Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[laughing dog]

The focus is on that the Hamas group is supported by Israel. Not that it's an indipendent actor. Isreal being a decent actor, is supporting anything that fosters democracy. The article doesn't draw attention to that. Curious.

The article is reports on the use of the old tactic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. That’s all.

Interesting you think arming anyone fosters democracy.

How do you think revolutions work? No king was beheaded by asking nicely.

There are no king(s) in Gaza.

How many revolutions result in democracy, especially in the Middle East?

That's a pretty ignorant comment.

Most European democracy's (including Denmark) was the result of top down liberal reforms in the late 19'th century. So its tempting to think that they weren't a result of revolutions. But that’s an illusion. Almost all European democracy's are a result of the 1948 revolutions across Europe. Very similar to the Arab spring. And like them all ultimatily failed their objectives. They were brutaly repressed.

Since the French revolution uprisings had become more common and bloodier. Govornments became increasingly repressive.

The aftermath of the 1948 revolutions was a breaking point. All European governments realised that the old ways were dead. Sooner or later all countries that didn't reform would all share the fate of 1789 France (including France).

Aristocratic privileged were removed, across Europe and we got liberal reforms that step be step led to universal suffrage.

So the correct answer to your question is all of them. There is no democracy that isn't a direct result of revolution. It might not be a revolution in their countries. But at some point autocratic leaders looked at how history tends to play out given their context and either backed down or stuck to their guns.

Is it ignorance or disingenuousness that you omit revolutions that didn’t foster democracy?

BTW, are you referring to the 1848 revolutions?
And while those uprisings did occur, it is a stretch to attribute every evolution to a democracy over such a long period of time solely or even mostly to them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The focus is on that the Hamas group is supported by Israel. Not that it's an indipendent actor. Isreal being a decent actor, is supporting anything that fosters democracy. The article doesn't draw attention to that. Curious.

The article is reports on the use of the old tactic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. That’s all.

Interesting you think arming anyone fosters democracy.

How do you think revolutions work? No king was beheaded by asking nicely.

There are no king(s) in Gaza.

How many revolutions result in democracy, especially in the Middle East?

That's a pretty ignorant comment.

Most European democracy's (including Denmark) was the result of top down liberal reforms in the late 19'th century. So its tempting to think that they weren't a result of revolutions. But that’s an illusion. Almost all European democracy's are a result of the 1948 revolutions across Europe. Very similar to the Arab spring. And like them all ultimatily failed their objectives. They were brutaly repressed.

Since the French revolution uprisings had become more common and bloodier. Govornments became increasingly repressive.

The aftermath of the 1948 revolutions was a breaking point. All European governments realised that the old ways were dead. Sooner or later all countries that didn't reform would all share the fate of 1789 France (including France).

Aristocratic privileged were removed, across Europe and we got liberal reforms that step be step led to universal suffrage.

So the correct answer to your question is all of them. There is no democracy that isn't a direct result of revolution. It might not be a revolution in their countries. But at some point autocratic leaders looked at how history tends to play out given their context and either backed down or stuck to their guns.

Is it ignorance or disingenuousness that you omit revolutions that didn’t foster democracy?

Because it would be absurd to.

Revolution don't foster democracy. People talking does that. Revolutions is just a method. A very messy method that rarely works out.

Its better to democratise through reform. But that requires cooperative autocrats. Often Revolutions is the only way to do it.

My point is that if it wasn't for the threat of revolution democratic reforms would never happen.

Revolutions can be successful in other countries than where they take place.

I'll reiterate, you sound naive and ignorant to the extreme. Which explains your general attitude in this thread

BTW, are you referring to the 1848 revolutions?
And while those uprisings did occur, it is a stretch to attribute every evolution to a democracy over such a long period of time solely or even mostly to them.

No, its not. That is exactly what happened. And is still happening. Your ignorance doesn't change that fact. The French revolution proved that kings (and dictators) rule at the mercy of the people. The 1848 revolutions (all over Europe) proved to them that the culture had changed irrevocably all over Europe. That is still the paradigm in which we today live. That year shaped almost everything regarding the politics of today. That and the French Revolution

150 years is nothing when it comes to cultural change. Cultures change at a glacial pace.

 

[laughing dog]

The focus is on that the Hamas group is supported by Israel. Not that it's an indipendent actor. Isreal being a decent actor, is supporting anything that fosters democracy. The article doesn't draw attention to that. Curious.

The article is reports on the use of the old tactic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. That’s all.

Interesting you think arming anyone fosters democracy.

How do you think revolutions work? No king was beheaded by asking nicely.

There are no king(s) in Gaza.

How many revolutions result in democracy, especially in the Middle East?

That's a pretty ignorant comment.

Most European democracy's (including Denmark) was the result of top down liberal reforms in the late 19'th century. So its tempting to think that they weren't a result of revolutions. But that’s an illusion. Almost all European democracy's are a result of the 1948 revolutions across Europe. Very similar to the Arab spring. And like them all ultimatily failed their objectives. They were brutaly repressed.

Since the French revolution uprisings had become more common and bloodier. Govornments became increasingly repressive.

The aftermath of the 1948 revolutions was a breaking point. All European governments realised that the old ways were dead. Sooner or later all countries that didn't reform would all share the fate of 1789 France (including France).

Aristocratic privileged were removed, across Europe and we got liberal reforms that step be step led to universal suffrage.

So the correct answer to your question is all of them. There is no democracy that isn't a direct result of revolution. It might not be a revolution in their countries. But at some point autocratic leaders looked at how history tends to play out given their context and either backed down or stuck to their guns.

Is it ignorance or disingenuousness that you omit revolutions that didn’t foster democracy?

Because it would be absurd to.

I agree, yet that is what you did - cherry pick your examples.

No, its not. That is exactly what happened. And is still happening. Your ignorance doesn't change that fact. The French revolution proved that kings (and dictators) rule at the mercy of the people. The 1848 revolutions (all over Europe) proved to them that the culture had changed irrevocably all over Europe. That is still the paradigm in which we today live. That year shaped almost everything regarding the politics of today. That and the French Revolution

150 years is nothing when it comes to cultural change. Cultures change at a glacial pace.

At least you got the year right this time. Attributing social change over long periods of time to a single source is the province of desperate pseudo-intellectuals.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The focus is on that the Hamas group is supported by Israel. Not that it's an indipendent actor. Isreal being a decent actor, is supporting anything that fosters democracy. The article doesn't draw attention to that. Curious.

The article is reports on the use of the old tactic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. That’s all.

Interesting you think arming anyone fosters democracy.

How do you think revolutions work? No king was beheaded by asking nicely.

There are no king(s) in Gaza.

How many revolutions result in democracy, especially in the Middle East?

That's a pretty ignorant comment.

Most European democracy's (including Denmark) was the result of top down liberal reforms in the late 19'th century. So its tempting to think that they weren't a result of revolutions. But that’s an illusion. Almost all European democracy's are a result of the 1948 revolutions across Europe. Very similar to the Arab spring. And like them all ultimatily failed their objectives. They were brutaly repressed.

Since the French revolution uprisings had become more common and bloodier. Govornments became increasingly repressive.

The aftermath of the 1948 revolutions was a breaking point. All European governments realised that the old ways were dead. Sooner or later all countries that didn't reform would all share the fate of 1789 France (including France).

Aristocratic privileged were removed, across Europe and we got liberal reforms that step be step led to universal suffrage.

So the correct answer to your question is all of them. There is no democracy that isn't a direct result of revolution. It might not be a revolution in their countries. But at some point autocratic leaders looked at how history tends to play out given their context and either backed down or stuck to their guns.

Is it ignorance or disingenuousness that you omit revolutions that didn’t foster democracy?

Because it would be absurd to.

I agree, yet that is what you did - cherry pick your examples.

Its like you are claiming that people in different countries are unable to know what happens in other countries.

If nobody knows about a revolution outside the country how can we talk about them in this thread?

The entire foundation for your argumentation is flawed.

Its better to see it this way, there was one revolution, the French revolution, and the rest are part of the same revolution. And we're arguably still in the same revolutionary phase.

I don't count the US revolution because it had a minimal impact in Europe. We just didn't care about it enough for it to matter to us. The French revolution is the one that changed everything.

No, its not. That is exactly what happened. And is still happening. Your ignorance doesn't change that fact. The French revolution proved that kings (and dictators) rule at the mercy of the people. The 1848 revolutions (all over Europe) proved to them that the culture had changed irrevocably all over Europe. That is still the paradigm in which we today live. That year shaped almost everything regarding the politics of today. That and the French Revolution

150 years is nothing when it comes to cultural change. Cultures change at a glacial pace.

At least you got the year right this time. Attributing social change over long periods of time to a single source is the province of desperate pseudo-intellectuals.

Sigh. But its the only way to talk about anything. To make arguments we need to simplify. To clarify. Everybody knows reality is more complex. But if we continually add in every factor each post would be unwieldy. I think my posts are long enough already.

Yeah, obviously there's more to it. There always is. But the French revolution is the big factor. The 1848 revolutions is the one that pushed every country in Europe towards liberal reforms. That wouldn't have happened unless the French revolution hadn't preceeded it. It also fully unleashed nationalism. But that's another story.

 

[laughing dog]

At least you got the year right this time. Attributing social change over long periods of time to a single source is the province of desperate pseudo-intellectuals.

Sigh. But its the only way to talk about anything. To make arguments we need to simplify.

Perhaps for simpletons it is the only way to discuss matters.

This started with you whining about an innocuous BBC report about searches at Rafah by an anti-Hamas group. That group has alleged ties to the Islamic state. The UN alleges that group attacked aid convoys. The report indicates that Israel is arming that group - something you claim will foster democracy.

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire. For example, Israel used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of the PLO. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

 

[Tigers!]

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

That is usually correct.

For example, Israel used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of the PLO. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

For example Iran used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of Israel. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

 

[laughing dog]

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

That is usually correct.

For example, Israel used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of the PLO. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

For example Iran used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of Israel. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

[/QUOTE]It caused horrific tragedy after horrific tragedy. So, I take it you agree that Israel arming Abu Shabab will not foster democracy (which was my point - something the clipped preamble in my post made obvious).

 

[Tigers!]

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

That is usually correct.

For example, Israel used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of the PLO. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

For example Iran used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of Israel. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

It caused horrific tragedy after horrific tragedy. So, I take it you agree that Israel arming Abu Shabab will not foster democracy (which was my point - something the clipped preamble in my post made obvious).
[/QUOTE]

With the benefit of that wonderful 20/20 hindsight too many outside actors sticking their oars in the waters of the ME has been a disaster for so many people.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Jared Kushner solved all the ME problems. What are we even on about here?

Life is the crummiest book I ever read
There isn't a hook
Just a lot of cheap shots
Pictures to shock
And characters an amateur would never dream up
Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

That is usually correct.

For example, Israel used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of the PLO. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

For example Iran used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of Israel. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

It caused horrific tragedy after horrific tragedy. So, I take it you agree that Israel arming Abu Shabab will not foster democracy (which was my point - something the clipped preamble in my post made obvious).

With the benefit of that wonderful 20/20 hindsight too many outside actors sticking their oars in the waters of the ME has been a disaster for so many people.

The whole enemy of my enemy thing by judeochristian regimes choosing islamic regimes as frenemies, thus empowering them, has been going on for 50+ years. I don't think it makes sense to allude to hindsight is 20/20 if that was what you were doing. Iran/contra, Mujahadeen, Saddam Hussein, the list goes on up to and beyond Hamas. IMO, as secular persons our interests are best served by secularization of these regions and that is accomplished in the long term by promoting freedom, economic security, and science. The powers-that-be have largely not followed this strategy largely because their goals are not aligned to ours. The best they can do is trick atheists into thinking Muslims deserve to be bombed into the Stone Age. Rinse, repeat for each new generation of atheists that doesn't examine history.

 

[robnisch]

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

That is usually correct.

For example, Israel used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of the PLO. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

For example Iran used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of Israel. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

It caused horrific tragedy after horrific tragedy. So, I take it you agree that Israel arming Abu Shabab will not foster democracy (which was my point - something the clipped preamble in my post made obvious).

With the benefit of that wonderful 20/20 hindsight too many outside actors sticking their oars in the waters of the ME has been a disaster for so many people.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and the British oars were the ones that started it.

 

[Tigers!]

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

That is usually correct.

For example, Israel used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of the PLO. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

For example Iran used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of Israel. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

It caused horrific tragedy after horrific tragedy. So, I take it you agree that Israel arming Abu Shabab will not foster democracy (which was my point - something the clipped preamble in my post made obvious).

With the benefit of that wonderful 20/20 hindsight too many outside actors sticking their oars in the waters of the ME has been a disaster for so many people.

Yes, and the British oars were the ones that started it.
[/QUOTE]
The ME has been fought over for thousands of years. The problems did not start c. WW1

 

[Tigers!]

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

That is usually correct.

For example, Israel used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of the PLO. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

For example Iran used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of Israel. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

It caused horrific tragedy after horrific tragedy. So, I take it you agree that Israel arming Abu Shabab will not foster democracy (which was my point - something the clipped preamble in my post made obvious).

With the benefit of that wonderful 20/20 hindsight too many outside actors sticking their oars in the waters of the ME has been a disaster for so many people.

The whole enemy of my enemy thing by judeochristian regimes choosing islamic regimes as frenemies, thus empowering them, has been going on for 50+ years. I don't think it makes sense to allude to hindsight is 20/20 if that was what you were doing. Iran/contra, Mujahadeen, Saddam Hussein, the list goes on up to and beyond Hamas. IMO, as secular persons our interests are best served by secularization of these regions and that is accomplished in the long term by promoting freedom, economic security, and science. The powers-that-be have largely not followed this strategy largely because their goals are not aligned to ours. The best they can do is trick atheists into thinking Muslims deserve to be bombed into the Stone Age. Rinse, repeat for each new generation of atheists that doesn't examine history.

I am pleased you think that secularism/atheism will bring sweetness and light to the ME or any other region.

 

[DrZoidberg]

At least you got the year right this time. Attributing social change over long periods of time to a single source is the province of desperate pseudo-intellectuals.

Sigh. But its the only way to talk about anything. To make arguments we need to simplify.

Perhaps for simpletons it is the only way to discuss matters.

It's funny how "mr blind to any nuance" thinks I'm a simpleton. Try again

This started with you whining about an innocuous BBC report about searches at Rafah by an anti-Hamas group. That group has alleged ties to the Islamic state. The UN alleges that group attacked aid convoys. The report indicates that Israel is arming that group - something you claim will foster democracy.

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

No, it doesn't. It usually works. There's countless examples from history. Winning WW2 is a big one. That's why we keep doing it. No, it doesn't always work out. But singleing in on the few examples where it didn't work out is stupid. They just stick out, so we notice them. But they are pretty far from the norm.

The enemy of my enemy is a basic strategy any actor in any competetive field always have operated on. Since the dawn of man. It's still how it works. It's how parliamentary democracy works. It's how society works. Friends are better. But when you don't have friends you always have enemies of enemies. The second best friend.

But by all means keep talking about how I am a simpleton

For example, Israel used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of the PLO. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

Strategy is dynamic. Organisations are dynamic. Just because Hamas isn't their best bet for peace today, doesn't mean Hamas wasn't their best bet earlier. A million and one things has happened since then and now. I'm sure Iran pouring a gazillion Rials into Hamas' coffers had an impact.

And let's be super clear on that Hamas isn't the most fanatical nor most antisemitic player in Gaza. Israel needs to tread carefully.

The big problem with Muslims is that they often can't be reasoned with. They too often don't care about wealth. They too often don't care about power. All they seem to care about is being good Muslims and being the best at following the Islamic rules, (most of which are very sensible). It's very hard to corrupt humble and pius people, who are totally and completely sure about how the world should be run. It's very hard negotiating with people like that. Especially for non-Muslims. It's possible. But Israel faces some pretty unique problems. Given their situation I think they're doing pretty well.

 

[laughing dog]

At least you got the year right this time. Attributing social change over long periods of time to a single source is the province of desperate pseudo-intellectuals.

Sigh. But its the only way to talk about anything. To make arguments we need to simplify.

Perhaps for simpletons it is the only way to discuss matters.

It's funny how "mr blind to any nuance" thinks I'm a simpleton. Try again

Oh no, a“no u r” retort. How nuanced.

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

No, it doesn't. It usually works. There's countless examples from history. Winning WW2 is a big one. ….

. You need to explain such a nuanced argument because it appears delusional.

But by all means keep talking about how I am a simpleton

With such nuanced reasoning as

Just because Hamas isn't their best bet for peace today, doesn't mean Hamas wasn't their best bet earlier.

and

The big problem with Muslims is that they often can't be reasoned with.

there is no need for anyone to keep talking about simpletons.

 

[DrZoidberg]

At least you got the year right this time. Attributing social change over long periods of time to a single source is the province of desperate pseudo-intellectuals.

Sigh. But its the only way to talk about anything. To make arguments we need to simplify.

Perhaps for simpletons it is the only way to discuss matters.

It's funny how "mr blind to any nuance" thinks I'm a simpleton. Try again

Oh no, a“no u r” retort. How nuanced.

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

No, it doesn't. It usually works. There's countless examples from history. Winning WW2 is a big one. ….

. You need to explain such a nuanced argument because it appears delusional.

We are now not talking German. Is that simple enough. Pretty much any war. Many alliances bring together disparate nations who have nothing in common other than a shared enemy.

It's so obviously true that you seeing it as delusional, doesn't speak well for your mental health IMHO.

But by all means keep talking about how I am a simpleton

With such nuanced reasoning as

Just because Hamas isn't their best bet for peace today, doesn't mean Hamas wasn't their best bet earlier.

and

The big problem with Muslims is that they often can't be reasoned with.

there is no need for anyone to keep talking about simpletons.

I tried. I don't know what your problem is. I'm guessing you said something stupid, I called you out on it and now you're just being stubborn out of shame. It's a theory. I assume you're going to stick to your guns.

 

[laughing dog]

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

No, it doesn't. It usually works. There's countless examples from history. Winning WW2 is a big one. ….

. You need to explain such a nuanced argument because it appears delusional.

We are now not talking German. Is that simple enough. Pretty much any war. Many alliances bring together disparate nations who have nothing in common other than a shared enemy.

That is not an explanation. BTW, alliances need not involve friendship.

But by all means keep talking about how I am a simpleton

With such nuanced reasoning as

Just because Hamas isn't their best bet for peace today, doesn't mean Hamas wasn't their best bet earlier.

and

The big problem with Muslims is that they often can't be reasoned with.

there is no need for anyone to keep talking about simpletons.

I tried. I don't know what your problem is. I'm guessing you said something stupid, I called you out on it and now you're just being stubborn out of shame. It's a theory. I assume you're going to stick to your guns.

Your projection is purr narcissism masquerading as insight.

We agree that you don’t know. We disagree on the extent of your ignorance.

You suggested above a hitherto hidden explanation in your bolded bigotry above. Perhaps you are Muslim?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

No, it doesn't. It usually works. There's countless examples from history. Winning WW2 is a big one. ….

. You need to explain such a nuanced argument because it appears delusional.

We are now not talking German. Is that simple enough. Pretty much any war. Many alliances bring together disparate nations who have nothing in common other than a shared enemy.

That is not an explanation. BTW, alliances need not involve friendship.

But by all means keep talking about how I am a simpleton

With such nuanced reasoning as

Just because Hamas isn't their best bet for peace today, doesn't mean Hamas wasn't their best bet earlier.

and

The big problem with Muslims is that they often can't be reasoned with.

there is no need for anyone to keep talking about simpletons.

I tried. I don't know what your problem is. I'm guessing you said something stupid, I called you out on it and now you're just being stubborn out of shame. It's a theory. I assume you're going to stick to your guns.

Your projection is purr narcissism masquerading as insight.

We agree that you don’t know. We disagree on the extent of your ignorance.

You suggested above a hitherto hidden explanation in your bolded bigotry above. Perhaps you are Muslim?

Do you agree that evangelical Christians also often can't be reasoned with? Is that bigoted too?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For example, Israel used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of the PLO. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

For example Iran used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of Israel. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

So Israel and Iran, at least at one point, supported Hamas for their own political benefits. Neither case is moral.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

No, it doesn't. It usually works. There's countless examples from history. Winning WW2 is a big one. ….

. You need to explain such a nuanced argument because it appears delusional.

We are now not talking German. Is that simple enough. Pretty much any war. Many alliances bring together disparate nations who have nothing in common other than a shared enemy.

That is not an explanation. BTW, alliances need not involve friendship.

But by all means keep talking about how I am a simpleton

With such nuanced reasoning as

Just because Hamas isn't their best bet for peace today, doesn't mean Hamas wasn't their best bet earlier.

and

The big problem with Muslims is that they often can't be reasoned with.

there is no need for anyone to keep talking about simpletons.

I tried. I don't know what your problem is. I'm guessing you said something stupid, I called you out on it and now you're just being stubborn out of shame. It's a theory. I assume you're going to stick to your guns.

Your projection is purr narcissism masquerading as insight.

We agree that you don’t know. We disagree on the extent of your ignorance.

You suggested above a hitherto hidden explanation in your bolded bigotry above. Perhaps you are Muslim?

Do you agree that evangelical Christians also often can't be reasoned with? Is that bigoted too?

Well it certainly isn't enlightened to say. Hamas can't be reasoned with because their foundational reason for existence isn't peace. That doesn't mean Muslims "often can't be reasoned with".