Vaughan Spa

Israel at war

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
74,580
81,053
113
I've assumed they want to go after Lebanon for quite some time.
FFS! Hezbollah has been rocketing northern Israel non stop for months!

What the fuck country is going to put the fuck up with that?!?!?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesbacal0

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
74,580
81,053
113
If they could poison the air, they would. That’s the fanatical ethos of Ziontologists.

Klatty

You've been living on borrowed time for a few weeks now and your existence has been pre conditioned on me not visiting the Gaza threads for a while. But your endless junk diet of Munayyer and Blumenthal and 2 or 3 others must finally come to an end.

Adios, amigo! Onto ignore you go.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
31,866
58,239
113
Yes, and Jill Stein should win.
But since she won't, you have a dilemma about what to do with your vote.
It would be nice if the US had an electoral system that didn't create that problem, but it does.

The system needs change and the dems need change, well, so does the GOP.
Then why are you fixated on not voting or third party voting, which will accomplish none of this?

Changing the dems is first so that the system can be changed, turfing out all who took AIPAC money and aiding the progressives would be a start.
This is all about actually voting though.
It is about thinking through the consequences of voting in the system as it is and making choices.

Or are you now saying just "anyone who takes AIPAC money must be voted out regardless of any other position they take"?
Which is very possible with you.

Unless Stein wins and can change it.
So you've just decided to abandon reality completely at this point?

Its not 'punishment', Biden needs to earn the chance to win. He could have but instead chose to waste it backing genocide.
Your language makes a mockery of democracy.
You're the one who keeps saying he has to lose to make the dems learn and that even him changing his position wouldn't be enough because it is too late and he has to lose.

Isn't it already? Isn't voting for rump a choice about morality? Same with voting for Genocide Joe.
Of course your vote isn't an illustration of your personal morality.
Who on earth would want to pretend that it is in a compromised system?
That's the same idiocy as "You think Capitalism is a problem, and yet you still use money" as an argument.

But that's also democracy, voters can choose to vote by age, hair style, party colours or whatever reason they want.
They are free to vote for who they want to win instead of only voting strategically if they want.
Of course they can!
And pointing out that voting that way is stupid and counter-productive is just pointing out reality to them.
That you don't like me pointing out reality doesn't prevent reality from existing.
People who voted against a candidate because of their hair style will also be voting in an extremely stupid way.
I'm glad you understand this.

By arguing that its 'accomplish' you are saying voting can only be strategic, which is anti democratic.
What a deeply ignorant thing to say.

You are supposed to vote for the person who most supports your views and is mostly likely to enact policy to make it happen.
You are not supposed to vote only to win.
That you cling to this delusion is the whole point of this argument and really I should drop it because it is clear you are never going to abandon your fantasy.

The First Past the Post system does not allow for that.
In fact, it works against it.

This is the whole point of why it needs to be changed.
Voting "honestly" in this system leads to worse outcomes.

Until you understand that, you understand nothing.

I would argue that someone who has studied politics should really know their choice is not to just choose between a hitler and a mussolini, their choice is to back the both of them and the genocide they support.
And your argument would be silly and ridiculous, because you don't understand voting systems.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
31,866
58,239
113
What our Hamas-loving friend overlooks is that any overt move by Biden to a forthright pro Hamas policy position will lead to 2 overwhelming negative counter-reactions:

1. Support from pro Israel voters will bleed heavily to the GOP.
2. There will be factional schism and in fighting amidst Dems in heavily Jewish areas, such as NYC! That in turn will lead to a decrease in funding and Dem voter apathy. Neither thereof being good things in an election year.
There is serious question about how large either of those counter-reactions will be, though.
A lot would depend on what the actual policy shift was, of course - along with how it is handled, the messaging, the GOP response, and so on.

So you get a GOP electoral win, Dem financial chaos and Biden being deposed along with his Dem Party pro Hamas supporters immediately after the election, at which time the Dems would swing back to an amorphous "sorta pro Israel but still holding out some carrots to the pro Palestine Arab and far left vote" party policy.
It's one theory of the case, but I don't think that's definitive.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
31,866
58,239
113
FFS! Hezbollah has been rocketing northern Israel non stop for months!

What the fuck country is going to put the fuck up with that?!?!?!
One that has to be careful about how much they escalate a war.

But Bibi and company have talked about finding ways to strike at Iran as well.
It isn't like they don't want to do it, they just don't think they can get away with either right now.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
30,067
4,269
113
Ahh, so we are back to the "This is a thing I - Butler - believe, therefore it must be true" standard?



Are you now denying that you said Israel should commit war crimes (such as offering no quarter)?
I stated BOTH sides have chosen no quarter. Because that is the truth.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
74,580
81,053
113
There is serious question about how large either of those counter-reactions will be, though.
A lot would depend on what the actual policy shift was, of course - along with how it is handled, the messaging, the GOP response, and so on.
Trump would be an idiot not to jump on the "Senile Joe's a terrorist supporter now!" bus. But then, Trump is an idiot.

The other wild card is how many synagogues the Hamas lovers attack in the USA and whether the backlash increases towards them There's only so much Jew-baiting, art destroying and traffic stopping the purple-hair-and-keffiyeh peeps can do before they bleed away any and all support from the normies.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
74,580
81,053
113
One that has to be careful about how much they escalate a war.

But Bibi and company have talked about finding ways to strike at Iran as well.
It isn't like they don't want to do it, they just don't think they can get away with either right now.
I think anything more than a random missile hit on Iran is a pipe dream. They can take Hezbollah pretty easily though. Guys shouting "Inshallah!" and waving AK's and RPG's don't hold up for long against Merkavas, artillery and tac air. Just like in Gaza right now.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
50,245
9,339
113
Toronto
This is the result of Islamophobia.
As you've told us, everything happens for a reason. That would include Islamophobia. I assume.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
30,067
4,269
113
Ahh, so we are back to the "This is a thing I - Butler - believe, therefore it must be true" standard?



Are you now denying that you said Israel should commit war crimes (such as offering no quarter)?
So if this isn't a long standing USA policy then you are stating Joe Biden is solely responsible for starting it, delivering the arms that are being used, and his Genocide Joe moniker is correct.

Well no wonder the Dem base is up in arms.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Valcazar

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
88,636
20,976
113
What our Hamas-loving friend overlooks is that any overt move by Biden to a forthright pro Hamas policy position will lead to 2 overwhelming negative counter-reactions:

1. Support from pro Israel voters will bleed heavily to the GOP.
2. There will be factional schism and in fighting amidst Dems in heavily Jewish areas, such as NYC! That in turn will lead to a decrease in funding and Dem voter apathy. Neither thereof being good things in an election year.
1- Pro Israel vote is tiny, both here and in the US. Even amongst Jews support for zionism is fading.
2 - The infighting with dems is between progressives and those funded by AIPAC now.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
88,636
20,976
113
But since she won't, you have a dilemma about what to do with your vote.
It would be nice if the US had an electoral system that didn't create that problem, but it does.
There is no dilemma.
Don't vote for genocide, don't vote for rapist conmen.



Then why are you fixated on not voting or third party voting, which will accomplish none of this?
Voting for Biden also won't change the system, so why should I choose that?

This is all about actually voting though.
It is about thinking through the consequences of voting in the system as it is and making choices.

Or are you now saying just "anyone who takes AIPAC money must be voted out regardless of any other position they take"?
Which is very possible with you.
Genocide is a red line, as is rape and fraud. I personally won't vote for anyone who is a rapist, conman or genocidal.
AIPAC is the next target, they are like the NRA but worse, a lobbying group representing a few genocidal billionaires acting on behalf of a foreign, terrorist state.

So you've just decided to abandon reality completely at this point?
Is that what you tell Maple Leaf and Blue Jays fans?
Your argument is to give up hoping for change and just back genocide because the rapist/conman is coming.
That winning is the only thing that matters even if you win with a genocidal maniac.

You're the one who keeps saying he has to lose to make the dems learn and that even him changing his position wouldn't be enough because it is too late and he has to lose.
I'm saying that months ago 57% of those who voted for Biden last time said Israel is committing genocide. Aiding genocide is a red line for me. I wouldn't vote for Pol Pot, I wouldn't vote for Hitler and I wouldn't vote for Netanyahu or Biden. You argue that you have to vote for them because they are the only ones that can win.

Of course your vote isn't an illustration of your personal morality.
Who on earth would want to pretend that it is in a compromised system?
That's the same idiocy as "You think Capitalism is a problem, and yet you still use money" as an argument.
Right, so you'd vote for Hitler because he'd promise better university funding and because it wouldn't reflect on your morality.

Of course they can!
And pointing out that voting that way is stupid and counter-productive is just pointing out reality to them.
That you don't like me pointing out reality doesn't prevent reality from existing.
People who voted against a candidate because of their hair style will also be voting in an extremely stupid way.
I'm glad you understand this.
Telling people they are stupid for not voting the way you want them to vote isn't pointing out reality. All that's doing is pointing out your own ivory tower belief in the supremacy of your own views. Arguing that people should vote for genocide based on your own supremacist belief in your own intellect works only to taint your own argument. Trying to argue that its counter productive to not 'reward' genocide while arguing that your own understanding of history and politics is itself supremacist is an automatic failing grade in reality.



That you cling to this delusion is the whole point of this argument and really I should drop it because it is clear you are never going to abandon your fantasy.

The First Past the Post system does not allow for that.
In fact, it works against it.

This is the whole point of why it needs to be changed.
Voting "honestly" in this system leads to worse outcomes.

Until you understand that, you understand nothing.
Your argument is that you must vote dishonestly to fix the system?
How do you think that works?
Please explain how this will fix the system.



And your argument would be silly and ridiculous, because you don't understand voting systems.
Your superior understanding argues you must vote 'dishonestly' to fix a system by 'rewarding' someone you admit is aiding genocide.
This is supposed to convince other people on the board to change their views?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
88,636
20,976
113
One that has to be careful about how much they escalate a war.

But Bibi and company have talked about finding ways to strike at Iran as well.
It isn't like they don't want to do it, they just don't think they can get away with either right now.
Netanyahu wants war with Iran but wants the US to fight it on their behalf.
He tried by bombing that Iranian embassy in Syria but nobody bit.

Lebanon is a war he thinks he can win but hopefully thinks just the threat of it is enough.
His generals don't want it but Netanyahu doesn't listen to anyone.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
88,636
20,976
113
Toronto Escorts