Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Answering Netanyahu · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Moral Clarity: Two Wrongs Don't Make One Right · Countering Kisin
Why I’m Off the Fence About Israel’s War - Konstantin Kisin
Triggernometry | 7 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4m_EL9Dj2U
3:15 First, I dispute that per capita is the relevant way to look at the two atrocities.
Second, I think the US actually did some disproportionate things after 9/11 which led to escalation of hostilities. Abu Ghraib comes to mind, even if the Gulf war was note the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
Third, admitting your terms, for argument's sake:
I think in that scenario, US would have competently targetted Mexican government buildings and military units. Not bombed lots of Mexican civilians in order to avoid a ground war. Mexico would not have had a refugee crisis, but a new government. Quicker than fast and speedier than quick.
5:51 I think your objection misses that the comparison to October 7 would be sth like Sitting Bull and Geronimo, not a hypothetic indigenous uprising now.
I also think you miss that while Palestinians claim restitution for what was taken from grandparents or great-grandparents, in a conflict still targetting them, the Israeli claim involved restitution for a hypothetical total landgrab under Omar (Netanyahu misrepresented history), in the 7th C. The persons targetting Jews in Europe in years prior to mid-1945 were not Palestinians.
In Sweden, so what if the Lapps used to live as far South as Scania some millennia ago, we are giving restitution to Lapps for recent torts in the part of Sweden that they live in. Sometimes to the point of exasperating Swedes and Finns who also live up there.
If you mean when Funnel-Beaker people and Chorded Ware people clashed with each other or (for one of them) with Yamnaya immigrants, we would all of us descend from both sides. The targetted side, whatever the degree of violence was, is not here to this day to ask for redressment. The Palestinians are.
6:45 You have just made the exact point that can be made for most of the Israeli response.
Bombing a civilian's house or a Church is not a reasonable attempt at killing off Hamas warriors, it's an attempt to target all of the population that is their base of recruitment and economic survival. A comparison would be Britain targetting not Kruger's armed men, but Boer farmers, putting them in camps with Black Guards. The atrocity that initiated what some have called "the century of camps" ...
This is the case even if we granted IDF had specific and reliable knowledge that there was a tunnel under that building and that someone from Hamas was hiding under it that exact moment. Knowledge which I do not believe to be even in principle possible to acquire.
Note that I'm not justifying October 7. I was even groggy with joy a few days later over IDF taking down six high ranking members of Hamas, until I heard that 3000 men, most civilians, had also died. October 7 was an unjust targetting of civilians for one day. IDF has unjustly targetted civilians for the time since. Oh, by the way, Hamas did target one military location, there was a woman serving the IDF who became a hero defending her comrades to her death. Minuscule compared to what they did to Israeli civilians? Well, the damage done directly to Hamas is minuscule compared to what IDF has done to Gazawi civilians.
7:09 "which is why Israel had to react to it"
At least arguable.
"in the manner that it has"
No.
7:31 Hamas bears responsibility for IDF killing civilians, by hiding under them in tunnels? Is that what you mean?
No, I think IDF bears responsibility for kiling them by not waiting until the Hamas belligerents or terrorists are a clearer target.
I mean, I could kind of understand partially bombing a hospital from which they were firing rockets, but hiding in an underground tunnel and firing a rocket are not two things you do at the same time.
8:21 "all-out war"? As in "total war"?
This is a doctrine which has been condemned by the Popes.
It's also a doctrine which German-Prussian governments have carried out more than once between 1860 and 1945 and have been highly blamed for. Indeed sometimes taken to courts of justice for. It's also a doctrine which some people in the Balkans applied in the 1990's ... I think those closest to actually doing so, apart from the US response of bombing Belgrade, were the Serbs.
Does Vuk Karadjic, does Slobodan Milosovic ring a bell?
9:12 That Hamas spokesman can only count on civilians dying because of Israeli callousness against human shields.
You speak as if bombing civilians were sth regular in warfare, and something which the defense should parry by building bomb shelters.
Oh, tell that to Londoners whose parents or grandparents or greatgrandparents died in the Blitz of London! Or Dresdeners who died in Churchill's later reprisal!
The responsibility for civilian deaths in a bombing of an area with lots of civilians and especially if at the moment there is no clear military target usually falls on those bombing.
I'm on Franco's side in the 36 to 39 war, but I am not a fan of the Guernica bombing. Who is? It has been usual for Carlists to blame Göhring for taking an order too literally and for Nazis to blame Mola for giving an order that could be so taken in the first place.
I'd blame a cultural misunderstanding between them, having regards for both (btw, the Göhring regard referring to a couple my grandparents met in Israel whom he saved from lots of trouble and a heightened probability of premature death - yes, they were claimants to the Aliyah).
Your "essential argument" is essentially arguing that Guernica was licit (unless you presume that Azaña was in the right, which I don't).
9:28 You know that you have echoed Nazi propaganda about starvation and typhoid deaths in the camps being due to allied bombings of the railways?
10:02 "in Gaza it is 2:1"
According to IDF and their identification of who is an enemy fighter.
They could be agreeing with Manis Friedman who considers a Palestinian a civilian as soon as he has put down his gun. If he didn't own one and didn't lay one down, he was not laying down his gun and was therefore an enemy fighter.
But supposing the ratio were* 9:1, usually, is that acceptable? Or is that a new barbarism the West has started to accept after 9:11?
11:34 Why would Israel have to fight Western Apologists for terrorists?
Could it be that even people who are against Hamas fall under that designation once Israel is doing the judging?
It would explain some things about my situation.
But apart from that, did Franco bother to fight Hemingway or Laurie Lee or George Orwell? I don't think so.
* His example doesn't bear this out: | |||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment