Democrats, lawfare, two-state solution

Monfd
The Democrats are being incredible.
Monfd
They passed a bill today to eliminate the electoral college.
Monfd
They passed a bill today to stop the president from pardoning himself.
Saint11
milk, hhaah thankg god no
Monfd
Pelosi is signaling that climate change is incredibly important.
Saint11
Mondf, let's see if the Senate takes those bills up ;)
00:38 Monfd
Saint11: That's a question about the GOP.
Saint11 has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
They largely won't, as the GOP is an insurgency minority group that is attacking our republic.
Saint11 has joined (~Vincent@c-174-58-4-189.hsd1.fl.comcast.net)
Saint11
Mondf, I think you'll see a lot of bills like that in the House over the next two years
Neff has set topic: nancy pelosi passes 1000 legislative acts that do absolutely nothing but make retards happy
lockie has changed mode: +t
Saint11
Same thing the Republicans did after they took over in 2012
Saint11
hahaha topic
Saint11
wow
Saint11
did pinochet cause my disconnect?
Saint11
haha i'm actually laughing out loud
Saint11
Neff, great downer on that last comment
Saint11
nothing like a little light reading
Saint11
hahahahahahahahaha
lockie has changed mode: -t
Saint11
+1 for that :)
Saint11
are there really any menfolk on the internet?
Saint11
on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog
Saint11
or, maybe a cat
Saint11
or maybe a cat video
Saint11
ahaha
Monfd
Saint11: The bills that are being pass signal the values of the Democrats.
Monfd
No, as controllers of only the House they cannot so easily pass legislation as they're passing these bills.
Monfd
It's a way of communicating to the country what they could have if they get a majority in the senate in 2020 and also win the presidency.
Monfd
I love it.
Saint11
Mondf, in a sense, yes. Also in a sense, they're hoping for votes based on what they think their voters want
Saint11
Neff, +1
Monfd
"they're hoping for votes based on what they think their voters want"
Monfd
Right, that's called representative democracy.
Saint11
or... basic politics
dionysus- has left IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
Monfd
False.
Saint11
bills that won't go anywhere = fundraising
Monfd
Much of the activity in Congress is do please the rulers of this country, the corporations who buy our 'representatives'.
Monfd
Saint11: The democrats are explicitly working on reducing funding from corporations, so funding increasingly means 'from the people'.
Monfd
So, also 'representative democracy'.
Monfd
The only issue here is if they passes a set of bills now, got the senate and the presidency, and then *didn't* actually pass these popular bills -- among their supporters -- into law.
Monfd
That would be a deep betrayal and might require some pressure from voters to ensure doesn't happen.
Saint11
Mondf, suuuure. As long as you mean money "from the people"
Monfd
Saint11: Elizabeth Warren just proposed a comprehensive anti-corruption platform to largely get corporate money out of politics.
Monfd
Saint11: Multiple high-ranking Democrats have committed stop taking corporate PAC money.
Monfd
There is no corresponding movement among the GOP.
Monfd
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=1b5_1518718340
Monfd
That's a video of the Stoneman Douglas school shooting.
Monfd
We need to significantly reduce the amount of guns in our country.
Monfd
Up to a possible repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Monfd
We had 50k gun deaths in 2018.
Monfd
There were 3k people kill on 9/11.
Saint11
Mondf, there's no chance of those bills passing in this congress. So they die going into the next congress. If, IF, the Dems get the Senate in 2020, then those bills have to be passed again in the House... as long as every member who voted for them today feels exactly the same way. BUT... if they have the senate then, then House members have more power, which means they fight for their own desires in the bills, which means ...
Saint11
well, politics. So nothing is set in stone.
Monfd
So, we had 17 9/11s just last year due to gun violence.
Monfd
Saint11: Your opening sentence is a restatement of your thesis that I already refuted.
Monfd
So, I discard that.
Monfd
Your second sentence is a non sequitur -- it depends on the composition of the next Congress.
Monfd
Then, you give a restatement of the bill/law process, which is unnecessary.
Monfd
The second part of the third sentence is a non sequitur.
Saint11
Of course it does... that's what i'm saying... nothing is set in stone. Everything changes all the time. It's about power, not necessarily what is right
Monfd
No, not everybody who voted today as they did needs to feel "exactly the same way" -- the composition of the 117th Congress won't even be the same.
Monfd
Your fourth statement is a something I've already raised.
Monfd
Saint11: I have already subsumed your 'set in stone' rejection.
Saint11
Mondf, if you're worried about grammar structure on irc then I think you might have other issues to work through?
Monfd
I did this about 4-6 minutes ago.
Monfd
Saint11: That is an ad hominem.
Monfd
So, here is where we currently stand synthesizing your post with my posts 4-6 minutes earlier.
Saint11
ok, maybe it is. But the point remains. Politics is ever changing.
Monfd
I'm just going to literally repeat my posts as you didn't add anything.
Monfd
It's a way of communicating to the country what they could have if they get a majority in the senate in 2020 and also win the presidency.
Monfd
The only issue here is if they passes a set of bills now, got the senate and the presidency, and then *didn't* actually pass these popular bills -- among their supporters -- into law.
Monfd
That would be a deep betrayal and might require some pressure from voters to ensure doesn't happen.
Saint11
I'm not actually debating rn. Just saying what's reality in congress. It doesn't have to make logical sense because congress doesn't make logical sense
Monfd
At some point in the future, if a Democrat voted today for some bill, then the Democrats got the presidency and senate in 2020, and the bill came back up, and they changed their vote, Democrat voters would need to not re-elect them.
Monfd
Saint11: I don't know what it means to 'be debating'.
AndroUser has joined (~androirc@105.105.163.213)
Monfd
I perceive that we're having a 'regular conversation'.
Monfd
I am already aware of all the points you've made.
Monfd
The passage of these bills through the house is wonderful.
Monfd
All of the bills passed today feature a great reform effort for our country as compared to the repeated failures and betrayals of the GOP and Trump.
Monfd
Remember, while the Democrats were busying passing these laws you've criticized, Trump had a chance to show you what he's for.
Monfd
He held a fake press conference about the border.
Monfd
This is a perfect opportunity for you to make a choice between which group you like better.
Saint11
Mondf, yeah, in a sense... but when one party has full power then the party members feel emboldend to flex their muscles... so maybe the same bills come up exactly the way they were passed, but maybe not. Neither one of us has a crystal ball, and history proves that bills passed in one congress don't always (rarely) get passed into law in the next
Monfd
Deep reform efforts for our government, or fake border wall press conferences.
Monfd
Saint11: Agreed.
Monfd
It's important from now until 2020 for Democrats to continually signal what they want and put pressure on candidates running in the 2020 election to uphold the things they signal during this session.
AndroUser is now known as jxx
Saint11
mondf, just saying: I'm not a Trump supporter. But I'm also not a democrat or a socialist. For me, I'm a green republican in the style of Lincoln. We believe in equality, conservationism, and individual rights as a civil right
Saint11
Mondf, agreed!
Saint11
that's their best strategy
Monfd
Saint11: There's got to be like no more than 7 green Republicans in the country.
Monfd
The core ideology of the current GOP is 'fuck up the planet to get more money to rich people'.
Saint11
but what they do on Day One will be forgotten in a week, maybe two
apestate has set topic: Milkness: in case i'm on ignore again i just wanted you to know I proposed Marriage again this time in Nevada in case you didn't see it
lockie has changed mode: +t
Monfd
Saint11: Can you think of a single green policy the GOP proposed in the 115th session?
Monfd
I am not aware of any.
Saint11
Mondf, actually I'd say most of the GOP staffers feel that way... or at least 55% of them, in the House. There's a huge disconnect between the green moderates and the conservatives
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
Saint11: How do you know that
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Saint11
Mondf, no, but that only means that i didn't follow the legislation in the 115th. Before that was the legacy of Boehner's All of the Above energy policy that called for tons of funding for alternative green energy
Monfd
Saint11: I am currently a member of the Green Party
Monfd
The GOP is the anti-Green party
Monfd
So you're a member of the supposed green wing of the GOP, but didn't follow what the GOP did when they had all the power in the 115th session
Monfd
And so you can't think of any green things they did
Saint11
Mondf: bc I used to work there? one year in the Senate and three years in the House... I was surprised at the number of GOP staffers who were moderates rather than conservatives
Saint11
Hey, i
Saint11
woops
Monfd
Saint11: You've got to understand that I cannot possibly support the GOP based on an idea their staffers are for something if none of the actual GOP politicians are for it
Saint11
I'm not gonna lie.... I've been out of it for a few years and focused on other things...
Monfd
Saint11: Are you aware that Noam Chomsky considers the GOP the most dangerous organization in human history
Monfd
And he's aware of the Nazis, the Soviets, and the Maoists
Saint11
Mondf, so? What's he got that you or i don't have as an opinion?
Monfd
His claim is largely based off the anti-green policies of the GOP
Monfd
Saint11: Chomsky is one of the smartest humans in human history
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
There is a video of him defending this claim
Monfd
Would you like to see it?
Monfd
Saint11: Chomsky was the most cited human in science for over a decade
Monfd
Saint11: Chomsky regularly crushed incredibly smart philosophers in debates in their fields
mobbb has left IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
Saint11
oh come now. The Republicans aren't nazis. that's just incredibly off base. And there's no evidence that could tie them to nazis that couldn't be the same for Democrats.
Monfd
Saint11: It's generally perceived Chomsky never lost a debate in his prime
Monfd
Saint11: Nobody claimed they were Nazis
Monfd
Chomsky claims they're more dangerous than Nazis
Saint11
ehh a lot of people do
Monfd
And Maoists
Monfd
And Stalinists
Saint11
omg that's proof enough that he's off base.
lockie has changed mode: -t
Monfd
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/27/chomsky_on_the_gop_has_any_organization_ever_been_so_committed_to_the_destruction_of_life_on_earth.html
Monfd
Saint11: You literally haven't even heard his argument
Monfd
And you already know he's wrong
Monfd
C'mon, man
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Saint11
Does anyone need to? Seriously?
Monfd
Yes.
Monfd
I already answer this question 2 minutes ago
Saint11
OK, lay it out then
Monfd
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about this comment that you made that the Republican Party, you said, is the most dangerous organization in world history. Can you explain?
Monfd
NOAM CHOMSKY: I also said that it’s an extremely outrageous statement. But the question is whether it’s true. I mean, has there ever been an organization in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organized human life on Earth? Not that I’m aware of. Is the Republican organization—I hesitate to call it a party—committed to that? Overwhelmingly. There isn’t even any quest
Monfd
ion about it.
Saint11
Why are Republicans worse than Nazis?
buff3r has left IRC (Lost terminal)
Monfd
Take a look at the last primary campaign—plenty of publicity, very little comment on the most significant fact. Every single candidate either denied that what is happening is happening—namely, serious move towards environmental catastrophe—or there were a couple of moderates, so-called—Jeb Bush, who said, "Maybe it’s happening. We really don’t know. But it doesn’t matter, because fracking is working fine,
Monfd
so we can get more fossil fuels." Then there was the guy who was called the adult in the room, John Kasich, the one person who said, "Yes, it’s true. Global warming’s going on. But it doesn’t matter."
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
He’s the governor of Ohio. "In Ohio, we’re going to go on using coal for energy, and we’re not going to apologize for it." So that’s 100 percent commitment to racing towards disaster.
Monfd
Then take a look at what’s happened since. The—November 8th was the election. There was, as most of you know, I’m sure, a very important conference underway in Morocco, Marrakesh, Morocco. Almost roughly 200 countries at the United Nations-sponsored conference, which was—the goal of which was to put some specific commitments into the verbal agreements that were reached at Paris in December 2015, the preceding i
Monfd
nternational conference on global warming. The Paris conference did intend to reach a verifiable treaty, but they couldn’t, because of the most dangerous organization in human history.
Monfd
he Republican Congress would not accept any commitments, so therefore the world was left with verbal promises, but no commitments. Well, last November 8th, they were going to try to carry that forward. On November 8th, in fact, there was a report by the World Meteorological Organization, a very dire analysis of the state of the environment and the likely prospects, also pointed out that we’re coming perilously close
Monfd
to the tipping point, where—which was the goal of the—the goal of the Paris negotiations was to keep things below that—coming very close to it, and other ominous predictions. At that point, the conference pretty much stopped, because the news came in about the election.
Saint11
Sooooo it's ok to destroy livleyhoods before there's an alternative to keeping families solvent?
Monfd
Stop
Monfd
That's a lie.
Monfd
Don't repeat GOP lies.
Monfd
Saint11: The GOP is against climate change largely because they're owned by corporate interests in the fossil fuel industries.
Monfd
It has nothing to do with 'families'.
Monfd
Don't be so gullible.
Saint11
The GOP overwhelmingly supported the All of the Above plan. The votes are there. It was calling for a transition away from fossil fuels to alternative forms of energy
Monfd
Also, the religious base of the GOP is actually an important part of their climate change denial beliefs.
Monfd
Saint11: That was like 7 years ago, right?
Monfd
When Newt Gingrich sat next to Nancy Pelosi in a famous ad against climate change.
Monfd
Then something happened...what was it?
Saint11
ohhhhkay... I mean, if you want to think they're all devils, go right ahead.
Saint11
That's just partisanship.
Monfd
Saint11: The rise of the tea party, which was an astroturf movement funded by the Koch brothers and other billionaires, sought to reform the GOP into something that it is today.
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Monfd
Saint11: There are documentaries on what we're discussing.
Monfd
The GOP in like 2008-2010 was starting to be supportive of climate change policies.
Monfd
Then, they did a 180.
Saint11
ok... so?
Monfd
They did a 180 because the Koch brothers and other corporate interests primaried anybody who was supportive of climate change.
Monfd
This was an existential crisis for the GOP in 2010.
Monfd
There is literal video footage of GOP politicians in 2010 discussing this phenomenon in the Congress.
Monfd
Stating, if I support climate change, I'm gonna lose my job.
Monfd
Since then, the GOP is full conspiracy theory.
Saint11
And at the same time Pelosi primaried against the blue dog democrats
Monfd
Saint11: We're discussing the GOP.
Monfd
That's a whataboutism.
Monfd
Remember the thesis?
Monfd
'Noam Chomsky claims the GOP is the most dangerous organization in human history'
Monfd
If you'd like to discuss Pelosi or the Democrats, we can put that in the queue and discuss it next
Saint11
ok, so how do you account for most of the GOP winning reelection in 2010?
Monfd
And it turns out that the most powerful country in human history, the richest, most powerful, most influential, the leader of the free world, has just decided not only not to support the efforts, but actively to undermine them. So there’s the whole world on one side, literally, at least trying to do something or other, not enough maybe, although some places are going pretty far, like Denmark, couple of others; and on
Monfd
the other side, in splendid isolation, is the country led by the most dangerous organization in human history, which is saying, "We’re not part of this. In fact, we’re going to try to undermine it."
Saint11
hi jxx
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
Saint11: Effective propaganda by the right, low Democrat voter turnout (sloth), and white fear of Obama.
Monfd
A large portion of white Americans lost their mind when Obama got elected.
Saint11
white fear? After his resounding win in 2008? ehhhh not buying that.
Monfd
Saint11: There are scientific studies demonstrating this.
Monfd
We’re going to maximize the use of fossil fuels—could carry us past the tipping point. We’re not going to provide funding for—as committed in Paris, to developing countries that are trying to do something about the climate problems. We’re going to dismantle regulations that retard the impact, the devastating impact, of production of carbon dioxide and, in fact, other dangerous gases—methane, others.
Monfd
Anyways, that's the first half of Chomsky's argument.
Monfd
Allow me to summarize how the GOP could be more dangerous than the Nazis:
Saint11
I've read a number of those. They use a form of reasoning that cannot be replicated
Monfd
The Nazis led to WW2 which killed 60-100 million people.
Saint11
ok...
Saint11
go on...
Monfd
Climate change can very easily kill far more humans than that -- it could lead to WW3 in a nuclear age -- and the GOP is racing towards that outcome.
Monfd
That's the brunt of Chomsky's argument. It seems pretty straightforward.
Saint11
*
Monfd
Saint11: The Syrian Civil War led to 3-7 million refugees, yes.
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
jxx has left IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
Monfd
The Syrian Civil War was largely influenced by climate changed induced drought in the rural areas of Syria.
Monfd
Leading to a mass migration of Syrians from the rural parts to the cities.
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
The demographics and religion, specifically, among Syrians in the cities v. countryside was quite different, and now they were right next to each other.
Monfd
This precipitated internecine warfare.
Monfd
The refugees that fled the region largely ended up heading towards the EU, leading to the EU accepting about a million refugees in total.
Saint11
The Nazis actively murdered millions of people, as a party, as an organization. That is absolutely not what the Republicans are doing, in any way, in any form, in any concept.
Monfd
That led to reactionary responses by right-wing elements and an upsurge in fascism.
Monfd
Fascism is now a significant threat to EU stability emanating from multiple countries.
Saint11
to conflate the two is to promote hate
AndroUser has joined (~androirc@105.105.163.213)
Monfd
So, we saw a substantial rise in right-wing fascism from 1 million refugees in Europe.
Monfd
Some models of climate change predict forced migrations of hundreds of millions of peoples, Saint11
oksoda has joined (~blahblahb@2604:a880:800:10::52a:d001)
AndroUser is now known as jxx
Monfd
Do you think we can avoid nuclear war given those stresses?
Monfd
I don't.
Monfd
Not based off what we say from Europe's experiences with a measly 1 million refugees
presonic has left IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
Monfd
Saint11: In one model, the entire Middle East becomes uninhabitable by 2060 leading to a forced migration of 600 million people
tripedal has joined (~tripedal@d108-173-234-223.abhsia.telus.net)
Saint11_ has joined (~Vincent@c-174-58-4-189.hsd1.fl.comcast.net)
Monfd
600 million, Saint11
Saint11_
I don't speak for the party, either one, and both are ridiculous, but neither one is advocating for the murder of anyone, at all, in any sense. Even with abortion, noone is advocating for the murder of anyone. That argument (murder, notwithstanding abortion or climate change) is partisan and hate-filled.
Monfd
Almost all Muslims
Monfd
How do you think that's gonna work out
Monfd
Saint11: The GOP regularly advocates for the murder of people -- don't be naive
tripedal` has left IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
Monfd
The GOP is currently advocating for the murder of peoples in Palestine and in Yemen
Saint11_
Name one.
Monfd
The largest famine in 70 years is about to occur in Yemen, Saint11
MrSpack has left IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
Monfd
With about 14 million people predicted to starve to death in the next 1-3 years
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Saint11_
No, it's advocating for a two state solution, promulgated by the GWB administration after starting with the Clinton adm
Monfd
You'll recall the Holocaust saw 12 million killed
jerrycurl has left IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
presonic has joined (~presonic@69.164.201.248)
Monfd
Saint11: Other people can also be responsible for the same crimes
Monfd
Also, the state of the region is dramatically different now than in 1998
Saint11_
I'm very aware of the numbers of people murdered in the holocaust
Monfd
The expansion of settlements by the Israeli government essentially has made a two-state solution impossible.
Monfd
Joe Biden said as much in 2016
dwayne has left IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
Monfd
The only realistic solution at this point is the integration of Muslim palestinians into a single state with full equality
Fuant has joined (~fuantum@24-179-37-5.dhcp.leds.al.charter.com)
Monfd
Which we see no effort towards
Saint11_
Hamas, and their predecessors, have rejected a two state solution
Monfd
There is blame on both sides, but most of the blame goes on the more powerful party
happyjack has left IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
Monfd
It's like blaming little brother for a conflict between little brother and big brother
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
Big brother has more power and more responsibility
StrongPot has joined (~StrongTop@S01061056117daf3b.ed.shawcable.net)
Saint11_
The Isrealis have agreed multiple times
happyjack has joined (~redryder@pool-71-187-78-111.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net)
Monfd
Agreed to what?
Saint11_
a two state solution
dwayne has joined (~dinomage@pa49-195-131-71.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au)
Fuantum has left IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
Monfd
Which times would you cite
Saint11_
the camp david accord for one
Saint11_
ok I'm making another drink, brb
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Saint11 has left IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
Saint11_ is now known as Saint11
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
StrongBad has left IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
montaigne has changed mode: +l 114
Saint11
omg, ok everyone... 90 proof coconut rum with tropical redbull? Deeeelish. I am not a paid supporter. It's just fantastic
sylence_ has left IRC (Ping timeout: 600 seconds)
apestate has left IRC (Ping timeout: 600 seconds)
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
apestate has joined (~systemren@172.83.40.25)
Saint11
rehi apestate
MrSpack has joined (~bspack@ec2-54-226-197-45.compute-1.amazonaws.com)
Monfd
Saint11: I cannot remember all the details of the various attempts at a two-state solution, and I agree with you that at times the Palestinians have worked strongly against this effot
Monfd
But, also, as of today, people living in Israel have a good quality of life and Palestinians do not
Monfd
This cannot continue if we care about justice
Saint11
ohhhhkay flooding wtf
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
And the recent actions of the Israel government have essentially made a two-state solution relatively impossible
Saint11
what recent actions?
Monfd
And, so, if we care about the people currently living in these areas, we've got to move toward a solution that is possible, regardless of past offenses
Monfd
Saint11: Mostly the settlement effots
Monfd
Which violate UN policies
Monfd
There are massive amounts of Israeli settlements in the territories accepted in the past by Israel as being Palestinian territory.
jxx has left IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
Monfd
So, a two-state solution would require the moving of thousands of Israelis recently settled that is extremely unpopular with the current right-wing government
Saint11
we just need to get them back to agreeing to give up the gaza strip and the west bank. They've agreed in the past.
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Monfd
And now they have thousands or tens of thousands of Israelis living in those regions
Saint11
That's ok... there's no reason that they can
Monfd
This was done explicitly by the Israeli government to stop a two-state solution
Saint11
woops
Saint11
can't continue to live there as long as they're not attacked
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
Both sides are attacked
Monfd
And the Palestinians get the worst of it
Monfd
I see absolutely no chance for a two-state solution at this point
Monfd
Israel is already the defacto government in these regions
Monfd
It just needs to be formalized and then they need to be held accountable for the well-being of those peopple
Saint11
I'm not sorry that the palestinians start shit against a force that they can't compete with... it's not like they don't know what the repercussions will be, yet they still decide to start shit. It's insane. It needs to stop, now.
sylence_ has joined (sylence@bellatrix.sylence.org)
Monfd
You should be sorry for the mistreatment anybody experiences
Saint11
the israelis respond
Monfd
Which can be hard to do at times
Monfd
Saint11: The Israeli government is clearly committing war crimes in the last few years
Monfd
We've got snipers assassinating medical personnel
Monfd
We've got leaked IDF orders to 'shoot at anything that moves' in urban areas
Saint11
that's your perception. They've responded to attacks which are war crimes in themselves
Monfd
False
Monfd
Those are journalist publications I'm citing
Monfd
Saint11: You are forbidden under international law from responding in some ways
AndroUser has joined (~androirc@105.105.163.213)
Saint11
ok, I'm going off of listening to Ehud Barak last year discussing the atrocities
Monfd
If missiles are launched against your cities, and then you roll tanks into urban areas and 'shoot at anything that moves', you've committed a war crime.
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Saint11
Mondf, what would you have them do? revert to crappy missiles?
Monfd
Saint11: Are you aware so far you've expressed exactly zero empathy with the Palestinians so far
AndroUser is now known as jxx
Monfd
Saint11: I would have them follow international norms of warfighting, including proportional responses against targeted combatants
Monfd
Saint11: In the recent conflicts, we've had kill ratios of 1000 to 3.
Monfd
1000 Palestinians killed v. 3 Israelis
Monfd
That is a disproportional response
Monfd
Saint11: The entire land for peace framework is flawed
Monfd
The Palestinians have very little to lose, and so many of them are incentivized to support violence against Israel even when it is not effective
Saint11
Mondf, I would hope, for their people's sake, that they'd accept the numerous attempts to stop the violence between themselves and the israelis. History has proven that they don't want to... and it's hurting their own people. I am absolutley empathetic to the palestinian people's plight, but it is the palestinian leaders who are taking them into hell
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
Saint11: It is very hard to trust outsiders when you're in a terrible state
Monfd
Humans tends to move towards what they know, e.g. ethnic similarity
Monfd
You don't want for humans, in that state, to start acting rationally
Saint11
Mondf, and it is impossible to trust those who explicitly state that they desire the complete destruction of your people
Monfd
It's akin to wanting a junkie to change their physiology and then you'll give medicine
Monfd
Saint11: The Palestinians have no ability to destroy Israel
Monfd
We can largely dismiss those empty threats
Saint11
yet... the israelis continue to try
Monfd
Saint11: Here's the analogy
Monfd
A junkie comes into your ER in a terrible state
Monfd
They say, Give me my fucking medicine or I'll blow up your hospital
Saint11
it's hard to dismiss the car attacks, the knife attacks, the missiles
Monfd
You inspect the man and he has no way to blow up your hospital
Monfd
You then state, sir, I need you to calm down and only then will I give you medical aid
Monfd
Do you agree that entire response would be retarded
Monfd
You give the medical aid *so that the man is assisted in calming down*
Monfd
Saint11: Most of the violence is perpetrated against Palestinians
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Monfd
I already stated that
Monfd
In recent conflicts, the ratio has been about 1000 to 3
Saint11
So you're saying the Israelis should just let it happen? They, as a government, should do nothing to protect their citizens... a basic tenet of why government exists?
chiyou- has left IRC ()
Monfd
Saint11: That's a strawman, obviously
Saint11
But you're still saying they should do nothing, yes?
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
I have never said that
Saint11
Or they should revert to the same tactics?
Monfd
That's obviously not my position, as I am not a moron
Saint11
what should their response be?
Monfd
Saint11: I already addressed some of this several minutes ago
Monfd
Saint11: I would have them follow international norms of warfighting, including proportional responses against targeted combatants
Monfd
Going into urban areas and 'shooting anything that moves' is never justified
Saint11
right... proportional response. What is that?
jxx is now known as tachyons
Monfd
If 3 of your people are killed, you can kill something akin to 3 of them
Monfd
Not 1000 of them
Saint11
With what would you say they can do that with?
Monfd
There is an entire theory of the proportional response that is the basis of self-defense theory in international warfighting
Monfd
Saint11: You live in a city and a black man stabs you
Monfd
Can you then go into the city the black man is from and 'shoot anything that moves'?
Monfd
You can't, right
Monfd
What can you do?
Saint11
That's my question to you
Monfd
You can do an investigation to see who this black man is that stabbed you and anybody that gave material support for that black man
Monfd
You can then respond to that particular black man and those people who gave material support for his violence
Monfd
Which might include blowing them up with missiles from a helicopter in the case of Israel
Monfd
That's it
Monfd
You can't invade whole cities with your fucking tanks and shoot anything that moves
Monfd
That would be MORE EVIL than the initial act of violence
Saint11
OK... so when the leaders of Palestine support that man, then what?
Monfd
In what way are they supporting him?
Monfd
It has to be 'material support'
Monfd
Ideological support is not sufficient
Monfd
You're allowed to say things like 'fuck Israel and I hope they all die'
Monfd
That is not a crime
Saint11
Funding for "martyrs" families from Hamas?
Monfd
That seems ambiguous to me
Monfd
That would be incentivizing the martyr system, somewhat
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Monfd
But, it's also not necessarily material support to the actual person that did the violence
Saint11
ok, so, giving money to the families of the perpetrators of murder... Hamas is 100% on record for doing this
Monfd
I'd probably prefer that be handled in a legal system
Monfd
I understand that
Monfd
Saint11: I don't see a material difference between Hamas giving money to the families of martyrs and the state of Israel paying its soldiers and the families of the soldiers
Monfd
The only different is that the latter is more organized
Monfd
So, what I would focus is on what these combatants are doing
Monfd
If the martyr does a legally protected form of violence, then I don't care
Saint11
You don't see that as an incentive to murder?
Monfd
Saint11: The entire concept of a military is to provide incentives for murder
Monfd
Every government on this planet does that
Monfd
The American government gives huge life insurance payouts to American soldiers killed in combat
Monfd
Which is the same thing as paying a martyr's family
Monfd
So, again, I would not focus on this
Saint11
Very few governments tell their citizens that they will give them money if they murder non combatants of their enemies
Monfd
I would focus on 'what did the soldier/martyr actually do'
Monfd
Saint11: In practice, many militaries kill non-combatants of their enemies all the time
Saint11
or, give their families money if they murder and are killed in the process
Monfd
They generally don't sell it that way, though, I agree
Saint11
ok, thank you
Monfd
Saint11: Every organized military gives money to the families of its soldiers that are killed
Monfd
Saint11: The USA kills non-combatants all the time
Monfd
Saint11: The IDF kills non-combatants all the time
Monfd
Saint11: The Palestinian soldiers kill non-combatants all the time
Monfd
This is a serious problem for all militaries
Monfd
You're just giving disproportionate consideration to Hamas
Monfd
For example, did you hear about the Blackwater agent just convicted of murder of 14 people in 2006?
Monfd
This was like last week
Monfd
That killing could be conceptualized as being basically the same as a terrorist attack
Monfd
And so what should we do?
Monfd
At minimum we can hold that soldier accountable for murder, right
Monfd
But what about his command structure?
Saint11
and there's a reason for that... people who give their life in an effort to protect their country are given a status that says they deserve something in return. The difference here is that most governments are not telling their citizens to go murder non combatants and then will give money to their families
Monfd
What about Blackwater and any payments they made to the families of these soldiers
Monfd
What about the Department of Defense that hired Blackwater?
Monfd
What about George W. Bush who authorized the war on lies?
Monfd
It's complicated, right
Monfd
There's an argument you should kill Hamas leaders for their payments to martyrs
Monfd
There's an argument you should kill George W. Bush, too
Monfd
But we don't seriously consider the latter, right
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Saint11
No, the blackwater issue, as horrible as it is, is different. That person was not elevated to a martyr, he was resoundly condemned for wrongs
Monfd
Saint11: Everybody thinks they're protecting their side and only doing necessary killing
Monfd
This means almost nothing
Monfd
Saint11: In fact, much of the government protected Blackwater for over a decade
Monfd
And our entire culture encourages us to mindlessly 'support the troops
Monfd
Which is our equivalent of supporting martyrs
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Monfd
In both cases, a societal effort is made to support men who do violence against the enemies of that society
Monfd
We need to focus on specific facts of the violence
Saint11
GWB made a decision, that many other countries made, based on the information they had. And, AND, that information was also backed up by the media, even if they didn't want to admit it.
Monfd
Saint11: False.
Monfd
GWB knowingly fabricated data for his false war
Monfd
The Bush Administration directly and knowingly fabricated the nuclear threat in the famous 16-words of his SOTA
Monfd
You can argue this is material support for the Blackwater agents that murder innocent people
Monfd
Saint11: I think you don't understand the extent lawfare plays a role in modern warfare
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
Lawfare is extensively used by developed nations like the USA and Israel, and essentially unavailable to the Palestinians
Monfd
Do you agree if you're a family member of the people killed by that Blackwater agent it makes all the sense in the world for you to want to kill GWB?
Monfd
But that is not legally supported in the community of nations
Monfd
Almost the entire command structure supporting and organizing the violence of the soldiers are protected from the consequences of that violence
Monfd
They are essentially never held accountable no matter how offensive the violence of the soldiers is
Monfd
This is absolutely by design
Saint11
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
Monfd
The goal is highly empower the soldiers with incredibly lethal options while minimizing legal exposure
Monfd
Identical to the corporate structure that limits liability
Monfd
Imagine I just said this, Saint11
Monfd
The financial decisions by Hamas to give money to the families of martyrs is covered by various international laws and corporate structures that strictly limits their legal exposure to the actions of the martyrs
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Monfd
Something tells me you'll find that incredibly unsatisfying
Monfd
You want to hold these leaders accountable
Saint11
Did GWB have bad information, that also the intl community had and made decisions on? Yes. Was the point of that information wrong? No.
Monfd
But you don't ever feel this way about the leaders of Israel or the USA, right
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
Saint11: The GWB admin knowingly fabricated the yellowcake data
Saint11
Mondf, not true. That information came from British intel
Monfd
And then set up office inside the Pentagon to organize this data into intelligence community documents published to the GWB admin
Saint11
that's been established
Saint11
mondf, that intel came from not US intel assets. it came from British intel assets
Monfd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries
Monfd
Saint11: The GWB admin invited Ambassador Wilson to go to Niger to participate in their hoax
Monfd
They then knowingly altered his documents
Monfd
He then wrote an op-ed telling the truth
Monfd
The GWB admin then doxxed his wife, a covert CIA operative in retaliation
Monfd
The British got tricked in large part because we knowingly conned them
Monfd
And because Tony Blair, for a multitude of reasons, decided to cuck himself to American imperialism
Saint11
Yes, you're right on that... the initial intel was crap, but that didn't mean that Saddam was innocent, and it was proven that he wasn't.
Monfd
Chief among these reasons are probably the elevated stature of the Americans in the global community post-9/11, and at-home political considerations by Blair to state in power
Monfd
Saint11: Imagine your family gets killed by Americans in Iraq in 2005
Monfd
And you educate yourself to find out the whole thing was based on lines
Saint11
lies*
Monfd
Do you think we should perhaps kill the American federal government in response?
Monfd
You don't support that, right
Saint11
Not if the general allegations are true, which they were
Monfd
And so we probably shouldn't kill Hamas, either
Monfd
Saint11: The entire war was based on a lie
Monfd
I can't believe you have any reservation on this in 2019
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Monfd
There was zero justification for the war
Monfd
It was incredibly illegal and unjust and a wonderful example of how powerful nations use lawfare against weaker countries
Saint11
I agree with you that the initial reasoning was BS, but that doesn't mean that they were wrong in general. They were right in general, it was just the intel reports that didn't get it correct. The wmd's were there, just the intel reports screwed it up
Monfd
Saint11: You're disallowed from invading sovereign nations under international law except on two bases:
Monfd
1) self-defense, which is notoriously abused
Monfd
2) UNSC authorization
Monfd
Now, the USA did receive UNSC authorization, but that was an act of manipulation based on lies
Saint11
and under your #1, they justified themselves, the entire coalition
Monfd
The self-defense argument is moot as Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
Monfd
Even though the GWB admin repeatedly told that lie
Monfd
Remember Cheney talking about mushroom clouds in major cities?
Monfd
All lies
Saint11
what exactlly did they say?
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
Saint11: The GWB admin, again, infiltrated the US IC to provide falsified documents to the GWB admin appearing to come from the US IC. The CIA never actually told the GWB admin there was any nuclear threat
Monfd
But since the GWB admin resolved to invade Iraq shortly after 9/11 regardless of the evidence, they sold that lie in the same way a company sells its product
Saint11
Umm, it was the IC that supported the Brit's claims
Monfd
And so VP Cheney went on the Sunday news shows to tell fake stories about possible mushroom clouds over NYC and other major cities
Saint11
specifically the CIA
Monfd
The goal was prey upon a scared populace so as have their war
Monfd
Saint11: The CIA was specifically asked to provide support for the nuclear claim
Monfd
The CIA specifically didn't provide that
Saint11
I seem to remember that... but he guaged it in terms of "in a few years" as he was saying they were close to creating a briefcase bomb
Monfd
That led to the Niger Uranium forgeries
Monfd
Saint11: Those were all lies
Monfd
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/02/opinion/remember-that-mushroom-cloud.html
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Monfd
Iraq was never a threat to us
Monfd
There was never a self-defense argument
Monfd
The entire fabrication of the reality you sort of remember is lawfare
Saint11
that's all well and good... and let's both agree that was hype... until they found wmds
Monfd
It's one of the most powerful forms of warfare in the contemporary age
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
There were no WMDs found in Iraq
Saint11
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html wtf
Monfd
Okay, this seems to state there were some WMDs found
Saint11
To think Saddam would voluntarily destroy ALL of the Iraqi wmd's after it was proven he used them against Iran is just foolish, naive
Saint11
let's not make Saddam into a saint here
Monfd
I think Saddam was an evil man
Saint11
we can agree on that :)
Monfd
I think the Iraq War was unjustified
Saint11
ok, and you can think that.
Saint11
I'm just saying the justification wasn't 100% false
Monfd
There was not a self-defense argument for the war, and the UNSC authorization was based off lies
Monfd
Therefore, the war was unjustified
Monfd
Now, what should we do about the DoD paying out life insurance benefits to the families of fallen soldiers?
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Saint11
we can nitpick, sure, but in general, did Saddam have them? Yes. Would anyone trust him to NOT use them? No.
Monfd
That is the same process that Hamas is doing
Monfd
Saint11: We helped Saddam acquire many of those weapons
Monfd
American foreign policy is incredibly short-sighted
Monfd
We were originally discussing Hamas, though
Monfd
And I wanted to show that what they're doing is the same as what the IDF and DoD does
Monfd
They're organizing mostly males in their region in fighting their enemies
Monfd
Organized states are interested in preventing enemies from even organizing their violence in the first place, and part of that is experienced as a different response to the organization of violence by Hamas v. the IDF or DOD
Monfd
I can tell you how I'd ideally respond to this phenomenon
Saint11
No it isn't. Hamas is paying families of citizens, not military, who are killed in attacks of non combatants. That's very different. They're saying: just kill a jew, or anyone on that side of the border (which sometimes aren't Jews). Even still, if they get killed, the Palestinian government will help their families. That is not the contract we give our military and definitely not anything we would ever give our non-military
Saint11
citizens
Monfd
I'd support an international criminal court that is strongly empowered to pursue legal justice -- without military violence -- for elements of any government that do unjust violence
02:27 Monfd
Saint11: The only difference between citizens and the military is the level of organization and international recognition
Monfd
Saint11: The killing of non-combatants in Israel is illegal under international law
Saint11
There is a clear difference between a citizen and someone in the military.
Monfd
If the attack is ongoing, I support the use of lethal force, if necessary, in self-defense
Monfd
Saint11: There is in regions of the world where there is an established government
Monfd
But there isn't when there is not an established govenment
Saint11
Like Israel? :)
Monfd
In Israel, there is a clear difference
Monfd
Not in the Palestinian territories, though
Monfd
After an attack is finished, I would prefer legal mechanisms instead of violence to address the injustice
Monfd
Which could include fines or imprisonment of the military or governmental agents involved in the unjust attack
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Saint11
And, philosophically (tachyons), there is a difference in how certain countries delinieate citizens from the military. This is absolutely germane for the channel :)
Monfd
So, for the 2003 Iraq War, that would include the arrest of GWB, Cheney, and most of the admin
Monfd
For Hamas, it would mean the fining and arrest of top leaders of Hamas
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Monfd
For Israel, it would be generals, members of the Knesset, and the prime minister
Monfd
That will never, ever occur for these states, though, right
Monfd
Which incentivizes violent responses, for example the 9/11 attacks
Saint11
Mondf, that is absolutely one way to look at the issue. What you're saying is the exact same argument that the Clinton Adm said about terrorism... they preferred a legal , DOJ, approach. The Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 adms disagreed based on the idea that one could not elevate a non-citizen combatant to the level of citizen in order to prosecute.
Monfd
And because Israel is only the defacto government in the Palestinian territories, instead of the de jure government, they don't have many of these legal, non-violent mechanisms
Monfd
Which encourages them to use hellfire missiles and tank rounds
Monfd
Which begets more violence
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
Saint11: I'm for a mixture of legal and military options
Monfd
Again, if an attack is ongoing, a military response seems logical to me
Monfd
Once the attack is over, extrajudicially killing senior members on the basis of certain types of support is extremely tricky
Saint11
Wait, one sec... there was a lot of chatter there... can you sum up your argument again?
Monfd
Me?
Saint11
yes
Saint11
haha
Monfd
Many acts of violence perpetrated by state and non-state actors is ultimately unjustified. Peoples of the Earth, organized into states or not, have a self-defense right which justifies lethal force when the attack is ongoing. In regards to generalized efforts to break down the group that did the violence, that should primarily be done through legal means
Monfd
Because, if we introspect on our own systems, we see that if we think it's justified to bomb UBL from the air, that's also probably justified for George W. Bush and most of his administration
Monfd
Which we recoil in thought of doing
Monfd
Usama bin Laden
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Monfd
In those regions without established legal systems, we're incentivized towards using more violence, which is partially justified
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
However, this leads to an interesting corollary, I think, from Naomi Klein's insights on disaster capitalism
Monfd
In the USA, we are highly incentivized and required to use legal responses instead of military responses for terrorist groups
Monfd
The Marines aren't going to flatten entire KKK compounds, but you might see them sued out of existence
Monfd
Governments understand this
Saint11
ok, so... when you say the attack is ongoing, what then if the ongoing attack is by the "peoples of the earth"?
Monfd
And consequently, they're incentivized to disrupt, destroy, and prevent the formation of legal systems in some parts of the world, for example the ME and Africa, so they can say, I'd use the legal system if it was availble
Monfd
This is akin to disaster capitalism in which governments precipitate artificial disasters to create economic opportunities for corporations under their purview
Monfd
Saint11: Can you clarify?
Monfd
What I'm saying, Saint11, in part, is that Israel is incentivized and is, in fact, working towards keeping the Palestinians unorganized so that there are very few alternatives to the use of violence
tachyons has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Saint11
There's a big difference there.... the KKK (as horrible as they are) is made up of citizens with legal rights. Therefore a legal system of destruction is primarily justified, just like Alabama AG Jeff Sessions did when he extracted millions of dollars of punishment against the group before he became a senator
Monfd
I just addressed all that
Monfd
I'm saying if the US government could engineer a loss of those legal rights, they'd like to do that in some regard
Monfd
Because they could then argue that the only responses possible are militaristic
Monfd
This is exactly what is said about pursuing Islamic extremists in different parts of the world
jxx has joined (~androirc@105.105.163.213)
Monfd
If only there was a legal way to hold them to account, they lament
Monfd
Meanwhile, the USA itself pulls out of the ICC
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Monfd
So that nobody can hold them non-violently to account
Monfd
Which justifies the attacks of al-Queda
Monfd
In the same way the attacks on UBLs compound instead Pakistan were justified
Monfd
There were no other options, it is argued
Monfd
UBL's*
Saint11
OK, in regards to your specific question, again... Israel has agreed, multiple times, to working with the Palestinians to create a two state solution. In the past, they've said they'll agree to let go of the west bank and the gaza strip. That's history. That's fact. They've agreed. I don't see where in that they're trying to disrupt the palestinian government
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Monfd
At times they've been cooperative, at times they've been disruptive
Saint11
And in regards to you saying the US gov would like to engineer a loss of legal rights, they already did that with guantanamo
Monfd
Agreed
Saint11
But I don't necessarily disagree... when one has eschewed one's citizenship in favor of a militant group, what rights does that individual have under international law?
02:46 Saint11
One either wins, or fails. Right? No different than the Sons of Liberty, even if those laws didn't exist then
kyonko has joined (~diazl@97.73.96.46)
Kwijibo has left IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
kyonko has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Saint11
So?
Saint11
Win, or fail. This is the human plight.