Tragically it's all more complicated than anyone can really state, right? I mean, if you had a 30 book(10k pages a book) series solely on the conditions in the region of Palestine between 1930 and today you'd still have so much material to cut, you could limit all 30 books to only 1 sides POV.

The closest I see to shortcutting things, is trying view what is likely to happen in the future, and from that maybe what one might try and do.

The trouble being there's so little one can do. The reality is that Israeli military strength compared to Palestine is completely and entirely one sided, and thus Israel can and will do whatever it wishes to militarily. It's all their choice, period. In fairness to Israel, you have to note that Hamas as stated in their own charter, given that same power would've already cleansed the entirety of Israel and have created their own single state 'final' solution.

It's also not actually about Palestine vs. Israel, which should be obvious given the fact of Israel's military dominance. Israel IS really facing existentially threats of it's own, just not directly from Palestine, and instead from ALL of it's neighbours. That state of constantly requiring Israel to be capable of winning an existential war since it's inception has kept things in a perpetual state of near-war, and more often proxy-war with the Palestiniances as the pawns of alternately Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others depending which time and region we choose to look at.

Predictively, that gives us that Isreal can not, under any circumstances, accept conditions to exist where any party(in particular Iran as the main backer) views the "Al Aqsa Flood operation" as a success. That means Israel will do whatever they deem necessary to ensure that happens and Iran in particular views that operation as a mistake. Nothing the UN or any of the rest of us say or do can change that.

Idiots—all who believe any of this is untrue or unimportant. Oil is the death nail of any ecology, without which economies simply cannot exist.
(Saying oil is the life blood of any economy is like saying “Plants crave Brawndo, it’s got electrolytes.”. Plants can survive on Brawndo temporarily, but quickly fail.)

Change to green is coming, but far too slowly. Market forces and “scientific debate” (read-misinformation campaigns) have been manipulated by enormous industry pressures and coffers to keep it from being mainstream. (You likely STILL think Solar and wind aren’t economically viable when they both have been for decades, and still deny climate change even though the oil industry knew for a certainty it was a real and existential threat in the 70’s, but industry supplied misinformation has duped you time and time again into being on the wrong side of the science, ecology, economy, and/or sanity.)

Because market forces are artificiality manipulated and driven by industry whose existence depends on staying Crude (as opposed to Going Green), government edict is not just necessary, it’s an overdue urgent imperative.

FTFY.

for the most part, the people of china, japan, korea, and saudi arabia are native to those places, not invaders who often committed genocide to take control of those places and resources. there have also long been outcries to how they deal with foreigners, we just don't hear about it since we don't live there and aren't part of that media bubble. their attempts at monoculture have presented them with a variety of different issues and existential threats, japan probably suffering the most acutely right now.

@enoch, I agree that "attacking people you disagree with ideologically" is wrong, but history has shown us that with these assholes "ideological difference" eventually becomes "existential threat". You might remember there was a bit of a scuffle last century where a group of these guys did some bad shit and these of the world had to step in a punch a lot of people in a lot of faces. I think we'd all rather avoid a recurrence of that.

So the question becomes, would a bit of judicious face punching now save a lot of face punching later? I don't know the answer to that, but i do know that if there's one cause I'd happily stand up and say "this far and no further (or I punch you in the face)", it's making sure these assholes never get into power.

He's fucked up his whole life.

Cheated contractors, investors, the IRS. Sexually assaulted women, then bragged about it. He runs a false charity that only works to benefit Trump himself. He openly espouses Putin's policies on topics of Russian interest, even when it conflicts with American interest. He condones and encourages violence. Threatens to use the power of the office to imprison his perceived enemies. Threatens to jail journalists and comedians who disagree with him. Can't even UNDERSTAND why nuclear weapons are not to be used except in cases of existential threat.

He IS a fuckup.

Republicans nominated him.

Republican politicians backed him (some less enthusiastically than others, but it's hard to tell what was political expediency and what was genuine angst).

If they're going to impeach him, there's plenty of material already. He could see jail before he sees the Oval Office.

Two problems.

1) Republicans would be embarrassed to admit they'd backed a candidate that spent more of his first four years in jail than in the office. It would blow up the party and they're too self-centred to do that.

2) Even if they DID impeach him, Mike Pence is only slightly better. Republicans will still have a 100% lock on the Supreme Court in 4 years, they can shut down more polling stations, kick everyone they don't like off the voting rolls for flimsy excuses (it happened in North Carolina this election in spite of a court order).

It would take an overwhelming majority of Americans voting against Republicans in four years to tip the scales. If they have another four years, they're only going to push things further. Watch California get reduced to fewer electoral votes than Arkansas.

The US is bordering on failed state/despotism. The Republicans in congress and the senate are the only ones who could stand in the way, but if they stand in the way, they give up their own power.

Do you really think they're going to do that? Really?

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

All well and good, but the reason why all the oversight costs piles up is because this plane isn't a solution to a military problem, it's a solution to an economical problem.

It's government stimulus, pure and simple. Get a whole bunch of different contractors from different companies and hand them money to build parts for a warplane that covers roles that are already covered. Keep those guys ticking over to prevent a collapse of the arms industry (or to prevent them developing products for sale to buyers the US might not consider kosher).

And then, because you're dealing with different companies, you need to coordinate, ensure compatibility, oversea each company to make sure they are on time/program/budget etc etc.

You build a plane under one roof, the entire process is overseen by the company and the government get's to check up on them. Far simpler. One department doesn't deliver inside that company, their management has to fix the problem or default on the contract. One company holds up the whole plane, do the other companies get penalised? Of course not, their staff sit around drawing wages with their thumbs up their asses waiting. And the government keeps paying.

Additionally, the planes the F35 is supposed to replace are all better at their jobs because they are specialised. You put every topping ever conceived on that government pizza and no one will like it (apart from perhaps the homeless who would eat anything to stave off starvation). Build a new warthog, improve on the materials, give it better armaments etc and put the tried and true design back to work. That's the core of the super hornet program, right?

When you look at the state of the world, the only real threats currently to America are the bloody terrorists (which, as you note, isn't exactly an existential threat), and the flexing of military might in 2nd world countries not withstanding, there is very little need for a frankenplane that doesn't do anything particularly good.

China and Russia? Lol, the US has 75% more combat aircraft and 400% more combat helicopters. Factor in China's pretty sparse air assets, in an air war, including force multipliers such as electronic warfare/early warning/air co-ordination and carriers, the US would be able to show down both nations handily with it's existing fleet.

I really do appreciate the point you're making, but that just adds insult to injury. The awful waste built in to the program is even more appalling when you consider that the F35 is a plane no one really needs, or even wants.

This video lacks a lot of salient details.

Yes, the F35 is aiming at the A10 because contractors want jobs (something to do).

However, the strength of the A10 is also its weakness. Low and slow also means that it takes you a long time to get to your troops. Fast jets arrive much sooner (significantly so). A combination of both would be ideal. F35 to get there ASAP, and A10 arriving later to take over.

It's not really worth debating the merit of new fighters. You don't wait for a war to start developing weapons.

Yes, our recent enemies are durkas with small arms, and you don't need an F35 to fight them - but you also don't even need to fight them to begin with - they aren't an existential threat. Terrorist attacks are emotionally charged (well, until they happen so often that you get used to hearing about them, and they stop affecting people), but they are nothing compared to say, a carpet bombing campaign.

The relevance of things like the F35 is to have weapons ready and able to face a large national power, should a nation v nation conflict arise with a significant other nation. In the event that such a conflict ever does, you don't want to be caught with your pants down.

Defense spending costs scale with oversight requirements.

Keep in mind that money pays people. Even materials are simply salaries of the material suppliers. The more people you put on a program, the more that program will cost.

Yes, big contractors make big profits - but the major chunk of their charges is still salaries.

Let me explain what is going on.

Remember the $100 hammers?
In fact, the hammer still cost a few bucks. What cost 100+ bucks was the total charges associated with acquiring a hammer.
Everything someone does in association with acquiring the hammer, gets charged to a charge code that's specific for that task.

Someone has to create a material request - $time.
Someone has to check contracts for whether or not it will be covered - $time.
Someone has to place the order - $time.
Someone has to receiver the package, inspect it, and put it into a received bin - $time.
Someone has to go through the received items and assign them property tags - $time.
Someone has to take the item to the department that needed it, and get someone to sign for it - $time.
Someone has to update the monthly contract report - $time.
Someone has to generate an entry in the process artifacts report, detailing the actions taken in order to acquire the hammer - $time.
Someone on the government side has to review the process artifacts report, and validate that proper process was followed (and if not, punish the company for skipping steps) - $time.

Add up all the minutes here and there that each person charged in association with getting a hammer, and it's $95 on top of a $5 hammer. Which is why little things cost so much.

You could say "Hey, why do all that? Just buy the hammer".
Well, if a company did that, it would be in trouble with govt. oversight folks because they violated the process.
If an employee bought a hammer of his own volition, he would be in trouble with his company for violating the process.
The steps are required, and if you don't follow them, and there is ever any problem/issue, your lack of process will be discovered on investigation, and you could face massive liability - even if it's not even relevant - because it points to careless company culture.

Complex systems like jet fighters necessarily have bugs to work out. When you start using the system, that's when you discover all the bits and pieces that nobody anticipated - and you fix them. That's fine. That's always been the case.



As an airplane example, imagine if there's an issue with a regulator that ultimately causes a system failure - but that issue is just some constant value in a piece of software that determines a duty cycle.

Say for example, that all it takes is changing 1 digit, and recompiling. Ez, right? NOPE!

An engineer can't simply provide a fix.

If something went wrong, even unrelated, but simply in the same general system, he could be personally liable for anything that happens.

On top of that, if there is no contract for work on that system, then an engineer providing a free fix is robbing the company of work, and he could get fired.

A company can't instruct an engineer to provide a fix for the same reasons that the engineer himself can't just do it.

So, the process kicks in.

Someone has to generate a trouble report - $time.
Someone has to identify a possible solution - $time.
Someone has to check contracts to see if work on that fix would be covered under current tasking - $time.
Say it's not covered (it's a previously closed [i.e. delivered] item), so you need a new charge code.
Someone has to write a proposal to fix the defect - $time.
Someone has to go deal with the government to get them to accept the proposal - $time.
(say it's accepted)
Someone has to write new contracts with the government for the new work - $time.
To know what to put into the contract, "requrements engineers" have to talk with the "software engineers" to get a list of action items, and incorporate them into the contract - $time.
(say the contract is accepted)
Finance in conjuration with Requirements engineers has to generate a list of charge codes for each action item - $time.
CM engineers have to update the CM system - $time.
Some manager has to coordinate this mess, and let folks know when to do what - $time.
Software engineer goes to work, changes 1 number, recompiles - $time.
Software engineer checks in new load into CM - $time.
CM engineer updates CM history report - $time.
Software engineer delivers new load to testing manger - $time.
Test manager gets crew of 30 test engineers to run the new load through testing in a SIL (systems integration lab) - $time.
Test engineers write report on results - $time.
If results are fine, Test manager has 30 test engineers run a test on real hardware - $time.
Test engineers write new report - $time.
(assuming all went well)
CM engineer gets resting results and pushes the task to deliverable - $time.
Management has a report written up to hand to the governemnt, covering all work done, and each action taken - documenting that proper process was followed - $time.
Folks writing document know nothing technical, so they get engineers to write sections covering actual work done, and mostly collate what other people send to them - $time.
Engineers write most the report - $time.
Company has new load delivered to government (sending a disk), along with the report/papers/documentation - $time.
Government reviews the report, but because the govt. employees are not technical and don't understand any of the technical data, they simply take the company's word for the results, and simply grade the company on how closely they followed process (the only thing they do understand) - $time.
Company sends engineer to government location to load the new software and help government side testing - $time.
Government runs independent acceptance tests on delivered load - $time.
(Say all goes well)
Government talks with company contracts people, and contract is brought to a close - $time.
CM / Requirements engineers close out the action item - $time.

And this is how a 1 line code change takes 6 months and 5 million dollars.

And this gets repeated for _everything_.

Then imagine if it is a hardware issue, and the only real fix is a change of hardware. For an airplane, just getting permission to plug anything that needs electricity into the airplanes power supply takes months of paper work and lab testing artifacts for approval. Try getting your testing done in that kind of environment.



Basically, the F35 could actually be fixed quickly and cheaply - but the system that is in place right now does not allow for it. And if you tried to circumvent that system, you would be in trouble. The system is required. It's how oversight works - to make sure everything is by the book, documented, reviewed, and approved - so no money gets wasted on any funny business.

Best part, if the government thinks that the program is costing too much, they put more oversight on it to watch for more waste.
Because apparently, when you pay more people to stare at something, the waste just runs away in fear.
Someone at the contractors has to write the reports that these oversight people are supposed to be reviewing - so when you go to a contractor and see a cube farm with 90 paper pushers and 10 'actual' engineers (not a joke), you start to wonder how anything gets done.

Once upon a time, during the cold war, we had an existential threat.
People took things seriously. There was no F'ing around with paperwork - people had to deliver hardware. The typical time elapsed from "idea" to "aircraft first flight" used to be 2 years. USSR went away, cold war ended, new hardware deliveries fell to a trickle - but the spending remained, and the money billed to an inflated process.

-scheherazade

Interesting read, but I'm surprised that there was no mention of the Holocene extinction. Given the current rate of extinction, especially of plants, we could be looking at a complete ecological collapse in the not too distant future. It seems like a more serious existential threat than asteroids or rampant AI in that it's actually happening as opposed to something that might happen or could happen.

>> ^NetRunner:

Not much of a hornet's nest. More of a political posture to make a point.
The idea isn't that Charlie Rangel wanted to continue the wars, and make sure we're adequately prepared for new ones with Iran and North Korea. Out of context quotes makes it look that way, but of course it was just a ploy to make Republicans put up or shut up.
If the war in Iraq was about an existential threat to the US, the case for a draft should be airtight. If Republicans don't want a draft, then aren't they just full of shit?
If they do want a draft, what better way to focus people's attention on the war, and get them to really start organizing in opposition to it, even if the bill fails on a narrow party-line vote (or even better, a Bush veto).
I'd say that's a pretty ballsy gambit to drive the national debate. The problem, as always, was the Democrats didn't really form a coherent strategy or message to go along with it, and the bill got voted down without anyone really paying attention to it.


Yes, that is the context, but I still think this Should be our national policy. No more chickenhawks sending other peoples kids to war.

But, that's not why The-User-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named posted this, is it? He doesn't want informed conversation: shit stirrer.

Not much of a hornet's nest. More of a political posture to make a point.

The idea isn't that Charlie Rangel wanted to continue the wars, and make sure we're adequately prepared for new ones with Iran and North Korea. Out of context quotes makes it look that way, but of course it was just a ploy to make Republicans put up or shut up.

If the war in Iraq was about an existential threat to the US, the case for a draft should be airtight. If Republicans don't want a draft, then aren't they just full of shit?

If they do want a draft, what better way to focus people's attention on the war, and get them to really start organizing in opposition to it, even if the bill fails on a narrow party-line vote (or even better, a Bush veto).

I'd say that's a pretty ballsy gambit to drive the national debate. The problem, as always, was the Democrats didn't really form a coherent strategy or message to go along with it, and the bill got voted down without anyone really paying attention to it.

TLDR.

PS: Both sides are crazy pants. A little bit like this thread.

>> ^bcglorf:

He merely said that people will not tolerate this woman espousing her hateful and ill conceived views, but we extend that courtesy to the Jews/Israelies who want to wipe out the Palestinians, likewise hateful and ill conceived.
He went a touch further initially and characterized all opposition to this girl as hypocrites that extend the courtesy to Israeli and Jewish acts of terrorism and excess. That by extension paints all Israelis as wanting to wipe out the Palestinians, and I do consider that a hateful view and will oppose it as long as it remains untrue. He did later clarify that as too broad though, and my last response had been to Drachen_Jager.
You've done the instinctive jump (I'm surprised you didn't start waving the holocaust flag sooner tbh) to go on the offensive as if Longde was some jew hating white supremicist when you have nothing, from what he has said, to base that on.
And yet you both failed the litmus test. When Drachen_Jager stated his willingness to extend leniency to oppressed peoples, like Hamas and Hezbollah, I pointed back to 1940's Israel and asked if the same standards applied then. Longde declared that to be revisionist history and you've made it clear you consider the Israeli war of independence a terrorist act. I never said anything about Israel's many crimes being justified because of the holocaust. I just stated that when considering the civil war between Jew and Arab in 1940's Palestine, the holocaust absolutely sways me in support of the Jewish minority. All the more so when the entirety of the Arab world decided to join in and attempt to exterminate the Jewish people for the second time in a single decade.
Would you condemn the extremists who helped establish the Jewish state?
Yes. Would you condemn the very establishment of that Jewish state because of those extremists? I certainly am not willing to, and if you are I'd ask if Hamas has then similarly disqualified the Palestinians from the right to a Palestinian state?
For the record (in case you've actually read this far), I condemn Hammas and Hezbollah for their crimes. I condemn the right wing government of Israel for it's crimes and it's Nazi-esque policies. I condemn any Jew who supports them and wants to see Palestine gone. I condemn Jews who misuse terribly the suffering of those involved in the Holocaust to silence dissent to Israels current facist actions.
And I can agree whole heartedly with this entire paragraph. We see 100% eye to eye on it. I do differ in going a touch further though and requiring the observation that Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and a great many arab populations in surrounding countries are all as nazi-esque in their racism towards Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah also go further still in being less discriminate in their hatred and use of violence. The only thing holding them back from exterminating all Israeli's is they lack the ability to do it. At least the right wing nuts in Israel like Netanyahu are held back by the will of the moderate Israeli's, because there can be no mistaking that if Netanyahu's kind wished to turn the West bank and Gaza into lifeless rubble they could likely do it inside a week.
I'm perfectly content to condemn Israel for it's crimes and extremists. I will not settle for disproportionate blame being laid on them for all the hate, violence and atrocities befalling the region around them. The Palestinians aren't the only ones who's extremists have arisen from existential threats to their people.

Here is what I wrote above: "I define her opposition as the people on the other side using extrremism and killing to achieve their ends. Perhaps I have defined it too broadly. I certainly don't think it encapsulates all Jews or Isrealis, but I do think it includes the Israeli government and military."

Again, you are putting words in my mouth, unless all Israelis and all Jews use extremism and killing.


>> ^bcglorf:

He merely said that people will not tolerate this woman espousing her hateful and ill conceived views, but we extend that courtesy to the Jews/Israelies who want to wipe out the Palestinians, likewise hateful and ill conceived.
He went a touch further initially and characterized all opposition to this girl as hypocrites that extend the courtesy to Israeli and Jewish acts of terrorism and excess. That by extension paints all Israelis as wanting to wipe out the Palestinians, and I do consider that a hateful view and will oppose it as long as it remains untrue. He did later clarify that as too broad though, and my last response had been to Drachen_Jager.
You've done the instinctive jump (I'm surprised you didn't start waving the holocaust flag sooner tbh) to go on the offensive as if Longde was some jew hating white supremicist when you have nothing, from what he has said, to base that on.
And yet you both failed the litmus test. When Drachen_Jager stated his willingness to extend leniency to oppressed peoples, like Hamas and Hezbollah, I pointed back to 1940's Israel and asked if the same standards applied then. Longde declared that to be revisionist history and you've made it clear you consider the Israeli war of independence a terrorist act. I never said anything about Israel's many crimes being justified because of the holocaust. I just stated that when considering the civil war between Jew and Arab in 1940's Palestine, the holocaust absolutely sways me in support of the Jewish minority. All the more so when the entirety of the Arab world decided to join in and attempt to exterminate the Jewish people for the second time in a single decade.
Would you condemn the extremists who helped establish the Jewish state?
Yes. Would you condemn the very establishment of that Jewish state because of those extremists? I certainly am not willing to, and if you are I'd ask if Hamas has then similarly disqualified the Palestinians from the right to a Palestinian state?
For the record (in case you've actually read this far), I condemn Hammas and Hezbollah for their crimes. I condemn the right wing government of Israel for it's crimes and it's Nazi-esque policies. I condemn any Jew who supports them and wants to see Palestine gone. I condemn Jews who misuse terribly the suffering of those involved in the Holocaust to silence dissent to Israels current facist actions.
And I can agree whole heartedly with this entire paragraph. We see 100% eye to eye on it. I do differ in going a touch further though and requiring the observation that Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and a great many arab populations in surrounding countries are all as nazi-esque in their racism towards Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah also go further still in being less discriminate in their hatred and use of violence. The only thing holding them back from exterminating all Israeli's is they lack the ability to do it. At least the right wing nuts in Israel like Netanyahu are held back by the will of the moderate Israeli's, because there can be no mistaking that if Netanyahu's kind wished to turn the West bank and Gaza into lifeless rubble they could likely do it inside a week.
I'm perfectly content to condemn Israel for it's crimes and extremists. I will not settle for disproportionate blame being laid on them for all the hate, violence and atrocities befalling the region around them. The Palestinians aren't the only ones who's extremists have arisen from existential threats to their people.

He merely said that people will not tolerate this woman espousing her hateful and ill conceived views, but we extend that courtesy to the Jews/Israelies who want to wipe out the Palestinians, likewise hateful and ill conceived.

He went a touch further initially and characterized all opposition to this girl as hypocrites that extend the courtesy to Israeli and Jewish acts of terrorism and excess. That by extension paints all Israelis as wanting to wipe out the Palestinians, and I do consider that a hateful view and will oppose it as long as it remains untrue. He did later clarify that as too broad though, and my last response had been to Drachen_Jager.

You've done the instinctive jump (I'm surprised you didn't start waving the holocaust flag sooner tbh) to go on the offensive as if Longde was some jew hating white supremicist when you have nothing, from what he has said, to base that on.

And yet you both failed the litmus test. When Drachen_Jager stated his willingness to extend leniency to oppressed peoples, like Hamas and Hezbollah, I pointed back to 1940's Israel and asked if the same standards applied then. Longde declared that to be revisionist history and you've made it clear you consider the Israeli war of independence a terrorist act. I never said anything about Israel's many crimes being justified because of the holocaust. I just stated that when considering the civil war between Jew and Arab in 1940's Palestine, the holocaust absolutely sways me in support of the Jewish minority. All the more so when the entirety of the Arab world decided to join in and attempt to exterminate the Jewish people for the second time in a single decade.

Would you condemn the extremists who helped establish the Jewish state?

Yes. Would you condemn the very establishment of that Jewish state because of those extremists? I certainly am not willing to, and if you are I'd ask if Hamas has then similarly disqualified the Palestinians from the right to a Palestinian state?

For the record (in case you've actually read this far), I condemn Hammas and Hezbollah for their crimes. I condemn the right wing government of Israel for it's crimes and it's Nazi-esque policies. I condemn any Jew who supports them and wants to see Palestine gone. I condemn Jews who misuse terribly the suffering of those involved in the Holocaust to silence dissent to Israels current facist actions.

And I can agree whole heartedly with this entire paragraph. We see 100% eye to eye on it. I do differ in going a touch further though and requiring the observation that Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and a great many arab populations in surrounding countries are all as nazi-esque in their racism towards Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah also go further still in being less discriminate in their hatred and use of violence. The only thing holding them back from exterminating all Israeli's is they lack the ability to do it. At least the right wing nuts in Israel like Netanyahu are held back by the will of the moderate Israeli's, because there can be no mistaking that if Netanyahu's kind wished to turn the West bank and Gaza into lifeless rubble they could likely do it inside a week.

I'm perfectly content to condemn Israel for it's crimes and extremists. I will not settle for disproportionate blame being laid on them for all the hate, violence and atrocities befalling the region around them. The Palestinians aren't the only ones who's extremists have arisen from existential threats to their people.