You said, “I never thought I'd see the day that the atrocities that were perpetrated against innocent women and children on that day would actually merit any kind of debate at all about whether they were justified or not.”
Can’t the exact same statement be made of those now defending Israel’s violence? What’s the difference? I mean except that you and the people at the highest levels of power don’t seem to think that brutal violence against certain groups of civilians is somehow more 'acceptable'?
Can you explain what the difference is between shooting someone to death in their home using an AK47, or blowing someone up in their home using a targeted bomb or a round from a tank? Is there a moral difference? Why?
I (and basically everyone that I know) believe that they are both equally morally indefensible. Whether or not they are ‘justified’ is not debatable. It is not.
I think I've laid that out already Ned. I'm pretty sure you think that taking out Hitler in WWII was defensible. Why do you think that? Or was that morally unjustified as well? Could it be that not every value that people hold is deserving of equal recognition?
Allow me to interpret the ‘Queers for Palestine’ sign for you.
The term ‘pink washing’ is a variation on ‘green washing’, which is when companies or organizations promote their ‘green’ virtues as a form of branding or marketing. The term implies that this is being done in a cynical attempt to boost sales by appealing to consumers’ awareness of environmental issues, without making any meaningful contribution to the ‘green’ causes they claim to care about. Or worse, to distract from the active harm they might be causing (think oil companies using images of wind turbines in their marketing/advertising).
‘Pink washing’ is the same thing but related to gay/trans issues (think companies putting gay couples in their ads etc.)
In this situation, the “pink washing” they’re referring to is the Israel apologists (like Ken) using Israel’s ‘woke’ credentials to somehow justify killing children.
As in: “well, those Arabs are smelly homophobes, their lives aren’t important. Israel’s aggression is acceptable because rainbow flags and all our happy gays”
The creators of this sign are rejecting that moronic nonsense, and by adding “Queers for Palestine”, they are in fact stating the obvious, which is that EVEN people who live in societies or under regimes which aren’t open and tolerant, STILL don’t deserve to have their families murdered.
Thanks for the clarification, Ned. Of course I agree that no one (not even Hamas) deserves to have their families murdered (even though in Hamas's eyes they are martyrs) but once again I'm left wondering where all these humanists were on October 7th. Or for that matter even right now on university campuses everywhere.
"All over the place" is actually an apt description. As for where I was, the answer is: right where I've always been on these matters. Unlike these others, I've never had a problem recognizing rape and murder when I see it. I didn't need an entire week of careful deliberation to decide that a known terrorist entity was also a raving band of psychopathic religious fanatical killers. So yeah, these others are literally all over the place in the way they apply their "inclusion and equity" dogmas.
Well, I think you need that to be true in order for your narrative to work. It was an inevitable narrative and I think you would’ve found some absurd social media post or other to back up such a narrative, no matter what.
The fact is that basically everyone knows Hamas is a despicable terror organization, there was never any ‘careful deliberation’ to determine that. It was common consensus long before October 7. The difference between progressives and yourself on this issue is that they mostly DON’T believe that Gazans = Hamas and Hamas = Gazans, while you apparently do. They mostly DON’T believe that to kill a Gazan civilian is to kill a Hamas terrorist, while you apparently do. That type of thinking - that “it’s okay to kill five civilians, as long we manage to kill one Hamas fighter”, is identical to Hamas’ justifications for October 7. You cannot pretend there’s a difference.
But I've never said that, Ned. I'm simply asking: what choice is there? Just lay down and take it? It must be nice to believe that everyone in the world really just wants to get along and all they need is some encouragement...
October 7 was like September 11, in that it was an incredibly brazen and well-planned attack. It took several years of planning and frameworks of secret cells, massive intel gathering and a high degree of luck. Hamas can't do that again tomorrow. If they could, they would’ve been doing it every day since who knows when. So, when you say ‘what choice is there? Just lay down and take it?’ …. Just take what? Hamas doesn’t have any significant military capabilities. This is an extremely asymmetrical conflict. If Israel stopped the bombing right now, Hamas would not suddenly have an opportunity to hurt Israel any more than they do now. And if you’re saying that the violence can’t stop now, then when? Again, you need to put a number on how many people must be killed. Is it until Israel runs out of bombs? That will never happen. Is it until there are no structures left standing in Gaza? Even if they manage to kill every Gazan who’s ever been to a Hamas meeting, the next group to emerge will be the same. When you say they need to ‘do what we did to the Nazis’, then I somewhat agree, they should kill off or arrest the leadership, and then hand the land back to Palestinians, just like we handed Germany back to the Germans. Somehow, I don’t think that’s what you mean.
You said, “I never thought I'd see the day that the atrocities that were perpetrated against innocent women and children on that day would actually merit any kind of debate at all about whether they were justified or not.”
Can’t the exact same statement be made of those now defending Israel’s violence? What’s the difference? I mean except that you and the people at the highest levels of power don’t seem to think that brutal violence against certain groups of civilians is somehow more 'acceptable'?
Can you explain what the difference is between shooting someone to death in their home using an AK47, or blowing someone up in their home using a targeted bomb or a round from a tank? Is there a moral difference? Why?
I (and basically everyone that I know) believe that they are both equally morally indefensible. Whether or not they are ‘justified’ is not debatable. It is not.
I think I've laid that out already Ned. I'm pretty sure you think that taking out Hitler in WWII was defensible. Why do you think that? Or was that morally unjustified as well? Could it be that not every value that people hold is deserving of equal recognition?
Allow me to interpret the ‘Queers for Palestine’ sign for you.
The term ‘pink washing’ is a variation on ‘green washing’, which is when companies or organizations promote their ‘green’ virtues as a form of branding or marketing. The term implies that this is being done in a cynical attempt to boost sales by appealing to consumers’ awareness of environmental issues, without making any meaningful contribution to the ‘green’ causes they claim to care about. Or worse, to distract from the active harm they might be causing (think oil companies using images of wind turbines in their marketing/advertising).
‘Pink washing’ is the same thing but related to gay/trans issues (think companies putting gay couples in their ads etc.)
In this situation, the “pink washing” they’re referring to is the Israel apologists (like Ken) using Israel’s ‘woke’ credentials to somehow justify killing children.
As in: “well, those Arabs are smelly homophobes, their lives aren’t important. Israel’s aggression is acceptable because rainbow flags and all our happy gays”
The creators of this sign are rejecting that moronic nonsense, and by adding “Queers for Palestine”, they are in fact stating the obvious, which is that EVEN people who live in societies or under regimes which aren’t open and tolerant, STILL don’t deserve to have their families murdered.
Thanks for the clarification, Ned. Of course I agree that no one (not even Hamas) deserves to have their families murdered (even though in Hamas's eyes they are martyrs) but once again I'm left wondering where all these humanists were on October 7th. Or for that matter even right now on university campuses everywhere.
Where were they on October 7th? Probably all over the place? It was a Saturday, so mostly chillin', I'd guess. Where were you?
"All over the place" is actually an apt description. As for where I was, the answer is: right where I've always been on these matters. Unlike these others, I've never had a problem recognizing rape and murder when I see it. I didn't need an entire week of careful deliberation to decide that a known terrorist entity was also a raving band of psychopathic religious fanatical killers. So yeah, these others are literally all over the place in the way they apply their "inclusion and equity" dogmas.
Unsurprising, but so tiring.
Well, I think you need that to be true in order for your narrative to work. It was an inevitable narrative and I think you would’ve found some absurd social media post or other to back up such a narrative, no matter what.
The fact is that basically everyone knows Hamas is a despicable terror organization, there was never any ‘careful deliberation’ to determine that. It was common consensus long before October 7. The difference between progressives and yourself on this issue is that they mostly DON’T believe that Gazans = Hamas and Hamas = Gazans, while you apparently do. They mostly DON’T believe that to kill a Gazan civilian is to kill a Hamas terrorist, while you apparently do. That type of thinking - that “it’s okay to kill five civilians, as long we manage to kill one Hamas fighter”, is identical to Hamas’ justifications for October 7. You cannot pretend there’s a difference.
But I've never said that, Ned. I'm simply asking: what choice is there? Just lay down and take it? It must be nice to believe that everyone in the world really just wants to get along and all they need is some encouragement...
October 7 was like September 11, in that it was an incredibly brazen and well-planned attack. It took several years of planning and frameworks of secret cells, massive intel gathering and a high degree of luck. Hamas can't do that again tomorrow. If they could, they would’ve been doing it every day since who knows when. So, when you say ‘what choice is there? Just lay down and take it?’ …. Just take what? Hamas doesn’t have any significant military capabilities. This is an extremely asymmetrical conflict. If Israel stopped the bombing right now, Hamas would not suddenly have an opportunity to hurt Israel any more than they do now. And if you’re saying that the violence can’t stop now, then when? Again, you need to put a number on how many people must be killed. Is it until Israel runs out of bombs? That will never happen. Is it until there are no structures left standing in Gaza? Even if they manage to kill every Gazan who’s ever been to a Hamas meeting, the next group to emerge will be the same. When you say they need to ‘do what we did to the Nazis’, then I somewhat agree, they should kill off or arrest the leadership, and then hand the land back to Palestinians, just like we handed Germany back to the Germans. Somehow, I don’t think that’s what you mean.