[QatzelOk]

App makes killing Palestinians as easy as ordering pizzas


photo courtesy photogeek

Killing a Palestinian will soon be as easy as ordering a pizza.

That repugnant message – albeit couched in less explicit terms – was delivered through a recent article published by the website IsraelDefense.

It quotes Oren Matzliach, a colonel who is overseeing the use of a new app by the Israeli military. The app would allow a commander to type details about a target on a small electronic device and then troops would open fire on that target swiftly.

Ordering an attack will be “like ordering a book on Amazon or a pizza in a pizzeria using your smartphone,” Matzliach said....

I think we can see that people who are "motivated" are the ones who are really pushing the technology envelope.

[Oxymoron]

I think we can see that people who are "motivated" are the ones who are really pushing the technology envelope.

Rocket up your ass in 30 minutes or less, or your Suicide vast back.

[ckaihatsu]

Rocket up your ass in 30 minutes or less, or your Suicide vast back.

Conflating Palestinian civil and human rights with Islamist fundamentalist terrorists.

Racist much?

[Oxymoron]

Conflating Palestinian civil and human rights with Islamist fundamentalist terrorists.

Racist much?

Gaza has a democratically elected terror group as their government, yeah brah they terrorists.

[ckaihatsu]

Gaza has a democratically elected terror group as their government, yeah brah they terrorists.

Not even *close*:

Israelis and Palestinians Killed

September 29, 2000 - Present



1,270 Israelis and at least 10,001 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)

https://ifamericansknew.org/

[Atlantis]

This isn't really news. With targeted US drone strikes and the US control of our movements by the likes of Google, we are all potential targets. It's Palestinians today, it'll be you and me tomorrow.

[QatzelOk]

Rocket up your ass in 30 minutes or less, or your Suicide vast back.

I like how this post "explains" European violence in Palestine by starting recorded history in 1967.

This makes it appear that Israel *always existed* rather than acknowledging its formation by European terror groups using WW2 arms, leading to the ethnic-cleansing (ongoing) of millions of human beings.

It's like hearing about a child getting killed by your pizza deliverer, and then worrying out loud that your pizza might not be hot when it arrives. You are overly pizza-centric to the point of being a carb-and-cheese-crazed monster.

[Atlantis]

@QatzelOk, Isreal exists by virtue of Anglo-Imperialism. It was set up by the British empire and now it is maintained by the Yankee empire. This was never more true than today under Trump.

Trump even fucked the Polisario to get Morocco to recognize Israel. All the while Israel keeps on expanding its illegals settlements while pushing Palestinians off their ancestral lands.

[ckaihatsu]

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

[QatzelOk]

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

The Pizza Declaration:

In the delivery of a hot pizza product, the deliverer must take all measures to make sure that it arrives at its destination both undisturbed and hot enough for the cheese to be properly melted.

(Note that the Pizza Declaration expresses zero concern for pedestrians along the route, or does it foresee or predict the 57,000 children who have been killed by pizza deliverers since this declaration was signed)

[Metoo]

@QatzelOk, Isreal exists by virtue of Anglo-Imperialism. It was set up by the British empire and now it is maintained by the Yankee empire. This was never more true than today under Trump.

Trump even fucked the Polisario to get Morocco to recognize Israel. All the while Israel keeps on expanding its illegals settlements while pushing Palestinians off their ancestral lands.

I really don't get it! What planet are you living on?

On this planet, when negotiating process yields no results, any reasonable party, if capable, would use its army to force the desired outcome. This is the way people on this planet have behaved since the dinosaurs. What makes you think that a different standard must be applied to Israel?

Do you really think that anybody cares for your sentiments regarding who or what set Israel up? Who cares?

The only important thing today is that the UN recognises Israel as a sovereign state, Israel has all the necessary infrastructure to qualify as a sovereign state and, finally, Israel is absolutely capable to force its foreign and domestic policy by the means of arms, if need be, while de facto, securing its citizens from anyone who wants to harm them. That is all. Get it?

As it stands in the narrative today, - Palestinian Arabs have no 'ancestral' lands. There is no legal mechanism that will show otherwise. You may be able to show that the Lands in question once were owned by the Ottomans. But there is no way for you show that those lands have ever been owned by, what we today call, Palestinian Arabs. Reason being is that those Palestinian Arabs never managed to form an entity that would formalise the ownership, - that is the country of their own. They exist at the pleasure of the Israeli taxpayer.

If anyone wants to change this or challenge this, you have two options, - either by a direct challenge in an appropriate court that has jurisdiction, or by a direct combat. Either way is fine. Everything else, particularly what you are whining about, is just fluff, meaning that, - talk is cheap!

Palestinian Arabs will never go to court, any court, because they know that they will lose and lose big, with no path to recourse, as they literally have no legal case against Israel. They also will never engage with a direct combat with IDF, as they had tried this in the past with pathetic results. OK?

[ckaihatsu]

The only important thing today is that the UN recognises Israel as a sovereign state,

Then it should be *de*-recognized, for human rights abuses, at a bare minimum.

As it stands in the narrative today, - Palestinian Arabs have no 'ancestral' lands. There is no legal mechanism that will show otherwise. You may be able to show that the Lands in question once were owned by the Ottomans. But there is no way for you show that those lands have ever been owned by, what we today call, Palestinian Arabs. Reason being is that those Palestinian Arabs never managed to form an entity that would formalise the ownership, - that is the country of their own. They exist at the pleasure of the Israeli taxpayer.

You're unwittingly defending *all* land grabs with this line of reasoning -- Native Americans, aboriginals, indigenous, slaves, etc.

You think that *living* on the land is somehow not 'sufficient', and that the only thing to be 'officially' recognized is private property ownership. What should be the qualifications for *voting*, according to you?

[wat0n]

It's hilarious to see defenders of the Cuban regime whining about human rights

[ckaihatsu]

It's hilarious to see defenders of the Cuban regime whining about human rights

Cuba has been successfully *anti-colonialist*, which is *pro*-human-rights.

Independence movements

See also: Cuban War of Independence

Full independence from Spain was the goal of a rebellion in 1868 led by planter Carlos Manuel de Céspedes. De Céspedes, a sugar planter, freed his slaves to fight with him for an independent Cuba. On 27 December 1868, he issued a decree condemning slavery in theory but accepting it in practice and declaring free any slaves whose masters present them for military service.[56] The 1868 rebellion resulted in a prolonged conflict known as the Ten Years' War. A great number of the rebels were volunteers from Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and the United States, as well as numerous Chinese indentured servants.[57] A battalion of 500 Chinese fought under the command of General Máximo Gómez in the 1874 Battle of Las Guasimas.[58] A monument in Havana honors the Cuban Chinese who fell in the war.[59]

Revolution and Communist party rule (1959–present)

Main article: Cuban Revolution

See also: Foreign interventions by Cuba

In the 1950s, various organizations, including some advocating armed uprising, competed for public support in bringing about political change.[107] In 1956, Fidel Castro and about 80 supporters landed from the yacht Granma in an attempt to start a rebellion against the Batista government.[107] It was not until 1958 that Castro's July 26th Movement emerged as the leading revolutionary group.[107]

By late 1958 the rebels had broken out of the Sierra Maestra and launched a general popular insurrection. After Castro's fighters captured Santa Clara, Batista fled with his family to the Dominican Republic on 1 January 1959. Later he went into exile on the Portuguese island of Madeira and finally settled in Estoril, near Lisbon. Fidel Castro's forces entered the capital on 8 January 1959. The liberal Manuel Urrutia Lleó became the provisional president.[108]

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

[wat0n]

Cuba is pro-human rights in the same way Marx was not anti-semitic

When are you going to begin tearing Marx's statues down?

[ckaihatsu]

Cuba is pro-human rights in the same way Marx was not anti-semitic

When are you going to begin tearing Marx's statues down?

Facile comparison.

Would you rather that the world's colonized countries have *not* de-colonized -- ?


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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoloniz ... e_Americas


And:

Shayn McCallum

Answered August 11, 2019 · Author has 18.2K answers and 10.5M answer views

Debatable. Marx was quite typical of a lot of assimilated Jews of his place and era in having a certain contempt for Judaism and traditional Jewish culture. Much of this came from the desperate desire to remove themselves from the stain and prejudice inflicted on Jews and people of Jewish origin in a deeply antisemitic society.

Marx was very opposed to discrimination based on race or religion and defended Jews as human beings but had only contempt for Jewish culture and tradition.

334 viewsView 5 Upvoters

Scott Cohen, MA Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Answered August 17, 2019 · Author has 2.3K answers and 202.1K answer views

Yes. But not in a serious way. His ramblings on race include everyone. He spoke bad against jews, Germans, English, colored people, turks, Indians, French etc. We could go even further and say that he was an alcoholic uncaring father as some try to prove. Engels would have been categorized as an alcoholic spoiled womanizer.

So his racist beliefs are not racially categorized. This is significant with racism because the categorization is an organized rational belief in racial superiority. Marx did not believe in racial superiority!

243 views

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-M ... te?share=1

[wat0n]

Facile comparison.

Would you rather that the world's colonized countries have *not* de-colonized -- ?


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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoloniz ... e_Americas


And:

Pretty stupid comparison. Marx had no role in either, and neither did Cuba for that matter.

[ckaihatsu]

Pretty stupid comparison. Marx had no role in either, and neither did Cuba for that matter.

I didn't make any comparisons -- *you're* the one who made a spurious comparison.

[Metoo]

Then it should be *de*-recognized, for human rights abuses, at a bare minimum.

Should be? Isn't it nice that you can enjoy a freedom to express yourself from the comfort of your coach and simply say, - let those Jews if Israel simply be denied the right to self-determination, just because their presents in the Middle East does not suit my fancy. Who cares about the Jewish history, right? Great position to be in.

You might say, ok, - but then, what about the Palestinian Arabs? Sure those Arabs also have the SAME rights, but they do have 22 countries to live in. Even the Arabs of old Palestine can have their state, somewhere in Judea and Samaria, but as it turns out, they do not want that state, they want Israel to be renamed Palestine. I hope you see the problem?

So, - if the World were to follow your missguided suggestion, we will have a war that Arabs would surely lose with great casualties. Further, - just to humor you, - what if they win? Well, then we will have yet another failed Arab state, just like Syria or Lebanon, or half a dozen others.

I hope you see that it is easy to pretend to be a cowboy, it is infinitely more difficult to shoot right.

You're unwittingly defending *all* land grabs with this line of reasoning -- Native Americans, aboriginals, indigenous, slaves, etc.

You think that *living* on the land is somehow not 'sufficient', and that the only thing to be 'officially' recognized is private property ownership.

Land grabs? What are those? You seem to be under the impression that the rights of an individual or a group of people are defined by their own demands or what they perceived as right or just. Far from it.

The rights are defined by the ruling power in accordance with the law as that ruling power sees fit to uphold. That's is all. It is that simple.

You may disagree, as it is your right. Then my point to you is this, - do something! Advocacy without any means of meaningful enforcement is pathetic. It is like the law without 'legal teeth'.

Indeed, the aboriginal peoples of our planet exist on the good will of the ruling powers, - everywhere, - the Americas or Australia as examples might be. The aboriginals only have rights because the ruling power allows them to have rights, not because they deserve to have rights. Nobody deserves the rights.

The only way to have them is either to ask the ruling power for them, while offering a compromise that the ruling power would agree too or fight and win them. There is no other choice. Your position in this matter is not only childish, but a contrary to the entire history of humans on this planet.

The reason things are as I say they are, is simple, - if you study physics, you'll know that path of minimum resistance is a natural path.

Further, the fact that a person or a group of people have a history of living on a particular section of land does not in any way guarantee that they have the right to continue living there, if the ruling power deems otherwise. You may go anywhere in world, any country, and that would be the case.

The state can take your home away from from you, hopefully compensate you for it, and you can say nothing about it. So, - what makes you think that Israel must function under different standards? Particularly that the Arabs of Palestine would have an immense difficulty proving their case in any court in the Western hemisphere.

You indulge in emotional fantasies. You show no understanding of the fabric of state-person relationships. I suggest education.

Anyway, the Palestinian Arabs fought and they lost. That is all.

What should be the qualifications for *voting*, according to you?

Simple, - a passport. Have a passport, you may vote. Do you want to have a passport? Ok, but then I get to tell you how to behave. Fair?

[ckaihatsu]

Should be? Isn't it nice that you can enjoy a freedom to express yourself from the comfort of your coach and simply say, - let those Jews if Israel simply be denied the right to self-determination, just because their presents in the Middle East does not suit my fancy. Who cares about the Jewish history, right? Great position to be in.

I never said or implied that -- I make a distinction between the *people* of a country, and the nation-state *entity* itself, in the contexts of nationalism and geopolitics.

It's not like Jews *spontaneously* self-organized the State of Israel -- it was *carved out* for them by Britain, as a *colonial* project.

Oil and blood

The Middle East, with its huge oil reserves, was by far the most important prize for any imperialism in the second half of the 20th century. Britain had extended its Middle East empire during the First World War by collaborating with the ruler of Mecca, Sharrif Hussein, in an ‘Arab National Revolt’ and promising him all the territories ruled by Turkey. But the British government also promised Zionist leaders that it would allocate one of the Arab lands, Palestine, to Jewish settlers from Europe, seeing them as a barrier against any Arab threat to the nearby Suez Canal. As the Israeli political leader Abba Eban later explained, ‘We would help Britain become the ruling power and Britain would help us to develop the Jewish National Home’.277

Such double-dealing worked, up to a point. British firms got their hands on the oil reserves of Iraq and Iran, and Jewish settler volunteers worked with Britain to put down a Palestinian Arab revolt, the most serious rebellion to face the British Empire in the 1930s. But over time the policy backfired. There was growing Arab antagonism toward the Zionist settlers as they bought land from rich Arab owners and drove off the peasant families who had been cultivating it for centuries. Jews who had fled oppression in Europe found they were expected to oppress others in Palestine. Britain then tried to defuse Arab bitterness by restricting Jewish immigration and ended up under attack from both sides. By 1946 Jewish paramilitary groups which had been armed to suppress the Arabs were carrying out attacks on British troops and installations.

Harman, _People's History of the World, p. 558

---

You might say, ok, - but then, what about the Palestinian Arabs? Sure those Arabs also have the SAME rights, but they do have 22 countries to live in. Even the Arabs of old Palestine can have their state, somewhere in Judea and Samaria, but as it turns out, they do not want that state, they want Israel to be renamed Palestine. I hope you see the problem?

The Palestinians were there *before* Israel, just as the Native Americans were there before the United States.

So, - if the World were to follow your missguided suggestion, we will have a war that Arabs would surely lose with great casualties. Further, - just to humor you, - what if they win? Well, then we will have yet another failed Arab state, just like Syria or Lebanon, or half a dozen others.

I'm not for pan-Arabism for its own sake. It would have to be a stepping-stone to *socialism*, for the reasons you're giving, empirically. In other words no country can really be a 'liberated' island in an overall global sea of capitalism.

I hope you see that it is easy to pretend to be a cowboy, it is infinitely more difficult to shoot right.

Yeah. Not a cowboy.

Land grabs? What are those? You seem to be under the impression that the rights of an individual or a group of people are defined by their own demands or what they perceived as right or just. Far from it.

The rights are defined by the ruling power in accordance with the law as that ruling power sees fit to uphold. That's is all. It is that simple.

You conveniently forgot to mention that those 'lands' were acquired through Western *militarism* and genocide. Your politics so far can be summed-up as 'Might makes right'.

You may disagree, as it is your right. Then my point to you is this, - do something! Advocacy without any means of meaningful enforcement is pathetic. It is like the law without 'legal teeth'.

Indeed, the aboriginal peoples of our planet exist on the good will of the ruling powers, - everywhere, - the Americas or Australia as examples might be. The aboriginals only have rights because the ruling power allows them to have rights, not because they deserve to have rights. Nobody deserves the rights.

The only way to have them is either to ask the ruling power for them, while offering a compromise that the ruling power would agree too or fight and win them. There is no other choice. Your position in this matter is not only childish, but a contrary to the entire history of humans on this planet.

'Resistance is futile', huh?

The reason things are as I say they are, is simple, - if you study physics, you'll know that path of minimum resistance is a natural path.

Further, the fact that a person or a group of people have a history of living on a particular section of land does not in any way guarantee that they have the right to continue living there, if the ruling power deems otherwise. You may go anywhere in world, any country, and that would be the case.

The state can take your home away from from you, hopefully compensate you for it, and you can say nothing about it. So, - what makes you think that Israel must function under different standards? Particularly that the Arabs of Palestine would have an immense difficulty proving their case in any court in the Western hemisphere.

You indulge in emotional fantasies. You show no understanding of the fabric of state-person relationships. I suggest education.

Anyway, the Palestinian Arabs fought and they lost. That is all.



Simple, - a passport. Have a passport, you may vote. Do you want to have a passport? Ok, but then I get to tell you how to behave. Fair?

Would you have supported the *Nazis* if you were there when they were winning?

What are / should-be the requirements to get a passport, according to you?