Why did Netanyahu sacrifice Israelis to refuse multiple ceasefires and hostage exchanges?

…but more relevantly, for the 4th time, you genocide defending piece of shit, why did Israel fund Hamas’ displacement of the secular moderates with predictable results?

There’s a reason you’re refusing to answer the question - it’s perfectly clear that Netanyahu is willing to sacrifice Israeli lives if it means that he can kill more Palestinians. You keep stating the obvious in an incredulous tone because you don’t have an alternative explanation - there isn’t one. You tell us you see the truth, then get all shy about it.

Go cheer for more dead Israelis, ya antisemitic piece of shit.

https://preview.redd.it/ltfnge7l9vy61.jpg?auto=webp&s=e9b8baf98417ef9c01dd37e1ed3ac6cb38976b18

Let me introduce you to…

The Metaverse!

People have run the numbers on this - Bezos is far richer than even the greediest dragons sitting atop their mountains of gold.

We’re overpopulated given our current resource distribution/consumption, but solving that through eugenics is obviously moronic.

For the third time - why did Israel fund Hamas’ displacement of the secular moderates with predictable results?

Kill the Palestinians, take their land - you know - exactly what they’ve been doing for decades, and were able to dramatically accelerate after October 7th.

What’s your explanation for Israel funding the terrorists’ displacement of the secular moderates with predictable, deadly results?

What - you think Netanyahu cares about Israelis given his refusal of ceasefire after ceasefire and hostage exchange after hostage exchange? How quaint.

Seems straightforwardly clear that it was to manufacture the pretext for the current genocide.

you don’t have a crystal ball.

Now we’re getting somewhere! Why do you shoot the school shooter - you don’t have a crystal ball - they could drop the gun and surrender at any moment. How about Hitler?

You using (Stalin) as an example of Western fascism.

Cool - distinction without a difference - I’m glad we wasted our time on that when your dictionary agrees with me.

That’s a moral decision, not a legal one.

Great - let’s stop talking about legal stuff then.

You think civilians murdering other civilians is not just a right but a moral obligation, I don’t.

So you don’t agree with killing the school shooter? What if they have their gun pointed at you? Exception after exception.

it’s not murder, it’s combat

What’s the moral difference other than scale? State approval?

The difference between you and I is that I understand moral ambiguity and how to navigate it - you pretend things are absolute, set rigid rules then fall apart the moment you encounter anything that doesn’t neatly fit with your framework.

I would not support telling random people to (…) open fire on civilians

…aaaaand we’re back off what I’ve been saying - but this gets a lot more straightforward once we address the crystal ball piece.

Man, I’m done. You’re strawmanning hard now. At what point did I say fascism is good?

The point is that you’re getting bogged down in semantic nonsense for no reason whatsoever - your nitpicking changes nothing, and if it does, it necessarily means you’re supporting fascism.

You support killing if YOU’RE sure it will prevent suffering. So if you have the opinion that killing Fuentes will prevent suffering, then you’ll go ahead and kill him because as established, you only care about morality not law.

Fuck it - I’ll do this differently, park the nuance for the minute and say sure - what’s your disagreement? If we know someone’s willful efforts and continued existence will lead to mass death and suffering, and their death is the only way to stop that, why would their death be bad?

Fascism

What part of your definition excludes Stalin’s regime?

You’re looking at the fact that both are dictatorships and ignoring that fascism is hard right authoritarianism and communism is hard left authoritarianism.

I’m looking at the definition you provided. It’s irrelevant - let’s assume Stalin’s regime wasn’t fascist. What changes?

Because I think civilians deserve, at minimum, a trial before they are murdered that means I support the Holocaust. It’s a huge overreach and a ridiculous take.

No Nazi court would sentence Hitler, no Nazi court would sentence the SS, no Nazi court would sentence German civilians shooting Jews in the face in broad daylight. You either support this position - i.e. fascism and the Holocaust were legal and fine or your pushback is based in something other than legality. The argument you’re putting forward would excuse all the above. The school shooter, Hitler, the Nazi recruiter, and the German murderer don’t get a trial because the courts are unwilling or incapable of stopping the problem - that doesn’t make the problem disappear or remove your responsibility to do something about that problem.

Dude, I stopped talking about legality (…) Since then it’s been all about morality

I think civilians deserve, at minimum, a trial before they are murdered

Pick one.

You’re back?

Way to dodge the question about if you think killing social media people (not even Trump, just podcasters) is going to prevent WW3.

I can’t make this any simpler - I support it if it does.

Stalinism

Get a dictionary. Look up fascism and communism. Look up Umberto Eco’s 14 signs. You’re lost - do you think fascism is good because Stalin wasn’t fascist?

Nothing I’ve said is an excuse for the Holocaust and I’ve not once apologized for Nazis.

I’ve pointed out why your arguments do precisely this - tell me what I’ve mischaracterised.

killing people (…) is justified if you’re sure it will prevent suffering (at the scale we’re talking about)

Yep - and you’re saying it’s bad because it’s illegal - a standard that excuses Hitler’s actions after the beer hall putsch.

Stalin’s regime wasn’t communist, and it checked all the boxes for fascism. Go look up the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - they only got antagonistic because their expansionism started treading on each-others toes. The ignorance.

I’m well aware of Mussolini’s kill count - go ahead and scale things to the population and average it all out… Or skip that, and explain me the difference this makes to the point.

As for Hitler, the numbers you are talking about aren’t his takeover of Germany - they’re WW2.

…which kicked off because…? Moron.

You are are saying, over and over, that killing people to stop suffering is right. You are absolutely talking about killing people who are SAYING things you don’t like. Fuentes is not an active shooter - I can’t even find a criminal record for him of any kind.

Why would this argument not absolve Hitler or Goebbels of all fault for the Holocaust? It doesn’t matter - we’ve already established that you can’t have a moral issue with their actions because they were legal.

Your arguments amount to straightforward Nazi apologia as you ether lie or paint what I’m saying as my playing judge, jury and executioner. I’m not dishing out death sentences to Fuentes - I’m saying that his death would be good if it prevents more death and suffering. At this point, I think that’s likely, but I don’t think I can know yet. Go spend 5 minutes familiarising yourself with consequentialism or act utilitarianism.

I spit on the feigned outrage and moralism of someone whose prescriptions excuse the fucking Holocaust, and condemn intervention against it because it was legal - absolutely monstrous and utterly moronic.

You seem to think “killing mouthpieces” is going to be some magical event that makes hateful people reconsider (as opposed to spurring them to violence of their own).

Without recruiters and leaders, a movement is smaller, less coordinated, and less radicalised. This is doubly true of authoritatian movements built on lies.

Also, I’d like to add it’s ridiculous hyperbole - 3.8 million people are estimated to have died in the 20 years of the Vietnam war. Just over 900k died to violence in all the post 9-11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

When talking about the threat of Western fascism, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to look at western fascists? Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin… It’s strange you’d point to such unrelated conflicts. Tens of millions dead.

You go ahead and be “guided by morality not legality” while you do try to convince others extrajudicial violence is alright.

If killing a mouthpiece of a genocidal movement prevents the deaths of tens of millions of people, it’s morally correct. Similarly, gay marriage wasn’t immoral until it was legal.

All because you believe killing people outside the law, and getting people killed in return, is productive if you’re sure it’s right.

Its right if it’s productive. It’s not productive because I’m sure it’s right. You’re tying yourself in knots here - it’s very straightforward - minimise suffering and death.

You use the example of cops carrying guns, but they’re not under license to kill everyone they disagree with nor is it considered moral (since you don’t care about legality).

Cops carry guns because some violence is necessary, and desirable to stop more violence. You kill the school shooter to stop the kids getting murdered, you kill the Nazi leader to stop the minorities getting murdered. Attempting to spin this into a defence of killing anyone you disagree with demonstrates either willful dishonesty or a level of stupidity that would disqualify you from this conversation. Stop.

Violence should be a last resort

I’ve said as much.

used only within bounds that keep if from being a crime/war crime

Some killing is immoral and legal - e.g. the use of the death penalty, other killing is moral and illegal - e.g. killing Hitler to end World War II and the Holocaust. Why would you defer to legality in the context of fascists running the government, and being able to set the laws? Why was slavery immoral when it was legal? If your moral framework is based in legality (I don’t think it is, I don’t think you realise that), you’re definitionally amoral - a fundamentally broken human being.

not exercised by everyone at will if they’re pretty sure it’s productive.

Are you going to wait for the fascist government to try the fascist leader, remove them from power, disassemble the means to commit their series of genocides, pack up and go home? This is a material defence of fascism.

The PLO were in power, Israel knew who Hamas were, and funded their rise to power (for what reason other than to manufacture the pretext for this genocide?), they also created and maintained the conditions that would motivate and justify violent resistance, so yes - Israel are responsible for Hamas.

In maintaining the horrible conditions I pointed to, Israel further motivated people to push back by any means necessary while giving them as little as possible to live for.

You don’t get to tell us you want peace as you defend a genocide. You don’t get to tell us about atrocities as the IDF gleefully document dozens per day, and you don’t get to tell the people you’re genociding that they’re wrong.

With that all clarified, what would justifiable Palestinian self-defence look like, and do those principles apply equally to Israel?

How about Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev, the Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s.

Oh look - a New York Times reporter saved us the trouble. Turns out that he had helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a “counterweight” to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party, led by Yasser Arafat (who also corroborated this statement).

…there’s that, and the whole military occupation to maintain an apartheid state in an open air concentration camp, the decades-long annexation campaign. You’ll be surprised to learn that people find that kind of thing upsetting.

I disagree - I think the majority know they’re lying, and support the genocide - they’re just cowards too gutless to say so.

You give these monsters any sort of push, and they start using Palestinian and Hamas interchangeably which really gives the game away… keep going, and they start screaming their support for wiping Palestine off the map.

70% of Hamas aren’t.

What does this tell us about Israel’s goals?

You’ve said a lot while adding nothing.

Again, the priority is minimising suffering and death - if Fuentes’ death amounts to a net increase in death and suffering, I don’t support it. If there is a solution to that leads to less net suffering and death, I don’t support his death. If it’s effective at stopping the deaths of tens of millions of people, I’d support it. My preferred solution would be to escalate charges, censure and imprisonment for his work to advance those genocides.

What I will say is that:

• Silencing the mouthpieces of genocide and the recruiters for genocide helps minimises the chances of the genocides,

• Making contributing to genocide a dangerous affair helps minimise the chances of genocides.

• Asking nicely doesn’t do a damn thing to minimise the chances of the genocides.

Political violence is an inevitability - I’d rather it be minimised - sometimes a little violence stops a lot - this is why cops carry guns.

Finally, what you are pushing for is very illegal.

I’ve already said I’m guided by morality not legality, and I’m not pushing for anything specific beyond stopping about the most heinous act possible. I appreciate your concern, but the rest is noise.

No… Stop… Please? Niiiick? I said pleeeease…

I use morality rather than legality to tell right from wrong. This is why I supported gay marriage a few years ago. My moral first principle is the minimisation of suffering and death. If someone is making headway toward killing tens of millions of people, I believe it’s immoral not to stop them, and while the suffering inflicted should be minimised, there’s not a lot that wouldn’t be justifiable if necessary to stop those tens of millions of deaths and all the suffering.

To stand by and watch something like that play out because forceful intervention is uncivil is to be complicit with those atrocities.

Sure - he might be actively pushing for a series of genocides, and he might be a significant recruitment tool to advance those genocides, but pushing back against the death of millions of people with anything more than colourful language would be immoral.

Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.

Fascism and idiots - I couldn’t name a more iconic duo - though I do agree with you point… Trump is exceptionally stupid, and has surrounded himself with gibbering idiots like Musk and RFK.

…that said, when Trump’s heart inevitably explodes, Vance will almost certainly have competent (evil) advisors, and they’ll get (horrible) shit done.