Israel declares War - Destruction of Gaza / Growing conflict in Middle East

[DLF]

Was reading they're ceasing the ground offensive in South Lebanon also.

Hopefully these are legitimate L's and not just some okey doke.

not a fan of following these types of account. him. syrian girl, khalisee, hinkle

they were great a year ago bc they were instrumental in reaching the masses. but now they just post fake video after fake video bc they wanna be “first”

 

[Belgium]

my prediction for Israel’s attack on Iran:

Biden asked Israel to wait til after elections to attack Iran. this way Biden can more freely attack Iran when Iran predictably retaliates. US cant be seen entering another war pre-election, but post election- it’s fair game. even if Trump wins, the dems will push to bomb iran and say “see, trump winning causes more wars. israel was compelled to attack iran bc they know trump is a genocidal maniac like bibi. they wouldn’t have attacked if kamala won. see. shoulda voted Kamala you MOOOSLIMS”

it’s a win win for dems

it’s all a cult. both sides.

meanwhile humans die daily

 

[DLF]

 

[gry60]

trump: attack iran. **** em.

biden: we want peace (continues to attack iran anyways)

average american: biden is so much more decent than trump. he wants peace

As we've seen recently, the IDF has not hesitated to fire on UN positions in Lebanon, Tel Aviv has campaigned relentlessly to force the UN missions to withdraw from Gaza (on the fallacious grounds that they promote brainwashing of the Palestinian population), and they continuously target Iranians involved in their nuclear program.

Targeting Iranian areas of little strategic significance, after having shown how deep they can hit Iran, suggests that Israel has been warned that their military and diplomatic protector - the US - has reached the threshold of tolerance for Israeli actions.

 

[Belgium]

There’s hardly much of a Jewish population in my country but during my days helping a friend raise funds for Gaza, we’ve had plenty time to make some observations. Of course anecdotally, though online seems to behave in a similar way.

First of all, almost everyone just looks away and keeps walking when they see our stand with prints, graphic designs etc relating to Palestine.

The ones that do approach seem very nihilistic across the board, especially the women.

We’ve had a handful of self-proclaimed jews supporting Gaza, however in one case a jew wearing a star of david necklace was immediately harrassed by some white university students who called them “zionist scum” for no apparent reason, even though he donated and condemned Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in general.

Ghent is quite a multicultural city but especially near the university, people are out here just freely distorting the term zionist into a slur so they avoid outright saying “jew”.

Especially online this borderline nazi rhetoric is even more blatant. People like Hasan Piker, the left’s biggest political streamer, don’t get banned from Twitch despite literally praising Houthi terrorist hijacking a civilian boat, uncritically playing a Houthi propaganda video on his stream and praising it while a guest in the room is clearly uncomfortable.
Hasan Piker can’t take criticism so he never seeks out the source and instead responds to a strawman version his viewers tell him.

Then when the gaslighting hits its maximum, of course there comes the utterly pathetic “Why am I getting criticized? Palestinians are dying in Gaza” excuse.
Ok, and? Is his brain so low functioning that it can’t handle multiple topics?

To a lesser extent, the same thing repeatedly happens in this thread as well.
Putting words in people’s mouths to then make a bunch of strawman arguments
Eliminating critical thinking and reducing every position to a binary flowchart:
US/West bad and fake news, therefore anything opposing the US is good and factual. Any semblance of critical thinking and media literacy is gone if it involves someone or something opposed to the US.


It’s abundantly clear that antisemitism is strongly on the rise, particularly amongst part of the left. And no I don’t mean Tweets hurting people’s feelings.


The genocide is constantly brought up as a defense mechanism against discussing the issue of rising antisemitism, or any disagreement at all really.

As previously stated, this thread contains such examples of these tactics.
Why is it so difficult to have a dialogue about more than a singular issue (the genocide)? Why must bringing up any relevant related matter result so often in strawman arguments and baseless accusations of being pro-genocide?

 

[Public Enemy]

Article from a year ago. Cant let this nutcase get elected.

 

[Public Enemy]

 

[DLF]

what do you mean by “let’s not..”

tell Kamala that. not me. tell her to get her **** together. not me.

im voting for jill stein

dems should have had primaries

 

[Public Enemy]

Willful ignorance. Blatant, willful ignorance.

 

[Public Enemy]

 

[DLF]

 

[DLF]

there’s a genocide!!

“yea yea yea. but it could get worse”


also: protestors go to the CURRENT administrations events. kamala is CURRENT admin.

 

[Public Enemy]

 

[Public Enemy]

 

[Belgium]

there’s a genocide!!

“yea yea yea. but it could get worse”


also: protestors go to the CURRENT administrations events. kamala is CURRENT admin.

Trump is very open about making it worse. The lack of protests just shows how hilarious dumb most people are. Of course it's most important to protest against the active administration. However that administration is by no means guaranteed to win the election.
Trump has a real chance of winning and then the same homunculi who are too braindead to make a simple binary choice will continue to complain and refuse to take accountability for contributing to the worst outcome.

It's literally as simple as "which outcome is worse?" but oh no, what a terrible fate for someone living in relative luxury compared to Gaza. To try and attempt to prevent a worse outcome, they have to vote for a candidate/party that they also dislike.
The way these utterly braindead privileged losers make a simple binary choice sound as difficult as living in Gaza is ridiculous and completely divorced from reality.

No, instead these losers live in a fantasy world where something as simple as 1+1 is too hard because 'they'd be voting for genocide' or whatever. Well guess what, in the real world those are the only 2 options. There is no other logical option than to pick whichever is better. Simple logic.
Any other interpretation is delusional privileged fantasyland garbage.
"but there's a genocide!!!" Ok, and? That changes nothing about the simple logic, it only emphasizes its importance.


Here I'll replace the election with the "trolley problem" to emphasize just how pathetic and privileged these third party/abstaining 'pro-Palestine' people are.
I'll put the key parts in bold.

A trolley is running on a track that can split off to a track with 1 person tied to it, or a track with multiple persons bound to it.
The trolley is on its way to to the split. There is no outcome that prevents death, only whether the trolley kills more or less people.
You can change the track to decide if it will kill the 1 person, or the track with multiple persons. Each choice still comes with death.
Inaction likewise does not stop the trolley, in fact it may randomly shift towards the track with the most persons who will die.

The choice to anyone with a brain is very obvious, but apparently that's too hard to grasp for some of these privileged losers living in a fantasy land. Rather than making a decision, they would rather stand aside and shout at the trolley or just do nothing as the trolley kills the people on whatever track it randomly shifts to, including possibly the track with more victims who will die.

You, DLF , would be the person who would just stand aside in the trolley problem.
In this election, or any election for that matter, you're not even the person directly making the decision. Even then you're still too spineless, privileged and cowardly to deal with reality.

 

[Raji Lowenthal]

There’s hardly much of a Jewish population in my country but during my days helping a friend raise funds for Gaza, we’ve had plenty time to make some observations. Of course anecdotally, though online seems to behave in a similar way.

First of all, almost everyone just looks away and keeps walking when they see our stand with prints, graphic designs etc relating to Palestine.

The ones that do approach seem very nihilistic across the board, especially the women.

We’ve had a handful of self-proclaimed jews supporting Gaza, however in one case a jew wearing a star of david necklace was immediately harrassed by some white university students who called them “zionist scum” for no apparent reason, even though he donated and condemned Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in general.

Ghent is quite a multicultural city but especially near the university, people are out here just freely distorting the term zionist into a slur so they avoid outright saying “jew”.

Especially online this borderline nazi rhetoric is even more blatant. People like Hasan Piker, the left’s biggest political streamer, don’t get banned from Twitch despite literally praising Houthi terrorist hijacking a civilian boat, uncritically playing a Houthi propaganda video on his stream and praising it while a guest in the room is clearly uncomfortable.
Hasan Piker can’t take criticism so he never seeks out the source and instead responds to a strawman version his viewers tell him.

Then when the gaslighting hits its maximum, of course there comes the utterly pathetic “Why am I getting criticized? Palestinians are dying in Gaza” excuse.
Ok, and? Is his brain so low functioning that it can’t handle multiple topics?

To a lesser extent, the same thing repeatedly happens in this thread as well.
Putting words in people’s mouths to then make a bunch of strawman arguments
Eliminating critical thinking and reducing every position to a binary flowchart:
US/West bad and fake news, therefore anything opposing the US is good and factual. Any semblance of critical thinking and media literacy is gone if it involves someone or something opposed to the US.


It’s abundantly clear that antisemitism is strongly on the rise, particularly amongst part of the left. And no I don’t mean Tweets hurting people’s feelings.


The genocide is constantly brought up as a defense mechanism against discussing the issue of rising antisemitism, or any disagreement at all really.

As previously stated, this thread contains such examples of these tactics.
Why is it so difficult to have a dialogue about more than a singular issue (the genocide)? Why must bringing up any relevant related matter result so often in strawman arguments and baseless accusations of being pro-genocide?

Anti-semetism is a weird term to me as it only applies to one particular set of semetic people.

 

[DripNick]

it only applies to one particular set of semetic people

Wich usually comes from Poland, Australia, France

 

[Belgium]

Anti-semetism is a weird term to me as it only applies to one particular set of semetic people.

It's a term that is very frequently abused when not applicable but the term is defined as discriminatory and/or racist treatment of jews.
The use of semitic is weird, as the term semetic has a far broader scope than referring to just jews.

Either way I think it's a non-issue, the definition of anti semitism is generally understood so there's no reason to dig down into semantics.
The only issue is the term is frequently used to falsely slander speech or actions that they seek to suppress.

It's pretty sad though to see such a rise. Since Israel's genocide, there's been a sudden rise in actual anti-semitism amongst the left, whereas normally it was overwhelmingly coming from the right.

Disclaimer in case anyone who has been lobotomized is reading this:
No, I do not support the genocide or anything even remotely close to that. I don't support Israel being established in the first place, and I condemn their many decades of horrific treatment of the Palestinian people.
Yes, I am pro-Palestine.
It is in fact possible to use more than 2 braincells and have and express multiple thoughts and views, rather than my brain only revolving around a singular "but there's a genocide!!" thought at all times with extremely limited thinking outside of that.

 

[DLF]

 

[Belgium]

Not that I’m expecting anything other than childish rambling but would you like to respond to the post I tagged you in?
More specifically the part where I present the Trolley Problem. I’m curious how you view the Trolley Problem in general, not just when applying it to the election.

 

[Methodical Management]

what do you mean by “let’s not..”

tell Kamala that. not me. tell her to get her **** together. not me.

im voting for jill stein

dems should have had primaries

I appreciate that you brought up primary elections, as I too often hear people talk about non-voting or third party “protest” voting as a way to “teach Democrats a lesson” and “force Democrats to run better candidates” when it’s voters who choose each party’s nominees. The Democratic Party did hold primary elections this year. Vice President Harris was on those ballots.

Under 40 million votes were cast in the 2020 Democratic Primary elections - less than half of the number of votes Biden/Harris received in that year’s General Election. Those who failed to cast a vote in the 2020 Democratic Primary election are hardly qualified to bemoan candidate quality now.

Similarly, I’ve yet to hear anyone rationally explain exactly how voting for Jill Stein or Harambe is supposed to improve anything. What is the plan here?


When people voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 to block Al Gore, what did that get us? The “War on Terror” that killed over 4 million people, a generation of climate change denialism, a recession induced by financial deregulation that stripped homeownership from a generation, and a failed John Kerry nomination.

When people sat out in 2016, what did that get us? Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal, a US embassy in Jerusalem, three conservative lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court that ended Roe v. Wade and affirmative action, thousands of migrant and refugee families torn apart by a deliberate separation policy, an executive order that functionally served as a Muslim immigration ban, excessive force deployed against those protesting racist police brutality, over a million dead from a mishandled pandemic, and an economic recession.

Would that have been a worthy price to pay to get Bernie Sanders? We’ll never know, because not enough people showed up in the 2020 Democratic Primary elections to make that happen.

I think we can put to rest this idea that allowing Republicans to win elections somehow forces Democrats to nominate more progressive candidates. It simply doesn’t.

And now, we’re supposed to allow another 2016 to happen… why?

 

[Belgium]

I appreciate that you brought up primary elections, as I too often hear people talk about non-voting or third party “protest” voting as a way to “teach Democrats a lesson” and “force Democrats to run better candidates” when it’s voters who choose each party’s nominees. The Democratic Party did hold primary elections this year. Vice President Harris was on those ballots.

Under 40 million votes were cast in the 2020 Democratic Primary elections - less than half of the number of votes Biden/Harris received in that year’s General Election. Those who failed to cast a vote in the 2020 Democratic Primary election are hardly qualified to bemoan candidate quality now.

Similarly, I’ve yet to hear anyone rationally explain exactly how voting for Jill Stein or Harambe is supposed to improve anything. What is the plan here?


When people voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 to block Al Gore, what did that get us? The “War on Terror” that killed over 4 million people, a generation of climate change denialism, a recession induced by financial deregulation that stripped homeownership from a generation, and a failed John Kerry nomination.

When people sat out in 2016, what did that get us? Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal, a US embassy in Jerusalem, three conservative lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court that ended Roe v. Wade and affirmative action, thousands of migrant and refugee families torn apart by a deliberate separation policy, an executive order that functionally served as a Muslim immigration ban, excessive force deployed against those protesting racist police brutality, over a million dead from a mishandled pandemic, and an economic recession.

Would that have been a worthy price to pay to get Bernie Sanders? We’ll never know, because not enough people showed up in the 2020 Democratic Primary elections to make that happen.

I think we can put to rest this idea that allowing Republicans to win elections somehow forces Democrats to nominate more progressive candidates. It simply doesn’t.

And now, we’re supposed to allow another 2016 to happen… why?

The "...why?" at the end is why I'm curious how DLF will respond to my trolley problem post.
I think the trolley problem analogy I made earlier on this page perfectly illustrates the logic (or rather lack thereof) of people voting third party or abstaining because of the genocide.

I believe it can be applied much more broadly than just my example to show the deeply flawed logic in voting third party or abstaining. Or rather the lack of any logic at all.
With a bit of tweaking to create an applicable analogy, I think the Trolley Problem could be applied beyond just single issue (Gaza) third party voters and abstainers.

Again for DLF , would you like to share your answer to the Trolley problem?
A trolley is running on a track that can split off to a track with 1 person tied to it, or a track with multiple persons tied to it.
The trolley is on its way to to the split. There is no outcome that prevents death, only whether the trolley kills more or less people.
You can change the track to decide if it will kill the 1 person, or the track with multiple persons. Each choice still comes with death.
Inaction likewise does not stop the trolley, in fact it may randomly shift towards the track with the most persons who will die.

Option A:
You change the track so the trolley splits off and kills the 1 person instead of the other split that would've killed multiple.

Option B:
You change the track so the trolley heads off to the track with the most deaths. (you're a psycho if you choose this btw)

Option C:
You shout at the trolley as it speeds towards the randomly selected split, or pull a lever for a trolley that isn't even on any track.
Inaction.
The trolley continues its path and for the sake of this example, the randomized split (that you had the power to change) results in the trolley splitting to the track where it proceeds to kill the most victims.

 

[DLF]

i agree

trump is a monster

that’s why i’m not voting for him.

 

[Raji Lowenthal]

The use of semitic is weird, as the term semetic has a far broader scope than referring to just jews.

Exactly what I was saying.

 

[earldagoat]

Israeli strike kills nearly 100 Palestinians sleeping in north Gaza homes

Reports say the wounded are dying due to lack of hospitals, a result of Israel's systematic destruction of health services

www.middleeasteye.net