Progressives betray voters and back a Zionist speaker

[Derec]

The only reason there are "continued Israeli attacks in Gaza" is because Hamas has neither disarmed nor given up power.

Well, that just goes to show how incredibly effective Bibi's strategy was.

As effective as can be expected. As I said, Hamas was greatly degraded, with most of its leadership and much of its officer cadres killed. As well as rank and file fighters, who have been replaced by inexperienced and likely 2nd rate (or else they would have been recruited as the first choice) new recruits. In addition, most of its weapons stores and 100s of km of their tunnel network has been destroyed.

While it is possible to come up with a better strategy (I am not a Bibi stan) any viable strategy against Hamas will involve overwhelming military force. Not nonsense like the "all for all" prisoner release that has been proposed by some as an alternative. The Shalit deal turned out to be a colossal failure because it released terrorists like Yahya Sinwar who then orchestrated the 10/7 attack and massacre. I even think that the Oct. 2025 deal released too many terrorists, although luckily some of the worst like Abdullah Barghouti remained behind bars.

You seriously lack imagination.
You also think the "bomb the shit out of everything" strategy was the only option.

What strategy do you think would have worked better in the aftermath of 10/7?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This thread was created by someone who loves listening to anti-Semitic white supremacists (Tucker Carlson etc).

I'm not anti-Semitic and neither is Tucker Carlson. Nor is anyone against Israel as a US ally.

You don't appear to realize how much of a red flag the word "zionist" is when used to describe someone that isn't even Israeli or heck... even Jewish.

What we are against is being Israel's cuckold and Washington being controlled and overrun by foreign influence.

We do not live in a Democracy if a foreign government tells our leaders what to do.

You voted for the guy three times that listened to Netanyahu, listened to Putin, bromanced with the North Korean dictator. You voted three times for the cuck.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's because they openly and audibly support the continued Israeli attacks in Gaza.

The only reason there are "continued Israeli attacks in Gaza" is because Hamas has neither disarmed nor given up power. Quite the opposite, in fact.
IDF Believes Hamas Rebuilding Weapons Arsenal in Gaza, Possesses Hundreds of Missiles

But, this is the point. IDF struck and struck and struck and struck at Hamas... and Hamas still exists. The names are all different, but the movement is still there. So the striking clearly isn't working!

People were told the endless strikes would in fact be counter productive.

While I feel for the plight of maintaining Israeli security, I can also recognize a security plan that clearly isn't working, at least as far as helping promote Israeli security is concerned.

 

[Derec]

You really are a broken record.

Not a broken record, but some truths are worth repeating to they will maybe get through some thick skulls.

Some of you are (as well as Dems in general) are way too quick to accept any sort of extremist, including very toxic Islamists, as long as they ply you with promises of leftist economic policies. You hear "M4A" or "wealth tax for billionaires" and you lose all critical thinking abilities.

 

[Patooka]

You don't appear to realize how much of a red flag the word "zionist" is when used to describe someone that isn't even Israeli or heck... even Jewish.

My favourite clip during the midterms was when Haley Stevens' fiance tried to call out Tucker Carlson as a white nationalist on FOX news.

 

[Derec]

But, this is the point. IDF struck and struck and struck and struck at Hamas... and Hamas still exists. The names are all different, but the movement is still there. So the striking clearly isn't working!

I think you are missing the point. It's not a binary choice of Hamas existing or not existing. It's about how much danger they pose. This war has made them (as well as Hezbollah) much weaker. They lost most of their leadership, they lost much of their officer ranks, they lost material, they lost 100s of kilometers of tunnels. Hell, they don't even control even half of the Gazan territory right now.
In the aftermath of 10/7, Hamas leader Ghazi Hamad vowed to repeat 10/7 over and over until Israel is destroyed.
Hamas official vows to repeat deadly Israel attacks: 'There will be a second, a third, a fourth'

Hamas is in no position to do that. But if the Israeli response had been to appease Hamas and release Palestinian terrorist prisoners in exchange for hostages, Hamas would have been stronger, not weaker.

The Shalit deal, Bibi's biggest blunder, made Hamas stronger. Releasing all prisoners would have been Shalit deal x7.

People were told the endless strikes would in fact be counter productive.
While I feel for the plight of maintaining Israeli security, I can also recognize a security plan that clearly isn't working, at least as far as helping promote Israeli security is concerned.

I do not see much alternative to overwhelming military force to deal with both Hamas and other threats such as Hezbollah. Ultimately, they are both just instruments of IRGC External Operations.
An attempt had been made to eliminate the Tehran Theocracy which is essential to maintaining IRGC and by extension Hamas and Hezbollah. But a combination of Hegseth's incompetence and TACO Trump's lack of stick-to-itiveness doomed that operation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You really are a broken record.

Not a broken record, but some truths are worth repeating to they will maybe get through some thick skulls.

The trouble is, your ability of persuasion isn't particularly that high. The fact you feel the need to insult people you are trying to persuade is an indication that your attempts of spreading truths will fail, regardless how accurate your claims are.

The truth is, you have zero appreciation for how a 20 to 30 year old sees the Israel/Gaza relationship. People that have only been aware of it for the 2 to 10 years. Instead of young people that are in need of having additional context provided regarding the history and complexity of the situation, you judge them as thick skulled idiots. Worse yet, your approach will galvanize their naive to undereducated positions on the situation. Which will lead to future galvanization and real anti-Semitism becoming more common.

And of course, we also fall to the point where your position on Israel/Gaza is reactionary in its own right and show zero willingness to look at the problem more broadly to understand the human aspect of it.

 

[laughing dog]

3 years of devastation, destruction and death didn’t do the job. Fascinating.

• 3 years is not that long a time. Compare it to 20 years of US in Afghanistan.

• Which didn’t do the job.
  

  • And during last year, IDF could only operate in a very limited fashion inside Hamas-controlled areas due to the "ceasefire".

  [*]Hamas has been severely degraded, both in people and material, although they still maintain their genocidal zeal
  

  • this is as good an outcome as can be expected
  • Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis etc. will be with us as long as the illegitimate ayatollah regime is in power in Tehran

More excuses to obscure that the jib didn’t get done.

Not only did it not do the job but it couldn’t do the job because the gov’t of Israel was treating the symptoms not the cause! Fascinating.

 

[laughing dog]

An attempt had been made to eliminate the Tehran Theocracy which is essential to maintaining IRGC and by extension Hamas and Hezbollah. But a combination of Hegseth's incompetence and TACO Trump's lack of stick-to-itiveness doomed that operation.

What would should have been done to insure a successful operation? Be specific and realistic.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You seriously lack imagination.
You also think the "bomb the shit out of everything" strategy was the only option.

What strategy do you think would have worked better in the aftermath of 10/7?

Even if bilby cannot think of a better strategy (and I am not saying that he can't) that doesn't mean that the strategy that was undertaken is the best one. This is some kind of logical fallacy that keeps getting raised for some odd reason.

 

[Playball40]

This is my thought on the subject

 

[laughing dog]

You seriously lack imagination.
You also think the "bomb the shit out of everything" strategy was the only option.

What strategy do you think would have worked better in the aftermath of 10/7?

Even if bilby cannot think of a better strategy (and I am not saying that he can't) that doesn't mean that the strategy that was undertaken is the best one. This is some kind of logical fallacy that keeps getting raised for some odd reason.

Even if someone suggests a moderation in the killing of civilians, it is met with "Then Israel will be annihilated!". It is hard for them to imagine the same outcome (Hamas drastically damaged but still armed) with 5,000 fewer dead civilians.

 

[bilby]

You really are a broken record.

Hey, even a broken record is right twice a day.




Oh, wait...





Shit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The only reason there are "continued Israeli attacks in Gaza" is because Hamas has neither disarmed nor given up power.

Well, that just goes to show how incredibly effective Bibi's strategy was.

As effective as can be expected. As I said, Hamas was greatly degraded, with most of its leadership and much of its officer cadres killed. As well as rank and file fighters, who have been replaced by inexperienced and likely 2nd rate (or else they would have been recruited as the first choice) new recruits. In addition, most of its weapons stores and 100s of km of their tunnel network has been destroyed.

While it is possible to come up with a better strategy (I am not a Bibi stan) any viable strategy against Hamas will involve overwhelming military force. Not nonsense like the "all for all" prisoner release that has been proposed by some as an alternative. The Shalit deal turned out to be a colossal failure because it released terrorists like Yahya Sinwar who then orchestrated the 10/7 attack and massacre. I even think that the Oct. 2025 deal released too many terrorists, although luckily some of the worst like Abdullah Barghouti remained behind bars.

You seriously lack imagination.
You also think the "bomb the shit out of everything" strategy was the only option.

What strategy do you think would have worked better in the aftermath of 10/7?

Same general response, but less of it.

 

[Toni]

Yeah. I could see how that would be really bad.

Of course it would be.

How about Jasmine Crockett? I think she'd be great.

What do you think recommends her as Speaker? Jeffries has experience is House leadership as Minority Leader and before that as Chair of the Democratic Caucus. That alone makes him more suitable for the minefield that is Speakership.

I agree that Jeffries should be Speaker. Schumer is getting pretty old.

It bothers me a lot that after putting together the blue tsunami, people are in a hurry to get rid of Schumer and Jeffries. Schumer I can see needs to step aside for a younger person.

I also am a fan of Jasmine Crockett who serves on the Judiciary committee and is in fact ranking member on Oversights in that committee. She's outspoken, and while she is often labeled progressive (imo, ain't nothin wrong with that) she sees herself as more a common sense Democrat and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

What I absolutely do not want is for the Dems to waste their advantage with a lot of infighting. There are plenty who will encourage division for their own purposes.

 

[southernhybrid]

Oh wait. What was the subject of this OP? As far as what Israel is doing to innocent civilians, including children.....all I can say is War is hell....War is terrorism too...Just ask anyone, like my neighbor who suffers from combat related severe PTSD and they will tell you that most wars are worthless. My late father also suffered from severe PTSD and eventually had to go on disability. The nightmares never stopped. Wars just kill and destroy.....

Ok. Toni got us back on track. I agree that the Dems should stop the infighting over the leaders of Congress. Despite Schumer being old and boring, I read that he did a lot to help the Dems win in the midterms, even though two of the people he supported in the primaries didn't win them, the two who did win went on too win their elections. Plus, Schumer did go on to support the winners of the primaries. Give the guy a chance and he can always be replaced when necessary. He doesn't seem to have symptoms of dementia like the president. I do hope he doesn't run for another term, but for now, I have no problem with him leading the Senate. Experience is a good thing in times like these.

As far a the Speaker of the House goes, any Dem will be far better than Little Mikey Johnson, so just get on with it Dems.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You seriously lack imagination.
You also think the "bomb the shit out of everything" strategy was the only option.

What strategy do you think would have worked better in the aftermath of 10/7?

Even if bilby cannot think of a better strategy (and I am not saying that he can't) that doesn't mean that the strategy that was undertaken is the best one. This is some kind of logical fallacy that keeps getting raised for some odd reason.

Even if someone suggests a moderation in the killing of civilians, it is met with "Then Israel will be annihilated!". It is hard for them to imagine the same outcome (Hamas drastically damaged but still armed) with 5,000 fewer dead civilians.

Would that one be “false dichotomy” logical fallacy?

 

[Patooka]

I agree that Jeffries should be Speaker.

Did he ever provide a plausible explanation with regards to his private meeting with Kushner? That in and of itself screams to me ,"I hope you like the current status quo because I'll be pushing an agenda of doing jack fucking shit".

 

[Toni]

I agree that Jeffries should be Speaker.

Did he ever provide a plausible explanation with regards to his private meeting with Kushner? That in and of itself screams to me ,"I hope you like the current status quo because I'll be pushing an agenda of doing jack fucking shit".

I think his position requires that he sit down with people he disagrees with quite sharply.

 

[Patooka]

I agree that Jeffries should be Speaker.

Did he ever provide a plausible explanation with regards to his private meeting with Kushner? That in and of itself screams to me ,"I hope you like the current status quo because I'll be pushing an agenda of doing jack fucking shit".

I think his position requires that he sit down with people he disagrees with quite sharply.

Agreed. I'd add openly and transparently as well. It was pretty clear he never wanted to discuss the meeting and if the NYT had never reported it, he would never had discussed it.