At mention of the word “raped,” the audience exploded with anger. Amid the swell of noise, a boy draped in a Palestinian flag yelled about Hamas: “They did not murder anyone!”
Jesus fucking Christ. This sort of shit is why I emphasize Hamas's actions.
Yet Chomsky’s world-view does not leave space for Ukrainian agency. It is the “US and Britain” who have “refused” peace negotiations in Ukraine, Chomsky tells me, in order to further their own national interests, even as the country is being “battered, devastated”. That negotiations with Russia would mean de facto abandoning millions of Ukrainians to the whims of an aggressor that has shown itself capable of extraordinary brutality, such as in Bucha and Izyum, is dismissed. “Ukraine is not a free actor; they’re dependent on what the US determines,” he says, adding that the US is supplying Kyiv with weapons simply to weaken Russia. “For the US, this is a bargain. For a fraction of the colossal military budget, the US is able to severely degrade the military forces of its only real military adversary.”
According to Chomsky, Russia is acting with restraint and moderation. He compares Russia’s way of fighting with the US’s during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, arguing that large-scale destruction of infrastructure seen in that conflict “hasn’t happened in Ukraine”. He adds: “Undoubtedly Russia could do it, presumably with conventional weapons. [Russia] could make Kyiv as unliveable as Baghdad was, could move in to attacking supply lines in western Ukraine.”
Chomsky is constantly beating the drum "Amerikkka Bad!", and now the one fucking time we're on the right side of an issue, he still only has one note. And all edgy little contrarians hang off his every word so they can feel like an intellectual. So yeah, I think Chomsky and all his fanclub are shitheads, and it disgusts me how much traction they get online.
Huh? Are you suggesting that the US can’t make a difference in Gaza? You do realize that Israel’s military would essentially crumble without our support, right?
Pssst: the people for whom immigration is an issue won’t care about the hypocrisy,
You'd be surprised. Over 70% of Americans buy into the idea that the border is in crisis. Only about 33% are Trump bootlickers, so that leaves at least 37% of people who can be reached on the issue of the border, Trump, and hypocrisy.
It's fucking absurd. But immigration law can be unfucked later. Ukraine can't be uninvaded. We have to do what we must to get Ukrainian aid through and prevent a Trump regime which would... quite permanently fuck immigration law.
Good on two levels. Fuck Israel and fund Ukraine, you bootlicking GOP cowards.
I'll take funding Israel and Ukraine together if we have to, because one war we can make a difference in, and the other we can't, but the sin of backing Israel at this point, when it is blatantly obvious they are freely murdering Palestinians without cause, will be another stain on US history.
That’s a narrative I’ve heard but I honestly can’t speak to how valid it is.
It's pretty valid. Between the end of the Cold War and now, most European countries have chosen to wind down military spending, sometimes to an excessive degree. In the 2011 Libya Intervention, the US was initially content to sit back and let Europe handle an affair close to Europe - until it emerged that our allies had started to run out of precision munitions after a few weeks of strikes.
Nothing wrong with maintaining the defensive alliance. NATO is a matter of standardization and training cooperation, and the US is unlikely to be attacked. Just... look to your own forces in case next time there's a crisis we have a dupe in the White House.
Many Senate Republicans — even those who have expressed support for Ukraine aid and the contours of the border policy changes — raised doubts Monday they would support the package.
Possibly useful idiots - but more likely lying bootlickers.
OK and who should I believe, some random dude on the internet saying “trust me bro” or Everett K. Rowson, American scholar and Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at New York University? What I said comes straight from his mouth, so if you want to argue that point you’re welcome to send him an email. From his article, “HOMOSEXUALITY IN ISLAMIC LAW” (with further citations available in his bibliography):
Everett K. Rowson also says that the Quran doesn't have any rules against homosexuality, something which is easily disproven, so I don't know that he's trying to push a wholly honest narrative.
Welp, you’re the one who brought up Muhammad bin Saud, not me.
The only reason I brought him up, even in passing, was in quoting from your own source about the rise of Wahhabism and increased application of anti-homosexual Sharia rulings.
Fair enough. Palestinians are also sure as shit not culturally Saudi Arabian, though, so why do you keep bringing that up?
Literally the only reference I made to Saudi Arabia was to bin Saud in passing. with no reference to the country, only his support of Wahhabism and its subsequent spread as a response to you bringing up Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore, I think you might need a reminder on where Damascus and Baghdad are located. Go find both of them on a map, draw a line between the two, and tell me if Palestine is anywhere near the area denoted by that line. Once again, you need to do your research before you post assertions online.
My God, do I have to fucking explain to you the use of geographical comparisons in English?
I shouldn't have even bothered with this explanation, because your claim doesn't hold up anyway. Despite the above caveats, up to 900,000 people were killed in strategic bombing campaign against Japan. Out of 72 million, that's 1.25%.
Yep, and guess what 27,000 of 2.1 million is? Some amount of those 30% of adult men killed are combatants, so I suppose you're right. Using the high estimate of Japanese civilian deaths vs. current estimates of Palestinian civilian deaths, they're 'only' comparable instead of greater.
Jesus fucking Christ. This sort of shit is why I emphasize Hamas's actions.