BraveSirZaphod @ BraveSirZaphod @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

1,142

Joined

2 yr. ago

They're more based in Qatar. The UAE are very close to Saudi Arabia and generally despise Iran. Hamas is backed by Iran, not the Saudis.

If the Saudis could snap their fingers and make an independent Palestine arise, they'd do it, but they'd much rather make money than get caught up in ideological conflicts.

You could give each American a grand sum of $133. Truly life changing stuff.

On the contrary, it's incredibly believable, because people generally care much more about their own personal emotional validation than anything annoying that might get in the way of that, like facts.

All while simultaneously circlejerking over how rational and logical we all are, as opposed to those idiot conservatives!

Snark aside, I've started to believed that, any time people get emotionally or socially attached to some issue - which includes their own identity as a "good person" - their brains simply shut off, and it takes a level of active work and elevation of truth over validation to overcome that on any platform like this.

Congrats, you've just passed every conservative's wet dream, by not only making it harder to pass any new laws because you're constantly going to be busy renewing the old ones, but also making it so that all you have to do in order to kill a policy you don't like is to wait and do nothing.

Imagine if Republicans could kill Social Security by simply waiting and fillibustering in the Senate, and go on to blame Democrats because they technically have a majority.

This has nothing to do with Israel. Republicans would nuke Gaza if they could.

This is them holding up broadly popular legislation in order to make some stupid demands on "border security" so they can tell their constituents that they basically built a wall.

Tell that to the Bastille.

Er, they absolutely did destroy the Bastille. The revolutionary leader Mirabeau started it himself.

I mean we can disagree on the morality of things, but let's at least keep the facts correct. You'll find that you cannot visit the Bastille today. Because the Revolutionaries demolished it as a symbol of the monarchy.

This was actually the original plan in the first UN Partition Plan, that Jerusalem would become an international city administered by the UN. The Jews that would go on to form Israel accepted, while Palestinians rejected it, war broke out, and here we are.

Eh, some of it. I won't pretend to be an expert, but I'm pretty sure most American land was acquired by settlers simply marching in with guns and saying "We're here now". That's to say nothing of the countless treaties that were signed and broken.

I don't exactly think the Osage were contacted about the Louisiana Purchase.

Even Gazans are sick of their shit

Do you have evidence of that? Because some polling has been done over the last few months, and it's been showing consistently high support for Hamas and the October 7th attacks in general. The reason why the Palestinian Authority hasn't held elections in the West Bank in ages is because Hamas would probably win them.

I shouldn't have to say this, but that of course does not mean that civilians deserve to be bombed.

Has WhatsApp's encryption ever been shown to not be trustworthy?

Facebook has had to provide law enforcement with FB Messenger texts before after being served a warrant. Are you saying this has also happened with WhatsApp, even though that should be impossible? That's a pretty big claim, so I'd love to see your evidence.

I don't believe there's ever been an instance of E2EE Messenger texts being given to law enforcement, whereas there are plenty of instances where Facebook has provided law enforcement with non-encrypted messages after being served a warrant.

Believe what you want, but ignoring the legal liability from blatantly lying like that, there's precisely zero evidence that Messenger's encryption is compromised.

Well, 70% of Israelis were born there, and most immigrant Jews go to firmly Jewish lands, so the odds of any random Israeli being a foreigner who came to settle traditionally Arab lands is quite small, though they do exist of course, and are rather shitty.

Regardless, the attacks on October 7th were concentrated on the land immediately surrounding Gaza, which has been firmly Jewish since the 40s. No Palestinian peace plan has ever claimed them. So even if you accept that direct violence is acceptable against people explicitly displacing Arabs, that describes essentially no victims of the attacks.

Well, over a thousand Israelis were murdered two months ago, and this poll is expressing support for that.

So it's, at best, support for murder.

Indeed you can't, because if that Israel's aim, they've been doing an incredibly bad job given that the number of Palestinians has increased by a million in the last ten years.

Whereas I don't recall the Jewish population of Europe doubling during the second World War. But sure, these are basically the same thing.

Either you believe that killing can be justified in a non-zero set of circumstances, or that it can never be justified.

The vast majority of people fall into the first camp, and most in the second camp will change their minds when a gun is pointed at them.

You seem to be ignoring the existence of objective reality and responding to the strawman of literally everything just being subjective vibes, which isn't worth the time it'd take to respond further.

Thanks for that. Looking again, there's one interesting stat there that I missed the first time, that only 14% support a Hamas-led government after the war, while most support a coalition with the Palestinian Authority. The PA is largely useless, but what they are not is terrorists, so that's a small hopeful sign.

Because the parent comment explicitly mentioned the IDF?

If you're going to discard any evidence coming from Israelis, you're not actually open to any evidence that might challenge your views at all. Which is fine, but don't pretend to be looking for a rational discussion then.

I don't give a shit about the Bible, but I would say that a bunch of Jews legally bought a bunch of land in the late Ottoman period, a lot more legally immigrated during the British mandate after WW1 (which was wrong, I'd say; the land had been promised to the Hashemites before Sykes-Picot to create a unified Arab state in exchange for Arab support against the Ottomans, but the British and French reneged), then ethnic tensions exploded as everyone did a lot of violence to everyone. In 1947, a UN partition plan was proposed to create two states; the Jews accepted, the Arabs didn't, and war broke out. Once fighting had ended and the first lines were drawn, we have a state of Israel and the mess has properly begun.

None of this involves the Bible.

I genuinely have no idea why you're talking about the Bible, and I've been a pretty stringent atheist for most of my life. I agree it's a pretty poor moral guide and an unreliable source for history, but I'm not sure how that's at all relevant.

So er, I'm just gonna bow out of whatever this conversation was meant to be, because I don't know what you're trying to say. Cheers I guess.