Who here unironically supports Israel? - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Do you unironically support Israel?

Yes
16
39%
No
21
51%
No opinion
4
10%
#15023258
I don't single anyone out. Yeah geopolitics and opportunitism rule but Hindsite likes to pretend the US is on the right side always. Why else would he talk about how great Saudi Arabia is when clearly isn't.

If you want to know my actually beliefs all these countries should be dismantled and repurposed.

Just noticed this.

Hindsite likes to pretend the US is on the right side always. Why else would he talk about how great Saudi Arabia is when clearly isn't.

Sure he does, he's an American.

However, to the overall core issue, there are no right or wrong sides.
Each nation has its own battles to fight, and the more we (as in the world) go down the path of another cold war, the more the concerns of each nation becomes centered about its own interests and survival, even if at the cost of others.

It doesn't matter what moral or ethical beliefs a nation holds if it doesn't survive.

Is the US on the right side?
Who know; From our perspective it isn't, but from an American perspective, that's where its interests lie. Whether we like it or not, they'll do what is best for them.
And the US isn't doing anything much different from what others are doing to that matter. The US is simply dumping weapons on the middle east and letting its enemies kill each other while it sits on the sideline watching.
So, from an American point of view, yea, The US is doing the right thing. It's knocking 2 birds with one stone.

From our point of you, it's being done on our expense, which is why the US is considered hostile, but that doesn't mean it's doing anything that our own nations aren't doing.

That's the real world, or atleast, that is what a cold war looks like; We're in one.


If you want to know my actually beliefs all these countries should be dismantled and repurposed.

I wouldn't mind if they do, but I much prefer for now to focus on my own nation and people surviving and prospering at the moment and not becoming another victim of the cold war as had happened during the last cold war.
After that is secured, we can have the luxury.
#15023260
anasawad wrote:Just noticed this.


Ya forgot /s

Sure he does, he's an American.

However, to the overall core issue, there are no right or wrong sides.
Each nation has its own battles to fight, and the more we (as in the world) go down the path of another cold war, the more the concerns of each nation becomes centered about its own interests and survival, even if at the cost of others.

It doesn't matter what moral or ethical beliefs a nation holds if it doesn't survive.


I'm not particularly sure there is something called a "nation". What is a nation other than a jumble of interests and class conflict? There's no unity there. Nothing.

I look out for my interests and the interests of my class. Nothing else. Class warfare is the name of the game and I'm going to keep on playing.

Is the US on the right side?
Who know; From our perspective it isn't, but from an American perspective, that's where its interests lie. Whether we like it or not, they'll do what is best for them.
And the US isn't doing anything much different from what others are doing to that matter. The US is simply dumping weapons on the middle east and letting its enemies kill each other while it sits on the sideline watching.
So, from an American point of view, yea, The US is doing the right thing. It's knocking 2 birds with one stone.

From our point of you, it's being done on our expense, which is why the US is considered hostile, but that doesn't mean it's doing anything that our own nations aren't doing.

That's the real world, or atleast, that is what a cold war looks like; We're in one.


The Cold War never ended, it just got new players.

I however intend to end the Cold War.

I wouldn't mind if they do, but I much prefer for now to focus on my own nation and people surviving and prospering at the moment and not becoming another victim of the cold war as had happened during the last cold war.
After that is secured, we can have the luxury.


I highly doubt it'll be that easy. Nations are tied together with thin string, it takes one strong pull to unwind it and that's what we're seeing now. States are incapable to adapting to the new age of information technology. They don't have the same monopoly they had before.
#15023266
@Palmyrene
Saudi Arabia creates Islamist groups as well.

I know, that's what I'm saying. They're my key enemy.

1. Whose "we"? I didn't want any of this.

We, as in the Baalbek tribes.

2. Why are you complaining about Islamists if you're fine with people funding them?

I'm for killing them, and if to do that it requires arming them to go to war and die in it with other enemies of ours, then I'll get my cheque book.

Not for the people that get caught in the fight. They have no voice or autonomy.

True, this is an unfortunate reality.
But as I have stated before, when the choice is either sacrificing one's own people or the people next door, everyone chooses the people next door.

People are selfish, they care about themselves and their loved ones first, then their community, then their nation, and finally everyone else.
Don't expect anyone to risk their own family to save yours. Sorry, but that's just how things go.

To fascists and Islamists, they're just resources. And this violence and poverty begates more violence and poverty. It's a cycle and funding proxies won't end it.

This guy explains a very important thing about it.




Also this is irrelevant. Israel does not support Islamists because it hates fascism. Islamism is fascism and Israel is fascist in many ways. It's because they need countries surrounding them to be unstable so that they're more secure.

Exactly, it only supports them because they're an enemy that is fighting another enemy of theirs. They're acting on their own interests to ensure their survival, even at the cost of everyone around them.

No, they aren't. Revolutions only happen when things are bad and there's not much bad stuff happening to the upper class. You're not fooling anyone by saying this.

Also there's no such thing as a wealthy working class otherwise they wouldn't be working.

1- The lower class, i.e the poor class, doesn't have the capacity to start or maintain revolutions.
That's why they're called uprisings, not full-on revolutions.

2-- upper upper class
- Upper class
- Upper- middle class
- Middle class
- Lower middle class
-upper-working class.
-Working class.
-Lower working class
-Lower class.
It does. They're both attempts at changing culture, what they change it into is irrelevant. Also a state imposing itself upon culture will just lead to a greater backlash in said culture. I don't have to talk about the Pahlavi Dynasty in Iran do I?

You don't need to enforce a new culture, cultural reforms happen over decades, not directly.

For the Pahlavi dynasty, it fell due to several factors; Primarily its attempt to consolidate power in one hand, and on the other hand to force itself over everyone else.
Iran has a very delicate balance of power. The Pahlavi dynastry attempted to take all of it, and got crushed in the process. The fall of the Pahlavis began in the late 60s, the 1979 revolution was just the end moment.

No it didn't. Unless you think the Syrian Arab Army spliting up and joining the protesters is a "coup". You have a very skewed way of looking at things.

The Syrian Army did broke in half, and both halves started fighting each other with one have still part of the government and the other trying to remove that government; That's called a coup.
All coups are like that, simply most of them are done much faster with much better planning.
Ofcourse another factor is that Islamists started flooding from all over the place, so the war turned into a mess.

This has to do with who started the revolution, not the result.

And define "fled internally".

Yea, and we're talking about how it began.

Fled internally = Fled to other safer cities or refugee camps inside the country.
Not sure of the number, but several millions of people were displaced internally.

No. They aren't. I know this for a fact because several of my friends went to join the rebels and they were all downtrodden and lower class.

From the beginning of the war? Or they joined already existing factions?

It says alot about whether Islam or the environment is the cause of this.

I'd say more about a clash of ideologies.
The Syrian government is fascist. A part of the army split off and attempted a coup allegadly in hopes of a democracy, but considering their leaders held meetings in France, I doubt it. And, finally, Islamists who we all know what they want.

If you can't get your basic needs conventionally you're going to fight for them. That's how humans survived this long. And in a modern sense this translates to revolution.

Or, more accurately, displacement.
Revolutions aren't easy to start, nor easy to maintain.
There can be uprisings by the lower class, but those are over swiftly, they can't afford or maintain a revolution.
For a revolution to take off and go on, it requires parts of the middle and working classes to start it and participate in the expertise, organization, etc. The lower class usually joins latter on.
That's why countries like North Korea never have a revolution.
All it has is a lower class that is too busy looking for food to think about revolution.

It's like you haven't heard of the French or Russian Revolution. Insurrection is a very good way of doing things.

I did, it's an uprising that turned to revolution after the working class and part of the middle class joined up.
In both France and Russia.

The lower class simply doesn't have enough resources, skills, or expertise to start a revolution.
They're called uprisings because they're usually quelled rather quickly.


That's never the case. Are people rebelling in Singapore? Are the mainland Chinese rebelling against the government? Why hasn't there been a revolution in Saudi Arabia? Why hasn't there been one in Morocco? Hell why hasn't there been a revolution in America? Some parts of America are so bad and corrupt it's like Egypt in there.

Because they can get more in much safer means.
Why risk your way of life to get more when you can get more without risking anything?
Revolution happens when you can't avoid that risk.

People only revolt when things are bad. If they're already content economically, they aren't going to complain about liberties because they don't want to lose what they already have. The protests in Syria happened after the a series droughts from 2006 to 2011 struck it. In fact it was the worst drought in 900 years. That's what started this, not the upper class.

Basic needs=/= economically well or content.
If Syria's population was made up of starving peasants, then the Syrian war wouldn't have happened.
Starving peasants (what North Korea has) are weak revolutionaries.

If you seriously think you can have a cultural revolution without bloodshed you're kidding.

The Great leap forward is an entirely different story, not relevant here.

For example, let's say we want to remove, or minimize, these radical Islamic Hanbali ideologies from a community in the middle east through cultural reform programs.
Stop teaching religion in schools.
Gradually reduce clerical influence in politics.
Start having active debates and forums and teach critical thinking in schools and universities.
Don't allow clerics like Al-Oraifi, for example, to preach unchecked in public.
Start applying laws where anyone stepping out of line and breaching someone else's rights and freedoms is punished.
De-segregate schools (gender-wise).
Expose and publicize any scandals or corruption in religious institutions.
etc
There are many things you can do that can and will change things.
It's not going to happen immediately, but it will show a difference in a generation or two.

Ofcourse, you need state power to do so.

How do you propose stopping it without outlawing it and punishing people who believe in it?

For ones inside my country, an example would be the above policies.
Which is why almost no one in Lebanon supports these movements.

For the Saudis and others, as far as I'm concerned, we're at war with them. The responsibility lies within the communities that spawned them to reform, preferably with international support and overwatch.

So? What the Hanbali movement was is not what it is now and the nature of the time period it was created in doesn't indicate anything.

What I mean to incline here is that poverty isn't always the key factor, there are many factors, and occasionally, poverty is both a factor and a symptom.

No. They aren't. Just because poor people join Islamist groups doesn't mean Islamism makes people poor. That's retarded.

Have you seen Islamic policy in the economy?
Man, the zero interest rate alone is more than enough to cause economic stagnation.
The male and female segregation and confinement of women reduces economic activity.
The tax structure in Islam is also shit and inevitably leads to the concentration of wealth on top, which again causes economic stagnation.
The list of problems and retardations in Islamic political, economic, and governing system is long, with each flaw on its own causing a whole set of problems.

The only reason why Islamic empires became so rich is due to conquest.
And the only reason why the Gulf states are rich is because of oil.
But if you look at Islamic policies anywhere else it's applied, it always causes poverty.
#15023271
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene

I know, that's what I'm saying. They're my key enemy.


Well for starters they couldn't give a shit about you.

Secondly, Israel is allied to Saudi Arabia and the US which is also allied to Saudi Arabia.

So why do you think an alliance with Israel is a good idea?

We, as in the Baalbek tribes.


Ok so not me.

I'm for killing them, and if to do that it requires arming them to go to war and die in it with other enemies of ours, then I'll get my cheque book.


That's some galaxy brain shit. How is supporting Islamist groups and giving them more power good? Irresponsible funding of Islamist groups is what led ISIS to happen.

True, this is an unfortunate reality.
But as I have stated before, when the choice is either sacrificing one's own people or the people next door, everyone chooses the people next door.


Your people will be effected by funding Islamist groups. Funding Islamist groups gives them more power, the more power they, the more they can spread their influence. And they don't discriminate on where they spread their influence.

Al Qaeda was funded by the US. Guess what happened to them.

People are selfish, they care about themselves and their loved ones first, then their community, then their nation, and finally everyone else.
Don't expect anyone to risk their own family to save yours. Sorry, but that's just how things go.


Dude, don't pretend anyone other than the government is funding proxies.

You seem to think that the will of the government is the will of the people. This is completely and utterly wrong. You go as far as to say dictatorships run on the consent of the population. That's how stupid you've gone.

This guy explains a very important thing about it.



About what?

Exactly, it only supports them because they're an enemy that is fighting another enemy of theirs. They're acting on their own interests to ensure their survival, even at the cost of everyone around them.


This includes Lebanon.

1- The lower class, i.e the poor class, doesn't have the capacity to start or maintain revolutions.
That's why they're called uprisings, not full-on revolutions.


The distinction uprising and revolutions is not dependant on which class starts it. That's not the difference.

And it does. The Russian Revolution, French Revolution, Syrian Revolution, and thr Tahrir Square protests were all run by the lower class.

2-- upper upper class
- Upper class
- Upper- middle class
- Middle class
- Lower middle class
-upper-working class.
-Working class.
-Lower working class
-Lower class.


If you're dividing them based on wealth then it would be the working class and everything below that which would start the revolution. Creating a class called the "upper working class" is an oxymoron.

You don't need to enforce a new culture, cultural reforms happen over decades, not directly.


Culture already does that. Culture changes by itself and based on the environment. That's why in 1950s America, the youth of that generation had a completely different culture compared to the previous generation. Because the environment changed.

For the Pahlavi dynasty, it fell due to several factors; Primarily its attempt to consolidate power in one hand, and on the other hand to force itself over everyone else.
Iran has a very delicate balance of power. The Pahlavi dynastry attempted to take all of it, and got crushed in the process. The fall of the Pahlavis began in the late 60s, the 1979 revolution was just the end moment.


The authoritarian cultural laws like forcing everyone to wear a certain hat or forcing hijabs off women also had alot to do with it. At the eve of the revolution, only mosques were the places where people could freely criticize the regime.

The Syrian Army did broke in half, and both halves started fighting each other with one have still part of the government and the other trying to remove that government; That's called a coup.


No it isn't. Coups are done internally and work with the factionalism in the government. They don't join the protesters.

Ofcourse another factor is that Islamists started flooding from all over the place, so the war turned into a mess.


Most of the Islamist groups were former Baathist soldiers.

Yea, and we're talking about how it began.


You aren't.

Fled internally = Fled to other safer cities or refugee camps inside the country.
Not sure of the number, but several millions of people were displaced internally.


Ok. Just making sure.

From the beginning of the war? Or they joined already existing factions?


One of them said they were going to join the armed part of the rebels and I never heard from them again.

The rest of them just joined existing factions. One friend I was talking to on WhatsApp said he was going to join an Islamist group that his brother joined to keep an eye on him.

I occasionally hear from him. He got out of the group, has kids (he's from the rural areas so marrying young is common).

[Quotr]
I'd say more about a clash of ideologies.
The Syrian government is fascist. A part of the army split off and attempted a coup allegadly in hopes of a democracy, but considering their leaders held meetings in France, I doubt it. And, finally, Islamists who we all know what they want. [/quote]

It's not a clash of ideology, it's a power struggle. All hierarchial structures are the same.

Or, more accurately, displacement.


If you can't get your basic needs you most certainly can't afford to leave.

Revolutions aren't easy to start, nor easy to maintain.
There can be uprisings by the lower class, but those are over swiftly, they can't afford or maintain a revolution.
For a revolution to take off and go on, it requires parts of the middle and working classes to start it and participate in the expertise, organization, etc. The lower class usually joins latter on.
That's why countries like North Korea never have a revolution.
All it has is a lower class that is too busy looking for food to think about revolution.


Working class people are poor, at least in Syria and Iraq. They have plenty if expertise and organizing is easy if you know how to do it. A vanguard is impossible nowadays so small chapters and groups are formed.

North Korea is oppressive ontop of their being no food. Meanwhile Syria is just corrupt which is why when the drought happened people had no issue protesting.

I did, it's an uprising that turned to revolution after the working class and part of the middle class joined up.
In both France and Russia.


The working class was there from the start. There was no middle class in those countries, only the property owning nobility. Most people at the time were serfs.

The lower class simply doesn't have enough resources, skills, or expertise to start a revolution.
They're called uprisings because they're usually quelled rather quickly.


The working class can take over the factories they work at and run it themselves then federate with other worker owned facilities.

They could do a general strike and destroy all the resources the upper class has.

Because they can get more in much safer means.
Why risk your way of life to get more when you can get more without risking anything?
Revolution happens when you can't avoid that risk.


What safer means? These countries don't care about protest, they haven't seen the same level of public discord that goes on in Syria or Egypt or Iraq.

If you want to know how a first world country would deal with the level of protests you see in Egypt or Iran, look at Hong Kong. The Hong Kong government is overwhelmed, they have no idea how to react.

The reason why first world countries don't revolt even if their liberties are broken is because they're too content to. It takes too much effort and there's so much to lose. That's why.

Basic needs=/= economically well or content.
If Syria's population was made up of starving peasants, then the Syrian war wouldn't have happened.
Starving peasants (what North Korea has) are weak revolutionaries.


Tell that to Vietnam or the Russian Revolution or the Chinese Revolution.

And most of Syria's population was starving due to the drought. We had to completely import our food from neighboring countries which strained the economy even more than it was before and the corruption became more public when the country was doing bad.

The Great leap forward is an entirely different story, not relevant here.


It's what you have to do in order to get rid of influence.

For example, let's say we want to remove, or minimize, these radical Islamic Hanbali ideologies from a community in the middle east through cultural reform programs.
Stop teaching religion in schools.
Gradually reduce clerical influence in politics.
Start having active debates and forums and teach critical thinking in schools and universities.
Don't allow clerics like Al-Oraifi, for example, to preach unchecked in public.
Start applying laws where anyone stepping out of line and breaching someone else's rights and freedoms is punished.
De-segregate schools (gender-wise).
Expose and publicize any scandals or corruption in religious institutions.
etc
There are many things you can do that can and will change things.
It's not going to happen immediately, but it will show a difference in a generation or two.


Oh that's fine. But alot of those things will be instantly opposed because it's the state imposing it.

People don't like it when they feel someone is forcing them to do something. That's why in anarchism we accelerate progress by giving no one excuses for their actions. No one can say you can't have girls and boys in the same room, debate will happen all the time because no one can appeal to law or institutions for back up, scandals will always go public because there is no state to silence them, etc.

Ofcourse, you need state power to do so.


You live in Lebanon, you know how any religious figure has influence with or is in bed with the state. Every form of oppression and indoctrination derives it's legitimacy from the state.

You cannot practically get rid of the ties between state and religion. The US hasn't been able to and it started out secular. Originally city states in Mesopotamia justified their hierarchy by saying they were god or a messenger of god.

Read God and State by Bakunin.

For ones inside my country, an example would be the above policies.
Which is why almost no one in Lebanon supports these movements. [/quore]

Which movements?



Ok.



Environment is the main factor. I'm a materialist first and foremost. Ideas have power but ideas are shaped by your environment. Ideas are appealing is specific instances not all the time.



Thankfully no country actually follows Islamic economic laws. No Islamic country has banned interest and many quote on quote "Islamic banks" still give out loans with interests under different names.

This strikes me as grasping for straws.



I mean all empires became rich due to conquest. Do you think the industrial revolution would've happened if Britain didn't have an abundance of raw materials from it's colonies?

The Gulf is rich due to oil but North Africa isn't. Morocco relies on tourism not oil and Tunisia has no economy at all but it's better than most countries.

Islamic economic polices have never been fully implemented. Also, to be fair, Islamic countries with Islamic economic policies on loans were uneffected by the 2007 global financial crisis so there's something good here.

Now if you excuse me, my fingers are going to die from all this tapping.
#15023315
@Ter

Considering the amount of people who haven't voted I'm not placing my bets yet. There's one more person who does not support Israel over those who do so if we play number games more people don't support Israel than vice versa.

There's also anasawad who lives in Lebanon and just made a very big strategic mistake so if he could recast his vote, I doubt it would be in support of Israel.
#15023327
Palmyrene wrote:Considering the amount of people who haven't voted

If you can count them, it should be "number of people".
If you cannot count it, it is "an amount" like in "an amount of sand"

Palmyrene wrote:There's also anasawad who lives in Lebanon and just made a very big strategic mistake so if he could recast his vote, I doubt it would be in support of Israel.

:lol: @anasawad does not live in Lebanon and he will not change his mind. He is a knowledgeable poster, especially when it comes to Lebanon and Iran.

Palmyrene wrote: There's one more person who does not support Israel over those who do so if we play number games more people don't support Israel than vice versa.

It does not matter if one more person votes. I said I find it remarkable that in this forum about half the posters who bothered to vote declined to join the hysterical "oy vey apartheid ! Concentration Camp ! Genocide ! Massacre ! Colonialist !" anti sem sorry anti-Zionist camp. :D
#15023329
Ter wrote:If you can count them, it should be "number of people".
If you cannot count it, it is "an amount" like in "an amount of sand"


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

This is actually good info.

:lol: @anasawad does not live in Lebanon and he will not change his mind. He is a knowledgeable poster, especially when it comes to Lebanon and Iran.


I mean he has dual citizenship there and is part of a tribe there so that counts as "living" in Lebanon.

Anasawad also disagrees with a great deal of Israel's policies and thinks of it as a strategic alliance. It was a strategic mistake.

It does not matter if one more person votes. I said I find it remarkable that in this forum about half the posters who bothered to vote declined to join the hysterical "oy vey apartheid ! Concentration Camp ! Genocide ! Massacre ! Colonialist !" anti sem sorry anti-Zionist camp. :D


Like I said, considering the amount of people who didn't vote, I'd wait on it.

Also the entire term "Zionism" is specifically an anti-semitic term so I don't know why Zionists call themselves such.
#15023343
Palmyrene wrote:Like I said, considering the amount of people who didn't vote, I'd wait on it.

Oy habibi, you persevered in your mistake lol.

Also, don't expect many more people to vote. 20-30 votes is what one usually gets in a poll here.

Palmyrene wrote:Also the entire term "Zionism" is specifically an anti-semitic term so I don't know why Zionists call themselves such.

That does not make any sense. Please elucidate.
#15023349
Ter wrote:Oy habibi, you persevered in your mistake lol.

Also, don't expect many more people to vote. 20-30 votes is what one usually gets in a poll here.


I might make another one, hopefully one more active.

That does not make any sense. Please elucidate.


Idk what that means but ok.

As Europe began to secularise Judeophobia was no longer palatable to the scientific-minded middle classes and hatred against Jews for being a religious minority or for being the Christ-killers was no longer popular.

Judeophobia was thus transformed into Anti-Semitism under the new secular-scientific regime. Jews are no longer vermin for being Jews who dared not embrace Christ as their savior but are now vermin for being Semitic people belonging to a different, and inferior, race living among the pure Whites and polluting/infecting the White race.

Thus anti-Zionism or Zios is just the new ideological mask for that ancient old hatred of the Jews for being Jews.

Zionism itself is anti-Semitic because it was the invention of Christian thinkers who wished to see the creation of Zion and the Temple to usher in the second coming of Jesus were upon all the Jews would either accept Christ or burn in Hell.

During the creation of Israel, Jews actually rejected the creation of Israel because it is seen as meddling in God's plan.
#15023359
Palmyrene wrote:Thus anti-Zionism or Zios is just the new ideological mask for that ancient old hatred of the Jews for being Jews.

Yes. Very true.

Palmyrene wrote:Zionism itself is anti-Semitic because it was the invention of Christian thinkers who wished to see the creation of Zion and the Temple to usher in the second coming of Jesus were upon all the Jews would either accept Christ or burn in Hell.

That is not correct.
Please do some reading, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
Zionism was proposed by a number of secular Jews in the late 19th Century, amongst whom Theodore Herzl was the most prominent.
Yes there are some Christian Sects that are pro-Zionism but this is serendipitous, it has nothing to do with the reasons Israel was forged thanks to the ideological Zionist movement.

There are indeed some Jews who are against the creation of the State of Israel because of their interpretation of religious texts but they are quite on the fringe of the Judaic population. They are the guys posing with Iranian politicians and demonstrating with the antisem sorry anti-Zionists.
#15023384
anasawad wrote:Israel being racist doesn't mean that others stopped being racists as well.
It's not all black and white. Both sides can be shit.


Thanks for saying something entirely meaningless in response. What?

And in the middle east, especially now and in the times to come things will get much worse in the coming years, you won't have the luxury to point fingers at others, you either choose the least bad ally you can get or prepare to for your end.


I don't base my view on hypotheticals.

As I've said many times on this forum before, the big wars are just starting in the middle east, the water wars are on their way as droughts are spreading, and the cold war is just starting to heat up.


More hypotheticals.

From the perspective of Lebanon and Lebanese people, Israel is infact the safest option because Israel is the least bad of our options, since all the other options are ones who not only believe we're a bunch of infidels, heretics, and apostates but are willing to act on it.


Israel considers Lebanon an enemy state, regularly invades Lebanese airspace today and continues to threaten the country, committed horrific crimes against the Lebanese in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, committed genocide against the Lebanese people, invaded in 2006 too, occupied half the country for over 2 decades, tortured and killed civilians all over the country, and you're being pragmatic how in thinking Israel is or can be an ally to Lebanon?

Israel is right next to us, we share resources, and we have the closest thing to a socially liberal culture so we can get along in the right circumstances. That can not be said for the rest.


What resources and how is Israel socially liberal towards non-Jews again?

It doesn't, but I can assure you, if you think what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is bad and horrible, you probably would want to stay clear of the news in the coming years.


More hypotheticals.

Not all countries or groups have that luxury. Sometimes you have to skip morality and focus on pragmatism to ensure your survival. Even if it meant dealing with the devil.


Then you're stupid because that devil doesn't give a fuck about you, invaded you and killed many of your people and today considers you an enemy state and has plans to invade you again.

In Palestine, we can easily point the finger to Hamas, which was started by members of the Muslim brotherhood, which itself had a branch called Al-Jama'a Al-Islamiyah in the Levant. I'm sure you can read on these guys' history.


Before you point fingers, you can realize chronology is a thing and Hamas was pushed in their creation by Israel itself to counter the PLO, DECADES after Zionist terrorism created a state on top of Palestine. Israel wanted Hamas, an Islamist org, as an opponent as the Israelis a) love Islamists and b) thought having a religious org instead of a secular org as a more convincing enemy to demonize while stealing more and more Palestinian land. Still, Hamas can be wiped out in a day if Israel wishes so even attempting to put them on par with Israel is beyond retarded, but this is your brain on Zionist propaganda.

Israel did support some of these groups, and so did Iran, and so did some arms merchants in my own neighborhood in Sharawneh in Baalbek.


Who are you talking about? Iran supports Hezbollah, an org that liberated Lebanon from Zionist terror, why should Iran not support them?

Primrily because we're enemies with the fascist Syrian government that we spent decades at war with, and saw it as an opportunity to weaken the Baathists and potentially destroy them as they, without a doubt, committed far more crimes and massacres than Israel ever did, and not just against us.


You should learn what fascism is. Syria isn't it unless you want to prove how. And again it's weird, you're complaining about Islamists but wishing to weaken their enemies, the Baathists, in Syria instead. Why not admit you, like Israel, love the Islamists?
#15023386
Ter wrote:Yes. Very true.


Saying this is true inhinges on other statements like "Zionism is a creation by anti-semities" also being true.

That's how an argument works. B cannot be true without A.

That is not correct.
Please do some reading, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
Zionism was proposed by a number of secular Jews in the late 19th Century, amongst whom Theodore Herzl was the most prominent.


I believe you haven't read what I said. The term Zionism is an anti-semitic one because it was created by Christian thinkers and the actual term/ideology is mostly derived from there and other conspiratorial works such as "The Elders of Zion".

Here's a link explaining this further:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

Yes there are some Christian Sects that are pro-Zionism but this is serendipitous, it has nothing to do with the reasons Israel was forged thanks to the ideological Zionist movement.


That's not what I'm referring to.

There are indeed some Jews who are against the creation of the State of Israel because of their interpretation of religious texts but they are quite on the fringe of the Judaic population. They are the guys posing with Iranian politicians and demonstrating with the antisem sorry anti-Zionists.


These are people from 100 years ago and their position was not fringe.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to believe that a good portion of Jews opposed the creation of Israel.
#15023387
@skinster

Actually, as someone who lives in Israel, Syria is fascist. Like, completely. Western leftist support for the Assad regime isn't helping me or anyone else and only let's him get away with more atrocities.

Iran funding militias or anyone funding militias is a bad thing and only causes innocent civilians to die or get their lives effected by this nonsense.

These are straight moral positions. I don't know why Western leftists find it so hard to take them. Like for example, saying China is bad for putting Uighurs in concentration camps.

This isn't something that requires much thought to oppose and most conservatives like this idea, so why do leftists support China and deny the atrocity being taken place?
#15023392
Palmyrene wrote:Actually, as someone who lives in Israel, Syria is fascist. Like, completely.


You live in Israel now?

Citation needed for "Syria is fascist".

Western leftist support for the Assad regime isn't helping me or anyone else and only let's him get away with more atrocities.


Leftists oppose war/imperialism, why wouldn't we in Syria?

Iran funding militias or anyone funding militias is a bad thing and only causes innocent civilians to die or get their lives effected by this nonsense.


Iran has allies like those making war on Syria, one is allowed but the other isn't? :?:

These are straight moral positions. I don't know why Western leftists find it so hard to take them. Like for example, saying China is bad for putting Uighurs in concentration camps.

This isn't something that requires much thought to oppose and most conservatives like this idea, so why do leftists support China and deny the atrocity being taken place?


Maybe because it's not quite as black and white as you think?

Not only that, but the reports about OHHH THE MUSLIMS IN CHINA!!! should make you wonder wtf, when did the West/Western media give a fuck about Muslims again? Jeez, this shit is just too :lol:
#15023394
Palmyrene wrote:The term Zionism is an anti-semitic one because it was created by Christian thinkers and the actual term/ideology is mostly derived from there and other conspiratorial works such as "The Elders of Zion".

No, that is demonstrably not correct. Zionism was coined by secular Jews in late 18th Century, like I pointed out earlier. The Christina pro-Zionists and the idiotic Elders of Zion have nothing to do with it.

Palmyrene wrote:I don't know why it's so hard for you to believe that a good portion of Jews opposed the creation of Israel.

Quantify "a good portion"
As far as I know, only the Haredis are against the State of Israel, they think they should wait till the Messiah comes. That is a fringe group within Judaism.

skinster wrote:Israel considers Lebanon an enemy state

Only the Hezbolla part of it.

skinster wrote: regularly invades Lebanese airspace

Of course they have to do that out of necessity, to keep an eye on your Hezbolla friends and to launch rockets into Syria to attack Iranians and Hezbolla terrorists and their weapons.

skinster wrote:and continues to threaten the country

They only threaten back because Nasrallah threatens Israel with his rockets and threatens to invade North Israel. Without Hezbollah Israel would like to be good friends with Lebanon I am sure.

skinster wrote:committed horrific crimes against the Lebanese in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps

No they did not, that was done by the Christian militia. Go pander your incessant lies and propaganda somewhere else.

skinster wrote:tortured and killed civilians all over the country

blah blah propaganda, lies.

@skinster you have repeated your propaganda and lies so often you think there is some truth to it.
#15023398
Ter wrote:Only the Hezbolla part of it.


Israel continues to view Lebanon as an enemy state and continues to threaten to invade it, again.

Of course they have to do that out of necessity, to keep an eye on your Hezbolla friends and to launch rockets into Syria to attack Iranians and Hezbolla terrorists and their weapons.


You sound like such a child with your comments like "your Hezbolla friends" :lol:

That aside, Israel is violating international laws - as usual - by a) invading Lebanese airspace and b) attacking Syria.

You do understand that Hezbollah and Hamas, Israel's so-called enemies, became a thing due to the original Israeli terror, right? Chronology is a blind spot for Zionists but here's hoping you're here to learn.

They only threaten back because Nasrallah threatens Israel with his rockets and threatens to invade North Israel.


Citation needed.

Without Hezbollah Israel would like to be good friends with Lebanon I am sure.


Without Hezbollah, Israel would still be brutally occupying Lebanon just as it does Palestine and part of the Golan in Syria. Hezbollah handed Zionists their asses and off they flew home, after dealing with an actual fighting force. 8)

No they did not, that was done by the Christian militia. Go pander your incessant lies and propaganda somewhere else.


These documents show that Israeli defense minister Ariel Sharon, Chief of Staff Lt. General Rafael Eitan, Chief of Military Intelligence Maj. General Yehoshua Saguy, the head of the Mossad, Yitzhak Hofi, and his deputy and successor, Nahum Admoni, were fully informed of the murderous proclivities of the LF long before they decided to introduce them into Sabra and Shatila. They had detailed knowledge of the massacre the LF had perpetrated in August 1976 at Tal al-Za‘tar camp (the documents show that Israel had liaison officers on the spot), and elsewhere during previous phases of the Lebanese civil war. They were fully aware of LF atrocities against Palestinians and Lebanese in the areas of South Lebanon, the Shouf and ‘Aley that the Israeli army occupied during June 1982, and where it allowed the LF to operate freely. They knew perfectly well the lethal intentions of the LF towards the Palestinians. While these documents show that Sharon and others sought to evade their responsibility for the massacre before the Kahan commission, no reader of them can have the slightest doubt about what Sharon and his generals intended in deciding to introduce their LF allies into the camps.
https://palestinesquare.com/2018/09/25/ ... -evidence/


blah blah propaganda, lies.


Do you need citations for how Israelis tortured and killed Lebanese civilians all over Lebanon? All you need to do is ask. Although it shouldn't be so surprising to you since Israelis tortures Palestinian children on their own land today, not to mention shoots them in the limbs and eyes and head every weekend, as is documented in the Gaza protests thread.

@skinster you have repeated your propaganda and lies so often you think there is some truth to it.


If you can point me to where I lied and how you can prove that, that'd be grand. I won't hold my breath though, since I'm dealing with a rabid Zionist here.
#15023399
@Palmyrene
Well for starters they couldn't give a shit about you.

Maybe not me individually, but we as a block sure do matter.

Secondly, Israel is allied to Saudi Arabia and the US which is also allied to Saudi Arabia.

Israel is allied to the US, true; Its "alliance" with Saudi Arabia, however, is one of convenience and not a fully established alliance in overall.

So why do you think an alliance with Israel is a good idea?

Israel, as it stands, is Lebanon's natural ally. Its population is a minority population in the region similar to that of Lebanon. We share borders and resources. And we have similar socially liberal cultures that makes cultural communication and integration easier and more solid, and, thus, better cooperation and coordination.

How is supporting Islamist groups and giving them more power good? Irresponsible funding of Islamist groups is what led ISIS to happen.

Not really. You're not giving them more power, you're arming them and their enemies so they can kill each other.

Regarding ISIS, this might sound controversial and would clearly piss off many people, but ISIS was a successful project.
The main purpose of boosting and arming ISIS was to weaken Syria as a whole and the Baath regime in specific; It worked.
There is a reason why Turkey would occasionally let arms pass through its territories to ISIS, and why Iran would allow ISIS to grow in Iraq before moving in.

I have discussed this previously a year or so ago here, but Iran and Turkey played a major role in the rise of ISIS.
For Turkey, ISIS effectively destroyed Syria and gave it the crisis it needs to hold leverage over the EU.
And for Iran, ISIS weakened and brought its political rivals in Iraq under its control (primarily the Sadrists), gave it massive control inside the Iraqi government and consolidated its holdings in Iraq, and, finally, allowed it to clear the way to trade with Lebanon and hold massive leverage and control over the Syrian government which, anyone following the news or looking through the news archives prior to the war would know, had disputes and on the verge of conflict with the Baalbek tribes, primarily following several clashes with the Jafar, Zaiter, Wehbi, Shraif, Noon, and even Awad clans, all of which hold significant investments in Iran mounting up to the 10s of billions under the Biyyar program which, on its own, is one of the main reason the Iranian economy is still standing after so many years.
This, needless to say, became important after the waves of sanctions began in the late 2000s, which made it ever more necessary for Iran to reduce the power of the Baath regime in Syria.


This might sound bad for many, and I know the dangers of ISIS myself as I was in Lebanon during the early stages of the ISIS incursions over the Lebanese borders and served on several shifts ( a shift lasts for a week or so) in the defense patrols over the borders organized by the tribes. So I am fully aware of what ISIS is; But, I also realize the strategic goals achieved over the course of the conflict and the long term benefits it may provide.

Your people will be effected by funding Islamist groups. Funding Islamist groups gives them more power, the more power they, the more they can spread their influence. And they don't discriminate on where they spread their influence.

Not if done right.
You don't arm them alone, you arm them and their enemies. That wont give them any power.

Al Qaeda was funded by the US. Guess what happened to them.

Regarding 9/11; Again, bad event that just happened to allow the US defense industry to gain massive amounts of funding and wealth in the form of profits, as well as massively expanding the US's sphere of influence.

The US was already attacked several times prior, and I don't believe they had the knowledge that an attack this bad would occur, but that overall policy of supporting and funding Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan has given the US establishment a massive advantage and significant profit.

Not to mention that establishing the Taliban in the 80s would, later on, act as an excuse to contain the rise of China (something that had already begun by that time) through the establishment of a military presence right on its doorstep, with the same towards Iran. As well as establishing a route into central Asia and leverage against China, Russia, and Iran.

The US's policy in funding the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan may have backfired in the form of 9/11, but in overall it was and still is a success in view of the global geopolitical interests of the US establishment. With an emphasis on the establishment part.


Dude, don't pretend anyone other than the government is funding proxies.

Governments don't exist in a vacuum.

You seem to think that the will of the government is the will of the people.

Not the will, the interests.
With few exceptions obviously, but that's a subject of another debate.

You go as far as to say dictatorships run on the consent of the population.

1-Dictatorships, as stated many times earlier, need the support of atleast a portion of their populations to maintain their powers.
2-When it comes to geopolitics, it is rarely relevant what form of government there is, the geopolitical and geoeconomic interests of the nation as a whole is what matters.


About what?

About the cycle you mentioned.

This includes Lebanon.

True, and we do the same at their expense. If we became allied, then we can maximize our influence by cooperating and coordinating.

The distinction uprising and revolutions is not dependant on which class starts it. That's not the difference.

I never said it (the distinction) depends on which class it starts with. I, very clearly, stated that uprisings started by the lower class generally do not have the steam to turn into a fully-fledged revolution and are quelled rather quickly; All while when the working and middle classes join up, or atleast a portion of them, then there will be enough to turn it into a fully-fledged revolution.

And it does. The Russian Revolution, French Revolution, Syrian Revolution, and thr Tahrir Square protests were all run by the lower class.

-The Russian revolution was conducted by blocks (soviets) of working and middle classes.
-The French revolution was done in a similar fashion, to the point of including lower levels of nobels joining in.
-The Syrian revolution started with a military coup with high ranking officers (arguably upper class) leading it and receiving tons of foreign support.
-The Egyptian "revolution" was only "successful" because the army stepped in, which would become obvious shortly after that it stepped in only for its leaders to take over instead. i.e it wasn't a revolution, just a very slow coup.


If you're dividing them based on wealth then it would be the working class and everything below that which would start the revolution.

They don't.

Creating a class called the "upper working class" is an oxymoron.

It's not.

Culture already does that. Culture changes by itself and based on the environment. That's why in 1950s America, the youth of that generation had a completely different culture compared to the previous generation. Because the environment changed.

It doesn't. If you don't lead and direct the evolution of culture, you might end up worse than before. As already happened in many places I'm sure you are aware.

The authoritarian cultural laws like forcing everyone to wear a certain hat or forcing hijabs off women also had alot to do with it. At the eve of the revolution, only mosques were the places where people could freely criticize the regime.

Hardly.
The main thing that drove the collapse of the dynasty was the Shah attempting to 1- Remove the autonomy of the clerics (noting that the Qum clerics have always been an autonomous imperial institution going all the way back to Ismail the first), 2- attempting to cease tribal lands to feed his industrial revolution (an example would be the river valleys in Semnan), and 3- pissing off the old imperial dynasties like the Osmans and the Timurs, which ended up with them making a "deal" with the clerics.

No it isn't. Coups are done internally and work with the factionalism in the government. They don't join the protesters.

Then you don't know what coups are dear.

Most of the Islamist groups were former Baathist soldiers.

True, from both Syria and Iraq. Though in Syria, lots of tribals and so as well.

You aren't.

We are. You tried to move it to the end results, but I keep pulling back.


One of them said they were going to join the armed part of the rebels and I never heard from them again.

The rest of them just joined existing factions. One friend I was talking to on WhatsApp said he was going to join an Islamist group that his brother joined to keep an eye on him.

I occasionally hear from him. He got out of the group, has kids (he's from the rural areas so marrying young is common).

Well, then you proved my point.


It's not a clash of ideology, it's a power struggle. All hierarchical structures are the same.

Power struggles for the upper class needs fuel for the rest to join.

Working class people are poor, at least in Syria and Iraq. They have plenty if expertise and organizing is easy if you know how to do it. A vanguard is impossible nowadays so small chapters and groups are formed.

North Korea is oppressive ontop of their being no food. Meanwhile Syria is just corrupt which is why when the drought happened people had no issue protesting.

-Working-class people are not poor, they're the ones between being poor and middle class.

- Organizing and leadership aren't easy, if they were, everyone would've done it.

The working class was there from the start. There was no middle class in those countries, only the property owning nobility. Most people at the time were serfs.

All of Europe had notable middle classes since the Black death.

The working class can take over the factories they work at and run it themselves then federate with other worker owned facilities.

They can't.
Even in the most hardline communists recognize that there need to be organizers for any institute to operate.


They could do a general strike and destroy all the resources the upper class has.


Nothing is that simple.

What safer means? These countries don't care about protest, they haven't seen the same level of public discord that goes on in Syria or Egypt or Iraq.

"Public discord" is relative.
In China for example, a billion people have left poverty behind into the middle class, and if you work your way correctly, you can make it big with the CCP.
In Saudi Arabia, corruption rules the day, and a Saudi citizen can indeed join the corruption game. Or they can just sit back and relax while demanding stuff from the government since Saudi Arabia's power structure is much much more fragile than most other countries, not only the ruling faction face rivalry from inside the house of Saud, but also from the Shias in the north east and the Hijazis from the west.
So they have to appease their population to a notable degree.


Now, of course I know you're going to start screaming about how "insane" and "stupid" for me to say that Saudi Arabia's ruling elites need to appease other factions, but anyone who knows anything about the kingdom or even briefly followed the news regarding the Saudi internal power struggles would know that Saudi Arabia's rulers stand on very thin ice.


The reason why first world countries don't revolt even if their liberties are broken is because they're too content to. It takes too much effort and there's so much to lose. That's why.

How does this contradict what I said?


Tell that to Vietnam or the Russian Revolution or the Chinese Revolution.

Vietnam = Supported, armed, and funded by the Soviets.
Russia and China= Working and middle class , not peasants.


And most of Syria's population was starving due to the drought.e had to completely import our food from neighboring countries which strained the economy even more than it was before and the corruption became more public when the country was doing bad.

No they weren't.
Importing your food doesn't make you starving.

Regarding corruption and the economy, sure, and it would've gone worse actually if the aforementioned factors didn't come into play. Just look at Jordan right next door.

It's what you have to do in order to get rid of influence.

It didn't, infact it arguably broke the communist party and turned allowed state capitalism to rise in China.

But alot of those things will be instantly opposed because it's the state imposing it.

1- People don't inherently oppose everything the state does, not everyone is an anarchist.
2- They'd barely notice, most of these policies will affect rising generations more than the older ones.

You live in Lebanon, you know how any religious figure has influence with or is in bed with the state.

I don't live in Lebanon at the moment, I used to however.

For the rest, which state?
You do realize that the "state" in Lebanon primarily control Beirut, while the rest of the country is divided by factions.

Every form of oppression and indoctrination derives it's legitimacy from the state.

More accurately from the power hierarchy established.
But it's nonsensical to say that this is a bad thing because we humans naturally organize this way, all the good and bad things in any given society comes from the same source.

Which movements?

Radical Sunni Islamist movements.

Thankfully no country actually follows Islamic economic laws. No Islamic country has banned interest and many quote on quote "Islamic banks" still give out loans with interests under different names.

They don't apply it in full, they just derive inspiration from it for the moment.

This strikes me as grasping for straws.

Nothing I said is grasping for straws.
Read it more thoroughly.

I mean all empires became rich due to conquest. Do you think the industrial revolution would've happened if Britain didn't have an abundance of raw materials from it's colonies?

The Gulf is rich due to oil but North Africa isn't. Morocco relies on tourism not oil and Tunisia has no economy at all but it's better than most countries.

Actually yea, it would. The industrial revolution was the culmination of several factors, the empires just made it quicker to take place. If there were no empires, it would've just been slower.

Islamic economic polices have never been fully implemented. Also, to be fair, Islamic countries with Islamic economic policies on loans were unaffected by the 2007 global financial crisis so there's something good here.

They weren't affected because the sector was already stagnant.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 14

The issue of reparations can no longer be swept u[…]

Does this forum have an ignore feature? We are in[…]

July 8, Tuesday President Lincoln spends the da[…]

Election 2020

@blackjack21 The stock market is not the econom[…]