…again!
If this fucker wants an actual invasion of Iran so badly he can go first. And alone. The war with Iran will not be won through airstrikes, so what's left? | The Jerusalem Post
So this yahoo is proposing that the U.S. abandon Taiwan to China in exchange for nebulous Chinese pressure on Iran?
Hey @Babale, I see you… posting and posting and posting bullshit and lies about Gaza and the Israeli government, but still afraid to even mention Iran. You know, the Trump/Hegseth war you cheered on from the beginning, insisting it was wise and would be resolved positively?
Is it that hard for you to admit you were wrong? That maybe trusting Trump and Hegseth to handle this was really stupid?
A coward to the end, Babs. Fuck you.
Might be of interest:
The war is still going on, still doing nothing but causing death and destruction and chaos, and related conflicts are spreading in the region. Great job, warmongers! Great job making Iran more powerful and the US weaker!
What do you think, @Babale? Still afraid to talk about it? Still a coward, both for refusing to fight in a war you support and refusing to even revisit the topic?
Fuck the warmongers.
Hallelujah! @Babale (barely) speaks about the Iran war. And he does so by repeating Trump lies that the war is over:
And then he blocks the interlocutor, @MrDibble.
Funny that the only two guys he’s blocked are the ones asking about the Iran war…
Responding here to @Quicksilver’s warmongering:
I work for the US Navy (and am a Navy veteran). I think a strong defense is incredibly important, and fosters peace. But strong defense is millions of miles away from stupid offense. That’s what we did. Nothing remotely “pro-military”, or “pro-defense”, or pro-anything but stupidity, corruption, and bigotry. War is absolute hell. And the US’s history of “imposing a change on an oppressive regime” is just failure after failure, atrocity after atrocity, stupidity after stupidity. And that’s with supposedly “competent” leadership!
And here you are, expressing gladness that Trump and Hegseth killed some bad guys as they started a war with no strategy, no mission, and no plan, slaughtering children by the hundreds and civilians by the thousands.
Fuck the warmongers! Dumbest motherfuckers on the planet.
This is bothering me more than it should
I wasn’t aware of this from Orwell, but I found the (relatively short) essay it’s from. Absolutely no clue where that block quote “summary” is coming from.
Among the very young the pacifist reaction had set in long before the war ended. To be as slack as you dared on O.T.C. parades, and to take no interest in the war was considered a mark of enlightenment. The young officers who had come back, hardened by their terrible experience and disgusted by the attitude of the younger generation to whom this experience meant just nothing, used to lecture us for our softness. Of course they could produce no argument that we were capable of understanding. They could only bark at you that war was ‘a good thing’, it ‘made you tough’, ‘kept you fit’, etc. etc. We merely sniggered at them. Ours was the one-eyed pacifism that is peculiar to sheltered countries with strong navies. For years after the war, to have any knowledge of or interest in military matters, even to know which end of a gun the bullet comes out of, was suspect in ‘enlightened’ circles. 1914-18 was written off as a meaningless slaughter, and even the men who had been slaughtered were held to be in some way to blame.
He’s talking about this very specific group of people at a very specific time and place - boys/men in the UK who were just young enough that they couldn’t serve in WWI, and because they were on an island where civilians were spared from the horrors of the conflict they were in, in a unique situation of having people very close to them in life experience before the war now having no way to relate to each other because one group sat in trenches in Europe and got shelled and gassed and another group was on an island where they didn’t even see signs of a war around them.
Then in the next paragraph, he says.
Besides, the pacifist reaction was only a phase, and even the ‘just too young’ had all been trained for war. Most of the English middle class are trained for war from the cradle onwards, not technically but morally. The earliest political slogan I can remember is ‘We want eight (eight dreadnoughts) and we won’t wait’. At seven years old I was a member of the Navy League and wore a sailor suit with ‘H.M.S. Invincible’ on my cap. Even before my public-school O.T.C. I had been in a private-school cadet corps. On and off, I have been toting a rifle ever since I was ten, in preparation not only for war but for a particular kind of war, a war in which the guns rise to a frantic orgasm of sound, and at the appointed moment you clamber out of the trench, breaking your nails on the sandbags, and stumble across mud and wire into the machine-gun barrage.
The whole essay is mostly about his conflicted feelings as a socialist where on the one hand he’s inclined to think like Lenin where wars between bourgeois powers are pointless and the only conflict worth fighting is the proletarian revolution, and on the other hand he does feel a sense of British patriotism and feels that he really does want Britain to fight the Nazis in WWII
I don’t know how someone’s reading comprehension can be so bad they read it as naval powers like the Great Britain end up with an apathetic populace that doesn’t think the military protects them. He’s writing about an era that would seem absurdly militaristic to almost all people in the west nowadays, with all of our fancy technology that has replaced hundreds of thousands of grunts running into machine gun fire.
Here’s some more fuel to add to the fire. According to an academic study, Israel is not guilty of genocide and apartheid, but at least they can be called racist.
The authors examine the legal definitions governing apartheid under the 1973 Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute. According to the study, while “racism and substantial disparities persist” within Israel’s citizenship regime inside the Green Line, Arab citizens participate in national elections, litigate in courts, and serve in the Knesset.
As for the destruction of the Al-Basma clinic, it was a precision strike that wasn’t intended to prevent births. IOW, they didn’t kill enough to qualify for the definition of genocide.
Examining the destruction of the Al-Basma IVF clinic, the study notes that the UN Commission of Inquiry found that the strike used “a large caliber projectile, most probably a shell fired from an Israeli security forces tank” and relied on “the precision of the strike,” but the authors argue that “intent to destroy a clinic or reproductive material is not by itself intent to prevent births so as to contribute to the physical or biological destruction of the protected group.”
Just an observation that SSRN is not peer reviewed.
The whole thing is available here, I have yet to read it all yet.
But I will point out that during South African Apartheid, non-Whites nevertheless participated in national elections, litigated in courts, and served in Parliament. The fact that a racially defined population has some political representation and access to courts isn’t, by itself, incompatible with an apartheid system.
They also say early on in the paper "Apartheid and genocide are legal classifications with defined elements. " But they’re also words with common language definitions. The former matters for the courts. The latter matters much more when someone uses them colloquially. So already they’re not off to a great start.
Yeah, I have never heard that accusations of “apartheid” against Israel pertained to the treatment of Arab citizens of Israel. It’s about the differential treatment of Palestinians and Israelis in the occupied territories.
And yep, there sure can be racial-apartheid systems in societies where some members of the oppressed group have legal status that exempts them from some or most of the oppressive mechanisms. See, for example, the situation of “free blacks” in many northern US cities in the slavery era, who could own property (including in some cases slaves) and sometimes even vote. But that didn’t change the basic racialist structure in which enslavement applied only to Black people.