Meanwhile, in Jerusalem...

[bad_teammate 13132]

Yeah they need competent political leaders like Netenyahu... who is a literal criminal.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

BDS

 

Heart-breaking stuff, my dude.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Sounds like Disney should take over Jerusalem and just turn it into a series of rides and Experiences

[hpslugga 4044]

I apologize to the board, but I'm not just gonna leave this as a one line rebuttal. It takes 15 seconds to tell a lie and 15 minutes to dissect it:

1 hour ago, Asithappens said:

This may be the biggest obstacle to peace:

As I stated previously, the biggest obstacles to peace have been US and Israeli rejectionism. To assert otherwise is to engage in fantasy. To repeat, the US endorsed Israel's rejection of the Jarring Mission in 1971, they vetoed a UNSC resolution regarding Palestinian self-determination in 1976 and in 1980, the Israeli government rejected the Palestinian Declaration of Independence that was issued by Arafat in 1988 adding that there can be no "additional" Palestinian state, and the US has vetoed every single UNGA resolution regarding the Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question. They have been steadfast in blocking peace for going on 50 years together. Accusing the PLO/Hamas of same is just petty projection at best, flat out dishonesty at worst.

Quote

When the United Nations proposed a two-state solution in the 1940s, Arabs rejected it

They did. Here's why, starting with a quote from Avi Schlaim:

"The key figure on the Israeli side throughout the first Arab-Israeli war was David Ben-Gurion. As the strongman of the Yishuv, Ben-Gurion relentlessly concentrated power in his own hands. In 1946 he assumed the defense portfolio in the Jewish Agency Executive and immediately started preparing the Yishuv for a military confrontation with the Arabs, which in his view was inescapable. He accepted the UN partition plan, but he did not accept as final the borders it laid down for the Jewish state. Although he valued international support, especially that of the United States and the Soviet Union, for the idea of a Jewish state, he did not expect statehood to be delivered on a silver platter. Realizing that ultimately the Jews would have to fight for their state, he wanted a clear-cut Jewish military victory. That is why he assumed personal responsibility for directing the military struggle and left it to Moshe Sharett to conduct, in New York, the diplomatic campaign for a Jewish state.”

He then goes on to explain “acceptance of the UN plan implied acceptance of a Palestinian state, but in practice the Zionist leaders preferred to seek an understanding with one of the rulers of the neighboring Arab States. They had their greatest success with their neighbor to the east, with King Abdullah of Transjordan. Did they have any diplomatic alternative? Did they have a Palestinian option in 1947-49? The answer to this question must be no, because under the leadership of Hajj Amin al-Husseini the Palestinian national movement remained as uncompromising in is opposition to Zionism in the late 1940’s as it had been over the preceding quarter of a century.”

The reason for that “uncompromising opposition” was what Benny Morris, Israel's leading historian (and propagandist) pointed out: that inbuilt into Zionism was the idea of Arab expulsion and thus the “chief motor of Arab resistance” to the Zionist movement was the “fear of displacement and dispossession from their homes.” It had nothing to do with Arabs being some inherent war mongers or anti-semites or anything of that sort. 

They rejected the partition because inbuilt into the Zionist movement was the idea of Palestinian dispossession and expulsion. Who here among us finds fault in that? Who here scoffs at the idea that a people reject the idea of dispossession and expulsion? We're supposed to sympathize with the Israeli position here?

But it is interesting that Israeli apologists keep referring to this rejection. As it were, progress has been made. The 1988 Declaration of Independence was predicated on Arafat's notion that he was making these claims based on the "unfinished business of 1948." But instead of rejoicing in the Palestinian position of compromise, which had already been established in 1971, they make excuses. They project. They lie. They blame charters and covenants and empty rhetoric of that sort, while wholly ignoring the sheer ugliness of their own (current) governing party's rhetoric in the same documents of their own. It's political theatre, and the US-Israeli contingency happens to have very bad actors in it.

Quote

Even many supporters of Israel who despair over Netanyahu’s leadership believe the larger problem is the Palestinians’ unwillingness to empower competent political leaders, rather than militants like Hamas.

That's quite the artful dodge. Israel not only rejects the idea of the right of Palestinian self-determination, they reject any manifestation of that right, including the right of the Palestinians to choose their own representatives in potential negotiations. Arafat had been signalling a willingness to settle for decades, and the Israelis/Americans did absolutely nothing but undermine and sabotage his efforts beginning with the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and ending with pulling the rug out from under him nearly 20 years later at Taba. So it's very easy to criticize the Palestinians for supporting Hamas, but what other options do they have? They tried the more secular route with the PLO and that turned out to be a multi-decade waste of time. What else are they supposed to do? Support that pushover Abbas and the so-called Palestinian Authority? Sure, keep fucking that chicken.

Quote

Israel can’t make a peace deal, its supporters say, until it has a partner more interested in building a prosperous society than trying to destroy Israel.

Again referring to documents crafted over 30 years ago by a handful of angry people during an uprising rather than the present day. That's more tail wagging the dog.

Quote

. When Arab countries controlled Palestinian territories in the 1950s and ’60s, they could have created a nation and did not. 

That's a very dishonest sleight of hand. You'll notice the author just casually refers to "Arab countries." If Israel was not interested in the existence of a Palestinian state, what obligation to be interested in same did Egypt and Jordan incur? The occupations of Gaza and the West Bank by same were utterly brutal, but that tells us absolutely nothing about Palestinian self-determination. These are just excuses to try to evade a peaceful settlement. Egypt has no responsibility to negotiate for a Palestinian state on Palestine's behalf, neither does Jordan. That's just fucking stupid, if you really think about it.

Quote

When Israel and President Bill Clinton offered a two-state peace deal two decades ago, the Palestinians said no.

Again, Camp David was impossible, which is what Israel's negotiator admitted on US public airwaves.

Skip to the 4:00 mark if you want to get to the concession, but honestly I would urge anyone curious about this to watch the full debate because there's more accuracy coming out of the mouth of even Shlomo Ben Ami in this program than there is in an entire volume of articles the NYT has composed over the years.

As Finkelstein later points out, Taba ended prematurely because Barak withdrew his negotiators. We can get into the issues of the timing and the Israeli elections and what not, but let's be clear about one thing: the PLO did not reject or walk out on Taba. They rejected Camp David, but that's why Clinton came forth with his parameters in the first place. The Americans, even Dennis Ross (though he later decided to play make believe in that piece of shit book he went on to write), recognized that Camp David was ridiculous, but they didn't want to miss an opportunity to define Clinton's legacy with this negotiation, which is why they rushed into it merely days before Clinton's term ended. Arafat wanted assurance from Clinton that he wouldn't throw him under the bus if Camp David failed, and that was largely because Camp David was so rushed. Clinton assured Arafat that he would do no such thing...and then he did. Slick Willy! Once again, blaming the Palestinians for these failures is not only false, but very stupid.

Edited May 18, 2021 by hpslugga

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

so whose sky daddy is winning right now?

[bad_teammate 13132]

He doesn't really talk to me, but my guess is he's not very happy with us.

[lmao 178]

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by lmao

[Satchel 6908]

Why can’t Israel stop encroaching into Palestinian occupied territory?

[lmao 178]

[bolverk 29402]

22 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Why can’t Israel stop encroaching into Palestinian occupied territory?

Because they're choosing to allow ultra-orthodox zealots to settle within the West Bank on their own while also encouraging others to do so by actually providing permits for the construction of new settlements. In essence, Israel is incrementally colonizing the West Bank as a matter of both formal and informal policy as it forces Palestinians into fenced off enclaves or ghettos if you will, which will eventually make it impossible for the eventual establishment of a cohesive Palestinian state.

If the Israeli government truly supported a two-state solution, they wouldn't be do this. The point is isolate the Palestinian population on a bunch of little scattered islands while allowing Israelis to take the rest, which is why it's so often compared to South Africa's apartheid regime.

[Satchel 6908]

Hamas doesn’t support a two state solution and neither does Israel. It’s not possible to impose peace on people who do not want it.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Hamas doesn’t support a two state solution and neither does Israel. It’s not possible to impose peace on people who do not want it.

It's fucking time for a thunderdome winner takes all thing...

[Neonmoon 38127]

15 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Hamas doesn’t support a two state solution and neither does Israel. It’s not possible to impose peace on people who do not want it.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Hamas doesn't represent all Palestinians and militaristic policies of Israel doesn't represent all Jews. Now, to your point, the key to peace would be keeping the war mongers on both sides from shitting all over the peace process. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Neonmoon

[Satchel 6908]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

It's a bit more complicated than that. 

I realize that, but pretending to support positions while committing war crimes is unproductive.

[hpslugga 4044]

22 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I realize that, but pretending to support positions while committing war crimes is unproductive.

Again, that's an attempt to both-sides this shit when the balance of forces, power, destruction, etc is overwhelmingly against one side. 

As to your assertion "Hamas doesn't support the two state solution," that's simply false. They've been on record supporting the two-state settlement for no fewer than two decades, well before any of you ever even heard of them. Israel, on the other hand, never has. They're staunchly against it, they reject Palestinian self-determination outright, and they even reject the notion that the Palestinians have the right to select their own negotiators on their own behalf. When Israel says that it has a willingness to negotiate a settlement, what they're talking about is a selective willingness to talk with filthy collaborators like Mahmoud Abbas, Saeb Erekat, et al. If you want to condemn rocket fire, that's one thing, but don't presume to know that it's a fact that Hamas doesn't support the settlement. Again, this is not a "both sides!!!" issue.

Oh and btw, even in the narrow context of the rocket fire, understand what that is: it's a repudiation of a military occupation. This isn't a scenario where two states are at war. This is a scenario where an extremely powerful state is occupying a comparatively helpless other. That's not symmetrical. You can count all the rockets Hamas has ever fired at them and they wouldn't even begin to measure up to the inhumane, cruel, savage, murderous nature of a single white phosphorous grenade that the IDF lobbed at a Gaza hospital.

Edited May 18, 2021 by hpslugga

[Satchel 6908]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Again, that's an attempt to both-sides this shit when the balance of forces, power, destruction, etc is overwhelmingly against one side. 

As to your assertion "Hamas doesn't support the two state solution," that's simply false. They've been on record supporting the two-state settlement for no fewer than two decades, well before any of you ever even heard of them. Israel, on the other hand, never has. They're staunchly against it, they reject Palestinian self-determination outright, and they even reject the notion that the Palestinians have the right to select their own negotiators on their own behalf. When Israel says that it has a willingness to negotiate a settlement, what they're talking about is a selective willingness to talk with filthy collaborators like Mahmoud Abbas, Saeb Erekat, et al. If you want to condemn rocket fire, that's one thing, but don't presume to know that it's a fact that Hamas doesn't support the settlement. Again, this is not a "both sides!!!" issue.

I agree it’s overwhelmingly against one side, Nothing I wrote militates against that fact. 

[Satchel 6908]

5 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Again, that's an attempt to both-sides this shit when the balance of forces, power, destruction, etc is overwhelmingly against one side. 

As to your assertion "Hamas doesn't support the two state solution," that's simply false. They've been on record supporting the two-state settlement for no fewer than two decades, well before any of you ever even heard of them. Israel, on the other hand, never has. They're staunchly against it, they reject Palestinian self-determination outright, and they even reject the notion that the Palestinians have the right to select their own negotiators on their own behalf. When Israel says that it has a willingness to negotiate a settlement, what they're talking about is a selective willingness to talk with filthy collaborators like Mahmoud Abbas, Saeb Erekat, et al. If you want to condemn rocket fire, that's one thing, but don't presume to know that it's a fact that Hamas doesn't support the settlement. Again, this is not a "both sides!!!" issue.

Oh and btw, even in the narrow context of the rocket fire, understand what that is: it's a repudiation of a military occupation. This isn't a scenario where two states are at war. This is a scenario where an extremely powerful state is occupying a comparatively helpless other. That's not symmetrical. You can count all the rockets Hamas has ever fired at them and they wouldn't even begin to measure up to the inhumane, cruel, savage, murderous nature of a single white phosphorous grenade that the IDF lobbed at a Gaza hospital.

Israel is on record supporting a two state solution as well. That record means nothing while they commit war crimes.

[hpslugga 4044]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

I agree it’s overwhelmingly against one side, Nothing I wrote militates against that fact. 

What I object to is your insinuation that both sides are equally against the settlement. That’s not at all accurate

[hpslugga 4044]

Just now, Satchel said:

Israel is on record supporting a two state solution as well. That record means nothing while they commit war crimes.

They are not on the record supporting the settlement. That is also inaccurate 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6555]

7 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Again, that's an attempt to both-sides this shit when the balance of forces, power, destruction, etc is overwhelmingly against one side. 

As to your assertion "Hamas doesn't support the two state solution," that's simply false. They've been on record supporting the two-state settlement for no fewer than two decades, well before any of you ever even heard of them. Israel, on the other hand, never has. They're staunchly against it, they reject Palestinian self-determination outright, and they even reject the notion that the Palestinians have the right to select their own negotiators on their own behalf. When Israel says that it has a willingness to negotiate a settlement, what they're talking about is a selective willingness to talk with filthy collaborators like Mahmoud Abbas, Saeb Erekat, et al. If you want to condemn rocket fire, that's one thing, but don't presume to know that it's a fact that Hamas doesn't support the settlement. Again, this is not a "both sides!!!" issue.

Oh and btw, even in the narrow context of the rocket fire, understand what that is: it's a repudiation of a military occupation. This isn't a scenario where two states are at war. This is a scenario where an extremely powerful state is occupying a comparatively helpless other. That's not symmetrical. You can count all the rockets Hamas has ever fired at them and they wouldn't even begin to measure up to the inhumane, cruel, savage, murderous nature of a single white phosphorous grenade that the IDF lobbed at a Gaza hospital.

Is Hamas a terrorist organization in your view?  yes or no answer.

[Satchel 6908]

Just now, hpslugga said:

What I object to is your insinuation that both sides are equally against the settlement. That’s not at all accurate

How did you get that from what I wrote?

[hpslugga 4044]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

How did you get that from what I wrote?

“Hamas doesn’t support a two state solution and neither does Israel.”

[hpslugga 4044]

5 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Is Hamas a terrorist organization in your view?  yes or no answer.

Let’s suppose the answer is yes.

Whats the relevance? Yes, I know where you’re going with this. You’re trying to establish that Israel doesn’t have to negotiate with them because they’re a terrorist organization, right?

Well if that’s the litmus test of who gets to and doesn’t get to negotiate the ending of the occupation, then Israel is disqualified as well, as is the United States from participating. Israel and the United States have perpetrated far worse acts of terror than anything the PLO and Hamas combined have ever even been accused of, let alone actually committed. That doesn’t stop Hamas from attempting negotiations with them and it shouldn’t stop the Israelis either. To argue otherwise is to propose a double standard.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6555]

Just now, hpslugga said:

Let’s suppose the answer is yes.

Whats the relevance? Yes, I know where you’re going with this. You’re trying to establish that Israel doesn’t have to negotiate with them because they’re a terrorist organization, right?

Well if that’s the litmus test of who gets to and doesn’t get to negotiate the ending of the occupation, then Israel is disqualified as well, as is the United States from participating. Israel and the United States have perpetrated far worse acts of terror than anything the PLO and Hamas combined have ever even been accused of, let alone actually committed. That doesn’t stop Hamas from attempting negotiations with them and it shouldn’t stop the Israelis either. To argue otherwise is to propose a double standard.

Is it that hard to answer yes or no?  I am not asking about Israel.  That can be a different discussion.  I am asking if you think a group that is designated as a Terrorist organization by countries all over the world is one in your eyes.  

[Satchel 6908]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

“Hamas doesn’t support a two state solution and neither does Israel.”

I would urge anybody interested in the goings on in the ME to watch what the stakeholders do and pay less attention to what they say:

In 2003, George W. Bush became the first US president to adopt the idea, and Israelis and Palestinians picked up on it in that year's Geneva Accord.

Rapprochement was made possible by the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization recognized Israel's existence, albeit implicitly and not expressly. In 1988, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat said the organization was dropping its previous plan to establish a Palestinian state across the entire territory, but rather "on our Palestinian territory with its capital, Jerusalem." Thus, the PLO limited its future state to the boundaries of the occupied territories.

Some members of the militant group and party Hamas — including Ismail Haniyeh, the current chairman of the political bureau — joined in, too, but stipulated that a referendum must be held among the Palestinian people before the organization would endorse it.

Two-state support evaporates

In recent years, support for the two-state solution appears to be decreasing.

As Israel has expanded settlement building, support has dwindled among Palestinians. By 2020, majorities of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were expressing opposition to the idea. That trend has continued, with many people saying that the sprawl of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which are illegal under international law, has made the idea impossible to implement.

Attacks by Hamas and allied groups have eroded support for a two-state solution among Israelis. Fewer than half of Israelis favor it. And most also reject a idea of a one-state solution, which, from their point of view, would undermine the country's identity.

https://www.dw.com/en/amid-israel-gaza-conflict-a-two-state-solution-seems-utopian-to-some/a-57558825

[hpslugga 4044]

Just now, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Is it that hard to answer yes or no?  I am not asking about Israel.  That can be a different discussion.  I am asking if you think a group that is designated as a Terrorist organization by countries all over the world is one in your eyes.  

I would tend to say yes.

Now it’s your turn: is Israel?

And if yes, does that disqualify them from participating in the negotiations?

Again, I’m not sure why this is relevant. 

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

What Israel will never allow is a Palestinian state that has a military and a right to exist in the same way that Israel has a military and a right to exist. So any offer of Palestinian statehood will always be unequal and unfair and will be rejected. They know that. Because they don’t want a Palestinian state.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6555]

Just now, hpslugga said:

I would tend to say yes.

Now it’s your turn: is Israel?

And if yes, does that disqualify them from participating in the negotiations?

Again, I’m not sure why this is relevant. 

No Israel is not a terrorist organization.  They are a country that may be doing some terrible things right now but not a terrorist organization.  The US, China, United Kingdom, Russia, etc... have all done terrible things at one time or another but that does not make them terrorist organizations.  

[GW Hayduke 1952]

16 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Is Hamas a terrorist organization in your view?  yes or no answer.

How is that a relevant question?

Does giving them a label like that help dehumanize the palestinian side? 

Does the label help give moral authority to Israel in your eyes?

Does the label justify the disproportionate killing of palestinian children?

 

[hpslugga 4044]

1 minute ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

No Israel is not a terrorist organization.  They are a country that may be doing some terrible things right now but not a terrorist organization.  The US, China, United Kingdom, Russia, etc... have all done terrible things at one time or another but that does not make them terrorist organizations.  

That’s all I needed to read

[Beantown Express 2.0 6555]

Just now, GW Hayduke said:

How is that a relevant question?

Does giving them a label like that help dehumanize the palestinian side? 

Does the label help give moral authority to Israel in your eyes?

Does the label justify the disproportionate killing of palestinian children?

 

yes

[GW Hayduke 1952]

1 minute ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

yes

Then I recommend you try and look past labels.  Instead, look at what is going on.  Judge the situation based on facts from reputable sources and your own value system.  For example, acknowledge the past disproportionate uses of human shields by Israel.  Don't let the labels by others tell you what to think and how to feel.

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

7 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

No Israel is not a terrorist organization.  They are a country that may be doing some terrible things right now but not a terrorist organization.  The US, China, United Kingdom, Russia, etc... have all done terrible things at one time or another but that does not make them terrorist organizations.  

The “You think our country’s so innocent?” defense. 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6555]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The “You think our country’s so innocent?” defense. 

Not a defense but I don't consider the US a terrorist organization.  Sorry but that is my belief.

[hpslugga 4044]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The “You think our country’s so innocent?” defense. 

And not only that, yes it absolutely does make them terrorist organizations. He’s just flat out wrong on that, as he has been about this entire topic.

The ugly truth about international affairs is that states are violent (i.e. terroristic) to the extent that they’re powerful. The US happens to be the biggest perpetrator because they have the power. Israel is no exception and it’s partisan nonsense to pretend that they are. This is just silliness.

[Js1 85110]

Just now, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Not a defense but I don't consider the US a terrorist organization.  Sorry but that is my belief.

Most of Latin America might disagree with that assertion.  Or at least a state sponsor of terrorism via the CIA.  

[Brisketexan 104628]

I know this much.  If I lived in Gaza, and the adjacent nation state was doing the things to me that Israel is doing, I would almost certainly be in favor of attacking and killing the citizens of that nation state wherever they could be found, and I would very likely raise my children to think the same way.

If Israel wants to guarantee that there are generations of future terrorists, they are doing EXACTLY what they need to be doing.

Israel's actions here are so counterproductive as to be just fucking evil.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6555]

Just now, hpslugga said:

And not only that, yes it absolutely does make them terrorist organizations. He’s just flat out wrong on that, as he has been about this entire topic.

The ugly truth about international affairs is that states are violent (i.e. terroristic) to the extent that they’re powerful. The US happens to be the biggest perpetrator because they have the power. Israel is no exception and it’s partisan nonsense to pretend that they are. This is just silliness.

Do you live in the US?  Why if this is a terrorist state according to your views.  You should move somewhere where the countries are not terrorists according to your views.   I am now bored with this discussion so go about your crying on how horrible your people are being treated.   

[staboner 4959]

22 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Is it that hard to answer yes or no?  I am not asking about Israel.  That can be a different discussion.  I am asking if you think a group that is designated as a Terrorist organization by countries all over the world is one in your eyes.  

life is not nearly as simple as this gotcha shit. stop posting like this. 

[staboner 4959]

16 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That’s all I needed to read

the word "terrorist" is simply a label of good v bad in the mind of people that don't care to understand the details. 

thanks for going hard in the paint on this page

[staboner 4959]

5 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so whose sky daddy is winning right now?

pretty sure we are all losing my G

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

I would now like to spend the next 2 hours arguing with the stupidest man on the planet about what the word terrorist means. The game is afoot good sir. 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

The world is simple. THere are good guys and there are bad guys. We are the good guys. The others are the bad guys.

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

14 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Not a defense but I don't consider the US a terrorist organization.  Sorry but that is my belief.

If you think the U.S. is but Israel is not then you just lost all credibility. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by WhatTheBuck

[Beantown Express 2.0 6555]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If you think the U.S. is but Israel is not then you just lost all credibility. 

I stated that neither the US or Israel are terrorist organizations but I do believe a group like Hamas is.  

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

 

Acts of terrorism or not?

[hpslugga 4044]

5 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Do you live in the US?

Whole life

5 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

 Why if this is a terrorist state according to your views.

Has nothing to do with my views. It has to do with the historic record compared to our very own definition of what terrorism is.

Terrorism, as a legal term, was first established in 1984 in the US Army Tradoc Pamphlet 525-37. In it, they define terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." Incidentally, this was around the time that the US was involved in its terrorist war against Nicaragua. The principle strategy they used was labeled "low intensity conflict" that focuses on "soft targets." Check out how the Pentagon defined those terms and you'll notice that they're almost word for word the precise and exact definition of terrorism. That was the chief tactic the US used, not only in Nicaragua but in Central America more broadly. It's also the same tactic they've used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, and other comparatively defenseless nations. They're not alone in that regard, except for one thing: the US is the first and only country in world history that's ever been convicted by the ICJ of international terrorism (they termed it "excessive use of force," but that's exactly what it is).

5 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

  You should move somewhere where the countries are not terrorists according to your views.   I am now bored with this discussion so go about your crying on how horrible your people are being treated.   

Ah yes, the Love it or Leave it fallacy.

[Brisketexan 104628]

2 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I stated that neither the US or Israel are terrorist organizations but I do believe a group like Hamas is.  

I mean, guys, they're not terrorist ORGANIZATIONS.   They're kind of like clubs, and they do lots of things.  Taxes, roads, community service, libraries, medicare . . . and using violence to accomplish political goals is just one of the things they do!  You wouldn't say the US is a "medicare" organization, or a "road-building organization," would you?  No.  Because those are just PART of what the US does.  See, it's that simple!

Don't argue with the idiot, guys.  Israel good.  Palestinians terrorists.  

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

3 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I stated that neither the US or Israel are terrorist organizations but I do believe a group like Hamas is.  

You’re right. I misread you’re post because you’d been employing the Trumpian “You think our country’s so innocent?” defense. My mistake.

But it’s a matter of semantics. It’s the people who have no power and no political voice who wind up resorting to “terrorism” in order to try to achieve change. Israel is definitely an apartheid regime. And as long as they try to keep the other guy down, deprive them of equal rights, and steal their land while giving them no opportunity for redress, violence will be the result. As surely as the sun will rise. You’d react the same way. I know I would.

[Brisketexan 104628]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

And as long as they try to keep the other guy down, deprive them of equal rights, and steal their land while giving them no opportunity for redress, violence will be the result. As surely as the sun will rise. You’d react the same way. I know I would.

Kick a dog, he'll bite you.  If you want to create millions of dogs who remember you kicked them, and are looking for a chance to bite you, Israel is executing the perfect plan for that.

We can look beyond the HORRIFIC irony of a nation state born out of one of the defining genocides in history now acts to preserve itself with acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing (irony is fucking DEAD -- the 20th century killed it, I guess) . . . and just look to whether Israel's approach matches with its PURPORTED goal of a continued peaceful existence.  It really doesn't.  It only matches with a goal of extending conquest of additional land by violence, and accepting that it will suffer violence in return.  Israel is not acting like a state defending itself, and hasn't been for a long-ass time.  It is acting EXACTLY like a state that, knowing it has superior military force, is going to continue to exert its will over a weaker people with violence, taking land and eliminating competition along the way . . . knowing that some level of violent response will continue for generations, because that's what people do when you fucking bomb them.