A Political Thread pt. 2

[General Melchett]

I'm just answering @Ragey Erasmus question of why is Hamas considered a terrorist and Isreal not. Clearly Isreal are not squeaky clean from a moral point of view but also, clearly, for me, there's a difference.

Intent is key when determining whether an act is an act of terrorism or not. Can you not see a difference between hang-gliding into a place like ******* fortnight and raping, beheading, burning and murdering civilians compared to killing civilians via collateral damage in a bombing campaign? There's a clear difference there for me.

Did the IRA act like Hamas? did Che Guevara? Did Mandela and the ANC did Ghandi did MLK? These organisation may have killed civilians to varying degrees but it was not their sole and only aim, and throw into that they actually cared about their civilian population. Hamas clearly do not. In fact I'd go as far as to say that Isreal probably care more about Palestinian civilians than Hamas do which is wild considering, at this point, Israel's regard for civilian life is low.

My post was about the conflict as a whole and if yours was about terrorist incident in isolation then I acknowledge that in retrospect

I was staunchly supportive of Israel after Hamas' brutal attack on Israeli civilians in October but like most things I try to keep an open mind, strip out any confirmation bias (not always easy given what we are fed in the media) and judge events as I see them. Hell as much as I hate the man, I even agreed with Trump when he said other NATO members need to up their defence spending. Are Hamas evil barbaric scum? Yes. Are there other terrorist organisations who have been less brutal and shown more regard for civilians? Of course. Does Hamas' actions excuse Israel for how they have conducted themselves? IMO, no.

My last post may have been more heavily weighted towards Israel but I am trying to keep a balanced view of things and happen to think that the leadership of both sides are barbaric scum. I have no vested interest in this conflict and have no issue if others want to pick a side or have a different take on things. Nothing further to add really.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

In my opinion it's all about intent. You have to prove that Isreal are directly targeting civilians and not Hamas. We know Hamas' MO is target civilians, you could make a case that Isreal do I suppose and I do think, at this point, the regard for Palestinian civilians is not what it should be but deliberately targeting civilians? I'm not so sure.

I'm also not really sure on this framing of numbers. Since when in war has proportionality ever been a thing. In fact, if Isreal acted proportionally to October 7th they would've sent a few IDF people and murdered people, raped women on the street, beheaded babies and kidnapped a couple of hundred Gaza's and taken them back to Isreal. Would that have been acceptable.

I totally agree on all the West Bank expansionist stuff and clearly Isreal has not acted appropriately but we come back to intent and this is a hard thing to prove. It also comes down to who you attribute moral blame for the death of Palestinian civilians, you could easily make the case that their deaths are on Hamas' hands and not Israel's.

Having said that, I think a ceasefire at this point is needed. I don't like the idea of letting Hamas win, and they do with a ceasefire as everything so far has gone according to plan for them, but aid has dropped in the last month and that can't continue.

Intent is key but I don't think because one side has worse intent, that makes the other sides intent also not bad. Yes Israel are not explicitly going out and killing civilians, but they are showing a callous disregard for it and I suspect in quite a few cases are happy to massacre innocents in the name of targeting terrorists. This isn't new, Mossad caused more than one major diplomatic innocent by using explosive to take out targets with zero regard for innocent people they took out in the process. That may not be targeting innocents, but it's not far off it.

If one person decides to kill every person they see but get to 20 before they are stopped and another decides to only kill 1 in 100 but is able to enact that across an entire country, does the fact the latter intended to only kill 1/100th of what the other did reduce the fact that they killed far far more? Again the point I'm making is this stretches beyond the current situation. The actions Israel has taken against people in the west bank and Gaza along with past actions of Mossad etc have definitely been things that can be classed as state sponsored terrorism. Intent may be difficult to prove in an isolated case, but when you have a trend, it becomes easier. What's happening with Israeli action in Gaza is not an outlier, this is how they operate outside warzones too, this is how they operate in occupied areas. Collateral damage to non-Israelis simply doesn't factor in to their decision making except when it comes to trying to maintain some sense of credibility internationally. Israel needs US weapons, they can't risk losing that lifeline. They lobby heavily in the USA and it's the biggest case of the tail wagging the dog but I imagine even that has limits if they become too extreme.

Also remember that the highly religious, extremist set of Israeli nationalists are rising and those people have openly advocated for the complete annexation of Gaza and the west bank and the expulsion of the locals. Just how many steps away from this do you think Israel currently are? It's not many.

At no point have I argued Israel's intent is the same as Hamas, or that given the same capabilities, they would be as bad as each other. What I have said is that Hamas are more extreme but lack the capability to really do any more than they already do. Israel are less extreme but are still extreme, their actions are still things that could be classed as terrorism and they still seem quite content to kill innocents needlessly, using counter-terrorism as a catch-all to justify almost any extent of collateral damage they cause. Remember, the point of terrorism is to cause people to act a certain way through the use of fear and violence. Israel is definitely doing this.

 

[Welsh Exile]

My post was about the conflict as a whole and if yours was about terrorist incident in isolation then I acknowledge that in retrospect

I was staunchly supportive of Israel after Hamas' brutal attack on Israeli civilians in October but like most things I try to keep an open mind, strip out any confirmation bias (not always easy given what we are fed in the media) and judge events as I see them. Hell as much as I hate the man, I even agreed with Trump when he said other NATO members need to up their defence spending. Are Hamas evil barbaric scum? Yes. Are there other terrorist organisations who have been less brutal and shown more regard for civilians? Of course. Does Hamas' actions excuse Israel for how they have conducted themselves? IMO, no.

My last post may have been more heavily weighted towards Israel but I am trying to keep a balanced view of things and happen to think that the leadership of both sides are barbaric scum. I have no vested interest in this conflict and therefore have no issue if others want to pick a side or have a different take on things. Don't have anything more to add really.

Look I absolutely hate Netenyahu, I don't agree with how Isreal are conducting themselves at present (even though to be fair civilian deaths have decreased significantly since the first month or 2) I think a ceasefire is needed and I can agree with everything you say about how deplorable this whole sorry mess is. I just can't both sides it at the moment. But look, if some evidence comes out that proves Isreal are going out of their way to not kill Hamas terrorists and instead are directly targeting civilians then I'll be 100% with you on saying what Isreal are doing is on a par, if not worse, than Hamas. Until then, though.

There's that old saying that one mans freedom fighter is another man's terrorist but for me the distinction is clear. Freedom fighters, like Mandela, like Guevara, like the IRA, like MLK like Ghandi do not target civilians. There's been exceptions in some of those cases and for sure civilians have died but it's not their MO. A terrorist, has little to no interest in targeting military targets and will instead target civilians. It's as simple as that for me. Which is why, while I disagree with how Isreal are going about things, I can understand their overall aim of removing Hamas, you can't negotiate with people that want you wiped off the face of the planet.

But yeah I agree generally with what you're saying about the conflict, I don't think we're that far apart but I was just giving my view on the distinction between how Hamas's and Israel's actions differ.

I'm loathe to accept anything the IDF says in general so I won't go saying what I'm about to say is 100% factual, but a good example of what I'm saying in terms of the difference is I heard the IDF spokesman say the other day that there are 2 water pipelines that go into Gaza, Hamas attacked one of them and when Isreal came out to repair it they came under attack from Hamas. As I say, how true this is I don't know but would anyone be surprised if it was. Hamas leaders are ******* nowhere near Palestine, they're living it up abroad or much more safe underground with food and water happy knowing their own civilians are getting killed in their thousands above them. They don't care if they starve to death, can't get water and are crushed under rubble, this is their aim. Is it Israel's aim? This is where I stop and say, no I don't think it is. Again, I'm loathe to accept anything the IDF says but according to them roughly 12 thousand Hamas fighters have been killed. As I say how true that is I'm not sure.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I'll leave it there as I hate sounding like a Netenyahu shill and I'm fully aware taking this position can come across as cold hearted when I genuinely care very deeply to the plight of the innocent people on both sides of this conflict and I don't want to fall out with anyone (though the debate has been civil) on what is an extremely emotive subject.

We all agree on a ceasefire is needed at the moment as well.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Is Galloway not just a protest vote against the UK government who are complicit in the genocide in Gaza right now?

He's clearly a lunatic with no intention to do any local work but does act as a chance to show where the electorate stands on Israel.

 

[McTallshort]

Is Galloway not just a protest vote against the UK government who are complicit in the genocide in Gaza right now?

He's clearly a lunatic with no intention to do any local work but does act as a chance to show where the electorate stands on Israel.

If that's the case it's a shame no one asked him about his stance on Russian genocide in Ukraine

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

If that's the case it's a shame no one asked him about his stance on Russian genocide in Ukraine

Did they not? Seems like bad campaigning by his opponents not to go into his former employers and ties to Islamic dictators.

But like, I'm genuinely just curious. I was fairly unaware of him until 48hours ago but it looks to me like the electorate voted for a pro Palestine. And the wider reaction is lost in the cult of personality surrounding him.

 

[Saintjay]

Did they not? Seems like bad campaigning by his opponents not to go into his former employers and ties to Islamic dictators.

But like, I'm genuinely just curious. I was fairly unaware of him until 48hours ago but it looks to me like the electorate voted for a pro Palestine. And the wider reaction is lost in the cult of personality surrounding him.

By all accounts the Labour candidate was pretty pro-palestine. The difference being Starmer sacked him for saying the things Galloway does. Labour seem pretty convinced any candidate they front up will beat him at a GE even if they stick to the Starmer / party line and that Pro-palestine candidates aren't going to be an issue for them.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The next GE is going to be a dumpster fire of **** like this

 

[Welsh Exile]

**** me.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

By all accounts the Labour candidate was pretty pro-palestine. The difference being Starmer sacked him for saying the things Galloway does. Labour seem pretty convinced any candidate they front up will beat him at a GE even if they stick to the Starmer / party line and that Pro-palestine candidates aren't going to be an issue for them.

What Ali said to get booted was a step too far for a representative of a major party so I think Labour's and Starmer's hands were tied for diplomatic reasons. But I think the vote for the lunatic contrarian was still likely to be mostly out of a dearth of other options and opportunity to send a message on a small scale with very limited fallout.

I doubt the people of Rochdale are a majority of Marxist, conspiracy nuts.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Houthis namecheck George Galloway in message to Rishi Sunak as cargo ship sinks

The Belize-registered Rubymar was struck by an anti-ship ballistic missile on 18 February and sunk at around 2.15am on Saturday.

news.sky.com

Terrorist organisation whose slogan is literally "Allah is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam" getting buddy buddy with an MP

Ah but wasn't it so funny when he pretended to be a cat on the telly?

It is pretty mad he's allowed to be an MP considering his work for the Russian and Iranian state media - gotta imagine the security services are watching him incredibly closely

 

[General Melchett]

It's getting to the point where there needs to be a fit and proper persons test for anyone looking to become an MP. Why should the taxpayer have to stump up for extra security because morons like Galloway and Truss pedal conspiracy theories and incite hate with their extremist language. I'm all for free speech but our political system is turning into the wild west with so many reckless and irresponsible comments coming from people who should know better.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Assuming Labour win the next election, it will be interesting to see if the Tories lean into this Galloway/Truss stuff more and go further right, or whether they'll sort their **** out. Kind of a similar to the situation republicans are in with Trump.

 

[Saintjay]

Assuming Labour win the next election, it will be interesting to see if the Tories lean into this Galloway/Truss stuff more and go further right, or whether they'll sort their **** out. Kind of a similar to the situation republicans are in with Trump.

I might be wrong but isn't Galloway left wing whilst Truss more right. Fundamentally there beliefs are at odds with each other. I think the centre grounds is the best bet for all the parties tbh.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

isn't Galloway left wing

In name only, realistically - he's pretty socially conservative in his views and who's boots he licks

To paraphrase his own line: he and truss are two cheeks of the same arse and will say anything that whichever political/media movement they're trying to get money from wants them to
These grifters all want a slice of that fox news pie

 

[General Melchett]

There are so many contradictions. Putin claims to be leftie and yet he's fleeced billions from Russia's coffers and owns palaces and a load of other assets. He's no different to some of our former corrupt monarchs who bumped off anyone who got in their way and yet people like Galloway and Corbyn won't have a bad word to say about him.

 

[Which Tyler]

The next GE is going to be a dumpster fire of **** like this

I take it back about being harmless in and of himself.
Has he got worse? More open about things? Or just forgot / missed plenty 15+ years ago?

 

[Welsh Exile]

I might be wrong but isn't Galloway left wing whilst Truss more right. Fundamentally there beliefs are at odds with each other. I think the centre grounds is the best bet for all the parties tbh.

Oh yeah he'll defintly class himself as a lefty but he's a grifter and he's so extreme it's that whole horseshoe thing where the extreme right and left kinda meet each other. Brexit and "big pharma" are good examples of something the hard left and right have in common

Plus everything is just a bit mental these days. It's like real life is social media now.