User talk:ChrisAmiss/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 17 June 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <2>, (new)(back)

Nice work[edit]

Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing[edit]

Each example should be a few sentences at most. If you want to make your edits, please do so in their appropriate places.

Geneva IV is binding on its signatories, so by your interpretation, Israel is in violation. You take a bizarre definition of occupied, but whatever. Individual settlers are not so bound, save as domestic authorities bind them. When Israel fails to uphold its obligations, that does not mean its citizens are also criminals on account of where they live. PacWalker 06:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Rome Stature of the International Criminal Court defines settlements as war crimes. Settlers, as a matter of choice, have chosen to enter a war zone. Under the UN Charter, international law also makes it clear that it is inadmissible to acquire territory in the event of a war and because the settlements (especially those behind the West Bank Barrier that will likely be illegally annexed) are de-facto annexed by being built on private Palestinian property (some 40% according to Peace Now or B'tSelem I believe). As far as why I do not consider it ethnic cleansing to withdraw the settlers, keep in mind that those settlements are mostly declared military zones, with the settlements in East Jerusalem being called null and void by UN Resolutions. Because the UN General Assembly Resolutions call on Israel to withdraw its military from all the territories since acquiring territory by war is forbidden (which is being broken through the acquiring of territory by building settlements) and does not recognize the legality of settlements, then it is reasonable to assume that withdrawing settlers who live in military zones counts as part of military withdrawal. I think it would be foolish to call something ethnic cleansing when it goes in accord with international law, as well as the entire world who votes in favor of these UN Resolutions (165 countries to be exact save for 7 countries: the US, Israel, Canada, Palau, Nauru, Micronesia, Marshall Islands), If that were the case, the UN, the human rights organizations, the Red Cross, and every other country save Israel would be guilty of approving ethnic cleansing, and that is just simply not a realistic assessment. ChrisAmiss
Do you propose that the settlers are individually war criminals? (no) Do you propose that removing people from their homes en masse on the basis of nationality is not ethnic cleansing? (no) PacWalker 07:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I will be frank enough to say they are complicit and in some cases could be considered war criminals by displacing Palestinians/engaging in price tag attacks, and the United Nations does not differ from my position by proposing the same thing with the withdrawal of settlers. On the surface, it's politically correct to say they are being removed from their homes. Keep in mind however that they are heavily subsidized to live in the settlements at low cost, and could easily be subsidized to live in areas in Israel proper as well. And this still does not negate that the building of settlements is itself a taking away of private Palestinian property. Let's not reverse the role of colonizer and colonized. Would it be accurate to say that you are engaging in ethnic cleansing the people who are colonizing you? That seems to me switching the role of perpetrator and victim. Would we call it ethnic cleansing for people to show resistance to German colonization or White colonization in the indigenous Americas? Consider: "Israel must, in compliance with article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, cease all settlement activities without preconditions. It must immediately initiate a process of withdrawal of all settlers from the OPT (occupied Palestinian territories). These violations are all interrelated, forming part of an overall pattern of breaches that are characterized principally by the denial of the right to self-determination and systemic discrimination against the Palestinian people which occur on a daily basis." Source: ChrisAmiss 07:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk page comments[edit]

Hi. Talk pages are property of the wiki and may not be deleted. Feel free to start an archive when the page gets unwieldy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Israel / Pro Hamas bias[edit]

Your edits seem to be indicating that you exhibit it. (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. You exhibit a pro-Israel bias, as evidenced by your uncritical citation of the notoriously unreliable IDF (for example, they claimed that white phosphorus wasn't being used in the early weeks of the 2009 Gaza War, but then fessed up and admitted to using it) and dismissal of human rights organizations findings on the conduct of the IDF. Hamas human rights violations are well documented, you can see the Human Rights Watch report from 2009 (source: and Amnesty's report from 2014 (source: What I don't tolerate are pro-Israel apologetics that put the onus/responsibility of the conflict on Hamas and false propaganda that accuses Hamas of engaging in human shielding (which you put in previously, despite this not being found by any independent human rights organization, which further makes me question your credibility), which is not consistent with the actual historic and diplomatic record.
He has also a bia against signing his talk page posts...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I figured it out. Easy there. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hamas Page[edit]

While I agree with your view that the IDF are most likely a biased source, I don't see how a video of Hamas shooting rockets off in the area is completely biased. I originally removed much more bias allegations such as the assertion of 'soft target' areas being used as launch sites and the defense of Israel's strikes of those areas.--Owlman (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that many arguments conflate any alternative resistance groups in Gaza (like Islamic Jihad) with Hamas, even if Hamas itself is enforcing anti-rocket measures as attested by Israeli security officials. So, those groups firing rockets may not be even Hamas fighters at all. The human rights organizations have not found evidence that Hamas uses human shields, but nevertheless, people continue to repeat this blood libel in order to make it seem like Hamas is doing everything it can to get Palestinians killed. The other issue is videos of Hamas shooting rockets could also be old videos not related to the current conflict the IDF is fighting in, so questioning their reliaiblity is fair game. Hamas shouldn't be sympathized with on account of its political platform considering it's an Islamist group, but it's ridiculous to put the blame on them for the wars since they usually enforce the cease-fires (which Israel breaks, as it did in the 2008 raid and 2012 assassination of an official) before a major conflict breaks out. Hamas isn't enforcing a blockade on the state of Israel and depriving it of its economic strength. Even if we accepted for arguments sake that Hamas rockets are incredibly dangerous, guess how many they've fired compared to Israeli artillery shells? The Israeli government puts the number of rockets and mortar shells from 2000 to 2015 at 14,000-15,000. How many artillery shells did Israel fire last year? About 56,000, and that's just over a period of 50 days. So the ratio of ammunition is not even close, with Israeli force vast exceeding Hamas/Palestinian groups' force; is that really self-defense? And to say that both sides are to blame is a false balance and so disingenuous given that the raw data doesn't confirm such a hypothesis. ChrisAmiss (talk)
Wow, that was a much more informative response than I needed, regardless I see your point.--Owlman (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you seriously believe that Hamas that rains in Gaza with an Iron fist and is able to enforce pretty much anything, from their hatred towards gays to their anti-booze reactionarism would be unable (if they were willing) to enforce a ban on firing rockets from civilian or UN structures? Do you really believe that? Or is your opinion "informed" by your sympathy for Hamas or antipathy towards Israel or its current government? (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Dude, give it a fucking rest already. I don't have sympathy for Hamas' political platform (I've stated this many times). If I wanted to get into a debate about Hamas and whether they're as extremists as commonly portrayed, I could easily cite academic books on the subject by Khaled Hroub and Israeli scholars Avrahem Sela and Shaul Mishal. I have cited the point about the Israeli defense officials and its terrorism information center mentioning that Hamas does indeed enforce anti-rocket attacks. I have cited the UN and human rights organizations finding no evidence that Hamas engages in human shields, including civilian and UN structures. I do not know how many times I have to make myself clear. You are not interested in evidence, you are interested in spreading propaganda that exonerates Israel from any wrongdoing. You tried to justify torture by contextualizing it with Hamas' torture and by claiming that Israel doesn't really occupy the territories even though the international community and the ICJ disagree with this. You call yourself a leftist? My ass. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Whether you believe it or not, there are in fact leftists who support Israel and its right to self defense. I don't give a damn what the UN or the International Court of this or that say with regards to Israel. The UN has a "human rights" commission where Libya and Syria frequently indict Israel for (supposed or real) human rights violations. There is smoking gun video evidence for the Hamas using humans shields Israel foreign affairs ministry France 24. But of course all that is just Zionist propaganda, so there is no point in me trying to convince you. I know the left has a problem with antisemitism (and anti-Zionism is just the more polite term for it in more than 90% of the cases). The left already had a problem with antisemitism before World War II and the existence of the state of Israel has not made antisemitism go away. On the contrary, all the antisemites of the world now have a convenient way of spouting Jew hatred and still being "respectable" just replace "Jew" with "Israel" et voila, no accusation of antisemitism for you. However, it is precisely the fact of Antisemitism that makes the existence of the state of Israel in secure and defensible borders an absolute necessity. If any country on earth ever decides to kill or persecute Jews again (and we know this to be the case, just look up "Mizrahi Jews" on WP) they can come to Israel. Unfortunately we cannot trust the other countries in the world with accepting enough (Jewish) refugees to ensure the next virulent exterminatory antisemite, be (s)he Muslim or Christian, nationalist or leftist, secular or theocratic, will fail in his/her designs. If we therefore accept the existence of Israel as necessary, we have to also accept its right to self defense. And yes in self defense from time to time civilians die. Usually by accident. But sometimes by design. As in one side using them as human shields. As in Hamas killing people whom they don't like. How does Hamas put it "We love death more than you love live". Hamas must either change its policies and actions (which it will never do) or it must be made to disappear as an effective force. (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Whether you believe it or not, there are leftists who support Palestinians right to self-defense against a foreign occupation and colonialism regardless of their political views, whether they're Islamist or a secular group like the PFLP. Of course you don't listen to the UN or what human rights organization say, because they don't paint a rose picture of Israel's occupation and it's policies. You can complain all you want, but when you start trying to justify torture or justify Israel's human rights abuses, it's hard for you to call yourself a leftist. By the way, the France 24 video in no way proves your claim that Hamas is using human shields. In fact, one of the reporters who went there, by the name of Harry Fear I believe, said they knew they were going into a warzone. Which means that the reporters were endangering themselves, not the other way around. Even if for argument's sake Hamas was using human shields, the responsibility falls on Israel to exercise caution according to IHL. The independent human rights organizations looked at the video and concluded it was not a case of human shields. Over 18000 Palestinian homes were damaged last year, are you going to seriously tell me that the 700 (barely a fraction of 18000) or so fighters who died last year (according to the UNOCHA) managed to use all those buildings for human shields? I believe Israel has a right to exist, but I do not believe they have a right to use force against a foreign country they have been occupying and colonizing for a near half century. It's the same nonsense of every occupying power who claims they're defending themselves against the people they're brutalizing, be it Saddam occupping Kuwait or Morocco occupying Western Sahara or the USSR occupying Afghanistan. I'm not going to respond to your other points because it's the same old anyone who criticizes Israel is motivated by antisemitism. Grow a set of fucking balls and learn to accept that people have different views than you. If you're a genuine leftist, you wouldn't try to whitewash torture or make propaganda claims that fighters are using human shields despite this not being verified by independent fact finding teams. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic with the plight of the people of Western Sahara (though I doubt that Polisario is the best representative they could have), but seeing that this very wiki has no page on it, I doubt that your concern for Western Sahara is all that serious. And what exactly do you expect Israel to do? When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 it strengthened Hamas and no more than two years later Hamas started firing rockets at Sderot. Now imagine if the same would happen in the "West Bank": Israel evicts all Jews residing in the so called "West Bank" and hands control over fully to the Palestinians. Is it guaranteed that this would spell the end to war? Is there any guarantee that the Jewish state could live in peace with Syria (which still does not recognize Israel) Lebanon (which still does not recognize Israel) or Hamas (who vow for the destruction of Israel) if only Jews were forbidden from living in East Jerusalem, Betlehem, Nablus and all the other places the Anti-Zionist crowd wants to see judenfrei sooner rather than later? What gain in security would Israel make? What gain in international recognition? The US are Israel's strongest ally. Even they did not come to Israel's rescue when during the Jom Kippur of 1973 war it seemed as if Israel was going to be militarily overwhelmed. What should Israel learn from that? Roll over and disarm and hope a strongly worded protest note from the US will help them once Hamas Hezbollah, Iran, Syria or any of the antisemites in the region decide to put their words into action? Israel has to ensure one thing above all else: The survival of Jews. The survival of as many people as possible. That's why the IDF has one of the lowest civilian to combatant casuality ration. That's why Israel is so heavily armed. Israel cannot afford to lose one war. One lost war would mean the end of the state of Israel. The end of the state of Israel would mean the biggest mass murder of the 21st century. Every Israeli politician knows this. There cannot be a "solution" to the Palestinian mess that leaves Israel with a hostile power on both sides and no way to defend itself against a coordinated surprise attack. Coordinated surprise attacks have happened in the past. And their stated goal was always to exterminate all Jews living in Israel. One shudders at the thought what would happen if they ever were successful ... On some issues there can be compromise. On the security and safety of Israel and its people, there can not. (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You haven't posted an article on the subject of Western Sahara, so I doubt you have much concern for their plight. Okay, so there's a lot of propaganda I have to digest through because it's mountainous and it needs to be systematically refuted so I don't have to deal with this again.
"And what exactly do you expect Israel to do? When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 it strengthened Hamas and no more than two years later Hamas started firing rockets at Sderot." - Israel did not end its occupation of Gaza and launched a blockade of the strip (which, again, was not for security reasons, but for punishing the Palestinians for daring to exercise their democratic right to elect a people), so the people firing rockets have a justified case of self-defense against a foreign occupation to achieve self-determination. And actually, even if we assume that Israel is a benign occupier, it was on September 23, 2005 that Israel launched an attack on three Islamic Jihad members to which they retaliated with rockets. Judging by your time period of "no more than two years later" (which would refer to September 2007), your argument would actually undermine Israel's right to self-defense because it launched military operations in 2006. If Israel were interested in stopping the hostilities, it would cease its relentless provocation that engenders a response (as it did in 2008, 2012, and 2014). Much of Israel's wars are actually self-inflicted, a point which I will return to.
"Now imagine if the same would happen in the "West Bank": Israel evicts all Jews residing in the so called "West Bank" and hands control over fully to the Palestinians. Is it guaranteed that this would spell the end to war? Is there any guarantee that the Jewish state could live in peace with Syria (which still does not recognize Israel) Lebanon (which still does not recognize Israel) or Hamas (who vow for the destruction of Israel) if only Jews were forbidden from living in East Jerusalem, Betlehem, Nablus and all the other places the Anti-Zionist crowd wants to see judenfrei sooner rather than later?". Yes. The settlements are illegal. This is the 21st century, you do not colonize another people's territory while giving the finger to the international community. There's a diffeence between legal immigration, and colonizing a people's territory, so it would not be accurate to really call it judenfrei. In actuality, the PLO has on more than one occasion allowed a good percentage of settlers to stay in place (60%), even though those settlements have been declared illegal. I've already gone over the diplomatic record in which the Arab states have voted to endorse a two-state solution on the 67 borders in the UNGA resolution on Palestine, so I no need to quibble over something I've already discussed (and that's not counting the 2003 Geneva Peace Initative. Hamas has indicated its willing to settle for a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and adhere to a long-term truce with Israel. For more information, see:
"The US are Israel's strongest ally. Even they did not come to Israel's rescue when during the Jom Kippur of 1973 war it seemed as if Israel was going to be militarily overwhelmed. What should Israel learn from that? Roll over and disarm and hope a strongly worded protest note from the US will help them once Hamas Hezbollah, Iran, Syria or any of the antisemites in the region decide to put their words into action?" - I should note that the Yom Kippur War was launched by Egypt against the occupation of the Sinai, not Israel itself. So Egypt had a right to defense against foreign occupation. This statement is filled with paranoia and is reminiscent of the kind of rationalizations all states use to hold on to territory that doesn't legally belong to them. As I have stated, Iran and Syria have endorsed the two-state solution for a matter of decades on the diplomatic record, but Israel, the US, and some south Pacific islands have not. I've gone over Hamas' position, and to refresh your memory, this is what an ex-Mossad official (Efriam Halevy had to say): "The Hamas leadership has recognized that its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future. They are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967....They know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their cooperation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game: They will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals". Not some fringe figure, but a former Mossad official. Hamas can be negotiated with, and as far as genocide goes, that they didn't kill Gilad Shilat nor killed two Israeli captives kind of belies your paranoia about extermination. It's up to Israel to accept a Palestinian peace offensive from Hamas. Hezbollah can also be accommodated with. They have stated that they will accept Israel's existence if the Palestinians accept it. Nasrallah refers to it as a "Palestinian matter". It's not a direct endorsement, but it's in line with the international consensus for resolving the conflict.
"That's why the IDF has one of the lowest civilian to combatant casuality ration. That's why Israel is so heavily armed. Israel cannot afford to lose one war. One lost war would mean the end of the state of Israel. The end of the state of Israel would mean the biggest mass murder of the 21st century. Every Israeli politician knows this. There cannot be a "solution" to the Palestinian mess that leaves Israel with a hostile power on both sides and no way to defend itself against a coordinated surprise attack. Coordinated surprise attacks have happened in the past. And their stated goal was always to exterminate all Jews living in Israel." - Many of Israel's wars are self-inflicted. I recommend you read Zeev Maoz' Defending the Holy Land. Zeev Maoz was formerly the head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. His book is over 700 pages long, but after combing through the evidence on the topic, his conclusion merits notice: "Israel’s war experience is a story of folly, recklessness, and self-made traps. None of the wars—with a possible exception of the 1948 War of Independence—was what Israel refers to as Milhemet Ein Brerah (“war of necessity”). They were all wars of choice or folly. Israel’s decision-makers were as reluctant and risk averse when it came to making peace as they were daring and trigger happy when it came to making war....[T]he official Israeli decision-makers typically did not initiate peace overtures; most of the peace initiatives in the Arab-Israeli conflict came either from the Arab world, from the international community, or from grass-roots and informal channels ...[W]hen Israel was willing to take risks for peace, these usually paid off. The Arabs generally showed a remarkable tendency for compliance with their treaty obligations. In quite a few cases, it was Israel— rather than the Arabs—that violated formal and informal agreements".
I'll give one example of Israel deliberately instigating a war for its own self-aggrandizement, coming from a horse's mouth. Israel Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had this to say before the 6-Day War: "I know how at least 80 percent of all of the incidents there [the Golan Heights] started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let’s speak about 80 percent. It would go like this: we would send a tractor to plow . . . in the demilitarized area, and we would know ahead of time that the Syrians would start shooting. If they did not start shooting, we would inform the tractor to progress farther, until the Syrians, in the end, would get nervous and would shoot. And then we would use guns, and later, even the air force, and that is how it went. . . . We thought . . . that we could change the lines of the cease-fire accords by military actions that were less than a war. That is, to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us". This is just one example, not counting many others. If Israel wants peace, it should stop its war-mongering and carry out like a civilized country. Otherwise, Israel is dooming itself to destruction. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine Discussion[edit]

Btw, since you seem to be knowledgeable on the Israeli/Palestinian an article on the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movementWikipedia since even Finklestein is against it.--Owlman (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Finkelstein. The BDS platform is dishonest because it claims to cite international law, but yet doesn't take a position on Israel. However, the ICJ ruled in July 2004, as well as countless UNGA and UNSC resolutions, that there should be two states living side by side. Israel is a member of the UN. Do I like how Israel was founded? No, but I don't think it should cease to exist, because that would mean I believe the US should cease to exist too due to its treatment of the native inhabitants, which is impractical and counter-productive. If you're going to cite international law to support Palestinian self-determination, you can't selectively use bits and pieces you like and don't like. That's what Israel apologists do when they argue that Israel should annex territory (even though international law prohibits acquiring territory by war) or that the settlements should be declared legal yet cite international law to criticize the conduct of Palestinian armed groups. The honest solution is two-states on the 67 borders, with just compensation for both victims of suicide bombings and of ethnic cleansing/occupation/home demolitions/etc. ChrisAmiss (talk)
Don't get me wrong I don't support the BDS either. I find it to be counterproductive to helping the Palestinians economically and their Israeli allies. On a different note I find the two state solution to be long gone at this point. I think the one state solution may be the best since it would prevent further ethnic cleansing and any creation of a theocratic or ethnocratic state.--Owlman (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I think BDS can actually be helpful to Palestinians economically. True, some of the settlements Palestinians would work at would be dismantled and they'd be unemployed. But divestment from South Africa also deprived blacks economically (this was Reagan's argument against sanctions on South Africa) considering they were being exploited as cheap labor to fuel white territorial domination. In the long-run, dismantling the settlements and occupation would bring Palestinians economic independence that they have long strived for given the restrictions they face by the Civil Administration which practically prevents them from constructing anything in Area C, 60% of the West Bank that Israel occupies. I still think the two-state solution can be achieved, but there needs to be a motivation on the part of the EU and US to say enough is enough and force Israel to withdraw to its legal borders. I do not think the one state solution will work because I fear it would lead to a civil war (remember that the Arabs tried between 1917 and 1948 to call for one-state where as Zionists leaders called for partition that would inevitably lead to expulsion of the Arabs to secure a Jewish majority in an area that was overwhelmingly not Jewish; what ended happening was of course a civil war and an ethnic cleansing in 1948-9) and because it has no chance of happening in the real world (no country in the world supports one state, not even Iran). The danger is if the US and EU allow Israel to annex the settlement blocs because it contains the crucial water resources and arable land, giving Palestinians not much to thrive on. They would call it two-states since the barrier being built would not totally trisect the West Bank, but really it would just be an insult to Palestinian self-determination and function little more as a quasi-sovereign bantustan. ChrisAmiss (talk)
Yes the BDS could get Palestinians their own state, it could lead to more radical groups much worse than Hamas. Look at what happened when the Israelis left Gaza and the Palestinians became impoverished; even with Hamas's social programs the Gazans haven't been able to rebuild and Israeli occupation hasn't ended with constant incursions. Gaza still hasn't rebuilt from last year's incursion and there will probably be another one soon. If this happens there will definitely be a third Intifada and with public approval waning on Hamas a worse group will appear as evidenced by Daesh's appearance there. One the Hamas does well that benefits Israel is that the suppress more hardline Salafist groups. I only support a one state solution because I believe if Israel sees the autonomous Palestinian regions as their problem then they won't be so brutal and they won't be able to hide their incursions as necessary for the protection of their borders. I can't imagine Israel being any better when they see the West Bank as independent since it takes a considerable chunk out of their land mass. Sharing Jerusalem also seems to be much harder, in reality, for two states than just one. And how would the government in the West Bank govern those in Gaza when the unity government between Fatah and Hamas is poorly constructed and any travel would go straight through Israel. Economics would be complcitaed as well since trade would also be dramatically different for both as well. Of course there is always the three state solution, but that, to me, would be even less likely.--Owlman (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
BDS is gaining some traction, but I don't necessarily think it should be associated with radical groups. BDS is dishonest, but their approach is non-violent and built on civil disobedience through boycotts. I don't think BDS would endorse violence.. About Gaza, Israel didn't really leave it, it established buffer zones, controls the borders (except Rafah), the waters, controls the population registry and air-space. The impoverishment of Gaza only intensified with the blockade, and a Fatah-backed coup lead by the US and Israel to overthrow the elected Hamas failed miserably in 2007, which is all the more hypocritical since the US overthrew Saddam to establish a democracy and Israel constantly brags that it is the only democracy in the Middle East. Hamas does actually benefit Israel's security needs with regard to rocket fire and suppressing radical Salafist groups, but its concessions have not been rewarded with say a lifting of the blockade/trade embargo. Even IDF officals believe Gaza's stability depends on a strong economy. I'm not sure why Israel continues to occupy and colonize Palestinian territories since it breeds hatred, but my guess would be that there's no incentive for them to do so on account of the settler lobby. There's also the EU who foots the bill, Fatah who does the dirty work of the occupation, and the US who shields Israel at the UN. Because of these facts, sanctions to force Israel to change its stance is all the more crucial. Israel is not legally obligated to hold the West Bank. Let's not forget that Israel itself constitutes 78% of Mandatory Palestine. Is it really fair to ask Palestinians to settle for even less than 22% of sovereign territory? I agree with you on the problems between Fatah and Hamas; because of the occupation and separation of Gaza from the West Bank, the divide and conquer strategy is working its intended results. Three states would be a disaster because Jordan/Egypt would again have to absorb Palestinian refugees and inhabitants at a time when the Syrian civil war has produced 4 million refugees. For Jordan and Egypt to accept them would massively impact its labor force, and I don't think it's a risk they're willing to take.
True US involvement was a disaster in Gaza as it usually is when it tries to meddle in the Middle East. True Israel never fully left Gaza, but to ensure this doesn't happen in the West Bank the Palestinians would have to build a sizable military which would be intolerable for Israel, in their view or at lest Bibi and his supporters, to happen. So unless Palestine had a constitutional article that made their military pacifistic, like Japan's Article 9, Israel would most likely not stand for that kind of force. I fear that Palestine has ended up like the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic where they control very little of their own land and are slowly being intergarted with each settlement while the international community ignores them.--Owlman (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe there should be an arms embargo on both Palestine and Israel to prevent Palestinian militants attacks and IDF raids/shootings, sort of what the international community is doing with Iran now. Palestine cannot be realistically demilitarized because how else could they defend themselves if someone invaded their territories? Israel probably has security concerns, but so do Palestinians and I don't think one side should be given all the power in terms of military resources, hence the need for a reasonable arms embargo.ChrisAmiss (talk)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes but who has the bigger and more advanced military; Israel does and I don't see them accepting a component military build up in the West Bank without intervention, especially with any government like Bibi's. Sure arms control could work, but I doubt the US and all the countries in the region would respect; just look at Iran-Contra. I think it is a Faustian deal if we do the one state solution, but the Palestinians could still get an autonomous zone and it would be protected by international law like Jerusalem. I think the Israelis would accept since the Druzes and Bedouins seem to do alright under Israeli law already. I would much rather the Qassam Brigades integrate into the IDF or some autonomous self defense force then a weak military who's power is at the will of the international community. I mean how will Gaza protect itself from the spillover from the current Sinai insurgency or the West Bank protect itself for vicious groups like Daesh.--Owlman (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the '67 borders, even if they are "right", is that Israel didn't have peace then, so I fail to see how returning to those borders will bring about peace. CorruptUser (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Well what shall the borders be if not the '67 ones because, as far as I know, that is the plan in the international community. Shall we go back to the '47 borders since; those areas haven't been in Palestinian hands for much longer and I doubt Israel would like to lose their side of Jerusalem.--Owlman (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I actually would suggest Israel had more peace between 1949 and 1967. Jordan had colluded with Israel to annex the West Bank, and other Arab regimes were not interested in a conflict with Israel despite not accepting its existence at the time. True, there were some border skirmishes involving Palestinian fedayeen, but the historian Benny Morris estimates only 10% of those were of a terrorist nature, and were mostly economic in nature (see his work Border Wars). And Israel killed more Palestinian Arabs during the border skirmishes than Palestinian fedayeen in the 50's/60's killed Israelis. The only major conflict Israel had with its Arab neighbors during that time was the Suez Crisis, and even that completely fell on Israel's behalf since they colluded with Britain and France to overthrow Nasser after he nationalized the Suez Canal for which they were condemned and forced to withdraw from the Sinai. Peace can be achieved on the 67 borders, but it would require sanctions on both sides and international peacekeeping forces. If Palestinians and Israelis want Jerusalem for all themselves rather than dividing it, then Jerusalem should be an internationally designated area like it was in the 1947 partition plan. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
What does that even mean, "internationally designated area"? Are there any examples of this in the real world? CorruptUser (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If you want Israel to "go back" to the 1947 partition plan (which as we should remember was rejected out of hand by the Arabs), which borders would you accept for Germany? Should Saar be included? Which border would you accept for the Baltic states? What about China? What about Africa (excluding Liberia Egypt and Ethiopia which were independent at this time) (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresent my position. I said the 67 borders, not the 47 borders which are unreasonable and not practical. You also engage in historical revionism because Zionist leaders at the same did not accept the 47 borders as final and only accepted them to gain more sovereignty for the Jewish state, as the New Historians of Israel have acknowledged. Israel never specified its borders in its declaration of independence for good reason. One of the historians noted that Ben Gurion made no reference to final borders on the partition vote, because they noted, they were a "secondary concern" and Ben Gurion himself said months before that he wanted the land of Israel in its "entirety". And the point seems academic because Israel ended up expanding its territory and continues to do so to this day. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Your statement that Israel "continues to expand its territory" is factually inaccurate. In 1967 Israel de facto controlled (that is after all, everything that matters, who has actual control over what) all the land that once was the Mandate of Palestine West of the Jordan (with the territory east of the Jordan river off limits to Jews since the early 1920s, thanks a lot Britain) and in addition to that: The Sinai (later handed over to Egypt), and of course the Golan Heights. Since than, Israel has given up the Sinai for peace with Egypt, the Gaza Strip for .... nothing in return ("right wing extremist" Ariel Sharon himself ensured that the territory would be judenfrei before he handed it over in 2005) and big chunks of the so called "West Bank" for nothing more than a shaky promise for peace which was immediately broken with the second Intifada. So where exactly does Israel expand its territory? Russia on the other hand has outright annexed Crimea and made several other territories puppet republics of Putin's grace. Israel has not ever done this and will not ever do this. But for some people the Jewish state would be too big if it were the Beach of Tel Aviv. And with every wave the Anti-Zionist crowd would cry that the Jews are "expanding their territory". I am sorry, but 1967 was the Anti-Zionist chicken Nasser coming home to roost. You can't threaten the most formidable military in the area with extermination over and over again and not expect a response at some point. If you lose wars, you lose territory. That is a truth where ever you go and in all eras of history. And suddenly it is supposed to be different once Jews are involved? (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I will return to refute other parts of this statement. I have a lot of material to cite on-hand, but I don't have the time now to do it. I will focus on the 6 Day War. I will cite the US intelligence estimates which argue that the Arab states were not prepared to go to war with Israel nor threaten it.
Menachem Begin: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." You can find this on the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
CIA Appraisal on May 25: "In our view, UAR [Egyptian] military dispositions in Sinai are defensive in character . . . .The steps taken thus far by [other] Arab armies do not prove that the Arabs intend an all-out attack on Israel. . . . In sum, we believe these are merely gestures which all Arab states feel compelled to make in the interests of the fiction of Arab unity, but have little military utility in a conflict with Israel."
General Earle Wheeler, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff on May 26: "The UAR’s dispositions are defensive and do not look as if they are preparatory to an invasion of Israel. . . . [T]here was no indication that the Egyptians would attack. If the UAR moved, it would give up its defensive positions in the Sinai for little advantage."
CIA's Board of Estimates on May 26: "Clearly Nasser has won the first round. It is possible that [Nasser] may seek a military show- down with Israel, designed to settle the whole problem once and for all. This seems to us highly unlikely. . . . The most likely course seems to be for Nasser to hold to his present winnings as long as he can, and in as full measure as he can".
Even if the Arabs attacked, they were not prepared to do so, rendering the case of an aggressive war against Israel stupid. Consider the US estimates on the balances of forces leading up to the war. The CIA mentioned on May 23: "Israeli ground forces “can maintain internal security, defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts, launch limited attacks simultaneously on all fronts, or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth.” In the air, the judgment is less clear: the Israelis “probably could defeat the Egyptian air force if Israel’s air facilities were not damaged beyond repair.”"
General Wheeler, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff on May 26: "[If Egypt attacked first, Wheeler] believed that Israelis would win air superiority. The UAR would lose a lot of aircraft. Israel’s military philosophy is to gain tactical surprise by striking airfields first but [Wheeler] believes this is not essential to Israel’s gaining air supremacy. "
CIA on May 26: "Israel could almost certainly attain air superiority over the Sinai Peninsula in 24 hours after taking the initiative or in two or three days if the UAR struck first. In the latter case, Israel might lose up to half of its air force. We estimate that armored striking forces could breach the UAR’s double defense line in the Sinai within several days. Regrouping and resupplying would be required before the Israelis could initiate further attacks aimed at driving to the Suez Canal. Israel could contain any attacks by Syria or Jordan during this period."
Secretary of Defense McNamara on June 2: "Secretary McNamara said that the Israelis felt that they could start hostilities now or a week from now and prevail. They believe their capabilities are perishable as time goes on, but Secretary McNamara thought they could delay from 2-4 weeks and still accomplish their military objective. . . . Secretary McNamara said Israelis think they can win in 3-4 days; but he thinks it would be longer—7-10 days."
National Security Council on June 3: "By a delay of one week—28 May to 4 June—the Arabs have made a net military gain if war should now occur. The ultimate outcome . . . would be unchanged. Israel would still win. . . . If war outbreak were delayed one more week— to 11 June, the Israeli military position would probably deteriorate further, but at a slower rate. . . . After 11 June, the military balance would not change until the economic effects of mobilization began to affect military posture. . . . I conclude that Israeli concern about delaying a war which they fear is inevitable is based primarily on their concern about a deterioration in their political and diplomatic position rather than on military factors."
Basically, Israel's reasoning for self-defense in 1967 on alleged extermination of their people is extremely weak and not as credible as people maintain. As a result, it's hard to count the occupation and its settlement building as defensive measures.ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

somebody should have told you this by now...[edit]

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There also exists the option to customize your sig at Special:Preferences, if the default sig is not to your liking. (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Western Sahara[edit]

As you are a great friend of "colonized" peoples in the Arab world, I am looking forward to your input on Western Sahara. (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath.--Arisboch (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Now why is that, I can't help but wonder... (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
On a completely different note, you should really sign up for a user name, it's done in less then a coupla minutes.--Arisboch (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Would that keep such an article from being deleted almost immediately? (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Making the article without accusing of us not caring about WS would do a better job at that. And making it a better article. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
If you cared about it so much, why is there no article? (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Being concerned about an issue and being qualified to write about that issue are two different things. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Being qualified to do something is an acquired quality more often than it is an innate one. This is especially true for intellectual endeavors... (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I have other things to study besides the history of western sahara for a rw article. A rw article on the topic has only not been made because somebody knowledgeable in the issue or with the time to become so has not come here - not the baseless accusations that we just don't care--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
People care enough about Israel to make an article about it. As well as an article about Hamas spouting nonsense about this totally legit freedom fighters terrorist organization. And if one dares to raise an opposing viewpoint, a barrage of accusations rain down. But of course Western Sahara is too unimportant to spend even half an hour of internet research over... (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh boy, here we go again with the usual singling out Israel/criticizing Israel is antisemitism trope. Being an expert on one topic does not require you to be an expert on another topic. There are no prerequisites for criticizing someone. I were to say devote most of my edits to criticism of Iran's human rights abuses, someone might argue that I should criticize other countries first because I'm singling out Iran. However, no one would realistically say that. Or, if I started critiquing Saudi Arabia, that doesn't require me to criticize another country just to avoid being stigmatized as some bigot. Just because I follow the Israel-Palestine conflict doesn't make me inconsistent with liberal principles. And you as an alleged intellectual should be honest enough to acknowledge that Israel does not equal Jews, however you want to erase this distinction in order to silence any criticism. As a matter of speaking, equating Israel with Jews is an antisemitic trope, thus making you more of an antisemite than I ever will be, but I digress. I will add information on Western Sahara from the information I have on the topic from Stephen Zunes later so I can stop your crybaby attitude. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────May I remind the good sir, that he himself raised the issue of Western Sahara? May I further remind the good sir, that I at no point in time equated Israel with Jews? May I further remind the good sir of the massacre against a Palestinian "refugee" (refugees are only those that did the fleeing not their descendents three generations down) camp in Syria a year or two ago? May I further remind the good sir of the fact that Jordan called itself the Palestinian state in the past and still does so when it sees it as opportune? May I further bring to the attention of the good sir the events of the so called Black September? May I raise the question whether it is fair to accuse somebody of hypocrisy who is willing to see dead Palestinians only if a case (how ever flawed or false it may be) that Israel in some sense put them there? I will yield the floor. (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You took my statement out of context. If you paid attention to what I said, I said people have a right to resist foreign occupation, including not just Western Sahara, but Kuwait, Afghanistan, etc. And yes, you did. In our prior discussions over whether Israel's military actions were justified in the context of Iran, you unnecessarily brought Jews into the matter and their past historical suffering to justify the IDF's actions in the broader Middle East. And sorry, but according to the UN, the Palestinian descendents are refugees no matter how many times you put it into scare quotes. No, Jordan had secured its independence in 1946 as the Hashemite Kingdom. People who call Jordan the Palestinian state are attempting to deny Palestinians their sovereignty. And even then, Jordan is not exactly the most reliable source given its favorable relations with Israel. If I conceded the Black September massacre as a matter of argument, Israel's killings of Palestinians would still heavily outnumber it, including 1948, 1956, 1967, the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the intifadas, and the military operations in Gaza over the past decade, so it's perfectly justified to single out Israel in the case of killings. So nice try, but your attempts at finding hypocrisy fall flat even in that regard. Plus, it's a red herring and not relevant to Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the territories. I don't need to tell you that Idi Amin's human rights violations against blacks didn't make the case against apartheid in South Africa any less legitimate. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do Palestinians have inheritable refugee status? Who else has the same? And why do you dismiss the Jordanian opinion, just because they don't call for jihad against Israel? --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Consult the UNRWA definition source: Palestinian refugees are unique in that they have not successfully achieved sovereignty unlike say refugees from sovereign states such as Syria or Iraq. Jordan has no benefit for annexing the West Bank because they've already taken in Palestinian refugees over the past decades and would end up further impacting the size of the labor force if they were to give the millions of residents in the West Bank further citizenship. Third, it would be a violation of Palestinians' right to self-determination. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Since when do refugees achieve sovereignty?? What the hell are you talking about?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think what he means is that the territory they came from wasn't a sovereign state, i.e. they're basically stateless.Wikipedia 142․124․55․236 (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
At the time of his death Osama bin Laden was stateless. This is exactly as irrelevant to this discussion as whether or not Palestinians are or were at some point in time stateless. As a matter of fact they are treated as second class citizens where ever they are categorized as "refugees" - for whatever reasons... (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
In today's world of bureaucracy, being stateless can make some things rather complicated (see the Wikipedia article), though I generally agree with your last sentence. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
in the years immediately following the second world war some 11 935 000 people had to leave their homes and fled westward because they were (perceived as) German. While I do see these ethnic cleansings as "necessary" historically in the logic of nation states (i.e. a nation state by its very nature will try to achieve homogeneity; the German descendent people in East and Central Europe were a visible obstacle to that goal), it was nevertheless a huge humanitarian disaster. However, the refugees were (albeit not gladly) accepted and integrated into the countries where they fled (mostly East and West Germany) and by the time their sons and daughters took over there was no distinct "refugee" group. Why is this different with exactly one historic case of refugees? Why is there one agency for all refugees (past or present) - UNHCR - and one separate agency that does nothing but deal with "refugees" that fled (or left on false promises) decades ago, or in many cases that did not flee at all but are still held against their will as second class citizens in refugee camps in Syria or Lebanon because their parents or grandparents once came to those places from another country. If there is one principle for citizenship that should be blindingly obvious to all leftists, it is ius solis; where you are born, there lies your citizenship. Why are those children and grandchildren of refugees not citizens of their country of birth? I will not point to the obvious answer... (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Germany had a state at that time (or well, it was divided into two separate states), so that comparison won't wash. I'm a little disturbed by your support of ethnic cleansing, but it's irrelevant so I won't make a point about it. I'm going to purposely ignore the scare quotes again on refugees and the part about "false promises", because the New Historians of Israel have already gone over what happened with regard to the Palestinians. As you would know, UNRWA was set up following the first Arab-Israeli war before the UNHCR came into existence (a year later in 1950) to be precise. Much of the refugee situation today can be resolved with limited implementation (NOT FULL) of the right of return or financial compensation pending a peace agreement or enforcement of international law. I don't agree with the principle of ius solis, I'd rather side with the principle enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights that asserts a right of return for refugees regardless of conflict, be it East Timor, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq, etc. And I've already addressed why they are not citizens given the lack of a successful resolution of the conflict and the failed establishment of a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state with access to some of the best resources (most of which the settlement blocs are located on). And I have stated many times about the annual UNGA resolution that asserts the right of return for Palestinian refugees, agreed on by about 160 countries except for the US, Israel, Canada, and some south Pacific islands. That this resolution has failed to materialize in the last three decades given the overwhelming support for the two-state solution should raise some eyebrows. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I would also argue UNRWA serves a useful function for assisting refugees in today's context given that even more Palestinian refugees were produced by Israel's operations in Gaza in the early 1950s, the 6 Day War, the revocation of residency for Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and the building of settlements and restrictions on planning in Area C of the West Bank that force residents to live in Areas A and B of the West Bank. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget the 400,000 Palestinians expelled from Kuwait. CorruptUser (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, I believe the majority are in the West Bank and are given services by UNRWA as registered refugees. In the future, if Palestinians were to be given a state, they could easily achieve citizenship under the PA compared to say other refugees living in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan who could be eligible for a right of return. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── unfortunately my computer crashed and took a very long comment with it. Anyway... Here goes, as best as I can remember... First of all: What do you have against ius solis? Do you honestrly advocate for the blatantly racist ius sanguinis? (which btw would be next to meaningless in determining US citizenship). And as a further consideration: You are in fact aware of the fate of the Mizrahi Jews? Who were expulsed in large numbers from their homes of generations by the Arab states upon the creation of Israel. They were not put into a limbo of refugee camps for generations. They were given housing and clothes and jobs and slowly but surely (not without problems; just like the integration of German refugees in the 1950s was not without problems) they became normal parts of Israeli society. As a matter of fact, Mizrahi Jews are the voting base of Likud. And as for your comment on ethnic cleansing... I did not say that I am for it. I said that in the context of nation states it becomes "inevitable" (nothing ever is truly inevitable other than the laws of nature) as all nation states strive for homogeneity. Hence everything that is perceived as "other" is either discriminated against (Poles Danes and French-speakers in Germany 1871-1918), there is an effort to make them different ethnically (the treatment of Aborigines in Australia during much of the 20th century as well as the treatment of First Nations in Canada and Native Americans in the USA) or they are expulsed (or in worse cases murdered) outright. As all ethnic distinctions are made up and arbitrary, this can even happen in countries that were previously thought to be homogenous, like Rwanda or Yugoslavia (the difference between a Serb and a Croat lies mostly in religion; not language or customs). So from the absurd standpoint of nation states, the expulsions made sense. This is also the reason why there needs to be a state of Israel. Jews will always be perceived as "other" and in order for them to escape persecution or outright murder, there needs to be a place for them to. The United States already failed in that during the Shoah. Israel is the only place where a Jew can arrive as naked and broken as (s)he is left by the antisemites and still be received like a lost daughter or son. This should be possible of course for all human beings everywhere, but as long as there are nation states, this will not happen. (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


See? See? They're annoying. So you are right about to be made an autopatrolled user. Basically, don't go around being a wandal all over articles (which I am obviously not saying you have been, just don't) and it'll all be good. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow? ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I have added the most meaningless user rights group of them all to you; I feel obliged to tell you to not to use your powers for great lulz evil. Nothing really to see here. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Alrighty then. So being autopatrolled = nothing? Still not sure I follow. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Mostly, it just means your edits don't get marked with a red exclamation mark on RecentChanges anymore. Some people don't like red exclamation marks. :/ (talk) 02:26, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
In theory it means we trust you to not go around having to be followed, in practice nobody is going around patrolling edits on purpose so it's just to get rid of the uglification of RC.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Let me put my sense-making hat on. It means three things and maybe a fourth:
  1. You don't have to fill in a captcha, but this was already true.
  2. I no longer see red exclamation marks next to your edits on Special:RecentChanges.
  3. There's not a rate limit on your editing, although nobody ever seems to run up against that one anyhow.
  4. (this one is the maybe; it might just require you be autoconfirmed) You can upload images.
Basically, I just felt the need to give you a heads-up, and of course did so in a completely nonsensical manner. Sorry. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Could've just linked RationalWiki:Autopatrolled. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
And justify Fuzzys attempts to make our pages less arcane? Never. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear goat, I could've even used {{rights}}. The horror. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I tire of all the generic seemingly automatic templates for new users. It requires no effort and is so impersonal. We need some humanity. This is just so unnatural. This is obviously the product of evolution and the liberal attempt to destroy our American values. God damn libtards. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Mep. That it is a template is okayish, but it's not that funny and almost as uninformative as I was. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess so, but this is usually when editors know the community enough to understand and accept it is a hopelessly bland liberal-land. Not exactly as bad as the welcomes I was talking about, but we (as in not me) could be a little more specific here to help people understand better. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
What's that got to do with the price of fish?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. PacWalker just wants to let you know you did something silly.

WalkerWalkerWalker 03:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Chris[edit]

Would you be interested in writing a Pallywood article debunking this ludicrous myth? I bring it up because a pair of users seem intent on propagating and defending this piece of misinformation. (talk) 11:45, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Sure, Pallywood is a myth, since there is ever only propaganda made by teh evel Zionists, right?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 11:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
See? (talk) 11:53, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
See what?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 11:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't talking to you. (talk) 11:55, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
So my objection to the notion of the phenomenon being described by the term is the proof of the non-existence of said phenomenon, is that, what you wanted to imply?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 11:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Nope. But feel free to try again. (talk) 12:01, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I added the page to my watchlist, so I'll see, what Chris'll write (whitewashing as usual, but at least he'll whitewash less than Mona).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 12:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of whitewashing, but most of it didn't come from Chris or Mona... (yes, I'm alluding to you and Avenger here.) (talk) 12:12, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Nice idea and certainly very much on mission.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
To ignore everything between here and the beginning of the thread: sounds like a good idea. WalkerWalkerWalker 16:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Order: Disregard this order!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Here Arisboch is reminded of the difference between disregard and disobey. WalkerWalkerWalker 16:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Ooooops... OTL.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away for a couple of days. I'm not sure if it'd be worth my time. It might be worthy of inclusion with say Holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Chemtrails, among others. Much of the abuses of Palestinians by the IDF is well documented by human rights groups, the US State Department, and the UN. Some of the criticism is actually included on the IDF page with some citations by HRW and on the apartheid page with citations from B'tselem, so bringing up evidence from human rights groups to debunk the conspiracies of Palestinians faking their suffering seems redundant. Though, I do find it hilarious that Palestinians are accused of faking their suffering, which is one step closer to accusing Jews of staging the Holocaust, and you get my point. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well Hamas does profit from being seen as the "victims" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've adduced evidence in prior discussions that Hamas suppresses rocket-fire in order to ceasefires and usually are not the ones to attack first as attested by Israeli intelligence, so I'm not sure what gain there is to be made on their part for starting a war that endangers Palestinians. And yes, whether you like to believe it or not, they are victims of the occupation. Either way, Israel's PR has been on the decline, and that falls on Israel moreso than Hamas despite Israel's best PR efforts to blame Hamas for everything. Nevertheless, alleged "profiting" goes for any group in a conflict, including Israel. That's the nature of conflicts; both sides use propaganda, including ones we'd normally be sympathetic to (US during WWII). What matters in evaluating a conflict is an analysis of the cause and effects. You want me to start accusing Israel of profiting from the deaths of people from suicide bombers? Because if I did, I might be accused of antisemitism for even suggesting that. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, but there is an important difference in what propaganda deems important enough to fake it. Israel does not want to look weak or dangerous. Hence they focus on their touristic beauty and on the successes of Iron Dome and the likes. On the other hand blood and gore images (even if the victims are Israeli) are deemed to be hurting the cause and thus mostly kept under wraps - as much as this is possible in a democracy. Hamas on the other hand does not want to look like a credible military force, hence they try to keep information about tunnels and rockets secret - at least when dealing with the west. What they instead focus on (and sometimes fake) are "atrocities" against Palestinians. An Israeli cannot cut a Palestinian fingernail, without it ending up on a Hamas propaganda video... Of course in all propaganda there is a difference in domestic consumption propaganda and foreign propaganda. The most extreme example would be North Korea, but Hamas has also perfected the art of speaking with two faces in two languages... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. The IDF often uses cartoon images of rockets being fired at Paris to justify their military operations. I recall during OCL there was a commercial justifying Israel's massacre with the inclusion of a video of an Israeli girl being stretchered. Israel certainly wants to look tough in light of the fact that Hezbollah dealt them two defeats in 2000 and 2006, and given that Israel comes of as a Sparta-like society (not tolerating a lot of soldier casualties), they will attack less organized resistance groups like Hamas to restore fear of it being the backyard bully. I'm not sure I agree with this. Even the UN, in its apologetic report that gave an undue balance between both sides, conceded the point that the tunnels were used to attack Israeli soldiers rather than civilians. Hamas will take pride in its "resistance", regardless of whether it looks bad for them. So I don't think they really need to keep it secret. Even then, atrocities of Palestinians still falls on Israel's lap, and apparently human rights groups and journalists must be duped into the propaganda as well. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
When time is scarce and sources are few and far between, and there happens to be this really "good" unverifiable video of "atrocities" that satisfies the "if it bleeds it leads" criteria, what do you think most journalists - especially those that dislike Israel to begin with - are likely to do? That's where Pallywood provides the pictures for the waiting world Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
What fits into this criteria you speak of? I don't think killing 2200 people in 50 days with over 500 dead children as cited by the UN and human rights organizations is "unverifiable". I'm not going to respond to the point about journalists because now we're entering territory where any criticism of Israel means the critic has an agenda, which isn't realistic and borders on paranoia. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I never said nor insinuated that wars don't kill people. However... In a "normal" year in Central America more people die due to homicide (as part of the de facto war between the gangs) than Israel and Hamas have killed in probably the last decade of war. And images matter a lot. If only a crying widow of one side is shown, this ceases to be journalism. This becomes propaganda. Maybe the widow is grieving for the likes of Eichmann? After all, Hamas leaders are emphatically people who need killing. I am of the firm opinion that killing the leader of the opposing side is a legitimate way to fight a war. And if it is an asymmetric war all the more. And I am going to repeat: The leaders of Hamas need killing. Free Gaza from Hamas! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you starting to see why we need an article on this, Chris? (talk) 21:34, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
So Mona and Chris can wage a new edit war after the Zionism-article was Sysop-locked and the Steven Salaita-article was declared an "abortion" by Mona?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a thought: Explicitly declare everything related to Zionism to be emphatically "off mission" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a thought: Let's not change RW's mission because someone can't deal with criticism of their ideology (and some of the practices associated with it)? (talk) 21:42, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Really Avenger, I shouldn't be helping you here, but you're really poisoning your own well here. (talk) 21:44, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
As I've stated, Hamas does not need dead Palestinians to make their cause more legitimate, Israel does the job for them. Israel has been killing Palestinians long before Hamas existed, including 1948, the 1950s border wars, the 1982 Lebanon invasion, etc. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Arabs are far better at this than Israel was and that before there even was an Israel (back in the time, when ol al-Husseini himself didn't think of creating his own little state for him to rule, but tried to peddle this piece of the Levant to Syria).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a bit ironic to say Gaza needs to be freed from Hamas since Hamas was democratically elected in 2006 and nearly overthrown by Fatah in a coup. Hamas is also not blockading Gaza and strangling the economy nor keeping people locked inside an open air prison. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The inclusion of Eichmann's widow is nonsense. One side crying does not make one's suffering any more propagandistic. Does an Israeli widow crying for the death of a spouse from a suicide bombing count as propaganda? You're entering dangerous territory Avenger, I would request you stop because this is coming off as a little sadistic. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Israel has been attacked long before Palestinians were "a thing" in the consciousness of the world. The attack against the Jewish community in Hebron during the Mandate had nothing to do with Zionism (those being orthodox anti-Zionist Jews) and everything with antisemitism Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hitler was "democratically elected" in 1933. Germany still had to be freed from him. When is Hamas planning on holding the next election btw? How much "equal time" will be devoted to the pro-Zionist factions during the campaign? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. All the British reports like the Shaw commission came to the conclusion that Palestinian reactions against the Jewish community in Palestine were a response to Zionism because Zionism inevitably entailed denying Palestinians (the majority inhabitants) a right to an independent state. Palestinians were seeking a state like their Arab neighbors were at the time. And that's not even mentioning the expulsion of Arab peasants thanks to Zionist land purchases. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Netanyahu was democratically elected too. (Assuming the vote wasn't rigged.) Point being?
Regularly having this other nation invade you might make holding new elections a bit difficult, don't you think? And you have to wonder whether the ruling Israeli politicians really want Hamas gone. All that polarization can be a nice source of votes. (talk) 22:02, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
The point about Hitler is also bullshit. Hitler did not become democratically elected in a fair and free election. Hitler came to power because of backroom dealing without the consent of the citizens, and the election in March 1933 came following the invoking of emergency powers after the Reistche fire (sp). Source: I'm typing this from a mobile phone so again bear with me. It's also hard to function democratically when you're being blockaded. I'm not saying Hamas is right, but some of the points made above are so filled with omission (the attempted overthrow by Fatah) that it feels difficult having to repeat this time and time again. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The second 1933 election was not entirely fair (Nazis were openly patrolling the streets and intimidating voters). However, Hitler did get a majority in parliament in his coalition with a minor right wing party. And his Empowerment law was passed by the constitutionally required 2/3 majority. Besides, Hindenburg as the President could nominate anybody he pleased as chancellor. So up until the death of Hindenburg the Nazis did hardly any overtly illegal thing. And your argument concerning elections in wartime would surely have interested the US in 1864... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The US election 1864 is not the least bit comparable to the 2006 Palestinian elections, so I'll put that aside for a moment.
Right-wing liberals who oppose democracy in any form usually bring up the Hitler example, but again, this example is woefully inadequate and lacking context. Consider even before 1933 from WP: "From 1931 to 1933, the Nazis combined terror tactics with conventional campaigning – Hitler criss-crossed the nation by air, while SA troops paraded in the streets, beat up opponents, and broke up their meetings".
I will return to this later, I have some other tasks to take care of. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes part of the Nazi strategy was open political violence. Just like it is part of the Hamas strategy. And in what way is the 1864 election not comparable to that of 2006? Well the result of the 1864 election was much better for the world. And if Gaza is really as densely populated as User:-Mona- likes to claim, holding elections should be a piece of cake. Israel would probably even help organizing the election. But of course holding elections is haram once the Islamists have taken over the country... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yo Chris[edit]

Have a look at that--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And exactly that is why we need tagging. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Tell that David and his awesome RationalBeta no-one saw yet.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Is the code behind Wikipedia not open source? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course it is.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
So couldn't we just copy the part that enables tagging? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Ask David...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Who is David? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
David Gerard.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Is that his username? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The template:pingWikipedia functionality relies on several other complicated and perpetually-beta MediaWiki pieces we don't have - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually the thing I'd like to see implemented is much simpler: If and when I post something like this, the user in question gets a notification. This notification could of course be disabled... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware of the use of the phrase "annihilated" among Iranian rhetoric, but I disagree here on how to evaluate this response. First, any cursory glance of Khameini's twitter page with use of the phrase annihilation in regards to Israel is usually in reference to the "wolf like" regime in his words. This has been the same for Ahmadinejad, who did not call for Israel to be wiped off the map, but for the regime to fade away. In other words, use of the word annihilation towards Israel is most likely a reference for regime change. This would not be any different from coservative think tanks that believe in a regime change in Iranor Syria. Talk about Israel in any political context and most people refer to the actions and politics of its government rather than the actual people themselves. Second, the statement came after Hammond said Iran was taking a more nuanced stance, which tells me that the statement was done to appease radical right-wingers in an attempt to boost nationalist woo. Third, even if I were to argue that Iran really does want Israel to go away, that hasn't stopped them for voting for the two state solution as part of the UNGA resolution on peaceful settlement of the Palestine question. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
You may want to repeat that statement at talk:Iran, I will not right now engage the content of your statement, as I don't intend to spread the debate across more places thaen necessary. If need be, we can make a new subsection at talk:Iran. Kind regards. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


I'm still not very good with this editing "revert" software. I didn't know how to respect any edits you wanted but also get rid of PacWalker's bullshit reverts. Please engage me on the Chomsky talk page -- we may be able to agree on a version. ---Mona- (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Chomsky did deny the Cambodian Genocide at first when the Vietnam War was coming to an end, a duty he shared with Herman and Gareth Porter because he believed the record of atrocities placed the US in a more favorable light during the war or made their intervention in Vietnam justified. When historical scholarship emerged and when the evidence became overwhelming, Chomsky admitted in 1993 that it was a genocide and that the Vietnamese intervention was humanitarian in some respect, even when criticizing it. I would include the quote (not the Hitchens one), but the note on Chomsky blaming America for everything seems a little childish, especially in light of the fact he's praised the US as having moderate freedoms domestically. Chomsky's not above criticism, but some critiques directed toward him are kind of poorly written. ChrisAmiss (talk)
Wait just to clarify: How does denying the Cambodian genocide in any way help Chomsky or make his case? After all the Khmer Rouge were propped up by the US and kicked out of power by Vietnam... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
They were an effect of the US bombings, not "propped up". ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please join us![edit]

Hey Chris, WalkerWalkerWalker has started editing the Zionism article at his talk page: and we have a productive convo going there. He invited me, I invited Blacke, and It'd be great if you could participate as well. If there are a number of us working and we all agree on a version, then we would be pretty well-placed to edit the actual Zionism article itslef -- or at last to render obstruction by one or two Zionists infeasible.---Mona- (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I will get to it at some point. I have college work to do. ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Obligatory question, but I really am interested in the answer: what're you studying? WalkerWalkerWalker 07:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
My major is business management, but I'm planning to go to law school for graduate degree, ideally Harvard or Yale depending on if the time I spent studying the LSATs pay off. So really, my area of studies will be politics and law, and I want to seek a position in government anyway. Though different from politics, management is important from a people and cross cultural perspective. ChrisAmiss (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Studying for the LSAT is essential because everyone else does. If you are smart enough to complete a Harvard or Yale law degree you should find work with a JD. Otherwise, reconsider. The market for lawyer jobs has sunk far, far lower than in my day -- and I went to a top tier school but not THAT top.---Mona- (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Generally speaking there are too many lawyers. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
When taking the LSAT or the bar exam, keep in mind another lawyer. An incredibly dumb, incompetent lawyer. Always remember, if THAT dumbass could pass/get a high score, so can you. CorruptUser (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You pretend[edit]

As if militia and self-defense groups would be mutually exclusive.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

They can be, depending on circumstances. One's freedom fighters are another's terrorists as the saying goes. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, you (or Avenger. Or both) seem to think, that militia is something bad, whereas in reality, this term can mean a fuckton of things and is completely neutralWikipedia.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm operating in terms of how it's used today to refer to nonstate Jihadists. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)–
The news and stuff ain't calling only Jihadists "milita". Much ado about nothing. Again.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Zionism draft[edit]

Hi Chris. I do understand that you are a very busy and diligent student. But if you have any time to do a bit more work on the Zionism draft, these are the sections I have done nothing or little in, and which need attention -- or merging and/or deletion. (I do not list Secular Jewish opposition to Zionism because altho I have not worked on it yet, I will shortly be doing so):

1.4.1 Geopolitical Zionism (added some but needs more)

1.5 Idea of transfer

2 The implementation of the idea

2.1 Prior to 1917, or the boring chapters at the beginning

2.2 The Balfour Declaration, or politics as usual

2.3 The interwar period, or the storm before the storm

2.5 The State of Israel is Founded

2.6 Post-independence, or they all die in the end

3 Anti-Zionism

3.1 Jews opposed to Zionism

3.1.1 Religious opposition

3.2 Anti-Zionism as a screen for anti-Semitism

Again, I realize you are operating under time constraints and if you can't get to this it's fine. Paravant had wanted me to submit the draft for consideration to the users at large this past weekend but I want a bot more of it done first. I'm thinking in a few days or so. Thanks.---Mona- (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Zionism Draft, part deux[edit]

Chris, I've placed a collapsed version of our incomplete draft on the Zionism talk page and opened it for discussion, good faith edits and eventual adoption in whole or part.---Mona- (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Mona you do know that I was firmly reprimanded by Paravant for daring to inform other users of a debate at some place once? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Mona gets a free pass for bunch a stuf...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I have a lot of useful scholarly citations from Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Simha Flapan, Avrahem Sela, Tom Segev, etc. to fill the page, but again, I'm quite busy with school work, so try to be patient when I get around to editing the page. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You have been elevated to a most lofty status[edit]

You are now on the sysop list.---Mona- (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Schmerzlichen Herzlichen Dank an deine Steigbügelhalterin.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe oneday you can become a Crat!--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Aren't we supposed to release white smoke or something?---Mona- (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Nah, just give em a copy of the terms and conditions. They can print it out and make their own white smoke, if desired. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Well her holiness Mona the First has created her first cardinal! Isn't it nice? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That clown at the CAIR page[edit]

He's repeatedly accused me of being a sock puppet of Glenn Greenwald's. (As if Glenn had the time to give what I give to this site!) In point of fact, Glenn and I have been friends for 20 years and are former law partners. I know a great deal about him and follow his work very closely, work I greatly admire. He and I have always seen the world very similarly and are in agreement some 85% of the time. (When we disagree, however, we really can tear it up as we have done both privately and publicly about certain aspects of the Charlie Hebdo matter.) Anyway, where appropriate I do cite Glenn's work because I know it very well. If that guy (and there are a few others like him here) has a problem with that, that's just too bad. ---Mona- (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, just a word to the wise, being a former law partner is kind of a conflict of interest/bias with regard to editing pages on his behalf or adding his political opinions. I wouldn't look very good if for example I tried to edit Julian Assange's page with regard to his rape allegations in his favor just because I could be a close friend of his. And even in that case, it'd be hypocritical of me to do that from a feminist perspective, despite my belief that Wikileaks should be held in high regard. I think some criticism (either CAIR or whatever) should remain. I know RationalWiki doesn't take a NPOV in certain cases, but fact and context-based criticism shouldn't be dismissed wholesale either. I think if criticisms of CAIR are going to be made, they should be included, but with caveats that the case against them (I think it was 2009) was thrown out and that they have been found not to be conduct terrorist operations in America. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh please. Among other things, I disclosed the relationship at that talk page. And, not all former law partners get along, to put it mildly, and we had some serious differences when the formal relationship ended. Moreover, I didn't delete the criticisms of him that are commonly made. It doesn't matter who or what it is, I'm about facts. I see Greenwald as a force for good because he has been a force for good. Not perfect by any means (I know his warts better than most), but he's a moral and passionate person who fights for civil liberties and justice, which is an admirable way to be.---Mona- (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not holding it against you, but understand that people do look at those connections and develop their own suspicions from their political perspective (goes both for left and right-wing groups), whether fair or not. ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I can only speak for myself, but my opinion of Glenn Greenwald (a man whom I knew next to nothing about just a few months ago) has not changed for the better due to Mona's edits... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Grammar Nazi[edit]

Toe the lineWikipedia :-) Scream!! (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Syrian rebels[edit]

Which of them?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The anti-Assad anti-ISIS faction that is not too chummy to the PKK for Turkey to complain... So... No-one Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
You forgot "non-Islamist" (which would exclude, e.g., al-Nusra) and I'm not quite sure about the FSA, either. Fuck that, he bangs the drum for Hamas and Hezbollah and the FSA is cooperating with Hamas, so fuck them, too. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: And the Hezbollah is fighting side-by-side with it's paymaster, Assad.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Syria is our generation's Iran Iraq war.... Reasonable people just wish both sides would lose... Unfortunately, the Syrian people - especially its various minorities - are suffering horribly from the war. Just as the Iraqi and Persian people suffered during the 1980s... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
FSA or the Kurds for the most part. So basically anti-ISIS and anti-Assad rebels. Unfortunately, Russia is doing Assad's dirty work of mostly going after rebels rather than ISIS. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
FSA are Islamists, too.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you're talking about the defects rather than the general movement. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If Assad is defeated, there will be a genocide of the Alawites. Assad has no intention of genocide against Sunnis - while the majority of Sunnis have turned against his regime, there are some Sunnis, especially in Damascus, who still support him, and he is thankful for their support, and has no plans to harm them. Assad is not Mother Teresa, and his regime has done some horrible things to people, but his opponents (including the so-called "moderate rebels") will be every bit as bad as he is (they label Assad's bombings a war crime, but if they had an air force they'd do the same thing themselves). Keeping Assad in power is the lesser evil, and Russia and Iran and Hezbollah are working hard to ensure the lesser evil comes about - out of self-interest not altruism, but outcomes matter more than intentions. The future of Syria is partition into three states (whether de facto or de jure) - an Alawite-dominated state (with substantial Christian,Druze and Sunni populations, that are treated with respect), with Assad as its president; Syrian Kurdistan (which Turkey will do anything to destroy, because Turkey hates Kurds); and the utter hell-on-earth of Daeshistan. The so-called moderate opposition are a figment of fevered American imagination - the opposition consists of Daesh, al-Qaeda, and Islamists who are not al-Qaeda but who are happy to ally themselves with al-Qaeda - that's all that's left. Resurrection by erection (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I am opposed to your usage of Mother Theresa as a positive example... That woman was horrible Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm presuming you saw Hitchens documentary of her? ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I've even bought (and read) the book. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Fair point. Dumb cliche on my part. Although, whatever bad things she did, no one ever accused her of using chemical weapons or dropping barrel bombs from helicopters or any of the other shit Assad gets (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) accused of. And I think she genuinely did want to do good and help people in need, even if the religious ideology with which she had been indoctrinated led her to at times harming them instead. Resurrection by erection (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Assad has killed more civilians than ISIS has in Syria. They're far more brutal and show reckless disregard for civilian life. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
If that is true, why is it true? Is it because ISIS and al-Nusra are more moral than Assad? Or is it becomes Assad has an air force and they don't, and if they had an air force they would kill just as many as he does? How does this give us any rational reason to push for the overthrow of a regime, which while unpleasant, is the only thing stopping an Alawite genocide? Resurrection by erection (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of fact Assad has produced a higher body count thaen ISIS... But choosing between a fascist regime and ISIS, I still mildly tend towards the fascist... But it really is a choice between death by hanging and death by firing squad... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Assad is a clever politician in that if any civilians die from his barrel bombs, he can claim he's the only secular leader in the region and that he's fighting against terrorism (despite the body count proving otherwise). I believe the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has the estimate on the body count. I don't want a hard-line Islamist group in power as much as you, but don't forget that Assad killed his own people with chemical weapons like Saddam. He has to be held responsible for that. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure. But when Somalia got rid of Siad Barre (who was probably a lot nicer to live under thaen either Saddam or Assad), it took them two and a half decades to come even close to some semblance of a state again... And being terrorized by a bunch of rackets in constant war against one another tends to suck... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
(ec) @Avenger, how is the Assad regime "fascist"? Ideologically, I don't think Assad has a lot in common with Franco or Mussolini or Hitler. The later were genuine believers in nationalism (in the last case especially heavily mixed with racialism); was the Assads' support for Arab nationalism ever really serious meant? and even if it once was, surely it has long no longer been so. @ChrisAMiss, the claim "Assad killed his own people with chemical weapons like Saddam" is open to question, see e.g. this Resurrection by erection (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Baathism in many ways is the Arab way to fascism... (unfortunately much of what I read on this is in German and I don't remember the exact URL or date of publication of paper sources) It has some of the same tenets, notably Antisemitism (which to be fair, was a lot more subdued in early Mussolini fascism and replaced by anti-Free Mason propaganda in Spain), Nationalism and a weird pseudo-socialism... It is a totalitarian ideology with a "healthy" serving of nationalism to it, so if it is not outright fascist, it is rather similar to it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Baathism was more left-wing in its economic policy than fascism was, so I don't think it's a good comparison aside from maybe the elements of "rebirth" and "resurrection". And it generally treated women's rights better than fascist movements. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Arab nationalism and European nationalisms can really be compared. Nation-states in the European sense never existed in the Arab world, and "the Arab world" as a whole cannot be compared to a European nation-state either. For European nationalists, their nationalism was something deeply felt - I don't doubt Hitler really loved Germany, even as he marched it into the depths of hell. Did the Assads or Saddam really love Syria or Iraq or the Arab World as a whole? Or was their nationalism just a tool to be used in a power struggle against traditional sources of authority (especially religious)? Resurrection by erection (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Nationalism is an imported concept in the Arab world for sure. But unfortunately they imported the worst form(s) of it. According to a rather common interpretation, there is "Republican" and "Ethnic" nationalism. The former constructs "the people" or "the nation" as opposed to the tyrannical monarch or dictator. The latter constructs "the people" or "the nation" as opposed to other people. In a really dumbed down short version one could say, that the Germans who chanted "Wir sind das Volk" (We are the people) in 1989/90 were republican nationalists, whereas those chanting "Wir sind das Volk" in Pegida marches are ethnic nationalists. But this of course fails to go into so many nuances for which there is neither room nor time here... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)