|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
gRoper’s Vision of Middle East Peace
« Back to club forum
| |||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 LSBut clearly a lot of Arab Americans disagree with you and I don't think it's hard to understand why. Also I don't think this has anything to do with how "Muslims rank priorities." Muslims are as diverse as Christians and indeed atheists. There is no one Muslim way of thinking, any more than there is a single Christian or Jewish way of thinking. If I say more Mo will kick me out of the club which does rather hobble debate. I would rather like the freedom to defend my views but he has made it clear that I do not have that freedom within this group. |
||||||||
|
Total destruction averted, but still catastrophic "The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” God's first thought is to wipe out the lot; but there is mitigation of that judgement. Right through the early chapters of Genesis there is this pattern of sin - judgement - mitigation, starting with Adam and Eve eating the fruit which would kill them 'on the day you eat of it', but which is mitigated to being exiled and mortal so they would die eventually. In this example, the mitigation is that Noah and his three sons (and their wives) would be saved to re-found the human race. A conscious parallel with Adam and his three sons. But even Noah disgraces himself, and even curses one of his own sons. The next episode after Noah is Babel; giving humanity a second chance doesn't improve anything! That is the world as it is today and has been since Noah, and will be until the End. The Nephilim, the 'mighty men of old' mentioned in verse 4, remain with us today as dictators and warmongers as well as drug lords and organised crime bosses. That is the world where a life of Faith is to be lived out. So all you prosperity-Gospel types, stuff your fantasies of personal prosperity where they belong and concentrate on the prosperity and well-being of your neighbour instead. Unfortunately that's not what I see as the focus of the Religious Right, either in America or here in Australia. |
||||||||
|
They DID Disagree For many people voting is not a calculation but an emotion. While game theory was not a major constituent of my math degree, the calculus is quite a bit easier for me. The needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few. Unless you’re Elon, granted keys to the treasury, MAGA. I’m not privy to the discourse between you and Mo, I must thread back. |
||||||||
|
Facts www.aljazeera.com Al Jazeers could hardly be a less biased source. The critical difference here is that Biden at least mouthed the words that he would halt shipments of our deadliest neighborhood busting weapons. Groper won’t, and promised complete ethnic cleansing multiple times. That isn’t better. The calculus of death here is between the guy who is amendable to a two state solution vs. the guy who calls for total eradication so the rubble of the Great Imari Misque can be cleared away for the Trump wastewater treatment facility, supporting his shoreline luxury hotel suites. The two futures aren’t identical. USAID would continue feeding starving Palestinian children under Kamala, who HAD promised arms cuts. Groper will increase military hardware, to include MOAB weapons. He seems to love those. |
||||||||
|
Harris theweek.com Many Muslims have rethought their protest vote in the wake of Groper’s ethnic cleansing talk. www.cbsnews.com |
||||||||
|
"Supporting" genocide In summary, this line started with Rags speaking of "Biden's policy of supporting a genocide" (5 Feb 7:34) Mo responded (15:48) by agreeing "Netanahu probably has wet dreams about murdering all Muslims including the Palestinians in the Gaza," but challenged by demanding "evidence that Biden at all supported genocide or any other method Netanyahu used". Although Mo's wording is not clear on this point, he seems to interpret this as "Biden supported Israel's right to defend it's country from HAMAS terrorists". I found this confusing, in that in the same post Mo conceded that "Netanyahu probably has wet dreams about murdering all Muslims including the Palestinians in the Gaza", as clear an allegation of genocide as anyone could define. That's a long way from exercising a purely defensive action. Rags (17:L10) seems to share my confusion, posting "I'm not sure what part you are disputing". In case the dispute is whether or not it is a genocide, he posts the ICJ ruling and asks if Mo disputes this. He then advances his case by saying "He (Biden) supplied billions of dollars worth of military aid and supplies to Israel beyond what the US normally does while Israel was committing its genocide." He does this in support of his stated conclusion "Biden is complicit." I think this is a key point. Rags did NOT say that Biden was himself an active player in the commission of the genocide, but that he was supplying the means for Bibi to do it. Under any jurisdiction, someone who supplies a weapon knowing that the weapon is intended to be used for a specific purpose, that supplier is held to be COMPLICIT in the use of that weapon for that purpose. That supplier doesn't have to approve of the purpose in words, but the supply of the weapon for that purpose is support in deeds. ("Here is your gun, Lefty, and I know you will use it to kill that guy who didn't pay his debt to you; but let me say that I don't approve. Oh, and here is a spare magazine, just in case you need it.") This is a clear line of argument, citing accessible and reliable sources for data. You might not agree with Rags, but he has at least put forward a prima-facie case. Mo's response (7 Feb 9:45) was bizarre. "Where's your single thread of evidence that Biden at all supported genocide or any other method Netanahu used in his attempt to kill as many Palestinians as possible?" Rags had just presented precisely that evidence, and more than a 'single thread'. Nor does he respond to Rag's question as to exactly what part of the previous posts he was disputing. Rags (10:02) is also at a loss to understand Mo's point, and asks again for Mo to point out a flaw in the argument. Mo (10:17) still doesn't answer the question. He says "you are apparently unable to see through the wool of the lies that people have convinced you about", but without pointing out even one 'lie', nor providing any flaw in the argument. Argument with a stone! Then he shifts the argument to what 'all other Presidents' have done. Absolutely irrelevant, because 'all other Presidents' didn't supply weapons for the obliteration of entire civilian cities. Rags(11:00) pulls him back to the specifics of the discussion Mo (11:21) apologies for a minor point, but waves away Rags' objection that 'all other Presidents' is irrelevant. Finally, he repeats his agreement that what Bibi is doing is genocide, and thar Biden is providing him with the means; but somehow that doesn't mean that Biden's material support is not 'support'. "Here's your gun, Lefty, and your spare magazine. But I'd prefer you didn't shoot him. Stay safe yourself!" SUMMARY Rags might have a good case or he might not. It depends on what you consider 'support'. Perhaps Biden would PREFER that Bibi acted otherwise, but so long as he acts as a willing and voluntary enabler for the genocide, he is effectively supporting it even as he wishes otherwise. If Rags is booted for putting forward an argument that you can't fault, then boot me too. |
||||||||
|
Bob 16:19 Minor caveat, in the US gun manufacturers are not liable for any use to which their weapons are put. This extends to dealers, to a large extent, which provokes Mexico because the drug cartels are supplied by the Iron River which began with Bush’s straw sales but expanded under Obama as Operation Fast and Furious. Sheinbaum got Groper to promise to reduce US supplies to the drug cartels, though in his retelling it was omitted. |
||||||||
|
Shiva 16:33 <Sheinbaum got Groper to promise to reduce US supplies to the drug cartels, though in his retelling it was omitted.> I thought that was a masterclass in how every foreign leader should deal with Trump. Give him a HYUGE headline victory to make him look good, but in exchange grab a few of your own agenda points that the newspapers and Fox News won't list. "Sure, Donald, I'll post 10,000 troops on our side of the border to stop the refugees!" Just don't mention to the reporters that you already have that number there. Mexico did this in his first term, too; they agreed to several concessions in the NAFTA system which were due to come into effect anyway; but give Donald credit for driving a Big Deal. Then there is Option 2. Agree to something you don't want to do, to give Donald his headlines and your own agenda a leg-up. Then just quietly don't do what you said. Come up with all sorts of excuses to delay things for a week, a month, for changes that have been forced upon the original scheme by considerations unknown at the time, etc, etc. Is Donald going to complain? If he does, it is an admission that his HYUGE gain was a mirage, so he won't want to do that. He already has the headline, so he's happy. Why make himself look as though he's been beaten at his own game. The central key is obvious; Don't EVER make Donald look bad in the press. Run rings around him in reality if you want, suck out benefits around the edges that vastly outweigh the benefits you are conceding in the centre, but just don't let the press make YOU the subject of the headline. That way Donald will be happy. He really doesn't give a stuff about 'Making America Great Again'; that's just a slogan for the fools to follow. So long as he Makes Donald Great Again he doesn't care who pays for it. |
||||||||
|
Bob |
||||||||
|
mo-one Biden is guilty of "accessory before the fact" "accessory during the fact" and "accessory after the fact" according to God and the law's of man. Being a head of state is difficult. He knew what they planned to do, we helped plan it. To say he didn't aid and abed. Would be like saying Hitler didn't sign a single document or give a single order regarding the final solution, so he isn't culpable or guilty. Which we know is BS he's guilty as sin. |
||||||||
|
Bob 16:50 "Sure, Donald, I'll post 10,000 troops on our side of the border to stop the refugees!" Just don't mention to the reporters that you already have that number there. Mexico did this in his first term, too; they agreed to several concessions in the NAFTA system which were due to come into effect anyway; but give Donald credit for driving a Big Deal.>> The funny part is that Canada didn’t change anything. They simply agreed to abide by the exact same deal negotiated with Biden. That was the case with Mexico. Sheinbaum had promised Biden 15,000 border troops. So the deal with Groper represents a large reduction, in addition to getting promises long critical to Mexican security. The immunity granted arms manufacturers and dealers doesn’t extend to individuals. Biden did threaten to reduce arms shipments if Netanyahu continues war crimes, but failed to follow through on that. www.cnn.com Donald not only never hinted he might do that, he recently offered to finish Israel’s good work with US troops. This isn’t just switching horses midstream, it is switching from a gentle mare to a wild bucking bronco with a hot shot strapped to its ass. |
||||||||
|
Bob I did not respond to the entirely false conspiracy theory statement but instead, asked Ragnar for a thread of evidence that Biden had had supported Netanaheu's genocide. To my knowledge, Ragnaw never provided evidence of his statement other than the entirely lame statement that Biden had continued to supply weapons to Israel for it's defense. BIDEN'S SUPPORT OF ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NETANAHU'S APPARENT GENOCIDE AGAINST THE INNOCENT PEOPLE OF GAZA, EVEN THOUGH THE WEAPONS USED BY ISRAEL WERE PARTIALLY SUPPLIED BY AMERICA. All I ask of Ragnaw is to SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT I AM WRONG AND HE IS RIGHT!!!! He, in my opinion, has yet to do that with anything other than a whimper. |
||||||||
|
Last Post This is not about disagreements. It is about club leadership banning the expression of opinions they disagree with. It is not a think club if you can be threatened with expulsion for actually thinking. |
||||||||
|
Ragnar I'll make it easy for you. gameknot.com |
||||||||
|
And Ragnar |
||||||||
|
Bottom line |
||||||||
|
Israel en.wikipedia.org By contrast the USA has provided Israel with a 2022 adjusted sum of economic and military aid of $300 Billion since 1946. This averages to about 3.5 billion per year (300/80)--- the current through 2028 agreement is 3.5 billion per year (1/3 the amount of weapons that Israel exports). Most of the aid has been military. www.cfr.org. |
||||||||
|
Note that a US fleet is stationed in the Red Sea that has provided air defense support for Israel during recent terrorist drone/missile attacks. And in all cases, Joe Biden, his Secretary of State, his Secretary of Defense did what they could to convince Netanahu to NOT commit atrocities against the innocents in the GAZA Netanahu, of course, largely ignored them because he was apparently waiting for his back-slapping buddy to provide his plan to force the Gazians out of their land to build a resort (See donald john trump). |
||||||||
|
mo-oneandmore 08-Feb-25, 13:53 |
Deleted by mo-oneandmore on 08-Feb-25, 14:03.
|
||||||||
|
Alas: Raganau never bothered to provide one sliver of evidence to support his "OPINION" as he justifyingly called it. And indeed! I can appreciate how the innocent Palistinian's might have been unhappy about Biden's inability to change Netanahu's ugly ways. That's MY opinion, folks. |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
mo-oneandmore 08-Feb-25, 14:17 |
Deleted by mo-oneandmore on 08-Feb-25, 14:23.
|
||||||||
|
Either the above or throw 2 million Gazians out of their home to make money (see trump's plan) |
||||||||
|
Mo (various) I suggest that you are wrong at several points, some of which you have repeated even after being shown to be wrong. Let's work through them... 1. (07:01) < Ragnaw started this off when he spouted the lie "You cannot blame Arab Americans for refusing to vote for Harris. She promised to continue Biden's policy of supporting a genocide."> That assertion by Rags was NOT a 'lie'. Harris promised to continue Biden's policy. That policy (in action, even if not stated) included continuing to supply Israel with weapons being used in the Gaza Genocide. 2. <To my knowledge, Ragnaw never provided evidence of his statement other than the entirely lame statement that Biden had continued to supply weapons to Israel for it's defense.> a) You contradict yourself here. you say 'other than', which concedes that there was at least one statement tendering evidence (whether you accept it as that or not), yet you go on to say in your 14:03 post "Raganau never bothered to provide one sliver of evidence to support his "OPINION" as he justifyingly called it." b) Rags provided MORE THAN 'one sliver of evidence', as summarised in my 16:19 post. If you want to comb through the thread again you will find that my summary is not encyclopedic of his evidence. c) If Biden were supplying weapons for Israel's defence, then I expect that Rags would not have objected. In fact, nowhere does he say that Israel should not be able to defend itself or that weapons for this purpose should not be supplied. His comments were entirely about the destruction of Gaza as a habitable location, the killing of tens of thousands of women and children and the targetting of hospitals. Tell me, how is the destruction of a hospital an integral and necessary part of 'Israel's defence'? You use one valid reason as a mask for a completely different agenda, which the ICJ has ruled 'war crimes'. 3. (7;50) <You are more than welcome to leave the club --- May I suggest that The Neutral Club might be a better fit for your thinking.> Why would you suggest NG for Rags? Throughout the exchange he has responded rationally, giving reasons and refraining from insults. I would suggest that his adversary in the exchange has shown traits more aligned to NG. 4. (13:33) <Israel does not need American arms to wage war against terrorist organizations like HAMAS and Hasballa or weak countries Iran because it manufactures and exports large amounts of it's own arms> Another self-contradiction! If Israel doesn't need American arms, then why is America supplying arms? Why is Israel so eager to receive them? 5. (13:47) <America's apparent general plan has been to provide defensive weapons only (Air defense, etc), Is a bomb a 'defensive' weapon? 6. <but Netanahu may be using them for other purposes.> Then why is Israel not being told to use them only for defensive operations? Is destroying a maternity hospital a 'defensive' operation? Ukraine has been invaded in massive force, but there are restrictions on what NATO-supplied arms can be used for. Why is Israel not under similar constraints? (Answer:- Because Netanyahu would ignore them, just like he ignores everything Biden said; but this way Biden can wash his hands.) "Bibi, these weapons are for defensive purposes only." "Yes, Joe; which is why I'm using them to kill future terrorists as soon as they are born, and women who might one day give birth to such." 7. (14:03) <all I asked of Regnow was to provide evidence that his comment about Biden's and Harrises acceptance, approval, etc of Netanahu's atrocities against Gazians might be true> Wrong again! Rags never said that Biden 'approved' of Netanyahu's atrocities. He said that Biden SUPPORTED them. And by continuing to supply more weapons even after Bibi continued in this use, that signifies 'acceptance' (even if reluctant). You don't even know what you are arguing about! Or are you just moving the goalposts? 8. (14:22) <Other than negotiation with Netanahu, the near only other option that Biden had to stop Netanahu would have been to militarily occupy the GAZA and/or the sovereign nation of Israel.> Wrong again! One other option has already been mentioned times without number; the option of simply stopping arms supply. If you want more options, you can add these to the list:- a) blockade of Israel b) economic sanctions against Israel c) pre-emptive strike against Israeli air bases and military installations d) jamming communications (including guidance of drones and bombs) e) honouring the ICJ warrant by arresting Bibi when he stepped foot on US soil f) announcing that if these measures are not effective in halting all attacks within 24 hours, the Israel will be considered a 'terrorist state' and the sanctions will stay in place until the Two-State Solution is a reality on the ground. See? There are lots of options available, and ALL of them are less extreme that your 'only option' of military occupation of Gaza and Israel. So don't try to fool me with the 'only two options' trick! That only works on Trump followers. 9. <see Wage war and international law.> Yes, perhaps you should look at those topics. The ICJ has done that, and ruled that Israel is guilty of war crimes. That makes Biden an accomplice before, during and after the fact. SUMMARY Is that enough for you to boot me? I've been much more assertive than anything Rags said, but then I'm not quite as gentlemanly as he. |
||||||||
|
OKAY Bob So the simple argument is that Biden and Harris supported genocide by Israel's far-right political party which is led by Netanahu BECAUSE neither Biden or Harris ENDED military support to Israel --- Is THAT what you're saying Mate? And further proof of fault is that Biden stupidly thought that Netanahu might be interested in negotiating peace instead of annihilating Palestinians, right Bob? And l agree that trump's solution to end the war will work notably faster and with less bloodshed for the "rightous" than anybody else's plan, because using a combined US and Israel overwhelmingly superior force to remove the war mongering Muslim inhabitants from their home will be easy peasy And who gives a shit about the poor inhabitants when big money is involved, right? And, of course, with the insistence of the combined military force, Egypt and other Middle East countries will be happy to give-up their land to provide meager shelter for the displaced Palestinians, huh? And I can't wait for trump's wonderful plan for ending the Ukraine war. |
||||||||
|
Tar and feather |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
and last but not least For some strange reason, people seem to think the two are the same thing. They are not! Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorism and aggression, etc, but Israel's prime minister has zero right to commit genocide against the people of Gaza in the name of it's defense. Note: I first PM'd something similar to the above to Apatzer. |
||||||||
|
Mo <So the simple argument is that Biden and Harris supported genocide by Israel's far-right political party which is led by Netanahu BECAUSE neither Biden or Harris ENDED military support to Israel --- Is THAT what you're saying Mate?> Nor did they do anything else, but you've got the dumbed-down version right. <And further proof of fault is that Biden stupidly thought that Netanahu might be interested in negotiating peace instead of annihilating Palestinians, right Bob?> I think this is NOT true. Who knows what Netanyahu is interested in, nor what Biden thought? We can only infer from words and actions. Netanyahu's government, in word sand action, is progressively taking more land from Palestinians, and progressively depriving them of livelihood and more recently life on an increasing scale. Biden was surely aware of this, so it is probable that Biden was under no illusions. The end objective of the Netanyahu Government has always been 'Israel from Sea to River' - and some distance beyond it when you look at the Golan. Therefore I suspect that Biden was fully aware of that end objective was to remove Palestinians as an ethic entity, whether by displacement or slaughter, and that the slaughter of some was intended to accelerate the displacement of the others. But that is only a 'probable'. <And l agree that trump's solution to end the war will work notably faster and with less bloodshed for the "rightous" than anybody else's plan> This is where you go totally wrong. One plan that will work faster and with less bloodshed than Trump's solution (and Netanyahu's solution) is to make the ceasefire permanent, start setting up a Palestinian State in accordance with International Law (and which Israel 'officially' says it supports, even though it doesn't in practice), and provide a peacekeeping force to do the policing. The European Union would probably be the best body for that job, because America has soiled its hands irredeemably in Arab eyes. 06:03 <And if Biden had attempted to end aid to Israel he would have been ushered out of Washington on a rail.> At last you state the real reason! Domestic political pressure, nothing to do with the merits of the case! And you finally recognise the implicit violence by the Zionist lobby, who are just as terrorist as Hamas but have the money and influence to get others to do their dirty work for them. 6:16 <And Ragnaur announced to the world that he believed Biden supported genocide> You finish with an absolutely correct statement! Rags did indeed say that. And he was 100% correct in saying it. So when will you make a SINCERE apology to him, instead of the mealy-mouthed, backhand, sarcastic "I surrender" garbage followed by a spit in the face? The Mo I remember was a much finer man that the one I've seen in this thread. |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| |||||||||
