Fox Fire
-
Posts
3092 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Fox Fire
-
-
For "the billionth time" it is absolutley what "defines" Nazi Germany.
With a few notable exceptions (who are often for this very reason legitimately compared to Nazi Germany) this is precisely what defines them in a modern historical context.
Imperial Germany conducted offensive operations against its neighbors and it is not considered in the same context.
Now we can absolutly talk about the morality of what Israel does. You will find me willing to discuss this.
However, your argumentative starting point is dead wrong. Of that there is no doubt and you do not have a leg to stand on.
No, it's not. If so, the native American genocide and slavery is what defines the USA. Stalins purge defines the USSR and dead Palestinian children is what defines Israel. The holocaust was an action of Nazi Germanies leadership. It was not, not has it ever been, the definition of Nazi Germany.
All killing aside, assuming neither the Nazis or Israelis killed anyone, they would still be the same states.
So we've been through 6 pages now and all you've done is regurgitate the exact thing: Genocide (a word that you brought up, not me) = Nazi Germany.
So if that's our definition of Nazi Germany, then our definition of Israel should be "indiscriminate murder of Palestinians".
Fair?
-
1
-
-
No. Nono. No this is wrong. Zionism may be tied to the religion, but it is NOT the reason for Israel's state occupation. You need to stop tying the religion to the state. Seriously. People that see Israel and Judaism as one begin to hate Jews for that reason.
Likud and Netanyahu are extremists, not regular Jews. And I'd very very loosely define the Likud party as full of 'Jews'. Don't blame the religion for the states actions.
Israel and Judaism are NOT one in the same. Zionism and Israel ARE one in the same. I know there are plenty on anti-Zionist Jews for example. I'm not blaming the religion itself. This thread is about nationalism, no?
No. Genocide is genocide. As in its the same thing as genocide. Now since you are hinting around an actual definition of genocide I will ask you to attempt to prove that Israel sanctions "mass murder".
No, not in the slightest. Israel has overwhelming regional strength and is far from "too busy" with internal security.
No. I am defining Nazi Germany, which was a State not an ideology, based on its genocidal actions. I give less than 2 shits about what Hitler said. I care what he did. This is important because I can compare it to what Israel does and note that they are not the same.
This allows me to easily and without any qualms conclude that this statement is false:
"Israel is the Jewish equivalent of Nazi Germany." -FoxFire
So you have STILL yet to defend your claim. Provide evidence that that actions of the State of Israel are equivalent to the State of Nazi Germany.
I just gave you an argument that Israel condones mass murder. 30 days in jail for murder and protecting their soldiers from international courts. indiscriminately killing hundreds of children and calling it justified. No, it's not genocide, but for the ten billionth time, that's not what defines Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany would have still been Nazi Germany without murdering Jews. In comparison, Israel would still be Israel without murdering Palestinians. It's their nationalist superiority complex that leads to their inhumanity.
I really don't see why Jews need a state so badly that murdering hundreds of children in a few weeks is justified. Taoists don't have a state. We don't need one. Neither does any other religion.
-
1
-
-
This is so full of shit it's confusing. Number one. Zionism is the ideology that Jews are entitled to a homeland. It IS NOT the idea that Jews are inherently better due to their belief that they are the chosen people. Nazism was the belief that Germans were the perfect people, not that they deserved a home state, but that they should not be denied anything and that everything going wrong was not any German's fault.
Balfour was a good idea, On paper. In which land that was taken with the fall of the Ottoman Empire and was at the time very sparsely inhabited would go to people who just got out of persecution. Biblical claims are bullshit, however, both have modern claims to the region. Are the palestinian's claims any more deserving than the Israelis or vice versa? No. The Palestinians today are hardly at all from the area they claim. In fact, a vast majority of the people living there previously belonged/were citizens of a surrounding state. The Israelis have no justifiable claim over the disputed land either.
Is one population better than the other/more humanitarian? No. Both sides have become radicalized because of state-sponsored terrorism and over blown media coverage. Constant worry of terrorist attacks from Gaza terrify the Israelis into supporting anything National, which is why Likud is in power. Constant oppression by the Likud government on the Palestinians promote more attacks on the Israelis.
In the end, the small parties (Likud and Hamas) that promote the subjugation/destruction of either side propel the citizens of both lands into believing what their government is doing is justified.
Jews are not Terrorists, Israelis are not Terrorists, Palestinians are not Terrorists, Muslims are not Terrorists.
Hamas, and Likud are terrorists. Fermenting fear in both populations in order to see one side over power the other.
I can mostly agree. Although Abrahamic religions all tell their people they are inherently special. That their version of God is what is just. Zionism is inherently tied to the Jewish religion, making the state the same way. A religious nationalism is a terrible idea and prone to conflict. Both sides have valid claim to the area, but I don't think either side has a claim in their current non-secular and divided forms. I'm not supporting the Palestinian side other than the fact that they are the ones who get massacred while everyone watches. Gaza is a terrible situation and Israel turning it into a blocked off cage "fish in a barrel" situation is plain a simply !@#$ed up. Yeah, it's a complex situation, but it's really just indiscriminate warfare.
It's ridiculously stupid and has been going on far too long. This is why nationalism is stupid. Understandable, but stupid.
-
So lets loop around to some things that I am "fascinated" with. I am fascinated, as you so eloquently say, with what Nazi Germany actually fracking did. Nazi Germany is best know for two things: invading it neighbors with the intent of gaining and holding their land and committing genocide on an industrial scale.
So you admit that Israel does not do the latter and is therefore NOT behaving like Nazi Germany.
Again, since you obviously do not seem willing to accept this, Genocide =/= ethnic cleansing. This is simply a fact by definition. (Invalidating your second to last sentence in the quoted post.)
Israel does hold some territory that it gained after being attacked -which you may not appreciate as a difference but it is one none the less. Israel could invade its neighbors and hold their land if they desired to (they are far more powerful than their neighbors). They chose not to.
So as far as their ideological bent, which was not your original argument that we have dis-proven together, does whatever ideology Israelis hold translate into action? Not as you define it. If Israel was acting on the ideology you claim that they hold then the State would be waging wars of aggression and committing genocide. So we are left with a few possibilities. Israel is either not Zionist or Zionism is not ideologically the same as Nazism. Whichever one of these is correct we can effectively and logically deduce, even given your moving argumentative goalposts, that Israel is not Nazi Germany.
I mean it's the same thing as in it's state sanctioned mass murder.
Israel is too busy invading itself to invade anyone else.
Nope. Again, you're defining Nazism based on their acts of genocide. Genocide was never a core part of Nazi ideology. Neither was taking over Europe. Hitler didn't rally the support of millions by saying "Let's take over the world and murder millions of people". More like "We must preserve our culture and people. We deserve X, Y and Z because our people are inherently better".
Zionism: "We must preserve our culture and people. Our people deserve this because God said we were chosen."
I'm loathe to get pulled into an Israel thread but...
Firstly, Zionism is a broad church. Even when the first zionists in the Russian Empire started preaching, there were many sects. Religious zionists, socialist zionists, practical zionism amongst them. Some of these wished to establish a Jewish religious state, some a national state, some just wanted an autonomous region of the ottoman empire, some just wanted to live in Palestine whoever the ruler was.
Secondly, let's look at the context in which zionism was shaped. As already discussed, by 1918 there were already over 70k Jews in Palestine. Between 1918 and 1945 that population grew tenfold. 80% of those immigrants were poor Jews from eastern Europe, specifically Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Russia and the Ukraine.
Over this period there was a gradual pivot from an imperial mindset to a national mindset globally. The imperial mindset allows the idea that many nations live under one empire. The national mindset focused on the idea of a single nation and a single state. This change squeezed out the Jews and other ethnic minority groups all across Europe.
The zionist mindset itself became more nationalist in response, fitting in with the zeitgeist of the time. More pressure was put on both Jewish leaders in Palestine and leaders in the West to recognise nation states.
When the middle east was carved up, religious and ethnic minorities were given special preference for nationhood. An Alawite state was proposed and rejected. Lebanon was created specifically to prevent Christian and Shia minorities being swamped by the Syrian Sunni majority. Israel was proposed as a state where the border was drawn around the areas with a Jewish majority population.
Although the Jews were relatively new to the region, this idea of a Jewish state which closely held to the areas only with Jewish majorities made sense. In 1948 the borders of Israel contained 92.4% Jews, the rest were Arabs of various religions.
The right to self determination of populations is something enshrined in international law. In 1948 the Palestine area had been under occupation by the British, and prior to that the Ottomans, for hundreds of years. When consideration was given to which areas should become which states, the will of the people living there was taken into account. A single state with a mixed Jewish and Arab population was something both the Jews and Arabs did not want. So a two state solution was created.
The Arabs then invaded Israel and caused deep distrust between the two groups which continues to this day.
Granted this is a simplified explanation, but it's pure bollocks to say that Israel exists as a result of a conspiracy. It exists as a result of a partition of a much wider area which took into account the national identity of the peoples who lived there.
Is that why Palestine was promised to both sides?
"The will of the people was taken into account"
Of course it was. After a shit ton of Jews came in and became the majority. That was the whole plan of Balfour.
-
I don't know what we're even talking about, you don't like the people in power and you wouldn't like it if the people with no power had power.
The message I'm trying to get across and how I feel about it is that it is fine the way it is and a lot better than any alternatives.
The world might have being better off if Europe kept colonizing those regions around Europe.
Mkay...
actually they are right to return as there are israelites there, always, only not under their way of rules.
there is nothing wrong of having a nationalism as every nation should have one instead of none...despite there are always positive and negative outcome to others or "mixed" people.
The Kingdom of Israel is not modern Israel. The two are not even related. That's like saying Turkey should be given to Russia or Greece. Trying to revert nations and cultures in given areas to ancient standards is something Hitler tried too. It was a stupid idea and it didn't work. Things from thousands of years ago are from thousands of years ago.
-
I quit! \o/
Again
-
They have anime about WW2 Russia vs Germany
First Squad: Moment of Truth
Heard of it. The pictures I've seen make it look rather strange though.
Samurai Soviet?!
-
Based on the above I am asking people for opportunities to make money for my nation so that I can restore it. If you don't care then you don't care, I am still thankful you read the post. Good luck rebuilding your nation as well!
I'm just giving you shit. It does sound like begging. But seriously, why were you deleted?
-
Umno. Ideological? Yes. Ideology of the state itself? Yes. Continue. Your problem is that you're focusing on genocide.
Are Israelis putting people in gas chambers and committing mass industrialized murder? No. Are they interning, imprisoning and blatantly murdering their own minority population while stealing land under a nationalist supremacist ideology? Yes.
Zionism is Jewish Nazism. Israel is the Jewish Nazi Germany. Do you get what I'm saying yet?
The killing and atrocities may not be on the same scale, but it's still the same thing. Ethnic cleansing was part of the Zionist goal from its infancy.
^
-
No FF. You havent. When I pinned you down you tried to redirect into an ideological debate. Admit that you were wrong and we can coninue. Otherwise shut up and sit down.
Umno. Ideological? Yes. Ideology of the state itself? Yes. Continue. Your problem is that you're focusing on genocide.
Are Israelis putting people in gas chambers and committing mass industrialized murder? No. Are they interning, imprisoning and blatantly murdering their own minority population while stealing land under a nationalist supremacist ideology? Yes.
Zionism is Jewish Nazism. Israel is the Jewish Nazi Germany. Do you get what I'm saying yet?
The killing and atrocities may not be on the same scale, but it's still the same thing. Ethnic cleansing was part of the Zionist goal from its infancy.
-
Actually I didn't know your nation was deleted or why anyone should care.
-
1
-
-
I copy and pasted this for everyone who thinks bernie sanders isnt a socailsit, if you beilve berine sanders is a socail democrat and not a socailist, tell me he wouldnt like this to be how america is governedso·cial·ismˈsÅSHəˌlizÉ™m/noun
- a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Obama is a socialist. America remains capitalist. So what if Bernie is a socialist?
As a libertarian myself, I don't think the two groups could get along economically, while we agree on social issues, progressives are usually socialists. Amd libertian socialism doesn't exist, beacuse that goes from Libertian right wing economics and left wing socail, to both left wing. So Libertian socialists are just democrats.
I'm a libertarian socialist and this comment doesn't even make sense.
Democrats are for large government, just like Republicans. They are the same party who's only disagreements tend to be minor social issues.
-
-
I said expansionism in reference to the difference between them and the Nazi's. Colonialists or immigrants, as you know the Jews existed there for thousands of years so to call them colonists rather than immigrants is wrong.
Well religion and ethnicity aren't races so that why I say it, are Jews racist?
The only alternative for Jews would be to basically to move out of the middle east, seeing how they have being there for so long now it would only make sense it is their right to be there.
I don't really care what those people say, they're securing their country for a reason.
If the others were mostly Christians or atheists I'm sure the situation would never have developed the way it did.
Christianity, specifically Catholicism has a history of anti-Zionism. The Zionists are not migrants. Migrants are people who move to other nations. The Zionists intend to move somewhere and forcibly make it their own nation. Depending on your use of the term racism, sure they may not be racist. Hence what I said:
"arguably racist or ethnocentric at the very least."
It's the Palestinians right to be there just as much as it is the Jews. Hence my stance against Zionism. Please don't assume that I support an Islamic state in Palestine, because I don't.
You didn't say "zionism" or "nazism". You said "Israel is the Jewish equivalent of Nazi Germany." Those are States not ideologies.
Defend your assertion.
It is. I've made my argument. Respond or piss off. I'm not playing this burden game with you.
-
You use Zionism as if it is something negative, looking at the definition of the word I don't see the level of negativity you associate with it.
Arguably racist how?
Nazism is also related to expansionism and I see the opposite happened with Israel giving back after other countries tried to destroy them.
The idea of saying Israel is like Nazi Germany is merely for some sort of shock value on things taken out of context, the way you're comparing it to the Nazi's could also be applied in a similar fashion to most of countries in the world today for something that they do.
I think you will find that the enemies of Israel have more similarities with the Nazi's.
I didn't say expansionist. I said colonialist. Arguably racist/ethnocentric because it simply is. I just explained why:
"It's aim is to establish a Jewish nationalist state for what they call the "chosen people". They derive their authority over their Arab neighbors based on the idea that they are inherently superior to other religion/ethnicity/race."
Zionism has been classified as colonialist and/or ethnocentric by countless people including academics, priests, historians, professors, etc. This includes Jews and even Israelis themselves. It's probably the single biggest criticism Zionism has ever had.
-
1
-
-
Foxburo condemns this council for it's centralized sexist policies. Clause 3 is completely unnecessary. There is absolutely no reason for it. The enforcement of this sexism in clause 9 is just as ridiculous. Foxburo refuses to sign this and does not recognize it's legitimacy.
-
2
-
-
No. I have read it all. Nowhere do you support your initial claim. Feel free to quote yourself.
Perhaps I can break this down into one sentence: Zionism carries the same concept as Nazism.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of equivalent and stop assuming that Nazism means genocide. Zionism is a nationalist colonialist movement, arguably racist or ethnocentric at the very least. It's aim is to establish a Jewish nationalist state for what they call the "chosen people". They derive their authority over their Arab neighbors based on the idea that they are inherently superior to other religion/ethnicity/race.
It's identical to the core beliefs of Nazism. The two states are just as similar. Abusing, imprisoning and interning their own minority populations to ensure their colonialism.
-
1
-
-
I just gave you 4 pages or argument. You're literally just asking me to repeat myself.
-
It seems he can have 65k while you can have 47k.
He has 1 less city than you and almost twice as much infrastructure in each city, because you have more cities and lower infra you naturally have a disadvantage.
If this update was aimed to hurt nations it was nations like yours that would have had advantage over a nation with less cities but higher infra.
Your numbers are flawed. For one, he had (and still does) over 70,000 soldiers.
You are unable to use 100% of your improvement capacity because your population is not high enough.
We'll see if I can actually get 47,000 troops.
-
2
-
-
No, you did not
Sorry, I can't be bothered to repeat the 4 pages of argument. I'm not sure why you'd want to have the same debate 2 times in a row.
-
No, I am going to oppose your basic assertion. So. Clearly defend your statement:
Already did.
-
We can come back to the rest of your argument. Lets deal with this first.
No. No its not. Israel does not participate in Genocide. Nazi Germany did. Israel is not the equivalent of Nazi Germany. Period.
Genocide =/= Nazi Germany or vice versa. The definition of Nazi Germany is not the definition of genocide.
I never said they had to do everything the Nazis did, exactly the way they did it. I simply compared the two states. You seem to have a fixation on something I never mentioned.
-
Your problem is your focus on one thing to the exclusion of all others. Pogroms in E. Europe (Ukraine, Romania, etc.) plus others were foreign actions that helped establish Israel. UN resolution 181 iirc was a foreign action that helped established Israel. French support to the fighting that followed (where Israel was attacked by basically every surrounding Arab State) helped establish Israel. Balfour helped establish Israel. Broaden your aperture, it is more complex than you seem to think.
Perhaps you fail to recognize the difference between "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide".
Ethnic cleansing is a specific definition so I would basically agree (removing one ethnic group from a specific piece of land). Palestinian were generally removed from land they had previously tilled. Of course this was preceded by those same people trying to remove Jewish people from the land they were living on and tilling (they lost eventually). If Israel decided to actually commit genocide against Palestinians they could do so -killing millions of people. They choose not to. Does refraining from genocide absolve them of all their decisions? Absolutely not. But lets be real. Nazi Germany actually used the power of the State to actively "cleanse" Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, and the cognitively challenged. That is called genocide and is very different from the definition of ethnic cleansing that you apply. Israel simply does not engage in genocide - Nazi Germany did. See the difference now?
I told you that you could feel free to make an actual argument that Israel as a State engages in violations of jus ad bellum. You have not. You make vague references to violations of jus in bello which is not the same thing (nor is it excusable). If you could prove that it was a State policy to condone such violations you would have an argument (although tenuous). Israel actually prosecutes violations of the law of land warfare committed by its soldiers though (maybe not as thoroughly and harshly as some would like). Israel also employs methods that generally try to limit civilian casualties, with varied success. So, ehhh- pretty weak argument for you.
Stateless Nations do exist. And they frequently fight for independent States. That is all true. Israel exists because of a variety of converging historical events.
The US does support the State of Georgia. And Georgia battles against Russians for the integrity of its state. Russians kill various North Caucus peoples battling for their Nation-States. Azeris kill Armenians for the same reason while Armenians kill Azeris. Chinese kill Tibetans. Indians kill various groups of their people. The Catalans struggle for the maintenance of their Nation. Africa, South America, North America all have or have a history in this regard. Frankly the incidents of violence world wide have gone way down over time which is "good". However, the world remains imperfect and as you say morality is subjective. Terms are, or can be, pretty specific though: Genocide =/= ethnic cleansing.
Balfour was the framework for Israel. Most everything that followed (like western support for Israel) was a product of that.
Murder is illegal in Israel, but that isn't stopping the murdering from happening or sentiment by the Israeli people that murdering Palestinians is justified. It's also not stopping the government from stealing more and more land as well as blatantly violating their very own agreements, only showing support for Palestinian independence in cases they politically benefit from. The IDFs unspoken policy on Gaza is that anything inside Gaza is a threat. Indiscriminate killing is permissible to IDF itself. The soldiers are never punished unless their crimes are openly exposed and challenged. In such cases, the punishments are usually laughable, to the point that it's simply not even punishment. The government will almost immediately claim that any particular killing was justified before any investigation takes place. There have been some pretty ridiculous instances of blatant murder where the killers were never punished in any fashion. Such as killing Arabs minding their own business for holding gardening tools. The government also blocked investigations of killings during the second antifada, literally picking and choosing which killings would even be investigated. Taysir Hayb is an example of how IDF soldiers are punished for murdering western citizens. Less than 1 year in prison for blatantly murdering a British citizen. The only reason he even got that is because the dude was British. However, when Palestinian children are murdered, the killer probably gets 30 days in jail and a slap on the wrist. The reality is that IDF is literally allowed, by the Israeli government, to murder people. The "knife in the back" policy is policy is a lie and the Israeli government actively organizes to prevent Israelis from being prosecuted by international courts for war crimes. Instead, they should probably organize to prevent committing war crimes to begin with. But Palestinian lives have no value to them and they simply do not care if their soldiers slaughter them. The only reason Israel pretends to punish their soldiers is for PR. In reality, it's a lie.
I never even used the word genocide or made a comparison between the two. I used the term "ethnic cleansing" because I meant "ethnic cleansing".
-
Well then I recommend a bit more research. Where did I "deny the X, Y, or Z"? What you are missing is that there is far far more nuance and expanded explanation to it than just "the Balfour Declaration". I get the S-P agreement, who designed it, and the impact of the Westphalian model imposed on the Levant and Fertile Crescent. There is simply a more to the story than you seem willing to accept.
The "will of the the people living there" is interesting but irrelevant. What you miss or refuse to acknowledge is that foreign powers had nothing to do with the initiation of the return. At a certain point some States saw opportunity and seized it. Sure. States are self-interested entities. It is what they do.
"We" fought WWII for the same reason as WWI. The unification of Germany fundamentally unbalanced power in Europe generally and specifically the Great North European Plain. This unbalance is evident unto this day and looks to continue to be a driving factor in the regions history.
Similarly, there are multiple factors that go into what and how much support ISIS gets. It is not that similar to Germany in the late 1920s and early 30s but I guess I understand your point. Again, States attempt to arrange the world to suit them. Yeah.
What makes you think that after 1945 "we" realized that we had to play fair. States act out of self interest to the limit of their potential relative to other States. The Old Kingdom in Egypt did this and everyone is still doing so today (so the entirety of human history). It is the way things are and is unlikely to change.
You ask if pursuing self interest is a "smart thing to do". I donno. However, there have not been too many, any?, alternatives throughout history. States and Nations that fail to pursue self interest successfully often cease to be. That is usually a bad thing no matter how you think of it.
Here is something I threw together in May 2011 (Some things have changed since then). I was going for a different discussion but included is a brief overview of Israeli history.:
All of that being said: Your original contention that Israel = Nazi Germany remains completely false. Nor has anything you have argued lent credence to this theory. If you could walk that back we can at least continue a debate if you so desire.
Jewish settlers came from all over the world over a long period of time. However Balfour was the foreign idea that established Israel. Palestine after WWI was British territory and they controlled who moved in or out. The British ignored their own migration quotas because moving Zionists into Palestine was the whole idea. It wasn't until the Arabs started revolting that Britain actually started limiting migration. They revolted for good reason. Britain had simultaneously promised Palestine to the Arabs but lied. The end result is several major world powers promoting a hundred years of war against Palestinian Arabs for no other reason than the fact they live there. It was a terrible idea that met opposition immediately. That opposition was ignored and remains ignored to this day.
The situation with Israel-Palestine can be described as ethnic cleansing if you ask me.
"But Israel is democratic and lets Muslims live there!"
Yeah! In a permanent state of disdain in their own home!
Problem is, if authority were given to Muslims, the ethnic cleansing would likely reverse itself. However this problem would not even exist if not for a foreign conspiracy. Palestine should have either been given to the Arabs or turned into a secular hub. The seeds for a never ending conflict should have been apparent. Securing the holy land for western interests has never produced quick and easy results. Or any results, really.
Morality is subjective. Israel may not be a model of Nazi Germany. It may not be a psychotic dictatorship. But it is a Jewish state forcibly driving people off their own land and slaughtering those who resist. The IDF is well known for indiscriminate slaughter and even blatantly shooting children. ISIS is doing the same thing. Should they have a caliphate? I mean after all, a caliphate is fundamental Muslim tradition.
Fact is, stateless nations exist. Not every group gets their own state. Jews however have an exception because of Balfour. The United States fiercely defends Israel while at the same time, support Georgian troops killing Russian civilians that want their own independence. Israel is supported solely out of western convenience. They have a free pass on war crimes and inhumanity because they are a thorn in the Arab world we are trying to dictate.
-
Hey look, Lannan got crushed on his own callout.
nationalism?
in General Debate
Posted · Edited by Fox Fire
lol @ moral flexibility. Morals are perceptual. I try to perceive both sides.
Endlosung, the final solution, wasn't deliberated until 1942. The point I'm trying to make is that it was an act of desperation, not an original idea inherent to the Nazi ideology. That's why they called it the final solution. Equally, I don't think mass murder was an original idea of the Zionist ideology. They are both the result of a self defeating yet persistent idea that can only end in mass killing.
But with that being said, and going off what you said, ethnic cleansing and indiscriminate murder of their own Arab minority is a defining point for the state of Israel is it not?