When Genocide is Permissible

[classical_hero]

There is a certain type of Genocide that is permissible.

Link to video.

 

[hangman]

America simply is a very Pro-Israel nation.

For the most part, with a caveat: the overwhelming majority of Palestinian supporters are young(ish), liberal, and not as likely to vote. The voting demographic is therefore more skewed toward Israel than popular opinion would suggest.

Instead, it slavishly obeys a country that never helps it and does nothing but cause problems for the US. With friends like these...

It does seem rather like the tail is wagging the dog...

 

[Tahuti]

It's amazing and sad. If any other country deliberately sank one of its military vessels and called it an accident, the US would've gone to war.

[Emphasis mine]

Proof?

Instead, it slavishly obeys a country that never helps it and does nothing but cause problems for the US. With friends like these...

At the time of the incident, it was fighting a war against Soviet-allied countries. Why wouldn't that be useful to the US?

 

[T C]

There is a certain type of Genocide that is permissible.

Link to video.

What a load of right wing nonsense.

(These guys are serious, right? It's not satire?)

 

[Tahuti]

What a load of right wing nonsense.

(These guys are serious, right? It's not satire?)

Well, attacking sinagogues and assaulting religious Jews (who may or may not be actually Anti-Zionist) isn't exactly 'legitimate criticism of Israel'. For all the Anti-Israel's crowd complaining that they are being unfairly equated with antisemitism, they often tend to look away when antisemitism actually happens as long as it is called 'protest against Israel'.

Antisemitism is always bad, whether Israel is bad or not.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, attacking sinagogues and assaulting religious Jews (who may or may not be actually Anti-Zionist) isn't exactly 'legitimate criticism of Israel'. For all the Anti-Israel's crowd complaining that they are being unfairly equated with antisemitism, they often tend to look away when antisemitism actually happens as long as it is called 'protest against Israel'.

Antisemitism is always bad, whether Israel is bad or not.

I'd say that antisemitism (in the 21rst century context you gave) is always irrelevant, given you are speaking of a race numbering something like 0,1% of the global population. You might as well try to make a huge issue out of 'Anti-Swiss ingrained sentiment in the Eurozone' and so on. Both are- as the friendly but not refined english would say- 'rubbish' arguments :\

Attacking the walls of a building, with small-scale vandalism (by which i mean the kind which cannot escalate to harming actual people's bodies) is not that rare in public demonstrations against whole countries if some current issue is making waves of antipathy generate.

 

[Tahuti]

I'd say that antisemitism is always irelevant, given you are speaking of a race numbering something like 0,1% of the global population. You might as well try to make a huge issue out of 'Anti-Swiss ingrained sentiment in the Eurozone' and so on. Both are- as the friendly but not refined english would say- 'rubbish' arguments :\

Attacking the walls of a building, with small-scale vandalism (by which i mean the kind which cannot escalate to harming actual people's bodies) is not that rare in public demonstrations against whole countries if some current issue is making waves of antipathy generate.

I'd say murder is always irrelevant in the first world because by far most deaths are disease related. Same logic.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'd say murder is always irrelevant in the first world because by far most deaths are disease related. Same logic.

That seems more like apples and alien football teams.

 

[hangman]

Well, attacking sinagogues and assaulting religious Jews (who may or may not be actually Anti-Zionist) isn't exactly 'legitimate criticism of Israel'. For all the Anti-Israel's crowd complaining that they are being unfairly equated with antisemitism, they often tend to look away when antisemitism actually happens as long as it is called 'protest against Israel'.

Antisemitism is always bad, whether Israel is bad or not.

Agreed, although as others have mentioned, anti-Semitism in many areas is virtually nonexistent. Personally, I have never once in my entire life known someone who actually was anti-Semitic, which makes the prospect of calling someone who criticizes Israel an anti-Semite all the more laughable.

 

[Tahuti]

Agreed, although as others have mentioned, anti-Semitism in many areas is virtually nonexistent. Personally, I have never once in my entire life known someone who actually was anti-Semitic, which makes the prospect of calling someone who criticizes Israel an anti-Semite all the more laughable.

I've actually encountered a few. While most Anti-Israel people I know aren't antisemtic, all the antisemitic people did use Israel as a justification (you'd be hard-pressed to find any who don't, actually). Since most Jews have either made aliyah or completely assimilated, the 'No Jews in my Backyard so go to Israel!' types have more or less dissappeared.

 

[bhsup]

So are you all familiar with the guy in Missouri that went to the synagogue across the border in Kansas just to murder Jews?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_Glenn_Miller,_Jr.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/us/kansas-jewish-center-shooting/index.html

http://www.kshb.com/news/crime/evidence-found-in-suspected-jcc-shooters-home

 

[T C]

Well, attacking sinagogues and assaulting religious Jews (who may or may not be actually Anti-Zionist) isn't exactly 'legitimate criticism of Israel'. For all the Anti-Israel's crowd complaining that they are being unfairly equated with antisemitism, they often tend to look away when antisemitism actually happens as long as it is called 'protest against Israel'.

Antisemitism is always bad, whether Israel is bad or not.

Of course, I don't think anyone can defend, or indeed is defending, attacks on Jews. The only people defending attacks on civilians in this debate are those like, classical hero, who uncritically support Israel.

I was talking about the video in general and the number of religious right-wing talking points they managed to include. Muslim immigration, the 'left-wing' establishment, the decline of Christianity (let's pray for them!) etc.; they even mentioned evolution.

 

[warpus]

This Dale Hurd guy is an idiot. He has no idea what he's talking about.

As much as anti-semitism actually happens and is a problem.. This guy is a tool who should not be allowed to voice his opinions on the air. People might take him seriously.

 

[classical_hero]

Of course, I don't think anyone can defend, or indeed is defending, attacks on Jews. The only people defending attacks on civilians in this debate are those like, classical hero, who uncritically support Israel.

Obviously you have not read a single word of what I have said, s=with such a stupid comment. I have 100% blamed the civilian deaths on Hamas for the way they fight. They disregard the rules of war by firing from civilian positions.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Looks like ISIS is gearing up to massacre 40,000 Yazidis in Iraq.

Got em pinned down on Mount Sinjar with people dying of thirst now.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/06/40000-iraqis-stranded-mountain-isis-death-threat

 

[Kyriakos]

Yazidis are that group accused by Islam of worshipping Satan. The one with some cool elements like a Peacock as a divine being, and some ceremony with a bed adorned by 7 blankets or something

Maybe Satan will now come to help. Surely this won't escalate fast.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Obviously you have not read a single word of what I have said, s=with such a stupid comment. I have 100% blamed the civilian deaths on Hamas for the way they fight. They disregard the rules of war by firing from civilian positions.

That isn't obvious at all. He may have read every single word you have said and just disregarded them all because they make no sense.

 

[T C]

Obviously you have not read a single word of what I have said, s=with such a stupid comment. I have 100% blamed the civilian deaths on Hamas for the way they fight. They disregard the rules of war by firing from civilian positions.

So you not only defend attacks on civilians, but also refuse to put any responsibility on those actually dropping the bombs. This doesn't make your position appear any better.

 

[peter grimes]

Link to video.

Interestingly applies to both sides.

 

[Tahuti]

Obviously you have not read a single word of what I have said, s=with such a stupid comment. I have 100% blamed the civilian deaths on Hamas for the way they fight. They disregard the rules of war by firing from civilian positions.

That makes them morally culpable though not the only ones responsible. Those that drop the bombs are also responsible. Now, being responsible for causing death is not necessarily immoral. If there is no other option, and further deaths can be prevented, this is an unfortunate though necessary option. That still doesn't change you are responsible for the deaths.

Again, it doesn't automatically make you the bad guy, though it should be obvious by now that is something that requires good judgment.