hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
14hr ago
This is not true. You know this is not true.
It is true, and you insinuating that I'm knowingly lying is the kind of stuff that makes you inconversable. Along with uncharitable characterizations and snark.
As for trolls (@naraburns has already pretty effectively answered your blinking doe-eyed "confusion" as to why a troll-post from a burner account proposing we nuke Israel got banned)
Naraburns didn't answer my comment per se, though he did reply to it. He just wrote the comment he wanted to write. I can instead of getting him to the point of contention just pretend along with him that the reason the 'Nuke Israel' comment got reported and modded was because of the 'consensus building' from a sock account, and not the 'Nuke Israel' part. Saltminer is certainly not the dream defendant.
Now, I'm not sure you maintain that pretense, so feel free to clarify. My point was that the standard I believed Naraburns was acting on when modding the comment was at best inconsistent. If this place consistently took issue with genocidal or otherwise grotesque rhetoric or sweeping unsupported statements, the examples I posted would be rule breaking. Naraburns tells me I'm completely off the mark, the modding in this instance only happened due to the nature of the account and how rhetorically out of tune it was. Making a comment about the validity of nuking Israel from a game theory perspective is not forbidden. In fact, if this poster had done a better job there would be no issue to contend with from a mod perspective. So why care about the nuking Israel part? It's just a burner account using out of tune rhetoric.
Now, I just don't believe that's true. But even then, if the same poster ever raised the issue again or built off of that point in future posts I believe the mods would find some excuse to get them to stop. Which is similar to what happened with SecureSignals.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
No, I'm focused on the right thing. The content of what is written and how it is written. In nigh every post there are unsupported and often unfounded claims. But they are not modded because no one can be bothered to cite every sentence or hyperlink every belief to supporting evidence. That's not how anyone wants to converse. Instead people write what they believe and if challenged on the facts make the factual case. The standard you talk of is only raised when either enough reports or the wrong group is being discussed.
This is very obvious when looking at incendiary claims about topics that, in these parts, aren't all that controversial. I mean, everyone knows that, on average, black IQ is lower than white IQ in the US. By the same token, everyone knows there are no large gaps in intelligence that can not be accounted for by environmental factors. Would either of these claims need modding? No, there would just be a discussion. Someone with a differing opinion would reply and no mod would bother with either claim because the consensus of the forum doesn't treat these topics as a third rail.
Or if we think of it in the context of AI. A topic with multiple functionally single issue posters that make grand claims about a host of things with no supporting evidence. 'AI will doom us all and I think everyone knows that on some level' Do we need a mod to respond to this instance of consensus building or is it the functional norm that it's enough for someone to say 'I don't think so'?
To put it a different way, how is a poster supposed to share their preference for violent solutions and why should they do that differently and with more supporting evidence than those who feel a similar want for violence, just towards Palestinians or 'Muslim Arabs'? There's no sense in this.
Almost every single post has the issue you describe in your mod comment, aside from the account being a sock. You could mod every one of them but you don't. You mod this one. You pad the mod comment with stuff like rhetorical nitpicking that isn't generally seen as rulebreaking or relevant, add a framegame and some snark, and then when the poster replies you double down on the snark, flex the admin powers and ban.
If you were arbitrating the decision was simple, a sock posting. But you wanted to express yourself whilst wearing a mod hat. The poster replied and brought up antisemitism in their reply in some confusion and that's an instant permaban because...?
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
I don't think most intelligence work is planned like you describe. It's mostly elements of opportunity being identified and brought on board.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
To quote Dylan Roof:
"If we could somehow turn every jew blue for 24 hours, I think there would be a mass awakening, because people would be able to see plainly what is going on."
Russians would be harder to spot, and I'm not sure what European infiltration even means. But the Chinese? I think people would notice if half of all of Joe Rogan's political guests were Chinese.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
SecureSignals got modded for making a post once a week on things that he found interesting that related to the holocaust and zionism.
What I don't get is, who is getting sniped and how? This isn't reddit. Do ISP's in the US, or wherever this site is hosted, ban Holocaust denial?
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
Comparing this comment to comments where people nonchalantly float either ethnically cleansing or genociding Palestinians or intentionally starving babies as part of the war effort, why would this deserve a warning at all? The standard for engagement with the subject is that clamoring for genocide is fine. But doing so in detail is not fine because...?
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
The prevailing narrative on the online right back in 2016 was that Trump was it. The final charge. One last hurrah. The demographics can't sustain first world politics if things don't radically change. The detractors and 'true realists' said the demographics were already too far gone, but people chose to believe in Trump. Either he gets things done or it's over and we will be permanently stuck in a non-white/third-world timeline. The 'energy' and hope around Trump and his campaign in 2016 was powerful but the nasty little secret behind it was desperation. Change wasn't just coming, it was already here and time was running out.
The elements of the right that understood the demographic timeline started dropping off throughout Trump's first term, as Trump failed to live up to what was needed of him. Which might have been too much, to be fair to Trump. But what sealed the deal was that Trump was never operating on that wavelength to begin with. The right wing completely lost its direction after that. Either you dropped into the Trump vortex or you became politically homeless, supporting the right wing only for self preservation and a seething dislike of the left.
Following that, you had multiple camps all looking for answers as to just what to do or what their politics even were. Hating on Trump became an immediate reflexive pastime, whilst others held to some kind of hope that he could change. Some slid back towards the left and Liberalism or fell back into their old libertarian foxholes, whilst others just rode the Tiger like Fuentes.
Higher minded folks who saw themselves outside the former alt-right, now grift-right, started taking their own views far too seriously. Either by reviving the spirit of VenomFangX and becoming born again online Christians, now that their main adversary, online Atheism, has killed itself. Or by dropping the middle man and directly worshipping their own blogs instead. The NRx has famously solved the world through blogging and posting mildly racist and sexist takes on X, though it has so far failed to achieve its most immediate goal of tardwrangling the lower caste right wingers into supporting JD Vance. I mean, what good is all this theory and intelligence if you can't muster the men to do your bidding? But all of that was just cope. Desperate attempts at retreating and organizing after the big battle had been lost.
The core of the right was always very simple. Find hard but clear and pivotal truths about the world, recognize them and take the necessary actions these truths demand. Natural Law, Capitalism, Demographics is destiny. And in an odd way the last few years have managed to diffuse that simple core into a bunch of meaningless nonsense that, even if symptomatic of a host of issues, doesn't count towards anything real.
The truth of it is that we're experiencing the fallout of white America's final failure. As the first world slowly slides into being a first world and a half. And considering we don't have a ground war in Iran just yet, America might just have got off easy, as far as that issue is concerned, and Trump might have done more good than many. Which is certainly believable when looking back at his competition in 2016.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
Netanyahu has been floating that idea for over a year now. He then told Trump to stop sending them those 3.6-4bn that they've been receiving annually. Point being that, whatever it is, it's not Trump or the admin dumping the Israelis. At best it's Israel recognizing that they're becoming a drag on their own horse, and are trying to lighten the load so it doesn't collapse. But if that were a serious position, the timing is certainly awful and made completely irrelevant by the Iran war.
A much simpler explanation is that Netanyahu is making his own play for his own politics in Israel, and its effect on America is irrelevant to the decision being made.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
I highly doubt this cavalcade of republican failure will continue into 2028. Unless Trump has turned into a complete nihilist. I think even those zionists within the government recognize that the GOP needs to shed some weight. The first chop has to be the prominence of Netanyahu and Israel. So I'd expect a lot of the zionists in media to tune their stuff back a little. The chance you're going to sell any of the disgruntled republican voters anything that includes 'in the middle East' is basically zero, as noted above by cofee_enjoyer.
Outside of that it feels like the entire GOP strategy division is banking on the Dems to say something stupid about men in womens sports, or praying that they come up with a new gender or something in the next two years. What else do they have? Fiscal responsibility? After blowing away tens of billions on a war with Iran that no one can make heads or tails of? Calling people communist? Pretend to care even more about the vortex that is immigration? I'm not sure there are even enough white people to care about immigration in the coming years.
hanikrummihundursvin
5d ago
Netanyahu has been talking about weaning Israel off of US aid for a while now. I thought it was some kind of talking point he was making relating to internal Israeli politics to satisfy voices critical of that state of affairs, i.e. 'we are completely dependent on a foreign state and that's a potentially giant weakness'.
That being said, US aid to Israel isn't just coming in the form of 4 billion dollars. And whether one likes being dependent or not is often inconsequential to whether you actually are.
To the extent many are critical of jews and Israel, it's not necessarily about the total monetary amount but the process and the drive behind it that got America to that point, where it must be highlighted that the aid is ending only after Netanyahu said that it should.
Seems like a Third World entry into First World identity politics. Similar to Mamdani or Barrack Obama.
Third Worlders like big, blocky obvious things with signs on them. Like centralized organizations with logos, leaders and memberships, uniforms and codes of conduct.
First Worlders scoff at those kind of gaudy displays or at best tacitly tolerate them from the sidelines if their interest happens to align. They like small and safe things like associating themselves with their high status employment. Or practically invisible things, like 'personal beliefs' that's functionally lockstep with an ethereal consensus that every 'good person' knows. And anyone that doesn't know automatically signals that they are on the outside of being a 'good person'. But you can't call that anything. Then you're committing a faux pas and showing that you don't know. Because whatever you call it, that's not what it is, actually.
For a lot of First Worlders the idea that their club isn't all that invisible is a sort of social attack. Like being described as 'someone from Williamsburg'. They recoil at every term and label. Liberal, Progressive, Leftist, SJW, Woke, and whatever comes next. So in a similar vein, associating Abdul El-Sayed with the Muslim Brotherhood is an attack. He's just a Doctor doing his best to do good for the people, actually. Any application of an ulterior motive based on ethnic identity or any collectively biological determination is just racist Islamophobia in the same way that saying conservative jews only really care about zionism is antisemitic. Even if it's true for ~95% of them.
I'm not sure when the First World will stop playing this game of pretend. Maybe when everyone smart enough to play is dead. Or the amount of those too dumb to play outnumber those who aren't to such an extent that the complex social dance loses all relevance. But make no mistake, that is the game most people here are playing. So when you break rank for Abdul and friends but not the entire thing, you are validating the assertions that this is just Islamophobia. Either it's ethnic motivation or it's not. You don't get to pick and choose who it applies to.
It's an odd thing we have these ingrained emotional reactions to certain things, but not others depending on which group is being talked about. If I had my tinfoil hat on I'd call it a very stark example of social engineering!
For example, if you say a racist joke, the lib/left/progressive instinct, and the conservative one as well for that matter, is to assume you are a racist. Why else would you tell that joke? Why use your platform for that sort of thing? It's obvious that a person making racist jokes is pushing a racist agenda by mainstreaming racist rhetoric. Like, why would you think a Chinese accent would be a funny punchline? It's not at all unless you are a racist.
But when lib/left/progressive comedy darlings keep making jokes about raping children? No no, those are just jokes in poor taste, nothing deeper to see here. Dan Harmon's Daryl? Nope, nothing odd there, just jokes. Pete Davidson sexualizing infants? What a whacky guy haha. That was incredibly odd, uncomfortable and unnecessary to say but there is no inference to be made here about their character beyond that and if he says sorry its ok...
By the same token, is it odd to wish that Hitler had just gotten every single jew in the holocaust so we would not have to worry about any of this at all? If worldwide every single country had just airdropped jews straight into Krema II in 1944 and called it a day. What a load off of my chest that would be, haha! I mean call me an accelerationist but the sooner I stop hearing of them the better. Haha! Oh, you'd call me something other than an accelerationist? How odd.
I'd call you and this thing you are engaging in nihilistic zionism. Ultimately the arrow of advocacy leads towards zionism, but it's cloaked in a different wrapper for some reason. There's plausible deniability there but the end result is the same. I mean, it's so odd to see this rhetoric. As if people are just getting pushed into genocidal advocacy against Palestinians by chance and mild annoyance. Like, someone stubs their toe and their next thought is to nuke the West Bank.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
Children not being abused or neglected is not an unreasonable norm. You're presupposing that these institutions are built around the opinion of 'helicopter parents' when in reality they are built around cases where, if action had been taken at a certain threshold, a child could have been saved.
One can bemoan that these thresholds can be crossed by unlucky but otherwise good parents, but that's just how it is. The institution operates on the presumption that parents make their own luck.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
I think most demographics are horrified by stories of child neglect, abuse and death. But if you want to pin the want to organize to prevent such things on white people specifically, sure. Is there a point that follows?
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
I'd assume that to be completely inaccurate, and that the protocols are designed around both the worst and most common cases that land on the institutions desk. And the internal pressure on the decision makers mostly comes from how to prevent the 'big bad' cases that make the headlines from ever happening again. The parenting styles of those who work in those institutions, if they even have children, isn't a factor at all. It's a separate world to them. One to be managed, one to be lived in.
If the state decides to house a hundred odd million non-whites then yeah, that's a 'state issue'. But it's not possible to maintain first world institutions that are saddled with a third world population to manage. Especially whilst not being allowed to differentiate between folks despite how obviously different they are.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
Do you think CPS and other related institutions having ridiculous protocols for how to deal with certain things is downstream from helicopter parents or parents who leave their infants in the bathtub unattended?
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
A rare L for racism.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
State policy doesn't fall from the sky.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
I'll presume this to be another 'I'm white and imagining my white norms and priors unto this very non-white family in a very non-white predicament'.
I remember as a progressive being fed all the statistics of how horrible and backwards America was socially. Not understanding that most if not all of those statistics were being inflated by a large black and brown underclass that was, back then at least, not present in most of the 'civilized world' in Europe. But me, being completely incapable of even conceiving of such a world view consistently imagined all the stats applying to white people. It really helped cement the idea that Americans were a sort of different breed of human.
hanikrummihundursvin
13d ago
It's the dominant strategy in any sufficiently non-homogenous country that has voting. It's divergence and democracy that creates and enables the redistributive pressure often expressed as 'socialism'. In fact one could say that the concepts of capitalism and socialism as they exists in the minds of many are only really consistent with the notion of the 'have nots' taking from those who 'have' or vice versa.
With that in mind, there's a lot to be said for the lack of 'socialism' in homogenous Scandinavia. Despite the large welfare state and high taxes, that model looks dramatically more appealing and feels completely different from anything referred to as socialism in America since most people in Scandinavia are in some form a 'haver'. With personal dignity and private life that, when all is said and done, is pretty nice. Contrast that with Brazil or increasingly large parts of America where the number of 'havers' is proportionally decreasing. What on earth would the 'not havers' do with their vote and work other than to vote and work themselves into the pockets of those who 'have'?
It's an interesting refutation of the conservative conception of America and its freedom, democracy and free market capitalism as a whole. The American conservative does not believe that the state should be used as a tool to reach into the pockets of its citizenry to redistribute their wealth. That should be done through market forces. But when the 'have nots' mobilize within the market, exert enormous pressure on companies and bend them, sometimes literally, to their ideological will, suddenly that's not allowed either!
It need not be said that conservatives are getting their asses handed to them. The mainstream of society is dominated by liberal/leftist/progressive voices. To be normal is to not be a conservative.
The conservative then, out of necessity, increasingly argues in favor of an ideological socialism of sorts. Every idea should be treated equally. Everyone should have freedom of speech, thought and the capacity to express themselves in any educational institution they want without fear or reprisals. And if any company wants to censor one viewpoint, they should then necessarily have to censor any other. It's either all politics allowed or no politics allowed! And so forth. It can't be that their ideas are getting outcompeted, no. It's corruption in our media and universities, collusions and ideological monopolies.
This entire predicament is an indictment of the neoliberal class of elites that proposed that these conditions of diversity could be managed, and the conservatives who greedily accepted the neoliberal proposition since they believed it would make them money and, ultimately, that there was no way that they would lose in the free market. Hell, maybe the neoliberals were banking on that as well.
But no, modern society is not ignoring the new underclass of berry pickers and cleaning ladies. Who don't want your smiles and thank you-s or 30 minutes off on the occasional Friday. They want your money, they want your power, they want your life. And within a free market capitalist enterprise they are under no obligation to play by anyone's rules but the markets. And the market is responding to their actions and demands.
Americans are greedy even now, to act as if they are heading for 'Brazilification' and not something worse.
hanikrummihundursvin
18d ago
The cynic in me now believes he will win.
hanikrummihundursvin
25d ago
The businessman inside me suddenly wants to sell women's sportswear with 'Whore' written on it.
hanikrummihundursvin
27d ago
It's by definition more secretive the less transparent it is.
So is every process that is not publicly broadcasted 24/7. That doesn't mean that if not broadcast, they necessitate legitimate and reasonable concerns for malfeasance. Especially to the level of torture that goes beyond general operations of US prisons.
What do you mean, I don't engage with it.
I don't think I've been pretending they don't matter.
I gave an example in my post, I'll give one again for clarity to better express what I mean: Here I asked a question you did not engage with that we are now engaging with.
Regardless of him being a 'traitor', is a US army base a valid target? Does the US army kill innocent civilians? If the answer to these questions is yes, then what is this even about? The sympathy argument made in the Fox News interview is now even more inane than it was prior. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Inshallah.
From my perspective we are now finally getting to the point, posts later, where you engage with the moral point that's been leveraged. This is what I meant when I said you were not engaging with the point.
This might be true. I don't agree with his perspective. Do you?
Factually the US has committed atrocities against civilians in the middle East. Their military has been pivotal in carrying these atrocities out. To that extent, yes I agree that US servicemen are legitimate targets for reprisal attacks. I wish those attacks did not take place just as much as I wish the US stopped murdering the innocent when chasing after a demented zionist policy. But morally there is no question. Just like, morally, one could say that the US had a legitimate interest after 9/11 to go after Osama bin Laden and drop a few bombs. But they far overstepped what was morally permissible.
So to further clarify the point of contention that relates to the viewpoint I expressed and you replied to: Do you agree that when deciding to start a war against Iran on the basis that it's ruled by an an evil regime that hates America, as is so often alleged, that Iranian soldiers and their bases are legitimate targets, yes or no? Or do you only believe that US servicefolk are exempt from being valid targets when others take issue with how America has been governed? I'm not asking for what formal rules about declarations and acts of war say. I'm asking you, morally, what is permissible. Or do you, like many Americans I converse with, instinctively believe that Americans are of greater moral value to others? Where if they commit atrocities or represent the regime other allege are evil, that they can not be held accountable or be 'legitimately' targeted in the same way the US does to others?
Well, do you agree with collective guilt, or not?
No. But I also think there's a difference between a soldier and a civilian. And the rules of engagement that are set by both parties. But I already specifically asked you a question about this here:
Iranian solders don't get to decide on when the war begins. The US just bombs them at an opportune time to the celebration of plenty of Americans. To the US that's a legitimate act of war. Why would Nidal have to operate by different rules?
And here:
Are you pretending you don't understand the moral culpability of soldiers in service of an evil regime? How does America justify killing Iranian soldiers? The same way Nidal does when justifying the killing of American soldiers.
You replied that the distinction to this obviously moral contention being presented was that Nidal was American, and not capable of carrying out a legitimate act of war. To which I asserted that you were not engaging with the point:
I think you're just being obtuse to rhetorically distance yourself from the moral arguments made by the victims of Americas zionist foreign policy. Trying to qualify the event through ways that can't be equated with the actions of US armed forces. But when we do look at the actual issue at hand, which is the killing, there are plenty of equivocal examples to be drawn on.
The way I experience this, the American frame here is simple. The only legitimate ways to wage war are conveniently conventional and appeal to the perceived strengths of the US military. Dropping bombs on targets of convenience via air is legitimate, strapping a bomb to your chest and walking it towards your target of convenience is not. The CIA doing espionage operations that lead to a military target getting bombed or otherwise assassinated is legitimate. A lone Palestinian pretending to be American and then shooting a bunch of military targets is not.
I sense, generally, that you disagree with actions taken by the United States government and therefore sympathize with Nidal. But I'm not getting a clear ethical framework for why you think what Nidal did was right and what the U.S. did was wrong.
If the US had legitimate interest in the region but killed a bunch of civilians in the process, I'd still understand Nidal's viewpoint. I'd just admonish those who want to pretend that you can import the people you just bombed and not face the consequences. And I'd likewise want to diminish those voices that wanted to pretend that there are no morally grey areas in war and that it doesn't carry a cost.
I think that killing good people is bad. And that when good people start killing one another, some want to say that there can only be good people on their side, not the other. I think those people are not just wrong but acting in a way that is morally blind and moving towards evil.
I think there's actually a huge moral valiance to oathbreaking. A single person killing his wife is much more evil than a single person who uses a nuclear weapon to destroy an entire carrier battle group, killing thousands of people including any civilians who happen to be onboard. Do you disagree?
That still would be completely immaterial to the point being discussed, which I accused you of trying to distance yourself from. Not that I even believe you to actually hold this position. Unless I'm gravely misunderstanding you and you take issue with the CIA and any espionage operations the US engages in or benefits from that rely on spies or similar 'oathbreakers'.
Outside of that I don't manage to relate to your hypothetical. Feel free to clarify. For instance, oathbreaking in a marriage can mean murder, sure, but also infidelity. My point would be that murder is worse and the oathbreaking largely irrelevant when the stakes have been raised that much. And I feel more emotional relation to the weight of betrayal from someone you lived with and trusted, rather than someone who made a vow. I'd argue the vow itself is functionally ceremonial and irrelevant in the modern world. As it does not represent anything real or serious to many people. Regardless of whether we think it should or not. Whilst feeling of betrayal or the knowledge that someone wants or wanted to murder you carries more of the emotional weight.
The link that you provided does not substantiate your suggestion that the US military killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Middle East throughout the Global War on Terror. It substantiates that hundreds of thousands of people were killed, which I did not dispute.
You're going to have to clarify. From the article:
This chart, compiled by political scientist Neta Crawford (Co-Founder, Costs of War and Professor, Oxford University) and anthropologist Catherine Lutz (Co-Founder, Costs of War), tallies reported deaths caused by direct war violence in the post-9/11 wars. It does not include indirect deaths, namely those caused by loss of access to food, water, and/or infrastructure, war-related disease, etc. The numbers included here are approximations based on the reporting of several original data sources.
We can cut the number in half if you want, or more. The moral valance of the argument still stands. But I don't understand where you are coming from when you say that the link does not substantiate what I said.
You, of course, will not be able to find any actual polling or research suggesting that a plurality of Americans support bombing innocent civilians.
The majority of Trump supporters are in favor of bombing targets even with a great risk of civilian casualties. That's a valid plurality, I'd say. It's an interesting article in any case, that validates my overarching point as well:
In a 2015 experiment by Scott D. Sagan and Benjamin A. Valentino, Americans were presented with a scenario where the US military had located a meeting attended by 20 Taliban leaders taking place in the same building as 40 civilians that had no knowledge of the Taliban meeting. When asked to choose between conducting an airstrike that would kill both the civilians and the Taliban or conducting no strike and letting the Taliban leaders escape, 66 percent of Americans approved of the strike when the civilians where Afghan. This was significantly higher than when the civilians were identified as Indian (50%) or American (36%). When asked if this strike was ethical, 51 percent said yes when the Afghans were the casualties, followed by 38 percent when the casualties were either American or Indian.
Beyond that, if you're willing to risk your own civilians as victims then you can do that. I won't listen to anyone try to play victim about that after the fact though. Which is, similarly what irked me about the Fox News interview. So long as the response is proportional, I'd say it's valid. But that both parties should start recognizing the cost and the evil they are engaging in and stop.
And Nidal Hasan chose to don that uniform. He should have represented that force, instead of some other force (be that the Taliban, Palestine, the mob, whoever.)
Now you're just playing wordgames. The original point was about the validity of military targets. Nidal chose to wear that uniform and then used that uniform to advantage himself on the battlefield against his enemy. You can execute people for that, which America and others have done. But that's, again irrelevant to the point.
Kind of a weird thing to say, given that nobody can think of American without thinking of cowboys, and nobody can think of cowboys without thinking of Indians.
European peoples would have recorded their own culture and history just the same. And we would be none the poorer for it to not have stories of cowboys and Indians. As we would not know of that history existing. Just like we now, today, do not know what history or modern life could have been had the Indians not been there. And even if we did, I would likely celebrate it, as that would very likely have meant less human suffering. But that's purely hypothetical.
hanikrummihundursvin
28d ago
You specifically proposed "killing them in a manner not publicized and then announcing that they have been executed." That is secretive. I agree that the current American method of execution, which permits witnesses to attend, is not secret.
It is not secretive to openly process someone through the justice system, sentence them to death in a fair trial, house them in a a valid (for US standards) prison facility on death row, and then unceremoniously kill them. You provide no argument, you've just asserted that this is secretive somehow again and again. If you believe these institutions are working in secret, make that case. If you don't believe that, give a justification for why institutions that are not working in secret would start if the method of execution was changed from being a publicly broadcasted event to a private one. Why would that elevate the risk of torture?
I don't think this is an accurate description of Americans on here, even the ones I've argued with about foreign policy.
But that is exactly my experience both here and elsewhere when talking about Us foreign policy. And is in part what you are doing in this very conversation.
What's your point here? I don't think anyone is denying that Hasan sees the world something along these lines, although I am not sure this is exactly how he would articulate it.
This is the perspective of another person. I'm sure he would articulate it differently, but this is what I presume motivates many middle Eastern terrorists.
But you don't engage with it. Instead you assert the American perspective. Despite all the innocents killed by the US. How are you not seeing this? It reminds me of this exchange between Michael Scheuer and the House Homeland Security Committee.
Nidal was not carrying out an act of war.
From his perspective he was. He sees no reason to dignify the sanctity you or others reserve for the US and its actions on the world stage. And as he demonstrated, and like America has demonstrated against many a innocent victim across the globe, those rules and laws are just a piece of paper. Those US soldiers are dead just like those civilians are. If you want to pretend that the motives of the shooter don't matter, go ahead. But I think they do. And I think that a military like the American one, that has done some many horrible things in the service of a demented foreign policy can't play victim or hide being international law, sitting on a throne of dead women and children. That were to the US at the time 'convenient targets' they later choose to call 'Collateral Damage' after the women and children dead are counted.
Can you acknowledge how absurd it would sound to a person who identifies with the victims of those attacks that people representing the organization that committed those atrocities are complaining that they themselves were attacked in a 'place of trust' that's actually a military base?
Nidal is an American soldier who publicly committed to protect and defend the constitution and faithfully execute his duties. Perhaps oathbreaking is not morally cognizable to you, but it generally is not considered moral behavior. It would be similarly contemptible for Iranian soldiers to break their oaths and kill their fellow soldiers in the way that Hasan did, even if they did so out of sympathy for the United States.
Here you are asserting your American frame. There's no argument. Just an assertion that, to you, Nidal did wrong based on specific premises. I don't think oathbreaking is the main problem when people commit a mass shooting. I think you're just being obtuse to rhetorically distance yourself from the moral arguments made by the victims of Americas zionist foreign policy. Trying to qualify the event through ways that can't be equated with the actions of US armed forces. But when we do look at the actual issue at hand, which is the killing, there are plenty of equivocal examples to be drawn on.
Did any of the people Nidal shot kill innocent people?
Did any of the civilians bombed by the US?
Getting things right generally matters. If you are unfamiliar with the dynamics of the Global War on Terror and who killed hundreds of thousands of citizens in the Middle East, perhaps you should withhold some of your judgment until you have a better understanding of what actually happened.
I'm familiar with the death toll and the number I mentioned is generally accurate, depending on how much faith you put in US universities doing research into the topic. I already said, however, that the total number would not matter to the point of contention, given that it's very high in any case. High enough to make a mockery of any US serviceman who pretends to be a victim when killed. Especially so in Yemen.
Does it have to be hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Isn't it perverted to support the murder of...one person?
What do you think this chain of replies is about? You said Americans were generally well versed in the moral cost of the actions they support. Noting several popular authors who you allege are read in America. I maintained that many Americans generally were not, given the repeat support they show for bombing innocent civilians.
So to incorporate your example, yes. If someone murdered an innocent person on command of someone hoping to benefit some twisted foreign policy, then wrote a book about how haunting the face of their victim is as it twists in pain in their dreams. And then someone else reads this, says it affected them dearly, and then goes out and supports killing innocents in search of the same gain the murderer sought, I would call that perverted, yes. The emotions felt by the reader were purely self gratifying and perverse. The emotional turmoil just another experience to be had.
Are you pretending American and Iranian soldiers are co-belligerents? Or than American soldiers swore an oath to uphold and protect the Iranian Constitution?
No, I don't understand this. I'm saying that when you don a military uniform, you represent that force.
In your definition, a black guy who ancestry has been in America for hundreds of years, or a Native American guy whose ancestry has been in America for thousands of years, is less American than Donald Trump, who's a latecomer.
For the most part, yes. And this is demonstrated by the plurality of blacks living in America today. And the history of the native Americans, who never in their thousands of years of history on the continent did anything to make it into America as it is generally known to be. That was all 'Europeans'.
I'm referring to when SS was making new posts in the CW thread, relating various topics back to either holocaust mythology or jewish influence in media. He made one once a thread or so. He stopped writing those at a consistent pace due to badgering by mods. I don't know how to see modhat comments in the modlog, but I saved the one that was most exemplifying of what was going on.
https://www.themotte.org/post/1405/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/284375?context=8#context
He gets reported for 'making it about the jews again'. But SS had apparently made posts about other topics, due to previous mod intervention regarding single issue posting, so we see user report prejudice being acted on by mods against a user with unpopular opinions with no relevant basis in the rules.
It must be annoying, spending a lot of time writing things out in full compliance with the rules, then have your posts and replies to others used against you, being told that you are posting too much. But you're also badgered for not replying or posting enough. It's like...
This thread continues the saga. https://www.themotte.org/post/3421/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/394266?context=8#context
More options
Context Copy link