Yet another war, this time with Iran

[Arctish]

Unfortunately people living in Palestine wanted to keep living as they had. And why should they not? And unfortunately, all people are flawed and too often want to impose their beliefs on others or to blame others and are often driven by greed and lust for power and fear.

Except nobody would have been expelled from anywhere had the Palestinians not chosen the path of violence. The partition should have been peaceful--but Islam can't accept loss. We see a far bloodier version of the same thing with India/Pakistan, no Jews to blame for it so it gets ignored.

Source your claim that the Palestinians chose the path of violence.

Show, not tell.

Because what you tell is usually bullshit.

 

[Arctish]

I absolutely understand that European Jews very much wanted a ‘homeland,’ a place they could live as a majority, and have a Jewish state. It made sense that this Jewish state would be centered on places of historic importance to Judaism. Much of the world wanted that for them, too. The trauma of WWII was, well, world wide.

Of course that’s a fairly shallow understanding of events but it’s also largely true. Another shallow way of looking at things is that there are multiple Islamic states. There are multiple Christian based states. Why could there not exist a single Jewish state?

More it was a case of saying never again. They wanted a place they wouldn't be subjected to periodic pogroms. Historically, there is no meaningful country where they have not had times where they feared for their safety.

And we see the pattern continue, except this time it's nations behind the pogroms.

Unfortunately people living in Palestine wanted to keep living as they had. And why should they not? And unfortunately, all people are flawed and too often want to impose their beliefs on others or to blame others and are often driven by greed and lust for power and fear.

Except nobody would have been expelled from anywhere had the Palestinians not chosen the path of violence. The partition should have been peaceful--but Islam can't accept loss. We see a far bloodier version of the same thing with India/Pakistan, no Jews to blame for it so it gets ignored.

Of course it is telling that no other nation has welcomed Palestinians with open arms as brothers.

Jordan was the only country to welcome the Palestinians after 1948. And we saw the result in September 1970. Other country's were more aware than Jordan and did not provide an open welcome.

You really have no idea how utterly racist ^this^ is, do you?

Let's try this: no other country wanted to accept Jews when the Russians and the Germans were kicking them out. The British let a lot of them enter Palestine, and look how that turned out. Things sure would have been a lot more peaceful if the Jews were kept out. Those guys are nothing but trouble. No wonder the Europeans didn't want them around.

Do you see the problem now, or should I continue?

How much of that is due to the Palestinians and how much it is due to having a convenient mutual enemy in Israel.

Yes to both. By not really looking after the refugees they had a convenient stick to use again Israel.
Lebanon allowed in some and we can still see the results today.

Why shouldn't the Palestinian refugees have been allowed to return to their former places of residence in Palestine?

Can you think of any reason other than racism or religious bigotry?

 

[ZiprHead]

Israel and Lebanon have agreed to a 10 day ceasefire.

But will Hezbollah honor it?

Will Israel?

When have they not?

Note the news almost never reports on attacks against Israel that do not kill someone.

Israel has been dropping bombs on Lebanon every day of the ceasefire.

 

[ZiprHead]

Jim Crow was peaceful.

And you fail to understand what "seizing land" means in this case.

It was a change in government, not a change in occupation of the land!

How do you come up with this crap?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The bad guys were the Zionist who thought of creating Israel.

So you think Moses should have stayed in Egypt?

Who?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why are the noises tolerated? Don't you think it indicates how people feel?

Trump made similar noises about invading Greenland

You answered your own question here. Trump making noises about invading Greenland was indeed NOT an indication how *people* feel because there were no other American people besides Trump who felt the need to invade Greenland.

So, generally no, I wouldn’t consider the belligerent ravings of a minority of politicians to necessarily be representative of the feelings of the people those politicians represent. Especially so when those politicians are not democratically elected.

 

[aupmanyav]

So you think Moses should have stayed in Egypt?

That would have saved Amelekites and Medianites. What did Israelites do after leaving Egypt - War.
Abraham, Noah, Moses are not historical persons.

"Jan Assmann argues that it cannot be known if Moses ever lived because there are no traces of him outside tradition."

Moses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Jan Assmann argues that it cannot be known if Moses ever lived because there are no traces of him outside tradition."

The narrative itself says the people wouldn't react to him, hence getting Aaron the Levite *big neon lights* to be his valet.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So you think Moses should have stayed in Egypt?

That would have saved Amelekites and Medianites. What did Israelites do after leaving Egypt - War.
Abraham, Noah, Moses are not historical persons.

"Jan Assmann argues that it cannot be known if Moses ever lived because there are no traces of him outside tradition."

Moses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The whole story is bullshit. North/Lower Egypt was always part Caananite. We've found very old Caananite temples side by side with Pharaonic temples. Caananites cheerfully lived in Egypt and many had slaves of their own. Apart of being implausible The exodus story doesn't fit the context. Caananites could and did travel freely back and forth unhindered.

The best explanation I have heard is that the Moses story is purely a mythic etiology. It might be as easy as that the Jews didn't like that they decended from local basic bitch goat herders and just wanted to sex up their backstory

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why are the noises tolerated? Don't you think it indicates how people feel?

Trump made similar noises about invading Greenland

You answered your own question here. Trump making noises about invading Greenland was indeed NOT an indication how *people* feel because there were no other American people besides Trump who felt the need to invade Greenland.

So, generally no, I wouldn’t consider the belligerent ravings of a minority of politicians to necessarily be representative of the feelings of the people those politicians represent. Especially so when those politicians are not democratically elected.

I doubt its the ravings of a minority. Why do I say that? Because threatening neighbours is politically risky. A politician doesn't take risks unless there's a good pay-off.

Politicians most often act as a break on extreme excesses by the people. People are often not nice.

Here's a factoid. When Enoch Powell made his Rivers of Blood speech polls showed that 3/4 Brits at the time agreed with him. Its like this all over. Regular people often feel scared and insecure. Especially about Other people

 

[Gospel]

Jim Crow was peaceful.

And you fail to understand what "seizing land" means in this case.

It was a change in government, not a change in occupation of the land!

How do you come up with this crap?

It’s perspective. Your views come from what you’ve experienced. For example Americans see Iran as the enemy because they’ve been in conflict with them. Russians don’t feel that same way, because Iran hasn’t been coming at them. Same country, different experience, different judgment. This helps explain those bad takes. If you trace them back to the related lived experiences, they start to make a lot less sense to you, but more sense to them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You sound like Hamas leadership.

More like Churchill or Roosevelt. My point is that we should not capitulate to the islamofascists just because oil prices went up some.

Capitulation would only be on the cards if they had attacked you. It was the other way around. America attacked, and Iran refused to capitulate. America then realised that she had no plan for that entirely predictable eventuality.

Iran is a cancer to which the left is playing don't look up. They have unquestionably killed millions through the various groups they support, it would not surprise me if the total was in the tens of millions. And the idiot did not understand why the world keeps kicking the can about it and went in totally stupid. That doesn't make Iran not a cancer.

The question is how to treat the cancer with the best chance of survival and good health of the host. No one here is arguing Iran is in the right, so there is no basis for these rants of yours.

The thing is capitulation amounts to declaring the cancer to be terminal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Many leftist atheists, including on this forum, have a soft-spot for Islam.

. Really? Who and how soft?

On this forum there have definitely been posters saying nonsense like how Christianity is a bigger threat than Islam.

How is that having a "soft-spot"? At this time, in the US, Christianity is a bigger threat than Islam.

I agree. It mostly has to do with proximity. If we lived in Saudi Arabia, the reverse would likely be true.

The math: Threat is risk. Risk = a convolution of probability x severity. Probability is correlated to proximity.

Example: even if sharia could be worse for women in the US, the probability that Christo-fascists remove some women's rights is far far greater in the US, than Muslims implementing sharia in the US.

Honestly, I would consider the risk of sharia being implemented in the US to be effectively zero.

The real risk is how much damage is done in the attempt to force it. Look at Israel: the chance that Hamas can conquer Israel is effectively zero. But 10/7 was proportionately much worse than 9/11 was for us.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That "small fee" last I heard was $2 million.

Why do you think I put it in quotes?

And they are not just blockading their waters, but also waters belonging to other nations.

They dispute the status of the Strait. Almost no one agrees with them, but they have an argument. We do not have any conceivable right to the Strait, disputed or otherwise. On what legal basis can the US claim the right to engage in piracy on the Strait? It adjoins no territory of ours.

Actually, we do. A naval blockade is an act of war and thus it can be declared in enemy waters.

And it's not just enemy ships, but any ships other than theirs. And in general you can't deny civilian passage through your waters if no alternative exists.

So you agree that the US is engaging in piracy when we do the exact same activity, but with even less justification?

Pirates take vessels, they do not deny passage to vessels.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Moreover, the Strait of Hormuz is Iranian and Omanian waters. While the UN International Convention on the Law of the Seas indicates ships of transit rights, Iran claims since it never ratified it, they can charge tolls. The USA has no such claim.

I don’t know if Iran is correct. Regardless, Politesse’s argument suggests there is a legal basis but does not suggest approval.

Iran has no power to charge tolls on ships in Omanian waters.

"Power" suggests ability. Do you mean international legal right? Iran's argument is that since it is not a signatory to that UN treaty, it is not bound by it. I don't know if that is accurate or not. Can you produce a link to a credible source that settles that question?

It doesn't matter if Iran is a signatory as the original route was through Omani waters, not through Iranian waters.

But Iran mined that path. A minefield in waters other than your own is an act of war.

Why are you bending over backwards to pretend they're in the right??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course it is telling that no other nation has welcomed Palestinians with open arms as brothers. How much of that is due to the Palestinians and how much it is due to having a convenient mutual enemy in Israel.

More telling is that those nations which treated them reasonably suffered for doing so.

So long as there are those pouring money into radicalizing them nobody will want them around.

Sure, people have free will--but those who are funding the violence make sure that there is not a meaningful path other than the one of war. I do not blame them, I see them as victims--but they are being victimized by those who fund the terror--which these days means Iran.

 

[laughing dog]

Moreover, the Strait of Hormuz is Iranian and Omanian waters. While the UN International Convention on the Law of the Seas indicates ships of transit rights, Iran claims since it never ratified it, they can charge tolls. The USA has no such claim.

I don’t know if Iran is correct. Regardless, Politesse’s argument suggests there is a legal basis but does not suggest approval.

Iran has no power to charge tolls on ships in Omanian waters.

"Power" suggests ability. Do you mean international legal right? Iran's argument is that since it is not a signatory to that UN treaty, it is not bound by it. I don't know if that is accurate or not. Can you produce a link to a credible source that settles that question?

It doesn't matter if Iran is a signatory as the original route was through Omani waters, not through Iranian waters.

But Iran mined that path. A minefield in waters other than your own is an act of war.

I asked for a link to a credible source. Still waiting.

Why are you bending over backwards to pretend they're in the right??

I’m not. In fact I admitted I don’t know. Why do you continually misrepresent others?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, I’m not a great student of history but Jim Crow was not ‘peaceful’ fior any person of color living under it. It wasn’t peaceful in states that were merely adjacent to it! There were lynchings, raped, murders, all manner of violence under Jim Crow.

And you think I don't know that?

I'm saying it outwardly looks like peace.

 

[laughing dog]

You sound like Hamas leadership.

More like Churchill or Roosevelt. My point is that we should not capitulate to the islamofascists just because oil prices went up some.

Capitulation would only be on the cards if they had attacked you. It was the other way around. America attacked, and Iran refused to capitulate. America then realised that she had no plan for that entirely predictable eventuality.

Iran is a cancer to which the left is playing don't look up. They have unquestionably killed millions through the various groups they support, it would not surprise me if the total was in the tens of millions. And the idiot did not understand why the world keeps kicking the can about it and went in totally stupid. That doesn't make Iran not a cancer.

The question is how to treat the cancer with the best chance of survival and good health of the host. No one here is arguing Iran is in the right, so there is no basis for these rants of yours.

The thing is capitulation amounts to declaring the cancer to be terminal.

Why are you babbling about capitulation?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's also a well tested fact that violent opposition to a religion causes it to become both stronger and more radicalized.

Religions thrive on persecution. The way to kill them is through apathy and gentle ridicule.

It's not working very well against Islam.

Where is it being attempted against Islam?

It's basically the approach being used in places like Australia.

The problem is that the Iranian regime has weaponized it.

The problem is that it's surprisingly easy to claim to be persecuted, when your leaders are being martyred by the bombs of the Great Satan.

Indeed, it requires an astonishing level of mental gymnastics to claim that recent Israeli and US actions don't constitute the persecution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Persecution??

No, when a country commits an act of war it is not persecution when they're smacked for it. Iran has been funding proxies for decades, the level of violence keeps going up. An attack by an Iranian proxy should be considered an attack by Iran.

Not to mention that the war Iran started when it was formed remains ongoing.

They were attacked without warning during peace talks, and their leadership killed. Then every time new leaders emerged, they were killed in turn.

Do you somehow imagine that the average Iranian in the street saw that as being fair and just?

Any who might have hoped for it were slaughtered by the IRGC back when Trump told them to rise up and then failed to support their doing so.

Your inability to even start to understand humanity is astonishing. Muslims are no different from Jews or Christians - they are tribalistic and become steadfast in defence of even awful regimes, when their religion is seen as being under attack.

Bombing people makes them hate you, and makes them support the leaders who you are hoping to depose - even if they wanted to depose them themselves.

Why do you persist in equating Muslim with Iranian leadership?

And the path to peace is simple: quit the path of terror. But each new leader follows in the same path.