Hamas Attacks, Israel Responds II

I truly for the life of me do not understand why Biden is doing a damn thing to cater to a man who despises him, disrespects him, wants him to lose in November, and will do whatever he can to make that happen. https://t.co/jij3Dn1rqb

— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) March 5, 2024

Unlike Jill I understand the why, I have more trouble wrapping my head around the fact that the admin still seems relatively unbothered by this reality. Having to eat metric tons of shit domestically every day to back the policies of a man who wouldn't even piss on Biden if he were on fire.
We have barely even heard a mild expression of frustration.

 

To report innuendo about alleged crimes is desperate and irresponsible. I had read Pramila Patten's same brief about "concerns" and "possible" rapes of Palestinian women too, but by itself it was superficial, so I didn't relay it. That kind of thing is red meat for a Zionist though, because they have so little to work with & intellectual dishonesty comes w/ the territory.

Turns out she practically just laundered Israel's claims, like she has for multiple allegations from groups in the past. Her lone backing is pictures they showed her suggestive of rape, which she even acknowledges some of which they manipulated, and regardless is a break of chain of custody.

At least in the case of Palestinian women and men we know of their victim-witness testimony from their alleged sexual abuse & there's multiple videos of men being undressed and humiliated. None of this exists when it comes to supposed Israeli victims, in spite of all the footage that day from both sides. In fact almost all the hostages gave positive reports of their treatment, to the point former American traitor Jonathan Pollard said they should be imprisoned by Israel too since it's good-bad p.r. Mia Schem then came back after the Israeli regime got to her and claimed "they wanted to rape me". If they wanted to, they would have, since she was a hostage. This reinforces Israel's regime to push this (false) narrative.

Anyway, here's Patten's "report" cliff's notes, with the full version underneath to back it up.

buried on page 15 in its 23 page "report", the UN's Pramila Patten admits that all her information comes directly from the Israeli regime, and that it blocks UN agencies with an actual investigative mandate from doing independent investigations into their propaganda claims pic.twitter.com/5MhygkWLCg

— ☀️👀 (@zei_squirrel) March 4, 2024

https://news.un.org/en/sites/news.u..._SRSG_SVC_to_Israel-oWB_29Jan_14_feb_2024.pdf

This was circling the wagons after their embarrassment when the initial mass rape story fell apart, thanks to work from the Grayzone and the Intercept. The mass rape story in and of itself was right after the hostages were coming back reporting good treatment, so therefore not depicting all Palestinians as savages, to manufacture consent for their genocide & annexation.

Going back to those debunks though...if Israel and their syndicates had anything they would have produced it already. And they could have used someone with at least the air of impartiality as a proxy. The NYT story was written by 3 Jewish Zionists, 2 who were Israelis, for God's sake. One was a former Intelligence officer who was inexperienced, bloodthirsty, and had no credibility, like her nephew who also participated. Think of if the shoe were on the other foot and it was Palestinians doing a piece about rapes of their people. It would be considered an utter joke from the start. Of course NYT would never do it. Instead they're firing what few worked for them.

Nevermind what the expose' actually revealed, was things like one of the writers saying it would be good for Israeli "hasbara" or propaganda, acknowledging she couldn't find any physical evidence, victim-witness testimony, or even any reports to their rape crisis centers. In the end it was second-hand claims from previously discredited volunteers reporting the beheaded baby story and suggestive pictures that were refuted by multiple sets of family members because they were in contact or witnessed the deaths. This is all one endless cycle that's been a road to nowhere because it's an agenda.

Israel and the US came together to pull this same false mass rape scam when it came to Libya, which manufactured consent for that war. When all the major humanitarian organizations weighed in, they said as far as they could tell it never happened.

If you're a Zionist you're taking L's left and right. As always, just got to pick yourself, keep lying, and justifying actual crimes against humanity committed hourly by Israel.

 

The "HAMAS are not capable of rape" and "everyone is lying about rape" continues to be the dumbest hill to die on

I think at this point HAMAS themselves could be yup we did and you will be how can you trust HAMAS they are a terrorist organization!

PS. This whole calling everyone and everything zionist left and right ... you re behaving like Russians who calls everyone nazis

 

Sorry, but I'm not answering your questions until you first answer mine, which you essentially avoided. So I'll ask it again. It's a yes/no question, really:

So, the insinuation is that anyone who does not vote for Biden is explicitly failing to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States?
​

 

Our response to global antisemitism cannot be giving Israel a blank check to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with the weapons we give them. The existence of rampant antisemitism, as bad a thing as that is, should not mean that we provide diplomatic cover for genocide. I can't accept that.

It's way, way, WAY too late for "coming to an end." At this point, anything short of concrete action reeks of "stop, or I'll say 'stop' again!"

Too bad the United States can't show the same concern for the Palestinians, even as they're being killed in enormous numbers. Atrocities that would correctly be called unforgivable tragic crimes when perpetrated on the Israelis are always justifiable collateral damage when perpetrated on Palestinians. Our foreign policy sucks ass.

 

I guess you missed the post where he says Israelis are the new Nazis. Which would make Gaza…Poland maybe?

 

If that person acknowledges that a Trump administration is likely to use every method they can to circumvent the Constitution and restrict democracy in the US, then yes. If they don’t believe that, then no.

 

Part 2?

I guess that cease fire didn't last very long.

 

So, arrest everyone who doesn't vote, then? Or at least, as the poster to whom I was actually replying suggested, arrest all immigrants who don't vote?

What was that concern about restricting democracy again?

 

If you want to argue that staying at home might lead to authoritarianism under a second Trump admin then fine.

Equating it to treasonous behavior is more than a bridge too far imho.

The full breadth of the democratic process also includes the choice not to participate in elections, for whatever reason. And that choice should not garner with it accusations of seditious tendencies.

Frankly "if you don't vote for my candidate you are a traitor" is an idea I would expect from the other side, not from the Dems.

 

I don't think there's any question about it... it DOES risk authoritarianism if Trump gets in again.

I wouldn't call it seditious but I DO think that people need to be aware of what the vote is for and what the issues truly are. In that regard I think it's obvious not voting for the guy who stands the best chance of defeating the fascist means you're likely to get the fascist.

I understand what you're saying but, as someone said before, that is PRECISELY what the communists thought in '33 in Germany. Just remind me how that worked out again?

In that sense a vote for Biden is best viewed as a vote AGAINST Trump.

 

Thank you. And not just equating it to treasonous behavior, but equating it to a violation of the oath of citizenship.

 

I did not avoid it. I merely introduced some qualifications, since your question, as it is formulated, was asked in bad faith, because voting choices are always heavily dependent on circumstances.
Biden is not running against your run-of-the-mill candidate.
In a contest Biden vs Trump, my answer to your question is yes.

Now answer my question: would helping a Trump-led mob to capture the Congress be "failing to defend the Constitution" or not? Because that thing (Trump leading a mob to attack the Capitol) nearly happened, the only reason Trump did not personally take the lead was because some secret service agents had better sense.

Uh, the discussion was about immigrants because, in the context of this thread, they explicitly threatened not to vote for Biden solely based on his Palestine policy.
If you want to extend the label "treacherous scumbags" to all the other Trump voters be my guest.
I'm not entirely sure I've seen the MAGA's called "traitors", but I've seen them called "Putinist stooges", which is the same thing.

And stop with the melodramatic crap. Expressing harsh criticism for a political choice is not "arresting everyone who does not vote".

Normally, it should not have come to this, because all leading putschists should have been in jail already and we would not be having this discussion, but have you noticed how America's democratic guardrails are failing one after another, because the fascists have corrupted them?

A robust democracy should be able to punish extremists who work to destroy it. Going easy on them because "democracy" just means they will keep trying until they succeed. After all, if there are no consequences, why not?
If a democracy fails to do that, it will pretty much go the way of the Weimar Republic.

 

Some democracies do have mandatory voting (which is dumb). Though the penalties are minimal, and you're free to spoil your ballot or vote for "none of the above."

It's kind of weird to argue that immigrants specifically somehow owe Biden their vote, even if they are deeply unhappy with his foreign policy.

 

I don’t think he was even remotely suggesting that.

 

Then I think you need to reread his original post, when he explicitly said, in so many words, that failing to vote for Biden would be a violation of their Oaths of Citizenship.

 

That's true. Also, my dining room table is brown.

 

It was a little hyperbolic, but I just took it to mean that would be a shitty thing to do, not that the jackbooted thugs should then kick down their doors.

 

Wow. OK. Thanks for making perfectly clear that you're a nut, and therefore I don't need to take you seriously.

Actively? Yes.

By choosing not to vote? Suggesting that that would be "failing to defend the Constitution" is itself failing to defend the Constitution.

Did not read the rest of your post.

 

Well, he just reiterated that it would be explicitly failing to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

Which is fine. There are lots of crazy people on BigSoccer.

 

There are circumstances when an electoral process can become seditious. Like when the "good ol' South" voted for secession (via the Secession Conventions).

This kind of lawyerism is dumb and self-destructive. Does Trump actually need to run on a platform of "I'm making myself dictator of America" and "I'm going to do Putin's bidding" in order to get the point across?

 

It's not lawyerism. It's actually showing respect for the Constitution of the United States.

We're talking about other people's voting choices, because that's what you singled out for criticism; and people need to actually break the law before they've, you know, broken the law.