acargitz @ theacharnian @lemmy.ca

Posts

72

Comments

1,723

Joined

2 yr. ago

Huh. Maybe the IDF should fuck off back to their side of the border then. Safest that way.

Wtf does that even mean?

Why is this the very first law the Liberals are trying to pass? This is not an issue that was campaigned and debated on in the election. This was nobody's priority. Why strengthen police powers as the very fucking first thing the new government is doing? This smells very bad. And even if it's all one big misunderstanding, given the slow burn that has been fascism in the US, I'm alarmed with even slight nudges in more authoritarian laws.

Where are all the outraged liberals that would shout down anyone suggesting we need a strong NDP?

It isn't relevant. I'm just making fun of your president.

Every time the US president says "CHAYYYNNA", I consider that anti-Chinese propaganda.

I didn't bring up anything, the comment you responded to did. My comment was my first intervention in this thread and I was responding to you specifically. You said that things like that get brought up all the time. I am asking you for the receipts. When was the Haitian coup d'état brought up before today?

All the fucking time? Really? When was the last time the Coup d'état against Aristide was discussed around here?

So let's get racketeering laws?

Strategically, we are aligned, we are in agreement. Yes, a bi-/pluri- national successor democracy with equal rights for all people, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc, Arab, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Druze, etc. Indigenous, Migrant, Refugee, etc. Yes. With democracy and equal rights to all. With safety to all. A state and a society that would honour the Nakba AND the Holocaust.

Tactically, no. I am not denying Palestinians the right to armed resistance. I am denying them the right to cruelty. Killing, injuring, capturing soldiers in battle? That's their right and god damn it I cheer them when they do it. Doing the same things to civilians? Fuck. No. I maintain the need for moral clarity in this shit that we are in. And that's our difference: you are embracing a kind of pseudo-revolutionary nihilism that is willing to accept cruelty if it comes from the below. You pretend that is somehow "by all means necessary", as if kidnapping kids is ever "necessary". Fuck. No. Your politics is anti-political, it is a dead-end, there is no possibility for a future, just hatred and larping Malcolm X. You want an end to the violence? Good. Start acting like it.

Like I said before:

Go through my comment history buddy, you’re preaching to the choir.

Ending the occupation is the obvious solution. The occupation and the apartheid is the root of all this shit.

Here's the catch for you though: ending the occupation is not realistic, it's the most idealistic thing one could be asking for right now. Because the reality on the ground, created by decades of colonization is that it is simply politically impossible to extract about a million settlers from the West Bank. So "ending the occupation" is exactly the kind of idealism that I'm also pushing for (like "don't take kids hostages"). Because if we are talking about a real liberation scenario, in the best case, we are talking about some kind of post-apartheid mess. Maybe some kind of civil war too.

So don't you fucking run your mouth at me about history and human psychology. I'm tired of supposed hardcore know-it-alls. Hayde malaka.

You are so hardcore and knowledgeable of human history and psychology. So hardcore. Yea.

Look buddy. The world fucking sucks, right? People do horrible things. People are locked into doing horrible things. People are desperate, and brutalized and traumatized and beaten down. You can look at that and say, yea that's how it is.

Or you can look at it and say We Should Do Better. You call that idealism? Good. In a world where reality is becoming more brutal by the hour, maybe a little idealism is what exactly we need.

If we are talking about combatants, sure. I would not flinch a moment. But civilians? Kids? Nah bro, don't go there.

I don't appreciate these "what else should they do" questions. I've been debating pro-zionist trolls for two years now and I no longer accept even their premise. I'm not going to turn around and apply it to Hamas.

The proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act give the government increased power over immigration documents in cases where public health or national security are at risk. Specifically it allows officials to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents immediately, pause the acceptance of new applications and cancel applications already in process if deemed in the public interest. Asylum claims would also have to be made within a year of entering the country, including for students and temporary residents. The immigration changes would also require irregular border crossers, people who enter Canada between official ports of entry, to make an asylum claim within 14 days of arriving in Canada.

Not the kind of legislation I would want a Tory government to inherit (and hence "strengthen").

The changes would also speed up voluntary departures by making removal orders effective the same day an asylum claim is withdrawn.

And this kind of shit is straight up alarming.

Basically, at a time when the US is going full on fascist with respect to immigrants, I want Canada moving confidently in the opposite direction.

clutches pearls

Go through my comment history buddy, you're preaching to the choir. The fact that the Israeli apartheid regime is committing genocide is one thing. The fact that Hamas should not have taken non-combatant hostages is another. And sorry but no, I refuse to identify Hamas with "the oppressed". They are fanatics propped up by slave-owners in the Gulf and politically useful idiots of the Israeili apartheid regime.

I am using "should" in a moral sense, according to my own moral compass. I mean that according to my own morality they "should do the right thing". Nothing beyond that.

That said, I agree with your analysis entirely.

Hamas should free the hostages. Frankly, they should have never taken non-combatant hostages in the first place. That was absolutely a crime.

The "concerns" are ridiculous. Anyone not involved in war crimes has absolutely nothing to fear.