Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[lpetrich]

Ryan Grim recently wrote “The Squad: AOC and the Hope of a Political Revolution.” He has an adapted excerpt from it in AOC Was Offered $100,000 by AIPAC. She Turned Them Down.

What would be the purpose of the offer? To "turn" her?

Derec, what do *you* think that the purpose of such an offer might be? Are you saying that AIPAC did that without expecting some quid pro quo? ("what for what" in Latin)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

MH asked AOC about her position on Israel, and she said that she believed in a two-state solution, and that she was addressing this issue as a human-rights activist. MH pressed her on what she means by "the occupation of Palestine", and after trying to get back on the subject of mistreatment of Palestinians, she said "I am not the expert on geopolitics on this issue," and that when she was growing up, Middle Eastern politics was not very prominent.

Commendable honesty.

Honesty, or a unwillingness to be pinned down on what her position really is?

The genocide proponents in western society are usually pretty careful not to say so--but neither do they say things that indicate they oppose genocide.

 

[Derec]

Derec, what do *you* think that the purpose of such an offer might be? Are you saying that AIPAC did that without expecting some quid pro quo? ("what for what" in Latin)

I know what "quid pro quo" means.
What I am saying is that doubt AIPAC really made that offer. Ryan Grim/Teh Intercept are really not credible sources.

But what is your opinion about what I wrote in post #5,700 about Teh Intercept and AOC misrepresenting the nature of 2018/19 Gaza border riots/unrests? Or about AOC's admitted ignorance of geopolitics even though her degree is partially in "international relations"? You snipped the vast majority of my post and only focused on a single point.

 

[lpetrich]

MH asked AOC about her position on Israel, and she said that she believed in a two-state solution, and that she was addressing this issue as a human-rights activist. MH pressed her on what she means by "the occupation of Palestine", and after trying to get back on the subject of mistreatment of Palestinians, she said "I am not the expert on geopolitics on this issue," and that when she was growing up, Middle Eastern politics was not very prominent.

Commendable honesty.

Honesty, or a unwillingness to be pinned down on what her position really is?

What do you think it is, and why do you think htat?

The genocide proponents in western society are usually pretty careful not to say so--but neither do they say things that indicate they oppose genocide.

Name names.

 

[lpetrich]

Derec, what do *you* think that the purpose of such an offer might be? Are you saying that AIPAC did that without expecting some quid pro quo? ("what for what" in Latin)

I know what "quid pro quo" means.
What I am saying is that doubt AIPAC really made that offer. Ryan Grim/Teh Intercept are really not credible sources.

Derec, if you wish to doubt that, go ahead. But that would be entirely in character with offering two people $20 million each to run against Rashida Tlaib.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

MH asked AOC about her position on Israel, and she said that she believed in a two-state solution, and that she was addressing this issue as a human-rights activist. MH pressed her on what she means by "the occupation of Palestine", and after trying to get back on the subject of mistreatment of Palestinians, she said "I am not the expert on geopolitics on this issue," and that when she was growing up, Middle Eastern politics was not very prominent.

Commendable honesty.

Honesty, or a unwillingness to be pinned down on what her position really is?

What do you think it is, and why do you think htat?

It's too convenient.

The genocide proponents in western society are usually pretty careful not to say so--but neither do they say things that indicate they oppose genocide.

Name names.

There's no way to know, just that it's too common a pattern. There are too many who never openly support but also never say anything against. There should have been universal condemnation of 10/7 but instead we see an awful lot of people trying to justify it.

When people refuse to blame a Nazi for an act of racial hatred do you not think that they might be fellow Nazis?

 

[Swammerdami]

The genocide proponents in western society are usually pretty careful not to say so--but neither do they say things that indicate they oppose genocide.

There's no way to know, just that it's too common a pattern. There are too many who never openly support but also never say anything against. There should have been universal condemnation of 10/7 but instead we see an awful lot of people trying to justify it.

Do you Palestine haters even try to see both sides of an issue??

VERY few Westerners, if any, are calling for "genocide" of Israelis. Instead it is Israel that almost seems to be trying to inflict genocide on Palestinians.

"As many as 700,000 Israeli settlers are living illegally in the occupied West Bank as settler violence surges." Yes, that's SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND. And they've enforced apartheid and ghettoization over land neighboring the illegal settlements. Daya think maybe Americans would be unhappy if Mexico used force to place almost a million of its citizens in Texas?

Ya think?

Yet say one word against Netanyahu and some of the Infidels here jump up and down and declare us anti-Semites who want to kill Jews. Jeeeez!

The peculiar American thinking reminds us of Trump. Trump is an utter laughing-stock among sentient people in Europe or Latin America, yet is likely to be re-elected President by Americans. Similarly, the UN General Assembly voted 153-10 in December to ask for a humanitarian cease-fire in the Gaza War. 153 to 10. Besides the US and Israel dissenters included such world powers with advanced thinking as Nauru, Liberia, Micronesia and Papua New Guinea.

153 to 10. Yet even here at IIDB some seem to think that the USA has a special enlightenment beyond the reach of the rest of the world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The genocide proponents in western society are usually pretty careful not to say so--but neither do they say things that indicate they oppose genocide.

There's no way to know, just that it's too common a pattern. There are too many who never openly support but also never say anything against. There should have been universal condemnation of 10/7 but instead we see an awful lot of people trying to justify it.

Do you Palestine haters even try to see both sides of an issue??

VERY few Westerners, if any, are calling for "genocide" of Israelis. Instead it is Israel that almost seems to be trying to inflict genocide on Palestinians.

It's indirect, but widespread.
They oppose the Israeli occupation.
They listen to the Palestinians calls for The River to the Sea as the end of the occupation.
Except the river to the sea is genocide.

"As many as 700,000 Israeli settlers are living illegally in the occupied West Bank as settler violence surges." Yes, that's SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND. And they've enforced apartheid and ghettoization over land neighboring the illegal settlements. Daya think maybe Americans would be unhappy if Mexico used force to place almost a million of its citizens in Texas?

The barriers are a defense against violence, they wouldn't exist otherwise. And since the only current claimant to the land is Israel it's pretty hard to actually call it occupied or illegal. To be occupied there must be a contested claim.

Ya think?

Yet say one word against Netanyahu and some of the Infidels here jump up and down and declare us anti-Semites who want to kill Jews. Jeeeez!

The problem is you ask for positions that you have been repeatedly told will kill Jews.

The peculiar American thinking reminds us of Trump. Trump is an utter laughing-stock among sentient people in Europe or Latin America, yet is likely to be re-elected President by Americans. Similarly, the UN General Assembly voted 153-10 in December to ask for a humanitarian cease-fire in the Gaza War. 153 to 10. Besides the US and Israel dissenters included such world powers with advanced thinking as Nauru, Liberia, Micronesia and Papua New Guinea.

153 to 10. Yet even here at IIDB some seem to think that the USA has a special enlightenment beyond the reach of the rest of the world.

So? That vote was 153 to 10 for permitting the genocide of Jews.

Yes, Gaza is suffering severely--but there was widespread support for the massacre that lead to them getting the crap beat out of them. They brought this upon themselves.

 

[Swammerdami]

"As many as 700,000 Israeli settlers are living illegally in the occupied West Bank as settler violence surges." Yes, that's SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND. And they've enforced apartheid and ghettoization over land neighboring the illegal settlements. Daya think maybe Americans would be unhappy if Mexico used force to place almost a million of its citizens in Texas?

The barriers are a defense against violence, they wouldn't exist otherwise. And since the only current claimant to the land is Israel it's pretty hard to actually call it occupied or illegal. To be occupied there must be a contested claim.

Is this some LEGAL opinion? An Israeli right based on the lack of a cease-fire agreement?

Is this really the hill you want to die on? If Palestinians commit despicable acts they deserve genocide, but if Israelis commit despicable acts you haul out a lawyer who laughs and says the Palestinian's grandfather was too stupid to sign some document a century ago?

Jeeeeeez.

Taiwan hasn't acknowledged PRC's right to exist. Should they send a million settlers there and confiscate Chinese land, protected by the U.S. military? Won't happen; they're not strong enough. THAT is the hill you're defending here: Might makes right.

The peculiar American thinking reminds us of Trump. Trump is an utter laughing-stock among sentient people in Europe or Latin America, yet is likely to be re-elected President by Americans. Similarly, the UN General Assembly voted 153-10 in December to ask for a humanitarian cease-fire in the Gaza War. 153 to 10. Besides the US and Israel dissenters included such world powers with advanced thinking as Nauru, Liberia, Micronesia and Papua New Guinea.

153 to 10. Yet even here at IIDB some seem to think that the USA has a special enlightenment beyond the reach of the rest of the world.

So? That vote was 153 to 10 for permitting the genocide of Jews.

To summarize your views:
(1) The US and Israel are always in the right. That only eight other countries voted with them just shows that 153 countries support genocide against the Jews.
(2) A "humanitarian cease-fire" is a call for "genocide." Food, water and medicine should not be provided to people who deserve to die.

Yes, Gaza is suffering severely--but there was widespread support for the massacre that lead to them getting the crap beat out of them. They brought this upon themselves.

I hope the dead Palestinian babies confessed their guilt and sought absolution just before being massacred by Israeli soldiers.

 

[Swammerdami]

I just noticed these calls to annihilate Palestinians are in the AOC thread! GAK!

Returning to topic, this video has some AOC vs MTG action:


MTG and her band of dingbats have been shrieking (and shitting their pants) about Hunter Biden not appearing and submitting to questions. When he DOES show up, they can't think of a single question to ask him. MTG, paraphrased, attempts to make "a point of order, or a point of inquiry, or point of whatever-Fuq the rule is; who can be bothered to know the rules." AOC gently reminds the Psychopath from Georgia that they were all given copies of the rules the day they were sworn in.

AOC and MTG have become epitomes, perfect mascots, for their respective parties.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"As many as 700,000 Israeli settlers are living illegally in the occupied West Bank as settler violence surges." Yes, that's SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND. And they've enforced apartheid and ghettoization over land neighboring the illegal settlements. Daya think maybe Americans would be unhappy if Mexico used force to place almost a million of its citizens in Texas?

The barriers are a defense against violence, they wouldn't exist otherwise. And since the only current claimant to the land is Israel it's pretty hard to actually call it occupied or illegal. To be occupied there must be a contested claim.

Is this some LEGAL opinion? An Israeli right based on the lack of a cease-fire agreement?

What other claimant is there to the land? Jordan? No, they specifically renounced their claim as soon as Israel took it in 1967. The Palestinians? No, only nations can claim land.

Is this really the hill you want to die on? If Palestinians commit despicable acts they deserve genocide, but if Israelis commit despicable acts you haul out a lawyer who laughs and says the Palestinian's grandfather was too stupid to sign some document a century ago?

The problem here is that you are letting the degree of harm determine what you think is right or wrong. That's a completely useless yardstick.

The peculiar American thinking reminds us of Trump. Trump is an utter laughing-stock among sentient people in Europe or Latin America, yet is likely to be re-elected President by Americans. Similarly, the UN General Assembly voted 153-10 in December to ask for a humanitarian cease-fire in the Gaza War. 153 to 10. Besides the US and Israel dissenters included such world powers with advanced thinking as Nauru, Liberia, Micronesia and Papua New Guinea.

153 to 10. Yet even here at IIDB some seem to think that the USA has a special enlightenment beyond the reach of the rest of the world.

So? That vote was 153 to 10 for permitting the genocide of Jews.

To summarize your views:
(1) The US and Israel are always in the right. That only eight other countries voted with them just shows that 153 countries support genocide against the Jews.
(2) A "humanitarian cease-fire" is a call for "genocide." Food, water and medicine should not be provided to people who deserve to die.

Where do you get #1? I am saying they are right this time.

As for #2--yes, it is a call for genocide. You're trying to protect those who seek to commit genocide so they can do it again.

And food/water/medicine is irrelevant, no such aid is being sent. All the aid goes to Hamas. Hamas has already admitted this.

Yes, Gaza is suffering severely--but there was widespread support for the massacre that lead to them getting the crap beat out of them. They brought this upon themselves.

I hope the dead Palestinian babies confessed their guilt and sought absolution just before being massacred by Israeli soldiers.

The babies didn't but the parents chose the path. It's not my fault you brought your kids into a war zone.

Your approach means the bad guy can always win by making you kill babies to defeat them.

 

[bilby]

The Palestinians? No, only nations can claim land.

This sounds exactly like total horseshit on so many levels.

What defines a "nation" in this context?

Why are entities that don't fit that definition unable to claim land? Says who?

Not to Godwin up the thread too much, but I seem to recall the actual historical Nazis using the formulation: Jews cannot own property in Germany; Only Germans can own property, and Jews just got declared 'not German'.

If a bunch of people have inhabited land since forever, it's their fucking nation.

Whether or not you cleverly define them as 'not a nation' in a blatant attempt to excuse stealing their land.

Go shove this pseudo-legalistic claptrap back up the orifice you pulled it from.

Literally nobody, who any sane person would want to take instruction from, would agree the this "principle" that you appear to have taken directly from the policies of the Third Reich. It's morally abhorrent.

 

[bilby]

Your approach means the bad guy can always win by making you kill babies to defeat them.

If you are killing babies in order to defeat your enemies, then YOU are "the bad guys"*



*Which of course doesn't imply that they are not; reality bears surprisingly little resemblance to children's comic books.

 

[Swammerdami]

The Palestinians? No, only nations can claim land.

This sounds exactly like total horseshit on so many levels.

Yes. But it can also be viewed as a hyper-legalistic argument, something a $1500/hr suited esquire might come up with for his client.
Letting lawyers fight things out in court -- even when their arguments are totally inane -- may be better than fighting things out with missiles that kill humans.

But the Palestinians' land was seized at the point of a gun, not in any recognizable court of law.

Where Loren loses us is his double standard. When he thinks "the law" is on Netanyahu's side he'll use it to justify all atrocities. When the law is against him, THEN and only then does he praise illegal Israeli violence with a childish "Your side started it!"

"Law" is intrinsically ambiguous. The U.N. General Assembly can very well be regarded as a "Legal" institution, but when it votes 153-10 to support a humanitarian cease-fire he dismisses that with contempt. Legal opinions are valid only when they favor Netanyahu's side. Watch him turn to his $1500/hr lawyer again to "prove" the U.N. G.A. has no legal authority!

Your approach means the bad guy can always win by making you kill babies to defeat them.

If you are killing babies in order to defeat your enemies, then YOU are "the bad guys"*

Loren is certainly right to condemn soldiers who take babies hostage. But he ignores the reality here. The mothers and fathers of these innocent babies were NOT deliberately putting their children in harm's way. In most cases they were themselves innocent refugees fleeing from the war-zone Israel created. Israel has bombed refugee camps. And there are credible reports that Israeli soldiers have entered shelters and shot women and children in cold blood.

Nobody thinks that Loren himself is a Trump supporter, but what is the overlap between unquestioning supporters of the worst excesses of Zionist terrorism and the unquestioning supporters of America's Orange Messiah? Both of these are unreasoned positions that seem to infect primarily the U.S.A.


Perhaps far more important than the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians, is the effect that this deadly brutality will have on Middle East conflicts and U.S. prestige. With Israeli and U.S. military actions perceived as unjust, support for Russia and Iran will grow. Peace in the Middle East has always been difficult, but is now impossible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Palestinians? No, only nations can claim land.

This sounds exactly like total horseshit on so many levels.

What defines a "nation" in this context?

Why are entities that don't fit that definition unable to claim land? Says who?

The minimum required is that they declare themselves to be a nation. The Palestinians have never done this because it means either admitting they consider all of Israel to be occupied, or it relinquishes their claim on Israel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your approach means the bad guy can always win by making you kill babies to defeat them.

If you are killing babies in order to defeat your enemies, then YOU are "the bad guys"*



*Which of course doesn't imply that they are not; reality bears surprisingly little resemblance to children's comic books.

Then every side of every non-trivial war is bad guys.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren is certainly right to condemn soldiers who take babies hostage. But he ignores the reality here. The mothers and fathers of these innocent babies were NOT deliberately putting their children in harm's way. In most cases they were themselves innocent refugees fleeing from the war-zone Israel created. Israel has bombed refugee camps. And there are credible reports that Israeli soldiers have entered shelters and shot women and children in cold blood.

Innocent refugees? You realize the 10/7 massacre had majority support?

Nobody thinks that Loren himself is a Trump supporter, but what is the overlap between unquestioning supporters of the worst excesses of Zionist terrorism and the unquestioning supporters of America's Orange Messiah? Both of these are unreasoned positions that seem to infect primarily the U.S.A.

What I see is useful idiots being lead along by terrorists who seek genocide.

Perhaps far more important than the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians, is the effect that this deadly brutality will have on Middle East conflicts and U.S. prestige. With Israeli and U.S. military actions perceived as unjust, support for Russia and Iran will grow. Peace in the Middle East has always been difficult, but is now impossible.

Nothing has changed. The Arabs need their EastAsia. So long as Iran is allowed to play puppetmaster unmolested there will not be peace.

 

[bilby]

Your approach means the bad guy can always win by making you kill babies to defeat them.

If you are killing babies in order to defeat your enemies, then YOU are "the bad guys"*



*Which of course doesn't imply that they are not; reality bears surprisingly little resemblance to children's comic books.

Then every side of every non-trivial war is bad guys.

No shit, Sherlock.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your approach means the bad guy can always win by making you kill babies to defeat them.

If you are killing babies in order to defeat your enemies, then YOU are "the bad guys"*



*Which of course doesn't imply that they are not; reality bears surprisingly little resemblance to children's comic books.

Then every side of every non-trivial war is bad guys.

No shit, Sherlock.

So you were bad guys for helping defeat Japan?

I guess you didn't outgrow your prison heritage after all!

 

[Gospel]

Innocent refugees? You realize the 10/7 massacre had majority support?

In a similar manner to the strong support that Israel receives in the United States, Hamas also garners significant backing. However, a key distinction lies in the consequences of criticism: while accusations of antisemitism might arise from criticizing Israel, Hamas is known to respond with lethal force against any perceived slight. Therefore, any sources (ya know, the ones you don't have) claiming to confirm widespread support for Hamas should be scrutinized, as the fear of retribution could influence the reliability of these claims.