Holy shit progressive city councils are retarded. Literal terrorist supporters.
Holy shit progressive city councils are retarded. Literal terrorist supporters.
Speaking of popular support for Fatah vs. Hamas:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/w...prisoners.html
Hope is the denial of reality
Just like conservative dinosaur city councils (albeit different groups of terrorists). But you are aware none of those speaking in the clip were part of the city council, yes? Those were local residents (or students attending local schools) showing up a public meeting and taking their time to offer commentary on a motion.Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Ah so the council listened to the pyscho pro-terrorists and ensured they condemned Hamas in their statement? They did that, right? Right??
Do you want the city council to censor political speech?
Hope is the denial of reality
Wait, so not only is the City Council supposed to censor public commentary, it's supposed to literally control the voices of the public exercising the right to speak at a public meeting and MAKE THEM say the things you would prefer them to say? Is that what the conservative city councils have been doing all this time?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/w...elligence.htmlIsraeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened, documents, emails and interviews show. But Israeli military and intelligence officials dismissed the plan as aspirational, considering it too difficult for Hamas to carry out.
The approximately 40-page document, which the Israeli authorities code-named “Jericho Wall,” outlined, point by point, exactly the kind of devastating invasion that led to the deaths of about 1,200 people.
The translated document, which was reviewed by The New York Times, did not set a date for the attack, but described a methodical assault designed to overwhelm the fortifications around the Gaza Strip, take over Israeli cities and storm key military bases, including a division headquarters.
Hamas followed the blueprint with shocking precision. The document called for a barrage of rockets at the outset of the attack, drones to knock out the security cameras and automated machine guns along the border, and gunmen to pour into Israel en masse in paragliders, on motorcycles and on foot — all of which happened on Oct. 7.
How have these people not all resigned in shame?
Hope is the denial of reality
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/b1kn4jdbtOutlining the Israeli government's position, he said the three tiers involved destroying Hamas, demilitarizing Gaza and de-radicalizing the enclave.
These are not serious people. Netanyahu is both malevolent and incompetent.
Hope is the denial of reality
The devil is bad but his worshippers are worse.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
His public approval was in the single digits last time I checked.
Hope is the denial of reality
Israel admitting that 2/3 of the people it killed are civilians:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/livebl...hem-are-hamas/
Hope is the denial of reality
Their entire government and a sizeable portion of military leadership should be hit with individual sanctions and international arrest warrants. Absolutely beyond the pale for the US to not only endorse but outright facilitate this violence unconditionally. Netanyahu and Blinken have both been pitching ethnic cleansing plans to governments in the region.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Thank you giant military brains:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...c-3dfb2cda0000
Meanwhile the IDF is literally doing the Torment Nexus meme by trying to create Hydra's "Project Insight" algorithm:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ombing-targets
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm sure killing a whole bunch of easily replaceable foot soldiers will totally annihilate Hamas. This is a Trumpian level of incompetence. How did all these generals get promoted to their current positions?
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't think annihilating Hamas is the goal they're pursuing.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Devastating piece of interactive visual storytelling from nyt:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e=articleShare
Somewhat less impressive storytelling from CNN:
(article contains confirmation from IDF that they did it)
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/inves...ism/index.html
"Ackman, a Harvard graduate who has been a vocal critic of how universities have addressed antisemitism, took particular issue with how the presidents answered a question on Tuesday about whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their respective school’s code of conduct on bullying or harassment.
None of the school leaders explicitly said that calling for the genocide of Jews would necessarily violate their code of conduct. Instead, they explained it would depend on the circumstances and conduct.
“They must all resign in disgrace. If a CEO of one of our companies gave a similar answer, he or she would be toast within the hour,” Ackman said on X. “The answers they gave reflect the profound moral bankruptcy of Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth.”
In response to Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik asking whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate Penn’s code of conduct, Penn President Liz Magill said: “It is a context dependent decision.”
Stefanik responded with shock.
“That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is dependent on the context? That is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes for,” Stefanik said.
Ackman strongly criticized the response."
IS THIS REAL LIFE? Could you IMAGINE if in 2020 if 'protestors' called for the genocide of black people, and college presidents were called up before congress and gave this response? "Calling for the genocide of African Americans is dependent on context."
The level of antisemitism that is acceptable in our "elite universities" is craaazy.
What ever happened to your free speech absolutism? If this happened at a public college, punishing a student for saying that would violate their first amendment rights (the colleges in question are private).
Hope is the denial of reality
This is weird bc we both know you're a fan of both free speech and genocide.https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/inves...ism/index.html
"Ackman, a Harvard graduate who has been a vocal critic of how universities have addressed antisemitism, took particular issue with how the presidents answered a question on Tuesday about whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their respective school’s code of conduct on bullying or harassment.
None of the school leaders explicitly said that calling for the genocide of Jews would necessarily violate their code of conduct. Instead, they explained it would depend on the circumstances and conduct.
“They must all resign in disgrace. If a CEO of one of our companies gave a similar answer, he or she would be toast within the hour,” Ackman said on X. “The answers they gave reflect the profound moral bankruptcy of Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth.”
In response to Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik asking whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate Penn’s code of conduct, Penn President Liz Magill said: “It is a context dependent decision.”
Stefanik responded with shock.
“That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is dependent on the context? That is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes for,” Stefanik said.
Ackman strongly criticized the response."
IS THIS REAL LIFE? Could you IMAGINE if in 2020 if 'protestors' called for the genocide of black people, and college presidents were called up before congress and gave this response? "Calling for the genocide of African Americans is dependent on context."
The level of antisemitism that is acceptable in our "elite universities" is craaazy.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
1. My primary beef has always been the inconsistent "rules for thee, but not for me" bull shit. Which is why I specifically referenced black folks, but we can also use transgender too. If a student said "we should genocide the trannies" and the college prez got pulled up in front of congress, do you think they would have the same response? Truly?
2. Harassment/bullying/threats aren't typically considered under the protection of free speech. Just like if you send death threats to the POTUS, you are getting a visit from the SS and possibly prison time, free speech protections don't include threats. Just like free speech protections don't protect you from a slander/libel suit. You aren't this ignorant.
Lewk, I taught about the first amendment. I think I know what behavior is permitted. Calling for the death of group x is covered by free speech. There are some contexts where it would not be covered (if the statement is made during a riot, for example, or made by someone with enough influence that people are likely to listen to them, assuming the threat was specific and time-sensitive). Presumably that's what the university presidents were referring to. A lot of private universities aren't legally bound by the first amendment but grant similar rights to their students anyway. Making general threats does not constitute harassment or bullying in most circumstances.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/advo...illegal_action
The hypocrisy point I'm more sympathetic to. Though I wonder how many students colleges in Mississippi would need to kick out if making highly derogatory statements against a race was forbidden.
Hope is the denial of reality
Seeing as you'd be screaming murder if they held someone had violated codes of conduct by advocating the genocide Israel's currently engaged in, I find their response perfectly understandable and acceptable.https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/inves...ism/index.html
"Ackman, a Harvard graduate who has been a vocal critic of how universities have addressed antisemitism, took particular issue with how the presidents answered a question on Tuesday about whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their respective school’s code of conduct on bullying or harassment.
None of the school leaders explicitly said that calling for the genocide of Jews would necessarily violate their code of conduct. Instead, they explained it would depend on the circumstances and conduct.
“They must all resign in disgrace. If a CEO of one of our companies gave a similar answer, he or she would be toast within the hour,” Ackman said on X. “The answers they gave reflect the profound moral bankruptcy of Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth.”
In response to Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik asking whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate Penn’s code of conduct, Penn President Liz Magill said: “It is a context dependent decision.”
Stefanik responded with shock.
“That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is dependent on the context? That is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes for,” Stefanik said.
Ackman strongly criticized the response."
IS THIS REAL LIFE? Could you IMAGINE if in 2020 if 'protestors' called for the genocide of black people, and college presidents were called up before congress and gave this response? "Calling for the genocide of African Americans is dependent on context."
The level of antisemitism that is acceptable in our "elite universities" is craaazy.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Except you yourself do nothing BUT engage in that bull shit
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The Middle East's Most "Very Normal" Country
https://www.timesofisrael.com/head-o...virs-policies/
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Are you telling me if a student just screamed out random nonsense at the top of their lungs during each of their classes, public universities have to let them? You are wrong, there are no 1A violations for the university stopping them through penalty or forced removal from the class.
Are you telling me if a student regularly, on a daily basis made unwanted sexual advances toward their professor, public universities have to let them? You are wrong, there are no 1A violations for the university stopping them through a code of conduct.
Calling for a genocide, a mass murder, of an ethnic group that matches the ethnic group of their classmates seems more than a bit disruptive, just like sexual harassment and loud screaming would be. But hey don't take my word of it - let's go see what Harvard is saying now...
"Statement from President Gay: There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students. Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account."
I think the Taliban are a really bad comparator. The reason the Taliban were able to waltz back in were basically twofold: first, there was a hinterland that the US did not even attempt to seriously control, and a safe haven in Pakistan. Gaza doesn't have a hinterland. Second, the US just gave up and assumed that a poorly resourced military they had tried to mold in the image of the US military would be able to hold the country on their own. Israel has no interest in handing over security control/responsibility to any Palestinian faction any time soon. Certainly they would love to do so, but they are well aware that this won't work.
I can't say with any certainty what kind of durable support Hamas has in Gaza. The territory is ruled by an oppressive armed group that regularly tortures and executes people for political dissent, and public polling in Gaza is notoriously unreliable. Certainly there are plenty of anecdotes (and data) supporting a sizable population in Gaza being at least latent supporters of Hamas' strategy of violent confrontation with Israel (and damn the consequences to Gaza). There are also plenty of anecdotes (and data) supporting a sizable population in Gaza being opposed to Hamas either because of bread-and-butter issues, anger at Hamas' ruinous strategy of confrontation, disgust with rampant corruption, or ideological opposition. I do find it telling that even with the incredibly oppressive Hamas regime, political dissent is still voiced (including sizable demonstrations) despite the very serious personal risk these dissenters are running.
I think that Fatah under its current leadership is indeed widely distrusted among Palestinians, even among nominal Fatah supporters. This has a lot to do with the gerontocratic, kleptocratic, and widely ineffective leadership under Abbas. Even so, they have continued to support a parallel civil service in Gaza (tens of thousands of Gaza civil servants who were 'loyal' to Fatah have broadly stayed home and accepted some sort of paycheck from the PA since the fratricidal civil war 16+ years ago), which provides at least some sort of framework for reestablishing Fatah control.You talk about Fatah as a replacement and that's plain laughable. Fatah enjoys no public support, including in areas under its ostensive control (also note how it manages to stay in power in the West Bank despite minimal public support because there is no military alternative). There's no way in hell it can rule Gaza. Its operatives would get massacred by the public long before Hamas fighters join the fight. Fatah is seen as an Israeli stooge and its actions during the current conflict only buttress that argument. If there's going to be a revolt anywhere in the next few months, it will be in the West Bank, not Gaza.
Until you provide a serious alternative as to who could rule Gaza, your arguments are meaningless. The reality is that the population of Gaza detests Israel and anyone unwilling to stand up to it. There's no way in hell that a non-nationalist faction takes power in Gaza without a massive and long-term occupation. There is minimal civil society in Gaza. The other armed factions are at least as extreme as Hamas and are also less popular. It's plausible that some combination of them can overthrow Hamas (though at the expense of an insurgency) if Israel does enough damage to it, but there's absolutely no reason to think they'll be any friendlier toward Israel.
I do think that Dahlan (who I previously mentioned) has a much stronger base in Gaza than the Ramallah crowd, even though he's nominally Fatah-affiliated. I don't think Dahlan is particularly 'good' in the sense of not being corrupt, but I think his faction could potentially build an adequate security regime in Gaza that would be seen as more legitimate than something coming from Abbas. There are other options, of course, but that's one possibility.
I do not think that other terrorist groups have any serious chance of administering Gaza, they do not have aspirations or the capability to run a political or bureaucratic organization, unlike Hamas. I do think that there are a number of non-ideological clans that could potentially step in to provide order in coordination with some sort of political structure like a Dahlan or Fatah run bureaucracy. None of this will be easy or fast, though, agreed. I suspect it'll be a few years before Gaza is in any sort of shape to seriously discuss political issues or a functioning civil service.
You know, I'm not sure this is true. Pretty much everyone in Gaza hates Israel already, I'm not sure this will go all that well for Hamas given the well documented nature of their atrocities, the clear messaging that Hamas doesn't give a shit about Gazans, and the increasing anger about Hamas e.g. diverting badly needed aid for their own purposes. This isn't going to result in some popular uprising against Hamas, no, but I think that if offered an alternative, Gazans may give it a shot. Certainly 17 years of Hamas hasn't worked out very well.The reality is that Israel's actions are creating an entire generation of Hamas (or similar groups) supporters. Whoever rules Gaza going forward will find it increasingly difficult to stick to even basic agreements with Israel because of public pressure to "hurt the Zionists." Iran is going to double down on its support for Hamas (including in terms of resources). Israel's only realistic short-term move is to turn Gaza into a fortress surrounded by countless Israeli troops. Meanwhile, Israel has to hope that its disgraceful actions in the West Bank don't lead to an uprising there (against both itself and Fatah). In the medium term, nothing short of concrete steps toward Palestinian statehood are going to lessen popular Palestinian demands to inflict suffering on Israelis.
I think that your 'alternative' here is not workable. Israel does not have the manpower to adopt an indefinite defensive posture vis-a-vis Gaza, it's just not a good option when you have zero strategic depth between Hamas and thousands of Israeli civilians. I also don't think that that moves towards Palestinian statehood will 'fix' Gaza. Israel absolutely should dismantle the outposts and jail the extremists who have been terrorizing Palestinian farming and herding communities in the West Bank; they absolutely should make real moves towards a political settlement with the Palestinians. But as long as Hamas holds power in Gaza, they have a veto over any actual final settlement. Hamas has been incredibly successful at derailing Oslo with the mid-90s suicide bombing innovation, at destroying the Israeli left with the second intifada (though they had plenty of help from Arafat there), and at killing any chance of post-disengagement momentum towards further Israeli withdrawals and political settlements through the takeover of Gaza and subsequent escalating attacks. No amount of Israeli action in the West Bank (however necessary!) will solve this fundamental problem. Hamas must not be allowed to dictate the future of the Palestinian people.
I do think that Iran is a wild card here. I am very interested in what US, Israel, Saudis, and others are doing behind closed doors on this issue. And we haven't even touched Hezbollah, which is a different problem than Hamas but is more than likely going to come to a head in the coming years.
I was actually quite surprised at this number and the reaction to it. Surprised because I suspect it's an estimate on the high side that would be unusually good for this kind of fighting in a dense urban environment where the populace doesn't really have anywhere to evacuate to. The reaction was also surprising - where people, including you, viewed this number (taken at face value) as awful. It's objectively awful for the many, many innocent Gazans who have been killed, of course, but if this number is true it would actually be evidence that Israel is performing a herculean task with a startling degree of success. I find it more likely that Israel's estimates of combatant casualties are on the high end. We will have to see how this unfolds in the current phase of the war.
As another note on your previous points about numbers/types of Hamas casualties to date - details are sketchy, but there are multiple reports indicating that the nature of fighting since the end of the temporary ceasefire has changed dramatically. In the first phase of the ground operation, Hamas et al did not appear to be directly confronting Israeli troops very much or using very sophisticated techniques, mostly fighting delaying and harassing actions in North Gaza. There has been a noted change in the fighting since the end of the truce, which Hamas challenging Israeli troops more directly and using more sophisticated techniques more frequently (e.g. EFPs, house-based IEDs, ambushes, etc.) - IDF sources have characterized the recent fighting as much higher intensity than in the previous phase. I've seen a variety of reasons posited for this: maybe Hamas has learned from earlier failures in the first round. Maybe Hamas had time to reorganize and adapt to IDF tactics with the weeklong pause.
Or maybe, Hamas was hoping that Israel could be delayed enough that a combination of hostage releases and international pressure would stop their campaign. Now that it looks like this strategy is failed, and their leadership is running out of places to run to, they're starting to fight in earnest. Israel has already killed about half of their battalion heads (each commanding ~1000 troops) and is making inroads on various parts of the political echelon and a lot of their elite fighters. If Hamas ends up engaging Israeli troops more directly, this may accelerate Israel's progress towards their goal of weakening Hamas such that they are not able to control Gaza. The change in tactics could mean that Israel's goals might be achievable.
Last edited by wiggin; 12-07-2023 at 02:08 PM.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
This discussion is insufficiently focused on Zionuttery!
I submit this hysterical trio of coffee shop workers, who tried to block a woman from filming some graffiti in a bathroom and started spouting Zionuttery.
Twitter Link
Calling for a full moratorium on whatever the fuck kind of weird nerd shit this is:
I was actually quite surprised at this number and the reaction to it. Surprised because I suspect it's an estimate on the high side that would be unusually good for this kind of fighting in a dense urban environment where the populace doesn't really have anywhere to evacuate to. The reaction was also surprising - where people, including you, viewed this number (taken at face value) as awful. It's objectively awful for the many, many innocent Gazans who have been killed, of course, but if this number is true it would actually be evidence that Israel is performing a herculean task with a startling degree of success. I find it more likely that Israel's estimates of combatant casualties are on the high end. We will have to see how this unfolds in the current phase of the war.Do you follow him?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No, I don't use Twitter. I've heard of him and know he's weird and occasionally racist. He was just the easiest to repost and embed.
Are you trying to say that context matters? Because that's exactly what the college presidents said...
Shouting about genocide in class will get you kicked out, but so would shouting about the high price of strawberries in Peru. The disruption is the offense, not the exact language.
Would you want someone to face disciplinary action for arguing in favor of genocide in a research paper that allows for moralistic arguments? Context matters.
If someone argued for genocide against any group in class, I would tell them that's unacceptable and not a discussion that would be allowed. Would this person face disciplinary action (assuming they listened)? No. If they said the same thing and I had reason to think they're targeting a student? They would definitely face disciplinary action. Again, context.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote