I just typed up a long reply to Aristophanes's anti-Israeli dogma, and when I clicked the link he provided and went back the entire goddamn post was gone. The entire thing. I've never seen a forum do that before. What the hell?
You don't need to expect me to type up another one. The whole thing just seems to be about comparing casualities to each other, anyway, and he's already proven that he doesn't know much on the subject.
hahaha
Yea, anyone who isn't for Israel doesn't know anything about it...
Someone here is anti-state?!?!
You don't seem to understand that Israel has strategic concerns in the regions surrounding it and simply comparing casualities tells you nothing about what the goals are (seriously, are anarchists completely against preemptive war?). You keep talking about apartheid laws, but I couldn't find any in the link you gave. I also don't understand what you mean by racially pure. Israeli Jews come from Europe, Spain, Morocco, Yemen, Iraq, Ethiopia, and dozens of other regions. They're about as multi-cultural as can be. Since I oppose the existence of the state I define a nation by its people, if Arabs become a majority Israel is essentially wiped off the map.
first, "ahahahahhahahahahahhahahhaahhaa"
to all of that
especially this part...
(seriously, are anarchists completely against preemptive war?)
i mean "ahahhahahaaa"
second, just post this in the ahmadinijad thread so people can see what I said instead of taking your word for it.
Yeah, this forum does that occasionally. It's a good habit to copy your post before you send it, especially if its really long, that way if it does disappear into the abyss, you can just paste and try again. I've had it happen a few times to me, as I'm sure others had encountered the same frustration.
Aside from that, I don't know if all anarchists are, but I'd say any libertarians worth their salt are completely against preemptive war. It's a violation of the NAP. I the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
"first, "ahahahahhahahahahahhahahhaahhaa" to all of that especially this part... (seriously, are anarchists completely against preemptive war?) i mean "ahahhahahaaa" second, just post this in the ahmadinijad thread so people can see what I said instead of taking your word for it."
second, just post this in the ahmadinijad thread so people can see what I said instead of taking your word for it."
If they don't support preemptive wars, then I will not consider myself a traditional anarchist (because they are justified). As I said, I typed up a long reply to your post and it got deleted, so I'm not really interested anymore. The whole discussion is just the usual anti-Israel rant and it isn't worth it.
"Yeah, this forum does that occasionally. It's a good habit to copy your post before you send it, especially if its really long, that way if it does disappear into the abyss, you can just paste and try again. I've had it happen a few times to me, as I'm sure others had encountered the same frustration. Aside from that, I don't know if all anarchists are, but I'd say any libertarians worth their salt are completely against preemptive war. It's a violation of the NAP. I the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
Eh, who cares about the NAP? I support anarcho-capitalism out of pragmatism rather than ideology. If socialism worked I would support it, but it doesn't.
But how is the preemptive war funded? No different than anything else only the state can do: coercion. So, yeah, I suppose if you not only support wars between states but also coercion to fund such endeavors, you might not be an anarchist or a libertarian.
Always remember to [Ctrl + C] & [Ctrl + V]!
The whole discussion is just the usual anti-Israel rant and it isn't worth it.
No, it is a fact fest over there that you are unwilling to admit into your worldview because you...support....apartheid...
If they don't support preemptive wars, then I will not consider myself a traditional anarchist (because they are justified).
You would rather they (the worthless nameless arabs) be bombed out of existence before they have started a conflict than admit that Israel is an aggressive colonial state.
Why don't you call Bibi up and tell him to kill all of those other truly threatening countries around Israel...
Israel holds the world hostage with their Samson plan (They will attack anyone who doesn't support them if they are attacked; "kicking in the pillars of the temple of EARTH.")
Yea, if pre emptive wars are justified, then the US should be all over Israel. But, Israel spends more money spying on the US than they do on any other country.
If you take this logic further it will result in any country attacking any other country if they percieve cultural differences. You've got a lot to learn little Zionist.
Is it not pragmatic to, in order to foster markets and the benefits of anarcho-capitalism, disregard the state as illegitimate? To view ALL aggression as counter-productive? I find it difficult to see how anarcho-capitalism can flourish if the state, its coercion, and its aggression are viewed in ANY way as pragmatic, much less legitimate. Maybe you can describe how liberty and coercion are not mutually exclusive.
"But how is the preemptive war funded? No different than anything else only the state can do: coercion. So, yeah, I suppose if you not only support wars between states but also coercion to fund such endeavors, you might not be an anarchist or a libertarian."
Without those wars Israel as a concept or a people would be gone. I do disapprove of the methods, though. Something like half of all kids there go to state-funded dormitories. The entire mentality is authoritarian. Do you know how people there reacted after I left school? It's not free at all. But it isn't racist and it doesn't commit genocide.
Ignoring Aristophanes' post for obvious reasons.
Yea, you are a Jewish supremacist.
You've gotta ignore the illegal wepons (banned by international treaty) that Israel uses on civilians in Gaza.
White phosphorus is used to blind night vision tanks, not civilian crowd control...
The idea of Israel is a state. The people are not, and should not be identified by the existence of a state in their territory. Further, the notion of murdering innocent people to protect the state is wholly illegitimate. Wars are not to protect people; they are to protect the establishment, the status quo, the state.
Also, although I have been following the discussion between you and Aristophanes, it is not obvious why you would ignore his statements, unless it was because you have not legitimate or logical rebuttal. So, would you at least elaborate on why you ignore him, as it really is not obvious.
Thank you, phi.
@Luminar "Why will no man confess his faults? Because he is still in their grasp; only he who is awake can recount his dream, and similarly a confession of sin is a proof of sound mind." - Seneca (Epistle LIII)
don't see how israel is an arpetheid state
Read what Chomsky says..."we call it something else" even tough it's ends are the same. Your video that attempts to compare the apartheid of South Africa to the "situation" in Israel is kind of a red herring.
Safundi: Do you think, then, that the term "apartheid" is an accurate term for this situation? Chomsky: Apartheid in South Africa meant something different. Apartheid wasn't [only] Bantustans, apartheid was the arrangement inside South Africa. Bantustans were bad enough, but that was something else, that was caging the population into unviable territories. Like putting Indians in reservations. We don't call that apartheid. We call it something else. Safundi: But the term has been invoked by people within Israel, as well as among scholars. Chomsky: It has been invoked, but for different reasons. Safundi: What are those reasons? Chomsky: Those reasons have to do with Israel itself. Uri Davis-[who] has been involved in civil disobedience since the 1960s, he was the first serious activist in civil disobedience in Israel-in the 1960s, he protested real apartheid, inside Israel. This had been going on for the whole history of the state, but it was particularly dramatic around 1967 or 1968. Israel has a technique for dispossessing Israeli citizens-non-Jewish citizens-that's apartheid. One of the ways of doing it is to declare an area a military zone, so therefore for security reasons people have to get out, and it always turns out that it's never a Jewish area, it's Palestinian, and then after it's declared a security zone, you build settlements afterwards. And that's what's been going on. Palestinian villages had their lands taken away. Safundi: So it's similar to the forced removals that were happening in South Africa. Chomsky: Kind of, yes. And then, after people have forgotten about it, you go in and you build an all-Jewish city. And that's what was happening. Palestinian villages were restricted and they started building an all-Jewish city, Karmiel. This was a closed area, and Uri Davis went in, breaking the law, to protest what was happening. And that was the first serious act of civil disobedience.
Safundi: Do you think, then, that the term "apartheid" is an accurate term for this situation?
Chomsky: Apartheid in South Africa meant something different. Apartheid wasn't [only] Bantustans, apartheid was the arrangement inside South Africa. Bantustans were bad enough, but that was something else, that was caging the population into unviable territories. Like putting Indians in reservations. We don't call that apartheid. We call it something else.
Safundi: But the term has been invoked by people within Israel, as well as among scholars.
Chomsky: It has been invoked, but for different reasons.
Safundi: What are those reasons?
Chomsky: Those reasons have to do with Israel itself. Uri Davis-[who] has been involved in civil disobedience since the 1960s, he was the first serious activist in civil disobedience in Israel-in the 1960s, he protested real apartheid, inside Israel. This had been going on for the whole history of the state, but it was particularly dramatic around 1967 or 1968.
Israel has a technique for dispossessing Israeli citizens-non-Jewish citizens-that's apartheid. One of the ways of doing it is to declare an area a military zone, so therefore for security reasons people have to get out, and it always turns out that it's never a Jewish area, it's Palestinian, and then after it's declared a security zone, you build settlements afterwards. And that's what's been going on. Palestinian villages had their lands taken away.
Safundi: So it's similar to the forced removals that were happening in South Africa.
Chomsky: Kind of, yes. And then, after people have forgotten about it, you go in and you build an all-Jewish city. And that's what was happening. Palestinian villages were restricted and they started building an all-Jewish city, Karmiel. This was a closed area, and Uri Davis went in, breaking the law, to protest what was happening. And that was the first serious act of civil disobedience.
RE: Your video from Prage University (which is not a University) - It is a Conservative Think Tank
When he says that Israel doesn't govern those in the occupied states he is lying. Israel enforces what is called "martial law" in the territories and masques their "martial law" with the emotional appeal of terrorism. There might not be terrorism if Israel didn't have "occupying forces" bulldozing Palestinian homes.
He uses appeal to emotion (you can hear the inflection in his voice change) when referring to the arabs bombing the Israelis without once mentioning the "retaliation" that Israel dishyes out being magnitudes above the car bombings.
He uses more fallacies at 4:50 to equate anyone who says Israel is bad thinks Israel "doesn't deserve to exist." This is wholly untrue. There is a thing called the "two-state solution" that allows Israel to exist, but he doesn't need to mention that does he...
Chomsky starts with South Africa at about 3:00.
"There might not be terrorism if Israel didn't have "occupying forces" bulldozing Palestinian homes"
And there might not be bulldozing of homes if there wasn't terrorism. See where this argument gets us?
"He uses appeal to emotion (you can hear the inflection in his voice change) when referring to the arabs bombing the Israelis "
How dare his voice change and he "appeal to emotion" when discussing people getting blown up. Of course, you are guilty of the same thing with the pictures you just posted.
"without once mentioning the "retaliation" that Israel dishyes out being magnitudes above the car bombings."
I get it now...all acts of violence must at all times be equal. I tell you what, if you walk up and punch me in the face you can expect much more in return.
"You've gotta ignore the illegal wepons (banned by international treaty)"
This statement seems odd coming from someone who I"m guessing views the state as illegitimate. I don't believe there is such thing as an "illegal" weapon.
Sorry but indeed, it is possible to become worse than the aggressor if you use excessive force.
That's one of the fundamental principles of Libertarianism. The vibes in this thread are troubling, ease up people.
"Sorry but it is possible to become worse than the aggressor, if you use excessive force."
And who is going to judge what excessive force is? If you kill 20 of my people in a car bomb, am I allowed to retaliate and kill 20 of your people? Or is 25 acceptable? Maybe we could let the U.N. decide.
Simple, the market decides by having the most competent courts decide what violates Libertarian law. What the UN thinks doesn't matter, since they are not an Austrian concept.
You seem like a hothead so I doubt you would be in a position of power, or used as a third-party arbiter.
h.k,
I'm not arguing in the context of a libertarian court system, I'm only referring to the current situation.
And I'm not hotheaded and would make a dang fine arbiter! :)
The current situation is hopeless, since there is no top-down solution for something so complex and nuanced.
Jewish people have property rights over some areas, Palestinians over other areas and not in homogenous reservation zones.
"The idea of Israel is a state. The people are not, and should not be identified by the existence of a state in their territory. Further, the notion of murdering innocent people to protect the state is wholly illegitimate. Wars are not to protect people; they are to protect the establishment, the status quo, the state. Also, although I have been following the discussion between you and Aristophanes, it is not obvious why you would ignore his statements, unless it was because you have not legitimate or logical rebuttal. So, would you at least elaborate on why you ignore him, as it really is not obvious."
Also, although I have been following the discussion between you and Aristophanes, it is not obvious why you would ignore his statements, unless it was because you have not legitimate or logical rebuttal. So, would you at least elaborate on why you ignore him, as it really is not obvious."
No, the Arabs don't simply want to destroy the state, the want to kill or otherwise get rid of the Jews. They target civilian areas. If the state of Israel were abolished, the Jews there would still identify themselves as Israelis, still speak the same language, still live in the same area and hold the same beliefs. I'm not defending the state at all.
I'm ignoring him because a) I'm not interested in a debate right now when I'm already involved in another one on an actual debating site and b) his entire post seems to be trying to aggravate me rather than have any legitimate discussion; saying I support apartheid or that I'm a Jewish supremist. I've noticed that to be a pattern with Israel-haters.
"The vibes in this thread are troubling, ease up people."
Lol. Of course they are. Mention China or Russia; you get an actual discussion. Mention Israel...
hahah, but if the Israeli State were abolished who would use excessive force against those that can barely defend themselves? Where would the Heaven on Earth be located? hahahaha
I'm ignoring him because a) I'm not interested in a debate right now
I'm calling bullshit. You got mad because of the other thread and made a whole new thread about ME and MY opinion in hopes that you would get others on your side that way you didn'thave to post a real response. "Not interested" indeed...
b) his entire post seems to be trying to aggravate me
Says the guy who comes to an anarchist forum saying that preemptive war is legitimate. hahahahahah I'm glad it aggravates you.
rather than have any legitimate discussion; saying I support apartheid or that I'm a Jewish supremist. I've noticed that to be a pattern with Israel-haters.
Not having any facts whatsoever other than claims that 'you hate Israel' and that 'all arabs want to kill all jews' is a thing I notice that the Israeli-apologists have. It fits right into that idea of Jewish supremacism if you ask me...assumptions about others that don't support their preemptive wars...
haha it is laughable even thinking about it.
Mention China or Russia; you get an actual discussion. Mention Israel...
Go find the geopolitics threads. People get called xenophobes on the regular. Especially with China and India. (You just don't notice it because all of the focus is on Islamic 'Terrorism') I am just not afraid of the BS accusations.
Luminar: You don't seem to understand that Israel has strategic concerns in the regions surrounding it and simply comparing casualities tells you nothing about what the goals are (seriously, are anarchists completely against preemptive war?). You keep talking about apartheid laws, but I couldn't find any in the link you gave. I also don't understand what you mean by racially pure. Israeli Jews come from Europe, Spain, Morocco, Yemen, Iraq, Ethiopia, and dozens of other regions. They're about as multi-cultural as can be. Since I oppose the existence of the state I define a nation by its people, if Arabs become a majority Israel is essentially wiped off the map.
Preemptive war may possibly be compatible with libertarianism, it just depends what you mean by it. Let's look at the same principle but on a small scale:
1. You are in your house, and I am in mine. You and I don't get along much, and we say nasty things about each other, such as how we wish that the other weren't alive. You then shoot and kill me.
2. You are in your house, and I am on the very edge of your property. I am preparing all sorts of weapons with which to invade you. You then shoot and kill me.
The key difference between the two scenarios is that in the second scenario, it is clear that I am the aggressor, as I am threatening you, and threats are a violation of the NAP. In the first scenario, you are the aggressor. So, if you define preemptive as the second scenario, then sure, preemptive war is compatible with libertarianism. But I don't think that's what people mean by preemptive war. It seems to be tossed around when one state is getting more powerful, and another state doesn't like it and "preemptively defends itself".
This is not a reason for preemptive war...
Phi est aureum: Also, although I have been following the discussion between you and Aristophanes, it is not obvious why you would ignore his statements, unless it was because you have not legitimate or logical rebuttal. So, would you at least elaborate on why you ignore him, as it really is not obvious.
Perhaps you started following too late in the discussion. I will repost what Aristophanes said before he (or perhaps a mod?) edited it. I don't need to repost some of the snarky comments without profanity, as you can just read it yourself:
Aristophanes: Malachai needs to go back to grammar school, can go fuck himself, and is wrong on my being a collectivist (ahahahhahahaha). You may need to attend with him.
Malachai needs to go back to grammar school, can go fuck himself, and is wrong on my being a collectivist (ahahahhahahaha). You may need to attend with him.
Aristophanes: Just look at all of the connotations that his sleazy truck stop educated ass is trying to make about me.
Just look at all of the connotations that his sleazy truck stop educated ass is trying to make about me.
Aristophanes: There isn't any truth to what you said you fucking cunt.
There isn't any truth to what you said you fucking cunt.
Aristophanes: How do you know this poster is not in a room of people griefing you?
How do you know this poster is not in a room of people griefing you?
Aristophanes: Is that clear enough little girl who is worried about this particular issue?
Is that clear enough little girl who is worried about this particular issue?
Okay, so that last two didn't have profanity, but I wanted to include at least one insult that didn't have a curse word in it. And he suggested that he might just be trolling us. So, perhaps it might make more sense to you now why someone might choose to ignore his posts.
I'm also a little disappointed that the mods did not at least publicy reprimand Aristophanes for his behavior. Papirius was banned for 30 days for a lot less. Same with Smiling Dave.
I have no clue what's going on at this point except that Luminar is trying to defend Israel, which I still don't get.
Make sure you keep things off of the subject at hand and try to revert the thread to petty squabbles that you are involved in.
Ope! GOOD JOB!
Rather than posting the comments that invoked those reactions (I edited them immediately after I posted them) I'll just link to the actual thread and if people want to read it, they can. It is not as if those comments were unprovoked...context is everything. But taking things out of context doesn't bother those who are intellectually dishonest.
After you implied that I am racist and Malachai called me a collectivst I got hostile. I don't monitor the actions of the mods, maybe they haven't gottent around it it yet? Maybe they saw my reactions coming from provocations?
You see, by not calling the mods to 'reprimand' people for expressing controversial opinions I clarify that I am more of a man than you.
Aaannd I was wondering where everyone has been, so thanks for clarifying.
Yeah, no one should be defending any state or gang over in the Middle East. This means that no one should support or defend the state of Israel or the PLO. Both are guilty of aggression against their subjects and the subjects of the other. That the state of Israel happens to have more power and therefore can aggress more is immaterial. Neither deserve a libertarian's support.
Oh, Aristophanes, what are we going to do with you. At any point in time, you can choose to actually clarify what you meant. I asked a simple question that you dodged repeatedly. Here are some examples of possible responses:
1) You meant that all Jews that reside within the borders of Israel are racists and demons.
2) You meant that only the politicians and soldiers within borders of Israel are racists and demons. (Of course, many of those soldiers are conscripted, but perhaps you would still support this statement).
3) You meant that only the politicians (rulers) within the borders of Israel are racists and demons.
It would have been nice if you actually responded. Maybe you have a fourth opinion. But you chose to insult and ridicule...RIGHT FROM YOUR FIRST RESPONSE TO ME. And my very first question literally only asked you to whom you were referring. But please, continue to accuse and ridicule. You stay classy.
Except that the Arabs and Jews that lived there before the Israeli State came into existence didn't really have a government...they didn't start wars...sounds fairly okay to me. The only thing they were that isn't really that libertarian is theocratic. That goes for the arab tribes and the zionists.
That the state of Israel happens to have more power and therefore can aggress more is immaterial.
Well, this is bunk.
You realize that since Israel is a State that their actions are sovereign in the eyes of the other states in the world, right? This point absolutely matters. They have far more resources and have diplomatic cover and legal authority. They cannot be called "terrorists" (even though I think many here would call their actions terrorism) simply because they have a state...
the palestinians are like the native americans...seriously how can so many people here dump on the US Founders, but at the same time support Israel??!?!?!?
Oh, Aristophanes, what are we going to do with you. At any point in time, you can choose to actually clarify what you meant. I asked a simple question that you dodged repeatedly. Here are some examples of possible responses: 1) You meant that all Jews that reside within the borders of Israel are racists and demons. 2) You meant that only the politicians and soldiers within borders of Israel are racists and demons. (Of course, many of those soldiers are conscripted, but perhaps you would still support this statement). 3) You meant that only the politicians (rulers) within the borders of Israel are racists and demons. It would have been nice if you actually responded. Maybe you have a fourth opinion. But you chose to insult and ridicule...RIGHT FROM YOUR FIRST RESPONSE TO ME. And my very first question literally only asked you to whom you were referring. But please, continue to accuse and ridicule. You stay classy.
Okay, gotlucky, I am being honest with you here (as I was in the thread that you didn't actually read): I went off on the grammar thing because I thought you were questioning who in the prior sentence I was referring with a plural pronoun. If you go back and read the thread I do answer your question (politicians and bureaucrats; racists and demons...not that hard to wrap your mind around). But, now that you mention soldiers. Them too. I don't care if they were conscripted. As Malachai said in that thread 'individuals act' they could see what they are doing is wrong, but don't. Those bulldozers still (bull)doze.
Aristophanes: You realize that since Israel is a State that their actions are sovereign in the eyes of the other states in the world, right?
You realize that since Israel is a State that their actions are sovereign in the eyes of the other states in the world, right?
You realize that:
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (Arabic: منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية; Munaẓẓamat at-Taḥrīr al-Filasṭīniyyah (help·info)) is a political and paramilitary organization which was created in 1964. It is recognized as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" by the United Nations and over 100 states with which it holds diplomatic relations, and has enjoyed observer status at the United Nations since 1974. The PLO was considered by the United States and Israel to be a terrorist organization until the Madrid Conference in 1991. In 1993, PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in peace, accepted UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and rejected "violence and terrorism"; in response, Israel officially recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.
What a weak response.
The PLO has a seat at the UN?!?! (observer status is not memebership into the UN, big guy)
Or does Israel simply see them as a political party that doesn't have a state to operate in?
Israel still doles out tax money to the PLO. The PLO is not sovereign which is the primary feature of a state.
Your comments remain bunk.
lmao
an even weaker response. You really are way in over your head aren't you?
_____
People interested may think these are informative:
Irrelevant. Last I checked, Taiwan is not a recognized sovereign state, yet somehow it is a de facto state...It is immaterial what type of seat the PLO has if it is a de facto state. A state is a state is a state.
Really? Equivocate much? Not only is the PLO a state (as in, you know, a government ruling by aggression), it also has territory. I wasn't aware that the PLO was a political party within the borders of Israel. I thought the state of Israel banned that.
And America doles out tax money to Israel. The state of Israel is not sovereign which is the primary feature of a state.
LMAO.