IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th February 2024, 06:02 AM   #1521
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,896
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Well, this is coming from an Israeli diplomat. I assume that the words were chosen to support the Israeli narrative and to dismiss the protests.

This kind of protest reminds me of the famous image from Vietnam. That too was dismissed as a "barbecue show" by regime insiders.

In those days, the news printed such images. One of the photos even won an award. It helped to undermine the regime and the war. Will the news show these self-immolation protests today?
If you support the Israeli response to the atrocities on October 7th, no doubt you will accept the war will have casualties, but of course people are going to be horrified at the destruction of hospitals, the razing of any large scale city, and forcing the entire population down to Rafah, where they still being shelled and expecting a full-scale invasion.[/quote]

I utterly condemn the atrocities of October 7th. At the same time, I see that the Zionist project has resulted in an untenable predicament. It failed to adequately consider the competing claims to the same land. Rigid and incompatible religious and nationalist ideologies mean that you cannot easily disentangle Hamas or the ideology they represent from the Gazan people as a whole. At the same time, Israel has condoned and encouraged extremist settlers in the West Bank, some of whom are almost as bad. There are religious extremists on both sides. I find it difficult to "support" either side in this war. Ultimately, religion is to blame. Chris Hitchens got that part right.[/quote]

Just to clarify, the "you" is supposed to be a generic "you" and not you specifically.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2024, 10:43 AM   #1522
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 34,924
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Aljazeera quoting Palestinian activists. Cute indeed.
Is the President of the United States a better source?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...k-palestinians

Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Children are dying of starvation as a result of the deliberate genocidal policy of Israeli government to prevent food entering Gaza.
Look on the bright side - 30 or 50,000 dead Palestinian children is a small price to pay for Israel's self-destruction.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68337731
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2024, 11:08 AM   #1523
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,524
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Is the President of the United States a better source?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...k-palestinians
He might be, if he were actually a source at all. For one thing, the article you linked doesn't include any statements by the president of the United States about an increase in demolitions in the West Bank. That's what's being claimed. The president can't be a better source of evidence for that claim if he's not a source of evidence at all.

For another thing, the president isn't a source at all. He's not an investigator. He's not a researcher. He's not a fact-finder or an observer. He's an administrator and an executive. He makes decisions based on information that comes to him from his advisors.

And the president's advisors aren't sources either. It's not like the State Department has its own settlement auditors on the ground in the West Bank, making their own independently-verified counts of demolitions. They're getting their information from the same published reports as everyone else.

So no, the president of the United States isn't a better source. Because he's not a source at all, and we have no information on what sources he's actually using. And, of course, because he's not even making the claim we're talking about, in the article you linked to.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2024, 02:03 PM   #1524
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,315
I think some people are coming nearer and nearer to admiting they want the Desturction of Isreal. As for what happens to the five million Jews living in Israel, I guess they will make a varitaion on the excuse for Stalin's atrocities that those on the militant left made in the 1930's "You can't make a omlette without breaking a few eggs".
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2024, 02:06 PM   #1525
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,315
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
If you support the Israeli response to the atrocities on October 7th, no doubt you will accept the war will have casualties, but of course people are going to be horrified at the destruction of hospitals, the razing of any large scale city, and forcing the entire population down to Rafah, where they still being shelled and expecting a full-scale invasion.
I utterly condemn the atrocities of October 7th. At the same time, I see that the Zionist project has resulted in an untenable predicament. It failed to adequately consider the competing claims to the same land. Rigid and incompatible religious and nationalist ideologies mean that you cannot easily disentangle Hamas or the ideology they represent from the Gazan people as a whole. At the same time, Israel has condoned and encouraged extremist settlers in the West Bank, some of whom are almost as bad. There are religious extremists on both sides. I find it difficult to "support" either side in this war. Ultimately, religion is to blame. Chris Hitchens got that part right.[/quote]

Just to clarify, the "you" is supposed to be a generic "you" and not you specifically.[/quote]

I think, like in Ireland, religiion has become mixed up with Nationalism.
I am a skeptic when it comes to religion, but I don't hate it.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2024, 04:17 PM   #1526
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,896
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post

I think, like in Ireland, religiion has become mixed up with Nationalism.
I am a skeptic when it comes to religion, but I don't hate it.
But religious nationalism has led to a situation where people on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict have become so hardline that no negotiated settlement is possible.

Hamas want to kill all the Jews (although try to sound a little more soft-spoken about it from time to time), and members of the Israeli cabinet have their own version of "From the River to the Sea", and even supporters of Baruch Goldstein in their ranks. Any Israeli politician trying to offer a negotiated settlement that gives anything to the Palestinians would probably end up like Yitzak Rabin. His murderer is also considered a hero by religious factions in Israel.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2024, 05:09 PM   #1527
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I think some people are coming nearer and nearer to admiting they want the Desturction of Isreal. As for what happens to the five million Jews living in Israel, I guess they will make a varitaion on the excuse for Stalin's atrocities that those on the militant left made in the 1930's "You can't make a omlette without breaking a few eggs".
There has always been a difference (as there was in South Africa) between arguing for the end of a racist apartheid state and genocide. One can argue in a multicultural society (Jewish, islamic, Christian, Druze), that the it is a reasonable argument to want to end an exclusively Jewish state and replace it with a state that treats all persons equally. That does not limit the right of return to one religion, and then enforce one particular interpretation of that religion. but recognises the right of return to all people regardless of religious affiliation. That does not penalise marriage to one particular ethnic group. That does not deny human rights to one ethnic group. But holds it self evident that all men (and women) were created equal.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2024, 02:23 AM   #1528
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,763
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
There has always been a difference (as there was in South Africa) between arguing for the end of a racist apartheid state and genocide. One can argue in a multicultural society (Jewish, islamic, Christian, Druze), that the it is a reasonable argument to want to end an exclusively Jewish state and replace it with a state that treats all persons equally. That does not limit the right of return to one religion, and then enforce one particular interpretation of that religion. but recognises the right of return to all people regardless of religious affiliation. That does not penalise marriage to one particular ethnic group. That does not deny human rights to one ethnic group. But holds it self evident that all men (and women) were created equal.
It's odd isn't it, that the many people would agree with that statement, yet when we look around it's those willing to screw over others for their own advantage who seem to prosper and gain influence. What is even odder is that many of the people who are being screwed over will actively support them and shout down anyone who points out that they supporting someone who is screwing them over.

Perhaps it is only odd to me; I've never been interested in team sports.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2024, 02:29 AM   #1529
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,714
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post

Perhaps it is only odd to me; I've never been interested in team sports.
Well that’s interesting because you were bloody quick to pick a side here.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2024, 02:45 AM   #1530
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,763
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Well that’s interesting because you were bloody quick to pick a side here.
No, see the mistake you made there is to assume that because I'm not on your team that I must be supporting the other side.

You're either with us or against us are the only options in your worldview.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2024, 04:13 AM   #1531
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,251
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
No, see the mistake you made there is to assume that because I'm not on your team that I must be supporting the other side.

You're either with us or against us are the only options in your worldview.
the important thing here is that there MUST BE only ONE TEAM - you aren't human if you are not with some of the posters here.

It's because they feel very uncomfortable about the idea that there could, even in theory, be a legitimate alternative perspective of the conflict.
because then they might, just might, be wrong.
And because they are the good guys in their own story, they can't possibly be in the wrong here when excusing the killing of tens of thousands of civilians.

I wonder what their position was on the Iraq War.
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.”
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2024, 03:05 PM   #1532
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,315
I swaer, if 9/11 were to happen today, some people where would be apologists for Al Qaida.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2024, 06:52 PM   #1533
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,315
Meanwhile Iran according to several reports, has green lighted a Hexbollah attack on Israel's Northern border.If true, we ain't seen nothing yet.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2024, 07:08 PM   #1534
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 15,993
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
the important thing here is that there MUST BE only ONE TEAM - you aren't human if you are not with some of the posters here.

It's because they feel very uncomfortable about the idea that there could, even in theory, be a legitimate alternative perspective of the conflict.
because then they might, just might, be wrong.
And because they are the good guys in their own story, they can't possibly be in the wrong here when excusing the killing of tens of thousands of civilians.

I wonder what their position was on the Iraq War.
"I'm right, therefore anyone who disagrees with me must be ideologically motivated".

I find these meta discussions of your opponent's reasoning not just disingenuous, but more importantly not particularly useful.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2024, 07:34 PM   #1535
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,524
It's the "pacifism is objectively pro-fascist" problem. It's not a problem for me; I'm pro-Israel. What this means for me, among other things, is that the Palestinians must renounce terrorism as a means for airing or redressing grievances. Hamas and Hezbollah (and others of that ilk) must be destroyed. Any negotiations or reparations about illegal settlements or a two-state solution cannot be considered as long as terrorism is still on the table as a Palestinian stratagem.

So, yeah, I'm pro-Israel and anti-Hamas. I don't have to worry about how all my arguments are in favor of one side and against the other. I don't have to gaslight people about how I'm not always taking one side in this debate.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2024, 10:28 PM   #1536
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Counter-productive in what way?
I have been pondering for a few days how to respond to this. I mean, this is such a classic American thing to say.
"Why is bombing folks a bad thing? Don't y'all lurve it when we bomb y'all?"
It is truly terrifying that so many Americans are completely blind to the effect that their gung-ho bellicosity has on the rest of the world. Not just those unfortunate enough to be the recipients of a "productive bombing", but also anyone else with a spark of humanity and a kernel of knowledge about the world outside their own countries.
However, I will attempt to shed a little light for you.
Iran is a dictatorship- a theocracy. There is widespread dissatisfaction in Iran, among its people, with that government. If the US starts bombing Iran, then their government will play on that, to unite the people against a common enemy. This is Dictatorship 101. Military action will almost certainly further entrench the mullahs, and increase their already significant hatred of America- a hatred that would be justified due to American bombardment.
That hatred would not be confined to Iran. Its proxies around the region would strike US targets, and very probably its allies as well- the UK and Israel being the two most obvious ones, plus further attacks on Red Sea shipping.
All of this would act to accelerate America's growing isolation around the world, and its power and influence would continue to wane, especially in the Middle East, which is already weary of US aggression and lack of consultation with regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
This would heighten the already super-tense situation, and lead to a very real risk of escalation, possibly all-out war, in the region. Additionally, terror attacks around the world would increase.
So, apart from reinforcing the mullah's grip on power, alienating the Iranian population, risking an all-out regional war, increased terrorist attacks, increased threats to global shipping, reduced US influence around the world, and the numerous casualties of a bombing campaign, you're right: it's a totally productive strategy.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
How many times has this policy been tried and failed in the last few decades?
Vietnam. I know you see this as an American victory. I have no idea why. The country is communist, millions of Vietnamese died, tens of thousands of Americans died, the war policy divided the US, divisions which still can be seen: how can this be described as a success? Iraq. "Mission Accomplished". "Oh, wait, bombing didn't solve anything, now there's a massive insurgency, the rise of ISIS, increased Iranian meddling, huge global anger against the US". All this because the plan was just military, and no thought at all had gone into what would happen afterwards. Afghanistan, after the Russians left. Once again, America was very happy to help bomb the Russians, but had thought no further than that. When the Russians pulled out, so did the US, and the country was plunged into a brutal civil war.
Nicaragua. The Bay of Pigs. Get others to do the bombing for you? Didn't work out so well there, either.
Laos? Cambodia? Did they welcome the productive bombing of their countries, and embrace the US? No, they bloody didn't. It baffles me that you think those campaigns were successful too.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Relentless bombing sure seemed to calm things down in the balkans, a few years back.
Oh, well done. You found one instance where bombing was effective- a part of the solution, not the whole solution, to be sure, but the bombing did help.
Do you think that this approach would work in Iran? No ground forces to assist, unlike in the Balkans, so the US would have two choices: an unending bombing campaign from the air, which would almost certainly not unseat the Iranian government; or a full-scale ground invasion. How do you see that going? Another "Mission Accomplished" moment? Or America getting bogged down in yet another insurgency?
Note also that the number of times US militarism has succeeded is greatly outnumbered by the times it has failed, a fact that has yet to percolate into the minds of so many Americans.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2024, 10:50 PM   #1537
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,251
Former Israeli PM Olmert says Netanjahu and his warmongers are responsible for October 7th and are using the attack to take over Gaza and the West Bank to create a much bigger Israel

- from an interview with Haartez

But what does a former PM know, must be a Hamas supporter.
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.”
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2024, 09:17 AM   #1538
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 34,924
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I think some people are coming nearer and nearer to admiting they want the Desturction of Isreal. As for what happens to the five million Jews living in Israel, I guess they will make a varitaion on the excuse for Stalin's atrocities that those on the militant left made in the 1930's "You can't make a omlette without breaking a few eggs".
What a superb example of logically fallacious reasoning. Nice touch to go with Uncle Joe rather than Adolf for the poisoning of the well, though.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
And because they are the good guys in their own story, they can't possibly be in the wrong here when excusing the killing of tens of thousands of civilians.
That's if they even accept there are tens of thousands dead - there are people here who are still questioning the scale of the atrocity, and no matter whose numbers you use at the end of this conflict, they will downplay them and accuse the authors of lying.

The fact that those people are using the exact terminology and arguments as Holocaust deniers would be amusing if their vile nature wasn't being hung on the obliterated bodies of Palestinian kids.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I wonder what their position was on the Iraq War.
Now you're just teasing - you don't wonder, you know exactly what it was.

Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Meanwhile Iran according to several reports, has green lighted a Hexbollah attack on Israel's Northern border.If true, we ain't seen nothing yet.
Yeah, go Team Israel!

Having destroyed Gaza, let's get on with destroying Lebanon. I bet there are are Israeli politicians slavering at the idea every bit as much as you are and hope Hezbollah gives them reason to go full Monty in the north as well.

Just think, if Israel manages to annihilate Lebanon as well as Gaza, their borders will finally be secure.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.