domain:putanumonit.com
I understand what you're saying, I don't really see it as a different category of problem. Germans and Poles and Russians and Ukrainians have all experienced living in places for centuries only to find that the government of that place suddenly no longer considered them citizens. So did Russian aristocracy, Cambodian bourgeoisie, East African indians, hell millions of Americans have arguments around this.
This seems like another special pleading case where the Holocaust is considered particularly exceptional and gives the designated descendants of the victims a gold card to break norms that everyone else is expected to observe.
Either way the argument that the Holocaust justifies paranoia doesn't really absolve anyone of anything. If I'm dating a girl and she refuses to commit because "she's been hurt before," I'm not obligated to tolerate it and consider her a loyal girlfriend despite her disloyal behavior. Commitment is commitment, and mixed loyalty is mixed loyalty, even if it is justified paranoia rather than pure avarice.
Guerrilla warfare certainly isn't uniquely Western but is positively viewed and admired. Most Americans seem to have broadly positive views of the Viet Cong, whose calling card was using innocent villagers as cover.
Now put the situation in the greater context of what the UK/US did in the founding of Israel, the wiping out villages, the absolute inhumanity of the IDF in the Intifada towards the Palestinians and the fact half the western world decided to back Israel to fuck everyone in the region. And you just might start to consider when they say From the River to the sea, they might have a point.
Given that IDF service is mandatory for everyone except the haredim, asking an Israeli about their opinion on the IDF is literally "do you like yourself and your neighbors?" - not terribly meaningful, or a useful reflection of Israeli opinion on state policy.
If Hamas had the military power to actually accomplish this, that would make their actions less pointlessly evil.
As I understand it, the original conception for Oct. 7 was a surprise Hamas break-out, coupled with a simultaneous large-scale Hezbollah offensive, would pincer Israel and overwhelm its local defenses, potentially sufficiently to spark sympathetic uprisings in the West Bank or among Israeli arabs as well.
Notably, the Hezbollah component of the attack didn't happen, and good for the Israelis that it didn't because in terms of raw numbers of fighters and weapons, Hezbollah had a lot more than Hamas (prior to Operation Grim Beeper and collateral airstrikes, at least).
I wound up using the golden halberd for my entire playthrough because there simply wasn’t anything better along strength/faith lines, except possibly magma sword. To be honest, it wasn’t the most pleasant experience, especially since I got the halberd immediately on starting the game. There was no real progression from then on, outside of some buffs. So I’m not sure I’d recommend it, even though it can certainly carry you through. Jumping heavy attacks are the key, fwiw. They knock the target down fast and give you free hits. I tried a couple of ranged options but never really liked them - the damage really wasn’t there compared to melee, especially considering that you have to drain your healing for the privilege.
If you’re really having trouble, use summons. I used them for the two bosses you mentioned, then tabooed them for myself because I got both of them on the first try and felt like I was missing out, then brought them back for a couple of the later bosses when I found I wasn’t particularly enjoying the game any longer and just wanted to hit the full clear.
About as insightful a comment as "Eh, they are not 'free Palestine' raped yet" would have been about Oct 7th.
Except that's a meaningful statement - "the acts of war undertaken so far have been insufficient to compel a favorable political resolution" - just glibly phrased.
If you are the Israeli government, then yes, the lives of your citizens are more important than the lives of an adversary. That's what it means to be a nation-state.
Same for the US. I would expect the American government to prioritize the lives of Americans held abroad above the lives of citizens of enemy - or even of third party neutral - countries.
South Korea probably wants North Korea to remain exactly as it is.
If the NK government falls, the refugees will overwhelm South Korea. Even if the NK government peacefully reforms, the migrants will overwhelm South Korea - it will take generations for the NK economy to catch up, and in the meantime the North Koreans can travel.
South Korea would be forced to implement immigration control that would make Trump blush (or maybe even Netanyahu), and against what are technically their own countrymen to boot.
The response would be police because the Canadian government wouldn't actually say "get fucked"; they'd track down said native group using both their own resources and those the US provided. A world where the Canadian government would say "get fucked" is one different enough that Canada could indeed be invaded over it.
I'll go a bit further: if Hamas were white evangelicals wearing MAGA hats, rather than brownish Muslims, a large amount of the people claiming Israel is doing warcrimes would be calling for the IDF to take its gloves off and turn the land into a parking lot.
Are the Israeli lives more important than the lives of the Gazan children or not?
Because at this point the Israelis are holding the children hostage too.
before they would start looking like North Korea
Which is to say, stable and at peace (if an uneasy one) with their neighbors?
Yes this is indeed actually more plausible.
I still prefer my version because it's clear to me I would even be willing to annihilate very white Canadians if they supported something like a 10/07 on America.
The fact that Palestinians are full of jihadis makes them repulsive to me but the basis of my indifference is game theory.
This makes him the first right winger I've seen say anything about starvation
Maybe you mean the first Republican. Right-wing anti-Zionists, like Darryl Cooper and Tucker Carlson, believe that Israel is intent on killing as many Palestinians as possible without completely alienating the international community, and then expelling the rest.
There's no way Israel could be anything different. They're surrounded by enemies.
They started out with a fairly "European" mindset back when Israel was founded. That's why they didn't just ethnically cleanse the area back when they could've gotten away with it more easily. A cynic would say that that was a mistake. They are becoming Middle-Easterners in order to survive among the Middle-Easterners. Again, a cynic would say they're not adapting fast enough.
The only other option would have been to do it in a different location. Hand them part of defeated Germany after the war, and move the Jews already in Palestine out. But of course, Germany isn't the Holy Land.
But it didn't. And once it happens everyone knows it's possible. And now that's the reality both governments have to live in. Just as Israel has to respond if only for domestic reasons, Hamas may also be emboldened.
We're also operating with hindsight about how (in)effective Hezbollah would be here. A situation where Hezbollah is also emboldened while Hamas is still effective and untouched looks significantly more dangerous after Oct. 7.
Oh, they weren't "deranged." Jew-hatred is centuries old. I realize you're in the "There's a good reason for that" camp, but like everyone else who says this, you never do more than wave at Jewish Communists and other Jewish leftists and imply that this is evidence of some inherent nefarious characteristic of Jewishness.
That's not true. There are certainly a lot of good examples on the left of what many take issue with when it comes to jews and behavior that is demonstrably negative to others. Which also demonstrates a very vicious spirit against the other. But that's not my evidence for anything other than that. There are bad people and negative psychological expressions in all population groups. The distinction is where it manifests, how and why. My main underlying point would be that jews are highly ethnocentric and seemingly unaware of their own biases in a way that can become very damaging if left unchecked. As many jews have demonstrated.
Were Jewish citizens of Germany exempt from national service?
I doubt it, but since my examples don't relate to the position of jews within Germany during WW2 I don't know why I should care.
You sure loved that anecdote about a few Jewish families with a dozen passports, but how common do you think that is, really?
Probably rare, which is why my point was highlighted by immigrant groups in Ukraine running away from conflict. The point wasn't about jews in particular but the phenomenon of outside population groups reaping the harvest and then leaving when it's time to till the field.
Do you think the average Jew (in America or elsewhere) has a dozen passports and is ready to flee the country if it faces a threat? Do you think Jews would flee in greater numbers than others? If a Jew doesn't have multiple passports and has in fact served in the military, do you regard him as a co-national like yourself? (Have you served?)
Do you think these questions are relevant to anything I've said? To the only tangentially relevant point, last time I checked, jews were very underrepresented in the US armed forces.
Don't people generally have a "Support the Troops" mentality even if you disagree with what the leadership is doing with the troops?
I imagine that it gets even more so when everyone and their brother spent time in the IDF when they were young.
Besides, even for broadly the current location, there would have been better solutions (proper ethnic cleansing followed by the establishment of a firm border, not the current slowly expanding blob with partially incorporated territories).
No arguments there.
META strategies
I don't know what this is intended to mean. Is META an acronym for something? Or what are "metastrategies" in this context?
The war situation has developed not necessarily to Gaza's favor.
Indeed, which is why Hamas should stop starving the populace of Gaza.
Hamas, as the governing body (such as it is), is the one obligated to provide for their own people's food. This whole thing is predicated on the idea that feeding Gaza is the job of literally anyone else on the planet except the actual people who are responsible for doing so.
More options
Context Copy link