RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive24

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Click here to add a new section to this page

Contents

Israeli executes Arab teen running from mob[edit]

A video shows that, once again, authorities in Israel simply lie about the circumstances of why they murder Arabs:

Israeli authorities claimed that 19-year-old Fadi Samir Alloun was killed while attempting to carry out a stabbing attack.



But videos posted online show that the youth was executed in cold blood as he was chased by a mob of Israeli Jews baying for his blood.


As the video above begins, voices can be heard in Hebrew shouting – apparently at police – “Shoot him! He’s a terrorist! Shoot him!” and “Don’t wait! Shoot him!”

Video here.


Another example of blatant racism by police authorities, assuming their class and race is right and the other is wrong by default. This is not all that different from white cops shooting blacks in America; in both instances, one group is the oppressor while the other is the oppressed. Like the whites, the Israelis are better off economically than the Arabs (blacks), and are given a pass. I would not be shocked if this leads to a Third Intifada (Palestinian Uprising). Even now, Israel is bombing Gaza. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
There's speculation a third intifada is started. Today Israel barred Palestinians from entering Jerusalem's Old City. Violence has broken out all over Jerusalem. Israel is bombing Gaza.---Mona- (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Studied counter-terrorism in Israel. Brilliant professors, many of them secular, liberals who would tell me that being Arab in Israel is like 80% like being black in the US. Many similar issues going on there.--BlackProg (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The situations in the U.S. And Israel are so vastly different that it's best to just observe each situation for what it is and not get into an oppression contest. That trivializes everyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
An oppression contest? Really? I'm pretty sure the reason BlackProg used that analogy was to try to put what is going on over there in perspective for the rest of us who don't know anything about it (like me).
Look, I understand where you're coming from because I'm a lefty and social justice activist too. But please try to understand what someone intends to communicate before you talk down to them and denigrate their contribution as "trivializing everyone". Or better yet, just don't bring that over-the-top jumping-to-conclusions nonsense here to begin with, because it greatly damages the public's perception of:
  1. The issues you and I are advocating for
  2. The people we're trying to help, and
  3. Social justice activism in general
And honestly, I very much like the work that RationalWiki does and I don't want to see it turn into another Tumblr in which the slightest perceived inconsequential mishap against one's personal blend of political correctness brings all constructive dialogue to a complete standstill in favor of a pissing contest. Eoan (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to give some non-electronic-jihad perspective on this thing... The notably not-Israel-friendly Huffington (or as I like to call it Fluffington) Post says that The Palestinian in question was armed and had attacked Israelis. Now of course I would have prefered a non-lethal solution, but in some cases you have to make a split second decision and if you got a gun and an armed bad guy in front of you, you're likely to say "screw the bad guy". So before we condemn the soldiers for what they did (and indeed by extension once again the state of Israel [Notice how the line of debate is totally different from when a person dies through police in the US?]), I would like to have some context and not some propaganda hatchet piece by Electronic Jihad or Mona. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The "hatchet piece" in EI included the allegation of a stabbing and I quoted that -- so there's your "context," but no evidence so far connects the teen to a stabbing. And whatever else is true, moral people do not execute a fleeing teen in cold blood. The video clearly shows the teen running from a mob screaming for his death and that he was shot when he was a not a threat to anyone. And btw, your whataboutery fails even as whataboutery -- I am very critical of the outrageous death toll of Americans kill by cops.---Mona- (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I should have been clearer: Even if an unarmed human being is shot dead by police, nobody calls for an "end to the occupation". Nobody questions the right of the US to exist. Nobody calls for boycott divestment and sanctions until any of the objectives are met. And most of all, nobody questions the general right of a state to enforce its laws with force and deadly force if necessary. And we have to be perfectly clear here: An armed person with a knife attacked (most likely with the intention to harm and kill and possibly with the intent to draw retaliatory fire) one or several persons and was shot dead by security forces (military, if I recall correctly). This is an entirely different situation from what "black lives matter" is rightfully protesting against. And you have to keep in mind that there are currently non-negligible Palestinian terrorist groups who do even worse things thaen kniving people in the street. I have not yet heard of African Americans that blow themselves up in a crowded street in Dallas. If and when such things happen, there will of course also be a different response by security forces in the US. And to reiterate: I would have preferred to see the horrible human being with the knife rot in jail thaen him being shot dead, but maybe a non-lethal solution was impossible. As Israel is an open democracy with independent courts and a place where the law reigns supreme (none of these things are btw true for any of Israel's neighbors) I am sure there will be an investigation that will clear any wrongdoing if there was any. Unfortunately Electronic Jihad will have moved on to the next hatchet piece once the truth comes out. As they no doubt did when the Gaza flotilla turned out to have been not "peaceful" at all... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
"Thank God Israel is not as bad as it's neighbors" becomes a tired response when that's all you have to throw out for defense. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC).
That many people in the region do the same thing doesn't justify them doing it...nor does it justify calls for the disillusion of the country and forcible evacuation of citizens when they do it like every other asshole. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the teen was "threatening to harm anyone" or not: it would seem logical to me that security forces treat a fleeing assailant as being still dangerous and to be neutralized as fast as possible - and, y'know, maybe planning to stab someone else in the future, for the same reason, if not stopped right away. I'd of course have preferred a non-lethal solution, but the fact is that solutions of this kind as reliable as a bullet to the chest aren't a thing yet. The moral path ain't as straightforward as "you don't shoot someone" in these cases... As for the crowd - give them a break. Again, waiting for an investigation on this. PS: I'm not particularly Zionist, nor am I right-wing in my sensibilities or callous towards the plight of ordinary palestinians - but let's remain reasonable here. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this, but already I see Avenger is misusing source material for his own agenda. Huffington Post doesn't claim the Palestinian was armed or was attacking Israelis. The only people claiming this in the article are the police spokesperson, read again: "A Palestinian man was shot dead on Monday by Israeli police troopers after he stabbed and lightly wounded one of them at a military checkpoint in the occupied West Bank, a police spokeswoman said. [. . .] The army said the man approached a group of soldiers, telling them he felt unwell. As he drew near, he pulled out a knife and stabbed one of them. Another soldier shot him." In other words, Avenger has distorted the meaning of what was claimed, attributing a saying to a news source rather than the spokesperson, who has a self-serving interest in the matter and is not the most reliable source given the soldier's role in preserving a military occupation. Come on, I know you can do better than that. ChrisAmiss (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
That makes it sound a little more legitimate, honestly, though this is so very new it would be good to have more information instead of very early preliminary sources. If someone goes forward and tries to murder a soldier, and as they react the guy turns away from the backup so he gets shot in the back, it's less like the previous iterations where it seems like the guy was at one side of the crowd and trying to get away when shot...far away from conflict or the soldiers. It would be nice to wait to who the evidence supports.
Certainly not as presented in the original post, where a mob chased the youth down, cornered him, and soldiers just blew him away. However, I'll wait for the investigation. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
You are mistaken EmeraldCity. The first sentence quoted in my seminal post in this section states: "Israeli authorities claimed that 19-year-old Fadi Samir Alloun was killed while attempting to carry out a stabbing attack." The video shows a teen fleeing a mob yelling for his death, not a teen stabbing anyone.---Mona- (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course I am wrong, I'm not toeing the line and having an opinion of my own. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oh for goodness sake, EmeraldCity, surely you know that you made an error of fact; facts, by definition, are not opinions. The original post included precisely the information you said it did not.---Mona- (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Israel murders kids all the time. Twelve-year-olds. A 17-year-old who threw a rock at a vehicle with in IDF colonel in it, who lied about shooting the boy dead to defend his life. The boy was shot in the back while fleeing -- again, a video tells the truth. One could spend all day linking to stories about Israel executing or wounding Arab kids and lying about why or how. They lost the benefit of the doubt long ago.---Mona- (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding: Israel threatened to arrest a 3-year-old for throwing stones and ransacked his parents' home. What The Most Moral Army does to kids is awful:

Human Rights Watch has condemned Israel over its "abusive arrests" of Palestinian children as young as 11 and of using threats to force them to sign confessions.


Israeli authorities regularly failed to inform parents of their children's arrest or whereabouts, the New York-based watchdog said in a report in July.

"Forces have choked children, thrown stun grenades at them, beaten them in custody, threatened and interrogated them without the presence of parents or lawyers, and failed to let their parents know their whereabouts," the report said.
---Mona- (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Nice strawman. I don't think anyone here has stated that Israeli police or the IDF are absolutely infaillible, incorruptible forces of good stafed only by superhumans: they are capable of mistakes like everyone else, especially under pressure (of course, every police and army force should be trained to remain cool-headed under pressure). Do you think that crowd just decided to get together and yell for the death of a Palestinian teen ? I do not know exactly the code of conduct of the Israeli army, but I wouldn't be too surprised if a fleeing enemy was still considered as a potentiel threat. An investigation needs to happen, obviously, but you've already come to your conclusion.
Also: your articles don't really go into enough detail, or are really too vague for me to judge. Twelve-years-olds getting shot is something ghastly indeed, but the circumstances are kind of important to know if this is "murder" or "shooting a teenager in self-defense". They also didn't arrest the three-years-old, in the end (will you blame them for being a little pissed when stones have been thrown at them, especially if such an occurence appears to be recurring ?). NewFrenchHotness (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"They also didn't arrest the three-years-old, in the end" HAHAHAHAHAHA So, like seriously, that's what you think is a great defense of this event? Armed soldiers storm a home to rout out a toddler, but gee, they decided not to arrest him "in the end." God, I love the Internet.---Mona- (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As I've said before, the only way anything will happen is if/when both sides take a look at what the British and Irish did and conclude that it's just not worth it any more. There's no one side to this that's even close to being innocent, so until they both decide they've had enough of blowing each other to smithereens nothing will happen. Then once they do there'll almost certainly be an equivalent to the RIRA pop up, and if they can resist that as well as the British and Irish then things can truly clear up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm surprised Mona found a way to shoehorn anti-Israeli sentiments onto this site. Yes, a dead 12-year-old is horrible, but you do have to consider that the officers didn't know what was happening, and just arresting an allegedly armed teenager who was most likely below the poverty line isn't going to calm these guys' nerves down. It happens to commonly here where I live, and let me tell you, it ain't pretty. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
"a dead 12-year-old is horrible, but you do have to consider that the officers didn't know what was happening," Uh-huh, well, I believe Palestinians are just a bit sick and tired of "having to consider" the lies and outrageous "justifications" issuing from Israel. More land stolen every day by fanatical and violent settlers, their children killed, penned up in the open air prison of Gaza...yeah, they sure have to "understand" a lot.---Mona- (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The apologetics I'm seeing for the shooting of a 12 year old is disturbing. Imagine if the roles were reversed and a Jewish child walked towards Hamas fighters. If I were a propagandist, I could argue that because Jewish settlers have been known to launch price tag attacks on Palestinians or tearing down olive trees, then it would only be natural for a Palestinian militant to treat a Jewish child settler with caution and fire upon him or her based on past experiences of settler attacks. Of course to even suggest a notion would probably be considered antisemitic, but I guess that's what happens when you have double standards. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Bingo: "Of course to even suggest a notion would probably be considered antisemitic, but I guess that's what happens when you have double standards."---Mona- (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at it that way, I think Mona makes some sense. I think it's just me, but this sort of thing happens all the time in the city I live in. Some mentally ill guy, homeless person, gangster, whatever almost always end up killed by officers, so I grew up with the notion that the police are in a constant fight or flight mode for some reason. I don't know where you come from, but in the city I live in, this shit happens all the damn time... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The racism and violence Palestinians face from Israelis is different from even the worst blacks suffer in the U.S., by many magnitudes. Both are heinous, but the former is a world apart in degree.---Mona- (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I concede that Palestinians face severe and horrible punishment and discrimination, (mad props Mona) and it doesn't really compare to the time a guy got shot up in front of our rival high school because his parents aimed for a better life north of the border, but it doesn't give an excuse to automatically condemn all of Israel. It's like if everyone is condemning the federal government because a police officer murdered Freddie Gray. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
"but it doesn't give an excuse to automatically condemn all of Israel." Well, actually it does if you mean the nation-state as opposed to all who live there. Israel is founded (with great assistance from Zionist terrorists) on ethno-religious supremacism that "required" colonizing and stealing land from the indigenous population and ensuring what remained of that population was no more than 30% of the nation. Thw racism, violence and horrendous policies necessary to such actions and policies of course outraged the affected Arab population, which reacts like any severely oppressed peple would; often with counter-violence. Israelis broadly hate Arabs. Examples of Jewish Israeli individuals, groups and mobs screaming and saying vile things about the oppressed Arabs are legion.---Mona- (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Under that same logic, is a cartel member a Mexican terrorist? So, if a man gets killed by the local sheriff, does that give an excuse to condemn capitalist terrorists who have helped the US government attain power? Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Mona is saying that all Zionists are terrorists, and Mona didn't even mention Mexicans, so I don't know why that's coming up. I actually think that you, Zexcoiler Kingbolt, are trying to imply that Mona holds a right-wing view towards Mexicans, which I don't think is the case. When Mona refers to 'Zionist terrorists', she means that Zionists have intentionally engaged in violence towards civilians for political goals, which is born out by the evidence. Mona is saying that the nation-state/polity that is "Israel" was founded upon a doctrine, Zionism, that strongly implies racial superiority and tacitly approves of violent methods of ethnically cleansing an area of land that rightfully belongs to one race. That's very similar to what Nazis thought about German superiority. I don't see Mona or anyone else saying all Israelis are terrorists, just as no one is saying all Palestinians are terrorists. The point is the nation-state has adopted an authoritarian and racist ideology that is mostly responsible for the violence we see there today. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not trying to imply that anyone holds right-wing views to any people, and secondly, thanks for clearing that up. Sometimes my bias gets in the way and my analyzation is shit, too. Well, I guess I owe -Mona- and Pbfreespace3 a big apology. Sorry. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


"Israel kills toddler and pregnant mother in Gaza"[edit]

Among the reasons I find the activist journalists at Electronic Intifada invaluable; they report the under-reported facts of what actually happens when a people is occupied by one of the premier militaries in the world.

This video shows Yahya Hassan embracing and bidding farewell to his baby daughter Rahaf in Gaza on Sunday.



“Wake up, my daughter,” the inconsolable father says, and asks relatives to “leave her with me.”


The toddler died along with her pregnant mother Nour Rasmi Hassan in an Israeli air strike.


Meanwhile, Israeli occupation forces shot dead two Palestinian boys in Gaza on Saturday and another child in the occupied West Bank on Sunday.


Israel claimed it was bombing two Hamas “weapons-manufacturing centers” after one of its anti-missile batteries intercepted a rocket fired from Gaza.

Maan News Agency also reports that Israel has shot 1,300 Palestinians with live, rubber bullets in October, including a 13-year-old boy who is dead. The Internet is abuzz with speculation that a third intifada has either started or soon will. That must be because of the inscrutable but awful religious doctrines of Muslims.---Mona- (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Judging by Electronic Jihad and similar blogs, Gaza has to populated by nobody except women, children, pregnant women and also babies, with the Hamas in general either being a philanthropic organization or a lie of teh evel Zioooooooooooonist media.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
And Jews are some kind of fairy-tale creature like vampires that have to drink an ounce of Arab blood a day to survive. But what can one expect? UNRWA schools teach exactly that with UN money... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
If the first and second intifada were good ideas that actually resulted in anything, then we wouldn't need a third one. It will only result in more needless deaths of Palestinians. Hentropy (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
not to mention needless deaths of Jews. And of course an ethnic cleansing and purge within the Palestinians... But shush... mentioning that constitutes whataboutism Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Today the Israelis shot a 1015-yr-old (he really does look younger when fallen) Palestinian boy in cold blood and took his picture as he bled to death. (A Palestinian physician disseminated the picture on Twitter.)Youtube removed the video for having "shocking and disgusting content." But the iconic picture of him bleeding out is here. No oppressed people would tolerate what the Zionists have done to the Palestinians. No people. They will continue to mount resistance and many on both sides will die until the occupation and apartheid end.---Mona- (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. There you go again. With your daily Jihad... Don't you ever get tired of anti Jewish and anti-Israeli propaganda? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


For the record even our resident anti-Zionist didn't get the age right on the first try. Goes to show how accurate her sources and her reading comprehension skills tend to be. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, the only real outrage here is that a distraught Palestinian doctor tweeted the wrong age right after the event occurred. That dead boy bleeding out as the Israeli cops stand by and do nothing but kick him as the Zionist crowd screams “Die, you son of a whore!” is as nothing compared with my adopting the age first given on Twitter.---Mona- (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In "liberal" Israel Avigdor Lieberman tops the list of those politicians who could best see to Israel's "defense." He beats out Netnyahu and is to the right of him. Liberman is the guy who says "disloyal" Palestinian Israelis should have their heads chopped off. This is the most popular politican in Israel:

In 2003, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported that Lieberman called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there.


In May 2004, Lieberman proposed a plan that called for the transfer of Israeli territory with Palestinian populations to the Palestinian Authority. Likewise, Israel would annex the major Jewish settlement blocs on the Palestinian West Bank. If applied, his plan would strip roughly one-third of Israel’s Palestinian citizens of their citizenship. A “loyalty test” would be applied to those who desired to remain in Israel. This plan to trade territory with the Palestinian Authority is a revision of Lieberman’s earlier calls for the forcible transfer of Palestinian citizens of Israel from their land. Lieberman stated in April 2002 that there was “nothing undemocratic about transfer.”

Also in May 2004, he said that 90 percent of Israel’s 1.2 million Palestinian citizens would “have to find a new Arab entity” in which to live beyond Israel’s borders. “They have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost,” he said.

In May 2006, Lieberman called for the killing of Arab members of Knesset who meet with members of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.’ ”

But don't say Israel is proto-fascist and behaving obscenely, or you are antisemitic.---Mona- (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's end the existence of the USA because of George W Bush and John Boehner! Let's end the existence of Germany because of these guys. Let's blame all ills that have ever befallen Europe on the existence of Hungary because of this guy Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's end the occupation and apartheid, and make some reparations.---Mona- (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we should end the occupation of Gaza by the Hamas (if you ask Abu Mazen's gang, but he should be back in your good graces soon, trying to whip up a 3rd Intifada like Yasser his predecessor did). And the territory of what state does Israel occupy? That of Egypt, Jordan or that of the Osman Empire?
And FYI, there is no apartheid in Israel, the Israeli Arabs have much more rights than their brethren anywhere else.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Shush. Don't let your facts get in the way of Mona's preaching! You are practicing whataboutism. Even if you aren't. A leading civil libertarian has written so on Jihad daily. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Racism is dead in the U.S. because we elected a black president and there is no apartheid in Israel. Anyway, the non-existent apartheid and occupation must end.---Mona- (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Nice that you linked to your own personal hatchet piece instead of Wikipedia, which even acknowledges that the whole claim might just be a tad hyperbolic. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Avenger, and to a slightly lesser extent Arisboch, I fail to see how you can condone the actions of Israel against the occupants of Gaza - call them what you will, Palestinians, Hamas etc. By associating yourselves with these actions you are displaying the most hateful traits possible in a human being. I find you despicable. Scream!! (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I like it, when you talk dirty *purrr* Siriusly, though, now you are apparently calling all residents of Gaza Hamas. I didn't do that, you did. If you think, that returning fire against terrorists, who hurl rockets, mortars and bombs at Israeli (and Arab-Israeli) citizens, is hateful, then fuck you and the horse you ride on.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
There should be a button to thank someone for their contribution. (As is the case in newer versions of the software this page runs on). This. So much this. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This site has much better content than the Conservapedia, but it's tech sucks (and I'm not talking about like buttons and such stuff, I'm talking more about bugfixes, mobile view and SSL. People've been asking for it for ages, but the techs are doing NOTHING (David Gerard, where the fuck is your fabled RationalBeta (test plattform for running a new version of the Wikimedia software)???)).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I wrote only about 25% of that section. Chris knows a lot more about apartheid in Israel than I do. And yes, facts are very difficult things for Zionists to deal with. In my extensive experience they find them most unpalatable.---Mona- (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Well thanks for the compliment, kind sir or madam. I know it wasn't intended as one, but I have found people who hate Israel calling me names to be a very good indicator that I am on the right track. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, my confirmation bias meter just went off the charts! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Avenger (and Aris, but especially Avenger) is definitely making it easy for Mona. That he (they) can't see that is rather sad. Dendlai (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Do kindly explain on my talk page how you think this to be the case... And please mull about one question while you are at it (Mona claims to have already answered it but of course she hasn't) Why this focus on Israel? Why make up human rights abuses perpetrated by one of the nicest places in the Middle East (in terms of government) when there are plenty of real abuses (including, ironically against Palestinians) just a few hundred kilometers away? In the answer to this - I think - lies the crux of this problem. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
He didn't call you names; he pronounced you despicable for the quite specific behavior of "condon[ing] the actions of Israel against the occupants of Gaza." Which you do and which is, indeed, despicable. You behave as did those Western Stalinists who accepted that Stalin did some unpleasant things but insisted it was for noble reasons and was necessary. They were despicable, too---Mona- (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
No, he didn't condone Hamas at all. You seem to confuse something.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait, Hamas = Israel now? >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:29, 15 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
It's simply an issue of practicality. Fatah has made great gains in trying to grow international support for their statehood by trying to prove that they can be a functioning state that can coexist peacefully with their neighbors. Germany and Japan largely did not try to keep the fight up when it was clear they lost and their enemies had superior technology (most the atom bomb but other stuff too), and they quicker they accepted that, the quicker they were able to become a functioning state again after the war. It didn't matter that American GIs were raping Japanese women or any other injustice or indignity they suffered, fighting after a certain point is simply hopeless, and if you truly care about the lives of the innocent, you will play the long game instead of the short one. I have no great love of Israel or Netanyahu, but when you are defeated, you have to decide what is more important: life or principle. If you choose principle it better be a damn good one, and Hamas does not have one. Hentropy (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you are misrepresenting Germany during World War II here. I'd like to discuss this with you in some place where Mona won't bark in and accuse me of derailing this discussion. Your talk page okay? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
"and Hamas does not have one. " Yes they do. Gazan civil society shares their demands and states that until they are met life for them is "a living death." They will not submissively subsist like that any more than the ANC and blacks would in apartheid South Africa---Mona- (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
"Why this focus on Israel?" The answer to that question is on my user page.---Mona- (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The same Gazan civil society that is shot at when it protests against Hamas? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Possibly. But they do not cite Hamas as imposing on them a "living death." That these professionals say of the Zionists.---Mona- (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hamas' demands are not simply that Israel be nicer, Hamas has repeatedly stated, proudly, that they want the Israeli state to end. The SCLC and ANC's demands did not have to do with ending other states, nor were they based on a hatred of others in their country, they just wanted a more just society. You can keep pretending that Hamas is some kind of freedom fighters, but their stated goal is not simply liberation (like Fatah), their goal is to destroy Israel and get revenge on Israelis. Long-lasting peace will never achieved this way. Hentropy (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Depending on what one means by ending (not, e.g., people dying or being wholesale uprooted), Israel should end. It must cease the occupation and its apartheid policies, both vis-a-vis Arab Israeli citizens and in the occupied territories. Moreover, Hamas is, contrary to your assertions and implications, engaged in resistance. (But I have actually said very little about Hamas per se, and certainly have not called them "freedom fighters.") Finally, you are out of date on the current positions and actions of Hamas. Please see the RW entry on Hamas (much of it by the very knowledgeable ChrisAmiss)---Mona- (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The Hamas Charter on what "ending" means is not vague. They want an undivided Palestine, one that is controlled by an Islamist government. The political wing of the organization has tried to appease internationalists by claiming that they no longer believe in their own charter, even though they will not revoke it. They can't revoke it or change the language, because the military wing won't let them, because that's what they believe at the end of the day. They have offered no other clear and consistent alternative to a material destruction of Israel as a state, they only pay lip service to western cameras so they can drum up sympathy. Indiscriminately targeting Israelis and carrying out terrorist attacks against them is not the behavior of a party that totally wants "two states with 1967 borders". Your actions have to match your words. It's also largely the same criticism I have of Israel, I have no great love for them or Likud, but their shortcomings does not justify or make up for Hamas' serious problems. Hentropy (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, please see the RW article on Hamas. It includes this:

However, the Hamas charter is considered irrelevant by its political leaders today, along with a US government study which mentions, "Hamas has, in practice, moved well beyond its charter. Indeed, Hamas has been carefully and consciously adjusting its political program for years and has sent repeated signals that it may be ready to begin a process of coexisting with Israel"

You are attempting false equivalency. Hamas is one manifestation of Palestinian resistance to a grossly oppressive, ethno-religious supremacist, colonizing state. The African National Congress had its extremists as well (actual Stalinists). The ANC committed gross barbarisms. But that had nothing to do with its cause being just or the fact that the organization came to exist because of an oppressor.---Mona- (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm allowed to disagree with the government or any other entity on the issue. To me, Hamas does not act like an organization that wants to peacefully coexist with Israel. Are the rocks thrown at Israeli military or the rockets launched into Israel going to liberate the Palestinians? Really think about that question. What's the point of it? To provoke, to start a new war which will inevitably kill more and more civilians. That's the only function they serve, to make sure that Israelis will react to their provocations. If they were interested in peaceful coexistence, then their actions would reflect that. They would stop the pointless rocket attacks, stop the violent protests, stop teaching their kids to throw rocks and be martyrs for the cause, stop trying to build tunnels into Israel so they can carry out targeted attacks against civilians, and generally stop being what they have been since they came to power. I'm no great fan of the ANC's early days of resistance, "barbarisms" targeted at civilians is never justified, and using civilians as human shields is not, either. Mandela forswore the use of violence and practiced it, just as previous resistance activists have done in the past. From a purely strategic perspective, if Israel is truly the monstrous country Hamas makes them out to be, then they would slaughter civilians no matter what the Gazans do. But most everything Israel has done has been a reaction to Gazan provocation. "Innocent civilians" would not get shot if they were not throwing rocks and slurs at Israelis, and Gaza would not get bombed if they weren't firing rockets and building tunnels. Hamas knows this, they knew if they just stopped that the peace process would move forward, which is why they do not let that happen. They have decided that war and indefinite conflict with Israel is their long-term strategy. Hentropy (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
"But most everything Israel has done has been a reaction to Gazan provocation....not throwing rocks and slurs at Israelis" FFS, that's as disgusting as it is false. And I mean, really? Slurs? It's just fine to shoot 13-year-olds if they say mean things about the occupation forces oppressing them? Moreover, if you think all those Palestinians throwing stones are Hamas, you are beyond reasoning with. Hamas is not the problem; the occupation and apartheid are. As for human shields, Israel uses them all the fucking time ADDING: innocent ARAB civilians, is who the IDF uses as human shields. Their own supreme court has said so and demanded that it end, but it has not---Mona- (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, stomping your feet and pointing at Israel does not justify anything. Two wrongs don't make a right. Forget about the slurs and Hamas specifically, how does firing rockets into Israel and teaching kids to throw bricks at soldiers help liberate the Palestinian people? How is that constructive resistance that might lead to peace and coexistence? Answer that question without making a tu quoque fallacy. Hentropy (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to point this out here: Mona inserted the BS into the Hamas article she herself quotes above... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
"Answer that question without making a tu quoque fallacy." Not a fallacy because not offered for the purpose of saying what you claimed about Hamas is untrue. (Tho it is.) You indict Hamas for something that Israel actually does in huge proportions, but now won't indict Israel. Moreover, what you call "stomping my feet" is moral outrage; that you would mention "slurs" as justification for Israel's depraved indifference to Arab life is beyond sickening. Finally, Avenger is wrong (this is usual). Chris made the edits which I have repeatedly directed you to in the RW Hamas article. (And even if I had made those edits, to discredit them on the basis of editor is, you know, fallacious.) You are both behaving in a morally reprehensible manner.---Mona- (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hentropy has the facts wrong on who initiatives the provocations, that tunnels were directed to civilians (they weren't, UN report says they only went for soldiers and this is ignoring the raids/buffer zones Israel conducts in Gaza) and the subject of human shields (a myth). Do you think you could link to the sources I provided Mona? ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I have frequently said I am no huge fan of Israel, but you're not defending Israel (otherwise I would take you to task on what Israel has done). You're defending Hamas, and defending other Palestinian extremism under the guise that they are "oppressed" and thus anything they do is justified. You cannot address my question because it hits at the core problem. You claim that the Palestinian extremists (resistors), no matter what they call themselves, are fighting oppression. I personally fail to see how anything they have done is effective at creating freedom for the Palestinian people, or even creating a long term peace with Israel. So again, without mentioning Israel or whatever they may or may not have done, how does throwing rocks at soldiers and firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel create a stable Palestinian state? How does that send the message that Gazans and Palestinians in general are ready to coexist peacefully? This is the root of the argument. We can argue all day about sources and facts, I can link many articles citing the usage of human shields and terrorist attacks and you'll just denounce it as Zionist propaganda that is 100% lies, and that we should believe 100% of what all Palestinians say on Twitter because they're entirely trustworthy and have no reason to lie. Fine. No one disputes the use of rockets. No one denies the use of intentionally attacking Israeli soldiers. No one denies the use of anitsemitic children's programming to incite children against Israel. Defend that, and tell me specifically how that will help liberate the Palestinian people. Hentropy (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that a non-violence movement would probably be the best option going forward. The historical context should be considered too. The first intifada was largely non-violent according to non-violence expert Gene Sharp, about 85%. And unfortunately, the first intifada led to the Oslo Accords which produced a Palestinian collaborator in the PA and more settlements to boot. So nonviolence can be tried, but when it was done historically, it failed, and that's one reason why the second intifada became more violent. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hentropy, there's no evidence of human shields. The human rights organizations have criticized Hamas for indiscriminate rockets, but they haven't found evidence of human shields. Refer to the Hamas page and its section on human shields. Don't fall for certain propaganda talking points. Human shields mean deliberately forcing someone to shield yourself from attack. And in all the cases documented by human rights organizations, they've always found that Israel has used them and not Hamas. That is not apologetics. Those are just the findings of the independent fact-finding teams who again, have criticized Hamas for war crimes.ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
That is a misunderstanding then, because when I talk about human shields I mean intentionally building military installation in or near hospitals and schools, meaning that if Israelis want to attack those sites they will kill civilians as a result. That is much more costly and egregious, in my mind, than using a single person as a shield during a firefight. Military installations should be built away from civilian shelters, but Hamas uses them as shields intentionally because they know it will kill more civilians and get more people sympathetic to their cause. Hentropy (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The evidence isn't strong in this regard either. If you go through reports like 22 Days of Death and Destruction, Amnesty documented that people were attacked without fighters in the vicinity. The same goes for HRW. Israel has weapons at its disposal that can target within a meter, and at most, the closest a Hamas militant was to civilians was 50-300 meters. I cited this in another talk page before, but that's still a 49-299 meter difference that allows Israel to target discriminately. Most of the Hamas military positions were driven by the stationing of Israeli ground troops in civilian areas instead of the other way around. For example, during OCL, Amnesty noted: "In Gaza, Palestinian fighters, like Israeli soldiers, engaged in armed confrontations around residential homes where civilians were present, endangering them. The locations of these confrontations were mostly determined by Israeli forces, who entered Gaza with tanks and armored personnel carriers and took positions deep inside residential neighborhoods. A resident of a neighborhood in the center of Gaza City told Amnesty International that, as Israeli forces entered Gaza and as rumors spread that they were going to advance into the center of town, Hamas fighters located a 50mm mounted machine-gun in the street by the corner of his building." And that's not mentioning that Gaza is very densely populated, so fighters essentially have to line up like ducks. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously this is another deliberate attack. There is an ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people, but Zionists always try to justify the atrocities. --Gh1900 (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If Israel wanted to do this, there'd be a Gaza Crater instead of a Gaza Strip.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Well that's a bit over the top. Israel doesn't commit genocide. It does target civilians to terrorize them and instill fear. And it shows reckless disregard for civilians through indiscriminate weapons. But Israel's intention isn't to completely destroy a group. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
There can't be much doubt that Israel could kill every living thing in Gaza if it wanted to. They don't. Draw your own conclusions as to why. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hentropy now moves the goalposts by providing her very own definition of "human shields." Now, she's decided, that in the tiny area of Gaza stashing rockets and other military items too near civilian areas constitutes employing human shields. Which, she informs us, is "worse" than Israel committing the war crime of using innocent Arab civilians -- including Palestinian children -- over 1200 times. She is depraved, as are so many Zionists; Zionism turns people into moral monsters. LOOK AT THEM: "Nuh-uh, Israel doesn't do genocide, so it's all good" Foul.---Mona- (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
She is depraved, as are so many Zionists; Zionism turns people into moral monsters.- -Mona- Shove your namecalling where the sun doesn't shine, Jihad Mona.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 11:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Hentropy kind of did that. Fighting in urban areas is not an example of human shields. If that were the case, every country would be guilty of war crimes for that. I think using the term genocide goes too far. I think the term massacre is more appropriate. I would reserve he term genocide for deaths in the hundreds of thousands with a specific intent, like Armenian Holocaust, Nazi Holocaust, Rwanda, Cambodia, East Timor, Guatemala, etc. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
We were operating under different definitions of "human shields" from the beginning, that's not the same as moving the goalposts. Intentionally building military installations next to schools when there plenty of other places to build them (or you could evacuate the innocents from the area). No one has been able to address the questions I asked twice, so maybe three times will be the charm: explain to me exactly how children throwing rocks at soldiers and firing rockets into Israeli territory liberates the Palestinians from their oppression. For the record, since I keep getting called a Zionist for criticizing Palestinians (sort of like calling everyone who disagrees with Israel an anti-semite, hmm...), I do not think the state of Israel should have been created and I think it was one of the great geopolitical mistakes of the 20th Century. I also don't think that slavery should have happened or that Europeans should have colonized the entire world, but there's nothing we can do about those things today. This is a very long conflict that has unfortunately been all too predictable, and Palestinians are not ultimately fighting for their own long-term liberation, they are fighting for vengeance. No different from extremist elements in Northern Ireland, South Africa, and countless other examples across the world and history. I just happen to hold both sides to the same standards, that killing innocents and indiscriminate violence is not acceptable, and that Israel should be punished for its own crimes against civilians, but that does not give Palestinians license or excuse to do the same. If they wish to fight a war for their own liberation, that is at least understandable, but they will lose, and they have to be ready for the consequences of their loss. Hentropy (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The only real claims for military installations next to schools comes from the IDF, which has a self-serving stake in the matter and is not reliable in that regard. Human rights organizations have gone through this and determined there's no intent nor strong evidence by militants to build installations near schools. And again, read the quote I cited above by Amnesty on how Palestinian militants were positioned in residential areas thanks to confrontrations being mostly determined by Israeli forces. The other stuff I agree with. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"We were operating under different definitions of "human shields" from the beginning," No, we were not. I don't believe you. You are lying. "explain to me exactly how children throwing rocks at soldiers and firing rockets into Israeli territory liberates the Palestinians from their oppression." I never said it did, but the stone-throwing is not, as you so absurdly suggested, done at the direction of Hamas. It is precisely the kind of protest behavior that naturally arises among oppressed peoples. You likely know this. Your preposterous claim to be holding both sides to the same standards is revolting. The Zionists are the oppressor and victimizers; the Palestinians are the oppressed and the victims. Let me conclude this with a quote from Moshe Dayan from his 1956 eulogy for an Israeli soldier who'd been killed by a Gazan:

Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived.


We should demand his blood not from the Arabs of Gaza but from ourselves. . . . Let us make our reckoning today. We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house. . . . Let us not be afraid to see the hatred that accompanies and consumes the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arabs who sit all around us and wait for the moment when their hands will be able to reach our blood.

The clear-eyed monster Dayan got it. You, Hentropy, do as well.---Mona- (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You know that Mona is down to her last attempts when she starts pulling out that Dayan quote... If he ever indeed said this... You do know that Mona has on occasion had trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality in the websites she frequents... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
In the unlikely event that anyone reading is not familiar with Avenger's intellectual deficits, it is not true that I have ever been observed to be confusing fantasy from reality in any context, including the one he cites. He deeply dislikes that particular quote from Dayan; Zionists usually do. One preposterously told me it meant Moshe fucking Dayan was a "self-hating Jew."---Mona- (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you really think it bothers me how many ways you'll find to call me dumb? I have it on good authority that my intellectual and rhetoric capacities are above average, so getting called dumb by someone who struggles with her own native tongue more thaen I do with my first and second foreign language does not really bother me. As for your mysterious mythical Zionists you like to quote... Well I'd like to meet some of them some time. They are probably somewhere in South Detroit or George W Bush' Texan birthplace... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Avenger, your authorities are also very dumb if they are telling you you are smart. For you truly are dumber than a bag of rocks. Especially at a site like this, the deficits in your logical and analytical reasoning are extensive. Idiot savants can pick up foreign languages and still be unable to reason out of a box -- that's possibly you. It must be difficult for a man of high intellect like Arisboch to have you as his sidekick.---Mona- (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hentropy, a Palestinian answers your question[edit]

As it happens, I was reading my Twitter timeline and just saw this story linked. The reporter is a Palestinian writer based in Jerusalem:

“If you grow up in the camp, fear doesn’t exist for you,” said Qassam Dweik, a resident of Jalazone refugee camp, north of Ramallah in the occupied West Bank.



Qassam’s best friend, 14-year-old Ahmad Sharaka, was killed by Israeli soldiers on Sunday. He had been taking part in the ongoing confrontations between Israeli forces and Palestinian youth near the Beit El settlement colony.

“We know that rocks will not end the occupation, but it’s all that we have to resist,” Qassam explained.

... Ahmad quit school two years ago and his main focus became attending protests and confrontations in defiance of his family’s appeals.


“He was committed to the struggle from a very young age,” his mother told The Electronic Intifada.


Recalling the moment of his best friend’s killing, Qassam said, “We were together when the soldiers’ shooting intensified. I fled, but Ahmad insisted on staying and throwing rocks at the military jeep.”


“A soldier then chased Ahmad with his M-16 and shot him in his left ear,” he added.


“The army left him to bleed and only allowed the ambulances to take him after about 15 minutes,”

It's generally best to let the victims speak for themselves. So, Hentropy, there you have it.---Mona- (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems more like an admission of what I was saying, two children who are likely uneducated, taught only to hate Israelis from the day they were born, throwing rocks not because it accomplishes anything, but because they're angry. He should not have been shot. Civilians were killed recently in Jerusalem, Israeli and Palestinian. Two Israelis were stabbed on a bus, something that Hamas then applauded by saying it was heroic to indiscriminately stab people. Are those Israeli's lives worth as much as a Palestinian's? Or do they deserve it, being oppressors who brought it upon themselves? Or are they just people, who are not responsible for things outside of their control? I cannot forgive indiscriminate and civilian-targeted violence, no matter who the perpetrators are or what they are fighting for. The Palestinian strategy seems to be built around the idea that if we wrong the Israelis enough, eventually those wrongs will add up to a right. But you seem to think that my criticism of the Palestinians means that I support Israel unconditionally, in fact my position can best be described as supporting no one. No one has proven themselves to be the better actor in the conflict, neither side is fully justified in what it does, and neither side has any kind of moral authority. No single event in the last few years has frustrated me more than the reelection of Netanyahu, and if I were President I would immediately reform our relationship with Israel and make it clear they will not get more support for the US if they are not willing to reform their own relationship with the Palestinians. I critisize the Palestinians so because I sympathize with them, and I want to see them being able to build up their own country and flourish, rather than launching into more suicidal conflicts that only ensures more war and death. Hentropy (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
What bullshit. The idea that young Palestinians living in the West bank should have to be "taught" to hate Zionist Jews is preposterous. They live with fanatical Zionist settlers constantly staking more claims to their land, razing their homes, and burning their olive trees. These settlers, and other Israelis, can terrorize and even kill them with almost complete impunity, and they do. But you think these young people have to be "taught" to hate the people who do this to them and get away with it. I see.---Mona- (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd be curious to know how many settlers there are in Gaza... oh right, none. I'm sure no one taught them about Jews using leftover Nazi propaganda in school, either. Hentropy (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Right. The Gazans are simply penned up in an open air prison with insufficient electricity, little potable water and an economy destroyed by the occupation and its blockade. They, too, have to be "taught" to hate the people who stole their grandparents' land and locked them up in there. pffft---Mona- (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course they do, or else they gonna start to question the Hamas leadership and why's still in charge of the place since about 9 years.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 11:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
About Gaza there is just this small "irrelevant" issue that it has a land border with Egypt. If it were a prison (which to reiterate it blatantly isn't), it would have two people with the key. Yet for some strange reason only one is ever blamed for all the ills that have befallen Gazans. Including those that Hamas is blatantly responsible for... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, the people of Gaza are not especially supportive of Hamas; opinions vary. But when their oppressor begins another round of murderous bombs and devastation, they do rally round Hamas. But it's grotesquely comical to think the people who stole their land and have penned them up in this small strip of land are a people the victims must be "taught" to hate.---Mona- (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Avenger Please, the adults are talking. Also, Gaza–Egypt borderWikipedia's W.svg not exactly a great and free crossing. Wanna know why it's usually Israel that gets slammed for this though? Because they are the ones who keep invading and attacking Gaza, not egypt, --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If you care about Gaza (which you claim to do), why don't I ever hear any sound about this? Or the fact that Egypt could open its border crossing at Rafah tomorrow (and there would not be a thin Israel could do about it) yet for some reason they chose not to... Strange that, innit? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you don't realize it Avenger, but Egypt is not a Zionist nation. No, Egyptians had nothing to do with stealing Arab land in Palestine and locking up the refugees in the open air prison of Gaza. The siege, occupation, blockade -- the military control of Gaza -- that is all a Zionist thing.---Mona- (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, they did that and more, when they controlled the area, but since no-one here either gives a flying fuck about Arab infighting, no-one cares.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I actually do barely give a fuck about Arab infighting as long as I (as an American citizen) have nothing to do with it.---Mona- (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, whether or not we care about Arab infighting doesn't matter. What matters is the actions and policies of Israel towards Palestinians, which can be influenced, if not controlled, by the United States. I don't think anyone here is saying what Egypt did when it occupied Gaza was a good thing. Yeah, so Egypt is demolishing neighborhoods in Rafah. I think the Egyptian government is bad and should be overthrown and replaced by a different government with the Muslim Brotherhood as a coalition partner in the parliament. Like it or not, 50% of people in Egypt voted for them, and they aren't going away. But Egypt is out of Gaza now. Their blocking of the crossing is terrible and is needs to stop, but isn't the same as saturation bombing an ENTIRE CITY for WEEKS. That's why we don't give it as much attention: because the magnitude and severity of Israeli government crimes is far, far worse. Until those crimes stop, we should continue to put the majority of our attention and focus on Israel rather than Egypt. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
One of the oldest Islamist organizations are a good choice for the Egyptian government?! Are you out of your motherfucking mind?!?! And about what kinda saturation bombing you are talking about, when you got less casualties in a battle in urban environment going on for months than in battles on a singe day?! You fuckin outdo Mona and Chris in your amount of bullshit per post.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer a democratically elected Islamist party over a secular fascist (Assad, Saddam, Sisi) dictator. And the casualties are documented by human rights organizations and the UN. They come to the conclusions that Israel does not exercise with caution, but rather recklessness and disregard of international humanitarian law. And Israel has a history of doing this as part of its strategic doctrine of reacting completely disproportionately, as can be seen in their conduct in the 50's, the 1982 Lebanon War, the military operations they undertook in Lebanon in the mid-90s and 2006, the intifadas, and Gaza. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well if the people who have to live under a "democratically elected" Sharia-state are d'accord with it, who am I to doubt your superior wisdom (Mona having pointed out my stupidity repeatedly to me now)? But as an aside... Many many dictators (including religious ones, Arab ones and religious Arab ones) have wrecked up a higher skull count in days or weeks thaen the WHOLE Israel-Palestine mess (including the slaughters committed by Hamas) in all its seventy years (Not counting the Arab slaughters of Jews pre foundation of Israel) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't like it for sure, but a people's democratic choice should be respected. I treat democracy like free speech. You either support it or you don't. I don't think we should overthrow countries who chooses leaders we disagree with on political issues, no matter how conservative or far-left they may be (that is not a license of course for those leaders to commit atrocities against their people which may require a liberal intervention). I'm not disputing the casualties dictators have rattled up, but why are you diverting the subject? Should we discount the 9/11 attacks because only 3,000 people were killed? Should we discount the Srebrenica massacre because only 8,000 people were killed? ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Countries like Turkey, Azerbaijan, Tunisia, Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Kyrgyzstan are all Muslim and have democratically-elected governments. None of them have Sharia law. Your argument doesn't hold up, Avengerofthe BoN. I agree with your point about dictators wrecking up a higher skull count, but that doesn't excuse Israel's behavior. If you are referring to Assad, Saddam, and Gadhafi, then I agree completely. They should not be committing those acts. Additionally, from a purely semantic point of view, if they people freely elect to restrict their freedom, who are we to stop it? What I just said was a rhetorical argument with the purpose of showing you that how people decide how they should live should be none of your business, and conquering the West Bank to stop Sharia Law (as just one example goal) is unjustifiable.
With regards to Arisboch, what is wrong with an Islamist organization being part of a coalition government with secularists, which is what I meant when I said "a different government with the Muslim Brotherhood as a coalition partner in the parliament". In fact, I specifically stated this to avoid the perception that I wished that the Muslim Brotherhood should be the sole governor of Egypt, which I do not personally agree with. Next, when I say 'saturation bombing', this is what I am talking about. More examples. It is true that Israel doesn't drop all of the bombs at once, unlike Vietnam, but the bombing still isn't consistent with targeted strikes against known soldiers like this. Even the Syrian Air Force is more accurate! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
It's bad enough to have Islamists any kind of say in any government whatsoever and I these pictures are fucking worthless without the background, circumstances and backstory.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The recent growth in the number of Israel/Palestine WIGOs[edit]

A question to the old guard here: What do you think about the fact that the Israel/palestine thing seems to have come to dominate WIGO? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

1) If you dont like a WIGO, downvote it. 2) You added to "the problem", so fuck off. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I like it. I, however, have no intention of spamming it with gratuitous WIGOs. Just saw the first and then yours Avenger, and realized I really would have added that one about the Jew mistakenly stabbing another Jew anyway, had I thought about the WIGO page. The topic is timely and important.---Mona- (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I would complain about Avenger slyly re-using a poll number (with votes already applied) for his goat WIGO, but then I accidentally the anti-wifi knickers. Thanks to Paravant for fixing that. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, I did not know it would do that. And yes I just used one of my two posts every hour just to say sorry. Paravant kindly binned me because apparently having a debate about RT's bias should not be done in the saloon bar... For whatever reason... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Not when framed around "Mona said some shit people should see it!". Edit Warring didn't help. Besides, you're a better user when you can only post every half an hour, it actually makes you consider what you say. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As a representative of the "old guard.": We apparently have moved from Gender Wiki to Social Justice Wiki to Gamergate Wiki to Israel-Palestine Wiki. I, for one, welcome our new single-issue overlords. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't the first three all just be social justice wiki?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't over-analyze my jokes, son. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I have three papers all about analysis due in the next 3 weeks, Over-analysis is all I am now.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I got your three words right here, pal: lumpers, splitters, and intersectionalists. From a distance they look a lot alike, but they hate each other's guts. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should launch Rationalwiki: Project Israel-Palestine. I mean, the last "Project" attracted so many editors who stuck it out for the long term.Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Aging Hippie, you are mistaking the kinds of concerns that have rather recently percolated to the top in progressive circles for a single-issue focus. None of us who edit Zionism-related articles only edit those. You just don't yet grok that this issue has jumped into prominence with progressives. Gay rights in the U.S. are largely won; that topic doesn't need me any more. Drug policy is rapidly moving toward rational and just. So, I spend a lot of time now on an issue that is finally getting the attention it merits but is still in the needs-to-be-won phase. But, it's not, by any means, my sole concern.---Mona- (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
" You just don't yet grok that this issue has jumped into prominence with progressives." shut the fuck up when you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about -- ie, things I "grok," such as issues I have been following closely/active on since the 1980s. Just shut up and let the grown-ups talk, okay? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I hate to nitpick (actually, that's a lie), but "Just shut up and let the grown-ups talk, okay?" doesn't sound particularly 'grown-up' to me. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Not my best moment, I'll admit. But for Christ's sake, Mona's assumption that they are part of some cutting edge progressive tendency that is finally militating for a cause that progressives have actually been militating for for decades, and their assumption that they know anything about what I "grok" based on a lame joke on a marginal lame website is laughable Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
AH, yes, this is not the first time you've assured me you know lotsa shit about the I/P issue; why, you've said you know more than I do. Great. But what you don't seem to get is that the grown-ups are now pushing the issue front and center. Take, e.g., the Nation magazine. Was a time there were almost no Palestinian voices there; Jewish Zionists and others were published, but there was little representation of the Palestinian side of things. That has changed in the last several years. Black Lives Matter and various black activists are joining with Palestinians in a unified movement. BDS is sweeping American university campuses. That is all to say: The issue has arrived. Leastwise, that's how the grown-ups see it.---Mona- (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ALSO Aging Hippie: I'm a grandmother. Not some young "whipper-snapper" who thinks her elders couldn't find Israel on a map.---Mona- (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

From where I sit, the issue arrived decades ago, and Palestinian voices were a big part of that process. Maybe we were just tuned it to different writers/tendencies/etc. Unless by "the last several years" you mean 30+ of them, your argument that it's only now that people are pushing the issue front and center holds no water for any campus scene (to name just one dimension...) I'm familiar with. Yes, the "Ferguson to Palestine" moment is an important and welcome development -- but it is part of a much longer trajectory. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually[edit]

There's actually been a lot of news popping up about Israel/Palestine lately in the general media. Insisting that it's all because of a few individual RW editors (in particular when we're specifically talking about WIGOs) seems kinda navelgazy. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Did you just start reading the news? 'Cause most of the news sources I rely on pretty much address that issue on a more-than-weekly and often daily basis, and have been for decades. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Anecdote from about 25 years ago:Noam Chomsky, who, back in the day, was sometimes booked years in advance for speaking engagements, was asked about the topic of a talk he would give in the distant future: "The Current Crisis in the MidEast." (ie, because he knew that whenever he spoke, there would be one...) But only now, Mona argues, are "progressives" latching on to the issue. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
All sentences are to be taken relatively; context is everything, ya know? As for "have I been reading the news": yes, but 1) I don't live in the US so Israel isn't a regular hot topic here 2) what I'm saying is that it's increased in prominence and amount lately 3) I did say "in the general media". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:12, 14 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I don't live in the US either, and much of the media I consume is from non-US sources. The issue is pervasive, and has been for decades. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
That's just not true. It just isn't. I literally know of no one writing on the issue who takes that position. A sea change has occurred in the last 5-10 years. I know lotsa folks who see it that way. And, it comports with my lived experience.---Mona- (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
This is not an argument you're going to win, Mona. There's been a slight uptick in Israel-Palestine specific news in the past week, but in general, it's been long-running, and oft-debated. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I've already "won." Reality is.---Mona- (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You folks are smokin funny cigs if you haven't observed any of this:

Ten years after Palestinian civil society issued the call for Boycott, Divestment from, and Sanction of Israel (BDS), people around the world have taken heed, building an international campaign for human rights that is acknowledged by supporters and foes alike as an increasingly powerful force.



"Effective grassroots BDS campaigning has forced some of the world’s largest corporations, including Orange, G4S and Veolia, to gradually withdraw from Israeli projects that violate international law," reads a statement released this week by the Palestinian BDS National Committee..."From major U.S. churches to private European banks, divestment from Israel is becoming acceptable and understood as necessary to bring about freedom, justice and equality," the statement continues. "In Latin America, major state contracts with Israel companies have collapsed after grassroots pressure."


What's more, the academic boycott of Israeli institutions is gaining steam, bolstered by the formal support of prominent associations, including the American Studies Association. Also, increasing numbers of student and campus communities are joining the movement, as exemplified by the British national student union's alignment last month.

All over: Europe, and now the U.S. -- especially on campus -- the issue is exploding. And no one is more aware of this than Netanyahu and Israel. They've just begun pouring millions into PR efforts, in partnership with billionaire Zionists in the U.S., to meet the tsunami of pro-Palestinian support. Fuck, they held an "emergency meeting" in Las Vegas to get this going. This is new.---Mona- (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

" A sea change has occurred in the last 5-10 years." If your argument is that "a decade = recently," then sure. Okay. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, in the U.S. it's about the last two years that the issue has exploded on campus. The Nation publishes Palestinians with some regularity in the last few years. This is new. In any event, Noam Chomsky is now an elder statesman but not the main event of the pro-Palestinian movement in the U.S. Max Blumenthal, Ali Abunimah, and others, are the names now and they are greatly weakening the grip the Zionist narrative has had on even the left in America.---Mona- (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Vile racist who is Israeli Justice Minister does whataboutery[edit]

Really, this is the favorite thing ever for Zionists; not just here at RW. Whataboutery is their talking point 1, 2 and 3. "Justice" Minister Ayelet Shaked -- who posted awful crap on FB calling Arabs "snakes" born to breeding Arab mothers -- says in this video interview that there is no 2-state solution and that the West Bank is not "occupied." It is "Judea and Samaria" and is "disputed." Interviewer Mehdi Hasan tries hard to keep the "Justice" Minister on point, but the whataboutery and other fallacies are strong in this one, as they are in so many Zionists.---Mona- (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

And what about talking point 4? Siriusly tough, she did indeed write rather while things, but the reason you mention her writing this shit is to tar anyone holding the other views she's holding besides the horseshit she wrote about Palestinians as equally vile as her comments about Palestinians (nutpicking, that is), I suspect.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, maybe you skimmed over this part but... she's the Israeli Justice Minister! Doesn't it trouble you that such a blatant racist is the head of the Ministry of Justice? Doesn't it say a lot about Israel's goverment when an extremist like this is allowed to run the Ministry of Justice? Hello? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:36, 14 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
And she's not the only vile racist in a powerful position in Israel. All kinds of state-funded rabbis advocate genocide and that Arab lives are not worth a Jew's fingernail and other heinous shit like that. I don't toss around the "fascist" label promiscuously. Fascism is rising in Israel.---Mona- (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Pray do tell is there any Palestinian in a position of power who is not a vile antisemitic Jew hating maniac? Look for example what Mahmoud Abbas said just a few days ago... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
And how would the alleged racism of Palestinians make the racism of Shaked any better? Tielec01 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Real - or imagined - racism of an Israeli is big news. Antisemitism and racism by Palestinians is a dog bites man story. Ever wondered why? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Israeli racism -- which is acute, pervasive and virulent -- is only now beginning to percolate into establishment media. And that's just barely. Between the obscenity Israel committed in Gaza for 51 days in the summer of 2014, followed by burning a teenage Palestinian to death and then an Israeli cop beating the living shit out of his cousin who happened to be an American, it's beginning to dawn on people. But this is quite new. Moreover, Israel is the oppressor; Palestinians are the victims. It is far more understandable when the oppressed hate their oppressor.---Mona- (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What do you call somebody who gets up in the morning and says "Today I'ma kill me some (blank)" gets themself a knife (or hatchet, or saw) and goes down the street to do exactly that? I don't know your term, but "victim" is not the first that springs to my mind Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not it's the "first" thing that springs to your mind, the Palestinians are victims of ethno-religious supremacist oppression by Zionists.---Mona- (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
ethno-religious supremacist oppression by Zionists- -Mona- Exists only in your goddamn fucking excuse for a mind and go fuck yourself with a rolled-up toenail (Michael Rosen Youtube Poop overdose detected and I'm not even from Pennsylvania) cactus for justifying the knifing of Israeli civilians by terrorist.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, do you agree that Israel maintains it's "Jewish character?"---Mona- (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Depends on whom you ask. If you ask the Ultra-Orthodox, they'd (probably) answer, that even Saudi-Arabia is more Jewish than Israel. Or how you define "Jewish character".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm asking you. You. So: Do you agree that Israel maintains it's "Jewish character?"---Mona- (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Government officials like the Justice Minister can go around being openly antifilastinic, but anti-Palestinian oppression is all imaginary? Who's being delusional here, Arisboch? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:11, 17 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

You, of course. If she'd be an Palestinian Arab and saying the same about Jews, she'd be the hero of the day in both Gaza and the West Bank. You know what, scratch that, no way a women could become a minister in Gaza or West Bank (and even if she did, she'd have to wear a hijab or similar shit and kiss the ass of clerics all day, who call her inferior for not having the same set of genitals as them). Although, scratch that too, she'd be most likely shot to death for being an "Zionist collaborator" for being soft on the Jews "Zionist enemy".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:27, 17 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Arisboch takes the view that because I post such facts about the Israeli Justice Minister I am a Hamas mouthpiece.---Mona- (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't, you gaslighting fuckface. I agreed with you for thinking, that Shaked is a fuckhead for posting such horseshit on her Facebook page.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
You agree that the horseshit she posted was horshit but then you call Mona various names for daring to imply that Palestinians are being oppressed by Israel? So which is your honest opinion? Or is your head just a mess of contradicting opinions? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:38, 17 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Oh no you don't. You objected to my posting that, and today told me the facts I produce are somehow the result of Hamas. Arisboch: Do you agree that Israel maintains it's "Jewish character?"---Mona- (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
And now he thinks the same about me apparently. *shrugs* 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:29, 17 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I sometimes understand the Palestinians. Making yourself out to be the victim always and foremost is a comfortable way to go at live. Though it is certainly one that deprives you of all agency and makes live miserable once you see the first crack in the victim narrative. Not that any of the people present here exhibit such a narrative... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the point you're missing is that Palestinians are more so victims than Israelis. It is true that Palestinians say 'we're the victim' to get support; to some extent, it has worked in garnering international intention. You talk about a 'crack in the victim narrative'. Do you realize that Palestinians have had most of their arable land taken away from them by people who were not living there a few generations ago? Do you realize that cities are being saturation-bombed by Israelis to uninhabitability? You might also say we support Hamas. This is a blatant strawman of our positions and views. I am sure if you ask Mona that she will denounce any action of Hamas that involves killing or hurting civilians. The fact is we support resistance against Israelis killing mostly innocent people in Gaza and the West Bank. If a soldier of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades shoots and kills an Israeli soldier who invades Gaza, I cannot say with any honest that I condemn that act, as it is a defensive measure. Likewise, if a Hamas member tunnels into Israel and the IDF kill him, I don't mind that either. The point is that the Palestinians are overwhelmingly the victims by shear casualty count, and if you don't believe that, you probably haven't spent some time living in Gaza or Ramallah. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"You still haven't answered my question"[edit]

What do you call somebody who gets up in the morning and says "Today I'ma kill me some (blank)" gets themself a knife (or hatchet, or saw) and goes down the street to do exactly that?- L'Avengeur Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No one's actually under the obligation to go along in or pay any attention to your blatantly anti-Palestinian narrative, Avenger. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:50, 17 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
To beat the big drum for the Hamas like Mona or Chris do is in effect anti-Palestinian, not what Avenger writes.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Because there can only be one oppressor per population group? Wut? Are you even trying to make sense these days, Arisboch? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:00, 17 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
If I were a Palestinian who does not swallow the Hamas propaganda hook line and sinker, I'd go to the next Hamas guy and put a bullet through his useless head. It would be a Palestinian live lost for a good cause for a change. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch cannot makes sense on this topic. I've seen this time and again all over the Internet. Otherwise intelligent people who are Zionists find facts -- past and present -- about Zionists and Zionism exceedingly unpleasant and react as the proverbial vampire does to the crucifix. Name-calling and overwrought shrieking, such as we see here, is very common.---Mona- (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait. I don't understand why I'm being attached by Arisboch for allegedly putting out propaganda. I cite non-partisan sources and human rights reports. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Zionists do not credit the UN or NGOs. Not unless the latter are totally Zionist NGOs, at least not for any issue touching on Israel. It's almost quaint how you think you have a safe harbor in human rights orgs. You don't.---Mona- (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
In response to Avengerofthe BoN's original question: I call them a criminal. That is what they are. But do you honestly believe that these young Palestinian man think they will achieve political change by stabbing civilians? Of course not! That's not why they're doing it. They're doing it because they hate Israeli Jews. Random acts of violence against civilians like this is usually the result of systemic oppression of some kind, usually ethnic or religious. In this case, it is caused by the oppression of Muslim Palestinians by mostly Jewish Israelis. I oppose deliberate attacks against civilians in all cases. The best way to make these attacks stop is to remove the political and socioeconomic conditions that are causing them, namely the Jewish towns being built in the West Bank and the violent crackdowns on Gaza. Maybe the violence will decrease if Israel changes its behavior. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You know there have historically been several people several times who got up in the morning to kill Jews who were not by any stretch of the imagination oppressed by any single Jew or in any real way harmed by any Jew ever. But thaen again, those people had other reasons....Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
And you think I don't condemn that? I absolutely do! I think randomly stabbing a Jew is not the way to achieve lasting peace and happiness there. But are you willing to condemn people who burn Palestinian homes and kill children in the West Bank? I just need to make sure we are on the same page here before we continue with the conversation. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I am. The guys, who e.g. perpetrated the arson in Duma deserve a fucking bullet between the eyes or, at least, a very long prison sentence.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well agreeing with Arisboch has recently become my thing, or so it would appear, so I would agree. Though I have to slightly disagree on the issue of bullets to the forehead, as I am rather opposed to the death penalty as it does not give criminals time to think about what they did. Which imho is the worst punishment for any mentally normal person. And mentally ill people need treatment rather thaen punishment... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Which won't happen. It's rare for an Israeli Jew to be seriously punished for violence against an Arab. Jews in Israel have very close to total impunity for harming Arabs.---Mona- (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Jews in Israel have very close to total impunity for harming Arabs.- -Mona- [citation needed]--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, see below.---Mona- (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Jews have impunity to terrorize Arabs in Israel[edit]

Don't take my word for it, that's the determination of Yuval Diskin, the former director of Shin Bet, Israel's security service (Israel's FBI).

The two-state solution is becoming true for the Jews: The State of Judea is being built de facto side by side with the State of Israel. These are two nations whose differences are eclipsing their commonalities, a condition that is growing irreversible.



The State of Judea has different standards, different approaches to democracy, and it has two justice systems, one for Jews (Israeli law) and the other for Palestinians (martial law). Whether we want it or not, these two justice systems have divergent measures to adjudicate identical offenses.


Do nations have borders? Most of the time. These two states are separated by a clear border, the buffer zone/separation fence designed to distance us from Islamic/Palestinian terrorism but that, in fact, created a border between two Jewish states.


In the State of Judea, the laws are hardly ever enforced against Jews. In the State of Judea, there’s a gradual flourishing of anarchic, anti-authoritarian ideologies that are violent and racist and that are tolerated, from a legal point of view, by the Israeli justice system. In the State of Judea the (no longer tiny) minority of radical “Hilltop Youth” and their various supporters set the tone for the mainstream of religious Zionism.

Arisboch asked for me to support claim that Jews have near complete impunity to commit terror against Palestinians. Diskin is my Exhibit A and his whole article repays reading.---Mona- (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks more like Yuval having a row with Bibi than anything else.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
By State of Judea does he mean Israel's control of the West Bank and its discriminatory laws applied between the settlers and Palestinians under occupation? Just want to clarify because if it's the West Bank, human rights organizations concur on this point. But if it's within Israel, it may differ. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes he means that. And to Mona, I don't mean to disagree with you in any way, but the repetitive posts about Israel get annoying. Eventually the argument is going to have to die down here, and be reignited later. I would be happy to debate nonetheless. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Judea and SamariaWikipedia's W.svg is what they call the West Bank in Israel. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but Arisboch asked me for a citation, and I felt the topic is worth it's own section. Moreover, matters in Israel are currently very violent and tense, and approaching a third intifada. But yes, I know the Israel stuff is getting a bit overdone. As to what Diskin means, it isn't clear to me he means only the settlements. In fact, he doesn't seem to mean only those. He's talking about "Judea" as a separate state from Israel in having two justice system not demarcated by a physical border. But by different applications of the law depending on who the perpetrators and victims are.---Mona- (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
So it basically seems like he is saying that "Judea" is going to become a mixed Jewish-Arab state, with Israel proper being a different, almost all Jewish state. Interesting experiment. I don't think it will work, for obvious reasons that go without saying. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch ignores reality: "Looks more like Yuval having a row with Bibi than anything else." Uh-huh.---Mona- (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There's roughly 20% Arab citizens in Israel. 77% of which don't want to live in any other state but Israel. So bearing a major change in borders, Israel in the pre 1967 lines (which the Arabs affirmed where never meant to be borders of any kind) is and will for the foreseeable future be a multiethnic state of all of its citizens. Something that does not apply to any of its neighbors bar - maybe - Lebanon. And ironically enough Israeli Arabs have more rights thaen Arab Arabs... Or how many free Arab parties are there in the elections of Egypt who call al-Sisi names in public? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A question to all who care about civilian deaths[edit]

The way I understand the different intergovernmental treaties on the treatment of civilians, they all acknowledge that avoiding all civilian deaths is impossible. They do however define criteria for "excessive" or "unnecessary" civilian deaths. One of the questions they ask is whether there was a clear military objective to the attack. Another question they ask is whether said objective could have been achieved with lower numbers of casualties. And a third question is whether efforts were undertaken to reduce the number of civilian casualties.

Now with that in mind, here come my questions:

Which military objective (if any) do the rocket attacks by Hamas serve?

Could said objective have been achieved with less civilian casualties or endangerment of civilians?

Which measures - if any - were undertaken by Hamas to limit or reduce civilian casualties?

In short, according to the definition outlined above (and if someone disagrees with said definition, I invite you to study the relevant international treaties and see where they contradict me) do the rocket attacks by Hamas the way they are conducted constitute the war crime of unnecessarily endangering harming or killing civilians? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The rockets are indiscriminate by nature so they are considered to be war crimes, but they are also largely symbolic First, Sisi closed the tunnels and Israel maintains the blockade, so logically speaking, it's unlikely that Hamas would gain more sophisticated rockets. So, the rockets were likely home made and something you'd see in a science experiment (an Israeli official called them pipes, Mark Perry of Foreign Police has an article on this). Second, because the rockets cause very little deaths (about 2 per year) and lack the necessary explosives, I would say they serve a symbolic objective rather than a military one; a reminder to the outside world that the status quo is unsustainable and that we're not dying without a fight. Third, the UN report did mention some examples of Hamas telling civilians to go to another location. Fourth the Hamas militants mentioned on their web page that they were attempting to fire at military targets, though this can be dismissed as self-serving like the Israel MFA. That's not mentioning the fact that Hamas statistically killed more soldiers than civilians last year, compared to Israel's combatant to casualty ratio. For all we hear about the most moral army in the world, it would seem the facts would say otherwise and that Hamas exercised more restraint last year than Israel did. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
So in essence even you agree that Hamas is committing war crimes? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
According to human rights orgs, yes. However, their level of war crimes pales in comparison to Israel's level of war crimes within the conduct. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
So, war crimes are ok if you are bad at doing them? Starting fights again and again and again and again ist ok, if you too dumb to understand that you are always the one losing? Interesting. --Irian (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't suggest that. I stated explicitly they were war crimes. My point was there's a tendency to seek false balance in a conflict, like say with Syria by focusing on the war crimes of the Syrian rebels or the war crimes of Iraqi Kurdistan in the conflict with ISIS. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A procedural question[edit]

Why is there no "add topic" button here in this forum? It would help decrease edit conflicts and enable one to think clearly about the way in which a new topic is to be started... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Add section fa.jpg
There ya go, now there is. (It's in Persian, but I'm sure you won't mind that little detail.) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:49, 18 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
It doesn't appear at the top of the page for me. There is "read", "edit" and "fossil record" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Add section MediaWiki screenshot.ru.png Нет проблем :)--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I know where it should be. Only it isn't. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I added a quick and dirty solution at the top of the page.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. You do seem to have your way with PCs Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd consider myself something of an advanced beginner (e.g. I can't program, but I write a few primitive BASH scripts to take care of simple stuff).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A topic we should discuss[edit]

Is Ma'an news reliable? Please have the discussion here in order to not shit all over the WIGO talk page. The rest of the community who does not care about this whole issue will thanks us for it Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So how could peace be achieved?[edit]

Given the Hamas won't stop until all the territory between Jordan and Med is free of Jews (to wit: Their Charta). Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamas is willing to accept a Palestinian state on the 67 borders as per their electoral platform. Hamas abides by the ceasefires and refains from attack as Israel acknowledges (I've cited this repeatedly to you, but your stubbornness is a huge detriment). Their charter has no legal standing and is a historical document. Plus, it was written by only one person without consultation of other Hamas members at the time, so it was basically one isolated member of the Muslim Brotherhood who wrote it.
Here's my suggestions
* Arms embargo, possibly disarming both Palestinian militants and the IDF
* Dismantle the settlements, or have the settlers achieve citizenship under a Palestinian government
* End the occupation and blockade, institute peace-keeping forces in the border areas and areas of general tumult
* War crimes tribunals for both sides. A truth and reconciliation commission. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
If the charter wouldn't have no meaning, then they would've chucked it into the garbage long time ago. You can't simply bullshit it away.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, well, that should go without saying... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
They actually have said the charter is irrelevant. Hamas will not likely change its charter if Israel continues to build settlements and hold claims over the West Bank. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
So it still has a great importance, if they try to keep it as a bargaining chip!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Peace=/=Ceasefire. If Hamas were to ever line out any conditions that could even possibly result in them recognizing Israel and signing a peace treaty with it, there would be immediate peace-negotiations and some sort of resolution (and be it only a "temporary intermediate framework") within a couple of moths... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh and an aside: Disarming the IDF won't happen unless Israel ceases to be surrounded by entities like Syria, Hezbollah and (a bit further away) the Islamic Republic, the Islamic State and the Saudi thingy Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
They have. One of the conditions was a long-term truce lasting over 50 years and recognizing Israel provided Palestinians as a majority approve it. Well, same goes for Palestinians. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
All these entities have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. Not any Palestinian group, organization or state. And given the history of the Jewish people "better save thaen sorry" could just as well be inscribed on the gates of Tel Aviv... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
No, they haven't. They want the occupation and settlements to end. They're willing to accept Israel if these terms are fulfilled. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
There's not all that much ambiguity to "mak bar Israel" which is chanted by Iranian leaders at least once a year. Neither is there to the statements by Hezbollah. Or those by ISIL... And against those Israel needs to have a credible threat of military defense. And if push comes to shove enough planes and tanks to make a war too costly even for lunatic eliminatory anti-Zionists... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
What do those have to do with the Palestinians? ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You argued for the disarming of the IDF. I tried to explain why that is a very bad idea indeed. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Disarm the IDF?! What the flying fuck of drugs are you on?!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The wrong ones, apparently... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, not the cheery ones like khat, alcohol or ganja, since the IDF laying down their weapons or even relaxing their guard would, without fail, cause any (Islamist) regime and organization in the region to pounce Israel at once (as I'd suspect, even the ones currently having a peace agreement with Israel).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
As Bill Maher (I can hear the boos and hisses by Mona even now) once said: You kinda have to go eight and oh. (Sports metaphor, meaning, you can't lose a single time). Sadly that is true. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Read again, I said "possibly". I didn't say with certainty whether they should be disarmed. I only raised it as a possibility since Nutty-Yahoo keeps raising the issue of disarming the Palestinians, which might as well leave them dead if ISIS were to expand its territory. So, in the interest of fairness, disarming both would serve the cause of equality and genuine peace from both sides, no strings attached. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
We should disarm Hamas as long as they don't recognize Israel. But nobody ever talks about that. Even Liebermann (who is probably as much to the right as right goes in Israel) is tacitly endorsing a two state solution through his idiotic "plan" of giving up territory in Northern Israel which is inhabited mostly by Israeli Arabs. I have never heard Hamas acknowledge the right of any Jewish state - even one limited to the beach of Tel Aviv - to exist... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Jews have impunity to terrorize Arabs in Israel[edit]

Don't take my word for it, that's the determination of Yuval Diskin, the former director of Shin Bet, Israel's security service (Israel's FBI).

The two-state solution is becoming true for the Jews: The State of Judea is being built de facto side by side with the State of Israel. These are two nations whose differences are eclipsing their commonalities, a condition that is growing irreversible.



The State of Judea has different standards, different approaches to democracy, and it has two justice systems, one for Jews (Israeli law) and the other for Palestinians (martial law). Whether we want it or not, these two justice systems have divergent measures to adjudicate identical offenses.


Do nations have borders? Most of the time. These two states are separated by a clear border, the buffer zone/separation fence designed to distance us from Islamic/Palestinian terrorism but that, in fact, created a border between two Jewish states.


In the State of Judea, the laws are hardly ever enforced against Jews. In the State of Judea, there’s a gradual flourishing of anarchic, anti-authoritarian ideologies that are violent and racist and that are tolerated, from a legal point of view, by the Israeli justice system. In the State of Judea the (no longer tiny) minority of radical “Hilltop Youth” and their various supporters set the tone for the mainstream of religious Zionism.

Arisboch asked for me to support claim that Jews have near complete impunity to commit terror against Palestinians. Diskin is my Exhibit A and his whole article repays reading.---Mona- (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks more like Yuval having a row with Bibi than anything else.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
By State of Judea does he mean Israel's control of the West Bank and its discriminatory laws applied between the settlers and Palestinians under occupation? Just want to clarify because if it's the West Bank, human rights organizations concur on this point. But if it's within Israel, it may differ. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes he means that. And to Mona, I don't mean to disagree with you in any way, but the repetitive posts about Israel get annoying. Eventually the argument is going to have to die down here, and be reignited later. I would be happy to debate nonetheless. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Judea and SamariaWikipedia's W.svg is what they call the West Bank in Israel. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but Arisboch asked me for a citation, and I felt the topic is worth it's own section. Moreover, matters in Israel are currently very violent and tense, and approaching a third intifada. But yes, I know the Israel stuff is getting a bit overdone. As to what Diskin means, it isn't clear to me he means only the settlements. In fact, he doesn't seem to mean only those. He's talking about "Judea" as a separate state from Israel in having two justice system not demarcated by a physical border. But by different applications of the law depending on who the perpetrators and victims are.---Mona- (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
So it basically seems like he is saying that "Judea" is going to become a mixed Jewish-Arab state, with Israel proper being a different, almost all Jewish state. Interesting experiment. I don't think it will work, for obvious reasons that go without saying. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch ignores reality: "Looks more like Yuval having a row with Bibi than anything else." Uh-huh.---Mona- (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There's roughly 20% Arab citizens in Israel. 77% of which don't want to live in any other state but Israel. So bearing a major change in borders, Israel in the pre 1967 lines (which the Arabs affirmed where never meant to be borders of any kind) is and will for the foreseeable future be a multiethnic state of all of its citizens. Something that does not apply to any of its neighbors bar - maybe - Lebanon. And ironically enough Israeli Arabs have more rights thaen Arab Arabs... Or how many free Arab parties are there in the elections of Egypt who call al-Sisi names in public? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

200 Israeli settlers attack Palestinian village with firebombs. Israeli police do not care and will do nothing.---Mona- (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Get another source then Ma'an News.
Israeli police do not care and will do nothing- -Mona- [citation needed]--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Tut tut tut... You and your demand for facts and credible sources... That is a well known Zionist tactic... It probably has to do with your wild/wide eyes... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Cut the propaganda Avenger. Israel isn't the only multiethnic state for all its citizens. The Arab countries don't have great HR records, but they're diverse in their demographics (except maybe Saudi Arabia). ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a reply to Avengerofthe BoN's second to last post. Of course Arabs would like to live in Israel, it has had the benefit of having massive amounts of foreign aid and assistance, and has a military that assures that stability will continue long into the future. The economic success of Israel is going to drive people to stay there rather than move to Syria or Lebanon. With regards to your claim "Israel is a multiethnic state... that does not apply to any of its neighbors bar - maybe - Lebanon." Yes, Lebanon is multiethnic. Iraq's constitution guarantees that it is a multiethnic state (for Turkmens, Christians, Jews, Kurds, and Persians). Kurdistan in Syria is multiethnic (Assyrians, Turkmens, Arabs), and Turkey is multiethnic (Arabs, Kurdsbutnotverymuchnow, Greeks, Circassians). Egypt treats Copts very well. You're basically saying "Israel is more multiethnic and liberal than its neighbors". So what? Does that justify its behavior towards Arabs that aren't on its side of the 1967 borders? No! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"Get another source then Ma'an News." No. I'll continue to use it unless and until someone persuades me it is generally unreliable. As far as I know, it is reliable; you haven't shown that it is not.---Mona- (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That is a start.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
This should be moved to the forum . Where it belongs. Just sayin'.... But Mona will probably edit war about that and throw nasty words at me for even suggesting such a thing... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
We don't need a sub-section on this administrative topic which is discussed above in its own section. PsyGremlin reinstated this substantive section and I'm fine with just one per page being on I-P. Indeed, if and when another starts, I'll move this one myself.---Mona- (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
That an Israeli NGO doesn't like Ma'an is no shock. And the NYT merely says reports were conflicting. Ma'an has no reputation for general unreliability.---Mona- (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
BDS echo chamber sealed. Mazal tov.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Terrorists post videos teaching Palestinians ‘how to stab a Jew’[edit]

Nice, peaceful protests, huh?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There were peaceful protests in Syria too, before things got out of control. Were those also just a ploy to commit violence and murder towards Assad's nice, peaceful soldiers? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:36, 20 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
You won't hear Assad-apology from me, but maybe you could try it with his Holeyness Greenwald, he has a heart for both Assad and Putin (If Israel would be anything like Assad, Gaza City would've been renovated into Gaza Parking Lot).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


Severely oppressed people virtually never are peaceful; some -- as the ANC did -- engage in barbarism. But their causes nevertheless remain just and the ultimate cause of the violence is the unjust oppression. Oppression like collective punishment (only for non-Jews) and stealing yet more West Bank land using IDF storm-troopers whose gas canister killed an old Arab lady.

They threw firebombs at Palestinian homes, setting some on fire, local residents and medics said. Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers assisted the settlers by firing tear gas and live ammunition at Palestinians trying to aid families under attack.



One Palestinian was injured with live ammunition during the settler rampage.


Israel continued its campaign of raids and arrests in the West Bank, detaining more than 30 Palestinians over the weekend.


On Saturday, Israeli forces shot dead five Palestinians in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, alleging they had tried to stab members of its forces.


What people, anywhere, would passively accept that (and so much worse) and fail to hate the oppressor?---Mona- (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Cause stabbing random people is the way, right (what stupid motherfucker brings a knife to a gunfight, anyway)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"Stupid motherfuckers" being oppressed by one of the world's premier militaries and who are not permitted by their oppressor to acquire anything like a top grade of weapon. That's who.---Mona- (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
...by stabbing random people. Yay.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand that the violence is a reation to the oppression in their country, but viewing it as acceptable is only going to create a harsher reaction. The Palestinians can't win any kind of revolution. This may be a cherry picked example, but violence will always be used to justify more violence.--Owlman (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how this would help anything but incite more violence. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"but viewing it as acceptable is only going to create a harsher reaction" It is NOT acceptable, any more than the ANC's necklacing was. It is merely the understandable result of a deeply frustrated and long-oppressed people. The cliche "no justice, no peace" is a cliche because it is true. And justice for Palestinians has been grossly lacking for many, many decades.---Mona- (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Arisboch, way to be dishonest. The image of the human body never said "how to stab a Jew", look again at the source the NY Post cites (the Times of Israel). It shows the body, not the words "how to stab a Jew" superimposed. The person who imposed those words was Danny Danon, an unreliable source given that he is Israel's UN ambassador.Source: http://www.timesofisrael.com/videos-teach-would-be-palestinian-attackers-how-to-stab/. Most of the people being stabbed now are soldiers, who are legitimate targets in a war. Targeting soldiers is not terrorism. Would you rather they be indiscriminate and target more civilians than soldiers like Israel did last year during OPE or during the suicide bombings? ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"War"? With what state is Israel at war with? And you're also lying, if you claim, that they make the fine distinction between soldiers, cops and civilians, when stabbing.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Palestinians. Well, they did go after 5 soldiers Sunday. And there have been images circulated in social media showing how to stab an IDF soldier. Not sure where I lied. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Show me the state "Palestinians" on a map, please. And the declaration of war, when you're at it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
How about including a video of Jewish settlers in Hebron attacking Palestinian houses near the settlement of Kiryat Arba? Source: https://t.co/CotrGl2nvu. While we're at it, let's title this video HOW TO KILL AN ARAB, to provoke a reaction and sensationalize the violence.
They don't have a state at the moment because someone conveniently keeps building settlements that blocks the establishment of such a state. Hmm, who could that be? Militarily occupying someone for 50 years and colonizing their land, and then saying after that when they react that you're at war with the terrorists, yeah I'd call that a war and a conflict in itself. Let's not play semantics. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Not forgetting that the ICJ said people have a right to use force to achieve self-determination, so Palestinians do have a legal right to resist occupation and settlements of their lands. Attacking civilians is a no-no, but attacking soldiers is not. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait, just to be clear: First you argue that Palestinian deaths are justified because Israel is waging a defensive war, but then no one's in any war because that'd justify the targetting of Israeli soldiers? Which one is it? Pick one. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Arisboch asks where is Palestine on a map. Where was Israel before 1948? What are it's borders? Ands actually, Palestine was on the map. It had been for millennia. Much like Italy was an area well before it became a nation-state.---Mona- (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Elderly Palestinian women called ‘whores’ on Yad Vashem tour, while racism explodes across Israel

This week, a group of elderly Palestinian women were escorted to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance musuem [in Israel] to learn about the Jewish genocide in Europe. At the entrance of the museum, they were surrounded by a group of Jewish Israeli youth who recognized them as Arabs. “Sharmouta!” the young Israelis shouted at them again and again, using the Arabic slang term for whores, or sluts. ...


Daniel Bar-Tal, a renowned Israeli political psychologist ... found that the racist, authoritarian trends that are increasingly pronounced in Israeli society are products of a “psycho-social infrastructure” dedicated to promoting “a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians and insensitivity to their suffering.”

In April 2009, Yad Vashem fired a docent, Itamar Shapira, because he had discussed the massacre of Palestinians in Deir Yassin with a group of students from the settlement of Efrat. “All I was trying to say is that there were people who lived here before the Holocaust survivors arrived, that they suffered a terrible trauma too, and that we shouldn’t hide the facts,” Shapira told me a month after his firing. “Yad Vashem carefully selected what facts it wanted to present, but deliberately avoided things like Deir Yassin, even though its ruins were just a thousand meters from the museum.”

What Arisboch and Avenger do is no different than the Zionist of Israel. Facts that upset the Zionist narrative -- and support the reality that they have grossly victimized the Palestinian people and are deeply racist -- are simply not to be credited, where they must be allowed.---Mona- (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, here is that state, "Palestinians", on a map that Israel has attacked and encroached upon. By building settlements inside or in any way sending any kind of armed personnel into these areas without consent of the people living there, the government of Israel is de facto declaring war.
Arisboch et al, you know very well Israel is at war with some Arabs living inside the green line west of the Jordan River. Sometimes it is a cold war, other times it is a hot war. But to deny that there is a war there, however casualty-light, is denying what is happening right in front of your own eyes. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


Kim davis[edit]

How is it that you cannot sack someone refusing to do their job but you can lock them up for it? I get that its an elected position so sacking them isn't easy, but why is it an elected position anyway? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Short answer? Because America. Long answer: because for good reasons as well as bad reasons many positions that are appointed / earned through merit in other places are elected in the US Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the short answer is that it's an elected position, and the only people who can fire her are the people or the legislature, who actually support her. So the only recourse is a federal court order to either fine her into oblivion or jail her for failing to comply with a court order. She hasn't been sentenced to any time, that would require a trial, she holds the keys to her freedom if she complies with the order, or resigns her position. Hentropy (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I was answering as to why it is an elected position in the first place. Most other countries don't elect people to such an office Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
That has more to do with the US's fetish for elections, in that case. County clerks were originally made to be elected positions in a lot of cases because they oversaw things like elections and ensuring the integrity of government licenses and records. If these positions are appointed, problems can arrive with corruption and cronyism by putting his friend in the clerk's seat and having them accept/deny certain things based on personal relationships. This has never been a real problem until recently. I'm not one to apologize too much for the stupidity of American politics, but European politics is certainly not a squeaky clean bastion of reason. Hentropy (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

All Hail the Judge![edit]

Thank goat that Kim Davis is rotting w/her ugly face in jail! Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

What if some tough on crime judge puts her there forever? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't use her looks as a reason to insult her, you certainly wouldn't accept that if someone said it about a liberal woman like Hillary Clinton. Disagree with her all you want but don't resort to frat-boy political debate. Hentropy (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't jubilate about people rotting away in jail either. Even if some deserve it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:30, 4 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
If we have reason to pity a guilty person being in jail, we have to seriously think about criminal justice reform. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
If I had my way, no, she wouldn't be locked up in a cage, but if she continued to refuse to issue marriage licenses, she would be forced to pay back to the government all of her income she collected while she issued licenses, which would be about $100,000 or so. Meanwhile, while she does rot in jail, I laugh at the whining and complaining of conservatives and Republicans that yip and scream about her rights being violated. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"Four times married"...[edit]

... proves what? Ad hominem isn't excusable, lads. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

'Tis that her 'Christianity' has changed - divorce was OK but gays aint. Hypocracy? Scream!! (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)r
The double standards of fundies are well-attested. Though complaining about divorce being commonly accepted, even in many Christian circles, while homosexuality isn't, sounds like a rather undistinguished thing to do. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:30, 4 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
The whole Southern Baptist culture focuses on fiercely preaching virtues about which they're well aware they don't do well at practicing. I find it a bit hard to fault them for this, though it has bad side effects. The Baptist drinking culture is an unfortunate side effect. The preachers knew full well that their society had a problem with drunkenness. So they made teetotalism one of the marks of salvation. Through much of the territory, people who drink alcohol absolutely do not mix socially with those who do not. (This was pointed out to me at one of the strangest wedding receptions I've ever been to.) The downside is that the first Fatal Glass of Beer confirms you as a reprobate on the road to Hell. This means that moderation isn't a reasonable expectation. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Easy yes or no absolute rules are a good thing when dealing with children, as they usually cannot handle nuance ambiguity and having to decide on a case by case basis. Adults should have grown up enough to know that waiting at a red traffic light as a pedestrian at 2:00 AM on a deserted street makes no fucking sense. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Say what you want, but her rhetoric is consistent with Christian logic and morality according to most sects. You're allowed to be a horrible sinner in your past, so long as you come to Jesus and stop your sinnin' ways you'll be forgiven. Homosexuality is such a flashpoint in Christian morality because you can't really live a gay lifestyle and "come to Jesus" at the same time, it's like trying to ask for forgiveness while still routinely sacrificing children to Molech. There's many reasons to criticize this woman, but even if she were a lesbian in the past it still wouldn't be hypocrisy, at least not in that way. Hentropy (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
If she was refusing marriage licences to divorcees, her own marriage record could be seen as hypocritical. If she had been in a same sex marriage, refusing marriage licences to same sex couples would be hypocritical. As it is, her marriages & divorces have nothing to do with her stance on same sex marriage. We can't insist that people who oppose same sex marriage must also oppose divorce; they're really not the same issue. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, both divorce and SSM are unbiblical to some fundies.. So there's that. Although that would depend on picking apart which flavour of stupid-ass Christianity she followed. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
That she doesn't have the moral standing to make personal interventions on other peoples' marriages. Since the law has spoken, there's not a platform for a universal standard she's standing up for, thus the strength of her personal convictions are a valid point of contention. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The bible also permits me to marry/rape a prisoner of war, so long as I shave her and wait a month. CorruptUser (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

David Cameron breaks international law[edit]

So David Cameron has, in essence, committed a violation of Great Britain's laws and international law by personally ordering British citizens to be blown up by a flying robotic machine: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/david-cameron-justifies-drone-strikes-in-syria-against-britons-fighting-for-isis

Western news media outlets barely reported this at all. Apparently they don't care that the leader of the UK ordered drone strikes on British citizens without the legal ability to do so (there was no Parliamentary authorization to conduct bomb Syria). The actual morality of what occurred is debatable, but the main point here is that the leader of a Western country violated international law willingly, following in Obama's footsteps. It is true that the people killed were members of ISIS, but the point is the law was broken. Laughably, the justification offered by the British government was that these individuals were an immediate threat to the security United Kingdom. As if they were in Calais about to shell Dover with a 122mm artillery gun.

What I want to know is: what do you think about this? What is your opinion about the illegal use of drone strikes overseas? I have a feeling I already know, but I just want to see you discuss this. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The point is: Fuck the DAESH, that's the point. Cameron, you're right! Why should an Air Force risk the lives of their pilots, if they can drones do it?!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
No that is definitely not what happened here. I don't know British law but in the US we have three constitutional amendments that force the state to give every prisoner due process and a fair trial. In the US we aren't allowed to do a trial in absentia unless the person doesn't show up to the trial or is disruptive during trial. The exception being in the case of execution.--Owlman (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
In order to give a prisoner a trial of any kind, you first need a prisoner. In military situations, this usually comes about when an enemy surrenders. This fellow hadn't surrendered. He remained a target. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I see the point, but how is one to surrender to a drone? You are always unaware of its presence and cannot be captured. This is more of a general question on how the Geneva Convention works for aerial attacks. I would also like to expand my comment and say that the difference between the US killing Anwar al Awlaki was that he was not a combatant while these Brits were.--Owlman (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
No, of course, he could no more surrender to a drone than he could surrender to a bullet that had been shot at him. That's more or less the point of surrendering; the soldier who surrenders changes his status from 'person who can be shot at' to 'person who can't'. But by joining a hostile military force, he assumed the risk that enemies would be shooting at him, and that he can get shot and might die. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment, Arisboch, but the point is we need to follow international law while doing it. If you break international law, you are crossing a huge line that really shouldn't be crossed in all but the most extenuating circumstances. This is not one of those circumstances. It is easy for Western powers to follow the Geneva Convention, their own laws, and prosecute the war on ISIS in a legal and responsible way. The US and UK need to vote in the Congress/Parliament to go to war with ISIS, go before the UN Security Council, and obtain a resolution to do so. I'm sure Russia and China would agree, as they have shown they are willing to do with the Iran nuclear deal. We don't need to be breaking laws here. We can fight and defeat ISIS the right way, or we can do it the wrong way and make even more enemies we will be forced to confront later on. Which would you prefer? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a noble naive sentiment, since there is no political support for boots on the ground in Teh West, which would be necessary to catch these fuckers to drag their asses to court. But dropping bombs on them or even better, drone (I made a noun into a verb) their asses, is politically no problem at all, since it causes no casualties on the Western side and produces a steady stream of dead terrorists..--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The west is not going to commit itself to another decade+ ground war in the middle east after spending a long time laying the groundwork for this problem in the first place --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
So we are going to bomb the problem away?--Owlman (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Well i mean if we carpet nuke the middle east, there won't really be much of an ISIS left. or much of anything, really. | Wasn't there some presidential candidate who seriously suggested we nuke some ME countries?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I think so but I don't remember. It had to have been the 2012 election which I can't recall well. Regardless won't all this bombing lead to more refugees and more legitimacy for DAESH. as far as I am aware they are the strongest force right now and they seem keen on provoking a massive war between the Sunnis and Shias.--Owlman (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The bombings, in particular without a real mandate, are not a good solution, but the alternatives that have any chance of happening (as i said, they will never sell another ground invasion of the middle east to the western population) are either "do fuck all and let it just happen" or "somehow make the anti ISIS armies actually worth a damn" which seems unlikely. All the options available are shit.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Back to the original story. It seems that Cameron specifically ordered the execution of British citizens. Yes, this is part of a bigger picture as described but it is also a very specific charge. At the least, this charge needs to be scrutinised very carefully. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, some countries have been removing DAESH fighters from their civil registries, which seems pretty reasonable given that they went off to fight for an openly hostile foreign entity that proclaims itself to be a state. Typifying these men as "British citizens" is rather misleading. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Actually, a significant portion of DAESH consists of non-Middle-Eastern Muslims, so unless all their supporters have already made their way to the battlefield in Syria/Iraq, nuking them to oblivion isn't gonna get rid of the problem. Not to mention Western war crimes are the perfect recruitment tool for terrorists. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:48, 8 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Daish is one of the further examples of middle-eastern armed forces not being worth their salt. I mean, right now there is an "army" of barely a few ten thousand, that is able to overrun two mid-sized Middle Eastern countries (with armies numbering in the hundred thousands), that were even considered regional powers at one time. And neither the Saudis nor the Egyptians nor Iran can do anything to effectively curtail this threat. Which raises the question: Are they unwilling or unable? Israel of course would be able to bomb IS into oblivion and if given the order the military would probably be highly motivated. However, for obvious reasons, I wish for Israel to stay as far away as possible from the Syrian Civil War. And the same thinking is probably consensus in the Israeli political sphere as well as the high command. Point is: There is another option besides supporting one group within Syria against another and intervening directly: That option is relying on a regional nation-state as a "proxy" (in this case almost all regional powers have a vital interest in the disappearance of Daish; basically all except Iran, because the existence of Daish makes them appear sane by comparison) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Iran has the biggest interest in making DAESH a thing of the past, cause they're very high on DAESH's shitlist as Shiites.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes and no. On the one hand a IS strong enough to actually harm or threaten Iran or the Shia dominance of Iraq is bad for Iran. But currently Iran enjoys being a de facto ally of the US in the fight against Daish and has notably gained in respectability due to it. Furthermore, the Sunni forces in Iraq, be they political military or both have been discredited by the association of all things Sunni with Daish in the minds of many Iraqis. All in all, Iran probably wishes Daish gone or at least weakened, but the emergence of this group was a godsend to Iran's foreign policy ambitions. They can export their revolution and their Shia dominance and the US are even thankful to them... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In the US, at least, a citizen who commits an act of treason or voluntarily joins a foreign army engaged in hostilities against the US is considered to have renounced their citizenship. Is there anything similar in British law? Frederick♠♣♥♦ 06:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really. If you were born in the UK, it's hard to give it up and you basically can't be forced out. It's a sort of genetic affliction - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Most countries don't have any way of renouncing citizenship. The only exceptions are those where you lose it "by default" through military service for a foreign power or accepting a citizenship of a country that does not allow dual citizenship with yours... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, Russia, at least, has. I know that,since me and my parents did renounce our Russian citizenship to get the German one.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

President Lessig[edit]

So let's assume Lessig wins would it be possible for him to transition to public funding for political campaigns? Besides that he seems to be concerned about gerrymandering and proportional voting but these seem to be his only policy positions. How long would this take? And once he leaves office there would still be significant issues to deal with such as global warming, the refugee crisis and immigration reform, Daesh and the Middle East, etc. This would all fall onto the VP, whoever that would be. On the bright side it would make this one of the most important VPs ever.--Owlman (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of this would take constitutional amendments or at the very least a reversal of how the SCOTUS sees certain things... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but I can't see how an amendment could br passed by the national government. Republicans know it is one of their biggest advantages and the Democrats would be hard to convince. Even if the Democrats are convinced they will have to win all of Congress back and enough state legislatures and governorships to ratify it (assuming the state Republicans would be uncooperative). We could always try to pass it through a constitutional convention, e.g. WolfPAC, but that process seems like it will take too long.--Owlman (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
If he manages to ever get out of the one percent black hole, where will his support come from? People who wouldn't have voted otherwise? Hillary supporters? Sanders supporters? People who don't know yet? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Sanders supporters are "Sanders or nobody" voters, him not being the nominee will just make them stay at home, not vote some random guy who promises to step out of office if he wins.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed] Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Well I support Sanders and I would vote for O'Malley if he won the nomination, but I am still not sure if I would vote for Hillary just yet. She has recently come out with a plan to reform campaign finances, but I still think an amendment is the only way to pass anything permanent. But back to Lessig, I, personally, like the guy, but I don't think he could munster support in a first past the post voting system.. The only way people would support him is if he got every activist group to agree that campaign finance reform must happen first before any issue they want addressed can be resolved.--Owlman (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm a staunch Sanders supporter, and "Paravant" is correct, we generally support Sanders only. I think Lessig is a good guy, but him throwing himself out there really isn't doing much useful, and if anything will detract from Sanders' momentum, possible causing him to lose and getting another Republican in office. So no, I'm with Sanders. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
More worried about McAfee's candidacy. Because it won't matter who you thought you were electing. McAfee will have installed himself without asking. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 00:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Onozomg.gif Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Senator McCaskill criticizes anti-GMO activists[edit]

I can't add stories to the WIGO, but maybe someone'd find this interesting and add it:

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/higher_education/anti-gmo-movement-ag-research-funding-strike-nerve-with-mccaskill/article_55bebc84-50d2-11e5-b288-470b14909303.html

The relevant parts in case the article can't be accessed:

"It's ironic to me that the same group that's pounding the table about climate change wants to ignore the science with GMOs," she said. "If you believe in science, you believe in science. You can't just pick and choose depending on the issue."

She also told the agricultural genetics researchers in the room to toughen up and ignore "a small group of people (protesting the growth and sale of GMOs) making a lot of noise."

But McCaskill was alarmed when Tom McFadden, director of MU's division of animal sciences, told her the National Science Foundation seems to avoid funding the application-based research agriculture embraces, and agricultural researchers have learned to frame their projects as more academic research to receive money.

"You shouldn't have to disguise it," she said. "That's something I'd like to go to bat for in Washington if bias exists."

USDA funding for research is comparatively paltry, McFadden said, so "it would be helpful to have more access to the NSF money."

McCaskill also heard about a wealth of advancements being made in drought prevention, genetic research and energy efficiency, but there were complaints of unreliable state funding for several projects. Several researchers said they'd made progress on an idea, only to have funding pulled unexpectedly.

Yeah, it's a week old, but still it resonated with me. Granted, I don't know much about McCaskill's positions other than being the incumbent opposite Todd "legitimate rape" Akins back in 2012. --Chukar (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What she said is so full of vague generalities I don't see where it is anything but lip service. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Russia and homeopathy[edit]

An interview in The Moscow Times gives some surprising and scary ways pseudoscience has become a lot more powerful in Russia compared to the US. They didn't even need Dr. Oz! -Einstein95 (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't be surprised. Pseudoscience and homeopathy remedies are much more common in the Third World, and former Soviet republics. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
I thought the USSR was the second world? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
That is kinda weird, since, at least according to my father, the Soviets didn't like homeopathy very much.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Officially the USSR hated religion and was anti-nationalist (at least in rhetoric). Now look at Putin and whom he relies on most... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Darwin's letter[edit]

The article really needs a better headline. His letter doesn't say he's an atheist, it says he's no longer a Christian. Big difference. Thanos6 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the WIGOW to reflect that. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 04:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Corbyn New Leader[edit]

As a Labour member I will support Corbyn, but after the good news of Khan winning mayoral selection, this is not good. {{SUBST:User:Mkbw50/sig}} (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Why? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
He's allegedly unelectable. Socialist stigma. Blitz (Complaints Box) 00:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I just find it funny a party explicitly meant to be socialist and calling itself a labour party would have a socialist stigma. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
That is mostly due to Thatcher winning the Falklands war and hence the 1983 election. Had the war not happened (or - which is totally unlikely - been lost for Britain) the Alliance would have swept up a lot of seats, with Labour getting most of the rest. The Conservatives would have been wiped out as a credible force for the time being with the result a hung parliament or an outright majority for one of the right wing parties. The ultimate result would have been that Britain would be having two left wing parties instead of two left wing parties. In essence: Fuck Galtieri and fuck Thatcher a thousand times! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Really? I will give you partly due to Thatcher/Falklands War etc, but not mostly. As a teenager I campaigned hard for the Labour Party in 1983 in two different inner London constituencies, and there was much more to the disaster than the Falklands. Memories of the chaos at the end of the last Labour government were still very fresh, the Labour Party was handling itself incredibly badly, and dear, dear Michael Foot was 70 years old, looked frail and was unelectable. I adored the man but the wider electorate didn't. As for the Alliance - in the unlikely event of the SDP surviving, the Alliance would never have become a 2nd left wing option. The Gang of Four and their groupies left Labour for the very reason of escaping any association with socialism. They just might have morphed into a New Labour type thing, thereby saving Peter Mandelson the job - i.e a centrist party. But the Liberal bit of the Alliance was already that and had been forever, so what would have been the point? And sadly, the Conservatives could never have been wiped out then as you contend, any more than they were wiped out by the Blair landslides. Too much money, strong grass roots organisation, vested interests etc. Totally agree with you on your last sentence :) 1983... pah. Dammit! --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Be that as it may, the Falkland war seriously fucked up the British political landscape for - well basically it hasn't even ended yet. Are there good alternative histories without a Falkland war (that focus on the impact that would have had on Britain)? Also, I just checked Corbyn... He seems to have decent views on a great lot of things, but unfortunately he is a Hamas/Hezbollah and IRA fanboy (for the record, I don't care about Northern Ireland one way or another, but the IRA are certainly not the innocent heroes some mistake them for). Also, homeopathy... Other thaen that he is a needed breath of fresh air to push Labour to the left on economic and domestic issues. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
There may well be some alternative history. Given the awful, fragmented state of the Labour Party at that time, it might not make for good reading. Quite coincidentally, Jeremy was first elected as an MP in that same 1983 election, defeating a particularly foul Alliance defector. His IRA views are in line with most left wingers of that era - Ken Livingstone etc. Given his general all round decent views, I can live with some of the rest.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
For me, and many others, this is a repeat of Michael Foot in 1980. I respect them both and they both appeal to my socialist sensibilities but.... There's a reason Michael Foot's top of the range Duffel Coat was mistakenly lampooned as a donkey jacket - looking like "an out of work navvy" - when he wore it to the cenotaph on Remembrance Day - that's the way sincere socialists come across and, in politics, image is everything. However, Foot was a necessary part of the healing process post the winter of discontent and I'm pretty sure Corbyn will be seen in the same light. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Corbyn is a loon, he wants open borders and no immigration control. As Nigel Farage has recently stated, Corbyn will turn loads more voters to UKIP. Jeremy Corbyn Labour Leader Huge Boost for UKIP Krom (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Labour lost millions of votes to UKIP in the recent general election -this was mostly based on immigration concerns. So electing Corbyn who wants complete open borders is even more a disaster for Labour. Corbyn is the best thing that could happen to UKIP.Krom (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Rival candidate Andy Burnham, who has conceded that the last Labour government made mistakes in relaxing visa controls with Eastern Europe, accused Mr Corbyn of being out of touch with opinion across much of the country. "If we deny there is an issue there - we will drive people to Ukip." Krom (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Krom politics in a nutshell: "We lost votes because of an issue so we should sellout on that issue!" I don't know, id rather my leaders hold to principles, even if it loses them votes, than sell out on issues to gain votes. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Why exactly is immigration a bad thing? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Krom, People have always been on the move. Migration is the reason why we survived as a species. Look around you. Those dreaded immigrants are already here, and you're one of them. You don't live in a world where you can stop people from moving around from one place to another. People will keep moving, and like it or not, they will share what you have.
The point here is that the idea of open borders is the natural state of things to begin with. We only started creating borders when people fought each other and drew a line around their land. But that won't work anymore; the humanitarian needs of millions of refugees trumps any 'right' that a nation might have to keep its borders secure. Plus, I'm pretty sure the UK is already pretty lax with its border controls. As someone not from britain, Corbyn's general policies seem pretty good to me, and I'm glad Labour has finally elected a leader that believes its founding principles, which make sense and are good. The real question is can he whip his party into line, or will there be a fracture where people leave Labour for other parties. Either way, it is nice to see a revival of Old Labour. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Back in the days, we were fighting for a revolution. Now we are just hoping for a revival of Old Labour. O Tempora! O Mores! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: New Heidi Hole for Homeopathy Funding[edit]

From the article,

I must admit I’m not totally convinced at the moment but I’ll have to look at it. I know my own parents are great believers in homeopathy. It’s not something that I would immediately support but I’m going to have to look at a whole range of issues. It’s not something that I have given hours of consideration to.
—Heidi Alexander

It's just political posturing to keep neutrality for now. She even mentions she isn't convinced that public funds should go to homeopathy. Let's not panic just yet. (Then again, contrary to what the edit suggests, I'm not entirely convinced this is dog-whistling from the lack of codewords, so meh)

Personally, I'm more wary about shadow environment minister Kerry McCarthy's stance and relative inexperience on animal testing, which has gone with relatively little comment (except for people pointing out that she's vegan). ℕoir LeSable (talk)

Cameron and the pig[edit]

Love that it's the Daily Fail that's gonna serialise it! Scream!! (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

(Still keeping Daily Fail blocker though Scream!! (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC))
OMG, my fave episode of Black Mirror is real?---Mona- (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I am still struggling to believe that is mere coincidence :) . The joy of many years of pig puns to come is just overwhelming. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It's been a festival among my pals on Twitter, to wit: "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he today that fucks a pig with me shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile..." "Now is the winter of our discontent Made glorious summer by this loin of pork." "Check your privilege! I'm picking up some disturbing porciphobia.[mine]" "Oink means no!" "Now, who among us has not wanted to fuck a p- oh wait." The photoshops are also hilarious. And, someone created a "Cameron's Pig" account and tweeted: "Look, it's embarrassing for me, too." To which one "Bilmon" replied: “'Just close your eyes and think of England.'-- Lucy Baldwin, wife of British PM Stanley Baldwin" ---Mona- (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
A prime minister who violates dead pigs and a future king who desired to be a tampon. The future of Britain is in fine hands.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
People's obsession with VIP's sexual hijinks is soooooo ridiculous. Coupla a years ago, a US prez got almost impeached, cause he got his cock sucked (or lied about getting his cock sucked, but who wants to talk about where one is getting his cock sucked with everyone getting their panties in a bunch?). What's next time, Bibi sticking his cock into a shawarma with yogurt sauce at his stag night?--14:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Once they were an empire. Now they worry about the (future) King's relation to tampons and the prime minister's relation to pig's heads... O Tempora O Mores Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Depends. Lamb or chicken shawarma? Or perhaps an illicit porky shawarma. Now that would be front page news. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
A Jew eating pork? In other news, water is wet and Trevor Noah has one white and one black parent... That's really not at all newsworthy. Jews are about as observant on average as Christians in the US. Sure there are some people who take it very seriously indeed. But thaen there are the bacon wrapped shrimps guys ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, the religious getting their panties in a bunch about the secular breeding, selling and/or eating pork or similar is a perennial issue in Israel (or before there was any Israel, many kibbutzim didn't gave a hoot about religion) or the diaspora (trying to get kosher meat outside of the big Jewish population centers (in, say, Germany, cause even in Berlin or Frankfurt on the Maine it's rather hard) is giant bitch and often, people just can't afford to have the stuff shipped from, say, Belgium).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In fairness, the politician sex scandal is the definition of pseudo-news. Unless they harm somebody, I couldn't care less where a politician puts their junk or which junk they have had put where. Unfortunately infantile nations with infantile media obsess about it. And to clarify, my previous post was criticizing the obsession and the media frenzy... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

good to see you using the British "couldn't care less" rather than the offensive American variant ;) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the complete idiom is "I could care less, but I'd have to try." Shortened to "I could care less..." it is still idiomatically meaningful, and those who insist on "couldn't" are just the sort of arrant pedants up with whom no-one should have to put. But yes, props to Avenger for using British English. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You did see my wink right? --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Assbolutely, and hence the praise for Avenger finally realising that UK English is best English. (no winkie-smiley for you!) CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I could actually care a bit less about this debate. I think that's a problem. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't give a flying fuck where each of those versions comes from. I take the one that sounds more logical. Just as I do with spelling. American spellings are more logical, hence why I prefer them. As for most words, I watch a lot of US series and TV, so there you go. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I could not give less of a shit about how many pigs he may have fucked. I am more concerned about his rank hypocrisy over his fucking stupid drug laws. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Or his hypocritical porn block. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't give a shit about that either. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, his repugnant positions, including on drug laws and his porn bans, outrage me. Indeed, such a prig being saddled with pig (sex), j'ai trouvé ça très amusant.---Mona- (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from speaking obscure half dead languages on talk pages that everybody could read... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
French isn't half-dead, but I know a few others, who are.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah well, some people might still speak it. Who cares, they're French. (In case you don't get it, I am joking. Mostly) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ben Carson[edit]

I'm not sure what the etiquette is for changing someone's WIGO, but I don't see what Ben Carson being black has to do with his islamophobia (other than the vague connection that black people have been discriminated against too,in which case it shouldn't be held against him), and I don't want to try to start a debate.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Have to agree. Scream!! (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Starting a talkpage thread might not be the best thing if you don't want to start a debate then. I edited the WIGO a bit btw. As for relevance, black people and Muslims are both ethnic groups (the latter more specifically ethno-religious, of course) and black people have previously experienced exclusion and segregation from general (white) society in America, something Ben Carson now seems to be proposing to do with Muslims (at least politically). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:37, 21 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
My 'Political Correctness' lobe doesn't like it but not gonna argue. Scream!! (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, but there is also something about a person coming from a background of segregation and oppression that's endorsing doing something similar to a new group that's...just messed up. Especially when it took several centuries to reverse it after the suffering of millions. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I know, I just didn't want to accidentally piss someone off by messing with their stuff without asking. Also, I meant that I wouldn't mind if a debate started, just that I wasn't trying to start one. Just wanted to figure out what the deal was with editing people's WIGOs.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as fair when black people (or other minority groups) are singled out on some issue (especially by white people) with the suggestion that "you should be on our side". I've seen this attitude quite a lot on RW (here's another recent example) & I'm sure the people thinking like this think they're promoting tolerance or identifying hypocricy, but really they're just perpetuating a double standard where minorities are shamed or challenged for opinions or behaviour which would be tolerated (at least to a greater extent) from a white person. When people say stupid & intolerant things, as with Ben Carson, by all means call them out on it, but don't make a big deal about their ethnicity unless it's directly relevant. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Dawkins[edit]

Wish he'd just shut the fuck up! Scream!! (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible for me to simultaneously love and hate someone as much as I do him. ArcticVixen (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I love nor hate the guy. He just makes me facepalm. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:05, 21 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
He's a guy who's said/done/written some great things and said/done/written some really stupid things. He ought to think before he says/does/writes anything - think for a week at least. Scream!! (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Eh, no matter the person, they'll have some flaw you don't like. That darn telephone has you youngins spoiled. In my day, you were friends with your neighbors no matter how much you wish they'd just die already, because you didn't have a choice. CorruptUser (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that was a critical part of "The Purge"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@Corrupt I think I must be so young that what you just said makes negative amounts of sense to me. SolPyre (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
More than century ago, you couldn't realistically make friends with someone a town over, let alone across countries via the internet. You could keep in touch via letters and later, telegraphs, but it was fairly limited. Plus, only the very rich could afford horses or any other means of regular travel, so your social group was basically whoever was close by. That meant that if your neighbor had serious flaws, you learned to tolerate it because you don't have any other options. Now, if your neighbor pisses you off, you can just find friends elsewhere. Back to the OP, Dawkins is a giant twat; nearly everyone is to some degree, and you can't be too picky. You can't judge a person by flaws alone, you have to see if what they offer is greater than their cost. CorruptUser (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
People in "ye olde days" could - and frequently did - walk ten kilometers a day or more. I know because my great-grandmother did... So unless you live in a really neck of the woods back of beyonds area, your immediate neighbors were not your only concern. Dawkins has said a lot of problematic things over the years. Be it his bullhorn-dogwhistles on Judaism "There are less practicing Jews in the US thaen there are Atheists [some BS about Israel]" or his "problematic" (to say the least) stance on child abuse, when he says religion is worse thaen priests touching young boys... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Because everybody was walking 1- kilometers a day to become friends with random strangers a few towns over. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You know, I've been to a country where going 300 kilometers means an eight hour bus ride. And most people can't even dream of ever owning a car. And yet for some miraculous reason people have friends in places other thaen the street they live in. Maybe they met at the market? Just a thought... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Good lord. Don't you have a Zionism article to be improving? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
What? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You have better things to be doing right now. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
What's that got to do with the price of fish? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would you rather I had reminded you of your vital task you've shunted for weeks now via a block?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, before social media you didn't have people vomiting all their character flaws to public display. Vulpius (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
No, they just outright acted on them.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Dawkins Flow chart:
Does it involve minorities and their rights (YES)-> oh god it's going to be insane.
(NO)->Does it involve comparing the harm of religion to something serious (YES)-> Oh god it's going to be insane
(NO)->Probably not too bad.
The guy is every entitled white male, but also a decent scientist and skeptic. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Every entitled white non-Jewish male. There. Fixed it for you. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
...No? We could throw hundreds of non-oppressed groups he's a member of on there, and there's nothing special about not being a Jew. The "White Male" part isn't even really necessary, but are just easy ones to list and understand. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
If hew were Jewish he would not have linked the existence of Israel with the percentage of practicing Jews in the US as the two things have nothing to do with each other.. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
And you know this for a fact.... how?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Juvenile death row sentencing[edit]

Any Americans appalled by the Saudi sentencing need to bear in mind that in America as of December 31, 2004, 71 persons were on death row for juvenile crimes So, when the Saudis do it it's shock horror but when the American's do it.... Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I am aware that many juveniles have not only been executed, but are serving life sentences. That we even have a "school to prison pipeline makes me sick."--Owlman (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
From the "pipeline" link: "students have been expelled for bringing nail clippers or scissors to school" Yikes! The clock kid was no fluke then... Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to American willful ignorance and hypocrisy. It's pretty much standard operating procedure now. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, at least we have the ability to discuss this without becoming refugees in another country. There is a difference. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, certainly true. It still seems like the US talks about all these terrible things...yet things rarely change. Even if the change can be demonstrably better all around. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

(Scalia mode on) It was only those activist judges that keep us from executing juveniles. Clearly when the eighth amendment was passed nobody thought it to be cruel or unusual to hang draw and quarter a fourteen year old (Scalia mode off). In all due fairness though, the US don't do it any more and at least the chance for the person who is executed to have been found guilty of some actual crime is higher thaen in Saudi Arabia, where people are regularly executed for "witchcraft" or "apostasy". Still the US prison and sentencing system is a joke and has to be reformed. You know which candidate has a comprehensive prison reform agenda? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sanders?--Owlman (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You are missing a big difference. People in the US are granted access to an attorney to defend themselves and the verdict is rendered by their peers and not some government official. The Saudi kid was tortured into confession and didn't even murder anyone himself, with no access to any attorney to help defend him.
As for the ridiculously long sentencing, US legal culture has its own weirdness. Nearly everyone gets let out early for whatever reason, and 30 years later long after anyone remembers the case a governor will pull a bunch of case files and see which ones can be released to save a few bucks. When a person is sentenced to 20 consecutive lifetimes or however many Ariel Castro got, it's basically a way of for the judge to say "NO! Don't even TOUCH this case file!" Of course, if everyone gets sentenced to ridiculous times the judges have to grant even more ridiculous times to have the desired effect, and this creates a serious problem since actual time served becomes a crapshoot. CorruptUser (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
That is a big difference, but the US isn't night and day difference. Public defenders, if you get one, often have 7 minutes per case. A number of places you are left in jail unless you plead guilty, or wait for a defender after paying bail, so you could lose everything just to get a defender and hear your case in front of a judge. Assuming you aren't billed for one later that if you don't pay...will get you jailed as well. John Oliver did a great (and sickening) segment on it pretty recently. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Whatever the faults of the US legal system (and there are no doubt many) I think we can all handily agree that it still beats the Saudi one by a country mile (or if you prefer real units by about twenty thousand kilometers) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Very true, much better, but I am just trying to temper it a bit. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Public defenders vary by state. Northeast, they are better than many of the private ones since they have awesome experience, etc. Down south? Not so much. CorruptUser (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The federal system in the US is one of the worst accidents of history. There was virtually no difference between the several states when they were formed. Now they have power that is equal or even greater thaen that of constituent countries of the EU Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh? They all legalized slavery, did they? They were all founded by effectively the same demographics, and didn't have Quakers mainly in one state and Puritans mainly in another state? CorruptUser (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Even in the nineteenth century some observers of the politics of the US said they would not make sense to Europeans as the differences they were fought over were so trivially minor as to not matter. Also at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, slavery was technically practiced in all or all but one state (I am not entirely sure on that one). Spreading it into the Louisiana purchase was what took the cake. Thanks for nothing, Jefferson. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Rape Study[edit]

"The study’s authors note that because only 19% of students at the 27 schools participated in the study, the victimization rates may be inflated, as people who didn’t respond may be less likely to have experienced sexual assault." Well that totally undermines the entire 1-in-4 statistic doesn't it? Textbook definition of a biased sample (it's literally in the textbooks). Of course if a person wasn't sexually assaulted then they won't be nearly as likely to return the survey form, whereas someone who was would be infinitely more motivated to help document the problem. This "1 in 4" statistic is meaningless. But that doesn't matter as long as we get the headline. If people start spreading legitimate and properly done studies instead of the one with the largest number then more people will take the issue seriously.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Emily Yoffe did a piece in Slate some time ago explaining it in detail; I can get the link if you want. To squawk about "1 in 4" or "1 in 5" is to say that college campuses are as dangerous as war zones in the Congo, even Kirsten "no due process" Gillibrand (can provide reams of links as necessary) has stopped parroting that claim. The rate is believed to be closer to 1 in 53, which is still much too high but obviously not even remotely 1 in 4. Why liberals seem so intent on pushing this statistic eludes me, it only goes to show that (contrary to what RW would have one believe) everyone ignores inconvenient facts to foist their agenda on others. For a liberal with a sane outlook on this matter, search for KC Johnson or bug me for links if you're too lazy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I've never heard a claim of anywhere near 1 in 53. I work on a college campus, in a college counseling center. Study after study has shown it to be around 20-25% of college-going women experiencing sexual assault. The numbers at our university mirror that number pretty well. As for this particular study, 150,000 people responded. Statistically, even if there's a tendency for people who are more interested (have been assaulted) to respond, it should roughly even out at that number of responses (law of large numbers) gien the sample size. There's always a margin of error, but at 150k people the responses should fall within a normal distribution (assuming sexual assault falls into one) or approximate the population of college students at large. If there are 1,000 people in a population and only 25% respond, the margin of error is +/-5%. The larger the population, the smaller the margin of error with the same response percentage. Also, note that 19% is actually a pretty acceptable response rate for surveys. AyzmoCheers 05:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not that the error is due to random chance, it's that no matter how big a population you send surveys out to, if only 19% respond you are going to have a biased sample, since it is biased towards people who are more inclined to respond.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
To save some verbiage, here. You seem like you'd know better than I what to make of it, my mind is persuadable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
"1 in 53" sounds like pure fantasy. Even in the nigh-impossible situation that every sexual assault victim responded to this survey, that would mean that they (as 23% of responses in a survey completed by 19% of students) would make up approx 4.5% of female students or 1 in 22. And that's, as I said, I wild underestimate based on a grossly improbable hypothetical response rate. The more likely figure is somewhere close to, but probably slightly lower, than the 23% figure. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Yoffe quotes the authors of that study as saying "These projections are suggestive. To assess accurately the victimization risk for women throughout a college career, longitudinal research following a cohort of female students across time is needed". This is the real problem I see - to get a reliable answer to this question, we need a prospective cohort study, but I haven't seen one. If it doesn't exist, we don't I think we really know what the incidence of rape on college campuses in the US is, it's just a boatload of guesswork/extrapolation. Blacke (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd guess its somewhere around the 5-25% mark, but I don't think anyone should feel hugely confident about picking out a figure in between that range. It doesn't look like people are willing to pay for really high quality research on this matter. Blacke (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Therein lies the biggest issue. Given the amount of grief this has caused so many people one would think decent research would be in the offing, but that might actually make some sense. I guess my problem is the vitriol with which people react if someone even mentions the possibility of it being lower (a vitriol I'm guilty of reciprocating, yes). One would think it was a good thing that there's a distinct possibility that the rate could be significantly lower, but the reaction to people who raise it even as a possibility (the reaction to Yoffe's piece unleashed some impressive venom) would almost leave one to believe that doing so was tantamount to heresy. That's a side issue, though, and the more important thing would be that hopefully someone can get together a more coherent and better funded study so this cycle doesn't repeat itself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
What specifically do you think is incoherent about the AAU study? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I think this sums them up pretty well (though assuming that almost everyone who didn't report it, which this piece seems to do, while possibly true seems like a huge leap), no reason to try to reinvent the wheel if I don't have to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that article sums up anything well except tired mansplaining cliches that exonerate harassment. There are some kind of valid points in the first half, though the math & logic is faulty when extrapolating from the survey results to the US's total student population. For example, the typical living arrangements, study patterns & social scene for undergraduate students (the target of the survey) would tend to place them at higher risk of campus-related sexual assault than grad students. Then the author just gets wound up for the rest of the piece on how forcibly groping or kissing a woman shouldn't count as sexual assault (why not?), how "incapacitated by drugs or alcohol" could include "moderate intoxication" (dubious), and how most of these assaults couldn't be criminally prosecutable (irrelevant). WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree on that, I find that remarkably unconvincing. The problems with that line of reasoning are twofold. One, if you're doing a study on how many people are sexually assaulted, it makes no sense to invent an entirely different definition for purposes of the survey. Two, someone can have 100% legitimate feelings about something and be 100% wrong, what readily comes to mind are the blowups over the word niggardly; I have no doubt that the U of W student was genuinely upset, it doesn't change the fact that she was completely and unambiguously wrong. When I read stories like Yoffe's, which even Janet Halley said stood out as being extremely problematic at best (link as needed), I get concerned. There's also the issue that in at least a significant proportion of people's minds drugs and alcohol somehow make a woman's sexual encounters sexual assault but not men's, or that men are solely responsible in these situations (links as needed, and that attitude is problematic in a lot more ways than this). I suppose I should mention my bias here, which is that I've been on the wrong end of a totally bogus (nothing sexual, but essentially verbal abuse) allegation involving a mentally retarded client (not only was it false, but my name got confused with the person who this client was trying to accuse; the investigators did figure everything out, and got to the right conclusions). As false allegations of all kinds (including sexual assault) are extremely common in my line of work—they make up about 80% of the total allegations in my agency—I'm definitely a lot more sensitized to that than the average person. (I'm also more adamant than most that they all need very thorough investigation, as it's for exactly that reason people target that population; don't misunderstand me) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be operating on the presumption that research is somehow cheap or reasonably inexpensive. Research is incredibly expensive, particularly longitudinal studies. These studies often require millions of dollars in grants to operate. That doesn't take into account all of the graduate students and researchers needed to gather and code the data. Where do you think that money comes from? Republicans have been generally unwilling to allocate funding that researches sexual assault. Hell, they completely blocked a bill that would have researched sexual assault in the military, they're unlikely to do so if it would be college campuses. Research cannot exist without funding. There's also the problem of attrition. Individuals who have experienced a sexual assault are much more likely to drop out of college than their peers (actually an interesting question for the study this thread is covering). This would leave empty data points without an answer, though it might not create much of a statistical problem due to methods for taking that into account. As for your workplace example, the reason it is taken so seriously at your job is because of power dynamics. When there is a power differential the one in a lower power level must be privileged over the higher when an accusation is made. That is the way it has to be in order to assure that individuals can be assured that their complaints and fears will be taken seriously. AyzmoCheers 17:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I know perfectly well how expensive these things can be and how difficult it can be to get the necessary money, my point was that it's a shame they haven't happened. If I could make it happen I would, but I'm in no position to do so right now so all I can do is voice my discontent with things as they are. And if you read my comment, you'll see that I strongly support the investigations in my line of work for pretty much exactly that reason (although I think the other equally important overriding factors are 1. a lot of these people can't/won't adequately express themselves to explain something and 2. it's very easy not to believe someone with an extended history of making things up, which some of these people do, regardless of what their status in society is); I was glad they took the time to hear all sides and get to the truth of the matter, which in this case was that no one had done anything and this person had made this up (for reasons that would take way too long to explain here). It was absolutely necessary and I'd hope all investigations were done similar to that, and the fact that this doesn't seem to be happening in a lot of places, including college campuses, bothers me a lot. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
"someone who was [sexually assaulted] would be infinitely more motivated to help document the problem" This post seems to be laboring under the false assumption that those who have experienced sexual assault are likely to report their experience. More often than not, sexual assault goes unreported. Perhaps victims think it isn't worth the trouble or is insignificant, or they're trying to cover for a friend or are afraid of retribution. For women, there's a victim-blaming culture that places a higher burden of proof on the victim to support their claim (the analogy here would be, if you claimed you were robbed the first question the police asks you is if you locked the door in the first place). For men (and to a lesser extent women), the culture believes they cannot be sexually assaulted, because they should enjoy the attention and anyone who claims otherwise is simply being a wuss. Withoutaname (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
There's two different scenarios that result in two possibly different biases. For criminal reports, yes, sexual assault is more likely under-reported. For anonymous surveys focusing on something like sexual assault, people with a traumatic experience are, on average, more motivated to respond than those who haven't had such an experience. That results in a numerator that might approach reality, but a denominator that's smaller (due to non-response) and, thus, a possible over-estimate of the rate. On the whole, it's really hard to measure the true rates. MarmotHead (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It's unreasonable to assume that the biases created by people who are less motivated to respond "no" and victims who are less motivated to respond "yes" balances out perfectly. Plus, if the survey is anonymous, then isn't it a lot less difficult to just answer "yes" on a survey than reporting something and possibly getting tangled up in something they see as too much effort?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
All of this is addressed within the report if you take even a casual interest in checking your facts rather than drawing all your conclusions from one line in a news story. Appendix 4, beginning at about page 200. TL;DR summary: yes, non-responder biases exist, and it's impossible to measure them precisely, but estimates (based on incentivised responses, early/late responses, and comparisons to previous surveys on the subject) suggest the margin of error is only a few percentage points. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Personally if someone said "1 in 5 get sexually assaulted on campus" then I'd probably believe them due to my own experiences, but that's the problem, isn't it? These things become less about sound science and method and more about confirming worldviews and preconceived notions. These kinds of surveys can act as illustrations of the problems, but progressives and advocates can't keep parroting them over and over as if they were confirmed rock-facts, because they're not, they're not much scientific than the surveys I did in high school by passing around pieces of paper. Doing very objective, scientific studies on the how much rape actually occurs is an extremely hard thing to do for a variety of reasons, even with unlimited resources. From a strategic perspective harping on with these self-reporting surveys with low participation only confirms the MRA talking point that feminists are cooking books and exaggerating the issue for political gain while throwing scientific rigor out the window. Hentropy (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Drug Extortion[edit]

By now, everyone has heard of Martin Shkreli, the guy who bought an obscure but vital generic drug that was only being manufactured by one company, and jacked up the price 50 fold. So, anyone else feel like organizing a petition to the US government asking for price controls on drugs, forbidding sudden increases without strong justification? CorruptUser (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Increases above a certain amount should be reviewed for life saving treatments where people can be gouged. This guy has come into a company before, gotten a huge salary to jack prices up, and then got the boot for acting like a nut. People either don't care what he does or he's there to look like the bad guy. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
How dare you suggest that the government should interfere in the free market! Scandalous! Of course, if the US had a decent health system then the cost to the patient would be minimal - or, in my case, because I'm over 60, free. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Heh, well you are preaching to the choir here. I work in depth with health care and I have seen how people screwed first hand in how things operate. It's difficult sometimes to witness when you can't do anything. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
None of this would have happened if the US had a universal health care system. If you are negotiating for several million services a year you got another kind of leverage thaen someone literally negotiating the price for his or her life. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but I sincerely hope that stunts like this might help push the electorate leftward, at least where healthcare is concerned. Blitz (Complaints Box) 03:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
It almost certainly is. The electorate is way too apathetic to be swayed by such trivial things. I mean, look at the turnout for national elections. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
A universal health care system will not fix this. Europe has similar problems with overly expensive medicines. If you have the life-saving medicine & a patent you can pretty much ask any price you want. What is needed is either less patents or more government regulations on pricing. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
This guy doesn't have a patent. The patent expired decades ago. It's just a drug that only one company manufactured with a very small consumer base. It takes time to retool factories to manufacture drugs to undercut assholes like this guy, so perhaps any major price increases should be announced 3 months in advance in order to let everyone else undercut you? Also, prescriptions should ALWAYS be made out for the name of the drug, never the brand name; need acetametaphin? Get that, not Tylenol. CorruptUser (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
In the USA, it largely doesn't matter which name they put on the prescription. Unless they've explicitly stated "dispense as written", pharmacists are legally permitted (or legally required in 11 states and Puerto Rico) to fill it with a generic equivalent. Compro01 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I mostly agree, and in my state (CT) at least pharmacies are required to give the generic unless the prescription specifically says "brand name only". The problem is, there are certain meds where the generic is significantly less effective (e.g. Tegretol and Synthroid) and there are some people on whom only brand name meds work. If you want a great analysis of this problem (and the American healthcare system in general) search for Steven Brill, he's very pragmatic and non-partisan (which is why both Democrats and Republicans hate him). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah ... I stand corrected. I simply assumed there was a patent. That does make it especially fucked up. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Catalan elections[edit]

I exchanged the BBC article with the Guardian's, because the former fails to mention that the independence lists won only ~48% of the vote. --Sophophobe (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Good enough mandate to me for a referendum. Stupid Spain. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
To call a referendum, yes, certainly. But as I understood, they declared the election itself to be the plebiscit and now want to commence the road to independence without any further referendum, don't they? For this, in my opinion, they do not have the mandate. --Sophophobe (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Well thats Spains fault. They've literally done everything absolutely wrong if they want to avoid Catalan actually becoming independent, starting first by responding to pretty much every call for the idea with "fuck off". Britain won the first independence Referendum by actually being willing to debate it, thus not letting the SNP have the ball the entire time. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Since I am from the US I had no idea what lists were. I also didn't do enough research on the election so your link is superior.--Owlman (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. The pro-independence CUP is a party, whereas the larger indenpendence block went as a list. I think it's fair to phrase that all parties are lists, but not all lists are parties. --Sophophobe (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
If 48% were a mandate for independence at that very moment, Quebec would be independent. I don't really care much one way or the other about Catalan independence, only so much: If Catalonia were poor, they would not talk independence. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
48% is still really close to a simple majority, though. It shows the momentum is building, gravely. I bet a lot of anti-separatists pissed their pants at that result. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:59, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
49.42% is even closer. money and the ethnic vote, as they so stupidly said... I don't want to predict any outcome of a hypothetical referendum on independence, but given that Rajoy is almost surely on the way out, I'd call it a tossup. Unless it happens before December of this year, which it won't. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Do not discount numbers just because closer have happened before or it's less than a majority. People love going "see only 45% of Scotland who voted wanted independence" but that's still 45% of a country, just 5% of from half, who wanted to break apart your country and dissolve any reason why it's a "united kingdom", that's not ignorable. With Catalonia, thats 48% getting to play with the ball alone because Spain refuses to beat them by actually debating the issue instead of telling them to fuck off. That will be why Catalonia becomes free, if it does. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
catalonia is already free. Its independence that it is after. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Those for Catalan independence might see it a bit different. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
And those trying to make a fair and reasonable assessment of the situation probably wouldn't. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Obama prosecuting global warming deniers under RICO[edit]

The link on this WIGO page is to a right wing Daily Caller hit piece and I cannot find a single source for this claim anywhere on the internet that is not coming from a right wing news source. The actual, REAL, story is that some scientists argued that deniers *could* possibly be prosecuted, but this link is garbage and falls under a narrative of "OBAMA WANTS TO PUNISH ALL WHO OPPOSE HIM." Take this off the WIGO. — Unsigned, by: 67.0.156.207 / talk / contribs 23:08, 28 September 2015‎

Have to agree but just vote it down if you don't like it. Scream!! (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
We can and do move stuff to blogs or clogs if appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


Palestinian Flag[edit]

It was not raised "unilaterally". It was just raised. It was raised as the result of an overwhelming vote of the member nations of the United Nations. — Unsigned, by: 86.11.255.101 / talk / contribs 13:45, 1 October 2015‎

Where the fuck is the Sealand flag?!?!?!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Next to the Kickassia Molassia flag.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I demand recognition for the flag of Grand Fenwick! - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe that the flag of the oppressed Conch Republic is still not flown.--Owlman (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

In all seriousness, this event holds some significance. Now we just have to get Palestine to be a state recognized by Israel, and not be bombed every other year by strikes which intentionally target civilians. Raising a flag is easy. Raising a country is hard. I hope both happen. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

intentionally target civilians- Pbfreespace3 [bullshit]--Arisboch ☞✍☜ ☞✉☜ 23:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, let me explain. Israel launches bombs. These are bombs which are accurate to within the meter (GBU, JDAM, drone missiles). The IDF intentionally fires these rockets into the Gaza Strip, a heavily populated area. The Israelis aren't stupid. They know full well that every single time they drop a bomb, they risk civilians getting killed. In many cases, houses in civilian areas were blown up. Whether enemy soldiers were present in the house at the time of the bombing is irrelevant. The fact is they are knowingly attacking civilian targets. I'm not claiming their goal is to kill civilians. Their goal is to kill Hamas. The problem is, Hamas and everyone else living there are blurred, to the point where you don't know. Where does one draw the line on who is a Hamas member or not? Are Hamas civilian leaders legitimate targets? How about Hamas construction workers or tunnel builders? Suppliers? Janitors? People in funeral processions? Electrical power stations? What is and isn't a legitimate target by your definition? The IDF assumes that anyone who houses Hamas soldiers is guilty of supporting them, and therefore are legitimate targets. This is an absurd claim. Do the parents and wives of soldiers deserve to die just because they are related to a soldier? The point is the IDF is knowingly attacking civilian areas, which could reasonably be construed as a war crime by international law. Do you disagree with my assessment? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The Hamas makes Gaza a battleground. If Israel wouldn't fire back, they'd be idiots. When they DO fire back, they're considered by such... people such as you or Mona as villains. So better the latter than the former.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
False dilemma. Bombing Palestinian civilian areas and doing nothing aren't the only options. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:20, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Pray tell what the other option would be... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
How about deposing Hamas and leaving again without killing civilians? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Than clowns such as Mona, Chris or whatever're gonna get their panties in a bunch about Israel being teh evel aggressor again. And it also places the Israeli soldiers under too much risk (Israel doesn't do suicide missions).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian attorney Diana Buttu interviewed on Democracy Now! and asked about Israel claims to precisely target and not civilians:

Yes, he’s precise. He is precisely bombing children, and he’s precisely bombing women. If their targeting is so precise, then what he’s saying is actually correct, that they are actually targeting women and children and civilians. And so, at the end of the day, as much as they can try to coat this as being somehow an aggression against some elements within the Gaza Strip, we know otherwise. And the death tolls in these past three aggressions against the Gaza Strip, these past three massacres, really lay out the picture that is actually happening there.



Amy, it’s important to keep in mind exactly what we’re talking about here in the Gaza Strip. This is a place that is twice the size of D.C., Washington, D.C., and it’s got 1.8 million people in it. Half of the population is under the age of 18. As I said, 43 percent is under the age of 14. If you are age seven at this point in time, you’ve been through three bombing campaigns by the Israelis. So, at the end of the day, as much as the Israelis want to claim that they’re using this target precision devices, etc., the toll is really being taken out on Palestinian civilians. So far to date, the Israelis have dropped more weaponry and more bombings than over the three-week campaign that took place in 2009. They’ve admittedly dropped more than 800 tons of bombs on the Gaza Strip.This is simply Israeli propaganda at its finest. When you look at the death toll and you see the numbers, then the numbers actually speak volumes. When you see that 80 percent of the people who have been killed are civilian, when you see that half of them are women and children, and when you see that who they’re actually bombing is a population 43 percent of whom are under the age of 14, then this is very easy to pierce through the propaganda.


But more importantly, I think it’s important to keep in mind that when Israel talks about who it’s targeting and what it’s targeting, they’ve never proffered any proof or any evidence for what it is that they’re trying to hit. They simply make these allegations, and networks like Fox take it in and simply accept it as being fact. But the fact of the matter is, is that when all of this is over, Israel has never allowed independent investigators to come in and see what it is that Israel is doing. At the end of the day, as much as Israel tries to claim that they’re not targeting civilians, they are, and the casualties speak volumes.

If Israel isn't specifically targeting civilians, it is "targeting" with such reckless disregard for civilian lives that it may as well be.---Mona- (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In some ways the rhetoric and debate over the various Gazan conflicts over the years is rather easy to boil down. Hamas is an organization that has no intention of long-term negotiations, their position on Israel is clear (it should be eliminated one way or another), and everyone knows they intentionally use civilians as human shields to make sure that civilian death tolls are as high as possible during these conflicts. They create fortifications around schools and hospitals expressly for this purpose. So if it's accepted that fighting Hamas is the only way to end them, we also have to accept that they're not going to play by the rules and use civilians as shields. On the other hand, Israel did create this problem by boxing Gaza in and making no attempt at developing it after so many bombings. However, it's not really Israel that wants high civilian casualties, it's Hamas, because it plays right into their propaganda campaign. Hentropy (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Whatever real or imagined ills the closed border has produced (don't forget that Israel ships in trucks with goods every day. Even on the Sabbath and even during war) have to also be laid at the feet of Egypt. After all, Rafah is also a border crossing and Egypt has in recent years driven spikes into the earth to make tunnels harder to build. So whatever reasons Israel has for closing its border to Gaza and only letting legit humanitarian aid through, Egypt shares at least some of these concerns. Now why is that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oregon Shooting[edit]

You might want to brace yourself people, because early reports indicate that the shooter was intentionally targeting Christians. I think Rupert Murdoch and Mike Huckabee just creamed their pants in perfect sync. Hentropy (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Initial reports paint a somewhat more complicated picture. His email handle was IRONCROSS45; he claimed to be a conservative Republican and a Wiccan. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Reports seem more confused than usual. (Fucking hell it's depressing that there's a 'usual' anything with regards to school shootings.) There's a possibility he was posting on a 4chan board boasting about his attack before it happened, unless that was a shitposting coincidence - via wehuntedthemammoth. Some reports claimed a skew in favour of female victims, but that was walked back in subsequent reports. The anti-Christian angle has better support, but the reports I've read make it seem more like a sadistic twist to the killings rather than a motivation. Given how long the myth lasted with Columbine based on cack-all evidence I'm sceptical to say the least of a religious motivation around this one. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Abbas ends peace process[edit]

So help me get this straight... Part of the Oslo accords was Arafat recognizing Israel's right to exist for the first time. If Abbas does not feel bound by it, does that mean he does not feel bound to recognize the state of Israel? And furthermore, Oslo was the first time that Israel recognized the right of the PLO to represent anybody, in this case the Palestinians. Does that in essence mean that Abbas has implicitly granted Israel the right to ignore the PLO? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Abbas is not "ending the peace process", nor is he advocating shredding up the Oslo accords. Read the first 2 paragraphs of the news article again. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It appears your reading comprehension is sufficiently deficient that it would be good if you never edit anywhere near any of these subjects - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Did he or did he not say he does not feel bound by the Oslo accords? What is the main thing the PLO agreed to in the Oslo accords? They agreed to accept the existence of Israel and cease the immediate violence against it. If he does not feel bound by that, doesn't that in essence mean the third intifada? And don't come with quoting him hedging his words. He is a politician. He is talking to the UN. Of course he will throw in ifs and buts. The main point remains: Abbas does not feel bound by the Oslo accords. Any semblance of the peace process has been unilaterally ended by Abbas. This will go down in history as a said day for the Middle East. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
alternatively it was ended by Israel doing whatever the fuck it wanted, including colonizing another nation it occupied, because America protected it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
What other nation? Jordan? Egypt? Lebanon? Syria? Sealand?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Oslo wasn't really a peace process. It was more finding a collaborator among a Palestinian elite to do Israel's dirty work of policing the Palestinians in order to lessen the cost of the occupation while Israel was allowed to expand its settlements (to historic levels during the 90's and still expanding to this day). It's not really a peace process as much as it is an annexation. The PA is more or less propped up by US aid and Israel's security coordination, which Abbas himself called "sacred". And the US and EU should be ashamed of themselves for continuing with these diplomatic theatrics that aren't built in the Palestinians' favor. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, the PLO isn't killing enough Jews to find your favor anymore, I guess.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Aris, well if you dn't know I'm not sure why you are here. Fuck off with stupid questions. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the PLO are corrupt sellouts, so I'm not sure why this question was directed at me. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a minor reminder from the reality based community: When Israel removed all Jews from Gaza, what they got in return was Hamas rocket fire. So maybe there is a reason why the peace process is halting... And there is also the "minor" fact that Abbas has flat out rejected all peace proposals by the Olmert and Netanyahu governments. Even an invitation to "talks without preconditions". You tell me about stubbornness Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

So clearly we just need to keep on colonizing another nations territory because nobody will stop us, right? Infact, we'll have people like Avenger standing right beside us saying "well the Israeli settlers live there now so you can't just ignore their voice, even if it means they say they wanna have their colonies be part of Israel" --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
What is the time limit, after which you can't simply deport a part of the population by naming them "colonizers", "settlers", "evel, naaaaasty Ziooonists" or whatever? Would some right-wing ruler of an African country be in his right by throwing out any whites by calling them the descendants of colonizers? Would the Tibetans be in their right to throw out any Han Chinese by calling them colonizers? Would the Baltic states be in their right to throw out ethnic Russians by calling them the remnants of Soviet oppression? Would China or whoever has the biggest balls in that corner of Asia be in their right to take Siberia away from Russia by calling Russia a colonizer and thief of Asian land? What is the time limit when land becomes the completely kosher, helal, legal and whatever part of a country? How long do "settlers", "colonizers" or whatever have to hold on to land, until no-one contests their claims to land as "native"?
And remember, how (almost) the whole world betrayed Taiwan (thanks for leading the way, Tricky Dick) to snub Russia and continue to have a supply of cheap shit Made in China?
--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You're right that the world betrayed Taiwan, but not by supporting the PRC, but by legitimizing the ROC as ruler of Taiwan by actually referring to them by the name of the island they took over. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:25, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
So better Taiwan to "Red" China?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I know it might sound like an odd suggestion, but how about Taiwan to the Taiwanese? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:30, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Cool. How'd you do that? Who are the Taiwanese?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
How'd I do that? No idea. I don't exactly have a lot of political or military force to throw around, ya know. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:41, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well if you want China to invade the island...--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
See what I'm talking about? For the whole world, on the one hand, Taiwan belongs to China, on the other hand, they don't wanna China to invade Taiwan China. Cool, eh?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It already has, successfully. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:34, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
If you want the other china to invade the place, which will be infinity worse off for the local Taiwanese than the ROC has been. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
And the West wants to continue receiving cheap computer mice Made in China, so they're not gonna have enough balls to save ROC Taiwan from China, I'm afraid.
And Ukraine; They thought, that the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances gonna save their asses, but nope, Russia just snatches (no Michael Rosen Youtube Poop jokes, please) Crimea and some clowns here even expressed some kinda sympathy for that, since the Ukrainian SSR got Crima 1954 and not earlier. So how old has a transfer of rulers of land to be for it to become ironclad and the new rulers of the land to become completely and utterly native?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure they'd be more motivated to take out a native Taiwanese government than a rival Chinese government? I mean, sure, relations have been getting less hostile lately, but still. Also, I'm not exactly arguing for this with the expectation that it'll actually suddenly happen, ya know. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yes, because an Independent Taiwan is no longer working under the framework of "Being China" just with a different ideology, it's straight up claiming to not be China, part of China or related to China at all. for a country that considers the ROC held areas to be its own provinces, held under some other government, that's declaring independence from them, which would be unacceptable, obviously. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair point. But still, it's not completely sure they'd actually go ahead and invade it. Is the current PRC as bold as Mao's PRC? And hey, why couldn't relations be friendly? The Chinese communist faction has generally been supportive of Mongolia's independence, despite most of it having been ruled by China in the past at certain points. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:11, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Because the PRC didn't fight a major civil war with Mongolia over who would get to be "China", it was already free (and under soviet protection) when Mao took the mainland. For the PRC, Taiwan becoming "independent" of the ROC would be the same as Manchuria declaring itself its own state, or Texas suddenly re-declaring the Republic of Texas. Whether it would go through with it or not, official PRC policy is that Taiwan Independence is a full pretext for a military invasion. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
In other words, might makes right.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
One wonders where you got that from, but ok. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
What about Tibet, though? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Military is already busy holding it's boot down on that neck, not that you give two shits. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
not that you give two shits- Paravant [citation needed]--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Fuck off, you know perfectly well where and if you don't you shouldn't be involved. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't particularly care for the theocracy the Chinese replaced with their own dictatorship when they invaded Tibet.... But I guess that's not what you're on about Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The two Germanies only tacitly acknowledged each others existence in some legal form in the 1970s. West Germany never really got to saying that they recognized the GDR and scare quotes were a sign of red-baiting bona fides... There were even some right wing members of Parliament who voted against the border with Poland being the Oder-Neiße-line in 1990. And the ROC still claims Tibet and even Mongolia... At least officially. That being said, it would be much less of a headache if the security council seat would still belong to the ROC instead of the PRC.... They could probably even have thrown out the Russians in 1991 on account of them not being the USSR... And as for some of the points raised above: Do the ethnic Russians who were born in the Baltic count or don't they? Do refugees of the late 1940s and their descendants have a right to return? If the Russians in Siberia are not evil colonizers who have to be thrown out, what about the Chinese in Uigur and Tibetan land? And how does the Jewish community in Hebron that maintained a steady presence until the massacres of 1929 and 1936-39 before being driven out again in 1948 - only to return again in 1967 constitute colonizers? Couldn't it be argued that the Arabs in Hebron are the real colonizers there? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Uhh, Avenger, you might want to read your demographic history again and stop with the propaganda. Hebron, known as al-Khalil, was composed of 1,500 Jews in 1922 out of a population of 17,000, meaning that the rest were Arabs. But yep, those Arabs were definitely colonizing that area. Just ignore the formation of the Jewish COLONIZATION Association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Jewish_Colonization_Association) and aliyah groups. Source: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7CP7fYghBFQC&pg=PA887&dq=al-khalil+jews&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QQqZUJ-qCsKw0QX004GwBw#v=onepage&q=al-khalil%20jews&f=false.
And Israel never ended its occupation of Gaza and transferred the Jewish settlers to live in the West Bank. The Gaza settlers only constituted 2% of the population, and you damn well know its withdrawal from Gaza was not about peace. From senior advisor to Ariel Sharon, Dov Weisglass: "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process... And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with… a [US] presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians." Source: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n15/mouin-rabbani/israel-mows-the-lawn from Haaretz 2004 article.
Human Rights Watch on occupation of Gaza: "Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade. [. . .] In addition to controlling the borders, coastline and airspace, Israel will continue to control Gaza’s telecommunications, water, electricity and sewage networks, as well as the flow of people and goods into and out of the territory. Gaza will also continue to use Israeli currency. [. . .] A report by legal experts from the Israeli Justice Ministry, Foreign Ministry and the military made public on Sunday, however, reportedly acknowledges that disengagement 'does not necessarily exempt Israel from responsibility in the evacuated territories.'" Source: https://www.hrw.org/news/2004/10/28/israel-disengagement-will-not-end-gaza-occupation
TL;DR Tired of debunking this over and over again. Make it stop. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
How the fuck can you occupy an area without being in the area? --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
See, that's why I like you, Arisboch. You never cease to apply logic to deflate the anti-Zionist balloon. Unfortunately the anti-Zionist and Antisemite crowd doesn't bother much with logic. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thx :3 purrrrr --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you even read what Human Rights Watch said? Or did you ignore it because nonpartisan findings don't jive with you? Would you rather I cite Electronic Intifada or Mondoweiss? Israel maintains effective control over Gaza. You can try to deny it all you want, but the UN, Red Cross, and human rights organizations all determine that Israel occupies Gaz. You missed the part i quoted above about Israel conceding that it maintains responsibility for Gaza. But hey, just ignore it and revert to the same ole cliches. ChrisAmiss (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Amusing Bibi tangent[edit]

He seems to like embarrassing himself at the UN. Recall that Wile E. Coytote bomb for which he was widely mocked even by the Atlantic's ace Zionist? He just pulled this bizarre 44 seconds of glaring in silence that has the Internet engaged in much fun again. He totally has no sense of what is mock-ably hilarious. ---Mona- (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

NO-ONE tops McCains attempt to grope Obama's ass.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
In case you want to hear the man talk in his own words - whatever you can say against him, his English oratory is rather good for a second language speaker - here is a link. Though unfortunately some British twat in the background can't keep their snout shut... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

What about the Gazan border with Egypt?[edit]

Does that also constitute "occupation"? (which is a term you redefine just as it suits you - or so it would appear...) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, Egypt is pissed at the Hamas for trying to stir up shit to help their good buddies form the Muslim Brotherhood.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
But why does no "pro-Palestinian" activist ever mention that? This would almost indicate, their stance on Palestine to have reasons other thaen those openly stated... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I see, what you mean, but the motivation is, in most cases, rather anti-Western (as with, say, Mona or Chris).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Come on! Egypt isn't taking over territory or attacking, unlike some who apparently are only killing kids in self defence. Scream!! (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
You mean the incident at the beach? C'mon, even the Israelis don't have the magic bullet.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
""Children make up for 30 percent of the civilian casualties," said the UN children's agency Unicef, adding that the toll was based on deaths which it was able to verify and was likely to rise." Last year - the first item on my Google. Scream!! (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
They still don't have the magic bullet...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, fuck you for a cold hearted bastard. Done! Scream!! (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
My parents were married, when I was born. About the cold-hearted... There is no way to completely avoid civilian casualties. So the situation is either the Israelis do not shoot back and encourage Hamas and their buddies to shoot more at them and hit Israeli civilians (not that Hamas rockets, bullets or mortars do make a difference between Israelis, Arabs or Arab Israelis) or shoot back and be labelled villains by such clowns as you or Mona. Nice choice, eh? Better being a living dog in the eyes of the world than a dead lion.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well since no one has magic bullets we might as well start using cluster muntions and anti infantry landmines again. Hell, lets bring back carpet bombing.--Owlman (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The strawmanning is strong in this one.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Listen, when you fire missiles into a city yo hit civilians, I get that, but they hit a beach; I doubt that they wanted to kill those kids or hit civilians in general, but who do you expect would be hit. The US is currently getting shit for hitting a hospital which, according to the Afghan government, had many members of the Taliban. I doubt we wanted to kill the staff or children there, but we made a callous decision to bomb that area. My example of cluster bombs, etc was to show that there aren't 'smart bombs', just bombs that are more controlled, but accepting civilian causalities as collateral damage is a dangerously callous road in war.--Owlman (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's accepting reality as it is and not wishing for some kinda magic ninjas or magic bullets. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but then why should we ban certain weapons like cluster bombs; the US hasn't because they assume it is more effective in war, but other western countries see that it has a high civilian casualty rate.There are better ways to take down your enemy, but bombing indiscriminately will only legitimize them.--Owlman (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
If Israel would be bombing them really indiscriminately, there'd be no Gaza Strip left, there'd be a Gaza Parking Lot now.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
(EC) You guys speculating about the nefarious ulterior motives pro-Palestian activists must obviously have is funny and all, but has it ever occurred to you that Egypt hasn't invaded, annexed, occupied and/or bombed Palestinian territories as opposed to a certain other entity? All this acting clueless and going "oh it must be because of antisemitism" every time when you're met with enmity towards Israel/Zionism is kinda getting old tbh. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well bombing a beach and an UN hospital seems indiscriminate to me.--Owlman (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is perfect.--129.69.212.19 (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say Antisemitism. You did. Why? I don't know. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
He maybe thought, that you were implying it, perhaps?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
"Nobody's perfect." Haha, that's the most amateurish attempt at apologetics I've seen so far. But that you still felt the need to be apologetic is quite telling. :P 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they only bomb people in their own borders, which is, of course, completely halal, kosher and legal, amirite?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Also see "Whataboutism" Scream!! (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
So there are two types of dead Palestinian: Those that you can blame on Israel (about which there is hour long indignation) and those that were killed by Assad, ISIS, Hamas, Egypt, anti-vaxxers, the PLO, or any other thing not Israel about which you are silent. And if we dare raise the disconnect in this and remind you of the latter group, you cry "whataboutism". Ah well... If it weren't so transparent, one could almost laugh... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Egypt didn't steal Palestinian land or lock the refugees up in the open air prison that is Gaza, whihc Egypt bombs the fuck out of every so often -- leaving hundreds or thousands of kids dead and maimed. Zionists did and do that. Zionists who founded and maintain the State of Israel which has become a de facto 1-state, apartheid state. Israel. Not Egypt. But this Egypt whataboutery is very common among hasbara-ists and other Zionist apologists.---Mona- (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
You forgot the time, when Egypt reigned over the Gaza Strip. And no, the Israeli Apartheid is still a lie. Israeli Arabs have more rights than in any Arab country.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Egypt's "reigning" ove the Gza strip did not do the heinous things to the Palestinians that Zionists did and do. Egypt didn't put the refugees in the open air prison that is the Gaza strip, or slaughter them in that pen. As for apartheid, Desmond Tutu, the ANC and our own RW article disagree with you.---Mona- (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

When Egypt would handled the situation right, there would be no refugees there, after all, there are no refugees from the WWII now, right? And, no, Israeli Apartheid is still a lie. Arab Israelis have much more right than any Arab in an Arab country. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hamas had every change to transform Gaza into a blooming model of peace and stability. A Singapore of the Mediterranean, even. Instead they decided to kill all dissidents, tear down all infrastructure not useful for killing Jews and started bombing Israel almost from day one. I for one support Israel's right to hit back. As a matter of fact, I think they are showing too much restraint. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see we're deflecting to Egypt whenever Israel gets criticized for occupying Gaza. Predictable. But anyways, Egypt doesn't control the airspace, waters, and borders to the extent that Israel does. Egypt doesn't control the population registry and did not take the territory as a hostile army, unlike Israel who did in 1967. Under the Hague Resolutions and international law, Egypt does not have effective control over Gaza for it to be considered occupation, and that's the conclusion of the Red Cross and human rights organizations. You can try to deflect all you want, but it doesn't help you. ChrisAmiss (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, Israel has weapons that can target within a meter. The closest Hamas or other groups were to civilians was about 200 to 300 meters, which is still a 199 to 299 meter difference from the span Israel's weapons can target. If Israel's weapons can target within a meter, and yet they're still hitting civilians despite the level of meter difference that Hamas or other Palestinian armed fighters have in proximity to those civilians, then the logical conclusion is that Israel is targeting civilians in an attempt to terrorize them. You can check the testimonies of Breaking the Silence, who were sent into Gaza to "shoot anything that moves". And the statistics seem to confirm this disparity, with over 70% of deaths being civilians. And don't give me the garbage about warnings, because even in areas that Palestinians move to like UN shelters, they were still fired upon, hence no safe place for anyone in Gaza during the war. And the recent Physicians for Human Rights report in January confirmed that in 68 cases of Palestinians being injured, 63 did not receive a warning. ChrisAmiss (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Within a meter, you say? I expect Israel also has regular-ass artillery firing "dumb" shells, and a lot more of that than they have "smart" munitions. Just because someone has a scalpel doesn't mean they use it to cut up stew meat.
In a bygone age, the gold standard for precision artillery was fifty yards circular area probable, which means half the rounds will land within fifty yards of the aim point. Obviously, half of them will land further away. When the guns wear out, then that accuracy is no longer obtainable. In that condition, the pieces are still suitable for area fire, and are usually sold to client states who can't afford guns with tight carriages and well-defined bores. Horses for courses...
I don't know if the IDF still does "roof knocking" before firing for effect, but they know what collateral damage they can expect with any given style of ordnance. They make their choices, and the consequences follow. I am glad I don't live there, but I am not happy about living in a world with shooting wars still going on. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Amnesty's report on OCL: "Amnesty International has seen no evidence that rockets were launched from residential houses or buildings while civilians were in these buildings. In Gaza, Palestinian fighters, like Israeli soldiers, engaged in armed confrontations around residential homes where civilians were present, endangering them. The locations of these confrontations were mostly determined by Israeli forces, who entered Gaza with tanks and armored personnel carriers and took positions deep inside residential neighborhoods. A resident of a neighborhood in the center of Gaza City told Amnesty International that, as Israeli forces entered Gaza and as rumors spread that they were going to advance into the center of town, Hamas fighters located a 50mm mounted machine-gun in the street by the corner of his building. [. . .] Hamas and other groups generally store weapons in civilian areas and there is no reason to believe that it was any different during Operation “Cast Lead.” By doing so, it rendered such locations possible targets of attack and therefore exposed civilians who may have been present to risk. However, fighting in urban areas per se is not a violation of international humanitarian law, but the parties involved in the conduct of hostilities in an urban setting have an obligation to distinguish, and to ensure to the best of their ability, that their attacks only target military objects. Israeli forces have at their disposal a range of high-precision weapons capable of pinpoint targeting—within a meter—and recklessly attacking civilians or civilian objects simply because they are in the vicinity of fighters or other military targets cannot be justified." ChrisAmiss (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
We may be in vehement agreement, but our words are unlikely to affect the choices made by the IDF. The Shalom Achshav (Peace NOW) folks are harassed by their fellow Israelis. How much effect do they have? I don't know, but they did tell Glenn Beck to fuck off and go home some years back, so there is that... Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Public opinion has shifted, so there's always the chance for social mobilization to change things for the better and if the US sees that unanimously backing Israel poses no benefit (they really don't benefit from backing the occupation or Israel's military operations, so I don't know why they continue to do this). ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Chris, it's AIPAC and the rest of the Israel lobby, including Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban. Getting into or remaining in federal office if you are targeted by the money that lobby commands is very difficult. In some places impossible. There's a reason Hillary Clinton wrote an ass-kissing letter to Saban about how she and all of us must work hard to stop BDS.---Mona- (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The lobby isn't that strong as the Iran deal will show. Hillary Clinton just lacks principles, that's why she wrote that letter. Hillary justified Israel's targeting of civilians in shelters and hospitals. She doesn't need a lobby to force her to have abhorrent principles. Not even Bernie did that, he at least called Israel's attacks disproportionate and indiscriminate. As far as why the Democratic Party tends to have the same position on Israel than Republicans, that again is reflective of the lack of principles they have, or they may genuinely believe what the Israel PR machine tells them. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Chris, there has to be a reason U.S. politicians go out of their way to lavish praise and support for Israel, unto giving a standing ovation to fucking Benjamin Netanyahu in the Congress. It's called campaign fundraising. Going too strongly against the lobby is very risky. And not just the money. It's getting to be a much less potent charge now, but tagging a politician as anti-Semitic is death in many cases and AIPAC has been extremely promiscuous with that accusation. Sure, many elected officials actually do sincerely support Israel right or wrong, but the money is always a factor in a scenario involving politicians. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend this Brit news magazine show Dispatches, an episode titled Inside Britain's Israel Lobby. It's past time for a U.S. version of this investigation but the UK one is most illuminating.---Mona- (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Augustus Sol Invictus's resignation.[edit]

It annoys me endlessly that he writes XX Aprilis when it should be Ante diem XI Kal. Mai. - 11 days (counting inclusively) before the Kalends of May. In the Roman calendar you count down from landmark days like the Kalends, Ides, and Nones. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well it will be ad Kalendas Graecas when someone in the mainstream press points out this insiduous raping of the Latin language. O tempora! O mores! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
For better or for worse, though, language is whatever people make of it. All language conventions are arbitrary when you get down to it.
As for his resignation letter, I have to solemnly admit that I agree with much of it. I just hope he's self-aware enough to know that "Witness Ye"/"Hear Ye" stuff is downright silly. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:22, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Usually languages are most influenced by their native speakers. Hence Latin shouldn't change any more... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
When all the native speakers are dead, though, it's the people appropriating that people's language that get to—basically—do whatever they want with it. For Latin that would be: the Roman Catholic Church, taxonomists, and overly smug classicists. Whether society discourages people from raping (some) ancient cultures' languages or not is also pretty arbitrary. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:38, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I think the whole "got kicked out of a cult for being too hardcore with a goat" thing was more alarming, personally. Different strokes and all. Hentropy (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
There's plenty of nutty stuff the guy's been involved in, apparently, but 'being too hardcore with a goat' sounds like an extraordinary claim. I'd need more than just a rival libertarian's word to go along with that. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:59, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
what he do to the goat? Did he use it the way a prime minister would use pig? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough point, though I do think all politicians should be thoroughly vetted for animal-related mishaps in their past. It does appear to be a trend these days. Hentropy (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Stanford[edit]

Alternate title: People get upset when you tell them they've got it easy in life when they may not. ArcticVixen (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet another person who does not understand the concept of privilege Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I think all this talk about who is privileged and who isn't (in particular contexts) is just a bad strategy. Why not talk about various people's disadvantages in society instead? You can address exactly the same content without riling up all the people that don't feel privileged but still inevitably are, in some way. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:49, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Redefining a term just because it has become controversial is bad science and bad linguistics imho... If serious scientific studies indicate that the term "privilege" is not a good means to describe what it describes, there might be need for a new term. Right now you are - unless I misunderstood you - basically calling to change a useful and established term because some subreddits and people on 4chan dislike it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The idea that a society can exist without in-groups and out-groups is itself unrealistic and utopian. The actual cure would be segregation. But the effects of the cure would only be temporary; in the re-segregated societies there would still be people on the top of the ladder and people on the bottom. People will know, and make snap judgments about where you stand. And not everyone will be treated the same. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
What social justice activists who spam the word "privilege" at every opportunity misunderstand is that most people do not know the academic sociological definition of "privilege". To them, privilege is an accusation used to denigrate someone's accomplishments as being unearned. This is why people have visceral reactions when you talk about white privilege or male privilege. In their mind, privilege is entirely tied to wealth and how much as been "handed" to someone (and of course no one, not even Romney/Bush/Trump, believes anything has been handed to them). I'm an aquarium enthusiast, I know a lot of inside lingo and concepts about aquariums, but I don't get mad when random-ass people on the street don't know complicated concepts like the nitrogen cycle. If you want to teach people the sociological concepts of group-based power and privilege, you can, but you shouldn't expect people to know it from thin air, and lecturing them from nowhere doesn't do people much good. So when talking to regular people in regular contexts you should use regular terms, "disadvantage" is much more useful word when talking about these things. Hentropy (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not talking about redefining any terms at all. I'm talking about using a different, equally accurate (and IMHO more to the point) manner of phrasing the issue that will, instead of getting people all defensive and limiting public understanding, not rile people up and enhance public understanding. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:26, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I think there is something wrong if you are telling poor white folk they privileged. Race is not the only issue that causes someone to privileged or not. Poverty shuts so many doors for people regardless of race. Telling someone on or below the bread line, with no access to healthcare, decent education, poor job prospects, and poor housing, that at least you are not black seems pretty offensive to me. Its even more offensive when you tell them they are stupid and don't understand if they get annoyed by you telling em how great they have it AMassiveGay (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, when people talk about white privilege they don't mean that all or even the majority of whites have it oh so great. It's just a way of saying there's a problem X and white people don't experience problem X. My point is; why are we talking about people not suffering from problem X instead of talking about problem X and the people who are disadvantaged due to it? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:55, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
'they don't mean all or even the majority of whites' that's not how it usually comes across though is it. Anyhow, by that description, its just referring to wealthier whites doesn't it? Doesn't it all boil down to that anyway? I realise there there are huge issues surrounding race, but like it said, that isn't the complete picture. In the uk, notions of privilege are tied up in wealth and what school you went to. Old Etonians are over represented in parliament for example. I'd wager the same can be said for Oxbridge alumni. This is frequently discussed here. I wonder if the same applied to us? And if so is it discussed there? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Um, please read the part after that too. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I have no problem with addressing the actual problems people are facing but I guess what I am saying its not always possible to do that without separating why some people are advantaged and why some aren't. The schools example I gave, you have to recognise that top flight universities prefer candidates from certain schools, thereby disadvantaging state school pupils from poor areas. The problem I have with way privilege is used, it that it focuses on one aspect of privilege at the expense of aspects as if they were trivial, and how insulting and patronising this is to people who are in no privileged beyond the colour of their skin. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Although the focus is on the gender part of the race/class/gender trinity of the social justice movement's unhealthy fixations, this sums it up pretty well. Even in an academic sense, ranting to someone and/or lecturing them about their "privilege" when they're telling you they're having a hard time with something in their lives is among the most unhelpful responses imaginable. And of course it ignores the fact that, sometimes, white people are targeted for being white; I'll trust others here can find examples, it doesn't take more than a few seconds to find them on your own. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The whole concept of "privilege" seems backwards to me. The way I see it, it's not that whites are given special treatment, it's that people treat them like normal people (due to white people making up the majority of the population), and minorities are treated worse. It's not really white people having special privileges (implying that they need to be taken away), it's that others are disadvantaged, which is the real problem that need to be fixed, not ridding whites of their "privilege".TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You've completely missed the point. Everything you said privilege isn't is what privilege is. Certain groups are being treated as "normal" in a way other people aren't, when it should be that everyone is treated that way. The point of "privilege" is to point out those advantages and disadvantages in a way that highlights how unfair it is, by framing the advantages certain groups receive as if they were special privileges. The goal isn't to rid anyone of any privilege, it's to show people that these privileges which they considered to be normal treatment are actually things not enjoyed by entire demographics, and hopefully have them realize that these groups need to be treated better. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 15:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
But why frame other people's "the advantages certain groups receive as if they were special privileges" at all? Why not focus on what they really are: a lack of general disadvantages? And if I'm missing the point, then so is just about everyone who uses the term "privilege" against people as a way of attempting to guilt them or trying to invalidate their arguments when they really don't know a person but assume based on a single characteristic that your life is easier than theirs.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
This is your fallback from literally not having ever bothered to understand the words you were arguing against, and now you do you've decided the rest of the world must be wrong. Have you ever considered creationism? Failing that, you need to contemplate your foolishness for a bit longer before followup whines questions will be taken seriously - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I was going off of what Frederick said, and how it didn't make sense to me. Secondly, I think it's a little silly to call the self-proclaimed social scientists (not saying social science as a whole is fake, because I know I'll be misunderstood) and the people who read their whiny articles "the rest of the world". If a vocal minority wants to arbitrarily redefine the word "privilege" so that nobody knows what they're talking about, fine, but you can't just get pissy when people don't agree with it or understand. If you're going to act all high-and-mighty and insulting instead of trying to explain things when talking to people like me who aren't part of the social justice elite, then we will just ignore you. No one has anything to lose if, instead of listening to you bitch about us not using your word you hijacked correctly, they just forget about you. Thirdly, it is interesting that you compare me to a creationist, as if I'm going against some sort of actual scientific consensus as opposed to something that came out of a social justice circle-jerk.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

YAY, privilege shitfest nr. 32891659302569230156902315!!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You do know what the ! symbol means in mathematics? 4! for example equals 4*3*2*1.... I'm not sure conventional notation is even able to print out the number you are invoking... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I heard about numbers (I forgot, which, though) so fucking long, that even if the whole matter in the universe got converted into paper and ink, it wouldn't be enough to write it down.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I dimly recall having read a Wikipedia entry on the record for the biggest number ever used in a serious mathematical proof of something... WP articles on math can get weird Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Numbers greater than twelve are witchcraft. Nobody has that many fingers. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope, fingers til 21 are OK :D--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Aren't there weird ways to count with your knuckles and stuff that are employed in Asian countries? Maybe that explains the "Asians are good at math" stereotype... If I am not entirely mistaken, a similar system was employed by the Babylonians and is responsible for us having sixty minutes to the hour... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
See the Wikipedia article on Ancient Egyptian multiplication. Also known as the Russian peasant method. SmartFeller (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Alabama DMVs[edit]

So wait; only people who can drive are allowed to vote then? >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

back in the iirc Clinton years an effort was made to increase voting rates by letting you sign up via dmvs. Without those getting the vote out is much harder. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The US is one of the few countries where there is no form of government issued ID other thaen driver's licenses and passports. Goven that certain subsets of the population are unlikely to have or need either, requiring government issued ID in order to be able to vote is inherently racist and/or classist. The whole issue could of course be mitigated if some form of free government issued ID were introduced that is just ID. Like the French "carte d' identité" (I hope I spelled this correctly). But there are certain ingrained cultural aversions against this. Or so it would seem. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
no one wants id cards in the uk. Mainly due to costs, but I imagine some groups are concerned by the prospect of police stopping folk and checking id. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
So how do you prove who and how old you are if you want to vote or buy a beer? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
if they serve you, you are old enough. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
you just need your voting card to vote, sent through a little while before the election. You can register online so no need for id there either. If memory serves I've not been asked for other id, though truth be told its been since I have been able to vote. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In Germany you are registered to vote automatically. And you have to possess (not carry) valid government issued ID once you turn 16, which - coincidentally no doubt - is also the legal drinking age for beer and wine. The downsides to this are that - in theory - police may ask you for ID at any time (usually they have to at least invent a reason for it) and you must allow them to accompany you to your place if don't carry one with you. And of course the government knows where people live. There was a scandal recently that some of this data ended up being sold on the data black market. Though given what Facebook and the NSA already know about each and every one of us, I guess this is all peanuts... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: When there are elections you're eligible for in Germany, you gonna get a letter where to go to vote in your district (or a form you gonna send (for free inside of Germany) to the governmental office to get your documents to vote via mail). When you go to the polling station (often in schools and places like that), they gonna ask you for your ID. You show it and vote in a voting booth (always with paper ballots, Germany is old school, yo). In Germany, voting is easy (and also getting a replacement ID and/or passport (if you lost your valid one, your present one expired or is gonna expire soon and you need to travel) is really easy compared to the horror stories I heard from my friends with Russian or Ukrainian citizenship: You gonna go the the resident registration office, show them your ID/passport, fill out a form or two, pay a more or less reasonable fee and get the stuff in a few weeks. One of the reasons I'm not too pissed at my parents for having chucked the Russian citizenship to get the German one).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

you say peanuts I say fuck you, I've never paid for PPI stop fucking calling me AMassiveGay (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
WTH??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
the Ps that avenger added after my comment but inserted before it, makes my comment look like nonsense. It made sense when it was where it should be. Learn some wiki etiquette, avenger. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
There appears to have been a misunderstanding. What I was intending to say was that the amount of data being registered as a resident of a certain place and possessing a government issued ID constitutes is negligible compared to the amount of data the NSA and Facebook already have about us. And yes, I must agree with Arisboch that the German bureaucracy while sometimes frustrating (and on occasion subtly racist) is vastly preferable over the bureaucracy of many other countries... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
my apologies avenger it was arisboch who displaced my comment, which was in jest. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Well all's well that ends well, eh? Just one minor thing: Please use a capital letter when writing my nickname. I am rather partial to capital letters ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of that's not accurate. I'm pretty sure all state and territory DMVs issue ID cards that aren't driver's licenses to anyone who can't or doesn't want to qualify for a driver's license. I know for a fact this is true in California. However, this is not frictionless; you still have to fill out an application, usually show up in person with identity documents like your birth certificate, and pay an application fee (unless you can get it waived based on income). There are also some other government IDs that are often acceptable when an ID is required, like those for members of the military and certain government agencies. And passports are often accepted if you have one. But yeah, anyway, given that voter fraud in the U.S. is essentially nonexistent, the push for voter ID laws is a thinly-veiled attempt to keep minorities, the poor, etc. from voting, because they're less likely to have existing government IDs and less likely to be able to get them easily. --Ymir (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just use anything that satisfies the I-9 and call it a day. CorruptUser (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Antivax study[edit]

Article is behind a paywall. 73.172.190.166 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Not for me it ain't. Just accessed it 5 times to see if it was a usage limited thing - no. Scream!! (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
oh yeah? http://imgur.com/aLtTpl5 73.172.190.166 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't access it either. Hentropy (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Works fine for me. The description here already reveals most information, though, so you're not missing much. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I can access it fine from the UK. If there's a paywall it could be country specific (on IP address). You're welcome to replace it with a non-paywalled equivalent if you can find one. Or just vote it down. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Or sacrifice a goat to Odin... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

U.S. bombs Afghan hospital[edit]

Horrifying. The military was repeatedly and frantically given the coordinates before and during this atrocity. Médecins Sans Frontières tweeted: "The hospital was repeatedly & precisely hit during each aerial raid, while the rest of the compound was left mostly untouched." Twelve of MSF's staff and seven patients were killed; 37 people were seriously injured, 19 of them MSF staff.

MSF President Meinie Nicolai condemned the attack as "abhorrent and a grave violation of International Humanitarian Law."
---Mona- (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Obama ended two wars. This was one of them. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes. Obama, the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace prize. pffft.---Mona- (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure exactly how that happened either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

MSF releases the following statement:

Following an earlier statement Sunday morning reiterating MSF's call for an independent investigation of the bombing of its hospital in Kunduz, MSF General Director Christopher Stokes released this additional statement on Sunday, in response to claims from Afghan officials that MSF's hospital in Kunduz was routinely used by the Taliban for military purposes:



"MSF is disgusted by the recent statements coming from some Afghanistan government authorities justifying the attack on its hospital in Kunduz. These statements imply that Afghan and US forces working together decided to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital with more than 180 staff and patients inside because they claim that members of the Taliban were present.


This amounts to an admission of a war crime. This utterly contradicts the initial attempts of the US government to minimize the attack as 'collateral damage.'


There can be no justification for this abhorrent attack on our hospital that resulted in the deaths of MSF staff as they worked and patients as they lay in their beds. MSF reiterates its demand for a full transparent and independent international investigation."
---Mona- (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


This is a terrible crime. The pilot on the AC130 who fired the shots, as well as those who gave the orders to fire should be charged in a military tribunal, and if found guilty, stripped of their rank and imprisoned. Obama should also have his Nobel Peace Prize revoked, and the US should be investigated by the ICC for war crimes far worse than this heinous incident. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Problem is, if the ICC starts going after the U.S. then the rest of the world might have to get off their asses and do something. Yugoslavia in the 1990s showed the rest of the world isn't willing to do that, and there are no signs of that changing; the U.S. paid for 70% of the fighting in Libya for what was purported to be a joint operation, for fuck's sake. So you get this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
An AC-130 SpectreWikipedia's W.svg typically carries a crew of 13. The pilot does not "fire the shots." He has the job of driving around in circles while the gunners bring hellish smoke down upon the heads of those below, precipitating massive PTSD among the survivors. Fire missions are not undertaken lightly, and there will be records of how targeting decisions were made, up and down the chain of command. Investigation is underway, but whether those records ever see the light of day in the civilian sphere is another matter. This story will be worth following. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Fox is reporting that "a senior defense official" tells them the hospital was bombed because the Taliban were operating around the hospital and a few were being treated in it. This wouldn't have happened, per this official, if the Taliban hadn't been using the hospital as "human shields." So, the DoD's spin (and probable lies) has started.---Mona- (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
While I completely agree that an investigation of this event must happen, you have to understand that using civilians as hostages by hiding in an hospital also constitutes a warm crime: it's very, very dirty business on everyone's side, undoubtedly. I think Blade is correct about this. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
No. It is not a "dirty business" for doctors and hospitals to treat all human beings. This moral equivalence between bombing a hospital and killing staff and patients on the one hand, and the Taliban being in the area on the other, is repugnant. MSF has said nothing about being taken hostage by anyone but they absolutely are outraged at the bombing. Why would you believe DoD bullshit reported by Fox?---Mona- (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not the doctors and the hospital I'm accusing of dirty business here: if Taliban fighters were indeed in the building, it's dirty business on their side, and bombing the hospital was dirty business on the army's side - I'd say the Taliban are worse in this case, as they were the one using human shields in the first place. I'm gonna wait for an investigation before taking a definitive stance on this whole affair, but I'm also inclined to believe that armies generally don't bomb humanitarian facilities for no reason. The real question, now, is if these reasons are enough and if there wasn't a better alternative - again, I'm gonna wait.
The military lies about this sort of thing all the time. It will go like this: the story leaks, and since it is true, the army confirms that it happened. Then, the officer tells the PR person "just say the Taliban were inside the building using the doctors was human shields". The PR guy does that. Then, another lie, like "it was actually the Afghans who called in the strike meaning it wasn't our fault for bombing it so don't blame us". Then, when the truth comes out, there are so many lies that the truth is hard to tell an no one is supposed to know for sure what really happened. The US army does this propaganda as a matter of standard procedure, as do the Russians, the Chinese, Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Syrian government. It is just simple war propaganda that happens all the time. You also say that using the hospital as a firing position is a worse war crime than bombing the shit out of it for over an hour. I don't think I have to debunk that claim. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Also ? Drop the Nobel prize and military tribunal nonsense - you've already judged them guilty. Everyone's forced to act on limited information, and the fact is that shooting through a human shield is - for now, at least - more or less the only way to discourage anyone from taking them in the first place. That's why I genuinely think that weapons research can be a humanitarian pursuit... NewFrenchHotness (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

U.S. admits it bombed hospital, says it was justified[edit]

Glenn Greenwald:

Fox News yesterday cited anonymous “defense officials” that while they “‘regret the loss’ of innocent life, they say the incident could have been avoided if the Taliban had not used the hospital as a base, and the civilians there as human shields.” In its first article on the attack, The Washington Post also previewed this defense, quoting a “spokesman for the Afghan army’s 209th Corps in northern Afghanistan” as saying that “Taliban fighters are now hiding in ‘people’s houses, mosques and hospitals using civilians as human shields.'” AP yesterday actually claimed that it looked at a video and saw weaponry in the hospital’s windows, only to delete that claim with [a correction that they didn't see it].


The New York Times today – in a story ostensibly about the impact on area residents from the hospital’s destruction – printed paragraphs from anonymous officials justifying this strike: “there was heavy gunfire in the area around the hospital at the time of the airstrike, and that initial reports indicated that the Americans and Afghans on the ground near the hospital could not safely pull back without being dangerously exposed. American forces on the ground then called for air support, senior officials said.” It also claimed that “many residents of Kunduz, as well as people in Kabul, seemed willing to believe the accusations of some Afghan officials that there were Taliban fighters in the hospital shooting at American troops.”

MSF is outraged at this barbaric shit and released a statement:

“MSF is disgusted by the recent statements coming from some Afghanistan government authorities justifying the attack on its hospital in Kunduz. These statements imply that Afghan and US forces working together decided to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital with more than 180 staff and patients inside because they claim that members of the Taliban were present.



“This amounts to an admission of a war crime. This utterly contradicts the initial attempts of the US government to minimize the attack as ‘collateral damage.’


“There can be no justification for this abhorrent attack on our hospital that resulted in the deaths of MSF staff as they worked and patients as they lay in their beds. MSF reiterates its demand for a full transparent and independent international investigation.”

As Greenwld notes, the problem the U.S has is that MSF (Doctors Without Borders) is a highly respected organization with staff who risk their lives in war zones -- and who usually speak excellent English and can give compelling interviews. Professional elites who speak English are not so easily dismissed and ignored.---Mona- (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

President of Doctors Without Borders gives a fascinating -- and enraging -- interview to Andrea Mitchell who seems sympathetic to the claim this is a war crime.---Mona- (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Republicans along with US media spent months covering the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi. 3 people died at the Boston Marathon bombing. Something like 10 died in that recent shooting. But when 22 people die, the media spend just a few days and that's it. Imagine if Russia did this in Georgia or Ukraine. "Russian Air Force bombs hospital in Georgia, killing 22 civilians". Everyone in America would be clambering for war, at the least sanctions! I haven't actually talked to Republicans about this yet, but they would probably say something like "there were Taliban being treated in the hospital", as if that justified bombing it! They could say "it was caught in the crossfire, the airplane missed, they meant to hit fighters outside of it" or something like that, even though it was in the middle of a field, far away from other targets. Again. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
There's a world of difference between killing people in a military fuckup and killing people intentionally. CorruptUser (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
No one in the U.S. is paying attention because no Americans died. All your examples involved the deaths of Americans. We don't give a shit about some dead brown people in Bumfuckistan. --Ymir (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Imagine if Russia did this in Georgia or Ukraine...Everyone in America would be clambering for war, at the least sanctions! Hah! Clamoring for war? The neocons are always clamoring for war. The rest of the country is becoming isolationist. If the US media was so concerned about Russian war crimes then where were they during the Second Chechen war? Alsto003 (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Alex
How so? Killing people in a military fuckup and killing people intentionally. Anyone inside the building was going to be hurt or killed by the bombardment. The pilots knew that. The soldiers knew that. The man who told the gunner to shoot knew that. The way you talk about it, as a "military fuckup", makes it sound like it was just some little thing that isn't important. Just because it was a mistake doesn't mean it is anywhere near excusable. This incident is inexcusable, and those involved should be prosecuted and punished if found guilty. Even if it was an accident, it is still a crime. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
If you punish soldiers for honest mistakes, then you won't have any soldiers willing to fight for you .--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean, Arisboch? Everyone knows that one of the first foundations of a good army is discipline and order, and punishing soldiers for making mistakes is the main component of that. You don't want your troops to fuck up (ie. bombing hospitals for hours), or else your nation's credibility, your army's credibility, and your credibility are gone. Not to say that the US government and army had any credibility to begin with. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Here the US goes again.[edit]

Sometimes you I have to wonder if gun rights advocates aren't really trolling us all. Lets hear their defense to this one. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It'll be the same as always, no doubt. "We need more guns! Give a gun to every parent and child!" 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Arm the puppies! AyzmoCheers 14:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
MAIM KILL BURN! MAIM KILL BURN! Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Didn't take long for this to turn into political point scoring... as someone who lives in the town next to Newtown, how about at least letting their bodies go cold first? That goes for both sides. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
In a country where mass shootings happen regularly, it is impossible to wait until the last mass shooting is safely in the past before starting the discussion about mass shootings. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
When would be a good length of time anyways? We need to confront the reality of people screaming how this is an uncontrollable circumstance...when we are the only developed country that has one about every week. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
At least in the case of Newtown, waiting for 2 days (it was a Friday, so most of the heavy discussion didn't touch off until Monday) did everyone in our area a world of good (I didn't know any of them, but it severely disrupted the functioning of all the towns so I felt the impact). They're important issues, for sure, and I wouldn't want to end all discussion; I only think letting the shock wear off a little would help discussion a lot. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
At least give the families some time. It's just disgusting when it happens and both sides of the spectrum are screaming their positions, Democratic or Republican... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Just Do It
Mass shootings are happening at a rate of around one per day in the US [1]. It's now literally impossible to discuss it at all without it being 'too soon' after one tragedy or another. And that's even before considering accidents and suicides. The Onion had it right: Man Can’t Believe Obama Would Use Tragedy To Push Anti-Tragedy Agenda. I can't think of any other public safety issue where you get mendacious reasons for not discussing the problem after a high-profile case. Giving the people affected by it space is good. Preventing everyone else from trying to address the underlying problem while that process happens is irresponsible. At least get the ball rolling. At the moment, gun nuts shout from the rooftops that the discussion is 'too soon' and hope everyone will have forgotten about the high profile incident by the time it's no longer 'too soon'. If you agree - however noble your motivation for wanting a breather - you're making yourself part of the problem. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no "defense" because "gun rights advocates" didn't shoot the girl. The NRA and various authoritative gun safety organizations all agree that children should not have free access to guns and should only use them in very controlled environments, and parents of children should go to lengths to ensure that their child cannot access them. I know our monkey brains get shocked more when a death is an intentional killing as opposed to an automobile accident (in which case it's a total inevitability of modern life, can't do anything about it so don't even talk about it SCREW YOU!!!), but this isn't proof of anything other than one family who was wildly irresponsible with the storage of their guns. Hentropy (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not just one family. These incidents come up pretty regularly in the USA, & pretty seldom elsewhere. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
It's really simple. People kill people. With guns. Don't let the wrong kind of people get guns and you are fine. How do you know who the wrong kind of people are? Well, the fewer guns there the lower the chance for a wrong kind of human being to have a gun. Or you know, the Matt Santos plan from the West Wing: Make every single shot of ammunition traceable and require a permit for ammo-purchases... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
You're evading, as groups like the NRA stridently oppose absolutely any and all legal restrictions on firearms, including requirements for trigger locks and training. Guess what, when people are allowed to own guns with no restrictions whatsoever, some of them will do unwise things with them, like leave them lying around where their kids can grab them. Since you brought up automobiles, why aren't the same groups advocating the repeal of laws requiring driver's licenses? It's my God-given right as an American to drive wherever I please, and no damn jackbooted government thug should be able to stop me because I have no idea what I'm doing and am endangering other people! --Ymir (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
NRA stridently oppose absolutely any and all legal restrictions on firearms- Ymir [citation needed] --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I was being slightly hyperbolic, but not by much. Can you name some legal restrictions that the NRA has explicitly supported? As for the specific examples I gave, the NRA does oppose both firearms storage laws and any kind of gun licensing or registration. --Ymir (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I hate to paraphrase Jeb Bush of all people, but name one law that we could pass today that would have prevented the majority of the these tragedies. The only thing that might is mass gun bans and confiscations. If that's what gun control advocates want, they should just come out and say it, because this graceful dance around the point and this irrational drive to do SOMETHING, without even really thinking about whether than something will work, is exactly why gun rights organizations oppose anything new, because gun control advocates simply won't put the issue of gun confiscation to bed. Like gay marriage, it is a matter of settled law. What bothers me is the fact that gun control advocates don't want to consider ANYTHING that might not be "common sense gun control", even though things like tighter security for schools might actually thwart or prevent some of these things directly without a totalitarian wet dream of going into little old lady's houses and taking away their father's shotgun. Hentropy (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
"a totalitarian wet dream of going into little old lady's houses and taking away their father's shotgun" Um...... >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
We're all entitled to a little hyperbole. Still, that IS what continues to happen in the UK and other such places. The point is, when you talk about "ohh well Australia and the UK..." you're talking about gun bans and confiscations, largely from people who have never and likely will never use a gun on a person and many who won't use it at all. When you point to Europe and stomp your feet, you're not talking about background checks and licenses, you're talking about mass confiscation. And of course then, tragedies and screwed up things will still happen as they do in the UK and AUS, and the media will move onto the next sensationalistic moral panic, just as Australia started banning free speech and flat-chested porn. Hentropy (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
"you're talking about gun bans and confiscations, largely from people who have never and likely will never use a gun on a person and many who won't use it at all." And you know what? It fucking worked. Agitating about gun control is not sensationalist. It's the cause of tens of thousands of deaths in the US every year (~33,000, actually). It's small beer compared to cancer (590,000) and heart attacks (610,000), but it's about the same as the number of road accident deaths (33,000). It's large enough to be a public health issue, and should be tackled as such. Raising political objections to tackling it is as fuck-witted as political objections raised to, say, stem cell research. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Australia did a no questions asked buyback of both legal and illegal firearms and proceeded to destroy said weapons. Why are you against that? Is having an instrument for killing really a human or civil right? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Guns and cars are both very dangerous things that are - in an ideal world - useful to a lot less people thaen currently own them. And nobody can in their right mind wish for every citizen of earth to possess one or several of either. Yet in some places both are so emotionally charged that even the most benign and sensible proposal is going to get screamed out of the room. Try proposing a five cent increase of the gas tax for instance. Or a five cent tax per shot of ammunition. If you survive the ensuing political maelstrom - or even get it passed - , you are "run for the presidency" good at politics. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Here the US goes again, again.[edit]

Boy, the NRA was right, the US sure does have an incredible amount of mentally ill people who so just happen to have incredibly easy access to firearms. Jackboot thugs get off my lawn. ArcticVixen (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Genetic screening at birth should fix it. Children are also horrible with guns and dangerous; better lock those up too. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that we've actually had three college shootings this week: Northern Arizona University and two at Texas Southern University (one of those was this morning). AyzmoCheers 18:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The NRA lobbies for everyone to have firearms. James Holmes had access to anything he wanted, even though he was considered dangerous well before the event and reported to police without being taken seriously. He even called to a gun range to look for a membership and left a series of weird sayings and animals noises. America is the land of the free...not the land of the responsible. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

A person with a bad idea is just that. A person with a bad idea and a gun is a huge danger to everybody (most often to themselves first and foremost)... And the amount of criminal energy it would require to actually get an illegal gun in places like Spain makes most people with bad ideas forget about their bad ideas. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just a comment, but Canada has one of the largest unguarded borders with the US...where it's relatively easy to purchase guns (legally or illegally). Yet there isn't a mass shooting every day or two there - and actually need to include bombings of Canadian flights and go back to 1967 to populate a list of "Worst Mass Murders" in Canadian history. People are still allowed guns for hunting and self defense. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
In the US, it's us against the hypothetical super-criminal who is 100% dedicated to their bad iea. That's the case we have to prove, to make a modicum of progress. So... we get regress. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out the problem is easy. Solutions are of course, harder. I'm all for background checks and licenses, but that's not going to halt all gun violence overnight, and it doesn't matter if it does go down because the media will keep sensationalizing every story and people will still react emotionally for more gun control. What we need are evidence-based, comprehensive solutions, which MUST include a mix of tighter security in places where people gather, and a more robust national mental health registry system that can be included in background checks. Gun control advocates refuse to talk about security and mental health and gun rights advocates refuse to talk about new laws. One side is going to have to come to the other eventually. Hentropy (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I am all for gun control. And I am all for spending more money on mental health. Everybody who needs a shrink should get one for free. As for "security"... It really depends on how you define the term. Armed police in riot gear don't make me feel safe and secure. And black and brown people have good reason to fear armed police officers in many places... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a pretty good point. That's one thing that really pisses me off about the NRA that exclaim how we should fix the mental health care system instead of regulate guns...then oppose anything helping mental health care. Which currently seems a shade short of openly hostile to patients already, especially those who are poor. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
It's no different from armed security we already have in spots. They don't have to be in riot gear with SMGs, hell they don't even have to be in uniform (ever heard of an Air Marshal?) Many times they don't even have to be public, just private individuals with no power to arrest so Lanza wouldn't be able to just walk into the door with a rifle without anyone noticing and reacting to it. The whole "give teachers guns" idea is dumb but some people seem simply irrationally afraid of them, like simply having one in the room is going to mean people will start dying. All a gun-free zone does is telling any potential wacko that the people crowded into small areas will be defenseless. There's no doubt that the NRA's political wing is a crapshoot, mostly because they have to try to appeal to base and simplistic emotions (gee, just like gun control advocates) in order to protect their interests. But they aren't the only people on the other side, either. Hentropy (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Who guarantees that the armed guard does not flip and kill everybody? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
You could ask the same about any number of armed guards stationed at various secured places around the countries. What I'm talking about isn't novel. While I'm sure there has been rare isolated cases, people with concealed carry permits and armed security (both of which are screened and trained) almost never "flip and kill everybody". At this point it's just grasping at straws because most gun control advocates know that this is a valid point, it just doesn't fit their narrative. Hentropy (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
In Nicaragua there is an armed guard at every single bank entrance. In most other countries there isn't. Does this notably affect the number of bank robberies? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
If you have a point to make then make it, I'm not hunting down statistics on Central American bank robberies. Other countries are other countries and are not always comparable to our situation. It's also not about stopping every shooting, but it seems like the only alternative your suggesting is to ban guns and confiscate the hundreds of millions already in the US, which is about as practical as Trump wanting to round up every illegal, and even less constitutional. Hentropy (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Proliferation of armed guards in public settings seems to me more like a symptom of rampant gun culture than a solution to it. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Australia did a no questions asked buyback. It worked. It may well work in the US as well. The problem about Central American weapons culture is - at least in part - that a whole lot of people have legit reasons to carry around a machete in their daily live and almost every household owns several. Sure a gun is deadlier thaen a machete, but it's still harder to police thaen a place where anything longer thaen a pocket knife has no place being carried around openly. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Criminalizing private ownership of guns and then offering buybacks is confiscation, just with bribery to make it more palatable. It would not be successful in the US, partially because people would not participate in it at the same rates. Many people own guns to protect against the criminal element, and they will not be participating in a buyback. There are many more guns now in the US than there were in Australia. Buybacks without criminalization is an empty gesture that will also do nothing to take guns away from the people who want to use them for ill. Hentropy (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
"both of which are screened and trained" - Not necessarily. My CCP didn't require a single minute of training, and it's the same in quite a few states, and the only "screening" was basically "yup, criminal record's good", and that really worries me. Thought it should be said I also haven't carried pretty much since I got it. Planning on getting rid of most of my firearms anyway. ArcticVixen (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a good point, states have wildly different standards for concealed carry, but the point still kinda stands, people who have CCPs are not usually committing crimes. Organized criminals and spree-shooting psychos have no reason to apply for one, and even if they did, they usually wouldn't be too keen on registering their names and info with the government. Hentropy (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
If you control for demographic factors, gun ownership correlates negatively with life expectancy. Why would I want a thing that makes my life shorter? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Correlation doesn't equal causation. But even if it were true, I bet driving a car regularly also lowers your life expectancy on average as well. Going outside in general is a hazardous task. Hentropy (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Well in the case of someone killing themselves with a gun, there might just be a causation there. And it is well established that gun owners commit suicide more often thaen non gun owners. And the most dangerous thing "out there" apart from guns in the modern world are.... Cars. The number of traffic deaths due to cyclists is negligible. The number of people who die from running into another pedestrian is non-existent. And well, yeah touching the third rail or being hit by a train tends to end deadly. But the rails are kind of a hint where you shouldn't be, yaknow... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@Hentropy:
Benefits of owning a gun: None as far as I can see. (?)
Benefits of owning a car: being able to travel without recourse to public transport. (Should just say that I don't have a car)
Benefits of going outside: Legion.
Scream!! (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But guns are FREEEDUMB!!!! (TM) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Avenger: Gun owners and non gun owners only commit suicide once. Scream!! (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Well on average they commit suicide less thaen once. And gun owners have a higher likelihood of committing suicide. Why you ask? Well a non-gun-owner whi has thoughts of suicide would have to first acquire the means and by that time the thoughts may have passed. A gun owner has an instant death machine at arm's length. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The benefits of owning a gun are self-evident, if you have need to protect yourself/home/family, you might be able to. If you're a woman, it can be a bit of a rape-deterrent, and if you live in a high-crime area it can also protect you, granted you know how to use it. Most people who commit suicide to elect to do so with a firearm, however there's no evidence to suggest that those same people would just give up. Suicide rates are equally high or higher in many countries that don't have mass private gun ownership. All I'm saying is that when eight people get their brains smashed out because they decided to take the highway that day, there is no mile-long vigils, roung-the-clock media coverage, or visits from the President. If the media would stop sensationalizing and reporting on every little detail of every shooting, then maybe people wouldn't go on spree-shootings knowing they will be reported on for an entire week. Hentropy (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry to say that, but you obviously don't know what you are talking about on any of the subjects you talked about in your most recent contribution. As for the vigils there are countless examples from the Netherlands in the 1970s. And a "spur of the moment" decision to suicide is indeed a thing. And you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes that an instant death machine tips the scale in going through with it. And as for guns for self protection... Both in "home invasions" (which are less common thaen people being shot as mistaken home invaders) and in open assaults on the street guns end up being more likely to be wrestled out of the hands of the assaulted or found by the attacker thaen to be used in self defense. Neither gun dead nor car dead are inevitable. The thing that is most needed to stop either is political will. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
And here is an article on the correlation between guns and suicides which goes to prove my point. Care to cite academic studies or anything in your favor? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep on using "thaen" and I will keep on not taking you seriously, avenger. As far as this topic goes, it isn't about the hardware, it is about what people do with it. In the anecdotes of my experience, not many take the time to practice, practice, practice. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
What good does a gun do if its owner has no clue as to how to use it? Btw the Lions lead the Unicorns 20:12 at the half. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
People taking car deaths seriously in the Netherlands has nothing to do with what we're talking about, which is in the US. In most cases, car deaths tend to be entirely indiscriminate and kill people who are driving correctly. But yet, it's not seen as some kind of massive epidemic that we have to do something about right now yesterday in the US. As for your unsupported claims about self-defense, there is no concrete numbers, but estimates usually put the number of self-defense gun uses in some way between the hundreds of thousands if not millions of times per year /Source. As far as I know, millions of people are not being mistakenly shot in their own homes. There is no way to guarantee an encounter with a hostile party will end a certain way, but with 1 million home burglaries per year where the residents were home /Source, it's not an irrational fear. There are a few ways to help counter home invasions, not all of them guns, but a gun can be used as a last defense, though the number of successfully thwarted home invasions is impossible to calculate accurately. It is true that many people may buy guns but not learn how to use them, this is something I'm all for changing with licenses. Everyone has their own numbers on the issue, I don't like arguing about numbers because you're just jerking from one completely biased and paid-for study by one to another. But again, what is the solution, besides unconstitutional gun bans and confiscation? I've offered a variety of things that might include both gun control, tighter security in certain places and a stronger mental health screenings. All anyone on the other side wants to talk about is unrealistic and unconstitutional methods because they worked in countries that have/had a tiny percentage of the guns we have. Dare I bring up my own example, Svalbard, a small but interesting little island collection north of Scandinavia, where people are REQUIRED to have rifles when going outside their small towns, because of a threat of wildlife. And, somehow, people aren't constantly dying, people don't snap and go crazy all the time, and everyone is licensed and trained to use them. That's another country though, totally different situation, can't be compared... Hentropy (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well why do you say gun control is unconstitutional? And why is the constitution - a flawed document written by flawed 18th century individuals (so flawed it took a civil war to cure some of its biggest defects) - the be all end all to politics in the 21st century? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Because it's the primary basis of American law. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Any law was written by men and can be changed by them all the same.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
No shit sherlock. What else would it be written by? Also, women are a thing too. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Back in my day, "man" could also mean "human" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Gun control in general is not unconstitutional, gun BANs are, as defined by the Supreme Court. I don't always agree with the Supreme Court and you don't have to, but handgun bans in particular have been ruled to be unconstitutional. Meaning, with American law, it would take an overwhelming legislative effort to overturn the Second Amendment, or a change in the courts that might over turn the court cases. Both of these things will take a lot of time and change, which is why, like the recent ruling on gay marriage, it's considered settled law for the forseeable future. I'm not throwing around the word "unconstitutional" as my personal opinion. Hentropy (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I remember a (otherwise quite liberal on a lot of issues) friend of mine defending gun rights from a feminist standpoint. Their point was that guns can level the playing field when it comes to assault: while women can learn various martial arts and techniques to give themselves an edge against aggressors, the simple fact that men tend to be stronger than women on average means that it'll be much rarer for a woman to have an actual advantage over a man in a physical confrontation than the other way around. But reactions to a gun being suddenly waved under your nose are generally going to be similar across genders, and gun wounds are going to neutralize an aggressor with more certainty than blows to the body. Thus guns can put similar power in the hands of different people as long as they have the same training - differences might still exist because guns have weight and recoil to them, but they at least reduce that difference. The issue is of course much more multi-layered and complex than this, but it feels to me that this particular idea deserves to be thought about and considered.
It really feels to me that there exists, amongst some people, an anti-gun hysteria of the same nature as anti-vaccine hysteria: I'm very much in favor of some regulation when it comes to firearms, but stating that there litterally is no possible benefit for someone in owning a firearm just smells to me of complete dishonesty. Hentropy has done a better job explaining this than me, though.NewFrenchHotness (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Horseshoe Theory.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather we don't dismiss people with unorthodox or unusual opinions for their political branding as political extremists. The same sensibilities can lead to different positions, as far as I know the logic I develloped here is still quite rational.— Unsigned, by: NewFrenchHotness / talk / contribs
I must say I'm rather sceptical of the notion of having a gun to defend oneself (from rape, burglary, mugging, whatever) & would be interested in any actual statistics about how effective it is, especially in situations where the aggressor is also armed. I do know that guns in family homes are statistically more likely to be used by one member of the household (including children) against another, so I think the whole idea of having a gun to defend your family is deserving of serious scrutiny. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I think in self-defense knowing Krav Maga is more helpful thaen owning a gun. Especially if you don't know how to use it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Getting into arguments over tactical effectiveness of certain things is kind of pointless, because no two situations are usually alike. Krav Maga and hand-to-hand techniques and disarming can be something good to learn in case you find yourself in a certain situation. As I said before, it's very hard to tell how effective a gun really is at stopping things from happening. If person A wants to rob person B but sees a gun on their hip, they may decide not to rob Person B. Person B may never know something was thwarted, in that case. There are likely many, many unreported encounters and cases where a gun may have stopped something from happening, and no one was killed or hurt. When it comes to feminism, just like certain radical (not using the term as a pejorative) black and feminist groups have used guns as a source of empowerment across the decades, the Black Panthers being the most famous example. Much of owning/carrying/seeing guns is psychological, and certainly the idea of using guns as a rape deterrent is something which can give women more confidence. Still, most rapes aren't the "masked man pops out of the bushes" variety, and owning a gun and knowing how to use it still does not mean that the person can handle real, volatile self-defense situations. Gun safety courses don't teach you that stuff. Far too many people see a scary news report and rush out to buy a gun, and barely know how to use it or what to do to secure it from children, let alone real self-defense knowledge. Which is why you have the memetic "shoot first ask questions never" horseshit which leads to family members getting shot. Hentropy (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
KWAAARK Transition From Stating A Bare Possibility To Claiming It As Likely: "If person A wants to rob person B but sees a gun on their hip, they may decide not to rob Person B. Person B may never know something was thwarted, in that case. There are likely many, many unreported encounters and cases where a gun may have stopped something from happening" Go back and try something not transparently fallacious - David Gerard (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I never said that particular exact scenario was likely, putting words in people's mouths is also fallacious. I was just pointing out how these things can be impossible to accurately measure, and according to surveys (we use those for rape statistics because it's the best information we can get), it is more likely than most gun control advocates give it credit for, even if they are all over the place. Hentropy (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't put words in your mouth, I quoted your actual words, and you did indeed do just that - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to attack your reading comprehension, because I'm fairly sure you're just being pedantic because you have no other argument. I said there is likely many situations in where a gun stopped something before it happened. I did NOT say that the exact situation I presented likely happened many times, and you know it. Hentropy (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

the largely defensive weapon of gun is largely defensive— Unsigned, by: 95.90.213.83 / talk / contribs

Bush fails at geography - of the US[edit]

If you read the WIGO about the Richmond Racists (this is my stand-in for the team name, as it is a name George Preston Marshall would have been proud of. And it's about as geographically accurate as Washington), you will notice that Bush thinks Landover, Maryland is in Northern Virginia. I hope he does not upon becoming President accidentally bomb Tajikistan instead of Afghanistan because his geographic knowledge is rather limited... I mean come on: You are applying for a job in DC and can't sort out the general lay of the land down there? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I mistakenly assumed we were talking about Dubya at first, and my initial reaction to the title was 'so what's new?'. Good to see Jeb carries on the family tradition. ArcticVixen (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I remember a Bill Maher joke that goes something like this: "Goerge Bush couldn't even find Afghanistan on a map. He just decided to throw a dart at the map and invade whatever country it landed on. And that's exactly what he did." Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
On the issue though: Do you think the team in question can keep its offensive name (along with offensively taking a spot of NFC East away that could be filled by a worthy rival of the Giants) if they just change their logo to - say - an extremely sunburned white person? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I liked a commentary on ESPN once suggesting they should just change the mascot to a potato. Hentropy (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Witches[edit]

Actually seems true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_witchcraft#Hallucinogens_and_witchcraft ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Seriously tho? Because witches bunged hallucinogens up their wossnames, that's exactly the same as sticking some of Stanley Owsley's finest up your daughter's holy of holies? Which fucking asshat wrote that headline? PsyGremlinPrata! 10:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
come on now, who hasn't applied mind altering chems to there bits? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of totally alienating PsyGremlin, it was I who posted about LSD in our girl children's vaginas. A notion I stole from a dude on Twitter who cracked me up with it.---Mona- (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

CIA torturers being sued USA! USA! USA![edit]

The ACLU is representing as Libyan man suing two American psychologists who, he alleges, the CIA hired to help do this to him:

I was forced to leave my cell naked and walk inside the jail once every half hour on average throughout the night, despite the fact that my foot was broken and I had not received any medical treatment. This was followed by continuous psychological and physical torture. I was left naked for several weeks. My hands and feet were shackled to the cell wall by metal shackles. I was kept sitting for very long and tiring periods.



All this continued for several months. I was deprived of sleep by being forced into a sitting position using shackles and by loud music that did not stop at any point during my detention. Guards also forced us to wake up once every hour and throughout the night. We were deprived of light for months. We were refused use of the bathroom, instead forced to use a bucket left in the room. They intentionally took the bucket cover. We were deprived of hygiene for five months, refused a shower or to cut our hair or nails.


....


The teams of interrogators used violence that exceeded any kind of humanitarian and moral limits. This included slamming us against the walls, slapping in the face, punching in the stomach, pouring ice water on our naked bodies, creating the illusion of drowning several times, and stuffing us in small boxes. I was hung by my hands to the ceiling of the room for a day and a half. We were deprived of food....

This statement from plaintiff and victim, Mohamed al Shoreiya Ben Soud, was played in Geneva attendant to 30th U.N. Human Rights Council session. Makes one proud to be an American.---Mona- (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Because in in the US, you won't be shot and/or thrown into jail for writing posts such as the one you wrote?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona proves to be a hyper-nationalist. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm quite chauvinistic about America's superiority on free speech, undermined lately only by the war on an abstract concept (terror). But I am deeply mortified as well as horrified that we torture people.---Mona- (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona given your own nationalist chauvinism, you should not go around accusing me of nationalism... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok.---Mona- (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Will you two just make out already? 72.160.82.7 (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
No can do. I'd get into a lot of trouble with my significant other for that. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
She may very well be proud, even if America may or may not the record holder in real free speech. What would be scary is if Americans are proud of her. And if that vagina-LSD crack is a measure of her sense of humour, well, enough said. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion being proud of a geographic and biographical coincidence is rather nonsensical... But Mona has a certain affinity towards the nonsensical. Sadly not of the humorous kind... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
How is Mona being nationalistic in any way? When did she say in this post that is against America? I don't understand what the hell you guys are talking about, quite frankly. It's not like Mona ended her post with "And Jordan/Libya has never done that, so fuck you America!" Come on. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── When did she say in this post that she was against the United States's existence as a political entity- Pbfreespace3 Who suggested she did? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I have changed my wording to make my point more clear now. How is she "proud of a geographic and biographical coincidence"? I don't understand. She never said "I am proud to be a great member of the great Lebanese people" or some shit like that. All did was link to an article about the US TORTURING PEOPLE.
You said "Mona proves to be a hyper-nationalist." I would say that there is a huge difference between being nationalist and being anti-nationalist, same as there is a huge difference between being pro-religion and anti-religion. Religionists often say to atheists "Well you hate religion and God, so you're no better than us!" to try and discredit the other side, pretending as if they were not different, even though they are hugely different. Calling Mona a nationalist makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. She did not make any statement in her post about supporting an existing nation-state at all, she only criticized the criminal behavior of the government of 1 nation-state. How the flying fuck is that being 'hyper-nationalist', [User:Avengerofthe BoN|Avengerofthe BoN]]? And do you realize what side your posts make you appear to be on? You sound as if you support torture the behavior described by the person in the article to me. Do you? Cause I don't. I most certainly don't. And any statement of support for that behavior is tantamount to saying you support human rights violations and war crimes. We're not supposed to be torturing people, all of us. The fact that we are even having this discussion is ridiculous. We should be past arguing this and instead talking about how to solve climate change and decrease the gap between the rich and the poor. But no, we're sitting here on a talk page arguing about whether someone posting about torture done by America is hyper-nationalist or not. Ridiculous. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I still don't understand what you are trying to get at with the sentence I quoted... Point is: Mona has accused me of being a hyper-nationalist. And now she goes around says she is proud to be a citizen of the country she happens to have presumably been born in. Which is a patriotic sentiment, and patriotism differs from nationalism only in matters of degree, not in those of substance. The rest of course was hyperbole and humor on my part... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Please excuse me, but which country did she say she was proud of? Jordan? Palestine? Egypt? I must not have been on here to read her say that. And regardless, what is wrong with being proud of your country? ---(rhetorical sarcasm there) And I would say that if you support your government torturing people, then you are pretty nationalist. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
She said she was proud of being an American... Apparently for the guy being able to sue the US... or something. Or maybe it was a lame attempt at humor that I did not expect from Mona because she has thus far exhibited an utter lack of any kind of humor... And what is wrong with being proud of your country? Everything. It's a pretty stupid thing to be proud of. Could you tell me what's right about being proud of your country? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not proud of my country and never said I am -- Avenger just makes shit up, all the time. (He's not terribly bright.) It is simply the case that it has what is, on balance, the best combination of free speech/press approach in the world. But it is woefully, often egregiously, wrong on much else.---Mona- (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
See, I would prefer for Germany to cease existing as a nation-state. That's how we differ and that's why you calling me a "hyper-nationalist" is downright ridiculous Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not calling you a hyper-nationalist. No one is being nationalistic here! That's the point! Why can't we get over that? Mano said she was proud to be American as a sarcastic joke to show how ignorant some Americans are about the practices and behavior of the government that they live under. The ultimate point here is that torture is wrong as a general principle. I'm sure Mona agrees, but does everyone else? Let me know below. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Torture is wrong, not least because it produces no credible intelligence. Turns out the carrot is mightier thaen the stick. That being said, if I were to get certain dipshits into my hand and were told to torture 'em, I can't say I would say no Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't torture for information. We should do it just to make the guilty suffer. Thanos6 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not calling you a hyper-nationalist" I call him that, and he is. He's a militant Zionist. There is nothing the State of Israel can do that he condemns. His support for Zionism has been utterly unqualified as far as I've seen.---Mona- (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. I just now noticed the userbox on his user page. I am in agreement with you. TBH, there are some cases where something some people call 'nationalism' is justified, namely in the case of Palestine, Kurdistan, Balochistan, Catalonia, etc. But supporting an internationally-recognized state in a brutal conflict that has engaged in questionable behavior *coughcoughisraelcough* is a really bad idea, especially as the nation already exists, UN-recognized. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Nationalism is just another tribalism. It can be relatively benign but is often is virulent as any tribalism.---Mona- (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Says the supporter (according to her own statements) of Palestinian tribalism. Nachtigall, ick hör dir trapsen... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Palestinian tribalism is born of being attacked and oppressed by Zionists. Like all forms of triumphalism tribalism, it, too, is potentially unhealthy and dangerous. There's a balance between upholding a people's group identity and right to self-determination on the one hand, and on the other, insularity and even a sense of militant superiority and exclusivity that is incompatible with universal humanitarian values.---Mona- (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
between upholding a people's group identity and right to self-determination on the one hand- -Mona- Which is exactly, what Zionism is. #rekt--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
No. Zionism is an ethno-religious, supremacist ideology predicted on stealing from and oppressing those outside the tribe. Political Zionism, certainly in practice, is a strong example of nationalistic tribalism in its most toxic form.---Mona- (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Zionism is an ethno-religious, supremacist ideology predicted on stealing from and oppressing those outside the tribe.- -Mona- Complete bullshit, inserted by you in (talk) pages on RW for the over 9000th time or whatever (and all the support you ever got for your words was some quote mining of some obscure letter Herzl wrote to Rhodes or whomever). For you to support "good" tribalism (if it's done by Palestinian extremists murdering gays, Shiites (while getting money by them (from Iran and Assad's gang)), Christians, Israeli (civilians), political opponents among themselves and so on) against "bad" tribalism (those pesky Jews not letting themselves be driven into the Mediterranean despite the Hamas, PLO, several Arab countries and the UN asking nicely) is just typical.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You should dial back on the exaggeration/strawmanning, Arisboch. You're starting to sound as loony as Avenger. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona is taking a shit over Zionism, as if she is taking pointers from /pol/ about this topic.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
But where are you taking your pointers from? /ziontrolling/? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:25, 20 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Tell me, where can I find that board :D--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't know, but maybe Avenger can help you on that front. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:32, 20 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Arisboch is a reasonably intelligent man, but loses his reasoning ability when it comes to Zionism. Then, he becomes a more vicious version of Avenger. He spews straw men like a machine. Arisboch knows very well that Israel is, in fact, an ethno-religious supremacist state, which is why he has repeatedly refused to answer this question, to wit: "Does Israel implement laws and policies to maintain its 'Jewish character?'" He won't substantively reply to that inquiry because to do so is to concede that Israel is, indeed, an ethno-religious supremacist state.---Mona- (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

STEMming Gender Bias[edit]

For those who want to read the actual paper (and please do), a PDF of it is here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/06/1510649112.full.pdf

I felt I had to try to start a discussion given how controversial the WIGO seems vote-wise. Personally, the findings seem pretty legit. There are one or two choices that I would question (e.g., only surveying the faculty of one university), and I think that the Moss-Racusin study that Smith and Handley used is a bit more compelling as an indicator of a widespread bias because of that, but by itself it's still a good insight into reactions towards gender biases. (I did have to downvote the WIGO though for several reasons)

So, what do you folks think?

Potential COI Disclosure: I'm a dude with a STEM degree working in a STEM field, but not in academia. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What were the several reasons you downvoted it?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
So, uh... I spent the last while trying to write a response, and realized that -- once I had them down on paper -- the complaints I had were pretty... flimsy. They had largely included the wording of the WIGO (petty ultimately, but I didn't think that personally editing something controversial was a good idea), the lack of discussion of cognitive bias in the article (cog bias is important, but only 1/3 of the study and sexism is kind of the bigger deal and/or the point), a quote by one of the researchers behind the study that I found baffling and couldn't find a source for (did a bit of research, turns out that it was on a different article talking about the same study that I got mixed up with the ThinkProgress one), and the ThinkProgress author's fairly poor science reporting strategy of "this one study indicates X, thus we can speculate conclusion Y" (possibly the only one that kind of holds up, but it's an issue with science reporting rather than the science). So... yeah. Lessons learned.
I'm going to retract that statement (and downvote). Sorry about that. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The blurb made it sound like this was another study tending to show that when people's fairness is questioned, they start justifying themselves and making excuses. This is not particularly newsworthy. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

True dough[edit]

So apparently Canada's most bizarre dynasty is now officially a thing. Am I the only one around here who deems it strange that roughly forty percent popular vote share are deemed a "mandate" much less a strong one? I mean, even of the Canadians who got their asses off the couch at Tim Horton's to get into hockey gear and drop a moose at the voting booth (could this be any more stereotypical? Mounties!) almost two out of three did in fact not vote for Justin... Or is this just me being too stupid for democracy, because I think the way Israel does it (with proportional representation and coalitions) is the most democratic one? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't bait. Though proportional and such are better than FPTP--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict [repeat in French for Canadian feeling])Well I took an example with which most here should be familiar. My point is this: Proportional representation is more democratic thaen FPTP. And true dough has a shaky "mandate" at best... Yet everybody pretends it to be a rock solid landslide... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thats how FPTP works, sadly, and in the confines of the system it is a mandate when you came from third place to first in such a big way. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, Paravant.---Mona- (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
So concerning the de facto results of the election though... How is someone who does not particularly care about Canada either way gonna be affected? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Vile neocon David Frum (who wrote Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech) is most alarmed about the Canadian election, but gets some things right. Or at least I hope his prognostications turn out to be right (he's almost always wrong). Avenger's reason for wanting to downplay Trudeau's victory is covered by Frum:

Canada’s election on Monday was something much bigger than a local Canadian story. It’s another indicator of how Bill Clinton/Tony Blair-style liberalism is veering sharply to the left across the English-speaking world. Along with the surge of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary in the United States and the nomination of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in the United Kingdom, must now be reckoned Canada’s election of a Liberal government under Justin Trudeau.

...
Harper brought Canada and Israel closer. Trudeau has signaled greater distance to come.
...

Trudeau’s strategy succeeded brilliantly, at least in electoral terms. His Liberals have won at least 40 percent of the popular vote, in their best performance since 1997. Leaders of other center-left parties around the world will note the success. Imitation and emulation will follow—across the Atlantic and across the 49th parallel.
---Mona- (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I preffered RationalWiki when 90% of the activity wasn't Avenger and Mona looking for the slightest excuse to take stupid potshots at each other like they're both five-years-olds. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I too liked rationalwiki before current spat that is by no means unprecedented. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Isn't RW an American site? I'd figure shootings between five-year-olds is just everyday life. ArcticVixen (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I usually ignore Avenger, and have only a few times told him I (honestly) find him to be very stupid, which is WHY I usually ignore him. The problem is, Zionism is much in the news now and Netanyahu just caused a huge controversy in the midst of the brink of a 3rd intifada. It's just is what is happening.---Mona- (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have to ask: Do you have strange things going on with your hair? Because right now there is an American going around calling people stupid and saying crazy radical political things and he has strange hair... So I just wanted to clear that up... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


(edit conflict)


Well thanks for sharing, Mona... But what are the most noteworthy points of Trudeau's manifesto? Will Canada get high speed rail? Will Windsor, Ontario be renamed South Detroit? Will one or several of those trade deals not be signed or be significantly changed? What about tar sand and renewable energies? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

the important questions, like why avenger made a subheading for this. And his refusal to read the answer to his qquestion of "what does this electionmean"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Because I wanted to have a debate about the Canadian election, bnot some Mona derailing everything with her position on Israel BS. But if you think making this sub-heading (even when I created it myself) was disruptive, I apologize for anybody who might have felt offended Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
such derailment, one sentence out of two paragraphs about israel. Read before responding? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I posted a lengthy quote from David Frum writing at the Atlantic about what this election signals. That Avenger doesn't like it is, well, too bad.---Mona- (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the parliamentary house seats, it looks like the Liberals can get a lot of stuff passed by sheer virtue of having a large majority, assuming >50% of votes is how most things pass in Canada. Even then, if the NDP can be swayed, it looks like the liberals have a comfortable control of the house. My greater concern is that the Liberals aren't left-wing enough. Though there is some promising stuff in their manifesto (e.g. infrastructure spending, good public services, legalization of marijuana), there is bad stuff too (support of Keystone XL, offshore drilling, cutting budget and erasing deficit by 2019). Canadians would do well to remember Obama's election in 2008 and how hopeful everyone was that most of the bad policies of the predecessor administration would be stopped or reversed. That didn't happen: only marginal changes occurred under the new administration (gay marriage, slowing some wars, getting some healthcare). And the Liberals seem to me far more moderate and centrist than they are painted to be by the media. Political Compass seems to agree with me on that, putting the Liberal Party close to where Obama was in 2008. The NDP is far more stalwart and idealistically liberal, and I would rather they have won. Nonetheless, it is a refreshing change, and we shall see what the Liberals do with their newfound power. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Do drone strikes create more terrorists than they kill?[edit]

A very fun, highly contentious 13 minutes of debate between Glenn Greenwald and Georgetown University Professor Christine Fair on Al Jazeera Up Front. Prof. Fair comes close to total meltdown.

Polls and studies Greenwald cites in these articles here (NYU/Stanford), here (Bureau of Investigative Journalism) and here (Pew). ---Mona- (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found statistical studies confirming it, but my general impression is that terrorists are created from a blend of hard-line Islamism meshed with Western military occupations (including the Israeli occupation of Palestine/Lebanon in the past and invasion of Iraq) and Arab authoritarian governments. If Arab governments actually promised democratic reforms and didn't repress them, you wouldn't see the mess in Syria or Libya now. ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the main failure in Libya was that they didn't federalize, but yes Western governments tend to exacerbate turmoil and religious fervor with occupation.--Owlman (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I meant to say there would be no rebel factions in Libya after Gaddafi thought it was a bright idea to fire upon protesters. Terrorists thrive in destabilized states, and Syria is the finest example of this. ChrisAmiss (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
In 2004 the Defense Science Board did a study for the DoD at Rumsfeld's request and explicitly found that "they do not hate us for our freedoms" but rather, "for our policies." Including our blind support for Israel and arrogant meddling in Muslim countries. But the link for it keeps moving and I'm too lazy to look for it again.---Mona- (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Considering the extremely low rate of actual targets hit as reported in the recently leaked investigation, the likelihood that drone strikes create more terrorists than they kill increase markedly. Consider the effect in such a clannish society as "Pashtunistan" (the "AfPak" area spanning the national borders) of indiscriminately killing loads of bystanders to get to one targeted terrorist and then add all the "oops"-cases where completely unrelated targets were bombed due to intelligence failures. Do the math and you'll end up with a high likelihood that clan/family members of the slain will take up arms producing a pretty good argument for the "creating more terrorists"-conclusion (and then you can add those unrelated persons incensed enough at the callous disregard for innocent lives to take up arms as extra terrorists on top of those with a familial grudge to settle). The only calculation in which such widespread alienation based on a vanishingly small number of intended kills makes sense would be if the assassinations could be firmly claimed to prevent large scale terrorist attacks or seriously disrupt the terrorist networks in question. As neither of these conditions seem to apply, the drone strikes appear to me to be largely counter productive and the main reason they continue is that they give the appearance of a US Govt. actually doing something, but with relatively low exposure in terms of bad press due to the remote and inaccessible areas in which the strikes take place (contrast the "oops"-bombing of the hospital in Kunduz). Basically, the USG can brag when it occasionally manages to hit a target, while all of "collateral damage" and mistakes are essentially invisible to the public at home (i.e. the one that matters to US policy makers). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Yup. As long as we can use killer sky robots and not put American boots on the ground, the public is fine with sending any amount of love- freedom- and democracy-bombs the president and military want. Dead innocent Muslims -- and the constant terror of drones hovering about in their air -- are nothing to distract us from yapping about Star Wars.---Mona- (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
It is a political thing, but it's less of a "do something for the cameras" and more the fact that the "drone front" is currently the only real front, whether you're talking about Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria. Giving that up would essentially be giving up our military presence in these conflicts, something we don't seem willing to do internally and something even our middle east allies don't want us to do entirely. The internal politics might be changing, however, with Trump's line that we should basically wash our hands of the middle east gaining popularity in the same party that started both of the wars. Hentropy (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Dirty Wars makes the claim that drones and the more general war on terror does create terrorists. Its an interesting film but I am in way qualified to comment on its veracity. That said, considering the radicalisation of westerners, it certainly has something of a point. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't know a lot about the middle-east, but I think the real question that we should be asking here is, "do drone strikes create more terrorists than either occupation or stopping everything and doing absolutely nothing?" Just simply asking if drone strikes create more terrorists seems to be really disingenuous when the reality is that we will always have to select one out of several possible alternatives based on that criteria (and other criteria). Please correct me if I'm wrong though. Eoan (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
How about asking whether "meddling in Muslim countries and blindly supporting Israel is worth generating violence against us that we then try to quell with occupations, drones and other weapons and tactics of war?"---Mona- (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
That was part of my post. "...or stopping everything and doing absolutely nothing?". My point is that if we want to have an honest discussion about drone strikes, we need to compare them to the other alternatives that are on the table, including the possibility of doing nothing. Instead of just having narrow discussions with one-sided propaganda that endlessly criticizes one option without putting it in context with all of the others. This is Rational Wiki after all, not Knee-jerk Reaction Wiki.
And please for the love of god stop dragging Israel and Palestine into everything. It's boring and annoying as hell when I see endless fights between you, Avenger and everyone else. I want constructive discussion that's based upon the arguments and evidence, not werewolves -vs- vampires. And I know that might come off like an ignorant "both sides are the same" fallacy, but both sides do seem to have done very stupid things. Being the same though? No. I have seen good arguments made for why Palestine should be given its own independence away from Israel. But I'm tired of seeing all of the witch-hunting from both sides on here that act like their side is completely innocent while the other is almost some kind of Nazi devil. Stop it. Eoan (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we support a free open and democratic state that is constantly threatened with elimination by several major power brokers in the region? The last time we didn'tWikipedia's W.svg, we (meaning Western democracies) were next on the hitlist... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a strawman against my main point. I'm not going to get involved or further this mess, and I hope that Mona won't take the bait either. Eoan (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
"a free open and democratic state" It's not "free, open and democratic" for the 4 million Palestinians in the occupied territories, for the Palestinians whose land was stolen during the Nakba, and for whose land continues to be taken by settler terrorists in the West Bank. It's not a just democracy because the law is applied to Arab terrorists and criminals in a draconian fashion, but in practice the law largely exempts Jewish terrorists and violent attackers of Arabs. We shouldn't support any of that for moral reasons, but also because it brings terrorism to us. (Yes Eoan, I know it's straw, but I felt like smacking Avenger with some facts. Also, when a topic involves Muslim terrorism against the U.S., it is not possible to ignore Israel.)---Mona- (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Another repetition of the lie, that Israel is responsible for the Middle East being a full of war and violence (it was that way, before there was any Israel. Fuck, it was that way before there was Islam, Christianity OR Judaism!!).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It is not a "lie" that we are attacked for our ridiculous support for Israel almost no matter what it does. The Defense Science Board has said this is so, and so do many of the actual terrorists.---Mona- (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
And about this Eoan:"might come off like an ignorant "both sides are the same" fallacy," Yes, it does. I'm not, even sorta, Avenger. I traffic in facts. The facts are not supportive of the Zionist position he and a few others here advocate. And again, a huge reason we are targeted by terrorists is spelled: I*S*R*A*E*L.---Mona- (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I traffic in facts.- -Mona- Do You Believe That?
And again, a huge reason we are targeted by terrorists is spelled: I*S*R*A*E*L.- -Mona- A huge portion of the content of your skull is spelled: H*O*R*S*E*S*H*I*T --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, your argument is with the Defense Science Board, and the terrorists who give their reasons. Not with me.---Mona- (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Eoan: I think your "either occupation or stopping everything and doing absolutely nothing" is no less fallacious than the question of drone strikes creating more terrorists than they kill. Indeed, your question might actually be more of a false trilemma since it assumes that the choice is either invasion (which has demonstratively proven wholly inefficient at stopping terrorism as illustrated by Afghanistan and Iraq), drone strikes (whose pitfalls I've already sketched), and complete passivity. It's not like there aren't plenty of other options on the menu, but even if there wasn't it's a bit hard to argue that doing nothing is worse than drone strikes if they create more terrorists.
I think it's quite indicative that your two alternatives to doing nothing (invasion & drones) are both military tools, which illustrates what I think is the fundamental problem with so many of the US' anti-terrorist efforts: Using military means to solve what's not actually a military problem. It was pointed out the moment Bush Jr. declared his moronic War on Terror, but it's unsettling, to say the least, that 8 years of failure of this military approach hasn't led to much of a re-evaluation on this militaristic baseline, but only a scaling back of it's most spectacular disasters, whereas the less visible drone strikes have actually been stepped up. Unless the terrorism you're trying to eradicate is intimately tied to a small number of particular individuals, drone strikes are going to be as effective as trying to make a hole in water by sticking your finger in it: As soon as you've killed one, another fills the dead man's shoes (and you risk creating even more on top of that). Look at Israel which has essentially been pursuing a similar strategy for decades, yet it's hard to argue that it has led to either less terrorism or fewer terrorists overall.
Perhaps one problem is that the US is misidentifying its situation as one analogous to Israel's, but Israel isn't actually fighting a simple anti-terrorist campaign, but is essentially involved in a never-ending counter-insurgency war of attrition against the Palestinians in the occupied territories. By contrast, the US task has more in common the anti-terrorist efforts against the various left wing terrorist groups in Cold War Europe: Fighting ideologically motivated but territorially scattered extremists while having to avoid alienating the general public in which the hide. This requires a carefully calibrated approach combining police and intelligence efforts, not the blunt instrument of "bomb every suspect", which is likely to alienate the populace whose cooperation, or at least not outright hostility, is a necessary ingredient in isolating and eliminating the terrorists ("eliminating" also includes trying and imprisoning terrorists for their actions and indeed this approach has the propaganda value of highlighting the difference between their methods and ours). ScepticWombat (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we pretty much agree here; I just worded my post in a really terrible way for what I intended to communicate. I meant to use those options as just examples instead of a limited set, so I really should have included something along the lines of "..or any other options that might be on the table" as you pointed out. My apologies for the confusion and misportrayal, and thank you for pointing that out to clear up the unintended misinformation. Eoan (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

People start killing other people without any rational reason[edit]

Exhibit A: Shootings in the US. Exhibit B: None of the people who did 9/11 came from any place where the US had done any significant damage through military action. In fact, most of them studied in Hamburg, where a bombing occurred, but in 1943. And the bomb droppers were the RAF (the good one, not the German terrorist one), so there's that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

But that kind of ignores the fact that they probably did it for others higher up in their terrorist organization ladder. Others who might have been reacting to US foreign policy, or propaganda that was floating around their organization regarding US foreign policy. Eoan (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
You know, willingly killing myself for a cause is not a decision I would leave to others... But thaen again, I don't have the mind of a terrorist. And if anything Bin Ladin was actually profiting from US foreign policy up until the point he himself decided to become an enemy of the US... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well I for one doubt that there is a need for "dictator friends" or "friendly dictators"... But currently all countries of note (including major European players, Russia and China) engage in this to varying degrees. Putin's propping up of Lukashenko and Assad is blatantly obvious, but the Chinese also have some "favorite customers" whom they would not like to see toppled... The worst western supported regime by far is of course Saudi Arabia... Which just so happens to bankroll a lot of terrorism... Iran on the other hand is a case where a more enthusiast and strict boycott and sanctions could do wonders... But I fear I am preaching to the choir here... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Osama had a number of grievences. One of which was East Timor, where the Catholics were being exterminated. The US and Australia backed the separation of East Timor in order to end the genocide. This was unforgivable to Osama.
Understand that to the Islamists, anything other than spreading Islam is considered an unforgivable offense. Their end goal is not the safety and dignity of all muslims, but the subjugation of the entire world to Islam, and from there, the eventual extermination of anything other than Islam. (Note that this is not much different than the Dominionist goal.) So please, stop trying to justify their actions as "the fault of the West". CorruptUser (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The hell? I'm not trying to justify or excuse their actions, I'm trying to generate some constructive thought about how these maniacs might react to whatever foreign policy our country adopts. That's not justifying them, it's trying to help other people think more deeply about the problem. Are you going to also claim that Obama was full of shit and lied to the American people when he said in that VICE interview that ISIS is an example of "unintended consequences" of foreign policy situations like the Iraq War? Are you also going to claim that he was defending the terrorists when he said that?
I just saw a sub-section of "people always kill people" that was made in response to an entire discussion about foreign policy and its impact on national security. Much like how anti gun-control extremists (the unreasonable ones, not the second amendment advocates who might have important points) will just say "people will always kill people" in an effort to shut down any discussion about how the situation could be improved. The accompanying points underneath of that sub-section didn't really prove the assertion that those terrorists did what they did in a complete vacuum, so it wreaked of intellectual laziness and I responded accordingly.
Seriously, if you guys are just going to respond out of hurt feelings and ridiculous insinuations towards people about everything (ZOMG, Israel / Palestine apologist! Defending terrorism! Your comparison of middle-eastern oppression and black oppression in America just trivializes everyone involved!) instead of trying to seriously understand what the other person intends to communicate and where they're coming from, this place is just going to go down the same exact shit-hole of single-minded over-reactionary social justice extremism and silencing of non-perfectly-worded responses that Tumblr did. And I'm honestly starting to wonder if that's the reason why a bunch of the old-timers from this place decided to just leave or quit in the first place. Eoan (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The Defense Science Board, and the statements of many Muslims prosecuted as terrorists, support that WE (the West) are targeted for our policies, not because they "hate our freedoms."---Mona- (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
And that contradicts what I just said, how? CorruptUser (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
If you were not offering your observations as an explanation for terrorism, then you are not discussing what the rest of us are.---Mona- (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona the "crime" that the West is accused of is stopping a massacre at the very least if not outright genocide against non-Muslims in East Timor... If that's what makes their "legitimate grievances" I say: Bring it on. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Or the crime of the dirty infidels setting foot on holy Muslim land (Saudi-Arabia).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
You know what victory looks like? The Pope and his husband visiting Mecca with a mixed Hindu-Pakistani-Jewish delegation.... Unfortunately the religious nutcases of this world won't let us have this victory... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
While reminding the importance of the use of condoms.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course. In fact, handing them out to the masses. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I thought victory looked like an atheist being able to blog about it without fear of murder? CorruptUser (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well that's a first and important step towards it, yeah... But its not the ultimate goal Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Defense Science Board on causes of terrorism[edit]

Link goes to Greenwald writing several year ago in Salon. He quotes and reproduces screengrabs of the DSB's Report. His link to the document itself no longer works, but I know it is is available elsewhere online. Our meddling in the ME as well as our pro-Israel intransigence were found by the DSB to drive terrorism.---Mona- (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah cause rolling over and saying "please have your way" is what deters omnicidal maniacs... Nice try, Mona... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Stop fangirling for Greenwald, FFS.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Argue with the Defense Science Board, Avenger, not with me. And Arisboch, I will cite Glenn every time I know he's written and researched something highly relevant and responsive to the topic and questions under discussion. Best make your peace with that.---Mona- (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona accepts terrorist logic at face value. Or am I getting something wrong here? Mona says: Terrorist say us helping Israel made them become terrorists, so we should end Israel... Well if terrorists say us being a democracy made them become terrorists what will you do thaen? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I accept 1. What the Defense Science Board found, and 2. That unrepentant political people telling courts during sentencing statements why they did what they did are telling the truth. Especially when it makes sense and comports with other such statements and the Defense Science Board, as well as other experts.---Mona- (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
That unrepentant political people telling courts during sentencing statements why they did what they did are telling the truth.- -Mona- 'Cause if you can't trust bomb-throwing, AK-wielding and people-beheading fanatics, whom can you trust AT ALL Sarcasm.gif--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I like your humor, Arisboch... Also, the German raf (their own inane spelling) also hated Israel... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

"trust bomb-throwing, AK-wielding and people-beheading fanatics" Well, there certainly are some of those. Then there are Muslim-American young men raised here. Tarek Mehanna was convicted of "material support for terrorists" for translating Islamist documents into English. He gave a very eloquent sentencing statement about what he learned being raised in the U.S., and included this:

I read about Paul Revere, Tom Paine, and how Americans began an armed insurgency against British forces – an insurgency we now celebrate as the American revolutionary war. As a kid I even went on school field trips just blocks away from where we sit now. I learned about Harriet Tubman, Nat Turner, John Brown, and the fight against slavery in this country. I learned about Emma Goldman, Eugene Debs, and the struggles of the labor unions, working class, and poor. I learned about Anne Frank, the Nazis, and how they persecuted minorities and imprisoned dissidents. I learned about Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King,

and the civil rights struggle.

...

With that, my attention turned to what was happening to other Muslims in different parts of the world. And everywhere I looked, I saw the powers that be trying to destroy what I loved. I learned what the Soviets had done to the Muslims of Afghanistan. I learned what the Serbs had done to the Muslims of Bosnia. I learned what the Russians were doing to the Muslims of Chechnya. I learned what Israel had done in Lebanon – and what it continues to do in Palestine – with the full backing of the United States. And I learned what America itself was doing to Muslims.

Tarek Mehanna's whole statement repays reading. As the Defense Science Board found -- and as many, many statements from terrorists themselves, as well as many, many non-terrorist Muslims show -- American policies drive Muslim hatred for and violence against us. These policies most absolutely include our support of Israel.---Mona- (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, drone strikes conducted by the United States create more terrorists than they kill. The current policy of conducting daily sorties against the same towns and villages for weeks on end (Yemen) tends to create local hatred of the drones and the people who use them. In Syria this is less pronounced. It is possible for drones to be used in a limited capacity to kill known high-value terrorist leaders, but this is not what the USA is doing. I would love to talk to someone such as Arisboch, ChrisAmiss, Avengerofthe BoN, and CorruptUser on this issue. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It encourage Salafis to become Salafi-Jihadis, but doesn't create Salafism in the first place. It's complicated and nuanced, obviously... CorruptUser (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing inherent in Roman Catholicism caused the IRA to blow up British department stores and politicians on their boats. British policy toward Irish Catholic Ireland led to that. The religion of people driven to commit terrorism against the U.S. because of its policies toward them is not especially relevant to their being induced to commit violence against those committing the acts they find intolerable. Even the objection to military bases near Mecca is as much to do with feeling their culture is, yet again, being grossly disrespected by the West as with anything doctrinal---Mona- (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The actual debate[edit]

Okay, so I saw the actual debate between Greenwald and Fair up to the last minute, and I think Greenwald proved more persuasive in the matter. Fair seemed kind of rude and dismissive of independent sources, and going through her Wikipedia page shows she's defended the use of drones against the findings of human rights gorups like Amnesty and HRW, which lowers my estimation of her. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, he is a smooth-talking bastard (and maybe he has a sock named "mona" here, but this is mere speculation).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Shorter Fair: "Everyone else from Generals, to polling organizations, to human rights organizations, to the government's own internal documetns are wrong. I am right because I've talked to some people. So Glenn, STFU."---Mona- (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, I'm sincerely flattered you think I'm as gifted as Glenn. Our aggressive styles are similar and always have been and we both stand on facts, but he is much, much smarter than I am by all objective measurements -- from IQ tests, to LSAT scores to his law school performance. Our writing is, however, distinguished by his deeply annoying verbosity and internal repetitiveness. I've been line-editing his prose for 20 years to get rid of that shit. If I were Glenn Greenwald all of my comments would be at least twice as long.---Mona- (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Patricia Making Landfall[edit]

Wow, Patricia just made landfall a few hours ago through the coast of Jalisco. The most powerful hurricane on record is about to strike one of the state's (relatively) closest to my state... You sir frankly disgust me! Hello! Look! 05:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh Gods, why didn't I see it before? The reason why Republicans are so big on climate denial? It's because they want hurricanes to flush out all the Hispanics and blacks! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:20, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

What's with all this hatred against bike lanes?[edit]

I mean, come on... Why aren't we discussing the nutty church and their hatred of people who happen to use bikes? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Honest question: is this satire? Eoan (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
What are you referring to? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
"Why aren't we discussing the nutty church and their hatred of people who happen to use bikes?"
I've seen too many people here over the past few weeks get completely sidetracked and seriously annoyed about minor things that have absolutely nothing to do with whatever the greater problem or discussion is as a whole, so I didn't know if you were joking or if you were serious when you wrote that. And I was curious. Eoan (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I think there are really two stories here: The one is incredibly old news: Religious (usually Christian, but sometimes Muslim) bigots use "religious freedom" as some universal stick to wag opponents with. That's old news and not interesting. The new thing is that the humble innocent bike gets involved here... And my question is: Why? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
"bikes are only used by vegan hippies who believe the great global warming swindle" .... I think that's certainly a part of it anyway.... 82.95.88.48 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Tell that to the great majority of people from Copenhagen... Also, I hate vegans but own two bikes and a paying membership in my local bikeshare... But maybe that's the place where that guy is coming from (who after criticism quadrupled down twice) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Copenhagen, that's some place in Europe, isn't it? Or should I say, "Commie haven"! --Ymir (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
because biking and bike lanes aee socialist european things the liberals are trying to imoose in us. You need to get it in your head that america =! Europe.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
That's not quite it. But some bicyclists do become smug and annoying. Bicycling is subject to an unwritten social compact, under which bicyclists have the status of pedestrians on wheeled contraptions. Like other pedestrians, they can do what they like so long as they stay out of the way of the cars. The problem isn't cyclists, but that subset of cyclists who think they're entitled to mix it up in traffic. And they really can't, and create dangers for themselves and others by being in the way. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The worst are the ones in the road acting like they aren't blocking traffic. They are, the bastards, everyone else has to merge left to avoid hitting you. CorruptUser (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
For millennia streets were for everybody... Now they are just for cars. Strange, innit? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The sidewalks are still there.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You'd be surprised how many streets don't have sidewalks... And how many people scream bloody murder if out of two lanes (per direction) of traffic, one lane of parking and a bit of wasted space here and there half a line for bikes shall be created... Heck this is once again a balance fallacy problem... The "radical" proposition would be to turn over the interstate highways to bikes entirely... But right now the anti bike crowd can suggest the "compromise" of bikes riding on the sidewalk (if there is one) or some such... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so sure, it would fall in line with FSTDT (making fun of fundies saying stupid things).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The bike was a very popular source of hatred in late 19th century Christianity, so it's not too strange for Fundies to continue to think that. As I recall, the bike was hated for two reasons. First, the best time to go bike riding was Sunday when you didn't have work - bike riding was treated as work so considered an attack on Christian values. Second was the claim that bike riding counted as sex, so virgin women will be deflowered and go insane from over-stimulated bike-riding.-- Forerunner (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Are there any bike seats with in integrated dildo and/or vibrator? Cause when it's about sex, human creativity knows NO BOUNDS!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Just take the seat off. CorruptUser (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a too high risk of injury without any kinda extra implements.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
that's never stopped misogynist rally makers in the slightest--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course not, it's not as if they are stopped by anything approaching reality...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The bike was a tremendous instrument in the liberation of women throughout the Western World. And it continues to be in repressive regimes... Just think of the Saudi movie about the girl and her bike... The bike was the first form of true mass-mobilization and given that globally six out of seven people do not in fact own a car, it continues to be the most widespread and the one with the biggest impact. Apparently conservatives hate the freedom to go hither and thither and yon a bike provides... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Although, China has the biggest number of bikes, though.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Walmart Story[edit]

Is there a better-established source for that story? The one currently linked reeks of fake news website. Blitz (Complaints Box) 18:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Googling it, the story seems legit (NY Daily News, Gawker covered it) but it's also a year old. Right month, wrong year, so it's outta here. PsyGremlinPrata! 19:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
it was planted to prove a point about Bronies!!1! 82.95.88.48 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Tony Blair's "apology": How to apologise when you're not sorry, but everyone expects you to be...[edit]

It's bizarre to read through CNN's story about Blair's "apology", because almost all of it is about Blair explaining what he's not sorry about. Indeed, the only area in which he shows any contrition is that the intelligence used to sell the war to the public was wrong (read: fabricated and/or quote mined by UK and US war mongers), but then immediately cushioning this "revelation" by citing the good old line about Saddam having "used chemical weapons extensively against his own people" without mentioning that when Saddam did this he was the buddy-buddy of the Western powers who had supplied him with said chemical agents because he mainly gassed Iranians (whom Blair (tellingly perhaps?) can't bring himself to refer to in any less oblique way than as "others"). As such, this latest "apology" fits into the pattern of attempted self-absolving of any blame for the patent fiasco of the Iraq War that has been evident in the statements from all of the responsible decision makers ever since it became painfully obvious that post-invasion Iraq was a train wreck, rather than the shining example of democracy (courtesy of Pentagon & The White House) in the Middle East.
I'm starting to wonder whether Blair is some sort of sociopath who realises that his surroundings think he has done something wrong and thus expect contrition, but who is psychologically unable to understand why this is so, leading to half-assed attempts at placating public opinion, marred by a fundamentally lack of empathy with the sentiments behind it (hence the torrent of hedging and self-justification). Remembering The Fog of War,Wikipedia's W.svg I wonder how many decades we'll have to wait until any of the chickenhawks show a level of reflection and a modicum of regret similar to those expressed by Rober McNamara.
Thus, a more fitting, if less catchy, headline would be: Blair still not really sorry for the Iraq War and its aftermath and continues to reject any culpability. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"I'm starting to wonder whether Blair is some sort of sociopath" Yeah, I'm starting to wonder the same thing. Also agree with your proposed headline. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 07:50, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I thought my second sentence was snarky enough to condemn Tony Blair for his insincerity, but it can be reworked if need be. ChrisAmiss (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
It's mostly snarky enough, but for whatever reason, people don't ever seem to expect democratically elected rulers to personally make up for abysmal policies they spearheaded during their reign, even when they're wealthy enough to possibly actually be able to do so. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 08:30, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'm not dissatisfied with the snark, but rather with CNN's headline and the level of Blair's insincerity which doesn't even amount to an empty apology, but simply has good ole Tony using the packaging of (not actual) contrition to wrap around what's a bunch of excuses, rather than an apology. How on earth can CNN make itself headline this piece of "news" with such a misleading title when the contents are simply Blair rehashing all the usual lame excuses ("Saddam gassed his own people!" "Would you rather have Saddam back?" "We're not responsible for subsequent events!" "No one could've known it would turn out so badly!" Etc. etc. etc.). Then Blair tells us about all the things he's not sorry about, and cannot even bring himself to take responsibility for the "massaging" of the intelligence used to "sell" the war (by claiming it was all just "mistakes").
Granted, I've never been a huge fan of the guy (though I was interested in his remake of Labour into New Labour in terms of both ideology and organisation), but this is getting downright embarrassing - like the kid who keeps coming out with lame excuses for not turning in his homework. However, I think that CNN also deserves at least a stern wagging finger for simply presenting "the Blair version" without any qualifications.
I mean, is this spineless "microphone holding" (as uncritical interviewing is known in my home country) really what CNN wants its hallmark to be? Not even a single critical comment, question, or even any context pointing out the stupendous mendacity of Blair's position here. Hell, even the sub-headline that Blair "Admits partial responsibility for ISIS rise" is extremely charitable, considering that his only admission is that "you can't say that those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015" whereupon he pretty much disavows exactly that kind of responsibility by pointing the finger at the Arab Spring and Syria. Blair seems to be angling for the hotly contested title of Most Mendacious Politician, or at least the (former) state leader entry in that category. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The Daily Mail headlined Blair's statements as "finally apologizing," while CNN's declared he "defied critics over Iraq war."---Mona- (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Matatmoros" is par for the course throughout the Spanish speaking world[edit]

As a matter of fact you can find a garishly painted Bluebird schoolbus well beyond its design live proclaiming his name (and maybe quoting some bible verses) in pretty much any place that has a public bus... The strange feeling the Spanish speaker gets when seeing this is only surpassed by jingoistic and hyper-nationalist statements e.g. regarding the Falklands in Argentina... Many aspects of political correctness seem to not yet have reached Latin America... And we see why PC is a good thing... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It runs deep. The spirit of the ethnic cleansing of 1492 is everywhere in the Hispanic world, right down to the figure slaughtering a pig in every public nativity scene. Still, it is changing. It's only been 117 years since 1898 and there's always mañana... London Grump (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I like many aspects of Latin American culture... But the nationalism and the christian / saint veneration / religious woo I could do without... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That Jimmy Morales guy sounds pretty on mission to me...[edit]

From what I read on his WP page he

  • Is an evangelical Christian
  • Denies the genocide against the Ixil MayaWikipedia's W.svg
  • Is pro death penalty
  • Is anti-choice
  • Has some friends who had mid to high ranking jobs in the former military junta
  • Has uttered strange nationalist statements concerning Belize

Someone with a firm grasp of Spanish and a bit of time on their hands might be able to make a good RW article on that guy... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It also sounds like another Black Mirror episode coming true. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Well reportedly he also did very unfunny blackface stuff... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Common Core[edit]

What did I do? Is it in the wrong section or is it just old/irrelevant?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, I don't understand the harsh treatment either. Business Insider seen as low quality? The text part was really short, and didn't add much. I can't watch video at the moment, but wow. Slurm und Drang (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The video is basically just the text in video format and adds nothing to the article. —ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 01:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not supposed to be a blog. It's just information. I mean if it sucks that much though I'll just remove it, I don't want to spend too much time defending a few lines of text.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't vote up/down on it but whining about Common Core is a very tiresome tactic of the right, of which Business Insider is considered a part of. As far as I know, Common Core does not, as frequently stated, mandate any particular way of solving a math problem, but only lays out what students need to know at what point. The "new math" some are experiencing is not actually a result of Common Core, but rather of a new philosophy that tries to get more kids ready for college math and developing math sense from the time they are young. Combine this with the fact that it was a short article and offers really know evidence or source for what it is reporting, and it's not an ideal article. Hentropy (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Whining about common core because "IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!!!111". Sigh. Suddenly everyone's an expert on teaching math to kids. This article is yet another fluff piece with no real content. Even as a European I'm getting tired of all the unsubstantiated whining about common core math Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
ok.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Obama is DINO-mite?[edit]

So Obama's a DINO because the drafted budget plan to avoid a national default contains compromise that includes a few cuts to Medicare and Social Security? Despite the cut to Medicare not really being a new cut but rather a continuation of last year's 2% cut for another year and a lack of a cost-of-living adjustment, and the cut to SSD being the closing of a loophole that clearly largely benefits higher-income families in good health? And despite including measures that stop a 52% premium hike on 1/3 of Medicare Part B recipients, and prevents a 19% across-the-board cut in SSD benefits next year by redistibuting payroll benefits, while ensuring full benefit payouts for the next 7 years? All this assuming no changes before it hits the vote, o'course, but still.

Interesting. Very interesting. (I realize most downvoted the WIGO, but I felt I should comment for the minority of folks that voted it up) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mona (IIRC) posted that WIGO and it was downvoted to death... So the community at large does not seem to think Obama is a DINO.... Though he is a bit too conciliatory to both the GOP and Iran in my mind... But well, you can't get everything all at once... If only Joe Biden were to become secretary of transportation and head of Amtrak with a two Billion budget... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree he plays a bit too softly with those who are being crazy...but the reality is that the country needs to be run even over the objections of those who don't wish to govern. I think it would be better if the government halted again to show that drawing a line in the sand with insane demands is not acceptable, yet again (which might still happen), but I realize that my opinion alone isn't that only judge of that or being a DINO. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Obama is too much of a DINO, but so was Bush. It makes me think Democrats aren't what we expect them to be. Which, by very nature of changing the standard, means we shouldn't be surprised anymore. Obama is too conservative for my liking. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Merican Democrats make UK conservatives look like Commies. Over here they'd be fairly right wing - it's only by comparison with the Repubs that they look even slightly left. Mad, the lot of 'em. (Mind you so are ours - seems you have to have a sense-ectomy before going in to politics) Scream!! (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Depending on how sustainable the message being popularized atm by Sanders is, alongside the pushback against the right-ward shift of the 70's - 80's in the western world, that may be changing someday. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw how greatly downvoted that was! Well, I voted for O in '08, and he broke almost all the campaign pledges most important to me. Then, he didn't fight for the public option in the health care act, turning it into a pork gift to the insurance companies. Moreover, he's presided over prosecuting more whistleblowers (however defined) and other leakers with the Espionage Act (a Draconian holdover from WWI) than all other administrations combined. He's a civil libertarian's nightmare in many ways. And, he is bargaining away some Medicade Medicare and disability payments. I didn't vote for him in '12 and would not again.---Mona- (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I voted for him in '12, but that had more to do with knowing that the last 4 years and various shenanigans had caused the electoral vote my district could give to him to go to the republicans again (we were the lone voice in Nebraska that gave it's electoral vote to Obama in '08) and because of the old standby of "well the other fucker will be worse". --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't and won't do "lesser of two evils" voting any longer. If the Democrats know progressives will vote for them no matter what, we'll get the what. I'd rather see the Republicans win a round or two and force the Democrats to behave as if FDR still lived. We are now government by oligarchy and it doesn't matter for many crucial issues which major party wins. This cannot continue. I won't participate in continuing it.---Mona- (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
I don't think the Democrats should pretend to have a litmus test. They've historically been a broad, cobbled-together coalition of vaguely like-minded individuals, the components of which have changed over time. Much of the Democratic party, and some of the current party has and is socially regressive and have used a lot of the same rhetoric as Republicans ("The era of big government is over"). Painting even the party of FDR as some kind of standard-bearer of radical progress is ignoring much of history. Vote against Democrats all you like on principle (I know I have), but don't hold the entire party to standards it never held itself to. Hentropy (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mona I honestly don't even know where to start. I guess I'll just make a list of it all to save time:

  • Which major campaign pledges did Obama break that he was not prevented from fulfilling by the Republicans? I keep seeing this argument over and over again but no one seems to have any examples. It's become almost as tiring as the GOP'ers who criticize the ACA without providing any substantial plan of their own. You do realize that that "broken promises" criticism sounds a lot like the GOP's whole "government can't do anything right (because we keep defunding it), so why bother funding it" spiel, right?
  • Please provide evidence that supports the idea that Obama did not try to negotiate for the public option during the health care debate. Because from what I remember a few years ago, he seemed to be heavily involved in the process even if he pushed Congress to make the law themselves instead of doing their jobs for them and writing up his own proposal
  • Noir LeSable already addressed your Medicare and SSD concerns. Re-read what they wrote, because it could even be argued that Obama is protecting those programs from proposed Republican cuts
  • All of the rage against Obama smells a lot like the kind of propaganda I would expect to be started by Republican political strategists. Understand something: I know that you're a liberal through and through, but I really wish that my friends on this side of the aisle would seriously critically question everything they hear instead of being so incredibly vulnerable to emotional manipulation. And it's not even a "you all are further to the left than me" issue either; I'm probably further to the left than 95% of the liberals here in America because I like Sweden's Social Democratic, Green and Feminist parties and I'm not really afraid of their former-communist Left party. And that's Sweden! One of the left-most democracies in the entire world! And yet I still manage to be careful about what I believe and I honestly think that Obama has been a superb president even though he's still way to the right of where I am. Because...
  • Compromise is an important part of the political process since it's just not possible to get even close to everything you want. So you need to prioritize and use proposals you care less about as poker-style bargaining chips to address the issues you care much more about if you really want to pass those reforms. To expect otherwise, in my view, is to be almost as unintentionally damaging as the Tea Party because of the polarization that causes and its potential to shut down the legislative branch's ability to get anything done (and by extension, the government)

And last but not least... I like and want Bernie Sanders to become the next President too, but I sincerely hope that you'll still vote for the Democratic nominee even if it's not him. I know at this point you're really sick and tired of the "vote for the lesser of two evils" spiel, but don't take it from me, take it from Bernie himself. He has been a life-long independent outside of the two-party system, but he decided to run for the Democratic Party's nomination for the upcoming presidential election. Why?

It's because he knows that the spoiler effect is real and that if he were to run for president as an independent, he would only make both he and the Democratic candidate lose, thereby unintentionally putting the Republican candidate in the White House as the next president. That is literally why he refuses to run for the presidency outside of the two-party system, because he knows that the Republican Party would win the election if he did and he doesn't want that to happen.

So this "vote for the lesser of two evils" argument isn't just coming from me and the Democrats any more, it's coming from him. Bernie Sanders clearly does not want the next president to be a Republican, so anyone who sits the next election out if he doesn't win the Democratic nomination would only be doing him a disservice.

Do you want to support his political revolution and legislative agenda as a loyal Bernie supporter? Then grant him his wish of making sure that the next POTUS is not a Republican, by voting for whoever the Democratic candidate will be even if it's not him. Eoan (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, sorry if some of the points here are repeats of what Eoan says) Mona, I'm going to have to sharply disagree that the GOP getting a few wins will force what you're describing. If anything, that'll force Dems to become more centrist to regain moderate voters. In my opinion, your outcome only happen if the Dems manage to get a majority vote in all branches of the Federal government (and even then, no guarantees). Til then, it'll always be a battle of compromise with the right, meaning not everyone is going to get what they want, including broken campaign promises. If the last several decades of Congress has shown us anything, it's that non-cooperation breeds non-cooperation. With the state the Electoral system and Congress are in right now, the only thing that'll happen if the President and/or legislative left-wingers dug in their heels and refused to compromise is that the already incredibly deep partisanship rift will only become deeper, and even less will get done. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Fully agree with previous user in all statements made here. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The notion that obstructionist Republics are responsible for all, or even most, of Obama's broke campaign pledges is simply false. But for documentation, let's start here. He's owned by Wall St. Then here. Now this. Also. As long as progressives remain Democratic Party loyalists we will continue to get Republican Lite from that party. Why should they do anything else? They can take their perks and money from Wall St., keep appointing Wall St. to crucial Executive and regulatory positions, and run rough-shod over civil liberties -- and they don't figure there's anything progressives can do but whine. Well, I won't just whine; I won't support them.---Mona- (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't vote for Obama in 2012 for some of the reasons you brought up, and partially because I live in a solid blue state and because I knew Obama would win, but I do honestly believe there is an awful lot at stake in this upcoming election. At one time "Republican Lite" would have been a decent descriptor, but saying Obama is currently no different from the Republican party just feels false, when the top people on the Republican side are neo-know-nothings, Beckians who literally think Hitler was a progressive liberal, turn the border states into hostile places for Mexicans, sabotaging and possibly succeeding in their total repeal of Obamacare and replacing it with something monumentally worse, etc etc I don't think they're on the same planet anymore. Winning three straight Presidential elections will force the Republicans to finally change as well, and we might finally get things like immigration reform, possibly a new Supreme Court, among other possible things. I know what it's like to have unpopular opinions but sometimes you have to come to terms with the fact that people aren't ready for Bernie, and he's not going to be able to penetrate that socialist label in 2016 and we'll have to deal with at least another 4 years of smug conservatives feeling vindicated for all their fanaticism. Hentropy (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
And what, exactly, are you doing then, Mona? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how anyone who both identifies as a "liberal" or a "progressive" and who follows the news from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan or Yemen can still support Obama. His inability to end either the war/continued aggression in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the horror stories that came out of the latest batch of leaks about the egregious violation of basic human rights in regards to drone strikes, and the continued and ever-increasing role that US special forces play in covert activities across Africa and much of the Middle East (covered capably in Tom's Dispatch and the Intercept among other places) should turn off any self-described "progressive." Obama has signed off on the extra-judicial killing of the citizens of his own country and killed many, many innocent civilians in multiple countries while he was at it. Is this your guy? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It depends on how you define progressive. Two Democratic Presidents often called progressive, Wilson and FDR, were both well-known for starting wars and not exactly being isolationists. LBJ, the man who brought us Medicare, the Civil Rights Acts, and the lofty ideas of the Great Society, also brought us escalation in Vietnam. Carter may seem like a weenie in hindsight but his record is surprisingly hawkish. Progressivism traditionally defines internal domestic policy, not really foreign policy, which makes linking any foreign policy philosophy with progressivism problematic at best. I suppose if you care more about our foreign activities around the world than any other internal issue, your best bet would be Rand Paul. I'm not sure why anyone would think Sanders better on this issue, he has virtually the same position on Israel and middle east policy as Clinton, has never condemned drone strikes. Paul and Trump are more or less the only ones advocating washing our hands of the middle east. Hentropy (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait what? Sanders has been publicly saying the U.S. needs to stop playing world policeman and have a more multilateral foreign policy. He voted against not only the (latest) Iraq war but the Gulf War. Meanwhile Clinton wanted to invade Libya. I will give you that he's not likely to deviate much from the mainstream U.S. view on Israel. --Ymir (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Also drone strikes. The focus on the "wars" as if American soldiers are still fighting a war there. Obama DID end the war in Iraq, but hawks were handed one of the biggest ideological gifts in decades when that resulted in Daesh taking over a large part of the country, and everyone from Iraq to other middle east allies were screaming for us to go back in and fix it. I'm honestly not confident Sanders would have done anything differently. I don't think he'll end drone strikes, I think he'll continue supporting Bibi the same amount Obama has, and likely also handle Syria with the same amount of tepidness. All I'm saying is if our foreign policy is your more overriding concern and you want to end all intervention and reel in government shenanigans (extra-judicial killings and such), your best bet is Paul, who has consistently and emphatically talked about these things for years. Hentropy (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The blimp[edit]

Oh look, something didn't work perfectly in America. What a unique travesty. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 11:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I can use a good "Obscenely expensive defense project gets the piss taken out of it due to ground-level error" every once and awhile. The blimp was unmanned and nobody was hurt, afaik. I'm incredibly amused by the idea of a bunch of men in black and uniformed GI's walking around asking random folks if they've seen a large, unmarked white military blimp float by recently. 166.137.244.93 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
At least there was no boy in it this time. Hentropy (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
A 2-billion dollar blimp comes untethered, knocks out electricity for thousands of people, and is shot at and destroyed by police officersWhy did they shoot it, it was white?. 2 billion dollars down the drain, or up the air. Your tax dollars at work, America. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Alright, less amused now. 166.137.244.93 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

More creationist brilliance from Ben Carson[edit]

"It is important to remember that amateurs built the Ark and it was the professionals that built the Titanic" (On Twitter.)---Mona- (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Important to remember? So he was there when these ships were built? So he's a time traveler! This might be his most persuasive argument to support him yet. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Does he read Conservapedia!? Andy would be thrilled! Seriously though, I'd love to see him argue that amateurs are better at brain surgery. AyzmoCheers 20:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Steven Universe "incident"[edit]

So should we have an article on actually problematic people who believe themselves to be "social justice" advocates? The phrase "social justice warrior" apparently can't be used anymore because its been high-jacked by reactionary right-wingers to refer to all/most social justice advocates but there clearly are a few people who seem to think that people who are part of a majority group are not worthy of sympathy and while their presence is exaggerated by internet libertarians ignoring their existance isn't helping anyone. ClothCoat (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe we already have an article on bullying and cyber-bullying... We could add this as an example of cyber-bullying, I think. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah we could have a subsection for common political "causes" for cyberbullying, things like Gamergate and 8chan for right-wing cyberbullies and the actually crazy social justice people for left-leaning ones. I don't think it would be a bad idea for them to have their own page, or perhaps the "social justice warrior" page should have a sub-section on actually nutty social justice warriors who should be mocked, similar to the moonbat page right now. ClothCoat (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
We could have an article on the appropriation of minorities' struggles in Internet manufactroversies and cyberbullying campaigns, maybe. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:35, 29 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yes and as far as I know the term "social justice warrior" initially referred to people who took advantage of minority struggles for attention/racism and they personally didn't actually care about minorities but I don't know what to call them anymore if the term "social justice warrier" has been overused to death by radical right-wingers. ClothCoat (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea. I started out agnostic in the GG controversy and it was the reactionary (and dishonest) shites of GG who made my decision for me. (Including Mike Cernovich, who's a narcissistic asshole.) But I had to giggle when a few actually called me an "SJW." Certainly on feminist issues I am not that. I really despise European -- especially British -- versions of feminism as found at, e.g., the Guardian. Sex is good. Humans generally like sex. Sex is also complicated and issues pertaining to it are not always usefully settled by some of the more outre feminist notions. Moreover, and more broadly, identity politics can get carried away to the point of tribalism.---Mona- (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Is it necessary that we call "them" anything? They're just people on the Internet getting off on some misguided online crusade. Those come a dime a dozen. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:50, 29 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Maybe a section in the SJW article along the lines of "That's not to say..." making some of the points made here?---Mona- (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
There was a section and it rapidly became complete shit as people added everyone who'd ever annoyed them personally, including examples from RationalWiki talk pages. See Talk:Social_justice_warrior#Most_of_this_article_is_personal_complaints for the previous discussion. Doctrinaire feckwits have been around forever; the hard part is taking the examples of people that annoyed you and demonstrating an actual connection to the specific tag "social justice warrior" - David Gerard (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree, and the whole nebulousness/subjectivity of the term makes it pretty darn difficult to pin down. The idea of what constitutes an "extreme" or "SJW" viewpoint or stance would definitely vary between, say, the average Breitbart reader vs the average Slate reader. I mean, I know this is anecdotal, but I've certainly been simultaneously called an "SJW" and a "bigot" a number times in the past for holding a particular stance (for e.g., saying that someone's choice of pronoun should generally be respected, but asking everyone you meet what their preferred pronoun is when you first meet them is largely a waste of time). I still think there should be a section discussing this whole matter, but I think examples should be either relatively extreme/toxic (such as this instance, or the Requires Hate troll) or restrictive on personal anecdotal evidence. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Good point but what would count as "wingnut/moonbat" would also be different between the average Breitbart user and the average Salon user yet we can still have a rough concensus of when a right-winger is considered wingnutty, namely by being divorced from reality. It would be tougher to do this with subjective subjects such as social justice but I think most skeptics would draw the line at cyberbullying or the more obviously dumb twitter outrages (such as calling Stephen Colbert a racist). ClothCoat (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
In some ways I think the Tribalism page could be expanded and enhanced to include examples of how this can poison any political movement. It is particularly darkly amusing/sickening when these people unironically start using the same exact deflecting tactics as Gamergate, that it's all a conspiracy hoax or "I don't like bullying/harassment but she's still a horrible person" horseshit. Hentropy (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
If it helps to try and explain the situation here, then I'll try and give an overview of it though it may be rather biased. We all know what Steven Universe is; a cartoon show aimed at kids who watch Cartoon Network. It was created, produced, and directed by Rebecca Sugar, Ian Jones-Quartey, and company (who refer to themselves collectively as Crewniverse) and was praised by critics and viewers for its socially progressive qualities. As it grew in popularity, more derivative unofficial art (fan art) of it was created by older fans of the show. Certain viewers have criticized others for creating art that appeared to deviate from the progressive image that the show promoted. When this topic was up brought to them the creators of the show gave a laissez-faire response to it, believing that fans and viewers had a right to create whatever art they'd like too. This issue seems to have come to a head with the attempted suicide of tumblr user Zamii070, who was harassed online for art that other various users and some Steven Universe viewers believed to be counter-progressive, offensive, and provocative or "problematic". Supposedly (huge supposedly) her art was racially insensitive, homophobic, and body-negative. If it matters to note this, the resulting drama led to an online response on part of the Staff of the show in defense of the rights of unofficial artists, which led to harsh online criticism of the creators for defending Zamii070 and others like her. 108.41.190.141 (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Krashlia
Personally I don't think that's 100% accurate. I love Steven Universe, you could say it does support "progressive values" in the sense of supporting nontraditional relationships, sorta. But the main characters in question are shapeshifting space aliens who don't have our gender or a whole lot in common with humans. The fanartist in question did not make a whole gallery of horribly offensive fanart, people took issue with two pictures, one where it depicted one of the shapeshifting space aliens as being slightly too thin compared to official art, and a supposedly racist drawing that was taken down upon objection. The artist was then treated like she had committed a violent hate crime, and relentlessly bullied over it, and when she did attempt suicide, many of the same bullied congratulated her. There really is no "other side" to this debate and there should be no obligation to try and moderate it just as RW did not moderate and given credit to Gamergaters for their "valid points". The people involved in this are bad and should feel bad, in other words. Hentropy (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, dear goodness. Thats a relief. You just saved me a lot of trouble. 69.113.232.152 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Krashlia

The news from Iran[edit]

Are frankly horrible... But I guess the usual suspects will still find a way to justify ending the sanctions and reacting with a shrug if this entity acquires nuclear bombs... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What news are you talking about? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Iran breaking its own record for most state sanctioned murder executions per capita... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Well isn't it interesting that apparently nobody is even considering a stern worded letter to the Iranian supreme dipshit? I mean, what if that number of executions were to happen in Texas? Or in Turkey? Or am I mistaking something for something else... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Congress regularly condemns this sort of thing all the time. Sure, the news is horrible, and I condemn Iran for capital punishment, but I don't see 1 US politician condemning Turkey for its extrajudicial execution of Kurds, Saudi Arabia for beheading people for sorcery, witchcraft and possessing drugs, or Israel for its brutal treatment of Arab Muslim Palestinians, namely shooting and killing people for getting too close to the police. And of course, there is no criticism from US politicians of daily murdering of people in the deserts of Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan using flying robots of death. Do you roundly condemn all of these too? At least Iran is actually trying people in courts; Turkey and Israel just murder people for being a different ethnolinguistic group. (Turkey shoots Kurds because they think they are PKK members, and Israel kills Gazans and Palestinians because their appearance is different and they might be a terrorist.) Do you condemn this too? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Israel kills Gazans and Palestinians because their appearance is different and they might be a terrorist- Pbfreespace3 Do You Believe That? Ah, vraiment?!? --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
There also was a thing in the press quite recently that Iran is already violating the terms of the nuke deal.... With regards to the Islamic Republic every foreign policy has to be based on regime change. Through any means necessary. Be it war, peaceful protests, assassinations or other ways... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you insane. That would create a vaccum which the Gulf states would exploit. Also Iran can already make a nuke in months and this deal, between US allies, restricts the time it takes them to create one. Also the RAND Corporation and DoD have told us we wouldn't be able to hit all the nuke facilities since we don't know where they are, they are protected by a comptent navy and air force, they are most likely underground, and would take too long to find. Clearly the people there aren't for a revolution in any sense and you can't just create one. Lastly, I don't see how the Gulf states are any better especially since the Saudis have said they desire a nuke and Pakistan already has one; we know they both arm Islamic terrorists and in Pakistan's case they would wipe out India who also has nukes, but we still love them--Owlman (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not 1941 and Iran is not Stalin. We don't have chose between two horrible allies, we can chose not to ally with either. Both the Saudi regime and the Iranian regime should be removed from power. Trade embargoes are the very least we should do. And we should start thinking about building up a democratic opposition to take over once the current regime falls. What happened in 2009 shows that such a democratic opposition exists at least in part. And instead of seizing this opportunity, the West let them hang out to dry. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
And why would they trust us now? We already abadoned our chance and fostering democratic resistance will be met by more scrunity since the Arab Spring essentially fell into Islamist hands. If anything Tunisiaand Jordan are the only allies in the Islamic region outside of the Pacific. Sanctions only help as long as they work, but what do you do after the sanctions because democracy didn't come out of Iraq or Cuba, and it won't come out of North Korea. And if we aren't they how are we going to win the "hearts and minds" of the region; mostly unilateral, mostly Western invasions don't work in the region e.g. iraq.--Owlman (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What do prison families think of Hillary's promises of ending mass incarceration?[edit]

Not much. Bill Clinton and the Democrats in the 1990s led in passing Draconian criminal justice laws. Hillary has repeatedly spoken in favor of them...until she didn't. I don't believe a word that comes out of her bankster-owned mouth.---Mona- (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, people can change opinions! Why just as early as a year ago she was in favor of gay marriage being a states issue, and as long ago as 2012 she was officially anti marriage. (But it's ok she was pro civil unions after 2000).--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. She and Bill are very good at putting their fingers in the wind to detect which way it's blowing. But not only do they not lead, they produce horrible polices.---Mona- (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, Obama's administration has already done almost as much as could be considered reasonable at the federal level, retroactively shortening drug law sentencing. You'd have to advance some kind of specific agenda above and beyond just saying it's a problem. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The Obama Adminsitration has notdone as much as could be considered reasonable at the federal level. That said, his recent public statements on the topic are important. For a sitting president to acknowledge that the U.S. is the prison capital of the world is encouraging. But I don't believe Hillary Clinton on anything. She and Bill are consummate liars. Exhibit A would be their revisionist history of their actions and statements on gay rights.---Mona- (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no mass incarceration problem can be fixed at the federal level. We have fifty states with frustratingly diverse justice systems, and the federal government has limited power in addressing it. It's also antithetical to start letting people out who have committed non-violent drug offenses when those same non-violent drug offenses are still crimes under federal and most state laws. You have to start fixing the law if you want to start solving the problem, and Presidents aren't wizard-monarchs who can wave their hands and change 50 states' laws. Hentropy (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
You clearly know nothing about drug policy and the law. Drugs are draconianly criminalized at the federal level -- the DEA exists for a reason -- and Obama has not only done nothing to change that, he's done the opposite. His DoJ plans to flout Congress and prosecute medical marijuana cases in states that have legalized it. The states are moving toward reason on the issue; the federal government at the Executive level, no.---Mona- (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, Mona. Obama has not prosecuted dispensaries in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, or Oregon very much since legalization occurred. I guarantee you if a Republican was in office, all cannabis in those places would be immediately confiscated in a LA Riots-style mass-deployment of federal troops. Shops would be shut down, owners would be jailed for violating federal law by selling a schedule-1 substance, and users would be heavily fined, if not mass-incarcerated. If you think things are so bad under Obama now, why don't you elect a Republican and find out what draconian drug law really looks like. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you rational? I cited facts. How can you "disagree" with those? Bill Clinton was a Democrat and what he and Democrats did to make us a mass penal colony was appalling and is partially why we are having this discussion. (They are apologizing all over the place now to help Hillary.) Moreover, there are Republicans on board with ending this horror (tho they initiated the "law and order" fanaticism that ultimately caused it).---Mona- (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you are mistaking me for opposing you on this issue, Mona. That is not the case. I support criminal justice reform, removal of mandatory minimum sentencing, ending of private prisons, and I don't think people should be locked up for using cannabis, pills, or psychedelics. I am simply directing you to vote for a Democrat in the US election (if you can vote) rather than not vote at all, especially if you are in a swing-state. Unless you live in a super-lib state like NY or California, in which case feel free to vote Green Party. Bill Clinton did do terrible things like signing a brutal crime bill, but he also did gun control, which cut violent crime in half. Even though he put a lot more people in prison, you can't deny that crime rates are down. Again, I disagree with mass incarceration. Please don't assume anything else. Also, I doubt that source you cited about Republicans embracing prison reform. They have never shown this in their policies while in power, and most of the Republican candidates say we should lock more people up. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no intention of voting GOP, but you are mistaken about them. Several are quite serious about criminal justice reform and some wingnute outlets are getting behind it. And Bill Clinton's "gun control" is not responsible for a drop in the crime rate. Among other things, the declining percentage of young adult males is responsible for that. At any rate. I might vote for the Democratic nominee of TRump is the GOP candidate. Might. But otherwise, I'm entirely done with Lesser of Two Evils voting. Hillary is owned by Wall St. and right in the thick of the oligarchic power structure in the U.S. I won't willing support that.---Mona- (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
What if Bernie Sanders is the democratic nominee? Would you vote for him? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Most people rotting in prison due to nonviolent drug offenses are doing so in state prisons, Mona, many of those same states that have since legalized marijuana in some fashion. Not all nonviolent drug offenses involve marijuana, either, may involve harder drugs which are no where close to being decriminalized by the states. They may have started decriminalizing marijuana, but they have not taken their draconian laws jailing nonviolent offenders off the books. Obama cannot do this for them, only they can, and they have only started because of the huge financial cost of mass incarceration. Just today, evil Obama has let 6,600 nonviolent offenders out of the prison, many of them involved in harder drugs than weed, and expects 40,000 more to be released early over the next few years. Meanwhile, there is no release for people rotting in the states. I know this personally, because my whole immediate family has worked in the justice and prison systems for as long as I have been alive. Even if we let all 200,000 federal prisoners out of prison, there would still be 2 million in the states, including nearly 200,000 minors. Hentropy (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hillary is full of shit, Part 6,489[edit]

Her surrogate is now claiming Bernie Sanders is "sexist." From: "Christine Quinn, the former New York City Council speaker who sits on Clinton’s New York Leadership Council and does fundraising for her campaign." ---Mona- (talk)

Holy shit, look at the record of the person making the accusation, Christine Quinn. She illegally diverted millions of dollars to fake groups, and almost quarter of those funds went to groups that backed here election campaign. Source. She supported moderate billionaire tycoon Michael Bloomberg and his campaign. She is a Hillary shill and is going to lie to get Hillary elected. Apparently she is saying Bernie Sanders' campaign manager was being sexist by joking he should interview her for VP pick. What? How does that constitute sexism? If someone made the same joke about Lincoln Chaffee, would people be saying that person was sexist towards men? It doesn't make any sense. It's not like the manager said "Yeah, like we'll pick that woman for VP. Hah.". Ridiculous. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, in the '08 campaign Hillary said she'd offer Obama the VP spot. By Quinn's reasoning Hillary was therefore racist.---Mona- (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"Peace in the Valley"[edit]

It's a really well done, 15-20 minute documentary about the town of Eureka Springs, Arkansas, home of the Passion Play -- the largest outdoor drama in the U.S. They also host the largest U.S. statue of Jesus. In early 2015 the town held a referendum on the issue of protecting the civil rights of LGBT people. Many of the Xtians had a fit (not all). The Passion Play, especially "Jesus" ascending into heaven is the most outrageous camp I've ever seen -- it outdoes any drag queen performance. The juxtaposition of this Passion Play and all the Xtian-themed commercialism on then one hand, with events surrounding this referendum on the other, is most entertaining.---Mona- (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Fake knife attack[edit]

Mona, that looks too much like a conspiracy theory. You got any kind of mainstream sources on that?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

WP: "The newspaper won the Asia - Pacific award for best newspaper production in July 1990. The online edition of the paper was reported by Forbes Middle East in 2010 to be the number one among the English-language online newspapers in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region as well as in the UAE.[9] However, The paper's online version was the seventh mostly visited website among all online websites in the same ranking.[10] Forbes Middle East named it as the third in the Arab world in the period from 31 August 2011 to 31 August 2012.[11]"---Mona- (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
And the article itself sound too much like mere rumor mongering.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, because authorities would never try to hush away their screw ups/excessive use of force, right? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:24, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Here's Al Jazeera a few weeks ago, who link to the video. At that time AJ qualified by saying it "appeared" one soldier hands a knife to another who places what "appears" to be knife by the body. But as I showed you on my talk page, there's a video of the IDF shooting a wounded Palestinian mand in cold blood. (The widespread use of phones that record is doing to the IDF what they have done here in the U.S. vis-a-vis our cops -- many of whom have been trained by Israel, including in Ferguson.) Moreover, many, many Arab witnesses have been emphatic that in more than one claimed stabbing there was no knife. Why do you think this would not happen?---Mona- (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Betteridge's law of headlines come to the mind and even the Al Jazeera article says, that even Al-Haq itself is not quite sure, if that's really, what happened. You have to do better...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Right, a video of an IDF soldier shooting a defenseless wriggling Palestinian youngster and "You have to do better!" is your answer. How much evidence do you need? Does an IDF soldier need to assault you in person before you realize how denialist you're being? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Did you even watch the fucking Youtube video?! Are normally people using Youtube videos as evidence here told to fuck off? And I watched the video and couldn't see the soldiers putting ANYTHING near the attacker. Nice try.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Given the many reports from witnesses to multiple claimed stabbing attacks who say that there was no knife where the IDF claims there was, as well as video evidence of manifest murder, I see no reason to doubt the object the IDF planted was a knife. Here's an edited version of the video that I find persuasive. (I very seldom use this source, partly because I have too little knowledge of it's overall reliability quotient, but one writer there is known to be of dubious reliability -- or at least plagiarism and ill-considered hyperbole.)---Mona- (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Holy bollocks, if even you question the veracity of the site... OK, about the video, from that distance and with that poor resolution (camera phones ain't exactly known for being professional super-resolution camera monsters) you can't really make out, what the soldier is handing the other soldier and the second soldier doesn't seem to bend down far enough to put this thing, whatever it is, beside the injured attacker. The video doesn't prove the soldiers planting a fake attack knife. Nice try.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, this video shows an Arab woman being executed. While this is RT and I know Arisboch has no use for that, I find it generally reliable as long as it isn't covering anything to do with Russia. (When it's Russia, it is as reliable as the U.S. media when it covered, e.g., the lead-up to, and first several years of, the Iraq war.)---Mona- (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
RT successfully out-bullshitted Fucks' News by a damn wide margin and loves to peddle all kinds of insane conspiracy theories, but even disregarding that and, that video hasn't fuck-all to do with the one in the WIGO entry, the first video in the article has an equally atrocious resolution and image sharpness (hope, it's the right word in that context, I'm not quite sure) and you can't really see, if the woman's hands are really empty, as Dabour claimed, the 2nd video is better, but it is still really hard to tell, if that is only her arm or a knife she's wielding (bringing a knife to a gunfight...Wikipedia's W.svg) and I don't understand, what point the article tried to make with the 3rd video. Again, the videos don't support the claim the articles tries to make.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In short: Mona is shitting all over WIGO with something that is most likely another Pallywood fake so badly executed that even Al Jazeera only touches it with a very, very long pole... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona: Make sure you post articles with videos that actually prove your point, for starters. The first soldier quite clearly has a black talkie-walkie in his left hand - an item that he gives to the soldier behind him in the first highlighted portion, as you can see something solid black getting exchanged there -, while the second highlighted portion shows... nothing, really. But yeah, I'm sure that with enough dishonesty this can be damning evidence of the eeeeeeeevil Israeli soldiers planting knives on dead Palestinians. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that RT is on our list of Webshites for a reason, right? CorruptUser (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't there a debate some place where one user said (s)he liked RT? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Without the propoganda outlets how would we know what they(in this case, Putin) want us to think? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Why would Putin and Russia be involved in some vast conspiracy to make the Palestinians seem oppressed? What does Putin have to gain from that? But with regards to the video, I really don't care. It doesn't prove or disprove anything, and it doesn't change the fact that Israeli soldiers treat Palestinian lives as being of less value than Israeli lives. Instead of hating on each other, the vitriol and anger needs to stop. I understand why pro-Israeli users so quickly jump on Mona. They don't like her and dislike her viewpoints. But certain users should refrain from personal attacks. She posted a video and asked to discuss, which she achieved. Stop hating on her for posting something in WIGO that is directly related to current events; that's what it's here for. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Why would Putin and Russia be involved in some vast conspiracy to make the Palestinians seem oppressed?- Pbfreespace3 - Several reasons actually. If you want to know a thing or two about Antisemitism in Russia under Putin, I guess Arisboch could tell you a thing or two... And being against Israel is also something rather common among the pro-Putin crowd at least in Germany... And I know of at least one American (she edits on this site) who likes RT and hates Israel, so... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Although about Putin, I don't think of him as an antisemite, he's "just" power-hungry. Him siding with the Palestinians (or pretending to do so) is an expression of him being anti-Western, not antisemitic.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it matters much whether Putin personally is homophobic, hyper-nationalist or some weird Russian orthodox shit; a lot of the people who vote for him are, and he tries to feed the beast rather thaen tame it... But that may just be my long distance view... And Antisemitism definitely is a thing that exists in Russia. And it has for quite some time; why else would all the refuseniks have gone to prison for wanting to emigrate?Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
His policy is of course unabashedly homophobic and hypernationalist, but not antisemitic. He did, e.g., jail the these oligarchs not, cause some of them were Jewish (or of Jewish descent), it's because they were his political enemies. Of course antisemitism does still exist in Russia on a higher level than it does in, say, Western Europe, but the policy of official or, like in the Soviet Union, unofficial state-approved antisemitism is, AFAIK, dead. Jews and anyone else is free to go to Israel (which about a million did) and elsewhere and the Jewish religion enjoys, as do the other religions in the former Soviet Union, a rather visible revival.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The video's too blurry for to make the determination whether they planted the knife. There have been cases by human rights reports in the past that have documented the IDF's deceptions (from claiming human shields to using ambulances to transport weapons to denying the use of white phosphorus) that makes the IDF a very unreliable source (well they were unreliable to begin with since they are a government army, but it only adds to the point). I doubt the IDF would need to go to ludicrous extents to cover the trail of blood they produce since they do a good job of spilling blood routinely in Gaza every 2-3 years. Regardless, 6 times more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed in the recent month, and not to forget that Israeli officials themselves have conceded that Palestinian attacks on civilians follow from settler or IDF attack on civilians. The killing of the boy looked like an extrajudicial execution anyway, so I don't see the point in furthering elaborating on the IDF's war crimes and deceptions. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
forget that Israeli officials themselves have conceded that Palestinian attacks on civilians follow from settler or IDF attack on civilians.- ChrisAmiss [Who?]
The killing of the boy looked like an extrajudicial execution anyway- ChrisAmiss Do You Believe That? It looked like this guy bringing a knife to a gunfight and paying for it with his life.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
RT is no more shit than CNN is. If a Russian wants the truth about Russia, she's not gonna get it from RT; she stands a much better chance from CNN. By the same token, the ugly aspects of the U.S. are found on RT and not much on CNN.---Mona- (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
RT is no more shit than CNN is.- -Mona- [Bullshit] The more uglier aspects about the US you'll find on RT are the conspiracy theories that are either too brainless for Faux News or too anti-american for Fooks News.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Alyona Minkovski is one of the best journos out there. She did recently leave RT, but they still have many fine staff. Yeah, they've occasionally put on fuckwitted conspiracy theorists, but then CNN has the very stoopid and insufferable Wolf Blitzer. Not to mention that puke Don Lemon.---Mona- (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
"Fine" [Bullshit] staff... to play the Ministry of Truth for Pootie-Poot.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
No, that's a ridiculous statement. RT is batshit goddamn insane and pretty much an unsuitable source for anything - David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hillary and The Forward[edit]

So what do y'all think about her plan. I think that it sounds alright, but I find it ridiculous that she sees Bibi as someone she can work with. Obama himself finds the man to be a nuisance especially since he keeps colonizing the West Bank. I am still unmoved by idea of a two state solution and I don't see how closer military ties with the IDF is going to make life safer since most of the problems are internal. I don't know much about the Goldstone report, but it doesn't seem biased and her opposition to the BDS seems like more pandering then well considered research of their goals. Lastly, the wording of the WIGO entry makes the Forward sound like some crank paper; I am curious why?--Owlman (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hillary is a hypocrite. She will denounce Russia rightfully so for violating international law by annexing Crimea and occupying Eastern Ukraine, but when Israel does so through the building of the West Bank Barrier that will annex the settlements or maintaining a half-century old occupation (under the law, occupations are supposed to be temporary, never permanent), she says the UN unfairly singles it out and denounces the ICJ for ruling in 2004 that the barrier was illegal. If a war crimes tribunal or UN find that Qaddafi or Taliban forces commit war crimes, she'll have no problem citing the findings of human rights groups (at least from some of the emails I read from her). But if the Goldstone Report and human rights groups find violations by Israel, she considers them biased. She's smart enough to know she's being selective; she's not an idiot. She's just another fucktard politician who doesn't apply principles equally and thinks she's above the law. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh obviously this was an opportunistic writing on a secular Jewish, labor (democratic socialist/social democratic) Zionist paper. It's not like she has any actual solutions to the problem at hand and she just glosses over Palestianian stathood in order to not piss off anyone who she her pandering to Israel.--Owlman (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
There is very little evidence that Hillary Clinton would do anything meaningful to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Obama has not, standing idly by as Israel bombs and invades Gaza multiple times, bombs Syria, and clashes with Palestinians in the West Bank. Nothing any US president has done recently has done anything to advance peace; in fact, they have directly caused more violence by repeatedly supporting multiple expeditionary military campaigns of 1 side in the conflict. Through this article, Hillary is pandering to the Jewish vote and also to Jewish millionaire donors who want to be convinced they should back her rather than another candidate. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we change WIGO to "What is going on with Ben Carson"?[edit]

The man seems to be rather busy, recently... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As if he were the only dumb wingnut fuck on the political scene of the US, there's Donald (although I honestly can't get the hard-on all the extreme wingnuts have for him (especially the one's throwing the really, really vile word "cuckservative" around), seeing that even though he displays a rather nasty attitude towards Hispanics (often bordering on or being racist), he (apparently) doesn't their share their antisemitism (he's rather friendly towards Israel and his daughter, who converted to Judaism to marry Jared Kushner and seems to be rather orthodox)).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hatred towards Latinos gets my almost though not quite as riled up as Antisemitism. But that is neither here nor there... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm with you on that one, but it's still weird, that they support someone ,who doesn't share their antisemitism.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The original question is as dumb as those idiots who freak out every time a wave of similar topics show up on the wikipedia front page. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
WIGO Election Circus doesn't sound like a bad idea if you ask me. Vulpius (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. WIGO US Elections? Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
"WIGO clown cars for pachyderms and asses"?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems like he is what is going on in the world, especially vying for a position of the country with enough weapons to end it, while spouting things that are even funnier than the weird stuff Palin or Perry shot off. Might as well laugh while the laughing is good. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
What about Hispanic Jews? CorruptUser (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Is that a notable demographic? I know of Sephardi Jews (not quite the same) of whom very few are left still speaking the Spanish-derived language they took with them when they were expelled from Sepharad in 1492. And which Latin American country has any sizable Jewish community? Honest question, I wouldn't know of any off the top of my head. Iran murdered Jews in a synagogue in Argentina in the 1980s, so there might be some Jews there, though... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Are You Serious?[edit]

"Suspect of university stabbings in California faces the consequences of police brutality"

I seriously doubt a guy who tried to stab as many people as he could (including one apparent victim of opportunity while running away from the cops) should be considered a victim of police brutality. Anyone who know a thing about nonlethal weapons (that cops carry), like tasers, should know that they can be quite unreliable at stopping deadly threats (and have a maximum range of 20 feet). I'd really like good evidence that he should be considered a victim, and that the cops should be the ones criticized.— Unsigned, by: 108.210.202.88 / talk / contribs

This might sound like an odd question, but since when were victimhood and being guilty of a crime mutually exclusive? 142.124.55.236(talk) 15:40, 6 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
If the police had shot the suspect the next day while he was swiping a candy bar a convenience store, then yeah, that would have been a complete injustice on the part of the police. But the suspect had just assaulted four people with an apparent intent to kill and was fleeing the scene of the crime. Unless new evidence is found to contradict the current story, this case in particular isn't something to criticize law enforcement over.173.71.127.141 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It is possible to be "victim" and a murderer. However, the article (and you) gave no reason why a guy who was shot dead for trying to kill as many people as possible suffered an injustice. If you have evidence that the UC Merced cops committed a crime, please show it to me (link to a real news site, not Tumblr/Wordpress/etc. please)— Unsigned, by: 108.210.202.88 / talk / contribs

It may be in the context. In Europe, you would not necessarily expect someone going on a knife rampage to be shot at all, unless it was to stop them in the act of driving a knife into someone or keep them away potential victims. The preferred tactic would be to corral them and pepper spray them, where possible. If guns did come out, the shots would be to incapacitate, not to kill, and as hard as that is you would expect the effort to be made - at least at first. So while the officers may have done exactly what training and policy told them to do, to eyes outside the US it could still look like police brutality by way of being excessive force. It's an extrajudicial killing, however you slice it, and the sort of thing that law enforcement should seek to minimise. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
First of all, since the attacker had already attacked several people, including a random bystander he ran past, he was, in fact shot to "keep [him] away [from] potential victims", i.e., everyone else in his path. Second, the preferred method may well be to "corral them and pepper spray them", but how exactly do you manage that while chasing him through a pedestrian area? Do you just hope some other cops manage to get ahead of him before he knifes any other bystanders, and that he for some reason stops and waits to be pepper sprayed rather than just stabbing the cop that appears in front of him? Can you cite any actual incidents where non-U.S. police actually used such tactics? Third, as to the idea that "the shots would be to incapacitate", that's frankly nonsense. In real life, there is no such thing as "shooting to wound". The realities of human physiology, the accuracy of real human beings in real world situations, and the physics of ballistics all combine to make such a notion completely fanciful - it would literally be just as realistic to claim that outside of the U.S. police would use a Vulcan nerve pinch. Finally, it was NOT an "extrajudicial killing." That term specifically refers to assassinations and executions by police without judicial warrant, i.e., killing an unaware target in an ambush or a helpless prisoner. It absolutely does not refer to police killing an armed attacker, even if the force might be seen to be excessive.70.62.74.74 (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Did you see a judicial proceeding or legal process? Then it's extrajudicial. Extrajudicial killings can be found to be legally justified (and not only when committed by police), but they're still outside a legal proceeding at the time. Deliberate police homicide, even when perfectly justified, is still an execution. We shouldn't let the fact that something's a sad necessity drive us to sugar-coat what's actually happening. Should police end up in harm's way when apprehending someone? Of course they should, because that's their bloody job. Not just to make themselves the targets rather than people on the street, but by accepting that the minimal use of force will sometimes mean they get attacked when a situation turns sour. If there are other potential victims nearby, then that's an argument against police using firearms in that situation, to avoid accidental casualties. If there aren't other potential victims nearby, then there's no need to stop them immediately. 'Shooting to incapacitate' is not Hollywood kneecap shots, it's shooting the minimal number of single bullets to bring the target down. The police killings that make the news are not minimal - it's often continuous fire even after the target is on the ground and already dead. It's the difference between "I'm going to stop him no matter what" and "I'm going to kill him no mater what". If you can't see that the latter is a betrayal of what police are supposed to do, you're fucked up. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
It's the difference between "I'm going to stop him no matter what" and "I'm going to kill him no mater what".- Queex And often, outside of the nice and clean movie studio or the comfy chair of the Internet forum user and on the streets, the former necessitates the latter. And putting an criminal down during him attacking people is not an execution, see dictionary.com.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
From this side of the pond it would appear that the US, in general, is quite OK with the idea of the police gunning down practically anyone with the lightest of pretext. I live in a country where our police are not normally armed but, across other western countries the rate of police killings is several orders of magnitude lower. Now, I know the US is "exceptional" but are you still living in the wild west? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to give this one last try. Queex, if you're going to define "extrajudicial killing" as literally any killing that occurs without explicit judicial approval, then...what is the point of even using the term? That's not how human rights organizations use the term, and it becomes meaningless and redundant. By your definition, the overwhelming majority of all killings, by anyone, anywhere, are "extrajudicial." The term is universally (except, apparently, for you) to mean a situation where police forces violate normal laws and judicial procedures to deliberately and premeditatedly kill someone - NOT to refer to any situations where police (or, by your definition, anyone other than a sanctioned excecutioner) use lethal force.
And, again, on "shooting to incapacitate", how exactly, do you think that this works in the real world? You take a single aimed shot at a time, waiting in between each shot to see if the target has stopped? Do you wait one second? Five? Ten? How far is he allowed to run before you decide your shot was ineffective? Do you have some sort of system worked out to determine which cop on the scene is the designated shooter? Do you wait until he is almost within knife range of an innocent bystander, when, under real world conditions, your shot will endanger the bystander, not to mention your hesitation to evaluate the effectiveness of your shot may give him time to close with another target? And, specifically, in this case, do you have ANY evidence that the Merced U police engaged in "continuous fire even after the target [was] on the ground and already dead"?
And if you seriously can't understand that your definition of "extrajudicial killing" is idiosyncratic and virtually meaningless, and that, in the real world, your preference for "shooting to incapacitate" just isn't a plausible tactic, you're pretty fucked up.
Doxys Midnight Runner, no, we Americans are not still in the Wild West, and, yes many of us are concerned with the rates of violence in our country, whether police-on-suspect, criminal-on-civilian, or criminal-on-police. And yes, there is a real and serious argument to be made that we might be better off adopting the system used in the UK and some other countries where most police are not armed with firearms. None of that, however, negates the fact that this specific police killing seems to have been entirely justified.
Also note, that, of course, new facts may yet come to light which make it clear that this was, in fact, an excessive use of force. That does happen, and shouldn't be minimized - but I think referring to any use of force by police as "extrajudicial killings" in fact does minimize actual instances of excessive force and police brutality.70.62.74.74 (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The words "killing"" and "justified" do not belong in the same sentence. See here for a list of police killings in the US this year alone (973!). For comparison see here for the UKWikipedia's W.svg since 1920. Something rotten in the state of … Scream!! (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The words "killing"" and "justified" do not belong in the same sentence.- Scream!! Outside this fucking dreamworld of yours, they do.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Dreams are what we should aim for. Scream!! (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems like every other developed country but the US has aimed for that dream and found it. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
That of magical bullets? Hm, the US did find it too, look at the assassination of JFK Sarcasm.gif.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
No, just competent policing. Which the US could certainly manage too, if its citizens could shake the mentality that a violent crime in progress somehow grants mandate to execute people. Most gunmen in the UK get talked down rather than shot when the police challenge them, for example. It's chicken and egg situation with trigger-happy criminals and trigger-happy police. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
In your nightmare world, Arisboch, the number's gone up to 976 981. Scream!! (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice try, screamer.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't be fucking silly, Arisboch. Scream!! (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

By Georgia! The bill is dead![edit]

It died when the Georgian House Judiciary Committee didn't act on it before its deadline back in April 2nd. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

On the MSF report[edit]

To our resident neocons: I guess since the US can make Afghanistan a parking lot they will be justified in attacking this hospital. I mean an AC 130 crew don't happen to be ninjas and their ammo aren't magic bullets so its just an unfortunate turn of events; more collateral damage in a country with widespread abuse. Of course the Afghan government is corrupt and the ANP and ANA are never tried for their abuse, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend so that can't be that bad. At least the US has better LGBT rights and give Muslim Americans and Middle Eastern Americans better rights than the Taliban so clearly they are the moral warriors in this situation so let's not question them; I mean those people chant "Death to America". Though I guess all this comes from a Taliban apologist.--Owlman (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the attack was appalling, it's hard to get the President and the military to apologize profusely. There are three investigations going on along side this report, which will likely give us some accurate picture of what happened between them all. While the single event is quite shocking, the US continues drone strikes which routinely kill civilians, acting like this is some kind of unique war crime that requires people's heads on platters is somewhat callous to all the civilians who died who didn't happen to be in a hospital, but rather just their homes or workplace. I'm no great fan of the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban has always been an organization focused mainly on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ultimately they were the ones who suffered the most under their tyranny. It is possible to oppose the Taliban's brutality and want the drone strikes to stop, just ask Malala. The real issue is whether or not we can have both: a US-free Afghanistan without the Taliban. That is a hard question to answer. Hentropy (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
"A US-free Afghanistan without the Taliban." Given that after fifteen years of war and military occupation a Taliban-free Afghanistan remains a pipe-dream, I'm not quite sure that this is the best way to carve up the dilemma. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Afghanistan is so last decade. All the cool kids these days are bombing Syria! --Ymir (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The Taliban were brutal, and it doesn't serve well to trivialize that. Afghanistan is certainly better off today than it was in 2001. Gays used to be killed in the streets in front of crowds, and that doesn't happen very much anymore there. Same with women who don't cover up. They are still beat sometimes, but this is usually only in rural villages rather than in broad daylight in Kabul, which is an improvement. People are too young these days to remember how bad they were/are, but you can do your research. They were some of the worst theocratic dictators the world has seen, on par with North Korea but without the technological supremacy (which the Taliban shunned). Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Listen, Hentropy and Pbfreespace, I am not actually saying that Afghanistan was some paradise before NATO invaded, but I am attacking those who justify these actions by saying the West's (this includes Israel) intentions are to spread peace, democracy, and human rights as some sort of 'moral vanguard'.--Owlman (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Fuck intentions, fact is, that Afghanistan is better of than under the Taliban rule (and since there is no way to blame Israel for the mess, Pbfreespace3 has no problem of admitting it).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not saying it is worse, but people will justify this attack for that reason. I would be surprised it someone doesn't say the hospital deserved to be attacked for treating the Taliban. I doubt the US reports will finger those who ordered the attack and no one will be tried for this; just look at those who tortured and have operated the drone program.--Owlman (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The "moral vanguard" BS has always been pure politics. The US currently and across the decades have supported, saved, and done heavy business with a variety of bad actors in the name of protecting our economic and strategic interests. Our current interest in Afghanistan, regardless of what it once was, is to ensure that the Taliban does not re-take major population centers and carve out a quasi-state like ISIS, and then we get into another purely political shitstorm arguing over the American people's appetite for war and whether or not "boots on the ground" is appropriate. There really is no such thing as "moral war". War crime international law was created to stop countries from intentionally being horrible for no justifiable reason even in war, and it's becoming more apparent that this was not an attempt to wantonly kill civilians for no reason. It is simply an illustration of what happens when you choose airstrikes over boots and depend too heavily for... undependable entities such as the Afghani military. That's not really an excuse, it's still bad, but it's no Srebrenica. Hentropy (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Well we are definitely there more to cover Obama not wanting to look like a foreign policy failure since Iraq and Syria have become envelop by ISIL and Islamic fundamentalism had infected the Arab Spring. I can't understand how we 'accidentally' bombed a hospital that we knew about and seeing it as on 'collateral damage' is worse since it dehumanizes all those who were killed. Also it is a war crime to bomb any non military target, especially civilian ones, even if there is fighting and human shields there; the excuse of human shields has never made sense anyways since war mongers tend to kill them, ironically.--Owlman (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, two choices: either you bomb a target and risk civilian casualties or you don't and risk the enemy either killing you or your allies. The international law does only forbid excessive or unnecessary civilian casualties, since forbidding it altogether would be either impractical or would invite the use of human shields.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Well it largely depends on what you are bombing. In this case it was a hospital that we were most likely told by the ANA had Taliban in it. MSF had been contacted by an assistant to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and had called and texted us 15 times over the hour long bombing. Regardless, yes human shields and hostage taking are forbidden by international law certain buildings (hospitals, schools, religious buildings, abandoned buildings) aren't supposed to be bombed since it can be justifiably assumed that hey contain civilians.--Owlman (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Except in this case, due to (probably) faulty intelligence, they thought, that this hospital contains Taliban.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Which would only tell us that those Taliban are mostly injured making them non-combats and us complicit in their murder and doesn't justify possibly killing of all the staff and any of the other 105 non-Taliban patients.--Owlman (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Altruism Study[edit]

I know we all like to make definite statements about preconceived notions when a study seems to back it up, but even the article states that the study is suggestive at the very best (so the title seems a little too strongly asserted) and I have my own misgivings about it. Children don't have access to money and I don't think giving out stickers is a very good way to measure altruism, as they are being given to the kids and hold no great value to them. A more valuable but harder to measure metric would be asking them to lend out one of their personal toys to others. There's also the problem of using children at all- children tend to have immature concepts of money and certainly aren't control of much themselves, ultimately it doesn't matter much to the world how charitable or altruistic they are. I imagine they chose to study children, rather than adults, because they would better produce the results they may have been after in this case. Measuring actual charitable contributions by adults may not have shown such a trend, considering Muslims are required to give alms and many other religious folk routinely participate in charitable activities (even if they only work to help the church or others in their religion). Hentropy (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)]]


"Catalan's Parliament"[edit]

Pros and cons of the independistas' strategy aside, Catalan is the adjective. Catalonia / Catalunya / Cataluña is the noun. London Grump (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:53, 9 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yeah sorry about that.--Owlman (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

At a tangent, what's the protocol for fixing other people's errors? London Grump (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think, there is one. If you're fixing grammar or layout, normally nobody will mind, but if you change posts of other user's in any other way, you'll get reverted, yelled at and probably blocked for a short period of time.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Funny how that superfluous comma changes the meaning of your sentence. :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:57, 9 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Think Progress fisks Netanyahu's speech today at the Center for American Progress[edit]

The man is an inveterate liar, as even some of his friends say. He told whoppers today at the "progressive" think tank, CAP. Among them, that Israel has approved no new settlements in the last 20 years.

Settlement unit construction has continued steadily throughout the past decade despite Netanyahu’s claim that “there have been no new settlements built in the last 20 years.” Last year, as Secretary of State John Kerry attempted to broker a peace, Netanyahu’s government endorsed 13,851 new settlement housing units in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — four times the amount of previous years.

That he was invited to address CAP is the subject of much controversy, including internally. But just-leaked emails show they did it for one reason: money. They censor their staff on matters pertaining to Israel for the same reason.---Mona- (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Algae Cancer Treatment[edit]

Does anyone has access to the full paper on this? It sounds revolutionary and I was wondering on the legitimacy of the study. The abstract and authors seem like they aren't cranks, and the method is certainly not, but it's not covered by our med library license I could find. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well I think this is it.--Owlman (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

People keep taking "One Million Moms" at face value[edit]

That poor kid thinks that they have anywhere near the numbers they pretend to. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Some people's world views will not be dictated by the fact checkers. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

"Marco Rubio believes that a war with ISIS is a clash of civilization'".[edit]

Not too surprising or interesting, it's an idea that's at least a quarter-century old which has had serious pull in certain conservative circles. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

gays, feminism, abortion, everything is framed as if iwere a war of some kind and lines have been drawn. Its why everyone is so appalling. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
From the clogs: Breitbart framing old-school versus new-school Satanism as a Manichean struggle between the good guys and the filthy SJWs. I think these guys literally don't understand anything not framed as a Manichean struggle against SJWs. "Milo, what's 2+2?" "FILTHY FUCKING SJW DEGENERACY!!" - David Gerard (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yellow crescents?[edit]

The Name of God, the merciful, the compassionate: the crescents should be green. 66.87.125.100 (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I see your issue. I will fix it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, kind RW person. 66.87.125.100 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
it was a reference to yellow stars--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I know. I just thought that if teh gheys had pink patches, Muslims could have green ones, for reasons. 66.87.125.100 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Allahu ackbar! - Shouniaisha (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)