The Democrat Party Hates America

[Gary Childress]

I don't think Trump is helping us. He's allied himself with Netanyahu because Netanyahu must have promised him something in return. Trump is a businessman. He'll sell out our consciences in order to get a "deal". You all have picked a man who is going to end up destroying us. We're going to be morally bankrupt when Netanyahu gets finished. Why is Trump siding with a genocidal maniac?

[FlashDangerpants]

Did you vote for Kamala in the end Gary?

[Gary Childress]

Did you vote for Kamala in the end Gary?

I did. Not that I thought Harris would be a great improvement but Trump seemed like a loose cannon, much worse.

[Alexiev]

Which do you think the 9/11 suicide terrorists would prefer to be called by history?

I think they'll be called by whatever we call them. They have no justification to expect to be regarded by anything else but what their actions warrant.

Duh! But by calling them "common criminals" instead of "enemy combatants" we make their actions seem less glamorous to potential imitators. You really are dense if you don't see this.

[Belinda]

Societies are societies by reason of their being organised by a ruling elite.

That's a very aristocratic view, I must say.

Civilisation happens when the ruling elite generally supports and protects mutual help between individuals.

That's not at all how civilization came about, of course. It came about under the rule of local strongmen, who eventually styled themselves as kings. The ancient world was a place of power, of vicious rivalries and of conquest. The last thing you would ever say about these ancient kings is that they were interested in creating "mutual help between individuals." They were working on their own personal agendas of increasing their power and prestige.

You really would never say that Nimrod, or Nebuchadnezzar, or Thumose, or Alexander, or Ghengis Khan, or Julius Caesar were proto-Socialists working on a welfare state; that's for sure.

The Mosaic law was an advance on barbarian or 'heroic' culture.
God has a history, and the ancient Israelites were main agents in the history of God.

[Immanuel Can]

And one more thing you haven't thought of: "common criminals" get arrested; "enemy combatants" get shot. Which is better?

Enemy Combatant is a term thrown together to justify...

No. It's just a descriptor. That's all.

[Immanuel Can]

Which do you think the 9/11 suicide terrorists would prefer to be called by history?

I think they'll be called by whatever we call them. They have no justification to expect to be regarded by anything else but what their actions warrant.

But by calling them "common criminals" instead of "enemy combatants" we make their actions seem less glamorous to potential imitators.

No, we don't. They're just different categories. But some people are both, expecially among the people being deported right now, so you can choose your term.

[Immanuel Can]

Societies are societies by reason of their being organised by a ruling elite.

That's a very aristocratic view, I must say.

Civilisation happens when the ruling elite generally supports and protects mutual help between individuals.

That's not at all how civilization came about, of course. It came about under the rule of local strongmen, who eventually styled themselves as kings. The ancient world was a place of power, of vicious rivalries and of conquest. The last thing you would ever say about these ancient kings is that they were interested in creating "mutual help between individuals." They were working on their own personal agendas of increasing their power and prestige.

You really would never say that Nimrod, or Nebuchadnezzar, or Thumose, or Alexander, or Ghengis Khan, or Julius Caesar were proto-Socialists working on a welfare state; that's for sure.

The Mosaic law was an advance on barbarian or 'heroic' culture.

Sure. But do you wish to go back to the Mosaic Law?

[Immanuel Can]

...a genocidal maniac?

I have to ask, Gary: what does a "genocidal maniac" look like?

Could he conceivably be somebody who, say, shoots rockets, then invades a neighbouring border, slaughters the young men and women of that nation, rapes them, shoots and hacks to pieces elderly people and families, puts babies into ovens, throws hand grenades into shelters of cowering victims, kidnaps people and refuses to return them (holding them hostage, so that the other country is forced into war, and gradually torturing and killing them) and then puts its own citizens in harm's way, as human shields, in order to maximize civilian casualties on their own side, and refuses to surrender, no matter how many of either side have to die...

Would any of that be a description of "genocidal mania"?

[Alexiev]

No, we don't. They're just different categories. But some people are both, expecially among the people being deported right now, so you can choose your term.

You seem to think you understand what terrorists think and feel. Hmmm. Maybe you are a terrorist, and you'd like being called a criminal instead of an enemy combatant. That would explain your understanding of the inner workings of the terrorist mind.

Or maybe you just never want to admit you're wrong.

Or maybe you're a .moron who thinks "criminal" is as glamorous to potential terrorists as "enemy combatant".

[Immanuel Can]

No, we don't. They're just different categories. But some people are both, expecially among the people being deported right now, so you can choose your term.

You seem to think you understand what terrorists think and feel.

Nope. I just understand words, and what they refer to.

"Terrorist" is a different category from "criminal" and "combatant." But all three can overlap, of course.

[Gary Childress]

...a genocidal maniac?

I have to ask, Gary: what does a "genocidal maniac" look like?

Could he conceivably be somebody who, say, shoots rockets, then invades a neighbouring border, slaughters the young men and women of that nation, rapes them, shoots and hacks to pieces elderly people and families, puts babies into ovens, throws hand grenades into shelters of cowering victims, kidnaps people and refuses to return them (holding them hostage, so that the other country is forced into war, and gradually torturing and killing them) and then puts its own citizens in harm's way, as human shields, in order to maximize civilian casualties on their own side, and refuses to surrender, no matter how many of either side have to die...

Would any of that be a description of "genocidal mania"?

Genocide is the intentional and systematic destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, with the intent to destroy the group as a whole, or in part. It encompasses various acts like killing, causing serious harm, imposing living conditions that are intended to destroy the group, and preventing births.

Hamas seems to have the view that Israel should not exist. At this point, it would require genocide to make that vision a reality. If that is so, then we can accuse Hamas of being genocidal in intent. However, their actual deeds haven't reached a point anywhere near the definition above. Netanyahu's regime OTOH seems to be approaching closer to the threshold of that definition in their deeds. So in terms of intent, both Hamas and Israel seem to have the intent of destroying the other. Israel, however, seems to have a substantial lead in body count.

There is talk of relocating the Gazans to other countries, to completely remove them from Gaza. I mean, is that the right thing to do? The Gazans are the natives and Israel seems to be comprised of many people who cannot trace their roots in the region further back than 1948. It doesn't seem fair. It doesn't seem any fairer than what my ancestors did to the American Indians. The West seems to be the colonizer and the indigenous people seem to be the victims. I mean, what else can a person say in good conscience? I can lie to myself and concoct stories to make it sound OK but in the end, the facts are there, staring starkly at us. One people drove out another and took their land. It seems as simple as that with hindsight. I don't know how we can hide from the truth of the matter without lying to ourselves.

[FlashDangerpants]

And one more thing you haven't thought of: "common criminals" get arrested; "enemy combatants" get shot. Which is better?

Enemy Combatant is a term thrown together to justify...

No. It's just a descriptor. That's all.

From: https://www.britannica.com/topic/enemy-combatant

enemy combatant, extraordinary legal status developed by the administration of Pres. George W. Bush (2001–09) that permitted U.S. military authorities to detain indefinitely and without charge individuals so designated and to deny them other rights and protections afforded under the international law of war, including rights guaranteed to prisoners of war by the Third Geneva Convention (1949).

So here we go again I guess.

[Immanuel Can]

Hamas seems to have the view that Israel should not exist. At this point, it would require genocide to make that vision a reality. If that is so, then we can accuse Hamas of being genocidal in intent.

Well, and don't forget the attempt: they actually tried to make it reality. It was they who started the whole war. But also, don't forget the cruelty they've used with both the hostages and with their own people. Lives don't seem to matter to them; deaths seem to be more valuable, even if it's their own people.

However, their actual deeds haven't reached a point anywhere near the definition above.

Every single thing I listed above is something they've actually done, and more. Do I have to show you the picture of a half dozen of them sitting on the dead body of the young woman they raped and murdered in the back of their truck? Just how bad do they have to be before you recognize them as serious about declaring exactly what they want to do?

Israel, however, seems to have a substantial lead in body count.

It depends how you count. If you include having caused the entire war in the first place, and having pushed their own people into the line of fire to serve as human shields, and not letting refugees out of the war zone, the count is actually much higher on Hamas.

So is Hamas genocidal, Gary? Is their preferred slogan, "from the river to the sea," likely to include enough dead Jews to convince you?

[FlashDangerpants]

Did you vote for Kamala in the end Gary?

I did. Not that I thought Harris would be a great improvement but Trump seemed like a loose cannon, much worse.

Hmm, it looks like it took you the length of one sentence to disagree with yourself. Is that a record or can you pull that trick off in two words?