Comments

  • Ukraine Crisis
    In addition, I think in a sense NATO (or actually the US) is too powerful and therefore can get away with military aggression. The EU wouldn't be but it could be powerful enough with sufficient nuclear deterrence to really be just a defensive organisation.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And thus by that note, abandon defense, especially sufficiently strong ones? Nah.jorndoe

    Who said that? I'm saying that the view most people have of NATO as a purely defensive organisation is false just because its charter says "help when I'm under attack". And really, if you read everything they do, their expansion into space is direct aggression and breaches other international treaties. Any military alliance increases capability and therefore is aggressive towards any country not in the alliance. It's like developing a bishop from the back rank to cover a diagonal. It constricts the possible moves of your opponent and that happens irrespective of their strategy or intent.

    This was understood when Clinton started it. All new post hoc rationalising due to the Krim and recent Ukraine war not withstanding. Opposition to NATO Expansion

    Then there's their expansion into space as an "operational domain". Which just raises a shit ton of questions while simultaneously opening up space for every other country to start militarising space.
    Does jamming, dazzling, or damaging a satellite amount to a use of force prohibited under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and customary international law? If so, when? Is it lawful to declare and operate “space exclusion zones,” despite the fact that States are prohibited from claiming sovereignty in space under Article II of the Outer Space Treaty? During an international armed conflict, does a belligerent State have right to capture and detain astronauts when they are also members of enemy armed forces, despite the fact that States are obliged to rescue and return them as “envoys of mankind” under Article V of the Outer Space Treaty?Woomera project

    And what actions in space would warrant an article 5 intervention under the NATO treaty?

    And let's be clear; it was NATO first who openly declared space an operational domain thereby introducing the pretend notion that this can be done legally. (And of course we aren't stupid enough to think countries didn't develop space military capability secretly but declaring a crime legal so you can continue to do it, isn't exactly moral).

    I forgot Serbia (a war of aggression when you read, for instance, Indian or Brazilian news at the time). The point being that NATO has shown itself to be leveraged to pursue aggressive wars. That countries can "opt out" is no excuse. You cannot say "it's just a defensive alliance" and then leverage the integration of NATO to attack other countries and maintain NATO is a defensive alliance. It simply isn't because it would've been irrelevant at the end of the Cold War.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Maybe? Prophecy aside, that's certainly what the Kremlin would have (everyone think). By the way, acting on what seems like overall "European interests" isn't so straightforward. For that matter, it's quite easy to find anti-EU sentiments within the EU, and some defer to NATO for defense.jorndoe

    Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya are already 3 wars the Dutch were pulled into where we shouldn't have been. That only happens because we are in NATO and the USA is portrayed as an ally, except of course or isn't when it's the agressor.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Why?ssu

    Because US politics doesn't align with EU interests and they are warmongering reptiles. If we stay in NATO sooner or later we will be pulled into a war which isn't anything else but the death throes of the end of an empire.

    And what do you have in mind when saying that Europe getting it's act together? There's no nuclear parity between Russia's nearly 6000 nuclear weapons compared to France's 300 deployed nuclear weapons. You think the people in Brussels would want (or have the ability) to suddenly start a large nuclear weapons program? I'm not sure how much Benkei want's his tax dollars to go to pay for a new nuclear weapons procurement program.ssu

    We only need enough to deter. Take out population centres and infrastructure and command.

    5ah7ny9arn6e46vq.jpg

    We have enough.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Until there's a "problem" with their psyche and it's suggested such a thing is inherent to such a group, which is what was being discussed. It's the same as the "death cult" statements we've seen attributed to Palestinians here because schopenhauer made an observation some time about the Quran. Everybody can consider themselves warned without resorting to dumb questions trying to figure out what is and isn't permitted here.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    If the comment of Benkei was actually an implicit threat of banning or post suppression because they smell as racist, instead of being racist, that’s rather disappointing. Indeed, claiming that the "psyche of a group of people” smells too close to racism smells as dumb as claiming that blaming Israelis for their “rather one sided” conflict with Palestinians smells to close to anti-semitism, doesn’t it?neomac

    If people are too dumb to see that to make general claims about the mental state of a group of people isn't close to racism then I look forward to banning them when they do cross the line.

    edit: here's a nice example of the jewish psyche according to most Europeans mid-century:

    33uits2s8vlsqd4h.jpg
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Remove all Hamas members from the gene pool and those that voted for these monsters. If some innocents have to die because Hamas hides behind civilians, c'est la vie.RogueAI

    Remove all Israeli war criminals from the gene pool and those that voted for those monsters. It never ceases to amaze the dumb shit people post here. As if Israeli aggression and occupation have nothing to do with Hamas' popularity to begin with.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Well that’s not my case. Indeed, what you are saying is very much related to the point I made on several occasions in the thread about the Ukrainian crisis: if states/governments are security driven and anticipate threats (because if the threat is imminent, it may be too late to respond to it effectively), then any DEFENSIVE move can be perceived as OFFENSIVE by a competitor states/governments (see Putin’s complaining about NATO expansion and invasion of Ukraine to prevent that, triggered Finland and Sweden to candidate for NATO membership, so NATO expanded). Notice that, by this logic, even Nazis and Christians could see Jews as a threat for what Jews did and had done. BTW this is true also for PROPAGANDA spin by ordinary people like you: any propaganda by political activists can threaten and trigger a counter-propaganda.neomac

    I don't want to start about Ukraine in this thread but expansion of NATO has deteriorated relations with Russia several times and therefore deteriorated our safety in Europe. It has always been a bad idea for Europe and has more to do with the geopolitical ambitions of the USA and Europe's dependence on its protection. We (the EU) need our own defensive alliance and leave the US and create a fourth power.

    More generally, I don't see how anyone can call an expansion of any military alliance as defensive. Expansion is by definition offensive. It is the "trust our blue eyes" we're really a defensive organisation that everyone in the West sincerely believes because it's our guys claiming it - until it isn't. With its expansion into space, expansion into other countries and actions like Libya we already know where this is going to ensure NATO remains relevant. What will worry any country not in the alliance is the capabilities of such an alliance. So it's not so much propaganda on the side of Russia but more realising how our own propaganda works and ignoring it.

    And ultimately pick a side as consistently as possible with such understanding, if one wants to be rationality motivated.
    Besides I also do not underestimate the possibility that not all human problems can be solved through diplomatic means or for the benefits of all involved parties.
    neomac

    I don't pick a side the way you do as the only rational position in my view is one that is morally consistent. Picking sides never gets you that.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Many Westerners still refuse to see the threat their governments pose to others and as such create the very conditions for those others to become a threat in turn. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also nice how you reduce everything anti-zionists in this thread have said about the crimes from Israel as comparing them to Nazis. It's useless.

    As to your whole spiel about human rights, war crimes etc. not being considerations; they obviously are as all appeals by like-minded individuals, especially former colonies that better understand the oppression of the Palestinians, to higher norms are couched in international law norms, which have been recognised by Western and non-Western countries alike.
  • Bowling Alone
    economics. Particularly the pursuit of wealth and neo liberal policies, reducing everything to value, including people and their relationship you each other and nature and thereby reinforcing the atomised worldview of individualism.
  • Sound great but they are wrong!!!
    A happy family today might be an unhappy family tomorrow.BC

    Yes, agree with this.

    "Anything that degrades culture shortens the paths that lead to servitude." Albert CamusBC

    Too vague to really mean anything, I guess? The article you refer to includes book stalls as "culture" but maybe it's just another shop? Never seen zoning laws, temporary or otherwise, as an attack on culture.

    And how do you degrade culture? Outright book burnings seems rather obvious. And if it's particular or systemic? Pulling down racist statues was a hot topic. I'm not a fan of destroying heritage but rather would want to put it in context. But then a lot of people didn't and I'm not sure they were wrong.
  • Sound great but they are wrong!!!
    "practice makes perfect"

    I don't like it because there's no such thing as perfection.

    I much prefer the Dutch version, which translates closer to "practice begets art" with "art" in the sense of "craftsmanship".
  • Sound great but they are wrong!!!
    I actually loved that quote from Tolstoi. :rage:

    Edit: I also disagree it's untrue actually. The point is that happy families share a set characteristics but each unhappy family has their own reason for being unhappy. Happy families laugh, treat each other with respect, love each other, show interest, etc.

    Unhappy families might be unhappy by lacking a single one or even because of reasons outside of their control. So each "reason" is unique.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    I have the same policy. Which is why I wouldn't negotiate with governments to begin with.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    Better sooner than later the way things are currently going. Can you give me your address for the list?
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    A carrot usually works better than a stick.Agree-to-Disagree

    Bullshit. The French revolution had much needed beheadings. Tone policing is just another form of censorship for people to adhere to the status quo. The effects of climate change are not exaggerated, in fact, they've been underestimated as is becoming painfully obvious if you would be paying attention.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Can we please steer away with a very wide birth from the "psyche" of a group of people? Smells too close to racism to me. Cultural and material conditions have caused both sides to have a majority of people that can drink the other sides blood. That is a consequence of a decades long (rather one sided) conflict but little to do with "psyche". After WWII my grandfather-in-law hated Germans for the rest of his life - that was only 5 years of conflict.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    So you believe concepts of justice do not motivate these people? You think there's no Islamic theory for just wars?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I do think there's a humanitarian obligation on surrounding nations to accept refugees BUT not being stupid I would demand iron clad treaties with both Israel and the US on a right of return for all civilians before I'd do so. If we're going to insist on the application of humanitarian law, it should be universal.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    So your argument is what exactly? Israel gets to commit war crimes with the intent to steal the land while there's a humanitarian obligation on Egypt to take in Palestinian refugees to allow Israel to steal the land?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    due to the lack of philosophical content in some threads we've opted to move them to the lounge to focus the front page more on philosophy.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I'm sure some leaders of countries would insist on that. On the other hand, maybe a 100 years from now, western Europe will be poor and they simply don't have to money to spend on it. That doesn't end the rights and responsibilities under the treaty. That's why the 2% spending is a guideline but the treaty obligation is different:

    In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. — Nato treaty

    This doesn't say "spend money" and can be achieved in part through training instead of buying US produced weapons. I'd like to think treaty obligations like this are "for better or worse". If you don't want to meet your obligations, there's a mechanism to leave the treaty.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven/Gerechtshof-Den-Haag/Nieuws/Paginas/Nederland-moet-de-uitvoer-van-F-35-onderdelen-naar-Israel-stoppen.aspx

    Dutch higher court rules the Netherlands must stop weapons delivery to Israel due to the high likelihood they are used for crimes against humanity and such deliveries breach several international treaties. A win for Oxfam Novib and The Rights Forum.
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    As if the West Coast states are just going to roll over and accept an autocratic regime. I don't think it's at all likely; it will destroy the USA and sooner lead to civil war than Trump being supported to become a dictator. He doesn't have the military connections either to make this remotely likely and a bunch of lawyers arguing for unitary authority (which the GOP had been doing for some time) isn't going to change anything.

    I think it's creating an unnecessary boogeyman to imagine Trump successfully becoming a dictator abolishing term limits.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Thank God for term limits whatever will be the end result. And these guys are old so if we're lucky whoever is elected dies on us before that limit is reached. And I won't shed a tear.
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    I think there's a resiliency to the American identity, with a particular hang up on democracy (as if they invented it), that you'd sooner have civil war than a full blown autocracy. Currently, the dissatisfaction with everything politics, probably stems from a dissonance between what democratic results should feel like to a politically disengaged population and what they're actually getting, without consciously being aware what it is that's failing them.
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    Nothing beats the Ultimate Uni-brow!
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    It extends even before that actually. From its inception Hamas has regularly offered the hudna, which is the Islamic equivalent of a treaty, effectively a time period in which they would cease all hostilities. Up to 30 years was offered; Israel dismissed all of them, claiming it was a tactical ploy to allow consolidation of their forces (which seems a confusion with a tahdi'ah).

    The interesting thing was that they offered recognition of the state of Israel in return for:

    1. withdrawal of troops from the West Bank and Gaza
    2. evacuation of all illegal settlements from West Bank and Gaza
    3. release of all Palestinian prisoners;
    4. the recognition of the right of self-determination for Palestinians

    Offered well into 2006 which I think also included the right of return when Rantissi offered it but it was rejected every time.

    Now the hudna for centuries has been an instrument in achieving suhl or "resolution" and contrary to the tahdi'ah it is not aimed at recovering to start war again.

    So, it's interesting. I think if we insist Hamas are a bunch of religious zealots then this is at the forefront of their thinking: "And be true to your bond with God whenever you bind yourselves by
    a pledge, and do not break your oaths after having confirmed them and having called upon
    God to be witness to your good faith” (Quran 16:91).

    Either they're religious zealots and their word is binding or they're not religious zealots and therefore can be reasoned with. I think it's neither and it's simply more complex than we like to believe or can grasp with the limited information we receive from the other side of the conflict. But in the end I don't think it's a coincidence the IDF has breached more ceasefires than the other way around.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    There's no obligation on spending 2% of GDP so strictly speaking no.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Does Trump think it's just a protection racket?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    No I didn’t forget it but the Oslo accords came from vulnerable political leaders with little backing from the people they were supposed to represent, indeed they couldn’t stop Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli settlement expansions in the interim period of negotiations.neomac

    The Oslo Accords were a joke. They were intended as an interim agreement but with no final state defined it was a recipe for failure. The open-ended nature of it meant PLO just wrote away indefinitely the Palestinians' right to self-determination. And while they tried to negotiate a permanent agreement, they failed several times. This interim process was in itself undermined by continued terrorist attacks and settler colonisation, finally culminating in Rabin's murder.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Your argument reads like the following; someone is diagnosed with lung cancer and you point out that that cough can just be a cold. It doesn't work looking at every symptom separately and then conclude it doesn't amount to genocide. But every action taken together does. And it's important to realise this is the actual plan of the current administration and has been for decades. There is no exit strategy, no strategic conception towards peace. Even Hamas has set out terms along which they were prepared to accept peace. But not Likud and other Israeli right wing parties.

    The colonisation movement, the refusal to accept a right of return, the continual destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and heritage - they all result in the above. Evictions of Palestinians, bulldozing and bombing of homes and agricultural land, outright theft of occupied territories, IDF support for colonist's violence to terrorise Palestinian civilians to make them leave. It's all aimed at "get out of our promised land". It's slow yes but it's real.

    Hamas is not in control in West Bank, but is still used as an excuse to amp up the restrictions making life worse for Palestinians there (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/world/middleeast/west-bank-palestine-israel.html). Money to support colonists increased and was sped up even before 7 October. It's happening right under everybody's noses. (https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15337.doc.htm)

    Even before the current bombing of Gaza, there was a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It wasn't referred to the largest open air prison for nothing.

    It's all aimed at making their living conditions impossible. And their excuse is, it's not a genocide because they can leave. Or, well, there are more of them than before. Well no shit, if that's case, the Holocaust wasn't a genocide either because Jews could just leave to the US or should've had more kids!
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I gave several examples so that's neither nonsense nor emotional.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Well I don't care about what you think if you don't back it up with an actual argument, so I guess we're done.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I think you are unfortunately playing the same weird equivalence game the 'other side' does here. That's not what the defence amounts to, whatsoever. It is a fact that a genocide isn't occurring when a culture has retained its status and grown in population.AmadeusD

    Except the culture had not retained its status. There is a community in Jerusalem slowly being evicted. A few more decades and there are no Palestinians in Jerusalem. There were coastal cities. Gone. Just in Gaza, most heritage sites have been destroyed or damaged. Like most of Palestine. When the Taliban blew up Buddhist statues everybody was shocked. Where's the outrage Israel just destroyed a harbour going back to 800 BC?

    Jaffa, Acre and Nablus had close connections to other middle Eastern cities. Destroyed. The close connection with the land is being made impossible because the best land is stolen. Life is being made impossible in the long run. And it's strategic and always has been for the likes of Herut and Likud.

    So yes, genocide, a slow one so everybody can pretend it isn't happening.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Is the US supreme court allowed to rule on the facts of a case or only on the interpretation of law?