smltwnrckr

Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't give a phuck about the answer to a BS question. I was never pushing anyone to answer it in the first place.

It's a nonsense question, asked by apologists for state violence. I mean, there was a time when giving people their rights was something you believed in. At least, that's what it seemed like at the time.

You ever seen an Israeli settler talk? You're right, it's tough to reason with a lot of those people.

I dunno, you tell me. I mean, answer your own question if you think it should be answered. How many Palestinian children need to die to avenge the blood of one Israeli child? Adults?

No, I sound like a historian. We don't do counterfactuals, cuz they're dumb. But it doesn't take much education to compare the numbers... you shouldn't do 20,000 bad bad things in response to 1400 bad things. At least in my opinion.

I said in the first place it's a pointless question, and explained why it is pointless and its answers are meaningless at this point except to justify violence. What they should have done from the beginning is give an occupied people their rights. What they shouldn't have done is kill 20,000 people. If you think that's deflection, that's on you.

Well, there were jews in Palestine before 1948. You can go look at rhe history for yourself and compare what life was like for them then and what like is like now for Palestinians in Gaza.

Yes, violence is a tale as old as time. But this tale is not as old as time. This tale has a history, that started at a particular time, not all that long ago. 1948 is not as old as time. But, let's assume this is a tale as old as time. There is, then, an answer to that question about what to do. Give people their rights.

I mean, see my response above. If we're gonna play the counterfactual history game, we should go back to the causes of the causes. I would have more sympathy for the good faith question if the the state of Israel didn't immediately send spokesmen to international media sources to tell the world that we should absolve them of all their actions after Oct. 7 because of what happened. So, they didn't ask the question you are asking. Why should I ask it for them? But, again, IMO what you shouldn't do after a brutal attack that killed 1,400 people is to brutally attack and kill 16,000 and counting and demand that the entire international community (and God) absolve you of it. That is the opposite of the answer, IMO.

I didn't mean to imply you were not asking in good faith. It is a reasonable question in narrow contexts, I think as an addendum to my earlier statement. But the state of Israel is quickly turning to asking for forgiveness instead of permission after thousands of children are dead. But before the children died, the IDF stated over and over that we should allow them to kill children without questioning them because Hamas brutally and terribly killed children. The fact is that, if we are going to look backwards and ask the question of what Israel should have done after Oct. 7, then we shouldn't stop there. We should also look back further and reckon with the very real fact that Hamas being in control of Gaza was a desired policy outcome for the Israeli government. But, in all of that, the short answer to the initial question is: "Not do what they did."

Not really. It's a question from people who now realize that all the dead kiddos is a bad look, but don't want to go as far as saying the kiddos are real people who shouldn't be dead. More and more people will be asking this not-so-good question, but then doing a lot of shrugging, as if, you know.... waddayagunnado? It's not a question asked in good faith. It's a question meant as a last-ditch effort to justify what is unjustifiable.

Nah. All those little kids were, like, Hamas. Or not people. Or both.

That reference to inclusion wasn't a statement about you. It was a statement -- while admittedly flip -- about how, for all the talk about modern militaries being inclusive and modern (including militaries like the IDF, and Ukrainian military's, and heck even our military), it functions to do one thing - to blow shit up and incinerate people. I get that it reads like I am taking to you directly, but that wasn't the intent. I apologize for the bad communication on my part. I thought it seemed clear when I say the dude (or other) in this scenario is the one pushing the button, not you personally. But if that was not clear, I am sorry for making it seem that way. But I'm not sorry for the otherwise general statements here, which is that you had been parroting the dehumanizing statements of a military apparatus that has been killing thousands and thousands of children and claiming they have literally no responsibility for pushing those buttons, and doing so, frankly, in a way that made me question either how serious you were being on this topic or how dedicated you really are to some of the ideals you claim to hold. And if that hurts your feelings, I don't know what to say other than I hope one day you reconsider your assumptions about what drives people to do the things they and ask yourself where those assumptions come from.

Right. Says the dude (or woman, or non-binary person ... lets be inclusive LOL!!) who pushed the button that actually incinerated the babies. They had it coming. Look, it's not that hard. We keep going around and around. But it is what it is. They have it coming. Just tell yourself that, and go to sleep. I know I'm going to sleep now.