If this isn't a moral question to you, then I'm afraid there might not be enough common ground to have a constructive discussion.

As for the question of reasonableness: there are many things some people at some point thought to be reasonable. Considering how unreasonable mankind tends to be (especially when it comes to conflict) such a label bears little substance to me.

OK, but he is Prime Minister, and we both agree he has a moral obligation as Prime Minister to protect his people from Nazi invasion. — RogueAI

I am not so sure whether I agree, since I believe there can be no moral obligation to do immoral things.

If Winston cannot fulfill his responsibilities as a prime minister without breaking moral principles (which he probably cannot), then he has foolishly put himself into a double bind.

Is your position then that Churchill's duty to follow the Geneva Conventions outweighs his duty to prevent them being sent to death camps? — RogueAI

My position is whichever option he chooses, he is an immoral person, because he has foolishly taken upon himself responsibilities that require him to break moral principles.

Does Churchill, as prime minister, have a moral obligation to protect his people from Nazi invasion? — RogueAI

Possibly? But who would be so foolish to become a prime minister if what they aspired to was living a moral life?

The answer is no.

First of, the question of justification is a moral one, and therefore should be understood on the appropriate level; that of the moral agent - the individual.

So lets take the individual Winston Churchill.

Winston had many options open to him besides authorizing the killing of thousands.

For example, he could have foregone a career in politics and lived out his life in contemplative seclusion.

An infinitely more preferable and just option than having the blood of thousands on one's hands.

I didn't mean to imply these policies were the only cause of atomization, but I believe they certainly are a big contributor.

Social structure is underpinned by needs. The nanny state seeks to fulfill those needs with the purpose of making the individual less reliant on other individuals, but thereby making them more reliant on the state.

This is seen as a desirable form of emancipation, which in my opinion it isn't.

UBI would be a rather extreme manifestation of the nanny state.

The reason I point it out is because atomization is often blamed on individualism, when it is in fact collectivism that causes it, as in the process of binding the individual to the state ("collective") it breaks apart social structures.

I couldn't tell you, since I'm not much of a socialist myself.

One thing I hear a lot being argued in favor of UBI, is that people experience less financial pressure.

However, in a healthy society that is not a role the government should take on. In a healthy society, people form social bonds with friends, family and their wider community that provides them with a much more personal and robust safety net.

Atomization (also mistakenly termed 'individualism'/'individualization') is a result of these types policies, because they seek to replace social bonds with government surrogates.

It turns people isolated, needy and dependent on government, which (needless to say) isn't a desirable situation at all.

If socialism wants to be effective at reducing poverty, it should focus on creating jobs and keeping the prices of basic needs low.

UBI does neither, and seems like an economic Trojan horse to me.

Nowadays, there are other reasons for some talk about UBI especially by Silicon Valley's CEOs own opinion regarding Artificial Intelligence and job losses due to it. — Shawn

In that context it sounds like an awful idea.

People becoming chronically reliant on modern governments is asking for trouble.

I give it exactly one crisis before "universal" is replaced by "conditional".

Simply injecting money into a certain strata doesn't work, for the same reason a state cannot just print money to magically elevate people out of poverty. Prices adjust over time, and before long you are stuck in the same situation with the only differences being that the price of basic needs is elevated and everyone is paying more taxes, which actually puts more people below the poverty line.

But even if it did work, how is "pacifying" the poor even remotely relevant?

If the poor are so pissed off at the government that they need to be "pacified", that's probably a good signal that they shouldn't be pacified.

And we'll make the rich pay for it!

Where have I heard this song before? :chin:

Paying taxes to pay your own income.

Genius!

I had ChatGPT provide me with a list of geopolitical events relevant to Ukraine. — Benkei

It is very odd that ChatGPT makes no mention of the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit (that preceded the Georgia war) and the 2014 coup d'etat (that preceded the annexation of Crimea).

Smells like its algorithms are being tampered with.

After all, a mentally as well as physically sound future should be EVERY child’s fundamental right — along with air, water, food and shelter — especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter. — FrankGSterleJr

It's rather remarkable then that you're asking of them that they make half the world's problems their own.

Propaganda is large-scale psychological manipulation. It leans more heavily on psychology than it does on philosophy, although the two fields can overlaps in certain places.

Education and intelligence don't appear to be a good predictor of susceptibility.

The antidote to propaganda is to know oneself better than the propagandist; and "to know oneself" is such a complicated and multi-faceted endeavor that I don't think it can be taught in a school environment.

Also, in case anyone missed it:

Congress threatens ICC over Israeli arrest warrants

In case the US wasn't done making itself into a complete international joke, it is now threatening the ICC to prevent it from serving justice on the matter of Gaza.

One wonders what the US hopes to gain by disposing of what little credibility it had left, playing directly into the hands of the challenging powers.

How can anyone take the US seriously after this?

Despite the tough rhetoric, actions now show how the US simply doesn't want end up with a quagmire of war with Iran. — ssu

I agree, they would be shooting themselves in the foot internationally.

But domestically it may look different, and when I talk about Biden's re-election chances I am referring to the domestic factors that may lead the US to declare war on Iran.

If Biden refuses to side with Israel, there is a good chance the Israel lobby will favor another candidate. Trump, or even Kennedy.

Or perhaps they will give no one public support, which will likely result in a Biden defeat as well since his chances are simply that poor.


The problem the US is now running into is that, as things stand, there is no option besides Biden that keeps the neocons firmly in power.

Kennedy and Trump may still be forced to do the neocon's bidding, but they will do so reluctantly.

Both Kennedy and Trump are in their own ways calling for reform - reforms which would be a gigantic threat to the US establishment.


So the US will again be between a rock and a hard place, having to choose between domestic stability and their geopolitical position.


Normally I would argue that their geopolitical position goes before domestic politics, but when it comes to the stability of the country and there is so much on the line, domestic stability basically becomes a geopolitical issue in and of itself.

Yet Iran did see quite well that nobody would come to it's help. — ssu

I think China and Russia would heavily back Iran if things were to come to blows.

Iran is instrumental to BRICS long-term economic stability as it occupies the geographical pivot between Asia and the Middle-East.

France and the UK would play no role of significance. Iran is well-prepared for modern war, and France and the UK simply aren't. As things stand, even Israel would not be able to hurt Iran to any great degree.

This is why all eyes are on the US when it comes to war with Iran.

Iran is definitely not looking to escalate.

The West is weakening in the Middle-East, leaving ample room for Iran to expand its influence. They have no reason to want to go to war with Israel or the United States since the status quo favors them.

It's Israel that stands to lose in the long run and has been looking to drag the US into a war with Iran to avoid Iran from becoming a regional hegemon. Given Biden's weak position there is still a fair chance that it might happen in a desperate attempt at salvaging his re-election chances.

I'd be in favor of it, but only if the threads are properly moderated for low-quality content.

Right now, these threads belong in the Lounge because the quality of the posts is, for a large part, dogshit.

anti-Jew/Israeli anti-Semitism of the Middle-East runs deep — tim wood

Ah, and Israeli war crimes, mass slaughter and crimes against humanity somehow changes that situation for the better?

And here I was, thinking that would make the situation much, much worse.

The likely reason is just why Kuwait wasn't going to be let to be annexed by Iraq. — ssu

Kuwait is not a great example to make your point. The Gulf War(s) were exactly the type of wars that were made possible by the unnatural state of unipolarity. They took place during the peak, in fact.

Today it would be unthinkable for the US to let itself get bogged down in a (ground) war in the Middle-East.

Firstly because the actors in the Middle-East are, relatively speaking, much more powerful than they were 30 years ago,
and secondly because the enemies of the US are much more powerful and ready to profit off the fact that the US would be bogging itself down in another war.

This is why the US can't commit, for example to Ukraine, or to a war with Iran. They would be playing directly into the hands of the Chinese if they were to do that.

What I hope we can agree on is that if the US truly withdraws from the region, there will be a reshuffling of the cards certainly. That vacuum creates by itself a little whirlpools automatically. In fact, some could argue that whirlpool has already started as the US allies don't toe the line in similar fashion with the US as earlier. — ssu

I'm not sure what the significance is of this, but sure with this I can agree.

What a sad attempt at a smear.

Is there apartheid in Israel, little man?

There is no apartheid. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, is that so? Then why are Israeli newspapers full of it?

For Decades, I Defended Israel From Claims of Apartheid. I No Longer Can

Why is the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem calling it apartheid?

Apartheid

Why is the UN calling it apartheid?

Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territory is ‘apartheid’: UN rights expert

Why is Amnesty International calling it apartheid?

Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity

Why is Human Rights Watch calling it apartheid?

A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution

______________________





It brings some hope, at least, that there are some Israelis more sensible than you. But for you little hope is left, it seems.

Educate yourself. You literally have no idea.

I just don't see how targeted bombings constitute crimes against humanity. — BitconnectCarlos

Apartheid is a crime against humanity.

Indiscriminate bombing is a different matter. It is a war crime. On the scale Israel is bombing, it could be considered (a part of) an act of genocide, which is what Israel is currently being investigated for.


Again, these apologetics are just... sad.

If you cannot distinguish between oppressor and oppressed - between VC and imperialist USA - between the Polish resistance and the Nazi occupier, etc. there's no point in conversation.

You need to have your "Are we the baddies?" moment, I suppose. Might take a while.

Anyway, like I said:

Every sane person can see this, and various apologists in this thread are simply digging foxholes for themselves out of unwillingness to admit it.

Their views can safely be disregarded as having fallen victim to a lapse of insanity, brought about by relentless propaganda, herd mentality and cheerleader-syndrome.

I find it hard to imagine such people making a meaningful contribution to a moral discussion, other than serving as an example of how humans can go wrong. — Tzeentch

No point in discussing with children.

Do you need a history lesson on the Polish resistance? You think the tit-for-tat wasn't absolutely brutal?

Or what about the Viet Cong? They skinned American soldiers alive. How do you like that for brutality?

You think Israel is somehow special in this? That this somehow justifies its crimes?

Israel is just another country on a long list of countries which have resorted to crimes against humanity in order to try and subdue an occupied population, and used their resistance as an excuse to do it.

I could claim that Palestinian SS abducted that shepherd boy. I could say that Palestinian SS murder Israeli settlers. Every single Hamas rocket fired at Israel is a war crime. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh sure, and I could claim that the Polish resistance fighters who carried out the Warsaw Uprising were terrorists and criminals.

I could do that if I wanted to make a total ass of myself, kind of like what you're doing right now.

You see only black and white. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, yes. That means an awful lot coming from someone who is spinning apologetics for crimes against humanity.

Small countries do exist everywhere. — ssu

These little states would, under non-unipolar circumstances, simply be gobbled up by the real contenders for regional hegemony (Saudi-Arabia and Iran). — Tzeentch

Note the underlined key word.

And sure, you could come up with an elaborate theory as to why Luxembourg won't be gobbled up. Maybe you'll be proven right, maybe you'll be proven wrong. Again, if that's how you would like to spend your time, I'm not stopping you.

Clearly there are some smallish nations that exist throughout the centuries, but I see no reason why that would be the case for the Gulf States when they are surrounded by two vastly larger states, and sitting on immensely valuable strategic resources.

They have no strategic advantages to speak of. They're completely vulnerable when it becomes clear the international "rules-based" order can no longer be upheld.

There's no unavoidability or destiny of there forming some Pan-Arabist / Islamic Caliphate / other regional hegemon in the Middle East. — ssu

History has followed that pattern multiple times over, so there is a clear historical trend that points in this direction - that doesn't make it a certainty, sure.

It's just that in recent times, US hegemony/'divide et impera' has prevented this pattern from repeating. Such (in geopolitical terms) "unnatural" situations cannot subsist for very long and indeed they are nearing their end as we speak.

Let's take for example the UAE. — ssu

Sure. The United Arab Emirates has a population of 9.5 million people. Saudi-Arabia has a population of over three times that number. Iran has a population of nearly ten times that number.

In the long run, the UAE would stand no chance whatsoever, just like how Ukraine never stood a chance against Russia.

Yes, history might produce flukes and outliers here and there, but those tend to postpone the inevitable when the numbers are so skewed.

And it should be noted I am talking about long-term trends, potentials, etc. - and no, I don't pretend such theories are correct 100% of the time.

Yet for example the tiny UAE has a larger GDP than Iran. It's population isn't growing, it's economy isn't booming and it's hard to believe a theocracy would see an economic miracle somehow. Although the government tries to promote science and technology. It has aspirations to be a Great Power, that is for sure. Especially in the 1970's many predicted Iran to become this kind of great power, but it wasn't to be so. — ssu

What can I say? If I need to explain to you why a country with 9,5 million people has an insigificant chance of becoming a regional player (in non-unipolar circumstances) compared to a country with 88 million, then indeed a lot of explaining is required and I can't be bothered frankly.

The bottomline is, geopolitics is about potential (and population matters a great deal in determining said potential). This is why Israel is worried about Iran, and not about UAE.

Maybe take your case to the Knesset? :joke:

It's far more about the US wanting to build this picture of an anti-US axis. For example, there's no alliance between China and Russia. — ssu

Surely you see the manner in which China, Russia and Iran are working in unison to strain the US empire?

I'm usually pretty cynical about US intentions, but in this case I would have to be rather blind not to acknowledge that it is indeed being challenged by a form of coalition.

they recently abducted and stoned to death a 14 year shepherd boy among others. — BitconnectCarlos

Of course, anything to excuse genocide.

As I said:

Every sane person can see this, and various apologists in this thread are simply digging foxholes for themselves out of unwillingness to admit it.

Their views can safely be disregarded as having fallen victim to a lapse of insanity, brought about by relentless propaganda, herd mentality and cheerleader-syndrome.

I find it hard to imagine such people making a meaningful contribution to a moral discussion, other than serving as an example of how humans can go wrong. — Tzeentch

At this point, Bibi is probably hoping his "Einsatzgruppen" - ergo, violent ultranationalist settlers (or maybe SS divisions is a more apt comparison?) - will do the dirty work for him in the West Bank:

‘Nowhere is safe’: Fear and mourning inside the West Bank villages where Israeli settlers went on the rampage

Speaks for itself.

As for Amalek, Netanyahu called Hamas Amalek [...] — BitconnectCarlos

That's not how that Old Testament reference works, unfortunately:

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. — Samual 1 15:3

It's clearly a call to destroy not just Hamas, but everything, including women, infants and suckllings, and all their lifestock.

There are no multiple ways of interpreting this passage. This is a thinly-veiled call for genocide.

You would do well to condemn it for what it is.

Oh yes it is. We are on the side of truth, and they are the enemy. — unenlightened

Well, I would consider people who deliberately use propaganda and censorship to pursue their goals at the expense of others to be the enemy of reason and all things good - this much is true. It turns out there are a lot of such "enemies" out there.

Do you see things otherwise?

Well...it would go back to the British Empire, actually. — ssu

The British haven't played a role of any significance for decades.

They do what the Americans want them to do, and in return they get to play pretend.

The current status quo is the product of the US Empire, even if meddling by foreign powers happened long before the US got in control.

And anyway, I'm not exited about calling various states as "artificial". — ssu

Artificial in the geopolitical sense, of course. These little states would, under non-unipolar circumstances, simply be gobbled up by the real contenders for regional hegemony (Saudi-Arabia and Iran). However, during unipolarity they are used by the unipole, the US, to deny strategic resources/territory from the would-be regional players.

I'd argue that Ukraine isn't artificial in the same sense, because both neighboring great powers agreed upon its role as neutral buffer until 2008, so its status as a neutral state gave Ukraine a geopolitical reason for existence. That of course started to change in 2008.

And these tiny nations, like Qatar and UAE, have been quite active on the international stage. — ssu

If you want to spend your time analyzing the actions of these states in the belief they're significant, be my guest. Personally, I think that's a waste of time.

We have small countries all over the world — ssu

Well, the world has been living under US-led unipolarity, and the pattern I have just described is visible in many places across the world.

Furthermore, please explain just why Iran would become such a hegemon. — ssu

It's the largest player in its neck of the woods, sits on a geographically and geopolitically vital area with lots of natural resources, controls half of the Persian Gulf, it has powerful allies (it's actually of gigantic economic importance to China), etc. - I could go on but I'm not going to write an essay explaining this.

What's perhaps interesting to note is the fact that US/Israeli policy vis-à-vis the Middle-East has left a gigantic power vacuum, especially in Iraq, which Iran is gearing up to fill.

This is what the US/Israel have been trying to avoid - a rising Iran, and their foolish policies have achieved just that.

You think the US and Israel would be willing to go to war against Iran if Iran wasn't threatening to become a large regional player?

The proof is in the pudding.

Great Powers, or Superpowers, are only thing important, right? — ssu

Their influence on world affairs is simply orders of magnitude above the other, smaller countries. Like I said, if you want to analyze the intricate inner workings of Luxembourg to figure out its geopolitical significance, be my guest. I think that's a waste of time.

What is likely that Middle East will be still quite volatile and prone to wars even if the US withdraws from the place. — ssu

Of course, because the US/Israel have been disrupting the natural way the region should have developed, because the natural way of things trends towards conglomeration, which would in turn create regional hegemons which could have been a threat to the US/Israel.

They have created a giant reservoir of shit, by sowing chaos, creating artificial states, trying to stop states from developing, etc. and now that US power is waning, that dam is going to break.

Oh yea, it's going to be one giant mess - a mess Iran will probably be able to profit from in the long run. And a mess that might spell the end of Israel.

You understand that at this point I'm basically spelling out why US/Israeli policy is what it is, right?

Pay attention to the intentions and carefulness. — Mikie

They're not even that careful about stating their intentions.

About their desire to ethnically cleanse Gaza they are completely open. They don't even try to hide it. Same goes for their perception of the Palestinians as animals.

Israeli officials have come out publicly and stated these things.

Netanyahu himself called the Palestinians 'Amalek', which is an Old Testament reference to the Amalekites who were murdered specifically to the last woman, child and ox by the Israelites. He's flirting with genocide publicly.

At least the Nazis tried to hide their deeds, showing that on some level they felt shame and realized their own moral depravity.


Every sane person can see this, and various apologists in this thread are simply digging foxholes for themselves out of unwillingness to admit it.

Their views can safely be disregarded as having fallen victim to a lapse of insanity, brought about by relentless propaganda, herd mentality and cheerleader-syndrome.

I find it hard to imagine such people making a meaningful contribution to a moral discussion, other than serving as an example of how humans can go wrong.

The question we need to be asking ourselves is, should institutions funded by wealthy billionaires with agendas be put in charge of deciding what is disinformation and what is not? Because currently, they are. And, as the video shows, they are using it actively to promote their own views and suppress others - propaganda and censorship, pure and simple.

This isn't about taking sides. This is about the degree to which the information landscape is being poisoned by all sides, including the ones at the top with the most power; and those seem to be the ones getting away with it, because many people still subconsciously treat those sources as authoritative.

If this 'Global Disinformation Index' business doesn't scream 1984, I don't know what does.

To my understanding, the hostages and accountability for 7 Oct. are open, current now issues. In your peacemaking, how do they fit in, and at what point in the process? — tim wood

Once Israel starts making the 'concessions' that it should have made decades ago (ergo, not committing crimes against humanity), those hostages can likely be released as part of negotiations.

Can they be certain of that fact? No. There are no guarantees in situations like these.

But that's how these sorts of things work: small steps, give and take.

Israel just needs to be prepared to make the first, and real, steps towards reconcilliation.

And that is of course the central problem. Israel is not prepared to do that, because a large portion of Israel's elite still cling to ethno-supremacist fantasies of Israel as a strictly Jewish state, which is completely incompatible with the reality that they themselves have created - namely a reality of an equal amount of Palestinians living on the territory it considers its own; Palestinians who would either have to live under apartheid or be removed through ethnic cleansing (or genocide) to make that fantasy a reality.


Like I have said before, reconcilliation is Israel's only long-term option.

Israel's actions are rapidly turning itself into an international pariah, surrounded by a sea of historical enemies who all have a bone to pick with the little upstart state.

Things will not end well for Israel if it doesn't manage to change course and find a modus vivendi with the Palestinians, and by extension, the rest of the region.

Sorry tp be long in replying. My point was that there is an immediacy and currency to the hostages and accountability for 7 Oct. Do you expect anyone to simply forget them? Would you? — tim wood

You can't use hostage-taking as an excuse to carry on apartheid.

I don't think you understood my point.

The other Gulf States are clearly artifical states that are a result of US divide & conquer strategy in the Middle-East. After all, the last thing the US wants is for a Arab or Persian state to hold all the strategic areas around the Persian Gulf.

The wealth, power and independence the other Gulf States currently enjoy is indeed artificial and would not have arisen under normal circumstances - they would have simply been incorporated in a greater Arabian or Persian state.

As US power wanes, these states will disappear.