Who here unironically supports Israel? - Page 11 - 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%
#15023407
Zionist Nationalist wrote:Because thats what it is Lebanon is our enemy and Israel should be prepared to invade if neccesary but we hope it wont come to this again


But anasawad says Israel isn't Lebanon's enemy despite you know, recent history and the present day which includes Israelis threatening to invade Lebanon (again) and consistently violating Lebanese airspace. :lol:
#15023409
@skinster
I don't base my view on hypotheticals.

Not hypotheticals, we're already there.
And if we were to look at history....

More hypotheticals.

Already starting, not hypothetical.

Israel considers Lebanon an enemy state,

So do we, that doesn't mean it can't be changed.

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 didn't commit a "genocide" against Lebanese people. All the casualties from the hostilities with Israel over the past 40 years can be out shadowed by a single massacre the Syrians or PLO committed against Lebanese people.

Syria is the one to commit the massacres, torture, random killings, etc.
I seem to have to repeat this over and over again, As bad as Israeli actions might have been, they're no where near as bad as those of others in the middle east.
The Israelis can be considered angels when compared to Baathists be they Syrian or Iraqi.
You talk about Israeli massacres with casualty count in the 10s.
Syrian and Palestinian massacres in Lebanon counted in the thousands and 10s of thousands.
Israeli soldiers never raped, Syrian and Palestinians soldiers raped 10s of thousands of girls in Lebanon.
Sabra and Shatila weren't done by the Israelis, they were done as retaliation against the Palestinians in those camps by Al-Kata'eb. And we, the Shia tribes, would also retaliate against the Palestinians in the war of the camps afterwards because of the massacres they committed against the "infidel" Shias.

I am being pragmatic; We need allies, and Israel is the best one around in the neighborhood since the other choices are Arab nationalists who want to erase our identity, Islamic nationalists who want to erase our culture and religious diversity, various factions of fascists who see us as nothing more than dogs because we don't agree with their ideologies (as clearly demonstrated by their actions and propaganda), or Islamists who want to, and attempted to multiple times, exterminate us because we're infidels and heretics and apostates.

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

We share water and gas with Israel.

And you do realize we have a history in dealing with Israelis right? Both Christians and Shias, and especially Druze, were all friendly or outright allies with Israelis before.

More hypotheticals.

Not hypotheticals. don't hide behind words, and start looking at the events in the wider region.

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.

Well then that just described every other country or group in the entire region, and much of the world powers.
I guess we should just build walls around the country and keep everyone out with no exception. (edited; removed the "not")

On further thoughts, I actually wouldn't mind that at all. Also, kick the refugees out since both hold hostile views against us and already has attempted insurgencies inside the country to force their ideologies in the past few years, twice.

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.

You can easily read about its history you know. Even wikipedia has it.

Israel cleared the way for it to grow, using the same policy I've explained in the posts around this one. But it didn't found it, it's an offshoot of the Muslim brotherhood.

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

Hezbollah was founded, funded, armed, and supported by the tribes, and is now on the decline because it lost that support.

And I'm talking about Sunni Islamists.

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?


Ooh look, the strawmans continue.

Baathism is Arab nationalism and Socilaism. It's literally in their manifesto.
Do you know what that means?

And why not weaken them? Baathist are enemies, far worse enemies than Israel and committed far far more crimes against Lebanon than Israel would or could ever do.
Why not let Islamists and the fascist Baathist kill each other? 2 birds, one stone. Because fuck both.


Without Hezbollah, Israel would still be brutally occupying Lebanon just as it does Palestine and part of the Golan in Syria.

No it doesn't.
Israel was invited in the first time in the 1980s, and there were going to be a peace treaty.
The peace treaty couldn't be signed because the president was assassinated, and Syria began a full-scale military invasion even larger than before to occupy the country, because it needs the ports.
The hostilities between Lebanon and Israel came from the actions of the South Lebanon army, not from the Israeli army itself.

And the people in the Golan, primarily the Druze, are allied with Israel and most don't want to go back to Syria.
Druzi people are already in the Israeli army, and they're not that far off, their relatives are literally in the Lebanese mountains and west Beqa' valley.
Go to a place like Rashia, half of the people there have members of their families in the Israeli army, from the Golan.
Last edited by anasawad on 04 Aug 2019 16:08, edited 1 time in total.
#15023411
Ter wrote: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.


Please read the link I gave.

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.


I'm not talking about the present I'm talking about the past. A good portion of Jews during the early days of Zionism opposed the creation of Israel.
#15023413
skinster wrote:But anasawad says Israel isn't Lebanon's enemy despite you know, recent history and the present day which includes Israelis threatening to invade Lebanon (again) and consistently violating Lebanese airspace.

I clearly said that it is an enemy, but that we should change that and establish an alliance with them.
Try reading my posts before Strawmaning them atleast.

And even as it stands right now, Israel is no where near the biggest enemy Lebanon has.
Lebanese people, in general, have do not worry about Israel attempting to commit a genocide against them; And majority wants peace with Israel, to the point that even the prime minister would discuss peace with Israel in public, and the issue as a whole being the subject of debate on how to do it in most Lebanese news papers right now.
#15023416
skinster wrote:Israel continues to view Lebanon as an enemy state and continues to threaten to invade it, again

That is only because of Hezbolla.

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

International law only exists in your mind. The UN has lost all credibility. Lebanese airspace needs to be invaded to see what Hezbolla is doing and Iranian and Hezbolla installations need to be attacked out of self defence. Towards who else would those rockets and missiles be aimed but to Israel ?

skinster wrote:Citation needed.

Citation not needed : Nasrallah threatens Israel every time he broadcasts a speech from his deep bunker.

skinster wrote: Hezbollah handed Zionists their asses and off they flew home, after dealing with an actual fighting force. 8)

The fighting that started because Hezbolla attacked was pretty inconclusive. But Arabs always say that they won even if their country lies in ruins.
Which is nothing like what will happen if Hezbolla attacks again. Israel is preparing its own rockets now and every day that passes there are more of them. Hezbolla already lost all its attack tunnels which took years to dig and build. Let's see what happens next time, no need to talk about it.
skinster wrote:These documents show that
https://palestinesquare.com/2018/09/25/ ... -evidence/

Your propaganda outlets have no validity. Fake news.

skinster wrote:Do you need citations for how Israelis tortured and killed Lebanese civilians all over Lebanon?

Never happened, see @anasawad post. The Arabs did that.

skinster wrote: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.

Those Arabs would not be harmed if they would stop attacking the Israeli soldiers and trying to destroy the border fences. It is self defence.

skinster wrote:If you can point me to where I lied and how you can prove that, that'd be grand.

I can't even start because 97% of everything you write is lies and propaganda.
skinster wrote: I won't hold my breath though, since I'm dealing with a rabid Zionist here.

Name calling ? Really ? I am tempted to reciprocate but I will refrain, it would be too easy to expose your motivation and your roots. :D
#15023419
Rancid wrote:Does Israel have a strong defense industry, or do they just buy their weapons and shit from the US?


They have one of the best developed weapons industries in the world. They can produce most of the stuff themselves besides planes(they can produce non-5th generation planes). Ships and subs is not something Israel ever produced independently, well perhaps minor ships.

So they are somewhere in the top 10 but below countries such as US, Russia, Germany, France, Uk, China but perhaps above Turkey and India. May be on the same level as Japan but Japans and Israels needs are totally different.
#15023424
JohnRawls wrote:They have one of the best developed weapons industries in the world. They can produce most of the stuff themselves besides planes(they can produce non-5th generation planes). Ships and subs is not something Israel ever produced independently, well perhaps minor ships.

So they are somewhere in the top 10 but below countries such as US, Russia, Germany, France, Uk, China but perhaps above Turkey and India. May be on the same level as Japan but Japans and Israels needs are totally different.


I see, I was thinking if maybe one of the reasons the US supports Israel is because they buy guns from the US.
#15023426
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
Maybe not me individually, but we as a block sure do matter.


Whose we?

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.


Still an alliance and they both benefit from their presence.

The fact of the matter is, they both are allied to the US, support each other in various ways, and have had several deals with each other such as arms sales.

Even if it's not a formal alliance, for all practical purposes, they are one. It doesn't matter whether it's only for convenience; all alliances are for convenience.

If you have Saudi Arabia as an enemy, Israel is not an ally to have. From the perspective of Israel, Lebanon is a greater enemy than Saudi Arabia and less of an asset.

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.


1. Israel hates Lebanon and pretty much all Arabs. I've never met an Israeli who didn't at least have a chauvinistic attitude towards Arabs.

2. It isn't socially liberal. Their reactionary party is the one in power and Orthodox Judaism is growing expontentially in Israel. Israel just maintains the facade of democracy and liberalism so that they can maintain support.

Tunisia is more democratic and socially liberal than Israel.

3. It's a colonial state. This is a fundamentally different situation to Lebanon. From your perspective, Lebanon has more in common with Palestinians than Israel because Lebanon has a minority population colonized. What do you think is happening to Palestinians?

Your support for Israel is based on really dumb shit.

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


And what if they win? You keep on funding them (which countries like Israel, the US, Iran, and Saudi Arabia do; they don't fund Islamists because they want them to kill each other, they do it to get the person who supports them on top. It's regime change) and eventually they win more and more till they get a whole country.

Then you're fucked.

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.


1. Iran literally supports Syria and puts in resources to help it and Iran isn't going to want something like ISIS effect it's activities in Iraq especially given the brutality of ISIS towards Shia.

2. ISIS wasn't a project. It was a mistake. No one planned. It was the result of loads of countries just giving groups money and then accidentally gave it to the wrong people and ISIS was born. It's like having sex and realizing your partner wasn't on the pill.

3. Turkey didn't create ISIS, it supported them.

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.


Oh that makes sense. It's a shame. I feel sorry for Iran.


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.


This is the most disgusting shit I've heard in my entire life.

There is no long term benefits to funding proxies. Terrorist groups always bite you in the back.

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


No one does that though. No one arms Islamists so that you can get rid of Islamists. Islamists will always exist because the conditions that led to their existence will perpetuate.

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.


Are you implying the US did 9/11? Are you serious?

It wasn't intentional at all. That's the point.

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.


Accidentally.

You can't be guaranteed the same thing if you do it again.

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.


Ugh.

Pragmatism without vision or ambition is meaningless. You can only create what you had before. You cannot imagine anything more.

Governments don't exist in a vacuum.


That's not my point. My point is that the common man isn't doing shit about funding proxies or whatever.

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


Most major interests are not what is typically called "the people".

1-Dictatorships, as stated many times earlier, need the support of atleast a portion of their populations to maintain their powers.


The ruling class or landowners or keys or whatever. This isn't the population as a whole.

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.


There's no "nation" benefitting. Only the government and upper class.

About the cycle you mentioned.


I'm on my phone so I can't really check what I wrote before.

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


No because Lebanon's potential influence overlaps with Israel. And Israel is not known to let other people have things it wants.

What about "Israel is a colonial state" do you not understand?

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.


You're agreeing with what I said. You think the distinction lies on what class joins in. It doesn't and there's plenty of revolutions that were successful without middle class participation.

-The Russian revolution was conducted by blocks (soviets) of working and middle classes.


There was no middle class at the time.

-The French revolution was done in a similar fashion, to the point of including lower levels of nobels joining in.


There was no bourgeoisie either and lower nobles joined in after the revolution had already been conducted.

-The Syrian revolution started with a military coup with high ranking officers (arguably upper class) leading it and receiving tons of foreign support.


No it didn't. It started with protests, general disobedience against the government, and then outright secession from influence.

-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.


The revolution happened and then the middle class got cold feey and supported the military.

They don't.


They do.

It's not.


It is.

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.


You can't direct where culture evolves that's like saying you can direct how fast the earth rotates. You can only choose the general direction and to do that you must change the environment. You can't do it by making decrees or laws.

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.


And all of this was done in the name of modernization and culture.

Then you don't know what coups are dear.


Says the guy who thinks the Syrian Revolution was a coup.


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


No I wasn't. You started talking about end results first.

Well, then you proved my point.


It didn't.

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


Pardon?

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


Depends on what you call poor.

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


Everyone does do it. People form groups and organizations all the time even if they're informal. The hard part is coordinating with other groups but that's easy if you have a common ideology (i.e. anarchism).

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


They haven't. Especially after the Black Death.

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


They can. That's specifically what "owning the means of production" is. It has happened before in Algeria and in modern cases (such as an aerospace production facility) runs without even democracy, just consensus and resource/information sharing.

Nothing is that simple.


What I said was exactly what happened in real life.

"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.


This is irrelevant.

China is not meritocratic at all. Don't pretend it is.

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.


This is irrelevant.

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.


Who said I was screaming?

I agree that Saudi Arabia is on thin ice. That's why I expect to start a revolution there too.


How does this contradict what I said?


Idk you're the one opposing what I said. You should ask yourself that.

Vietnam = Supported, armed, and funded by the Soviets.


I'm not talking about the Vietnam war.

Russia and China= Working and middle class , not peasants.


A majority of the population in Russia and China were peasants prior to the revolution. 80% of Russia was composed of serfs and 90% of China was composed of peasants.

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


Not me but others were as they struggled to buy food. And importing food, like I said, strained the economy.

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.


What about Jordan?

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


That's the price of cultural meddling. It's an extensive process.

And it did change Chinese people. They weren't as spiritual as before and have become more broken and materialistic.

1- People don't inherently oppose everything the state does, not everyone is an anarchist.


I never said everything. Just this.

And people do fight the state on a daily basis. They just don't realize it.

2- They'd barely notice, most of these policies will affect rising generations more than the older ones.


Apparently you think parents are going to be fine with these policies? Really? Who do you think is going to make a big stink about this other than the parents.

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


So you would know.

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.


The factions are states at least in an anarchist sense.

More accurately from the power hierarchy established.


So a state.

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.


We'll argue on this later. My thumbs are already bleeding.

Radical Sunni Islamist movements.


Hmm.

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


Then it shouldn't be the core issue since they don't apply the aspects you're criticizing.

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


I have and it's grasping for straws.

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.


That's half right.

They weren't affected because the sector was already stagnant.


Your evidence is?
#15023430
Rancid wrote:I see, I was thinking if maybe one of the reasons the US supports Israel is because they buy guns from the US.

They do buy planes and other military assets from the US.
They get a couple of billion dollar every year as aid from the US to do just that.
Israel needs to have overwhelming superiority in every military aspect because the ratio Israeli/Muslim is 1/100
#15023431
@anasawad

I think it's necessary to note that the fact that so many racists and imperialists are now using you as evidence for their disgusting ideology.

If Hindsite, Ter, and Zionist Nationalist (who all hate Arabs btw) are all using you for propaganda you may want to reconsider your "alliance" with Israel.

Because chances are, Israel is going to treat you like shit and only use you for propaganda. You'll be an Uncle Tom and you'll always brme below them.

The funny thing is I've met a Lebanese girl who thought that Israel should've kept occupying Lebanon because, and this is exactly what she said, "they would give us internet".

So I asked her, does Israel give Palestinians internet? No. So why would they give to Lebanese. And her mind just broke instantly.
#15023432
Ter wrote:They do buy planes and other military assets from the US.
They get a couple of billion dollar every year as aid from the US to do just that.
Israel needs to have overwhelming superiority in every military aspect because the ratio Israeli/Muslim is 1/100


Israel is friends with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and neutral with Turkey.

They are completely secure. There is nothing that's going to happen.
#15023442
Rancid wrote:I didn't select a option. If I had to pick one, I would pick 'no', but ultimately, my opinion doesn't matter.


Well it would matter to me so I could stick it to @Ter. So if you want to make a decisions which influences someone then you should pick no.

:)

Human's are happiest when they are not happy.


?
#15023445
Palmyrene wrote:?


Human's need adversity to be happy. We need something that makes us unhappy so that we can occupy ourselves with fighting that which makes us unhappy (the fight/struggle is what makes us happy, as it gives us purpose). Once we success, we become sad, and have to find something else that makes us unhappy.

We are happiest when struggling to fight that which we perceive as the thing that makes us unhappy. Thus, we are happiest when we are not happy.

The older I get, the more true this statement seems to become.
Last edited by Rancid on 04 Aug 2019 17:39, edited 1 time in total.
#15023446
@Palmyrene
Still an alliance and they both benefit from their presence.

The fact of the matter is, they both are allied to the US, support each other in various ways, and have had several deals with each other such as arms sales.

Even if it's not a formal alliance, for all practical purposes, they are one. It doesn't matter whether it's only for convenience; all alliances are for convenience.

If you have Saudi Arabia as an enemy, Israel is not an ally to have. From the perspective of Israel, Lebanon is a greater enemy than Saudi Arabia and less of an asset.

Not really, Israeli-Saudi relations are only the way they are due to their hostility to Iran.
If Lebanon became allied to Israel, Iran would soon follow due to the massive presence of the Lebanese tribes in the Iranian economy and their connection to the Iranian tribes.
Likewise, the US would be far less hostile.

1. Israel hates Lebanon and pretty much all Arabs. I've never met an Israeli who didn't at least have a chauvinistic attitude towards Arabs.

I have, quite alot actually.
And Israelis do, in general, prefer peace with Lebanon.

3. It's a colonial state. This is a fundamentally different situation to Lebanon. From your perspective, Lebanon has more in common with Palestinians than Israel because Lebanon has a minority population colonized. What do you think is happening to Palestinians?

The Palestinians have already displayed their full hostility to the Lebanese people, and the Palestinians in Jordan hate Lebanese people.
If we managed to secure a deal with the Israelis on the expense of the Palestinians, then we'll gladly throw them under the buss.

And what if they win? You keep on funding them (which countries like Israel, the US, Iran, and Saudi Arabia do; they don't fund Islamists because they want them to kill each other, they do it to get the person who supports them on top. It's regime change) and eventually they win more and more till they get a whole country.

Neither will truely win, both sides of the conflict will be too weak to stand on its own, and either become fully subservient to the funder, or simply be killed off once the purpose of the support is achieved.
ISIS is a good example.

1. Iran literally supports Syria and puts in resources to help it and Iran isn't going to want something like ISIS effect it's activities in Iraq especially given the brutality of ISIS towards Shia.

-Iran supported both sides of the conflict, one directly and the other indirectly.

-It allowed and cleared the way for ISIS to grow to weaken its rivals in Iraq and Syria. And supported the government in Syria and established various militias in Iraq to consolidate power.

2. ISIS wasn't a project. It was a mistake. No one planned. It was the result of loads of countries just giving groups money and then accidentally gave it to the wrong people and ISIS was born. It's like having sex and realizing your partner wasn't on the pill.

ISIS grew out of Al-Qaeda in Iraq; Regional powers used it to their interests.

3. Turkey didn't create ISIS, it supported them.

I didn't say it created it, it just helped it grow to use it.

Oh that makes sense. It's a shame. I feel sorry for Iran.

:eh:
Iran is a clear victor in the conflict, it consolidated power in two countries, economic and political interests.

This is the most disgusting shit I've heard in my entire life.

It doesn't matter, politics and geopolitics isn't nice.

There is no long term benefits to funding proxies. Terrorist groups always bite you in the back.

There is, as clearly established and observed.
If it didn't, then no one would do it.

No one does that though. No one arms Islamists so that you can get rid of Islamists. Islamists will always exist because the conditions that led to their existence will perpetuate.

Everyone does that.
And it works.
Simply the source (Hanbali ideology and Wahabis in specific) still exist, so new ones are always created.
Iran simply uses Saudi weapons against Saudi interests.

Are you implying the US did 9/11? Are you serious?

No, I'm not. Bother reading what I wrote.
The US supported the Mujahedeen, and did experience several attacks from them in the 90s, so it knew the consequences. 9/11 was simply a bigger backfire than expected.
However, the policy of funding and supporting the Mujahedeen did work and did achieve the required goals, and continue to do so.

Try reading what I write, instead of using strawmans.

Accidentally.

You can't be guaranteed the same thing if you do it again.

Not really, no. If you support an enemy of yours for whatever purpose, you expect that enemy to attack you atleast once or twice.

That's not my point. My point is that the common man isn't doing shit about funding proxies or whatever.

The common man benefits from it.
In a cold war, you either participate in the war, or you become another theater of the war. No middle grounds.

Most major interests are not what is typically called "the people".

There's no "nation" benefitting. Only the government and upper class.

Preserving the nation's interests is and always will be in the interests of its people, even if they don't agree on the how.
e.g. Americans might not like the Afghan war, they still benefit from the strategic, political, and economic influence it gives their nation.


The ruling class or landowners or keys or whatever. This isn't the population as a whole.

No, it's not limited to those.

No because Lebanon's potential influence overlaps with Israel. And Israel is not known to let other people have things it wants.

Lebanon's influence is mainly cultural, its interests however is what it shares with Israel.
Lebanese and Israeli interests are very similar and are interwind.

You're agreeing with what I said. You think the distinction lies on what class joins in. It doesn't and there's plenty of revolutions that were successful without middle class participation.

I'm not agreeing with what you said, what you said is far short of reality.
The distinction lies not on the class, but on the extent of the uprisings. Protests get crushed easily.
Revolutions are, in effect, civil wars.
If uprisings are limited to the lower class, then they'll be crushed easily. For uprisings to grow into a fully-fledged revolution, the middle and working classes must join in.

And no, there never were any "successful" revolutions without the middle class joining in.

There was no middle class at the time.

There was no bourgeoisie either and lower nobles joined in after the revolution had already been conducted.

European middle class came to be after the black death centuries earlier.

No it didn't. It started with protests, general disobedience against the government, and then outright secession from influence.

And the government cracked down on the protests. The only reason it turned into a revolution is because part of the army split off and joined in.
How hard is it to understand this?
It was called the FSA, read about it, you clearly didn't follow the war as it went along.

The revolution happened and then the middle class got cold feey and supported the military.

The army removed Mubarak, not the people.

You can't direct where culture evolves that's like saying you can direct how fast the earth rotates. You can only choose the general direction and to do that you must change the environment. You can't do it by making decrees or laws.

1- The comparison is idiotic.
2- You can, there is an entire field of study regarding it in fact.


And all of this was done in the name of modernization and culture.

No, it wasn't.
It's a simple balance of power that needs to be maintained. Culture and modernization are 2 entirely separate subjects.


Says the guy who thinks the Syrian Revolution was a coup.

Attempted coup.*

Everyone does do it. People form groups and organizations all the time even if they're informal. The hard part is coordinating with other groups but that's easy if you have a common ideology (i.e. anarchism).

No, on a grand scale, everyone is subject to organization, they don't organize or lead themselves.

They haven't. Especially after the Black Death.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
The only reason Europe had a middle class is because of the Black death.

It's like you don't know history at all.
After some considerations, you don't. So on we go.
:lol:

They can. That's specifically what "owning the means of production" is. It has happened before in Algeria and in modern cases (such as an aerospace production facility) runs without even democracy, just consensus and resource/information sharing.

Owning the means of production is not the same as managing them. :|

What I said was exactly what happened in real life.

Where? When?

And If it did happen, why is there still are upper classes? Ooh, right, because it never works like that.

This is irrelevant.

China is not meritocratic at all. Don't pretend it is.

you brought it up, not me.
And it is relevant to the discussion.

And China meritocratic, to a large extent atleast.

This is irrelevant.

Again. Not only you brought it up, it is also very relevant to the discussion on why people in these places don't revolt.

I agree that Saudi Arabia is on thin ice. That's why I expect to start a revolution there too.

There wont be a revolution in Saudi Arabia. There's more likely going to be either a take over or the state will simply dissolve into multiple states.

I'm not talking about the Vietnam war.

About what then?
Vietnam was a French colony until the communists with the aid of the USSR came along.

A majority of the population in Russia and China were peasants prior to the revolution. 80% of Russia was composed of serfs and 90% of China was composed of peasants.

And they were organized and led by middle class leaders.

And serfdom was abolished decades prior to the Russian revolution. Get your facts straight.

Not me but others were as they struggled to buy food. And importing food, like I said, strained the economy.

Sure, that's what mismanagement and dumb policies do.
Apparently, Fascists have a way of fucking things up.

What about Jordan?

The only reason why Syria had a war is because of the coup and the various foreign interventions.
The same conditions that existed in Syria prior to the war existed in Jordan for many years now and still no revolution.
It had protests and slight uprisings, but those were swiftly quelled.
This can also serve an example on the difference between uprisings and revolutions.

That's the price of cultural meddling. It's an extensive process.

It's not. The new regime led a far more extensive cultural reform campaign than under Mao.
The deaths and famines that resulted from Maos actions were due to stupid policies like forging steel in backyards, and the retarded distribution and negligence of agricultural production.


Apparently you think parents are going to be fine with these policies? Really? Who do you think is going to make a big stink about this other than the parents.

As long as their needs are being fulfilled, they won't. They hardly ever do so.

The factions are states at least in an anarchist sense.

Sure, democratic mini states that is.

Then it shouldn't be the core issue since they don't apply the aspects you're criticizing.

It is a core issue.
Heck, look at the Turkish economic crisis right now, literally happening right now.
It's because of Islamic inspiration on economic policy.

Your evidence is?

You can easily look the financial data from the Islamic banking sector.
Primarily, check the 2008-2009 years.
#15023447
Rancid wrote:Human's need adversity to be happy. We need something that makes us unhappy so that we can occupy ourselves with fighting that which makes us unhappy. Once we success, we become sad, and have to find something else that makes us unhappy.

We are happiest when struggling to fight that which we perceive as the thing that makes us unhappy. Thus, we are happiest when we are not happy.

The older I get, the more true this statement seems to become.


Are you referring to yourself or Palestinians in this context?
#15023449
@Palmyrene

I think it's necessary to note that the fact that so many racists and imperialists are now using you as evidence for their disgusting ideology.

I don't care.

Facts are facts, regardless of who states them.


If Hindsite, Ter, and Zionist Nationalist (who all hate Arabs btw) are all using you for propaganda you may want to reconsider your "alliance" with Israel.

Again, I don't care.
My views are not based on theirs nor on anyone else for that matter. I look at the facts on the grounds, and build my world view based on that.

It's only logical for Lebanon to be allied with Israel, as was supposed to be the case before the 80s (we were negotiating a peace treaty back then if you didn't know that BTW).
This peace, and potential alliance is great for my country, and if they support it, then so be it.

Because chances are, Israel is going to treat you like shit and only use you for propaganda. You'll be an Uncle Tom and you'll always brme below them.

:lol: :lol:

The funny thing is I've met a Lebanese girl who thought that Israel should've kept occupying Lebanon because, and this is exactly what she said, "they would give us internet".

So I asked her, does Israel give Palestinians internet? No. So why would they give to Lebanese. And her mind just broke instantly.

:lol:
Bullshit.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
Trump and Russiagate

Sanders brands himself a Democratic socialist F[…]

@Hindsite The nation is burning and the only t[…]

@Atlantis @ingliz @Wellsy @Rugoz One coo[…]

I believe in facts. Truth is often subjective. Fa[…]