Gorilladrums

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

The context that the reason this is promoted multiple times a year as opposed to any particular atrocities committed by western media that this can be used to justify further hostile action against a foreign nation.

Here you are at again, this is NOT context. Context is when you add relevant information to a topic in a discussion. What you're doing here is the tu quoue fallacy. Do you understand why the fallacy you're using is just that? Do you even understand why fallacies are considered bad to begin with? We can't have an honest discussion if you can't comprehend this.

If you still use the word “authoritarian”, You’re not ready to have a meaningful discussion on the event anymore than a zionist screeching about “terrorists” is capable of discussing Oct 6th.

What other word would you use to describe it? You have a very big government that tries to control every aspect of society at the expense of the freedoms and rights of its citizens, it places a lot overbearing rules that are enforced very strictly, and those who break these rules receive punishments that disproportionately exceed the crime. In this case, the CCP is a tyrannical government that ordered soldiers to kill students for the crime of peacefully protesting. That's the textbook definition of what authoritarianism is. How am I, or anyone, supposed to take you seriously, when you can't even admit a basic fact like the CCP is authoritarian? Even they don't deny it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 hour ago

I don't think you understand that norms and civility are a requirement for a peaceful, well functioning democracy. If you see them as a nuisance then you're either an authoritarian or an idiot. Like seriously, do you think society is going to function if every self righteous politician start being obnoxious when something doesn't go their way? That braindead mentality is literally how we ended up with Trump and MAGA in the US. It is THE first pillar to fall when on your way to authoritarianism.

These politicians can support or oppose whatever they want, it's their job to do so. However, disrupting the duties of the parliament is not a part of their job, and they know that. If a couple of white politicians in New Zealand started doing berserker rituals every time something doesn't go their way in parliament, will you still be making excuses? If not, then you hold double standards and you're racist. They're the same people, in the same country, and they should abide by customs that they set for themselves. The New Zealand parliament usually has 120, 117 members with vastly different opinions can conduct themselves just fine, 3 can't. Those 3 got suspended.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

You are being downvoted because, whether you realize it or not, what you wrote is extremely racist.

If you think what I said was racist then you're an idiot who doesn't know what racism is.

These are Maori. It’s their land and their traditions, and they are being attacked for both by white, authoritarian colonists. It’s unacceptable.

Calling New Zealand of all places authoritarian is the dumbest thing I've read all day. No, being Maori or any specific ethnic group doesn't excuse anyone for acting like a jackass. At the end of the day people of all different races live in New Zealand, and that's the way it is and will be. If you hold different standards on how people of different races can and can't behave, then you yourself are racist.

Keep in mind, we're not talking about regular people here, we're talking about elected representatives. These people studied the political sphere, they campaigned, and they won elections. They understand what their duties are and what the scope of their activity should be. The whole point of their job is for them have civil dialogue with their colleagues on how the country should function. If they can't do that then they're disrupting the functions of the parliament and they should be condemned for it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I think people are obsessing over this case because a bunch of rich and powerful people got publicly exposed as a part of the same ring, but there's certainly way more out there. I'm sure a bunch other politicians, billionaires, clergymen, celebrities, and a whole host of other people with influence has their own rings all over the world.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago

There's no way the election was rigged, this is 2020 election denial bullshit. The election results were in line with what the polls were showing, and it also shows in his approval ratings. The reality is that the people really wanted Trump again for some reason.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 12 hours ago (6 children)

He's the richest man in the world, he doesn't need to be involved with Epstein at all, he's rich enough to fund his own pedo ring

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

But you're conflating two different things. Someone who doesn't think about politics 24/7 isn't necessarily politically unaware or politically inactive. It just means that they understand there's more to life than politics. You can recognize that politics has more influence on your life than other things, but it's not the only influence on your life nor is it everything in life. I mean you lived through it, you should know as well as I do that even during blackouts and war, people still find ways to do things life that isn't politics.

Something this basic seems to be beyond comprehension for Lemmy users for some reason.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

What fucking context lmao? You literally provided nothing. There's no sources, no arguments, no explanations, no points, absolutely zero context was provided. The only things you did do was make false assumptions and use fallacious reasoning to justify using logical fallacies. That's not context, that's trying to justify poor critical thinking skills.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago

Not sure why you are lyao. Wikipedia has a whole article about it:

Did you even read the article? It clearly states what I stated. islam allows religious minorities that fall under "people of the book" label (aka, monotheistic Abrahamic religions) to exist under islam, not as equals but as inferior second class citizens with limited rights. This article just states that the persecution was worse for Jews in Christian Europe, not that things were good in Iberia. There are even a few historians in this very article that argue that this label for this time period doesn't actually align with reality.

You are engaging in historical revisionism. Jews weren’t persecuted or expelled in Iraq

The Farhud of Baghdad, took place in 1941, that's before the establishment of Israel (1948) and before the end of WWII (19450). Everything that I said, you could easily find in this article or any article about this event:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud

Zionism and Jewish migration to Palestine predate WW2 and the Holocaust, and the Mossad in various forms was active before 1948.

Yes, but Mossad didn't try to get Jews in other countries to migrate to Israel until after Israel was established after the 1948 war.

Zionist gangs had already committed massacres against the Palestinians in the 1930s.

And vice versa.

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

The Iraqi government tried to prevent Jews from leaving. Iraq at the time was also under British mandate, it wasn’t an independent state.

You keep repeating this like a broken record, but all your doing is demonstrating your ignorance. The Iraq government forbade Jews from emigrating to Israel AFTER the 1948 war. The farhud happened in 1941, that's 7 years prior. Also, this policy last two years and the Iraqi government reversed it in 1950, this was the called de-naturalization law

https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/psup/pir/article/1/2/392/390094/The-Denationalization-of-Iraqi-Jews-The-Legal-and

Iraq at the time was also under British mandate, it wasn’t an independent state.

The British mandate ended in 1932. Again, you keep spreading misinformation that can easily be fact checked with a single 10 second google search.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Iraq

I suggest reading what Avi Shlaim

He was born in 1945, the farhud happened in 1941. I know for a fact you didn't read his memoir and you have no idea who this guy is. It doesn't take an acadmic to figure that the article you posted is propaganda that bastardized his work. First of all, his memoir, Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew, mainly talks about the events AFTER 1948 when Israel was established and he talks about how he and his family were forced to migrate to Israel 1951 (He was 6 at the time). He states that during this time, Mossad was did a bunch of operations that tried to force Jews to migrate to Israel, and if you actually scroll up and read, you'll see that I have mentioned all of these details.

The Nazis sure, but the Arab Muslims? That’s an ignorant take.

Don't call something ignorant when you have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't some hidden secret or some controversial opinion, it's literally fact. You can scroll through this list or the lists that continue it and find hundreds of examples of the Arab muslim world trying to get rid of Jews:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism

This is also relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world#Arab_world_perceptions_of_Hitler_and_Nazism

You ignore 1500 years of Jewish history in the Arab and Muslim world and the influential role they played. And instead claim Muslims wanted to exterminate Jews based on violence that happened in reaction to Zionism

That's precisely the issue, you're ignoring 1400 (that's how old islam is) of history for a bullshit narrative that's not based in reality. This is a good example of that. The Farhud in Baghdad had NOTHING to do with zionism. You're such a dunce that you cannot comprehend that antisemtism in the muslim world has existed LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before the creation of Israel, and I literally gave you an example with the farhud. You're not willing to accept the reality. If you think antisemtism in the muslim world started as a reaction to zionism, then your understand of this region is nonexistent.

European Jewish migration to Palestine started before WW2. Zionist violence against Palestinians was already a common occurrence in the 1930s. Zionists were already trying to lure Arab Jews to Palestine before the end of WW2.

I already covered this, so I'm going to move on to the next thing.

How does that justify the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestine? Palestinians had no say in the matter. Palestinians don’t owe Jewish people reparations for what happened to them in Egypt, Iraq or elsewhere.

The entire point why I brought these people up is to showcase how these people are victims who ended up in Israel as a product of circumstance that was beyond their control. They weren't there for "reparations" or as voluntary "colonialists" as your narrative likes to portray. This is like saying the Vietnamese refugees who fled to the US in the 70s and 80s after Vietnam's neighboring countries kicked them out, only went to North America to colonize the Native Americans. It's just an ignorant take on something that's clearly more complex.

Arabs aren’t some generic people. If you were from Iraq, you should know that Iraq on its own is diverse with different factions with varying and conflicting interests.

Yes and no. You are correct in the sense that Arab culture is diverse and the ethnic groups that were Arabized through islamic imperialist conquest still remain distinct. However, Arab is still an ethnicity itself. It's important to understand that despite the diversity, Arabs still view themselves as one. This is less true today because we've had around a century of Arabic states being independent, but after WWI, this was very much the case. Arabs back then didn't see themselves as Saudi, Iraqi, or Syrian, etc. They thought of these new states as fake and they just saw themselves as Arabs in the Arab nation. It's not inaccurate to talk about Arabs as a cohesive group, especially during the time period we're discussing, because they did think and act as one nation.

Palestine isn’t Iraq. What happened in Iraq doesn’t justify what’s happening in Palestine, even if you insist that the attacks weren’t false flags, which they were.

You're right in the first half, but you're still missing the point in the second. It doesn't matter if they were false flags, real flags, or no flags. What matters is that these events happened, and as a result of them, innocent people who done absolutely nothing wrong ended up in Israel by no fault of their own. What happened to the Palestinians during the Nakba was wrong, but what happened to the Jews in rest of Palestine and the muslim world at large was also wrong. These people and their descendants who are in Israel today deserve to be there as much as Palestinians deserve to be there. That's why this conflict isn't black and white.

In the conflict between Israel and Palestine. there’s an aggressor and a victim. A colonizer and a colonized. What happened to Jews in Europe or other countries is not relevant and doesn’t justify the crimes and genocide they inflicted upon Palestinians.

And this framing is wrong. It might be true today in the West Bank, it might be true back when Zionism was still only a movement, but from that point until today so much has happened that makes this narrative a gross misrepresentation of history. I'll give you an example to demonstrate how using oversimplified revisionist narratives is bullshit. Anatolia for most of history was split between Armenians in the east and Greeks in the West. Then the Turks came in from central Asia and they committed a bunch genocides, colonized Anatolia, and became what is today Turkey. Turkey has yet to stop it's colonization and genocidal efforts, and the effects of o all these events (past and present) can still be felt today.

Yet despite this, so much has happened in Turkey's history that trying to boil it down to "Turkey bad" where the aggressor and the colonizer and Greece, Armenia, Kurdistan, etc are victims and the colonized is just ignorant. It ignores all the wars waged on by Greece or the Kurds or Armenia or the persecutions the Turks faced or the people who were forced to seek refugee in Turkey like Circassians and Tatars. It also ignores the fact that the Turks have been there for generations or that the people and government are not the same thing even if a portion of society supports the government. It doesn't justify Turkey's past or present atrocities, nor does it justify the atrocities against it, but you can't operate from a narrative driven framework that's not based in reality. The same applies here.

he is far more qualified than someone who parrots Zionist propaganda and historical revisionism.

History is not zionist propaganda. Though I suppose to someone who consumes nothing but propaganda such as yourself, actual history does seem like revisionist propaganda. Regardless, everything that I have said can easily be verified and sourced. If I forgot to source something, then just show me the claim and I'll provide a source.

I recommend you read and watch what Avi Shlaim has to say about it. As an Iraqi Jew who has lived through that turbulent time

He literally hasn't... how can he possibly experience an event when he wasn't even born? Here's a real account from an Iraqi Jew that did actually live through event:

https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2021/03/22/the-farhud-massacre-and-the-jews-of-baghdad-through-the-eyes-of-a-child-survivor-march-23/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago

And yet, for all your snowjob bullshit, there is one people in chains and another people putting them in chains. I don’t give a shit what the history is. No one has the right to do that to someone else.

We can condemn the Israeli government's reprehensible actions without using historical revisionism to drive narratives. Also history matters, how else are we supposed to understand why things are the way they if we don't even bother understand what led up to them in an objective manner?

The Nazis had a long list of historical grievances against their Jewish population. You would have been right there on the side of the Nazis, saying that while you don’t support them necessarily, you fully understand what Hitler is trying to accomplish.

That's some colossal bullshit. It's the other way around. The Nazis were notorious for historical revisionism and crafting propaganda narratives that misrepresented history and boiled down all the complexity and nuance to just "Jews bad". That's why they blamed Jews for everything. If the Nazis understood history, then they would've known that their decisions would've led to their demise. You don't seem to understand that no cause is noble enough to justify dishonest representations of reality. This applies to both Israel and Palestine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago

And fuck him, all I am saying is that the history that led up today is more complex than you people are making it out to be. From Israel's foundation until today, there is a lot that happened that wasn't foreseen by this guy or anybody. It's like how the US was founded similar principles but ended up being something that's vastly different from it's founders imagined, the same goes for other places like Turkey or New Zealand or Brazil or even Palestine. You can't boil down one of the world's oldest regions with the richest history during one it's most turbulent times to a narrative made by western activists who boil down everything to "this side good that side bad lol", that's ignorance.

view more: next ›