unhealthy obsession with Jews and the state of Israel. That does not make it "Israel's responsibility" to remove them. Was it the Jews responsibility to remove Hitler from power?
As much as it was anyone's responsibility. Hitler was literally working to eliminate the Jews from existence, If it is not one's own responsibility to work to maintain their own survival then I don't know that we can meaningfully talk about responsibility.
"Lived through 9/11? I was there. As a first responder.
Well, thank you for your service. However I was talking more about the general era, watching our reactions as America and the repercussions of those actions.
I know there wasn't another 9/11 scale attack over the last 20 years. So, mission accomplished?
Yeah, who can argue with results. I'd argue that it cost us, and we are still making payments.
-
You've made I clear that you do not care, and have no interest in actually discussing my question, I will no longer pursue this line of questioning.
We're discussing it. I'm talking about how Jews are defending themselves from a genocidal enemy, and you want to talk about the consequences of Jews defending themselves from a genocidal enemy.
You want to talk about the consequences of Israel's actions.
Why doesn't anyone ever want to talk about the consequences for attacking Israel? As if Israel is just supposed to suck it up and tolerate the murder of her citizens because it would make people like you happy? How about no?
So, your assertion
My assertion is that one fights a war to win. What happens after will happen after. Nobody said "let's not bomb Tokyo or Berlin because of what will happen after the war". They bombed enemy capitals knowing full well that civilians would die, because the enemy state had to be smashed. But somehow Israel alone, of every state ever in the history of the world, is supposed to worry more about the enemy than itself. How about no?
If as you said 'The reason they came to power is because their platform of genocidal intentions are popular with Palestinians.' Then killing every Hamas member will still leave you with popular notions of genocide in Palestine.
That's true, and Gaza has to be deradicalized in the same way that Germany post 1945 was deradicalized. That means occupation and a revamped education system and a forced acceptance of at least some western values.
my perspective, so I would say that this is why I seem uncaring to you.
I would say that you care more the Palestinians than the Israelis. Which is sick, but you're entitled to your opinions.
Case in point. I have not now nor have I ever asserted that Israeli's should tolerate being murdered. I'm talking about how they react to that,
They react to it the way any other country reacts to the murder of it's citizens by an enemy state.
Why do you think a different set of rules should apply to the Jewish state than anyone else?
There's a name for that, you know.
You seem to think that If the reaction isn't the narrow one that you deem to be the only suitable one then it is tantamount to tolerating being murdered. There really isn't any room for discussion with you.
You seem to think that Jews should be more Christian than Christians.
Did he support it on 10/6 ?
Were Palestinians ready for a state on 10/6, mere hours before they carried out the largest murder of Jews since the Holocaust?
Sure, this is true. I'm more interested in why you believe it would be easy....but at this point I have not real expectation that you have some detailed analysis that has lead you to this conclusion....so unless you plan to surprise me , then I don't need to continue this line of questioning.
What's interesting is they you place all the responsibility for improving the situation on Israel. Not Hamas, or the Arabs generally, or the Iranians. Just Israel. Why?
Nah, The US can tell Israel what it wants, and Israel as you pointed out is not obligated to listen. The only thing stopping Israel from 'having at it' is the fear of consequences.
Or maybe, just maybe, Israel is trying to fight a moral war with moral means. Or is that too far fetched?
As much as it was anyone's responsibility. Hitler was literally working to eliminate the Jews from existence, If it is not one's own responsibility to work to maintain their own survival then I don't know that we can meaningfully talk about responsibility.
So the untrained and unarmed Jews, including women, children, and the elderly, being transported by a vast industrial machine to their own demise, should have removed Hitler from power.
Are you only immoral or also foolish?
-
For those interested, for the second day, communication devices are blowing up all over Lebanon. Today it seems to be two way radios. Hundreds of causalities so far, if the reporting is correct.
-
...Hundreds of causalities so far...
In light of the discussion that typo was curiously ironic....
-
For those interested, for the second day, communication devices are blowing up all over Lebanon. Today it seems to be two way radios. Hundreds of causalities so far, if the reporting is correct.
Hard to know the true extent of the damage done as the numbers will be downplayed by the embarrassed terrorist leadership--though the psychological impact is unquestionably immense. You can be sure they're frantically seeking a new source of communication devices, though I'm not sure they'll get as much "bang" for their buck. ;D
-
We're discussing it. I'm talking about how Jews are defending themselves from a genocidal enemy, and you want to talk about the consequences of Jews defending themselves from a genocidal enemy.
You want to talk about the consequences of Israel's actions.
Why doesn't anyone ever want to talk about the consequences for attacking Israel? As if Israel is just supposed to suck it up and tolerate the murder of her citizens because it would make people like you happy? How about no?
Yes, I want to talk about consequences, at least that is a significant part of what I want to talk about. We are in fact not discussing the topic. You have repeatedly demonstrated that instead of discussing the topic, you prefer to instead point out that we should be discussing a different much better topic.
My assertion is that one fights a war to win. What happens after will happen after. Nobody said "let's not bomb Tokyo or Berlin because of what will happen after the war". They bombed enemy capitals knowing full well that civilians would die, because the enemy state had to be smashed. But somehow Israel alone, of every state ever in the history of the world, is supposed to worry more about the enemy than itself. How about no?
Well okay first off my assertion was:
"Of course people worried about German and Japanese civilians and made at least some decisions based on post war civilian considerations."
Which was in response to your assertion: "Nobody was worried about German or Japanese civilians during the second world war, because there was a war to be won"
and is fundamentally different than:
"let's not bomb Tokyo or Berlin because of what will happen after the war"
But as I said, I accept that we are doing completely different things here. I do not believe that the literal meaning of your words directly map onto the point you are trying to get across.
I could talk about how many things 'win' can mean in this context, but I also believe that the particulars of how a 'win' is defined is not going to matter to you because you are not interested in discussing your ideas in detail or how those details can be construed.
That's true, and Gaza has to be deradicalized in the same way that Germany post 1945 was deradicalized. That means occupation and a revamped education system and a forced acceptance of at least some western values.
This is actually the sort of thing I wanted to discuss, thanks for actually stating that something outside of simply 'wiping out Hamas in Gaza needs to happen'. I appreciate that you even put a little detail into what exactly that 'something' is. I wish our conversations went more like this.
I would say that you care more the Palestinians than the Israelis. Which is sick, but you're entitled to your opinions.
Yes, I know you would say that, you have said that, like a bunch..
They react to it the way any other country reacts to the murder of it's citizens by an enemy state.
You seem to want to impress upon me that historical practice affirms the virtuousness of this reaction, okay. The reaction that you had appeared to adamantly assert as the only one that matters is 'Hamas is destroyed in Gaza'. I've been saying that I think there are some additional considerations that are worth discussing.
Why do you think a different set of rules should apply to the Jewish state than anyone else?
There's a name for that, you know.
At some point, I did say that I have higher expectations of Israel than I do of Hamas, and I stand by that. Hamas is a terrorist organization pantomiming as a government, Israel is an actual government. However, I have the same expectations of the Palestinian people as I do of the Israeli people. What is that called?
You seem to think that Jews should be more Christian than Christians.
No I don't. Do you have me confused with someone else? I don't think Christianity should be the basis for any government policy, much less Israeli policy.
Were Palestinians ready for a state on 10/6, mere hours before they carried out the largest murder of Jews since the Holocaust?
Okay, so did he support it in September? if not, when was the last time that he did, and what happened?
What's interesting is that you place all the responsibility for improving the situation on Israel. Not Hamas, or the Arabs generally, or the Iranians. Just Israel. Why?
Yeah, I didn't say that, moreover this is a classic example declining to discuss the topic in order to point out that the topic of discussion is wrong and should in fact be a different better topic.
Or maybe, just maybe, Israel is trying to fight a moral war with moral means. Or is that too far fetched?
Are you saying that it would be immoral for Israel to go against the US' desires and 'have at it'? If so why? if not then I do not understand your point and I ask that you phrase it differently because your post is unclear to me.
So the untrained and unarmed Jews, including women, children, and the elderly, being transported by a vast industrial machine to their own demise, should have removed Hitler from power.
I mean if they had opportunities then yeah, for instance I half remember that there was some amount of sabotage that the enslaved Jews engaged in when they were forced to work in German war manufacturing. They did not have much if any opportunity, but I consider this to be an example of making the most out of a very dire set of circumstances. Of course if a Jew in this situation didn't sabotage the bolts in a V2 rocket or whatever because they were afraid of repercussions, I certainly wouldn't go on to claim any casualties of that particular rocket's attack were their fault.
I'm not a 1940's Jewish physicist, but some of my most favorite Physicists were 1940's Jewish physicist, in part because without 1940's Jewish physicists the Manhattan project never succeeds. I do not speak for 1940's Jewish physicists that directly or indirectly contributed to the Manhattan project, but to say that some of them were partially motivated by the fact that they were Jewish people whose intellectual aptitudes positioned them to take advantage of an opportunity to remove Hitler from power does not seem at all off base to me. To say that at least some of them at the time felt that the opportunity granted them by their intellectual aptitudes made their contributions a responsibility would also not be a particularly fantastical take.
With that out of the way, pretending that I said that Hitler or Iran
was the lone responsibility of the Jews is churlish at best. I do not think that the Jewish people of the world were solely responsible for removing Hitler any more than the Chinese were solely responsible for removing the byzantine set of committees and generals that ran the Japanese war effort.
Perhaps I can put it in a way that you can connect with: We just saw thousands of Hezbollah pagers blow up, we can crudely approximate what it must have taken to pull that off. The idea that the folks that pulled that off would choose to sit out an opportunity to drastically affect their circumstances, that is a coup in Iran, is almost inconceivable to me. I believe Israel would demand to be a part of it. The idea that the US and the EU would prohibit Israel from participation in such an operation on the basis that Israel does not and should not bear any responsibility is only slightly less inconceivable. However all of that is beside the point, Israel is responsible because the existential threat that Iran poses and the consequences that a regime change could have on Israel, makes Israel responsible for their own security.
And again, just to be clear, I do not subscribe to the assertion that it would be easy or even a good idea, I think it is fraught and dangerous and could very well leave everyone in an even more precarious position in the long run.
Are you only immoral or also foolish?
At times I can be neither, either or both.
-
Yes, I want to talk about consequences, at least that is a significant part of what I want to talk about. We are in fact not discussing the topic. You have repeatedly demonstrated that instead of discussing the topic, you prefer to instead point out that we should be discussing a different much better topic.
So you think we should separate the consequences of the Hamas attack from the consequences of the Israeli response to the Hamas attack.
No. I am not going to do that. I'm so very tired of the world at large ignoring what the terrorists do and just want to talk about the Israeli response.
But as I said, I accept that we are doing completely different things here. I do not believe that the literal meaning of your words directly map onto the point you are trying to get across.
Because you and you alone get to decide what words mean.
This is actually the sort of thing I wanted to discuss, thanks for actually stating that something outside of simply 'wiping out Hamas in Gaza needs to happen'.
Hamas has to be destroyed first. That's step one.
I appreciate that you even put a little detail into what exactly that 'something' is.
I would appreciate it if you could acknowledge that nothing "afterwards" could happen with Hamas still in power.
Yes, I know you would say that, you have said that, like a bunch..
Because words, they mean things.
You seem to want to impress upon me that historical practice affirms the virtuousness of this reaction, okay. The reaction that you had appeared to adamantly assert as the only one that matters is 'Hamas is destroyed in Gaza'. I've been saying that I think there are some additional considerations that are worth discussing.
Yes. After, you know, Hamas is destroyed in Gaza.
At some point, I did say that I have higher expectations of Israel than I do of Hamas,
Those "higher expectations" always seem to come at the price of being able to wage war effectively.
Hamas is a terrorist organization pantomiming as a government
In what way is Hamas not an actual government? Please do tell.
However, I have the same expectations of the Palestinian people as I do of the Israeli people.
No, you clearly don't. Because you have not expressed a single responsibility for the Palestinian people. So you have, actually, zero expectations of the Palestinian people.
No I don't. Do you have me confused with someone else? I don't think Christianity should be the basis for any government policy, much less Israeli policy.
You expect Israel to turn the other cheek, and not take actions against people who are trying to murder them.
Okay, so did he support it in September? if not, when was the last time that he did, and what happened?
When was the last time the Palestinians behaved like they were willing to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors?
Are you saying that it would be immoral for Israel to go against the US' desires and 'have at it'?
I'm saying that Israel is already fighting a moral war with moral methods. But that's not enough for most countries, including the US, who would rather Israel not defend themselves at all.
I mean if they had opportunities then yeah, for instance I half remember that there was some amount of sabotage that the enslaved Jews
Almost all Jews were slated for extinction. What should they have done, walk slower into the gas chambers?
Perhaps I can put it in a way that you can connect with: We just saw thousands of Hezbollah pagers blow up, we can crudely approximate what it must have taken to pull that off. The idea that the folks that pulled that off would choose to sit out an opportunity to drastically affect their circumstances, that is a coup in Iran, is almost inconceivable to me. I believe Israel would demand to be a part of it.
Unfortunately nobody is trying to affect regime change in Iran. And the whole project should not fall on Israel's shoulders.
-
So you think we should separate the consequences of the Hamas attack from the consequences of the Israeli response to the Hamas attack.
No. I am not going to do that. I'm so very tired of the world at large ignoring what the terrorists do and just want to talk about the Israeli response.
That is neither what I said nor what I meant.
I don't know why you insisted that we were having a discussion, we clearly aren't. You don't want to talk about the topic, you want to complain about the fact that I want to talk about it or that I'm not talking about it like you think I should.
Because you and you alone get to decide what words mean.
Well, either what you mean is different from the things you stated, or you are demonstrably wrong because you do not understand what the words 'nobody' and 'no one' mean. Since you seem to have a grasp of the English language, I chose the former...perhaps I was too generous in that, but I doubt it.
Hamas has to be destroyed first. That's step one.
Okay, I don't think we disagree here, per se. I believe that it matters how the destruction of Hamas is approached, and I think it matters what that 'destruction' entails- IOW I think there is stuff to think about and talk about. I think we discussed earlier, my assertion that killing every member of Hamas in Israel likely will not eliminate the organization itself, it will not eliminate the ideology and depending on how it is done it could plant the seeds for their resurgence. You seem to believe that it is wrong to consider what we want post-war to look like, much less make current decisions with that in mind.
I would appreciate it if you could acknowledge that nothing "afterwards" could happen with Hamas still in power.
I have always acknowledged that Hamas needs to be removed from power and their ideology needs to be eradicated and the conditions that made that ideology attractive in the first place needs to be changed in order for there to be lasting peace. You seem to want me to say that the process must be stepwise in the sense that there should be no considerations about what we want to happen next when choosing how we enact the preceding step. I'm not going to do that because I don't believe that, I believe your sense of how discrete and isolated these 'steps' must be is overly simplistic.
Because words, they mean things.
In that case, Perhaps you can help me with a definition because it turns out that I don't know what the term 'universal generalization' means.
Yes. After, you know, Hamas is destroyed in Gaza.
Okay, we agree that that is what you've been saying.
Those "higher expectations" always seem to come at the price of being able to wage war effectively.
You ever consider that you might think that this is what I'm 'always' saying because anything that isn't just parroting your own opinions back at you leads to the same set of conclusions?
Anyway, yes, sometimes that is the price. Israel is currently making decisions that do not directly maximize killing every Hamas possible because as you pointed out they are being very moral. While it is safe to accuse me of wanting to do even more things that could lower that ceiling, I think that feeding back considerations of what comes after the war into decisions during the war can be an effective way of avoiding future wars...which IMO is way better than doing those future wars effectively and can be more useful in the long term even when it is less than ideal in the short term.
In what way is Hamas not an actual government? Please do tell.
Yeah, this is a case of me not saying what I meant. I actually meant that they are technically a government, but I think of them as more of a terrorist organization even though those things are not mutually exclusive. The 10/7 attacks displayed a willingness to engage in abject terrorism despite the predictable repercussions it would have on the people they were ostensibly supposed to represent and defend. I think they are better terrorists' than governors.
No, you clearly don't. Because you have not expressed a single responsibility for the Palestinian people. So you have, actually, zero expectations of the Palestinian people.
So what? I don't have to mention something that I wasn't talking about lest the topic that I was talking about be invalidated. I don't have talk about Palestinian responsibilities in order to talk about Israeli responsibilities any more than I have to bring up my nieces chores in order to talk to about my nephews chores. You don't like that I'm not having the discussion that you would prefer to be having, so you accuse me of not talking about the thing that I wasn't talking about. If what you care about is being right on this point then congrats, you've successfully pointed out that I'm not talking about a thing I wasn't talking about.
More generally, it appears you're upset because the world isn't talking about the things that you want to talk about as frequently and in the manner that you want them to, and even when they do they are not drawing the conclusions that you think they should. I know this feeling, I have this feeling every day pretty much. I'm not critical of you for having it, but you are letting it guide this conversation. That is your prerogative, but its not very conducive to actually talking about anything but your grievances. I'm not here to feed your own takes back to you, there are plenty of other people here that can do that for you.
You expect Israel to turn the other cheek, and not take actions against people who are trying to murder them.
quote me where I said that and I won't call you a liar.
When was the last time the Palestinians behaved like they were willing to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors?
I see we've found another thing that you don't actually want to discuss.
I'm saying that Israel is already fighting a moral war with moral methods. But that's not enough for most countries, including the US, who would rather Israel not defend themselves at all.
So if Israel is already doing what it wants to do and making the choices that it wants to make then what is the problem? When you said they were being held back from 'having at it', did you mean that criticizing their choices and actions constitutes holding them back? I have news that really shouldn't be news to you, when you follow your own ambitions, and make your own choices, other folks will criticize you for it...that is how freedom works. You do not get to march to the beat of your own drum and also expect that everyone else will feel as you do about it. Its sort of like how I'm not cowed by how apoplectic you get about the fact that I think my own thoughts about this war instead of the ones you approve of.
Almost all Jews were slated for extinction. What should they have done, walk slower into the gas chambers?
If they had it in them to do it, then yeah. Yes, harry the Nazis at every turn and in every way---put too much sugar in their coffee, clog the toilets, drop tools, spill stuff, give them the wrong names, write the wrong numbers on paperwork, act like you didn't understand their instructions the first time, and yes even slow walk your way to the gas chambers, fall a few times if you can. There is value in petite rebellions, especially if that is all you have the opportunity to do...and if you have the opportunity to build a first of its kind bomb, do that too, or join a military, or intelligence organization or help find homes for displaced Jews. Plenty of Jews did those things and more during WW2.
Unfortunately nobody is trying to affect regime change in Iran. And the whole project should not fall on Israel's shoulders.
You are the only person that is acting like I ever said that it should.
-
Aaaand the entire leadership of Hizballah, including Nasrallah, are now dead. And the world is a better place for it.
-
I guess that Buy one get one free deal in the pagers was too good to be true
-
I guess that Buy one get one free deal in the pagers was too good to be true
And the best part is that Hizbullah paid for those pagers. ;D
-
If they had it in them to do it, then yeah. Yes, harry the Nazis at every turn and in every way---put too much sugar in their coffee, clog the toilets, drop tools, spill stuff, give them the wrong names, write the wrong numbers on paperwork, act like you didn't understand their instructions the first time, and yes even slow walk your way to the gas chambers, fall a few times if you can. There is value in petite rebellions, especially if that is all you have the opportunity to do...
This reminds me of an alternate history story I read once. The author might have been Harry Turtledove, I don't remember. In this alternate history, the Nazis defeated the allies and invaded India. Naturally they come in contact with Ghandi, who attempts passive resistance against them. Of course it fails spectacularly when the Nazis gun down the protestors and Ghandi ends up running for his life.
Passive resistance might work against an opponent with morals. It's a waste of time against mass murderers, and I think you have a lot of nerve to suggest that people who died by the millions in the gas chambers didn't "do enough" to satisfy your requirements on how victims should behave.
Again, I can't understand if you're trying to be offensive or just so clueless that you don't understand how what you're saying is offensive.
edit to add: On this day in 1941, 33,771 Jews were brutally murdered by the Nazis at Babi Yar, a ravine in Kyiv.
-
Iran fired 200 ballistic missiles at Israel and killed one Palestinian.
We are truly living in a time of miracles, the likes which have not been seen since the Exodus from Egypt.
-
Iran fired 200 ballistic missiles at Israel and killed one Palestinian.
We are truly living in a time of miracles, the likes which have not been seen since the Exodus from Egypt.
Praying for the safety of the nation of Israel and for the family of those murdered in the terrorist shooting attack at the bus station
-
Makes me wonder if Netanyahu finally gets the excuse he always wanted, destroy the nuclear facilities of Iran.
One of the things Trump did well, get out of that nuclear deal with Iran.
-
Fenris, my friend, may the High Holy Days in the next couple of weeks remind you — as always— of God’s love for you personally, for your family, and for the people of God throughout this earth.
Shalom shalom.
-
If they had it in them to do it, then yeah. Yes, harry the Nazis at every turn and in every way---put too much sugar in their coffee, clog the toilets, drop tools, spill stuff, give them the wrong names, write the wrong numbers on paperwork, act like you didn't understand their instructions the first time, and yes even slow walk your way to the gas chambers, fall a few times if you can. There is value in petite rebellions, especially if that is all you have the opportunity to do...
This reminds me of an alternate history story I read once. The author might have been Harry Turtledove, I don't remember. In this alternate history, the Nazis defeated the allies and invaded India. Naturally they come in contact with Ghandi, who attempts passive resistance against them. Of course it fails spectacularly when the Nazis gun down the protestors and Ghandi ends up running for his life.
Passive resistance might work against an opponent with morals. It's a waste of time against mass murderers, and I think you have a lot of nerve to suggest that people who died by the millions in the gas chambers didn't "do enough" to satisfy your requirements on how victims should behave.
Again, I can't understand if you're trying to be offensive or just so clueless that you don't understand how what you're saying is offensive.
edit to add: On this day in 1941, 33,771 Jews were brutally murdered by the Nazis at Babi Yar, a ravine in Kyiv.
I see you've decided to ignore most of what i've said in order to talk about that time you read a short story...Well that and accuse me of saying "that people who died by the millions in the gas chambers didn't "do enough" to satisfy [my] requirements on how victims should behave." Which I obviously didn't, but I don't like my chances of getting you to admit that.
Still your hijinks are engaging in their own way. Fascinating, like trying to figure out how many Lilly pads there are in a pond by throwing pebbles in and watching the behavior of the ripples. Besides, I love tangents, so leaning into this will be pretty natural for me.
So, I just finished reading Harry Turtledove's "The Last Article", which appears to be the story you were referring to. Being who I am, obviously I have thoughts, but since I do not suspect they will mean much to you I'll try not to talk too much about the story.
The fictionalized Ghandi does seem to make a fatal mistake by not taking into account who the Nazis were and attempted to employ the same wholly unmodified strategy on the Nazis that he did with the English. Amusingly the ending of the story reveals that he absolutely knew who the Nazi's were, he knew why his strategy was doomed to fail, because it had failed previously, and he had already recognized that deploying the same strategy he had for the entire story could not work, but did it anyway, yet he is broken by this revelation of things that he already knew and believed, presumably because Turtledove wanted him to. Then at some point you read that story and thought "Say, that makes a lot of sense!"...I assure you, it doesn't.
Anyway. According to Wikipedia, pretty much every violent slave revolt in history ended in failure. Of course as Winston Churchill said when asked about the accuracy of Wikipedia "Wiki's aren't complete or objective, but tend to privilege the version of events of those who edit the articles.", truly a man ahead of his time. If we ignore Churchill and take it for granted that wikipedia is correct and accurate on this point, then we can conclude that if you are enslaved you're probably going to stay that way whether your résistance is violent or not.
In the case of India, the independence movement that finally 'worked', the one marked by nonviolent resistance, took pretty much the entire first half of the 20th century to 'work'. I don't think it is a particularly hot take to say that it had at least as much to do with the waning power of the British empire that was greatly damaged and diminished by the fight with the Nazis as it did with the British looking inside themselves and finally realizing that they were actually moral blokes after all. And that itself was really just a tiny fraction of the several hundred year history of the Indian people trying (often violently trying) and failing to extract themselves from European subjugation.
If one were to sample random instances of resistance over those centuries, they would most likely find failures, that is to say those instances did not conclude with the Europeans tucking tail and heading back home into the loving arms of their gross savory puddings. The implication being that if you didn't win, then your resistance was a waste of time, no matter what form it took. Or to put it in other words that you may actually understand, If a mass murderer is determined enough and competent enough at mass murdering then whatever action or inaction you employ in opposition will likely lead to you being murdered. So if we set aside any sniggles about employing the appropriate resistance strategy and tactics to the appropriate oppression scenarios, then what we are really talking about isn't whether the resistance was violent or nonviolent or whether the oppressors were moral or not, we are talking about outcomes, right?
An impervious chain of reasoning, We can safely conclude that if resistance does not end with toppling the oppressor then it is worth nothing to anyone. Every armed Jewish resistance in the ghettoes and extermination camps were suppressed and the Jewish resistors and often unrelated Jews were killed. Additionally many Jews that non-violently resisted the Nazis were killed just like the ones who didn't. They lost, they died, therefore their resistance was a waste of time. They may as well have just mindlessly sucked on a tailpipe themselves for all their effort was worth. Unless of course there are some alternative purposes for instances of resistance (both violent and nonviolent) whereby their success is measured in something outside of absolute annihilation of their foes. I can't seem to think of any, can you?
-
I see you've decided to ignore most of what i've said in order to talk about that time you read a short story...Well that and accuse me of saying "that people who died by the millions in the gas chambers didn't "do enough" to satisfy [my] requirements on how victims should behave." Which I obviously didn't, but I don't like my chances of getting you to admit that.
Which you obviously did, and rather than apologizing, you double down, which is also typical for you.
So, I just finished reading Harry Turtledove's "The Last Article", which appears to be the story you were referring to. Being who I am, obviously I have thoughts, but since I do not suspect they will mean much to you I'll try not to talk too much about the story.
The fictionalized Ghandi does seem to make a fatal mistake by not taking into account who the Nazis were and attempted to employ the same wholly unmodified strategy on the Nazis that he did with the English. Amusingly the ending of the story reveals that he absolutely knew who the Nazi's were, he knew why his strategy was doomed to fail, because it had failed previously, and he had already recognized that deploying the same strategy he had for the entire story could not work, but did it anyway, yet he is broken by this revelation of things that he already knew and believed, presumably because Turtledove wanted him to. Then at some point you read that story and thought "Say, that makes a lot of sense!"...I assure you, it doesn't.
Still persisting in the idea of nonviolent resistance, even now? Of course you are.
Anyway. According to Wikipedia, pretty much every violent slave revolt in history ended in failure. Of course as Winston Churchill said when asked about the accuracy of Wikipedia "Wiki's aren't complete or objective, but tend to privilege the version of events of those who edit the articles.", truly a man ahead of his time. If we ignore Churchill and take it for granted that wikipedia is correct and accurate on this point, then we can conclude that if you are enslaved you're probably going to stay that way whether your résistance is violent or not.
In the case of India, the independence movement that finally 'worked', the one marked by nonviolent resistance, took pretty much the entire first half of the 20th century to 'work'. I don't think it is a particularly hot take to say that it had at least as much to do with the waning power of the British empire that was greatly damaged and diminished by the fight with the Nazis as it did with the British looking inside themselves and finally realizing that they were actually moral blokes after all. And that itself was really just a tiny fraction of the several hundred year history of the Indian people trying (often violently trying) and failing to extract themselves from European subjugation.
If one were to sample random instances of resistance over those centuries, they would most likely find failures, that is to say those instances did not conclude with the Europeans tucking tail and heading back home into the loving arms of their gross savory puddings. The implication being that if you didn't win, then your resistance was a waste of time, no matter what form it took. Or to put it in other words that you may actually understand, If a mass murderer is determined enough and competent enough at mass murdering then whatever action or inaction you employ in opposition will likely lead to you being murdered. So if we set aside any sniggles about employing the appropriate resistance strategy and tactics to the appropriate oppression scenarios, then what we are really talking about isn't whether the resistance was violent or nonviolent or whether the oppressors were moral or not, we are talking about outcomes, right?
Aaand meandering off on a tangent as you always do, while ignoring the whole reason that I brought that story up in the first place.
An impervious chain of reasoning, We can safely conclude that if resistance does not end with toppling the oppressor then it is worth nothing to anyone. Every armed Jewish resistance in the ghettoes and extermination camps were suppressed and the Jewish resistors and often unrelated Jews were killed. Additionally many Jews that non-violently resisted the Nazis were killed just like the ones who didn't. They lost, they died, therefore their resistance was a waste of time. They may as well have just mindlessly sucked on a tailpipe themselves for all their effort was worth. Unless of course there are some alternative purposes for instances of resistance (both violent and nonviolent) whereby their success is measured in something outside of absolute annihilation of their foes. I can't seem to think of any, can you?
And yet again, you're judging the victims of the Nazis and telling us what they should or shouldn't have done, or what their motives should or shouldn't be.
I really wish this forum had a "block" feature.
-
And yet again, you're judging the victims of the Nazis and telling us what they should or shouldn't have done, or what their motives should or shouldn't be.
I really wish this forum had a "block" feature.
I said they wasted their time and so did you. Is there another way to view these failed instances of Jewish resistance as anything other than a waste of time? Are you capable of articulating why they were not a waste of time, or will you use your indignation and outrage as an excuse to cast aspersions at me without ever actually addressing the point?
-
I said they wasted their time
No, what you said was "Yes, harry the Nazis at every turn and in every way---put too much sugar in their coffee, clog the toilets, drop tools, spill stuff, give them the wrong names, write the wrong numbers on paperwork, act like you didn't understand their instructions the first time, and yes even slow walk your way to the gas chambers, fall a few times if you can. There is value in petite rebellions, especially if that is all you have the opportunity to do.."
So either you're lying or you have multiple personalities. Which personality am I talking to now? The one that thinks resistance is a waste of time? Or the one that thinks there is value it "petite rebellions"? And why does that personality think it's ok to lecture victims of murder and genocide on what they should or shouldn't be doing?
-
So either you're lying or you have multiple personalities. Which personality am I talking to now? The one that thinks resistance is a waste of time? Or the one that thinks there is value it "petite rebellions"? And why does that personality think it's ok to lecture victims of murder and genocide on what they should or shouldn't be doing?
Multiple personality disorder? I didn't know you were a psychiatrist from 1973 Fenris, lol. Anyway I commend your very lateral thinking, but the answer is much simpler and much more common: Yes, I did initially say that , but you convinced me that nonviolent resistance is a waste of time. I'd also like to point out that I didn't just promote nonviolent resistance because my very next sentence read "...and if you have the opportunity to build a first of its kind bomb, do that too, or join a military, or intelligence organization or help find homes for displaced Jews. Plenty of Jews did those things and more during WW2.". However, it turns out that not only did the nonviolent Jewish resistances 'fail', but the violent/armed ones failed as well, and so were likewise also a waste of time. So, no, I don't have multiple personalities, I just see now that instead of admiring WW2 Jews for subtly sabotaging German operations through small acts of nonviolent rebellion (like the V2 rocket production) and suggesting that I promote such acts, I should have rightfully viewed not only those nonviolent acts as a waste of time, but I should have also viewed the failed armed rebellions as a waste of time. Any form of rebellion that does not directly result in liberation or fails to defeat/destroy the enemy is a waste of time. Do you see any flaws in this line of reasoning or are we in complete agreement now?
-
Yes, I did initially say that , but you convinced me that nonviolent resistance is a waste of time.
Then why not just say this in the first place, instead of making two opposing comments on the same page? You said the second comment with as much conviction as the first, with no explanation, as though it were an opinion that you always held. I mean it's not like you don't like to type, you make 500 word posts all the time.
I should have also viewed the failed armed rebellions as a waste of time. Any form of rebellion that does not directly result in liberation or fails to defeat/destroy the enemy is a waste of time.
Again with this telling the victims of genocide what to do and how to behave. There's an old saying, when you're in a hole, stop digging. It's not your place to say. It's not my place to say.
-
Again with this telling the victims of genocide what to do and how to behave. There's an old saying, when you're in a hole, stop digging. It's not your place to say. It's not my place to say.
Actually you're the one who introduced the idea that passive resistance against the Nazis is a waste of time. I'm just trying to clarify that we both agree that Jews who passively resisted the Nazis during world war 2 wasted their time, just like you said. When I say it is it somehow different than when you say it? Or are we both telling those dead Jewish people that the choices they made were just a waste of time?
-
The leader of Hamas, Sinwar, has been killed in Gaza. The world is a better place for it.
-
Good riddance. After the attempt on Netanyahu and his wife, the Ayatollah would do well to stay hunkered down in his hidey hole.
-
The leader of Hamas, Sinwar, has been killed in Gaza. The world is a better place for it.
I can't even being to tell you what Col. Little Brother had to say about Sinwar's, um, assumption of room temperature.
It was colorful, amusing, and somewhat graphic to say the least!
-
Good riddance. After the attempt on Netanyahu and his wife, the Ayatollah would do well to stay hunkered down in his hidey hole.
Yup. The Israeli response for Iran's ballistic missile attack is yet forthcoming.
It's really amazing that Iran fired hundreds of ICBMs at Israel and yet not a single Israeli was harmed. It really brought to mind Isaiah 54:17 "...no weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication from me,” declares the LORD.
-
The leader of Hamas, Sinwar, has been killed in Gaza. The world is a better place for it.
I can't even being to tell you what Col. Little Brother had to say about Sinwar's, um, assumption of room temperature.
So naturally Biden Harris is taking this as an opening for another diplomatic solution. Because what's left of Hamas shouldn't be destroyed, but rescued.
-
The leader of Hamas, Sinwar, has been killed in Gaza. The world is a better place for it.
I can't even being to tell you what Col. Little Brother had to say about Sinwar's, um, assumption of room temperature.
So naturally Biden Harris is taking this as an opening for another diplomatic solution. Because what's left of Hamas shouldn't be destroyed, but rescued.
The Colonel started our conversation with "Well, you have to hand it to Sinwar..." Then he giggled like a little girl, very unColonel-like. Then he said, "Sinwar pointed to his right hand man." More giggles. Then he said "Sinwar is embarassed that the maid hasn't been in to clean up the dust..." More giggles.
Then, being an armored officer, he simply said... (For all the non-tread-heads [non-tank crew types]), this is the basic communication that a tank commander and his gunner might have just before firing
Gunner.
Target.
HE. (High explosive)
Douchebag.
On the way.
More giggles. I finally hung up on him. I think he enjoyed the video a bit...
-
Some lawyer was complaining Sinwar's death meant he'd never get justice because he wouldn't be able be charged, etc.
I told her, but lawyer lady, he *did* get charged.
-
Syria is under a new government.
I think the flow of events is quite fascinating.
Sinwar and Hamas attack Israel on 10/7/23, murdering 1200 and taking hundreds of hostages.
In response, Israel smashes Hamas. Hizbullah as another Iranian proxy can't stay out, so they too attack Israel. Israel smashes Hizbullah. Assad in Syria is kept in power by the Russians and by Hizbullah. But the Russians are distracted in Ukraine and Hizbullah has been decimated. So the rebels throw Assad out.
So in a way, Sinwar's decision to attack Israel ended up destroying Hamas, Hizbullah, and now Syria.
-
I must say I loved the smile on BiBis face looking out over the valley from the peak of Mt Herman….
Reminds me of a song by this kid/shepherd/warrior/king guy….
Something something the dew in Mt Herman… flowing down like oil on Aarons beard!!!!
-
Hamas returned the bodies of the Bibas family today. A mother, Shiri, and her two children: a four year old named Ariel, and a 9 month old named Kfir. This was done to much fanfare, where they paraded the coffins around a cheering crowd of ecstatic Gazans before giving the bodies to the Red Cross for transport to Israel.
"Human Rights" was born in 1945, over the corpses and ashes of 6 million Jews who were murdered when the world stood by and did nothing. "Human Rights" died today in Gaza, over the murder of 1200 Jews including the Bibas family, while the world stood by and did less than nothing; they blamed Israel for the murder her own citizens by 7th century barbarians.
At this point Israel could nuke Gaza and I wouldn't care. Human Rights is dead.
-
Nuking is too good for these animals. It's too quick and painless.
I say turn Mossad loose on them to do whatever the families think is appropriate. In public.
There is no victor in this fight, only the victims tortured and slaughtered by these inhuman demonic creatures.
-
Nuking is too good for these animals.
I want the optics, though. All the do gooders in the world shedding crocodile tears for the wonderful people of Gaza, who couldn't be bothered to condemn 1200 Jewish murders by those same Gazans.
-
Nuking is too good for these animals.
I want the optics, though. All the do gooders in the world shedding crocodile tears for the wonderful people of Gaza, who couldn't be bothered to condemn 1200 Jewish murders by those same Gazans.
How about we save the Gaza strip for the land -- after all God, gave it to Abraham from the Great River (the Euphrates) to the Sea, to coin a phrase...
We can put all the do gooders and the terrorists animals together in a nice cozy spot like, oh, say Tehran, tell all the Christians and the one remaining Jew to get out of Dodge, and THEN drop the nukes for the optics...
I like that plan a lot.
-
I like that plan a lot.
I like it too.
In the meanwhile, several unattended busses blew up and explosives were found on a couple more. It seems that bombs were planted, but the detonator was set for 9PM, when most busses are not in use, instead of 9AM, when they would have been full of commuters. Hundreds of lives were spared because of this oversight. Praise God for looking out for us.
-
Hamas returned the bodies of the two murdered children, but the coffin that was supposed to contain their mother's body had someone else's body in it. And not the body of another hostage either. They put some random Gazan body in the coffin and tried to pass it off as Shiri Bibas.
-
I like that plan a lot.
I like it too.
In the meanwhile, several unattended busses blew up and explosives were found on a couple more. It seems that bombs were planted, but the detonator was set for 9PM, when most busses are not in use, instead of 9AM, when they would have been full of commuters. Hundreds of lives were spared because of this oversight. Praise God for looking out for us.
I saw that.
If we have to have terrorists, thank God they can’t tell time.
Maybe we could send them some pagers so we could buzz them to tell them the time
-
Hamas returned the bodies of the two murdered children, but the coffin that was supposed to contain their mother's body had someone else's body in it. And not the body of another hostage either. They put some random Gazan body in the coffin and tried to pass it off as Shiri Bibas.
Animals. Utterly and completely demon possessed
-
Today's sadistic hostage release:
While parading around on stage six Israeli hostages to be released, two more hostages were kept in a car observing the scene. They begged to be released themselves, but were denied.
Edit to add: And less than 10 feet away was a Red Cross vehicle. In case you ever wondered how useless they are: That useless.