Columbia University is colluding with the far-right in its attack on students

[Bomb#20]

People who have different reasons for protesting the slaughter in Gaza and aren't pro-Hamas are perfectly capable of holding a protest of their own somewhere and not inviting all the Hamas fanboys to take part. The ones at this protest didn't do that. Instead, they joined the gang. They're culpable.

Only if you accept that hypocritical logic. After all, we “joined” Israel in it fight. Are we culpable for any of its war crimes?

Who you calling "we", Kemosabe?

The USA

In the words of Edmund Burke, "I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people."

I get it - you are taking a pedantic legalistic approach to avoid the moral or logical consequence.

I see you're still posting candidates for the 'Phrases that mean “I have no argument but I want to post a neener-neener.” ' thread.

What "moral or logical consequence" are you asserting? The fact is, "we", meaning "Some other people and I", are not culpable for any of Israel's war crimes, because I didn't join Israel in its fight. If you joined the gang, judge for yourself what you're culpable for. If by "The USA", you mean the American people, see Burke. If by "The USA" you mean the American government, why do you call it "we"? Are you a federal employee?

If what you meant to ask was whether the American government is culpable for any of Israel's war crimes, I don't know -- feel free to draw up an indictment detailing specifically how it foreseeably contributed to a specific Israeli war crime -- but if you want my guess, yes, it very probably is. The American government is culpable for a lot of wrongdoings. What's your point? How does its culpability make Frances McDormand's logic hypocritical, or make the D.C. protestors not culpable for helping push deceptive pro-Hamas propaganda?

If what you meant was that McDormand's logic implies Israel is a gang and America is culpable for any war crimes because Israel receives American money, then go watch the McDormand clip again, and this time, as Judge Judy says, "put on your listening ears."

 

[Bomb#20]

The U.S. isn't funding genocide. Hamas is genocidal, Israel is not genocidal, and they all know it. This is not rocket science. The IDF is, not to put too fine a point on it, very good at killing Palestinians. So if Israel were attempting genocide there would be about six hundred thousand dead Palestinians.

"They can't be attempting it, because they are doing a less effective job of it than I would expect" is not a particularly compelling argument.

I applaud your ability to spin the observation "The IDF is, not to put too fine a point on it, very good at killing Palestinians", as evidence against the IDF committing genocide.

I am left wondering whether Himmler might have argued at Nuremberg that he couldn't possibly have been responsible for genocide, because there were still some Jews alive in Eastern Europe, despite the fact that his Einsatzgruppen were, demonstrably, very good at killing Jews.

You are a very intelligent person. You cannot possibly sincerely believe that was a good argument.

 

[bilby]

The U.S. isn't funding genocide. Hamas is genocidal, Israel is not genocidal, and they all know it. This is not rocket science. The IDF is, not to put too fine a point on it, very good at killing Palestinians. So if Israel were attempting genocide there would be about six hundred thousand dead Palestinians.

"They can't be attempting it, because they are doing a less effective job of it than I would expect" is not a particularly compelling argument.

I applaud your ability to spin the observation "The IDF is, not to put too fine a point on it, very good at killing Palestinians", as evidence against the IDF committing genocide.

I am left wondering whether Himmler might have argued at Nuremberg that he couldn't possibly have been responsible for genocide, because there were still some Jews alive in Eastern Europe, despite the fact that his Einsatzgruppen were, demonstrably, very good at killing Jews.

You are a very intelligent person. You cannot possibly sincerely believe that was a good argument.

Oddly, that's exactly what I was thinking about the post it was in response to, and what led me to make it.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why does it look like that to you? The U.S. isn't funding genocide. Hamas is genocidal, Israel is not genocidal, and they all know it.

Israel is currently led by Likud, which is as genocidal as Hamas:

Database exposes 500 instances of Israeli incitement to genocide in Gaza

The right wingers currently in power in Israel weren't hiding their religious bigotry, prejudice, or their intentions before October 2023. They have only become more strident since the terrorist attack. Just because you never heard calls for ethnic cleansing and genocide coming from the highest levels in the Israeli government doesn't mean the Palestinian people haven't been hearing those same calls for years, getting louder and louder as Netanyahu empowered the most violent factions in the Israeli right wing.

Are you familiar with the expression "Cooler heads prevailed."?

Did you ever see Frances McDormand's monologue from "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri"?

... And, if I remember rightly, the gist of what those new laws were saying was if you join one of these gangs, and you're running with 'em, and down the block one night, unbeknownst to you, one of your fellow Crips, or your fellow Bloods, shoot up a place, or stab a guy, well then, even though you didn't know nothing about it, and even though you may've just been standing on a streetcorner minding your own business, what these new laws said was you're still culpable. You're still culpable, by the very act of joining those Crips, or those Bloods, in the first place. ...​

If they joined the gang then yeah, they're not entirely innocent even if they weren't directly involved. But what about the non-gang member neighbors of gang members? What about the people who literally fought against the gang and were defeated18 years ago? What about the kids who were born in the years since?

What about them? You appear to have forgotten whom we're arguing about -- you're changing the subject from D..C. protestors to Gazans. I did not argue that everyone in Gaza joined the gang.

The "non-gang member neighbors" are the local inhabitants of D.C. who accidentally got swept into the protest while they were out shopping. Nobody's saying they're culpable for the pro-Hamas messaging. The ones who showed up to denounce Israel either left when they saw what was going down, or else joined the gang. The ones who brought their kids to the protest are also culpable of being bad parents.

People who have different reasons for protesting the slaughter in Gaza and aren't pro-Hamas are perfectly capable of holding a protest of their own somewhere and not inviting all the Hamas fanboys to take part. The ones at this protest didn't do that. Instead, they joined the gang. They're culpable.

I have never heard of a protest that was Invitation Only.

And? If you're holding a rally to protest Roe v Wade being overturned and a bunch of communists turn up with signs saying "Kill the SCOTUS! Kill the capitalists! Revolution Now!", what would you do? Would you explain it's an abortion-rights protest and ask them to put their communism signs away? If that didn't work would you try to drown out their message with your abortion-rights signs and shouts? If that didn't work and you saw the whole event was turning into a communism rally and you couldn't stop it, would you leave? That's what I'd do. What would you do? Stay there swelling the crowd, helping them make it look to the media like there was an extra person who was so mad about Roe v Wade she wanted to Kill the SCOTUS? If you're running with 'em, you're joining the gang.

 

[laughing dog]

People who have different reasons for protesting the slaughter in Gaza and aren't pro-Hamas are perfectly capable of holding a protest of their own somewhere and not inviting all the Hamas fanboys to take part. The ones at this protest didn't do that. Instead, they joined the gang. They're culpable.

Only if you accept that hypocritical logic. After all, we “joined” Israel in it fight. Are we culpable for any of its war crimes?

Who you calling "we", Kemosabe?

The USA

In the words of Edmund Burke, "I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people."

I get it - you are taking a pedantic legalistic approach to avoid the moral or logical consequence.

I see you're still posting candidates for the 'Phrases that mean “I have no argument but I want to post a neener-neener.” ' thread.

What "moral or logical consequence" are you asserting? The fact is, "we", meaning "Some other people and I", are not culpable for any of Israel's war crimes, because I didn't join Israel in its fight. If you joined the gang, judge for yourself what you're culpable for. If by "The USA", you mean the American people, see Burke. If by "The USA" you mean the American government, why do you call it "we"? Are you a federal employee?

If what you meant to ask was whether the American government is culpable for any of Israel's war crimes, I don't know -- feel free to draw up an indictment detailing specifically how it foreseeably contributed to a specific Israeli war crime -- but if you want my guess, yes, it very probably is. The American government is culpable for a lot of wrongdoings. What's your point? How does its culpability make Frances McDormand's logic hypocritical, or make the D.C. protestors not culpable for helping push deceptive pro-Hamas propaganda?

If what you meant was that McDormand's logic implies Israel is a gang and America is culpable for any war crimes because Israel receives American money, then go watch the McDormand clip again, and this time, as Judge Judy says, "put on your listening ears."

A simple “Yes”would have been more elegant and avoided the irony.

 

[Bomb#20]

People who have different reasons for protesting the slaughter in Gaza and aren't pro-Hamas are perfectly capable of holding a protest of their own somewhere and not inviting all the Hamas fanboys to take part. The ones at this protest didn't do that. Instead, they joined the gang. They're culpable.

Only if you accept that hypocritical logic. After all, we “joined” Israel in it fight. Are we culpable for any of its war crimes?

Who you calling "we", Kemosabe?

The USA

In the words of Edmund Burke, "I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people."

I get it - you are taking a pedantic legalistic approach to avoid the moral or logical consequence.

I see you're still posting candidates for the 'Phrases that mean “I have no argument but I want to post a neener-neener.” ' thread.

What "moral or logical consequence" are you asserting? The fact is, "we", meaning "Some other people and I", are not culpable for any of Israel's war crimes, because I didn't join Israel in its fight. If you joined the gang, judge for yourself what you're culpable for. If by "The USA", you mean the American people, see Burke. If by "The USA" you mean the American government, why do you call it "we"? Are you a federal employee?

If what you meant to ask was whether the American government is culpable for any of Israel's war crimes, I don't know -- feel free to draw up an indictment detailing specifically how it foreseeably contributed to a specific Israeli war crime -- but if you want my guess, yes, it very probably is. The American government is culpable for a lot of wrongdoings. What's your point? How does its culpability make Frances McDormand's logic hypocritical, or make the D.C. protestors not culpable for helping push deceptive pro-Hamas propaganda?

If what you meant was that McDormand's logic implies Israel is a gang and America is culpable for any war crimes because Israel receives American money, then go watch the McDormand clip again, and this time, as Judge Judy says, "put on your listening ears."

A simple “Yes”would have been more elegant and avoided the irony.

I'm sensing that you're deeply unwilling to clarify any of your sequence of opaque one-liners, but what the hell, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. A simple "Yes" to what? Yes, you have no argument? Yes, you're a federal employee? Yes, it would have been more elegant and avoided the irony if I'd answered "Yes" to one of your opaque one-liners? Which one?

If you mean "Yes, the USA is culpable for one or more of Israel's war crimes.", how would that either invalidate what I wrote about the D.C. protestors or prove the "Three Billboards" logic is hypocritical?

If you mean, "Yes, I'm taking a pedantic legalistic approach to avoid the moral or logical consequence.", what distinction are you pointing out in this case between "pedantic legalistic approach" and "correct approach", and what "moral or logical consequence" are you claiming I'm avoiding?

Your readers await your next opaque one-liner with bated breath.

 

[Bomb#20]

The U.S. isn't funding genocide. Hamas is genocidal, Israel is not genocidal, and they all know it. This is not rocket science. The IDF is, not to put too fine a point on it, very good at killing Palestinians. So if Israel were attempting genocide there would be about six hundred thousand dead Palestinians.

"They can't be attempting it, because they are doing a less effective job of it than I would expect" is not a particularly compelling argument.

I applaud your ability to spin the observation "The IDF is, not to put too fine a point on it, very good at killing Palestinians", as evidence against the IDF committing genocide.

I am left wondering whether Himmler might have argued at Nuremberg that he couldn't possibly have been responsible for genocide, because there were still some Jews alive in Eastern Europe, despite the fact that his Einsatzgruppen were, demonstrably, very good at killing Jews.

You are a very intelligent person. You cannot possibly sincerely believe that was a good argument.

Oddly, that's exactly what I was thinking about the post it was in response to, and what led me to make it.

What led you to make that post appears to be exactly what led you to make your previous post: you value rhetoric over substance and aren't willing to let the minor detail that your line of argument doesn't make any sense force you to pass up an opportunity for a superficially appealing zinger that puts your opponent in his place. (You do that a lot, haven't you noticed?)

Since we are such a mutual admiration society with respect to each other's intelligence, it seems superfluous for me to explain what was wrong with your Himmler argument. But for the sake of discussion I will pretend you're a stupid person who doesn't already know what's wrong with it. This is not rocket science. "A was trying to wipe out B, but 98% of B survived." conflicts with the premise that A is good at killing B. "C was trying to wipe out D, but 2% of D survived." does not conflict with the premise that C is good at killing D.

Your turn. If you actually think my argument is stupid, then for the sake of discussion, pretend I'm a stupid person who doesn't already know what's wrong with my argument, and explain why it's wrong. ("Wrong" in the sense of "unsound", not "wrong" in the sense of "shockingly deficient in customary display of idealism".)

 

[laughing dog]

People who have different reasons for protesting the slaughter in Gaza and aren't pro-Hamas are perfectly capable of holding a protest of their own somewhere and not inviting all the Hamas fanboys to take part. The ones at this protest didn't do that. Instead, they joined the gang. They're culpable.

Only if you accept that hypocritical logic. After all, we “joined” Israel in it fight. Are we culpable for any of its war crimes?

Who you calling "we", Kemosabe?

The USA

In the words of Edmund Burke, "I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people."

I get it - you are taking a pedantic legalistic approach to avoid the moral or logical consequence.

I see you're still posting candidates for the 'Phrases that mean “I have no argument but I want to post a neener-neener.” ' thread.

What "moral or logical consequence" are you asserting? The fact is, "we", meaning "Some other people and I", are not culpable for any of Israel's war crimes, because I didn't join Israel in its fight. If you joined the gang, judge for yourself what you're culpable for. If by "The USA", you mean the American people, see Burke. If by "The USA" you mean the American government, why do you call it "we"? Are you a federal employee?

If what you meant to ask was whether the American government is culpable for any of Israel's war crimes, I don't know -- feel free to draw up an indictment detailing specifically how it foreseeably contributed to a specific Israeli war crime -- but if you want my guess, yes, it very probably is. The American government is culpable for a lot of wrongdoings. What's your point? How does its culpability make Frances McDormand's logic hypocritical, or make the D.C. protestors not culpable for helping push deceptive pro-Hamas propaganda?

If what you meant was that McDormand's logic implies Israel is a gang and America is culpable for any war crimes because Israel receives American money, then go watch the McDormand clip again, and this time, as Judge Judy says, "put on your listening ears."

A simple “Yes”would have been more elegant and avoided the irony.

I'm sensing that you're deeply unwilling to clarify any of your sequence of opaque one-liners, but what the hell, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. A simple "Yes" to what? Yes, you have no argument? Yes, you're a federal employee? Yes, it would have been more elegant and avoided the irony if I'd answered "Yes" to one of your opaque one-liners? Which one?

If you mean "Yes, the USA is culpable for one or more of Israel's war crimes.", how would that either invalidate what I wrote about the D.C. protestors or prove the "Three Billboards" logic is hypocritical?

If you mean, "Yes, I'm taking a pedantic legalistic approach to avoid the moral or logical consequence.", what distinction are you pointing out in this case between "pedantic legalistic approach" and "correct approach", and what "moral or logical consequence" are you claiming I'm avoiding?

Your readers await your next opaque one-liner with bated breath.

I seriously doubt that and the utility of expected effort to satisfy your curiosity. I apologize for wasting your time and the time of anyone reading our discussion.

 

[TomC]

I seriously doubt that and the utility of expected effort to satisfy your curiosity. I apologize for wasting your time and the time of anyone reading our discussion.

As opposed to "Here's my position and why I hold it."
Got it.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh no!

They've abused that symbol of freedom, by trying to make it into some sort of symbol of freedom!

Are you seriously proposing that driving the Zionists out of Gaza would bring Gaza freedom?!?

Certainly freedom from zionists.

Yeah, freedom to kill Jews.

You do realize that Israelis kill magnitudes more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Jews.

And this isn't a sporting competition.

Hamas chose the war. Hamas just dismissed unread the latest peace proposal which means they wish to continue the war.

. My point stands. Regardless of Hamas’s intents and goals, the Israelis kill many more civilians.

The point is that that's irrelevant.

Strange how Jews are only good when they're dead.

You said it, not me. In fact, I have never had that revolting thought .

You seem to have no care about the lives of Jews. You can defend yourself--but you can't.

Preventing food delivery is not defense. Waiting to drop bombs on targets until they get home is not defense. Setting up safe zones then bombing them is not defense.

You conflate purpose with tactics.

Preventing food delivery? That's a Hamas tactic. Sure, there have been some Israeli protesters that have caused some trouble but by far the bottleneck is once it gets into Gaza. The areas under Israeli control don't have the problem.

Waiting until they get home--I don't know specifically what you're referring to but they're going to strike when they know where the target is.

Safe zones--Hamas took advantage of them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Only if you accept that hypocritical logic. After all, we “joined” Israel in it fight. Are we culpable for any of its war crimes?

Continuing to chant "war crimes" doesn't make it true. ….

instead of spouting propaganda, address the point.

If there are no war crimes ( any includes zero) then we are not culpable according to Bomb#20’s reasoning. If there are Israeli war crimes, then applying that reasoning, are we culpable?

You are taking it as a given that there are Israeli war crimes but you are not proving it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Only if you accept that hypocritical logic. After all, we “joined” Israel in it fight. Are we culpable for any of its war crimes?

Continuing to chant "war crimes" doesn't make it true.

War crimes are specific acts, not merely being successful.

We have unconfirmed reports of mistreatment of captives but even if true they aren't a war crime since those who fight in civilian attire get no protections. The most fiendish torture you could imagine would not be a war crime.

That's ridiculous. If you catch an illegal enemy combatant fighting while in civilian attire that means she's not a POW and you're within your rights to put her in front of a firing squad. That doesn't mean you're within your rights to torture her to death like a 10/7 Hamas victim, filling her groin with nails. Of course that would be a war crime.

To torture simply for the sake of torture would be wrong. To torture for information is permitted.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Only if you accept that hypocritical logic. After all, we “joined” Israel in it fight. Are we culpable for any of its war crimes?

Continuing to chant "war crimes" doesn't make it true.

War crimes are specific acts, not merely being successful.

We have unconfirmed reports of mistreatment of captives but even if true they aren't a war crime since those who fight in civilian attire get no protections. The most fiendish torture you could imagine would not be a war crime.

That's ridiculous. If you catch an illegal enemy combatant fighting while in civilian attire that means she's not a POW and you're within your rights to put her in front of a firing squad. That doesn't mean you're within your rights to torture her to death like a 10/7 Hamas victim, filling her groin with nails. Of course that would be a war crime.

To torture simply for the sake of torture would be wrong. To torture for information is permitted.

WTF?! Torture for information? Like the Nazis did in WWII or are we talking compassionate conservativism "torture" circa 9/11 response?

 

[laughing dog]

Oh no!

They've abused that symbol of freedom, by trying to make it into some sort of symbol of freedom!

Are you seriously proposing that driving the Zionists out of Gaza would bring Gaza freedom?!?

Certainly freedom from zionists.

Yeah, freedom to kill Jews.

You do realize that Israelis kill magnitudes more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Jews.

And this isn't a sporting competition.

Hamas chose the war. Hamas just dismissed unread the latest peace proposal which means they wish to continue the war.

. My point stands. Regardless of Hamas’s intents and goals, the Israelis kill many more civilians.

The point is that that's irrelevant.

No, you wish it to be irrelevant because it is inconvenient.
Hamas wants to kill Jews but lacks the means to carry out their terrible mission on a larger scale. Israel allegedly does not want to kill civilians but ends up killing magnitudes more.

Preventing food delivery? That's a Hamas tactic.

It is well documented. It is at the core of the war crime indictment at the ICJ. And it is not defending oneself.

Safe zones--Hamas took advantage of them.

Duh.As anyone interested in self preservation would do and that the IDF had to expect. So do you have a rebuttal instead of an excuse?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To torture simply for the sake of torture would be wrong. To torture for information is permitted.

WTF?! Torture for information? Like the Nazis did in WWII or are we talking compassionate conservativism "torture" circa 9/11 response?

As with everything with law, that which is not addressed is legal. Geneva protects soldiers fighting in uniform, it does not protect spies and saboteurs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

. My point stands. Regardless of Hamas’s intents and goals, the Israelis kill many more civilians.

The point is that that's irrelevant.

No, you wish it to be irrelevant because it is inconvenient.
Hamas wants to kill Jews but lacks the means to carry out their terrible mission on a larger scale. Israel allegedly does not want to kill civilians but ends up killing magnitudes more.

This isn't a sporting event. Absolute routs in warfare are not prohibited.

Preventing food delivery? That's a Hamas tactic.

It is well documented. It is at the core of the war crime indictment at the ICJ. And it is not defending oneself.

There have been minor obstacles set up by the protesters in Israel. The main problem is in Gaza--Hamas doesn't want the food delivered so it's not delivered. The private stuff is getting through, there's no actual hazard or inability preventing it. And the UN is complicit--not counting the stuff that crosses the border then sits, blaming Israel for Hamas' actions.

Safe zones--Hamas took advantage of them.

Duh.As anyone interested in self preservation would do and that the IDF had to expect. So do you have a rebuttal instead of an excuse?

When something civilian gets used for military purposes it ceases to be protected. Israel pretty much left the safe zones alone while they were rooting out Hamas elsewhere, now they're letting the civilians out but not Hamas.

 

[laughing dog]

. My point stands. Regardless of Hamas’s intents and goals, the Israelis kill many more civilians.

The point is that that's irrelevant.

No, you wish it to be irrelevant because it is inconvenient.
Hamas wants to kill Jews but lacks the means to carry out their terrible mission on a larger scale. Israel allegedly does not want to kill civilians but ends up killing magnitudes more.

This isn't a sporting event. Absolute routs in warfare are not prohibited.

Stop derailing the discussion - killing civilians is neither a sporting event nor warfare.

Preventing food delivery? That's a Hamas tactic.

It is well documented. It is at the core of the war crime indictment at the ICJ. And it is not defending oneself.

There have been minor obstacles set up by the protesters in Israel. …

You are misinformed. The IDF did restrict flow of food aid into Gaza.

Safe zones--Hamas took advantage of them.

Duh.As anyone interested in self preservation would do and that the IDF had to expect. So do you have a rebuttal instead of an excuse?

When something civilian gets used for military purposes it ceases to be protected. Israel pretty much left the safe zones alone while they were rooting out Hamas elsewhere, now they're letting the civilians out but not Hamas.

Excuses are not rebuttals. The IDF makes safe zones knowing Hamas will infiltrate them, then the IDF attacks and ends up killing more civilians in the “safe zone”.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To torture simply for the sake of torture would be wrong. To torture for information is permitted.

WTF?! Torture for information? Like the Nazis did in WWII or are we talking compassionate conservativism "torture" circa 9/11 response?

As with everything with law, that which is not addressed is legal. Geneva protects soldiers fighting in uniform, it does not protect spies and saboteurs.

Those people are protected by OTHER laws.

 

[laughing dog]

To torture simply for the sake of torture would be wrong. To torture for information is permitted.

WTF?! Torture for information? Like the Nazis did in WWII or are we talking compassionate conservativism "torture" circa 9/11 response?

As with everything with law, that which is not addressed is legal. Geneva protects soldiers fighting in uniform, it does not protect spies and saboteurs.

Those people are protected by OTHER laws.

Apparently not well enough.
More importantly to note, torture is inefficient and inhumane. Its use reflects on the moral depravity of the torturers and their apologists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To torture simply for the sake of torture would be wrong. To torture for information is permitted.

WTF?! Torture for information? Like the Nazis did in WWII or are we talking compassionate conservativism "torture" circa 9/11 response?

As with everything with law, that which is not addressed is legal. Geneva protects soldiers fighting in uniform, it does not protect spies and saboteurs.

Those people are protected by OTHER laws.

Apparently not well enough.
More importantly to note, torture is inefficient and inhumane. Its use reflects on the moral depravity of the torturers and their apologists.

Yes, the biggest problem of torture for use as an information tool, you need to be rather depraved for it to work (think Nazis in Czechoslovakia). Psychology and working their mind is much cleaner and effective and ethical.