You must log in or register to comment.
This is key:
"This does not mean most Israeli Jews became ideological right-wingers; they are not, polling suggests, fully committed to the project of expanding settlements or West Bank annexation. Mostly, they wanted Netanyahu and the right to keep them safe in a way that the left seemingly couldn’t. The prime minister, in recognition of this reality, campaigned first and foremost on security — earning the moniker, perhaps self-claimed, of “Mr. Security.”
Hamas’s attack on Saturday, a mass slaughter of Israeli civilians without precedent in Israeli history, exposed a basic contradiction in this image in the most agonizing way. Simply put, there is no way now to argue that the right-wing ideological project has delivered the security most Israelis crave."
I hope there are enough moderate Israelis out there who can push for a different approach because oppression, theft of land, and brutality isn’t a way forward if the aim is to stop bloodshed from both sides.
There are plenty of moderate people in the US, but we waged a war for twenty fucking years after 9/11.
All of human history up until this day points towards a great ramping of war efforts to slaughter everyone they can get their hands on
There are plenty of moderate people in the US, but we waged a war for twenty fucking years after 9/11.
The Iraq war was plainly illegitimate, based on a tissue of lies. 9/11 was not a legitimate casus belli for invading Iraq, and the WMD thing was simply a hoax.
I am not so convinced about the Afghan war. 9/11 was a mass murder perpetrated by Al-Qaeda on American soil, and the Taliban were hosting and working with Al-Qaeda. However, the “nation building” efforts were never going to work.
After 9/11, the Taliban wanted to negotiate with the US in order to extradite Osama Bin Laden. Their demands were simple:
- Stop bombing us.
- Give us some evidence that Bin Laden is guilty.
Bush said ‘we dont negotiate with terrists lol’ and ramped up the bombing of Afghanistan, leading to the brutal invasion. Later we executed Bin Laden without a trial.
I’m not sure how you could consider any of that legitimate.
Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over - The Guardian
Fair enough. Bush is a war criminal, and no mistake. Still and all, Bin Laden did take responsibility for the attacks.
This is a pretty well-debunked canard. 1) The Taliban knew OBL was guilty since AQ had basically admitted it and whatever else you can say about them, they aren’t stupid, and 2) their offer was to extradite him to a third neutral country --no candidate was ever named – that would ostensibly put him on trial free of US influence.
The entire offer was absurd.
The actual amount of Afghanis and Iraqis killed by coalition troops and mercenaries is pretty low. The vast, vast majority of casualties of the “War on Terror” came from disruption of services and the “Civil War” stage of the Iraq invasion which saw a hundred factions fighting each other as the US+allies mostly sat around in the Green Zone. Largely because death wasn’t the point, control and power was, and as long as the oil flowed the US’s goals were achieved.
I’m not saying that death toll isn’t ultimately the US’s fault, but I am saying your point simply isn’t true, the horrors of the past operated on a scale modern humans very rarely understand at any real level, and mass death simply isn’t the goal that often.
Like, the Japanese invasion of China in WW2 killed twenty million people alone, and most Americans are barely aware it was a front of the war.
Even if you believe the absolute worst of the claims of the modern Uyghur genocide, also not ethnic cleansing, it’s an attempt to eradicate the culture and faith that makes them troublesome to control for the CCP. Death, yet again, is not the point, control is.
Honestly this attack from Hamas is notable precisely because killing civilians seems largely to be the point, whatever justification they feel they have.
"The actual amount of Afghanis and Iraqis killed by coalition troops and mercenaries is pretty low. "
Over a million people is not pretty low. Go smoke some more crack.
Those million deaths are mostly the casualties from the civil war stage of the Iraq occupation, and were not the direct result of coalition violence.
Most, as mentioned, were casualties from sectarian violence and loss of service. Insurgent on insurgent action. Not even really Iraqis vs Iraqis tbh, given the large number of foreign volunteer fighters.
America’s fault for both destabilizing the region and not enforcing order in the mess they created, but not the result of coalition troops gunning people down in the streets.
Those million deaths are mostly the casualties from the civil war stage of the Iraq occupation, and were not the direct result of coalition violence.
Most, as mentioned, were casualties from sectarian violence and loss of service. Insurgent on insurgent action. Not even really Iraqis vs Iraqis tbh, given the large number of foreign volunteer fighters.
America’s fault for both destabilizing the region and not enforcing order in the mess they created, but not the result of coalition troops gunning people down in the streets.
The coalition claimed to have only killed 1300 civilians. Do you really believe that?
Sure, if you don’t count all the mercenaries they hired as coalition troops. Mercenaries you can watch, on YouTube, firing .50 cals into traffic as “warning shots.”
And you ignore that “military age male” doesn’t mention being visibly armed, particularly suspicious, and is defined as simply being over a male over 16.
But even if that number was a hundred times higher in reality it would still be about 10% of the total estimated casualties.
The point, as mentioned, was not to kill people, as the original comment implied.
It was to conquer and control an oil rich nation.
Ok? So 10% of total casualties is “pretty low?” 100,000 people is “pretty low” to you?
