#1491
|
|||
|
The reason criticism of israel is so often characterized as anti-semitic is because it often is. If you reserve all your condemnation for israel and have none to offer for any of it's neighbor's, you might be anti-semitic. Israel is by far the most open and liberally minded society in the middle east.
I feel bad for the palestinians more because of their own government (hamas and the plo) than anything israel does, which is essentially always defensive in nature. Meanwhile if you're openly gay, good luck living anywhere in the middle east other than israel. Once again libs get so rabidly confused on this issue because of their boneheaded marxist worldview where power differentials are the only thing that matters. Because israel is powerful, they're supposed to just accept rockets being fired at random into their civilian areas? It doesn't matter that all of their neighbors commit horrible human rights abuses against their *own people* routinely, because they're less powerful? It's morally incoherent like so many leftist ideas. | ||
|
#1492
|
||||
|
Quote:
First two paragraphs stared down two nasty pitches that just missed, as you let that kind of cheese-debate be not worth your time. Not this time Satan! Geopolitics is complicated, exactly. There are no angels in the Middle East, no? Indeed, as Omar would say. And, as you say in your second paragraph, there is no reason one still can't have especial sympathy for the "biggest losers" in this viper's pit region, and holy shit, really, just look at this situation, plz. It's an ugly tale. Starts with any semblance of property rights thrown to the fire in now-Israel land. There is no way to look at the pst 100 years and not say the Palestinians, that tiny people, have been living the HARD LIFE. But you also do note, well, Israel is by far the only western-style democracy and that is actually a big deal. Again: Indeed! But then came your third paragraph. Why don't you just open the door, as Paul MacCartney sang, and say, "And history works this way sometimes, and eternal problem is how we react to it, and we each have to ask ourselves this question."
__________________
go go go
| |||
Last edited by Sadre Spinegnawer; 07-08-2023 at 12:02 PM..
Reason: apologies to Macca
|
|
#1493
|
||||
|
Quote:
Responsible meaning not leaving their guns around for their kids to find and either accidentally shoot themselves or some kids that were mean to them at school And responsible in that gun ownership does not embolden the owner to go seek out trouble and escalate situations needlessly There is an idea of a responsible gun owner, who keeps it out of reach of kids, doesn’t let it embolden him (or her) to aggression, and when having to use it pays attention to backstops and where the bullet might go But that concept of a responsible gun owner is more rare than most people are happy to admit | |||
|
#1494
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#1495
|
||||
|
Quote:
Botten thinks guns are uniquely capable of killing people, which just isn't true. A car can take out far more people far more quickly than any semi-automatic gun. The Nice, France truck attack for instance. Dude killed 86 people by just running them over, which is a higher body count than any mass shooting that has ever occurred in the US. And that guy was stopped by.... a gun. Wanting to ban guns is mostly just an emotional, irrational response to tragedies that get plastered all over TV for months. | |||
|
#1496
|
||||
|
Quote:
It's just made to look that way on TV. In reality, they are just crocodile tears because the end game is a disarmed population that will be much easier to control which is the ultimate objective | |||
|
#1497
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#1498
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you claim to have concerns over human rights abuses in the middle east, and you focus your scorn on israel of all countries, you're deeply mixed up. | |||
|
#1499
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#1500
|
||||
|
Quote:
What about 1823? Even 1923? Global pop today is 8 billion. Population in the early 1800's was a bit over 1 billion. Even 100 years later, it still was not 2 billion. 2 billion is around 1930. Then 3 billion in 1960. 1974, 4 billion; 1987, 5 billion; 1999 was the glorious 6 billion mark; 2011 was 7, and 8 was just recently. The meaning of a border, or how much one even thinks it matters, is relative to what the borders contain. And until relatively recent, borders always have had hot spots but this notion of lines on a globe, per se? Not much lol. Unless you dig the maps, no?
__________________
go go go
| |||
|
|
|