Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jon Stewart: Unfunny Hypocrite and Liar [on Israel & Gaza]

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Yes, Hamas fires rockets into their own occupied land. But why not? It's theirs, after all! Why not have a little fun with glorified fireworks? So if a settler gets hit, well, that's too bad. 'Shouldn't have been there in the first place.

 

Andie, This is war-criminal mentality. A lack of concern for who gets killed due to your own actions is inhuman and beneath you. Anyone, including yourself, who truly subscribes to the doctrine that you have stated is a sociopath.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there is. "the zionists" use targeted attacks against Hamas operatives and weapons. The place to get out of the way is everywhere except around those targets.

No one believes that. But the capabilities and limitations of Israeli cruise missiles are public knowledge. You're more then welcome to look them up on the Internet and see how far away you need to be from a target, to not be injured. It's not that far, the Israelis are very good at surgical strikes, and in general they use much smaller payloads than the US military, precisely to limit collateral damage.

So children should be kept 100 meters away from any Hamas rocket building factories or storage facilities, then.

I wonder why they're not. Could it be because Hamas is using schools and neighborhoods to build and store weapons in, not to mention launch them from?

(not that your assertion that the average Israeli missile has a kill radius of over 50m is true: it isn't)

Lots of reasons.

1. It's starting a war agaisnt a more capable enemy (so it's just going to war for the sake of being at war, without any prospect of victory),

2. all it accomplishes is to provoke a justified response, which ends up killing far more of their own people than the supposed "occupiers"

3. it's starting a war against a democratic and far more moral political entity (surely, even you understand that "the zionists" have a better political system than Hamas),

4. it's an illegal act of war under a set of widely accepted rules of conduct in war (because it deliberately targets non-combatants),

5. it is meant to promote a theocratic dictatorship

6. it's an act of attempted genocide (an incompetent and ineffective one, but still: Hamas' stated goal is to clear the entire territory of Israel of the five million Jews who live there)

7. "it's their own occupied land" is not a very accurate representation of the situation to begin with, since there was never a political entity called Palestine, let alone one called "Hamasville", before.

etc., etc.

let's just agree to disagree about the extent to which the shock blast of ordnance kills at a distance far greater than the specs--which are about assured radians of destruction.

 

Moreover most accounts that i've read of Gaza indicate that tere is no place within that's 100m safe. 

 

In short, i'd call any zionist a liar to his/her face (including that bimbo Natalie Portman) who claims that their state-entity is not waging systemic genocide of the type that Rand approved of as the befitting fate of the lower evolved.

 

Hamas knows it can;t win. Rather, it's aim is to provoke the rest of the Arab world to commit itself, and let the rest stand as sympathetic. 

 

'Palestine' was a entity under the Ottoman Empire. Then prior, Palestine was a part of the Mameluk Dynasty of Egypt, prior to that the Byzantine, then the Roman, then the Alexandrain, then the Persian, then the Assyrio-Babylonian, which takes us back to 800BC. 

 

We derive the word from 'Philistine' which is even cited in the Old Testament s events of 1000BC. Archaeology indicates dwellings art An'natuf going back to 20,000 BC.

 

Yet the zionists claim a right to seize the land because they did not have their own state. Small wonder they're hated by anyone who doesn't consider the movee 'Exodus real history, 

Link to post
Share on other sites

let's just agree to disagree about the extent to which the shock blast of ordnance kills at a distance far greater than the specs--which are about assured radians of destruction.

 

Moreover most accounts that i've read of Gaza indicate that tere is no place within that's 100m safe.

Gaza is more than 100 m wide. They could keep their weapons 100 meters away from their children if they wanted to.

In short, i'd call any zionist a liar to his/her face (including that bimbo Natalie Portman)

Now you've gone too far. Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidently trying to kill someone who admits in writing it is trying to kill you is genocide. 

 

The hits keep on coming.

The origin of Hamas-- with its radical solution of wiping the zinonist entity off the face of the earth-is obvious. it's all about the failure of moderates to force the zionists back to pre-1967 borders. In other words, the occupation of the West Bank. 

 

This natural tendency towards extreme measures in the face of the failure of moderation is also present in American History, as well, with the Revolution and the Civil War. 

 

Hamas has gained sympathy not only within the Islamic world but also that of Western democracies because it's now widely understood that the zionist entity was never serious about withdrawing in the first place. Again, the process since 1967 has been a sham delaying tactic to ensure more and more settlement.

 

This is what zionists have called 'on the ground reality': we'll negotiate peacemeal with respect to a developing reality of increased settlement. The Palestinian response is to rocket the settlements. 

 

Far from 'genocide', it's a simple measure to say that if you were not occupying our land to begin with, you wouldn't be at risk from the rockets falling on Palestinian land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok - If we are going to go here we are going to do it right:

 

The origin of Hamas-- with its radical solution of wiping the zinonist entity off the face of the earth-is obvious. it's all about the failure of moderates to force the zionists back to pre-1967 borders. In other words, the occupation of the West Bank. 

 

Reality check - Israel took that land in a war to defend itself from people trying to kill them.  If giving land back to people trying to kill you is "moderation" then it simply proves Rand's point that you don't compromise with poison. 

 

This natural tendency towards extreme measures in the face of the failure of moderation is also present in American History, as well, with the Revolution and the Civil War. 

 

Really?  You're comparing America's war for liberty with a bunch of thugs spending 50 years bitching because they tried to kill someone and that person defended themselves?

 

Hamas has gained sympathy not only within the Islamic world but also that of Western democracies because it's now widely understood that the zionist entity was never serious about withdrawing in the first place.

 

Nor should they.  They should keep the land to protect themselves from people who want to kill them. 

 

Since most Western intellectuals don't understand individual rights it is understandable - They are the same idiots that think man is making the world warm or that a tribe in the Amazon Basin lives a morally superior life style. 

 

Again, the process since 1967 has been a sham delaying tactic to ensure more and more settlement.

 

Again, they should.  Putting someone in there who doesn't want to kill them would be a step in the right direction. 

 

It's sad we don't give them the moral support to just get on with it. 

 

***

 

Look, if I had a neighbor  that threatened to kill me and actually stockpiled arms to do just that , I would take steps to take them out including buffer the land around my land as well.  I'd do whatever it took to keep the killers at bay. 

 

Then you come along and say moderation is compromising with that person? I should appease the killers?  Do what?  Give them the land back so they can plot to kill me which he has demonstrated in writing?   That isn't moderation - That is suicide. 

 

Since I don't want to die, on principle, obviously I'm not going to do that. 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what zionists have called 'on the ground reality': we'll negotiate peacemeal with respect to a developing reality of increased settlement. The Palestinian response is to rocket the settlements. 

 

Far from 'genocide', it's a simple measure to say that if you were not occupying our land to begin with, you wouldn't be at risk from the rockets falling on Palestinian land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...