nationalism?

[Clarke]

isreal worse then nazi germany. they have massive genocide against palastine

Palestine isn't real and they aren't very good at genocide if you think that.

[Fox Fire]

What do you mean even Israel, Israel is the only reasonably free country in the middle east.

If I had to live in the middle east then it would be Israel. 

Israel is the Jewish equivalent of Nazi Germany. Only it's OK because they're Jewish.

 

 

Palestine isn't real and they aren't very good at genocide if you think that.

Palestine is just as real as Israel. Just because a few powerful foreign nations wont recognize their sovereignty means nothing. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine

 

I mean literally, the only people that don't recognize Palestine as a sovereign state are the nations that created Israel. 

Edited February 24, 2016 by Fox Fire

[LordRahl2]

Israel is the Jewish equivalent of Nazi Germany. Only it's OK because they're Jewish.

 

I know you have a penchant to exaggerate but please.

 

There are plenty of valid enough reasons to criticize Israel but these types of statements are not just exaggeration but overly silly.

[Fox Fire]

I know you have a penchant to exaggerate but please.

 

There are plenty of valid enough reasons to criticize Israel but these types of statements are not just exaggeration but overly silly.

No, not really. I mean the amount of incidents of their soldiers or police blatantly beating or killing just children is pretty disturbing. Their society in general has a pretty well built in hate for Muslims, or just anything that disagrees with them really. There really is no shortage of people that openly express hate and extremist nationalism in Israel. Polls clearly show a deep social divide between Muslims and Jews. Yeah, not everyone is bad, but there is a disturbing amount of very Nazi-like Jews. Are the Arabs any better? On average, no, but they don't have a concentration camp called Gaza that they bomb every year. No no. In fact, they actually live in that concentration camp called Gaza. 

Edited February 25, 2016 by Fox Fire

[LordRahl2]

No, not really. I mean the amount of incidents of their soldiers or police blatantly beating or killing just children is pretty disturbing. Their society in general has a pretty well built in hate for Muslims, or just anything that disagrees with them really. There really is no shortage of people that openly express hate and extremist nationalism in Israel. Polls clearly show a deep social divide between Muslims and Jews. Yeah, not everyone is bad, but there is a disturbing amount of very Nazi-like Jews. Are the Arabs any better? On average, no, but they don't have a concentration camp called Gaza that they bomb every year. No no. In fact, they actually live in that concentration camp called Gaza. 

 

So there is a difference between Israel the State and individuals.  You said "Nazi Germany" which was a State.  There are Frenchmen who hate Muslims this does not make France the same as Nazi Germany now does it?  I suppose that is a strawman.  So let me elaborate:

Israel as a State may very well violate the proportionality component of jus ad bellum and/or last resort.  I would certainly entertain such arguments as valid, although a valid counterargument could also be made.  Certainly it seems undeniable that individuals in every conflict that I know of have violated jus in bellum.  It is perhaps possible that Israel the State has violated jus in bellum as well although that argument would be tenuous at best.

 

Whatever the results of those arguments it is basically impossible to argue that Nazi Germany did not intentionally and completely violate basically every single part of both jus ad bellum and jus in bellum.  Israel does not.  There is basically zero comparison between the two at least none that could not be made for every single State in the history of mankind.

 

Edit: added "did not" since that was silly without it =)

Edited February 25, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Clarke]

Israel is the Jewish equivalent of Nazi Germany. Only it's OK because they're Jewish.

 

 

Palestine is just as real as Israel. Just because a few powerful foreign nations wont recognize their sovereignty means nothing. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine

 

I mean literally, the only people that don't recognize Palestine as a sovereign state are the nations that created Israel. 

I would be suspicious of any country that recognizes Palestine as a state but doesn't recognize the Armenian Genocide. If you think about it is largely the same logic but with a mostly different result. 

 

I watched something very informative on Palestine not too long ago and it gave good detail about how fake Palestine is and it is merely victim movement to bring down the Jews/Israel. They don't want to coexist. 

Edited February 25, 2016 by Clarke

[Fox Fire]

I would be suspicious of any country that recognizes Palestine as a state but doesn't recognize the Armenian Genocide. If you think about it is largely the same logic but with a mostly different result. 

 

I watched something very informative on Palestine not too long ago and it gave good detail about how fake Palestine is and it is merely victim movement to bring down the Jews/Israel. They don't want to coexist. 

The area has been known as Palestine or various alternate names since ancient times. Palestine has been home to many civilizations since ancient times. The state of Palestine today may be more modern than Isreal, but it's a response to a literal foreign religious and political take over. Further more, "Israelites" or "Jews" may trace their most significant and influential parts of their history to this land, but that's like saying we should force Americans to move back to Europe and Africa or hand US political power to native American tribes. Israel is specifically a Jewish state. Muslims in the area desire an Islamic state, and they've been living and working there consecutively longer. I mean moving a shit ton of foreigners into any area is never a great idea. Especially when you have the worlds most powerfully corrupt !@#$ doing the entire shebang all because of a shady business deal from WW1. 

Look, I know the holocaust was bad and Jews have had it rough, but so have so many other groups of people. I don't think that pissing off every Muslim on the planet is really worth a Jewish state. Neither side will ever stop and the only real solution is a single, very secular state.

 

So there is a difference between Israel the State and individuals.  You said "Nazi Germany" which was a State.  There are Frenchmen who hate Muslims this does not make France the same as Nazi Germany now does it?  I suppose that is a strawman.  So let me elaborate:

Israel as a State may very well violate the proportionality component of jus ad bellum and/or last resort.  I would certainly entertain such arguments as valid, although a valid counterargument could also be made.  Certainly it seems undeniable that individuals in every conflict that I know of have violated jus in bellum.  It is perhaps possible that Israel the State has violated jus in bellum as well although that argument would be tenuous at best.

 

Whatever the results of those arguments it is basically impossible to argue that Nazi Germany did not intentionally and completely violate basically every single part of both jus ad bellum and jus in bellum.  Israel does not.  There is basically zero comparison between the two at least none that could not be made for every single State in the history of mankind.

 

Edit: added "did not" since that was silly without it =)

I'm not so sure that's completely accurate. Certainly the sheer scale of WW2 has never been seen since. The Nazis certainly went overboard and Hitler seemed bent on repeating the world war from the beginning, but the situation in Germany and all of Europe, really, was complex and the accusations against the Jews (generally speaking) isn't exactly false. That's why Israel exists right now and it's kind of ironic the way these two things are connected. Not to sound anti-semitic, but these are simply solid facts. I think there are certainly some people in Israel who wouldn't mind systematically murdering millions of Muslims if they could. Now Hamas and groups like them are just as terrible but Israel was forcefully carved out of area by foreign nations who sent ship loads upon shiploads of completely foreign people there under the arrangement that when these people eventually become the majority, we will establish a Jewish state in the area of Palestine. In exchange, the allies got a lot of financial and resource support from Jews all over Europe during WWI. Including German Jews.

IDK about you, but that just sounds like a messy, stupid !@#$ing idea. Next, we can take over Turkey and give it to the Orthodox Church. 

[Miles Dyson]

Each nation/state should be free to choose its own path, whether authoritarian, liberal, etc. 

 

You say that as if people choose the system they're born into. No one should have to endure authoritarianism. 

 

Only expansionism warrants foreign intervention. Keep in mind that expansionist tendencies can also arise from factors other than nationalism. 

 

I never said they couldn't. But the topic of the thread is nationalism. I was just simply addressing the topic.

 

Your general mindset, in fact hints of a liberal imperialism, namely the superiority of western liberal ideas.

 

Oh really? And how exactly would you know what my "general mindset" is? I bet your more of a liberal, in a modern American sense, than I am. Unlike Marxist-Leninists groups, such as the Communist Party USA, I don't endorse Democratic candidates backed by multinationals; who support backwards reform policies, and aim to further Western imperialist intervention. That would be a "liberal imperialist mindset". 

 

 

 

Would you call for an attack against an authoritarian, nationalist state that practises statist economic policies, but kept to itself?.

 

 

Sure, I would gladly call for an uprising in an authoritarian state. As long as "the attack" was voluntary, and with the consent of the people, then absolutely. If you're asking if I would support American foreign intervention into, lets say, North Korea, then no. But if citizens called for foreign volunteers to aid in bringing down an oppressive regime in their country, such as the situation with the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War, then yes, I would absolutely support such a call. I don't believe in any form of aggression, wether foreign or domestic, unless it is absolutely necessary, and with the consent of the people. The state, whether formally considered authoritarian or not, is nothing but institutionalized, monopolized aggression. Plain and simple.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Miles Dyson

[Rozalia]

You say that as if people choose the system they're born into. No one should have to endure authoritarianism.

 

What are you getting at exactly? If you don't like the system you fight to change it and such fights can last many many years. His point is quite simple I'd think (hope I'm getting it right), which is that each country has it's own developments, some with much authoritarianism yes but that is perfectly fine. This western "lets bomb them into democracy" doesn't work and false change does not last. 

 

Who really cares about some other countries authoritarianism anyway? It's not like what we suffer is less or in someway more advanced. 

 

Sure, I would gladly call for an uprising in an authoritarian state. As long as "the attack" was voluntary, and with the consent of the people, then absolutely. If you're asking if I would support American foreign intervention into, lets say, North Korea, then no. But if citizens called for foreign volunteers to aid in bringing down an oppressive regime in their country, such as the situation with the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War, then yes, I would absolutely support such a call. I don't believe in any form of aggression, wether foreign or domestic, unless it is absolutely necessary, and with the consent of the people.

 

You betray yourself there. "The West" these days doesn't just go in, they get some fanatics moderates of theirs to start fighting and have them call for aid because <insert talk of democracy, the "regime", crimes from the rebels attributed to the state, WMDs here>. They then prattle on that the government is really mean, unlike those charming fellows the Saudis, and that the moderates are the real legitimate government of the country so we need to go over there and bomb the legitimate state of a country. 

 

So you say you don't support all that intervention, but going by what you said you do they just need to sell it to you as an act of freedom fighting. Remember this, it doesn't matter if some band of fanatics the West has backed calls for aid, it is not correct to intervene. Also I find the mention of "foreign volunteers" pretty funny... they're traveling to those war zones to kill, rape, and pillage all the time if you didn't know. Nothing admirable about them.

[Miles Dyson]

 

What are you getting at exactly? If you don't like the system you fight to change it and such fights can last many many years. His point is quite simple I'd think (hope I'm getting it right), which is that each country has it's own developments, some with much authoritarianism yes but that is perfectly fine. This western "lets bomb them into democracy" doesn't work and false change does not last. 

 

I think I made it quite clear that I do not endorse military intervention or occupation of another nation, whether it's regime is authoritarian or not. But that doesn't mean isolated authoritarianism is acceptable, or "perfectly fine" as you put it. On the contrary, like the U.N., I consider it to be a violation of basic human rights. The major difference being, I don't support the idea that we can "bomb a country into becoming democratic"; but I do think the citizens of said nation have a right to overthrow that oppressive regime, and call for voluntary aid if necessary.

 

 

 

Who really cares about some other countries authoritarianism anyway? 

 

 

An injury to one is an injury to all. Maybe I just care too much about my species to turn the other cheek when someone's civil rights are being violated. That doesn't mean that I'm advocating for foreign military intervention, it just means I care about the overall human condition.

 

 

 It's not like what we suffer is less or in someway more advanced. 

 

 

Do you actually think that we suffer just as much as Syrians, the Congolese, or North Koreans? Don't get me wrong, people in the West are certainly oppressed, but not at all like people in the developing world. 

 

 

You betray yourself there. "The West" these days doesn't just go in, they get some fanatics moderates of theirs to start fighting and have them call for aid because <insert talk of democracy, the "regime", crimes from the rebels attributed to the state, WMDs here>. They then prattle on that the government is really mean, unlike those charming fellows the Saudis, and that the moderates are the real legitimate government of the country so we need to go over there and bomb the legitimate state of a country. 

 

So you say you don't support all that intervention, but going by what you said you do they just need to sell it to you as an act of freedom fighting. Remember this, it doesn't matter if some band of fanatics the West has backed calls for aid, it is not correct to intervene. Also I find the mention of "foreign volunteers" pretty funny... they're traveling to those war zones to kill, rape, and pillage all the time if you didn't know. Nothing admirable about them.

 

You assume that I support military intervention so long as it is in defense of a "just cause". I don't support state intervention at all. I would, however, approve of an International Brigade scenario, wherein people volunteer from around the world to heed the call of a nation facing authoritarian rule, without the aid or the permission of the state. 

 

Just to clarify: by "voluntary" or "volunteer", I mean "without the state".

Edited February 25, 2016 by Miles Dyson

[LordRahl2]

I'm not so sure that's completely accurate. Certainly the sheer scale of WW2 has never been seen since. The Nazis certainly went overboard and Hitler seemed bent on repeating the world war from the beginning, but the situation in Germany and all of Europe, really, was complex and the accusations against the Jews (generally speaking) isn't exactly false. That's why Israel exists right now and it's kind of ironic the way these two things are connected. Not to sound anti-semitic, but these are simply solid facts. I think there are certainly some people in Israel who wouldn't mind systematically murdering millions of Muslims if they could. Now Hamas and groups like them are just as terrible but Israel was forcefully carved out of area by foreign nations who sent ship loads upon shiploads of completely foreign people there under the arrangement that when these people eventually become the majority, we will establish a Jewish state in the area of Palestine. In exchange, the allies got a lot of financial and resource support from Jews all over Europe during WWI. Including German Jews.

IDK about you, but that just sounds like a messy, stupid !@#$ idea. Next, we can take over Turkey and give it to the Orthodox Church. 

 

I am kinda confused how to respond to you.  You clearly are not a neo-Nazi.  Yet this statement: "the accusations against the Jews (generally speaking) isn't exactly false" smacks of neo-nazism.  Bottom line: no way is that anywhere near true.  "The Jews" were not responsible for Germany losing WWI nor the great depression.  Genocide is never a morally acceptable option be it Seminoles, Kurds, Jews, or the Don Cossacks.  Wherever you were going with this is completely and almost dangerously wrong.

 

And actually you are wrong about "why Israel exists".  It is more complex than you propose.  If you want the ultra condensed version it exists because the British and French supported it and Jews legally bought large areas of land from the Ottomans.  These are facts although they have little real relevance to today's situation.  So, yeah, you do not sound like you know what you are talking about and actually do sound anti-semitic for the wrong reasons.  Your facts are false.

 

Back to the strawman: There "are certainly some people in France who wouldn't mind systematically murdering millions of Muslims if they could."  This is certainly true (your statement and mine). They are also irrelevant.

 

You have completely lost me on the rest of your argument which seems factually wrong or fundamentally flawed.  Maybe you could rephrase.

 

BL: Yeah, you actually do sound anti-Semitic and your vision of history is fundamentally flawed at best.  If you would like to reply to my argument above.... feel free.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ReinhardvonMusel

[Fox Fire]

I am kinda confused how to respond to you.  You clearly are not a neo-Nazi.  Yet this statement: "the accusations against the Jews (generally speaking) isn't exactly false" smacks of neo-nazism.  Bottom line: no way is that anywhere near true.  "The Jews" were not responsible for Germany losing WWI nor the great depression.  Genocide is never a morally acceptable option be it Seminoles, Kurds, Jews, or the Don Cossacks.  Wherever you were going with this is completely and almost dangerously wrong.

 

And actually you are wrong about "why Israel exists".  It is more complex than you propose.  If you want the ultra condensed version it exists because the British and French supported it and Jews legally bought large areas of land from the Ottomans.  These are facts although they have little real relevance to today's situation.  So, yeah, you do not sound like you know what you are talking about and actually do sound anti-semitic for the wrong reasons.  Your facts are false.

 

Back to the strawman: There "are certainly some people in France who wouldn't mind systematically murdering millions of Muslims if they could."  This is certainly true (your statement and mine). They are also irrelevant.

 

You have completely lost me on the rest of your argument which seems factually wrong or fundamentally flawed.  Maybe you could rephrase.

 

BL: Yeah, you actually do sound anti-Semitic and your vision of history is fundamentally flawed at best.  If you would like to reply to my argument above.... feel free.

Dude, I'm saying the Balfour Declaration, basically a corrupt conspiracy by foreigners, is the whole framework for the Israeli-Palestine conflict and a large part of the middle east problems. We are propping up a religious, nationalist group of people we deliberately moved in there and propped up in an area that is already highly Muslim, all because some powerful people had some self interests. Now days IDF snipers shoot shoot children as a right of passage and drop bombs like shooting fish in a barrel. We give them all the guns and support they need to do it. Something about that I just find disturbing. IDGAF if you want to be Jewish but Zionism is just stupid.

[LordRahl2]

Dude, I'm saying the Balfour Declaration, basically a corrupt conspiracy by foreigners, is the whole framework for the Israeli-Palestine conflict and a large part of the middle east problems. We are propping up a religious, nationalist group of people we deliberately moved in there and propped up in an area that is already highly Muslim, all because some powerful people had some self interests. Now days IDF snipers shoot shoot children as a right of passage and drop bombs like shooting fish in a barrel. We give them all the guns and support they need to do it. Something about that I just find disturbing. IDGAF if you want to be Jewish but Zionism is just stupid.

 

Dude I assumed that.  Let me recall what I said: "And actually you are wrong about "why Israel exists".  It is more complex than you propose.  If you want the ultra condensed version it exists because the British and French supported it and Jews legally bought large areas of land from the Ottomans.  These are facts although they have little real relevance to today's situation."

 

It appears to me that you are drawing on some uninformed sources to formulate your argument. I am not a Zionist (sorry) I just oppose stupid statements and uninformed opinions. 

 

Again, feel free to reply to my actual argument.  Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.

[Fox Fire]

Dude I assumed that.  Let me recall what I said: "And actually you are wrong about "why Israel exists".  It is more complex than you propose.  If you want the ultra condensed version it exists because the British and French supported it and Jews legally bought large areas of land from the Ottomans.  These are facts although they have little real relevance to today's situation."

 

It appears to me that you are drawing on some uninformed sources to formulate your argument. I am not a Zionist (sorry) I just oppose stupid statements and uninformed opinions. 

 

Again, feel free to reply to my actual argument.  Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.

The British and French supported it because of powerful self interests from back when it was just an idea. The Ottoman empire was forcibly divided and conquered and the source of all the middle easts problems is the Sykes-Pikot agreement. Part of that was the Balfour Declaration and specifically moving Jewish, Zionist settlers into Palestine to establish a Jewish state in a predominately Muslim area. Ironically, both the Nazis and Zionists had similar ideas to solve antisemitism in Europe. Both of them were stupid as &#33;@#&#036;.

[Spite]

Zionist settlers were living in Israel since the turn of the 20th century. If you actually read about the philosophical origins of zionism, which took root in the towns and cities of Moldova and the Ukraine, where pogroms and guild limited professions were common. Many Jews left to live in the ottoman empire because it was more tolerant than the Russian empire was toward Jews. They settled in Palestine for obvious reasons. By the time of the balfour declaration there were already 70k there, working the land.

 

In other words the zionist emigration to the Syrian coast started before the balfour declaration with its own motives.

 

Also anyone who says that the Israelis are basically nazis is either being deliberately emotive or unintentionally ignorant.

[LordRahl2]

Spite is 100% accurate. I would add that they were legal immigrants since they bought the land in accordance with ottoman law.

 

FF where are getting your arguments from? Is there a teacher or something telling you all this. To be honest it feels like I am arguing against one of those chappy info graphics on /pol/.

[Captain_Vietnam]

Spite is 100% accurate. I would add that they were legal immigrants since they bought the land in accordance with ottoman law.

 

FF where are getting your arguments from? Is there a teacher or something telling you all this. To be honest it feels like I am arguing against one of those chappy info graphics on /pol/.

 

[Rozalia]

I'll say one thing and that is non Jewish Zionists disturb me with how some speak. This loyalty they have to a foreign nation due to religion is something that really must be opposed and crushed for no state is more important than your own, just another evil of religion I suppose. Even more disturbing is some Zionists scorn nationalism of their own state but support Zionism? Wow. 

 

Then again Jews being Zionists if they're not Israeli is also pretty damn weird in itself. They belong to their country and being a Jew is quite irrelevant in such a matter, they certainly don't belong to a foreign "Jewish" state.

 

I think I made it quite clear that I do not endorse military intervention or occupation of another nation, whether it's regime is authoritarian or not. But that doesn't mean isolated authoritarianism is acceptable, or "perfectly fine" as you put it. On the contrary, like the U.N., I consider it to be a violation of basic human rights. The major difference being, I don't support the idea that we can "bomb a country into becoming democratic"; but I do think the citizens of said nation have a right to overthrow that oppressive regime, and call for voluntary aid if necessary.

 

An injury to one is an injury to all. Maybe I just care too much about my species to turn the other cheek when someone's civil rights are being violated. That doesn't mean that I'm advocating for foreign military intervention, it just means I care about the overall human condition.

 

You assume that I support military intervention so long as it is in defense of a "just cause". I don't support state intervention at all. I would, however, approve of an International Brigade scenario, wherein people volunteer from around the world to heed the call of a nation facing authoritarian rule, without the aid or the permission of the state. 

 

Just to clarify: by "voluntary" or "volunteer", I mean "without the state".

 

Look at your own people first before thinking of others. You think you're compassionate but in reality such people are simply being vain and selfish, yeah I'm referring to those "aid workers" too. They go to places like the Middle East, Africa, and such to "help" but it's just to feed their ego, to show how great they are for helping the "primitives". Selfish for they do it for themselves like I said, to feed the ego. At home is where true compassion is shown and there are many problems at home, yet instead they scamper off to some foreign land to do such work. Disgraceful. 

 

I was checking if you did or not. So you support those young lads traveling to the middle east to fight for ISIS yes? Actually you may say ISIS doesn't count so how about that wave of lads who traveled to fight for the FSA fanatics moderates? 

 

Do you actually think that we suffer just as much as Syrians, the Congolese, or North Koreans? Don't get me wrong, people in the West are certainly oppressed, but not at all like people in the developing world. 

 

Of course we do. Your argument is a simple one which is more of them die so their suffering is more than our own but no. First of all others suffering is meaningless. You can lie but if a million Syrians/Congolese/North Koreans died tomorrow you would give some platitudes but not care at all. Heck many people wouldn't even care if a million of their own people died, that is just how people work. Many lie of course to be appear to be "better" people but that is as I said, just a lie. 

 

So with their suffering being meaningless, our suffering is much more important. Not simply more important but our fight is in actual fact much harder. Our enemies are much more rich and powerful, many lie in the shadows, and the people do not like with the dictators have the means to physically fight them. Like the dictators they have their propaganda to keep people tame, but once again our enemies have even more effective propaganda.

A dictators control is fleeting, perhaps his son, grandson, or someone else may continue it but eventually they all fall. Our enemies however believe, and it's possible, that they can hold on to their control for all time for they have the power of illusion, information control, and bread and circuses.

 

I know who I'm far more worried about and it ain't some foreign dictator who'll never in any way effect me. We face a far more evil, powerful, and vile enemy

Edited February 25, 2016 by Rozalia

[Clarke]

I'll say one thing and that is non Jewish Zionists disturb me with how some speak. This loyalty they have to a foreign nation due to religion is something that really must be opposed and crushed for no state is more important than your own, just another evil of religion I suppose. Even more disturbing is some Zionists scorn nationalism of their own state but support Zionism? Wow. 

 

Then again Jews being Zionists if they're not Israeli is also pretty damn weird in itself. They belong to their country and being a Jew is quite irrelevant in such a matter, they certainly don't belong to a foreign "Jewish" state.

 

It's funny you say that about Jewish people because a lot of Muslims are loyal only to Islam which goes completely against the values in countries that aren't Islamic. On a much scarier scale than a wee bit of land beside the Mediterranean.

I think the Zionists today are the result of a much bigger and disturbing threat in the world.

[Rozalia]

It's funny you say that about Jewish people because a lot of Muslims are loyal only to Islam which goes completely against the values in countries that aren't Islamic. On a much scarier scale than a wee bit of land beside the Mediterranean.

I think the Zionists today are the result of a much bigger and disturbing threat in the world.

 

I am completely in agreement, the Muslim loyalty to Islam or whatever Islamic country their grand/parents came from is also very disturbing. Both such elements have to be crushed though the Muslim one is as you say is on a larger scale. They've let millions in now, many of which are infected with such a belief so sadly breaking them from it is very difficult without extreme measures. 

I've met many Britons who have no care for Britain, more concerned about foreign Muslims and places like Pakistan. Very aggressive people when confronted with this too. Shameful, I blame the government not educating people correctly by pushing Multiculturalism instead of Nationalism. 

Edited February 25, 2016 by Rozalia

[Fox Fire]

Spite is 100% accurate. I would add that they were legal immigrants since they bought the land in accordance with ottoman law.

 

FF where are getting your arguments from? Is there a teacher or something telling you all this. To be honest it feels like I am arguing against one of those chappy info graphics on /pol/.

I'm just getting my facts from independent research. I mean you don't deny the Balfour Declaration do you? Yeah, sure. It was all done "legally", but it was also a foreign conspiracy that disregarded the will of the people living there that created the modern state of Israel. It seems pretty obvious to me that Israel exists because of foreign, self interested meddling. The same exact kind of meddling and self interest that created WW2, not because Jews historically call the area home. We have already fought WW2 over borders we demanded in WW1. How is it a smart idea to repeat this?

The support ISIS is getting from Muslims around the world has a lot to do with the Sykes-Pikot agreement. Similarly, the support Hitler received had a lot to do with the treaty of Versailles. Both of these agreements were specifically designed to divide a defeated nation with strategically drawn borders to ensure they could pose no threat to anyone. They were specifically designed to remove military competition, rebuild the victors and fundamentally cripple the defeated nations. After WW2, we supposedly realized that we had to play more fair, but that doesn't seem to apply in the middle east.

[Miles Dyson]

 

Look at your own people first before thinking of others. You think you're compassionate but in reality such people are simply being vain and selfish, yeah I'm referring to those "aid workers" too. They go to places like the Middle East, Africa, and such to "help" but it's just to feed their ego, to show how great they are for helping the "primitives". Selfish for they do it for themselves like I said, to feed the ego. At home is where true compassion is shown and there are many problems at home, yet instead they scamper off to some foreign land to do such work. Disgraceful. 

 

Whatever subjective satisfaction a volunteer worker in the developing world gains from aiding those who are less-fortunate is inconsequential. Whether it is a purely altruistic act, or simply an act to boost one's own ego, it doesn't matter. The act itself remains unchanged. Every choice has a value that is subjective to the chooser. As long as the opportunity cost of non-profit work is considered by some to be lower than the potential emotional benefit that one can gain from doing the same, then there will always be people who do that kind of work.  

 

 

 

I was checking if you did or not. So you support those young lads traveling to the middle east to fight for ISIS yes? Actually you may say ISIS doesn't count so how about that wave of lads who traveled to fight for the FSA fanatics moderates? 

 

How many times do I have to repeat that I am an anti-authoritarian? Why on Earth would I support Westerners joining the Islamic State? The insinuation is ludicrous; not to mention, straw-man bs. According to U.S. military officials, nearly 50% of the FSA membership is comprised of Islamist extremists; and some journalists cast doubts towards its actual existence, claiming that it "only exists in name". So again… NO.

 

 

Of course we do. Your argument is a simple one which is more of them die so their suffering is more than our own but no. First of all others suffering is meaningless. You can lie but if a million Syrians/Congolese/North Koreans died tomorrow you would give some platitudes but not care at all. Heck many people wouldn't even care if a million of their own people died, that is just how people work. Many lie of course to be appear to be "better" people but that is as I said, just a lie. 

 

Not everyone is as cynical and Malthusian as you.

 

I know who I'm far more worried about and it ain't some foreign dictator who'll never in any way effect me. We face a far more evil, powerful, and vile enemy

 

I agree; which is why I'm a radical, not a progressive or a conservative. My immediate enemy is the American corporate state; not Kim Jong-un or ISIS. That wouldn't stop me from showing solidarity to others around the world facing similar oppression. Thats my choice. No one is forcing you to do the same. 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Miles Dyson

[Rozalia]

Whatever subjective satisfaction a volunteer worker in the developing world gains from aiding those who are less-fortunate is inconsequential. Whether it is a purely altruistic act, or simply an act to boost one's own ego, it doesn't matter. The act itself remains unchanged. Every choice has a value that is subjective to the chooser. As long as the opportunity cost of non-profit work is considered by some to be lower than the potential emotional benefit that one can gain from doing the same, then there will always be people who do that kind of work.  

 

How many times do I have to repeat that I am an anti-authoritarian? Why on Earth would I support Westerners joining the Islamic State? The insinuation is ludicrous; not to mention, straw-man bs. According to U.S. military officials, nearly 50% of the FSA membership is comprised of Islamist extremists; and some journalists cast doubts towards its actual existence, claiming that it "only exists in name". So again… NO.

 

Not everyone is as cynical and Malthusian as you.

 

I agree; which is why I'm a radical, not a progressive or a conservative. My immediate enemy is the American corporate state; not Kim Jong-un or ISIS. That wouldn't stop me from showing solidarity to others around the world facing similar oppression. Thats my choice. No one is forcing you to do the same. 

 

Well not much else can be said there I think. 

 

Uh... you support volunteer brigades and what are they if not that? Do you not understand that when the West plays it's games that the fanatics, filth like the "FSA" become the "legitimate government" so if people were all for your volunteer brigades idea... what would change? Nothing. Your half way opinion on the matter will be taken as condoning it, only complete rejection can't be twisted to mean you're alright with it.

 

It's the way of the world, I didn't come up with it. 

 

The problem is again, your halfway stance only aids the enemy. If people stopped "showing solidarity" and concentrated solely on the true enemy than the resistance against them with increase greatly, gaining far more traction. Lets face it, who out there will or even can show solidarity with us? The people with the dictators and warlords sure can't, they're a world away from us. No one in our situation has freed themselves either so they are correctly focused with their own fights. Why should a crippled and in pain man waste time showing solidarity with another? Will that fix him up? Why not pop to the hospital first to fix themselves up and then return to help?

[Miles Dyson]

 

Uh... you support volunteer brigades and what are they if not that? Do you not understand that when the West plays it's games that the fanatics, filth like the "FSA" become the "legitimate government" so if people were all for your volunteer brigades idea... what would change? Nothing. Your half way opinion on the matter will be taken as condoning it, only complete rejection can't be twisted to mean you're alright with it.

 

Dude, do a little research on the International Brigades and the Spanish Civil War for crying out loud. The situation in Spain was WAY different than the current situation in Syria. Comparing the two would be like comparing the American Civil War to the Russian Civil War. Apples and oranges. Yes, they're both Civil Wars, but they were fought under completely different circumstances. George Orwell was a member of the International Brigades. 

 

 

The problem is again, your halfway stance only aids the enemy. If people stopped "showing solidarity" and concentrated solely on the true enemy than the resistance against them with increase greatly, gaining far more traction. Lets face it, who out there will or even can show solidarity with us? The people with the dictators and warlords sure can't, they're a world away from us. No one in our situation has freed themselves either so they are correctly focused with their own fights. Why should a crippled and in pain man waste time showing solidarity with another? Will that fix him up? Why not pop to the hospital first to fix themselves up and then return to help?

 

"Halfway stance"? Dude, give me a break. I've been a community organizer, union organizer, and a social activist for well over a decade. I've participated in just about every form of non-violent direct action there is. What have you done?

[Rozalia]

Dude, do a little research on the International Brigades and the Spanish Civil War for crying out loud. The situation in Spain was WAY different than the current situation in Syria. Comparing the two would be like comparing the American Civil War to the Russian Civil War. Apples and oranges. Yes, they're both Civil Wars, but they were fought under completely different circumstances. George Orwell was a member of the International Brigades. 

 

"Halfway stance"? Dude, give me a break. I've been a community organizer, union organizer, and a social activist for well over a decade. I've participated in just about every form of non-violent direct action there is. What have you done?

 

I know what they are but again I point to what I said previously. They will no matter how crazy just portray the "moderates" as good guys and the legitimate government thereby making it dandy to help them if we go by what you want. Making it a-okay to go off and support the likes of the "FSA" and ISIS is exactly what you're for. Logically there is no reason for you to not be for it, you're just saying no because it'd show up your stance to be full of holes. 

Lets go back a few years when the Syrian war started and we do as you support. It fine if some "International Brigades" went over to Syria to help the "FSA"? I mean the media was talking about how Assad had virtually no support (lie), he had used chemical weapons on his people (really the FSA), that the FSA was fighting for democracy and freedom (lol). So come on now, explain to me how you twist yourself to say no to seeing fanatics go over there to fight as alright.

 

That is what I mean, your stance is weak and just supports the vile governments pushing war. Only complete rejection is valid. There was no "well lets see if these chaps are nice so we can help them" with me, it was a straight "these guys are fanatic scum and hopefully Assad puts them in the ground quick though the west will try to make sure he can't". Years on and I was completely correct. 

 

I don't need to compare resumes with you, I didn't challenge you on any such matter. Simply said your half way stances only help enable all the things you're supposed to be against. You're against state intervention but support ridiculous International Brigades that can be manipulated easily by said governments as they control the angles the mainstream media takes on such matters. You are against the state's evils but waste time showing "solidarity" with others... I mean... would you be a soldier in one of those International Brigades if you could? Would you go fight someone elses war instead of waging it at home, be it with arms or otherwise?