AlexL
-
Posts
802 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
47
Reputation Activity
-
AlexL got a reaction from necrovore in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
Is this language acceptable in this forum? @dream_weaver
-
AlexL got a reaction from Jon Letendre in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
You are thus refuting your own unqualified claim that "the tunnel network is a defensive utility for the terrorists"
-
AlexL got a reaction from tadmjones in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
You are thus refuting your own unqualified claim that "the tunnel network is a defensive utility for the terrorists"
-
AlexL got a reaction from Craig24 in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
You are thus refuting your own unqualified claim that "the tunnel network is a defensive utility for the terrorists"
-
AlexL got a reaction from Craig24 in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
No.
You are certainly aware that these tunnels are used also for storing weapons, including rockets and missiles. As well as for housing Hamas leadership and operatives.
You are also aware that Hamas fired dozen of thousands of rockets and missiles from Gaza into Israel. in the last weeks, but also before that.
So, let's connect the points to understand how it works:
Hamas leadership sends small groups of operatives to collect weapons from the tunnel storages, to pop up at the surface from the many hidden tunnel shafts, fire the rockets/missiles then disappear back in the tunnel network.
If this usage of the tunnel network is defensive, what would be an offensive usage???😁
-
AlexL got a reaction from Craig24 in Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative
Because it is in the RAND Corporation document, together with “Russian escalation”, „brutality of Russia’s campaign in Ukraine”, „Russian war crimes” etc. ! These are not MY comments!
And even if not quoted literally, in an honest summary there should be a mention of the fact that the study considers the attack of Ukraine by Russia inacceptable and condemns it in the strongest words. And there should be also a mention of the fact that the study starts from the premise that the Russian Federation needs to be confronted.
These considerations are, for the study, the premises for their recommendations: - to continue to oppose RF, but
- to be aware that there are actions which RF will be capable to use as excuses to attack NATO,
- “but they need not operate under the assumption that every action will entail acute escalation risks”
This last point is a direct quote from the Study, namely from their highlighted assessment:
“A Russia-NATO war is far from an inevitable outcome of the current conflict. U.S. and allied policymakers should be concerned with specific pathways and potential triggers, but they need not operate under the assumption that every action will entail acute escalation risks.”
Yes, precisely, the fundamentals, that is the main ideas of the study, in our case, and not some misrepresentation. Here is my very short, but fair summary:
“While considering the attack of Ukraine by Russia inacceptable and needed to be confronted, the RAND Corporation study advises that the US policymaker should be aware that there are actions which RF will be capable to use as excuses to attack NATO.”
It has 42 words, This can be augmented by a more or less detailed description of the four circumstances with the potential of being used by Russia as excuses to attack NATO. The total will not exceed 300 words [using the dream-weaver's 245-word summary]. The RT’s misrepresentation of the study has 800 words (the study itself has 2’800 words.) Therefore, “space constraints” is a shameful excuse for omitting to include the general position of the study towards this war.
-
AlexL reacted to whYNOT in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
Thank you, but way off. My first consideration was for Ukrainians and what I anticipated could only be great bloodshed, however the war turned out. I could never have predicted its present scale. If only those "defenders of Ukraine" had had their best interests at heart. It apparently has not occurred to many. Ukraine was set up to be the convenient "punch bag" on which Russia would eventually ~have to~ expend itself, so "Weakening Russia" was always the motive. The largest propaganda coup in history, convincing everyone that an insane Putin could not be reasoned and negotiated with and his invasion was unpreventable, even 'fated', with Russia's aims on wider invasions and occupations.
Russia and Putin were/are not a terror gang, to which there is only one response and zero diaogue.
-
AlexL got a reaction from Jon Letendre in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
I am still waiting for your coment on this. You should better be aware that the matter is serious.
-
AlexL got a reaction from Jon Letendre in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
Then tell me what do you find unclear in what I wrote. Here is it again:
-
AlexL reacted to stansfield123 in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
Israel is a "Jewish state" the same way France is a "French state". Zionism isn't the imposition of Judaism, it's Jewish nationalism. It's EXACTLY THE SAME as French nationalism. If you asked Macron tomorrow whether he would like France to remain French, he would say "Absolutement." Exactly the same answer Bibi would give, if you asked him whether he wants Israel to stay Jewish.
That's what a "national state" is. That's what "nationalism" means: it's the idea Europeans had, back in the 19th century, of replacing empires, kingdoms, dukedoms, and all the other aristocratic states, with states which draw their borders based on the ethnic identity of the inhabitants. And, once those borders are established, "nationalism" becomes the desire to preserve that ethnic identity.
And the vast majority of relatively capitalist countries follow this nationalist model. Just. Like. Israel. And that's no coincidence. There's immense value in the 1000 year language, culture and history of the French, or in the many thousands year language, culture and history of the Jews. Immense value to the state as a whole (the stability and wisdom of state institutions which often follow a model that's been tested and perfected over the course of centuries), and to the individual lives of the people who live in that state. The Jewish identity (with those thousands of years of culture that implies) is the reason why Jews have better lives than most others, both in Israel and elsewhere. It's why so many Nobel winners are Jews, so many billionaires are Jews, etc.
In short, French nationalism and Jewish nationalism (as I just described them) are both positive ideas, which contribute to positive outcomes both on the state and on the individual level. Obviously, ultra-nationalism goes beyond what I just described, and it doesn't lead to positive outcomes. But ultra-nationalism is atypical both in France and in Israel.
Back to the point:the notion that Israel is a theocratic state is a blatant lie. It's not, it's a typical western, national state. Aside from Switzerland, I can't even think of a major western country that's not a nationalist state. This includes the "monarchies" ... because those are strictly symbolic, the government is nationalist, not aristocratic.
Israel is also a democracy, of course, and, like all democracies with religious people in them, they have political representatives which push religion. These politicians represent minorities which identify by their religion, and vote accordingly. In Israel, there are two minorities which vote like that: people who vote based on their Judaism, and people who vote based on being Muslim. They are BOTH minorities (the orthodox Jewish vote is in fact smaller than the Muslim vote). They are both smaller minorities than Evangelicals in the US. Neither of them runs Israel to any significant degree.
I'll edit in a tldr, in all caps, so it sinks in: ISRAEL IS LESS RELIGIOUS THAN THE US. Americans sniping at Israel over religion is ridiculous. And, of course, Muslims sniping at anyone over religion is just madness.
-
AlexL reacted to Jon Letendre in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
Not collectivist. In - “I really don’t care about this conflict” because I have no dog in the fight, or words to that effect - I read simply that it doesn’t involve him, doesn’t involve his interests. It may as well be a battle between good and evil a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. “But which side is good and which is evil, you gotta decide!!” No, we don’t have to. We don’t have to be interested or care at all. There are too many conflicts today and it would take too much time. Not collectivist. Focused on what affects us.
-
AlexL reacted to stansfield123 in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
That's just as collectivist as the flip side: "I care because I'm Jewish", or "I care because I'm Muslim". You're still justifying your views with a shallow, irrelevant political identity.
I'm also not Jewish or Muslim. The reason why I care about what happened on October 7 is because I'm a human, with a soul. Which means I have a comprehensive, consistent sense of justice, which causes me to feel revulsion when something so revolting happens.
If Zionism is invalid, it's okay to say "I don't care about beheaded babies, or about people fucking the corpses of young women they murdered at a music festival, because they were Jewish and I'm not"?
-
AlexL reacted to stansfield123 in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
Not everyone in Hamas is a fighter. The fighting force itself is ~20-25K strong. Hamas (political leadership, police force, clergy, propagandists, the paid informants they have among the population, the people in charge of indoctrination, etc.) is probably around 100K strong (this is a wild guess, of course, just to illustrate the scale of it).
The IDF are under orders to obey the international laws of war, so they can't just follow a shoot on sight policy against unarmed individuals. However, any Hamas member or collaborator who cannot be safely captured is a legitimate target, under international law. The aerial attacks on Hamas member and collaborators (be it the military or administrative side of it) are perfectly legal.
The only way any of those 100K survive this is if they find a way to surrender safely. I can't say I wish them luck, but I assume many will surrender.
-
AlexL reacted to Easy Truth in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
Yes, it is existential. So why don't they make a lasting peace with their enemies which are gaining in population and technology?
Israel is evading that reality.
But my interest lies in not being dragged into a nonsensically initiated war. I would agree with Grames that Zionism cannot be a justification for anything.
-
AlexL reacted to Grames in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
Posting to subscribe to the thread. I really don't care about this conflict because I am neither jewish nor muslim. I would just like to remind everyone of the big picture: modern Isreal exists because of the ideology of Zionism and jewish supremacism embedded within it. If Zionism is invalid then anything which is a consequence of Zionism is invalid.
-
AlexL got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine
Is this for me? If it is, then first cool down. Then explain, calmly, your objection to my comments.
-
AlexL reacted to whYNOT in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine
There'd not have been a war without close collusion of Western Gvts./Nato with their flunky western media. The immense sacrifices demanded requires sanction from unthinking, misinformed majorities, driven by emotions whipped up by the media.
Ukraine in some regional wrangle with Russia? Were there solutions on hand? Yes. Simply slap temporary sanctions on both; tell them both to behave, stand down and begin negotiations--instantly - before conflict escalates.
Why is it our business? - stay out.
If just in retrospect, one can now see that was too simple or rational; an unsuitable resolution contrary to the ultimate goals of the 'powers that be. Therefore, they intended war.
-
AlexL got a reaction from tadmjones in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine
Is this for me? If it is, then first cool down. Then explain, calmly, your objection to my comments.
-
AlexL reacted to whYNOT in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine
e
A prequel to Ukraine, with very similar elements in place; The Soviets break up, a Color revolution, a war by West-leaning Georgians against the conservative loyalists in South Ossetia, a (short) military intervention by Russia - however = Georgia remains a sovereign nation to the present. Russia did not try to conquer/annex/ "Empire build" Georgia by justifying and capitalizing upon the tensions. Further, it did not do so despite Georgian wishes to join NATO and their close operational affinity.
A state situated totally within Russia - a NATO member!? and all the militarization and probable nuclear bases that entails? Really smart - and cynical. Unpopular with Moscow. This would be a security danger (for Georgia as well), into the far future. Nor would any other country consider tolerating a clearly inimical entity entering its heartland.
I could theorize that the game-plan by NATO et al utilized the Georgian episode knowing it could also entice Russia into Ukraine to defend loyalists - and the RF - against a massive, Nato-ized army, and to block NATO's intentions in the Russian "near abroad".
Besides, the fault lay largely with Georgia for the conflict, in this independent study. Only the RF's "legality' is faulted.
https://www.dw.com/en/independent-report-blames-georgia-for-south-ossetia-war/a-4746802
-
AlexL reacted to necrovore in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine
When you imply that someone is a conspiracy theorist, that is a statement about the person rather than the argument they are making.
Saying that someone "must be irrational if they support X, Y, or Z" can be an argument from intimidation, like "Oh, you can't claim to be an Objectivist if you believe X, Y, or Z, because then you'd be irrational, and Objectivists have to be rational." It's an appeal to Objectivist peer pressure, especially trying to say that "this is supposed to be an Objectivist board so only Objectivist points of view should be able to be posted here," etc.
And both are a form of psychologizing -- attacking a statement by going into the mental state of the person making it, instead of attacking it by comparing it to reality.
If you want to show that some statement X is mistaken, then you have to show why without reference to the person making the statement.
If you want to show that a statement is arbitrary then you need to show that no evidence, of any kind, could establish its truth or falsehood -- that it is "detached from reality" in the specific sense that reality wouldn't make any difference to it.
(It's possible for something to be arbitrary "in practice" and to prove this by using other facts about the world to establish that it is arbitrary; it is valid, for example, to say that a statement is arbitrary because the current state of technology is such that nobody could know today whether it is true or false -- even if in principle it might become known someday. This is how you deal with the claim of the teapot orbiting Venus.)
Finally, it's not always possible to prove something definitively on any sort of forum. This is why civilization as such sometimes requires people to agree to disagree. It is also one of the reasons why freedom is important. There can be a difference between what you know and what you can prove to others.
-
AlexL reacted to necrovore in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine
This is nothing but an ad hominem and an argument from intimidation.
The whole debate is about which facts to use, because if someone can cause facts to be discarded, or lies to be treated as facts, they can rig the argument to produce any result they want, even without changing the principles.
The "mainstream Western media" has learned that they can get perquisites by going along with the party line; the government, which makes news whenever it changes its policies, can reward obedient reporters by giving them scoops. This has been true for a long time; Rush Limbaugh's radio show cited example after example after example (of reporters uncritically repeating what they were told by leftist politicians). I see no evidence that this situation has changed, and much evidence that it has gotten worse. I also see no evidence that the situation is any different with the Ukraine issue than any other (such as gun control). That the media lies is not a "conspiracy theory." It is very real, and has been going on for decades.
I do not agree with @whYNOT about everything, but I very much disagree with the notion of censoring or canceling everything and everybody that "goes against the mainstream." Ayn Rand also went against the mainstream, and if she were to have written her novels in today's environment, no one would know about her.
-
AlexL got a reaction from William Scott Scherk in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine
Yes, this is an Ayn Rand fan-forum, but it is practically unmoderated (the nominal moderator is @dream_weaver).
As a consequence, @whYNOT does not consider having an obligation to back up his claims with facts, even if asked to. Also, he is approvingly referencing and quoting Putin's Russia governmental media and non-Russian commentators working for these media, which also don't back up their claims with facts, or back them up with fake "facts".
You may follow my debate with @whYNOT in this "About the Russian aggression of Ukraine" one year old thread. It is very long, so that you have to be quite motivated... Pay attention to his constant anti-Western, particularly anti-Western media stance.
He sees the generally pro-Ukraine position of the mainstream Western media as being a result of the activity of a centrally-driven propaganda machine - a conspiracy, IOW. He sees no other possible explanation.
The tactics I am using with him is to challenge him to prove his claims with facts. He never does, thus confirming his irrationality, but this doesn't bother him, nor does it bother the moderator...
So yes, @whYNOT is an Ayn Rand fan, but only in the sense that he quotes her from time to time, with no visible understanding of Objectivist epistemology and ethics/politics. Maybe this happens only with the subject Putin vs Ukraine...
His current defense of Israel's right to exist and defend itself is not based on principles, it is a whim: as I already said, even a broken clock is right twice a day.😁
-
AlexL got a reaction from Craig24 in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine
Yes, this is an Ayn Rand fan-forum, but it is practically unmoderated (the nominal moderator is @dream_weaver).
As a consequence, @whYNOT does not consider having an obligation to back up his claims with facts, even if asked to. Also, he is approvingly referencing and quoting Putin's Russia governmental media and non-Russian commentators working for these media, which also don't back up their claims with facts, or back them up with fake "facts".
You may follow my debate with @whYNOT in this "About the Russian aggression of Ukraine" one year old thread. It is very long, so that you have to be quite motivated... Pay attention to his constant anti-Western, particularly anti-Western media stance.
He sees the generally pro-Ukraine position of the mainstream Western media as being a result of the activity of a centrally-driven propaganda machine - a conspiracy, IOW. He sees no other possible explanation.
The tactics I am using with him is to challenge him to prove his claims with facts. He never does, thus confirming his irrationality, but this doesn't bother him, nor does it bother the moderator...
So yes, @whYNOT is an Ayn Rand fan, but only in the sense that he quotes her from time to time, with no visible understanding of Objectivist epistemology and ethics/politics. Maybe this happens only with the subject Putin vs Ukraine...
His current defense of Israel's right to exist and defend itself is not based on principles, it is a whim: as I already said, even a broken clock is right twice a day.😁
-
AlexL reacted to whYNOT in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine
All conjecture and propaganda-fuelled "revanchist" nonsense. Regard the Russian actions - foremost. Politicians' rhetoric and accusations of misdeeds count little. Make your own deductions from facts.
It is "a given": invading Poland etc.etc., would result in nuclear catastrophe - everybody loses. Does anyone think the Kremlin didn't/does not know this, or would welcome annihilation? First order of the western propaganda we saw was to get around that minor detail, to promote an "insane Putin" who'd immolate his country along with everybody else.
Turns out he is quite rational.
And supposing for a moment there was no NATO Art. 5 - and no nukes - what was Putin going to do with an enemy nation he invaded and at great cost, defeated? Occupy it indefinitely, despite recurring insurrections by the populace?
Then move onto the next country?
All to spread and force the ideology of Orthodox Christianity? And maybe install the Czarist Empire in every nation?
All the above too ridiculous to entertain for a second.
Quite explicitly, the Kremlin has dismissed even conquering and occupying Western Ukraine, where they'd be heavily opposed by extremist anti-Russians. What does that make of the "Russian Empire" project? Nonsense; made up by rationalistic academics.
If you read your media with a critical eye, you'd see that Putin often responded to arms escalations and to rhetorical threats of foreign intervention (the "Coalition of the Willing") with a reminder to the West that Russia, beyond its effective conventional forces, has a nuclear capacity as its final line of defense; in other words, "don't push us too far". Like, launching serious attacks on our cities and land, a red line. Presented by the alarmist media and taken by gullible readers to be a direct threat he at any time would - initiate- nuclear use. The subtlety of a caution vs. an intentional threat escapes many. E.g. Putin wants to nuke us!
Quite irrelevant, the interference in foreign elections, either insignificant or unfounded - or refuted, like "Russiagate" in the US - and not a sign of Russian hostility.
The trouble is that the West cannot accept that most Russians sincerely believe there was/is an existential threat by NATO/Kyiv looming for Russia. Things would escalate out of hand, sooner or later. Large forces amassed near the border, increasing assaults on the Donbas last year-- and then-- NATO membership giving Ukraine great military and nuclear might. So a first strike was logical and justifiable, while a terrible pity, most Russians apparently think. On principle, for any nation in that difficult position, I agree.
Therefore the West can never accept that
1. Putin's act were (mainly) defensive, in the interests of national survival and neutrality avoiding more conflicts with Nato/Ukraine in the forseeable future.
2. Nato's acts in Ukraine and the potential and future actions were and are now, mainly malign and offensive, in the supposed "interests" of the West.
Proof: Item A. You can see it and heard it. There has been every explicit intention to allow, continue and prolong the war (to Ukraine's cost) and every evasion of a quick negotiated settlement, as Putin offered. .
The "defense of Ukraine and western values", etc., etc., is mendacious. Ukraine clearly has been made to be the sacrificial martyr to others' ends. Losing (or winning) against Russia, could have no other outcome but a grave self-sacrifice.
Conclusion: Not about "Ukraine". The prime objective was and is, undermining and overthrowing the RF.
-
AlexL got a reaction from Craig24 in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine
Well, this is not quite exact. More precisely, it is quite INexact:
Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), added by the Lisbon Treaty, states:
"If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States."
IOW, it includes a caveat that this obligation does not prejudice the security and defense policies of any members that have a "specific character", like those of neutral countries.
Therefore, Sweden and Finland did not end their neutrality status by joining the EU.
Besides, while Article 42(7) does create an obligation of mutual assistance between EU members in the case of armed aggression, it leaves significant flexibility in how that assistance is provided. Implementation of EU mutual defense clause is left to the discretion of individual member states. Responses could include diplomatic, economic or humanitarian aid rather than direct military force.
Not even the NATO Treaty's Art. 5 does commit members to an obligation to fight !