The All Things Political Topic - Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

[Malcador]

37 minutes ago, Sarex said:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/11/shireen-abu-akleh-israeli-forces-kill-al-jazeera-journalist

Said the Palestinians shot her, but they seemed to walk that back to no one knowing yet.  For fun go read some Palestinian and Israeli forums on this news.

[Gromnir]

19 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

So, in other words they were all bad? 

laughy gif but am knowing you believe it, so...

gd likes to ignore the substantial degrees o' variation. convinces self biden is no more corrupt or skeevy than trump? sure. andrew johnson and jimmy carter were both democrats and supporters o' racist policies during their political careers, but am suspecting even gd would agree the degree o' villainy those two Presidents displayed as it pertains to equitable treatment o' race were vast different in terms o' scale. nevertheless, 'cause is convenient and supports gd worldview, he simplifies to they are all bad. 

@Hurlsnotcontribution is noteworthy as it provides balanced context for lbj. converse, label a late 19th century and early 20th century US politician as racist and a believer in eugenics is less than helpful w/o context. is unfortunate but am suspecting such labels would apply in varying degrees to at least 90% o' US politicians circa 1910s. is not that woodrow wilson were racist and a believer in eugenics which made him a bad guy by the standards o' his day but rather the degree o' his belief and the efforts to which he attempted to have US policy reflect his racist beliefs. 

however, so is no misunderstanding, woodrow wilson were indeed vile. the following is woodrow wilson quotes used in the film, birth of a nation:

Adventurers swarmed out of the North, as much the enemies of one race as of the other, to cozen, beguile, and use the Negroes.…In the villages the Negroes were the office holders, men who knew none of the uses of authority, except its insolences.

The Policy of the congressional leaders wrought…a veritable overthrow of civilization in the South.…in their determination to "put the white South under the heel of the black South."

The white men of the South were aroused by the mere instinct of self-preservation to rid themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant negroes and conducted in the interest of adventurers.

*shrug*

regardless, as is typical, gd jokes... but not really. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

The laugh wasn't what you said, it was that is was YOU saying it. Also, you are wrong in thinking I don't draw distinctions between different levels of villainy. One being better than another doesn't make them good however. 

[Gromnir]

18 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

The laugh wasn't what you said, it was that is was YOU saying it. Also, you are wrong in thinking I don't draw distinctions between different levels of villainy. One being better than another doesn't make them good however. 

and our point was your misinterpretation o' what we said. to varying degrees, near all US Presidents could be described as racists, but am thinking it should be obvious that observation, w/o context, is meaningless. btw, is kinda starting point o' crt that racism is normal and if is evil, then is an inherent evil o' human nature. brookings site offers good insights. is easier for Gromnir to embrace foundations o' crt 'cause while you are selective pretending not to recall, is Gromnir who suggests state o' nature is brutal and that is 'cause o' inherent flaws in all men. you are the one who curious believes politicians is unique subject to flaw... particular major party politicians. 

and you are serious misrepresenting your own past observations/claims. how many times has you suggested it makes no difference which you choose as 'tween lesser and greater evils? they are all bad. self paralysis resulting from convincing self choice 'tween evils don't matter?

so again, is only funny 'cause you misinterpreted. our observation were in response to your less than meaningful descriptor o' woodrow wilson. is Gromnir who has always made clear that given the magnitude o' the job and the challenges presented, US Presidents and Congressmen is near always gonna come outta the wash looking dirty and unsuited for the job. Presidents were never s'posed to do what we want 'em to do, so is hardly shocking when they fail to meet expectations. is not 'cause they is bad (edit: though is no question at least a few potus has been undeniable corrupt) they fail to meet gd expectations but rather 'cause they is men, human beings.

spam. has us chasing you as you chase your tail? more fool us.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 11, 2022 by Gromnir

[Gorth]

9 hours ago, Malcador said:

Said the Palestinians shot her, but they seemed to walk that back to no one knowing yet.  For fun go read some Palestinian and Israeli forums on this news.

BBC picked up on the story too...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-61403320

 

Another Palestinian journalist, Al Jazeera producer Ali Samoudi, was shot in the back and was in a stable condition in hospital, the health ministry added.

"We were going to film the Israeli army operation and suddenly they shot us without asking us to leave or stop filming," Al Jazeera cited Mr Samoudi as saying. "The first bullet hit me and the second bullet hit Shireen.

"There was no Palestinian military resistance at all at the scene," he added.

Video of the shooting showed Abu Aqla was wearing a blue flak jacket clearly marked with the word "press", as well as a helmet.

---

It wouldn't be the first time the Israeli military targets Al Jazeera (it wasn't that long ago the Israeli airforce targeted one of their buildings, killing some Associated Press people too). They must really hate those pesky reporter reporting on life in the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

[alanschu]

23 minutes ago, Gorth said:

It wouldn't be the first time the Israeli military targets Al Jazeera (it wasn't that long ago the Israeli airforce targeted one of their buildings, killing some Associated Press people too). They must really hate those pesky reporter reporting on life in the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

Ah yes this was the building that was also definitely a Hamas stronghold or something along those lines IIRC?

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, Gorth said:

..killing some Associated Press people too..

To be fair, none of the AP staff died in the bombing. Though also to be fair, the AP was also rather surprised that the building they'd been in 24/7 for, hmm, 15 years was supposed to suddenly be a hotbed of militants that simply had to be demolished for military necessity*.

*otherwise it's a War Crime anyway, to whit: Collective Punishment

Edited May 12, 2022 by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, alanschu said:

Ah yes this was the building that was also definitely a Hamas stronghold or something along those lines IIRC?

Unfortunately its well known and been a strategy of Hamas to fire rockets and use civilian buildings\houses when they decide to target\attack Israel and that  normally causes a military response from Israel which is sometimes an overreaction and civilians get killed which brings global attention for a short period to this interminable conflict

Personally I dont think Hamas cares about the lives of Palestinians unlike the PLO which was the previous political group in charge of the Palenstians. Peace requires reconcilliation and compromise  in many historical conflicts like we saw in South Africa before 1994 with Nelson Mandela and negotiations we went through

Hamas still doesnt recognize Israel has a right to exist, they refuse to say it. Six words and they wont say it

If they were serious about a better future for the Palestinians  they would start with that. Here is  good link that highlights  some of other developments that precipitated this latest killing 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/28/middleeast/israel-isis-attack-intl/index.html

 

[BruceVC]

https://ewn.co.za/2022/05/11/afriforum-back-in-court-to-challenge-ban-against-displaying-apartheid-flag

Their is an interesting development in SA at the moment where a white, Afrikaans legal group is in court to overturn the showing of the old SA flag which has been deemed as hate speech 

Many South Africans tend to respond to these court cases emotionally, which is understandable, and not pragmatically 

The old SA flag was created in 1928 and 20 years before Apartheid was implemented or existed so technically it wasnt the Apartheid flag but continued to be used as SA flag and now has the label "Apartheid flag " 

Anyway the point being I dont consider the showing of the old flag to be an example of hate speech but I do think the displaying of it is racist and offensive to people across the racial lines because it doesn't represent the new SA

Im interested in feedback for those interested. My question being  " is the showing of the old SA flag within SA hate speech ". Its offensive yes I agree but I am not convinced its hate speech ?

Edited May 12, 2022 by BruceVC

[Elerond]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/11/senate-abortion-rights-bill-vote

 

No republican support and Manchin also voted against.

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

https://ewn.co.za/2022/05/11/afriforum-back-in-court-to-challenge-ban-against-displaying-apartheid-flag

Their is an interesting development in SA at the moment where a white, Afrikaans legal group is in court to overturn the showing of the old SA flag which has been deemed as hate speech 

Many South Africans tend to respond to these court cases emotionally, which is understandable, and not pragmatically 

The old SA flag was created in 1928 and 20 years before Apartheid was implemented or existed so technically it wasnt the Apartheid flag but continued to be used as SA flag and now has the label "Apartheid flag " 

Anyway the point being I dont consider the showing of the old flag to be an example of hate speech but I do think the displaying of it is racist and offensive to people across the racial lines because it doesn't represent the new SA

Im interested in feedback for those interested. My question being  " is the showing of the old SA flag within SA hate speech ". Its offensive yes I agree but I am not convinced its hate speech ?

I wonder about the similarities to the issue in the US with the use of the CSA flag (and the battle flag). While technically the national flag of a sovereign country, it has so many "other" meanings today, that it gets complicated. I do think most people using it today are using it for its provocative effect rather than any sense of CSA nationalism.

 

Much easier back in my old country. The danish flag was given to the Danish king by God himself during a battle in some overseas heathen country in 1219. Combining a sense of moral superiority with profit and land grabs. With Divine blessing no less.

 

Edit: It has been the national flag since 1219 iirc.

[BruceVC]

9 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I wonder about the similarities to the issue in the US with the use of the CSA flag (and the battle flag). While technically the national flag of a sovereign country, it has so many "other" meanings today, that it gets complicated. I do think most people using it today are using it for its provocative effect rather than any sense of CSA nationalism.

 

Much easier back in my old country. The danish flag was given to the Danish king by God himself during a battle in some overseas heathen country in 1219. Combining a sense of moral superiority with profit and land grabs. With Divine blessing no less.

 

Edit: It has been the national flag since 1219 iirc.

Yes I tend to agree and the usage of the Confederate flag is sometimes used provocatively 

In the SA example Afriforum will probably win this case legally because I dont think it is hate speech

I hope they dont because what I want to ask is " in the new SA why would any white person want to honestly display the old flag " knowing it creates both real and irrational anxiety and just upsets people. I cant think of a one valid reason except for being provocative 

 

 

[Chairchucker]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Unfortunately its well known and been a strategy of Hamas to fire rockets and use civilian buildings\houses when they decide to target\attack Israel and that  normally causes a military response from Israel which is sometimes an overreaction and civilians get killed which brings global attention for a short period to this interminable conflict

Personally I dont think Hamas cares about the lives of Palestinians unlike the PLO which was the previous political group in charge of the Palenstians. Peace requires reconcilliation and compromise  in many historical conflicts like we saw in South Africa before 1994 with Nelson Mandela and negotiations we went through

Hamas still doesnt recognize Israel has a right to exist, they refuse to say it. Six words and they wont say it

If they were serious about a better future for the Palestinians  they would start with that. Here is  good link that highlights  some of other developments that precipitated this latest killing 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/28/middleeast/israel-isis-attack-intl/index.html

 

Interestingly the way you've phrased the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Palestine targets civilian buildings and houses 'as a strategy', whereas Israel merely 'overreacts' and civilians 'get killed'. Good use of the passive voice so it's hardly like Israel did it, the civilians got in the way.

It's also weird that you should criticise Hamas 'not recognising Israel has a right to exist' when it is Israel that is occupying Palestine, not the other way around. Should Ukraine officially declare Russia has a right to exist?

[BruceVC]

12 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Interestingly the way you've phrased the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Palestine targets civilian buildings and houses 'as a strategy', whereas Israel merely 'overreacts' and civilians 'get killed'. Good use of the passive voice so it's hardly like Israel did it, the civilians got in the way.

It's also weird that you should criticise Hamas 'not recognising Israel has a right to exist' when it is Israel that is occupying Palestine, not the other way around. Should Ukraine officially declare Russia has a right to exist?

If you understand the history of the conflict between the Palenstians vs Israelis you will realize how important the words " Israel has a right to exist " is 

Going back to SA if Nelson Mandela had said " white South Africans have no right to exist " their would have been no reconciliation   and no election in 1994. So I guess its about what you want, do you want  endless war and conflict or do you want meaningful peace?

And then the conflict and history of the Palestinian vs Israelis is historically complicated  and both sides are guilty of breaking agreements  and not demonstrating good faith in finding peace 

But what you cant say is that Jews have no right to any land and no right to be their because Jews and Palestinians can trace their ancestry back thousands of years to that region so both sides have a right to live their 

Edited May 12, 2022 by BruceVC

[Chairchucker]

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

If you understand the history of the conflict between the Palenstians vs Israelis you will realize how important the words " Israel has a right to exist " is

It's a nonsense dogwhistle on par with 'it's OK to be white' or 'all lives matter'. Israel is not currently the state in danger of being genocided. Palestine is. By Israel.

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

It's a nonsense dogwhistle on par with 'it's OK to be white' or 'all lives matter'. Israel is not currently the state in danger of being genocided. Palestine is. By Israel.

The word genocide has a specific definition and shouldnt be used in a cavalier way 

If its not genocide then you shouldnt use it. If the Israelis wanted to kill every Palestinian man, women and child they have more than enough military hardware to do that ...they dont want to do that so lets not use inaccurate words 

[Elerond]

32 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

The word genocide has a specific definition and shouldnt be used in a cavalier way 

If its not genocide then you shouldnt use it. If the Israelis wanted to kill every Palestinian man, women and child they have more than enough military hardware to do that ...they dont want to do that so lets not use inaccurate words 

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Usually when Israel is accused of committing  genocide against Palestinians it is section 3. in UN's definition, as Israel forces Palestinians to live in certain areas, which size they constantly decrease by occupying more areas themselves, they control and block trade to these areas, the control electricity, heath and other energy to these areas, which they have weaponized against Palestinians.  

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Usually when Israel is accused of committing  genocide against Palestinians it is section 3. in UN's definition, as Israel forces Palestinians to live in certain areas, which size they constantly decrease by occupying more areas themselves, they control and block trade to these areas, the control electricity, heath and other energy to these areas, which they have weaponized against Palestinians.  

Its  ostensibly a valid  point but the UN point 3 is based on the definition of  concentration camps

The West Bank and Gaza are not concentration camps. Yes the conditions are bad but they not concentration camps 

[HoonDing]

It's genocide if it's countries we dislike: Russia, China, North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan, ...

It's not genocide if it's countries we like or are not allowed to dislike: USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia, India, Thailand, ...

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

 

It's also weird that you should criticise Hamas 'not recognising Israel has a right to exist' when it is Israel that is occupying Palestine, not the other way around. Should Ukraine officially declare Russia has a right to exist?

speaking o' interesting, how exact is israel occupying palestine? ask self when when were the s'posed initial israeli invasion of palestine. 

as for some folks talking genocide by israel, will once again observe the strong population growth o' the peoples in gaza and the so-called occupied territories, which at the very least, given israeli capabilities, suggests they ain't trying to bring 'bout the destruction o' a people, yes? by comparison, am suspecting the population growth for ukraine is not gonna look so good for 2022.

the killing o' the reporter is likely a terrible accident, but as usual am gonna wait for details. is weird how no matter how many times same situations arise, we nevertheless get folks with same instinctive need to react reflexive.

am also not recalling the building the ap needed evacuate *gasp* were "suddenly" discovered to be a hamas stronghold. is unsurprising israel never offered details regarding the existence o' hamas intelligence assets in the building. that said, we wouldn't be shocked if israel had decided that given al jazeera acting as an intelligence gathering arm for qatar backed entities is hardly a controversial position, they would destroy their gaza headquarters. not legal, but were bloodless. am not condoning btw, but on the scorecard o' evils attributed to israel, and has been more than a few genuine bad acts, that one were extreme minor.

every few years, israelis reach a limit as to numbers o' gaza launched rocket attacks they is willing to suffer and decide the five minutes o' western infamy they endure for stomping out hamas in gaza (or hezbollah to the north) cells is worth the body count and bad press, and their calculus thus far appears to be a valid approach to maintaining the status quo... and status quo is best possible outcome at this point considering the last legit efforts for peace were 2000 and since then neither israelis or arabs has had real serious interest in revisiting long-term peace solutions. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 12, 2022 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

speaking o' interesting, how exact is israel occupying palestine? ask self when when were the s'posed initial israeli invasion of palestine. 

as for some folks talking genocide by israel, will once again observe the strong population growth o' the peoples in gaza and the so-called occupied territories, which at the very least, given israeli capabilities, suggests they ain't trying to bring 'bout the destruction o' a people, yes? by comparison, am suspecting the population growth for ukraine is not gonna look so good for 2022.

the killing o' the reporter is likely a terrible accident, but as usual am gonna wait for details. is weird how no matter how many times same situations arise, we nevertheless get folks with same instinctive need to react reflexive.

am also not recalling the building the ap needed evacuate *gasp* were "suddenly" discovered to be a hamas stronghold. is unsurprising israel never offered details regarding the existence o' hamas intelligence assets in the building. that said, we wouldn't be shocked if israel had decided that given al jazeera acting as an intelligence gathering arm for qatar backed entities is hardly a controversial position, they would destroy their gaza headquarters. not legal, but were bloodless. am not condoning btw, but on the scorecard o' evils attributed to israel, and has been more than a few genuine bad acts, that one were extreme minor.

every few years, israelis reach a limit as to numbers o' gaza launched rocket attacks they is willing to suffer and decide the five minutes o' western infamy they endure for stomping out hamas in gaza (or hezbollah to the north) cells is worth the body count and bad press, and their calculus thus far appears to be a valid approach to maintaining the status quo... and status quo is best possible outcome at this point considering the last legit efforts for peace were 2000 and since then neither israelis or arabs has had real serious interest in revisiting long-term peace solutions. 

HA! Good Fun!

Gromnir makes some very good points here and  their is a tendency to jump to an immediate assumption when it comes to the Israeli vs Palestinian conflict 

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

8 hours ago, Elerond said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/11/senate-abortion-rights-bill-vote

 

No republican support and Manchin also voted against.

Color me shocked. I guess we'll have to wait until the midterms for Democrats to do nothing again and beg us to vote in 2024.

6 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

It's a nonsense dogwhistle on par with 'it's OK to be white' or 'all lives matter'. Israel is not currently the state in danger of being genocided. Palestine is. By Israel.

The person you're talking to agrees with both of those dogwhisltes as well.

Some folks care more about geopolitical power relations than they do principles and they toss in a dose of brown people bad for good measure, so when Russia targets (white) civilians it's barbarity, but when Israel targets (brown) civilians it's necessity and the fault of Hamas. Weird that some people can't be consistent and condemn the murder of civilians universally, but the real world is a very strange place.

[rjshae]

On 5/11/2022 at 7:52 AM, Malcador said:

Said the Palestinians shot her, but they seemed to walk that back to no one knowing yet.  For fun go read some Palestinian and Israeli forums on this news.

It's always a challenge to know what's true in that corner of the world. There's just too much incentive to lie and make Israeli look monstrous. I'm withholding judgment for that reason; not that I'm not concerned. It's also a dangerous line of work for journalists to travel to conflict zones. The US has also lost journalists in that region.

[Gorth]

10 hours ago, rjshae said:

It's always a challenge to know what's true in that corner of the world. There's just too much incentive to lie and make Israeli look monstrous. I'm withholding judgment for that reason; not that I'm not concerned. It's also a dangerous line of work for journalists to travel to conflict zones. The US has also lost journalists in that region.

True. The journalist in this case was actually a US citizen

Forensic investigation has started to determine who fired the killing shot... who knows, maybe the truth will actually be established eventually in this case (leaving the internet court of law without a job!)

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/12/world/al-jazeera-journalist-killed-west-bank

 

[Zoraptor]

Uh, yeah:

"Shireen Abu Akleh: Israeli forces attack mourners carrying casket of dead Al Jazeera journalist".

I mean, what can you say really?