Was: Israel is at War; Now: Scoopers diagnose your anti-Semitism

[Lennys Tap]

I appreciate you making your first point twice for some reason, and then adding a falsehood for a second sentence.

I have voted for numerous Republicans, including Reagan, Bush Sr., both Republicans who ran against Blagojevich, former NC governor Pat McCrory, and literally dozens of GOP candidates for local offices. I would have voted for Kasich in 2016 had the GOP not lost its collective mind, and he would have been a very good president. And when I haven't been able to stand either candidate in a race, I've voted third party.

So don't be "sure" when you don't really know about something, Tony. You're not a Scoop dentist; you're better than that.

I wouldn't have voted for Tlaib - period. If I was in her district and she ran against an "Extreme Maga" Republican, I'd have voted third party or not selected a candidate at all. Unlike the dentists and perhaps some others hypocrites here, I don't vote for antisemites or those who publicly solicit support from antisemites.

Our Mequon dentist friend calls fellow Scoopers he doesn't know antisemites even as he supports a politician who dines with white supremacists - people who would be happy to see Jews cease to exist. That's something we're both "sure" of, so I suggest you lecture him.

Mike

Despite your protestation to the contrary, here is what I know based on your posting history:

1.You have literally hundreds of posts affirming and reaffirming your hatred for Donald Trump and anything/anyone who supports him or his policies. So I think it's pretty safe to say that under no circumstance would you vote for what you consider to be a "Maga Republican".

2. You have linked countless political articles on Scoop. If one of them has been pro Republican, pro right, anti Democrat, anti left I missed it and apologize. Please re-link.

3. It's true that since Tlaib has advocated for the elimination of Israel and downplayed the horrific rapes and murders committed by Hamas you have criticized her, saying she is antisemetic, usually adding just like Trump, Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, etc., in a weird false equivalency game you play. The rest of the Squad you've been silent on for years as far as I recall.

So based on all of this I think it's fair to say you would NEVER vote for a candidate you consider a "Maga Republican". Since OTOH, you're left leaning and I've never heard you criticize any Squad member not named Tlaib, I think it's fair to assume you'd vote for any of them (except maybe Tlaib) in a head to head race - maybe you would sit that one out.

[jesmu84]

Was there ever any confirmation of the beheaded infants?

[4everwarriors]

Its a fuckin' war. What don't you get. No one's playin' nice in the sandbox, hey?

#fromtherivertothesea

[rocket surgeon]

Was there ever any confirmation of the beheaded infants?

  well, if i had some actual photos i'd be sure to forward them on to you jes, if i could stop from hurling my guts out in disgust and horror.  anyone have any of those rape, torture, genital mutilation and shooting up of female genitals while we're at it? 

       jes needs to see them, i don't know, to add them to his collections?

[Uncle Rico]

  well, if i had some actual photos i'd be sure to forward them on to you jes, if i could stop from hurling my guts out in disgust and horror.  anyone have any of those rape, torture, genital mutilation and shooting up of female genitals while we're at it? 

       jes needs to see them, i don't know, to add them to his collections?

2.5 out of 10

[Heisenberg]

Was there ever any confirmation of the beheaded infants?

Does the method on uses to slaughter infants matter?

Why ask this?

[Pakuni]

Its a unnatural carnal knowledgein' war. What don't you get. No one's playin' nice in the sandbox, hey?

#fromtherivertothesea

So, you're cool with Hamas' actions?
It is war, after all.

[Hards Alumni]

Does the method on uses to slaughter infants matter?

Why ask this?

Hey, did you hear this from me?  A dead baby is still dead.  A beheaded child and a baby crushed to death under rubble is still a horrific tragedy.

I think the point he was trying to make was that there were early claims of 40 beheaded babies at the hands of Hamas and was used to inflame emotions... which was unnecessary since there was a myriad of horrific acts that occurred on 10/7 that were downplayed as a result.

[lawdog77]

Hey, did you hear this from me?  A dead baby is still dead.  A beheaded child and a baby crushed to death under rubble is still a horrific tragedy.

I think the point he was trying to make was that there were early claims of 40 beheaded babies at the hands of Hamas and was used to inflame emotions... which was unnecessary since there was a myriad of horrific acts that occurred on 10/7 that were downplayed as a result.

Or, jesmu hates Israel, which is clear from his posting history.

[Hards Alumni]

Or, jesmu hates Israel, which is clear from his posting history.

Disagree.

[forgetful]

So, you're cool with Hamas' actions?
It is war, after all.

Really confused by his post. Seems like he is ok with absurd abuse... because it's only war.

Maybe he was ok with the US raping women, and children, and sodomizing children (sometimes with their mothers forced to watch) at Abu Ghraib, because it was war.

Repeat after me:

War does not justify horrific atrocities. Hamas' actions were horrific and wrong.

Historical atrocities in war does not justify future atrocities.

Sexual violence against anyone is never justified.

[Hards Alumni]

Really confused by his post. Seems like he is ok with absurd abuse... because it's only war.

Maybe he was ok with the US raping women, and children, and sodomizing children (sometimes with their mothers forced to watch) at Abu Ghraib, because it was war.

Repeat after me:

War does not justify horrific atrocities. Hamas' actions were horrific and wrong.

Historical atrocities in war does not justify future atrocities.

Sexual violence against women, and children in never justified.

Sexual violence against anyone is never justified as well.

[Lennys Tap]

Hey, did you hear this from me?  A dead baby is still dead.  A beheaded child and a baby crushed to death under rubble is still a horrific tragedy.

Any dead baby is a horrific tragedy. That said, there are levels. If you think a baby who dies as collateral damage in war is the same thing as one taken from his or her bed and beheaded I honestly don't know what to tell you.

[Pakuni]

Any dead baby is a horrific tragedy. That said, there are levels. If you think a baby who dies as collateral damage in war is the same thing as one taken from his or her bed and beheaded I honestly don't know what to tell you.

"There are levels of infanticide" is not a statement I was expecting to find on Scoop today, and yet here we are.

[MUBurrow]

My issue with the collateral damage argument isn't proportionality, its effectiveness.  I 100% agree that intent matters here.  You can't let a terrorist group continue to intentionally attack your civilians because they are hiding behind their civilians.  At that point, you use your technological advantage as best you can to minimize casualties while targeting military operatives and you do what you have to do.

But collateral damage is only a meaningful shield to criticism when it is in service of something.  Tomorrow will be the two month anniversary of the original attack - and can anyone clearly outline Israel's goal at this point?  What are their victory conditions? How do we measure the marginal utility of each additional bombing raid or Palestinian civilian death?  I don't think its unreasonable to say "Okay you've had two months and bombed northern Gaza to dust.  Its time to outline progress to date and future objectives because at this point it is starting to look like the Michael Bay theory of warmaking, where you are just replacing plot with explosions."

[lawdog77]

"There are levels of infanticide" is not a statement I was expecting to find on Scoop today, and yet here we are.

We agree again. Lenny, what if it were your child? Would it matter if it were by a bomb or by a knife/gun?

[MU82]

Mike

Despite your protestation to the contrary, here is what I know based on your posting history:

1.You have literally hundreds of posts affirming and reaffirming your hatred for Donald Trump and anything/anyone who supports him or his policies. So I think it's pretty safe to say that under no circumstance would you vote for what you consider to be a "Maga Republican".

Yes, like millions and millions of fellow Independents (and Republicans), I am a proud Never Trumper, and that includes politicians who bend a knee to him.

2. You have linked countless political articles on Scoop. If one of them has been pro Republican, pro right, anti Democrat, anti left I missed it and apologize. Please re-link.

I don't have my posting history handy and I'm not about to search. But I have spoken numerous times about how good a president Kasich would have been, have lauded the good things Reagan did (and criticized what I thought was bad), etc. And my Tlaib posts are on record. You make a lot of political comments too, Tony; if you'd like to share your pro-Democratic posts, we can be even.

3. It's true that since Tlaib has advocated for the elimination of Israel and downplayed the horrific rapes and murders committed by Hamas you have criticized her, saying she is antisemetic, usually adding just like Trump, Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, etc., in a weird false equivalency game you play. The rest of the Squad you've been silent on for years as far as I recall.

There's no false equivalence. Doc Mequon said repeatedly that he would never support antisemites - yet he totally does, unapologetically. Even as he worships a person who solicits political support from raging antisemites, Doc claims that Scoopers he doesn't even know are antisemites just because he disagrees with them. As a person of Jewish heritage with a brother who lives in Israel (as well as a human being), it saddens me that he supports antisemites, because I do know he cares about the plight of Jews. I'm also a little disappointed that you aren't bothered by the fact that the previous president purposely chose to use "vermin" to describe those he wants to vanquish - the exact same word Hilter used to describe those he wanted to vanquish. Indeed, you actually mocked criticism of his use of the word. Do you really think the word choice was accidental? Let me tell you, Tony - most Jews don't think it was accidental at all.

So based on all of this I think it's fair to say you would NEVER vote for a candidate you consider a "Maga Republican". Since OTOH, you're left leaning and I've never heard you criticize any Squad member not named Tlaib, I think it's fair to assume you'd vote for any of them (except maybe Tlaib) in a head to head race - maybe you would sit that one out.

Yes, it is fair to assume that I would never vote for the 91-felony Criminal Defendant or any of his cultists. If I also could not abide by the policies and/or character of the Democrat in the race, I would vote third party or sit the race out - as I have on quite a few occasions. Thanks for acknowledging that instead of assuming I'd vote for them. Enjoy the rest of your day.

[MUBurrow]

I don't want/need to speak for Lenny, but I think we all know that by "levels" he didn't mean that the death of one child is "worth" or "more tragic" than another.  He meant that while both are a tragedy, the death of a Palestinian child is the direct but unintentional byproduct of the need to eliminate a group who is intentionally targeting Israeli children.

[Pakuni]

I don't want/need to speak for Lenny, but I think we all know that by "levels" he didn't mean that the death of one child is "worth" or "more tragic" than another.  He meant that while both are a tragedy, the death of a Palestinian child is the direct but unintentional byproduct of the need to eliminate a group who is intentionally targeting Israeli children.

What's unintentional about dropping thousands of pounds of bombs on locations where you know children are present?
I'm open to arguments about necessity and unavoidably, but these bombings aren't an accident. If you intentionally blow up a building full of civilians, you can't claim civilian deaths are unintentional.

[Hards Alumni]

Any dead baby is a horrific tragedy. That said, there are levels. If you think a baby who dies as collateral damage in war is the same thing as one taken from his or her bed and beheaded I honestly don't know what to tell you.

You don't have to tell me.  Do you think it is any consolation to the parents of the dead child as to how they died if they were murdered?

Have you ever seen what blunt force trauma to a skull looks like? 

[Hards Alumni]

What's unintentional about dropping thousands of pounds of bombs on locations where you know children are present?
I'm open to arguments about necessity and unavoidably, but these bombings aren't an accident. If you intentionally blow up a building full of civilians, you can't claim civilian deaths are unintentional.

Oh, but you can as long as you claim you've vaporized one terrorist as well,

[Lennys Tap]

I don't want/need to speak for Lenny, but I think we all know that by "levels" he didn't mean that the death of one child is "worth" or "more tragic" than another.  He meant that while both are a tragedy, the death of a Palestinian child is the direct but unintentional byproduct of the need to eliminate a group who is intentionally targeting Israeli children.

Thank you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone. A baby who dies from SIDS is a horrific tragedy -but it's not infanticide. A baby who is accidentally killed in the course of a declared war is a horrific tragedy - but it's not infanticide. A baby taken from its bed and intentionally murdered? That's a horrific tragedy that's also infanticide. I assume Pakuni is able to discern the difference between A and C. He's unable to do so between B and C. Odd, but there's a lot of odd in this thread.

[Hards Alumni]

My issue with the collateral damage argument isn't proportionality, its effectiveness.  I 100% agree that intent matters here.  You can't let a terrorist group continue to intentionally attack your civilians because they are hiding behind their civilians.  At that point, you use your technological advantage as best you can to minimize casualties while targeting military operatives and you do what you have to do.

But collateral damage is only a meaningful shield to criticism when it is in service of something.  Tomorrow will be the two month anniversary of the original attack - and can anyone clearly outline Israel's goal at this point?  What are their victory conditions? How do we measure the marginal utility of each additional bombing raid or Palestinian civilian death?  I don't think its unreasonable to say "Okay you've had two months and bombed northern Gaza to dust.  Its time to outline progress to date and future objectives because at this point it is starting to look like the Michael Bay theory of warmaking, where you are just replacing plot with explosions."

Personally, I think the goal is obvious, but ultimately unrealistic.  Eliminate terrorism originating from Gaza. 

[Hards Alumni]

Thank you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone. A baby who dies from SIDS is a horrific tragedy -but it's not infanticide. A baby who is accidentally killed in the course of a declared war is a horrific tragedy - but it's not infanticide. A baby taken from its bed and intentionally murdered? That's a horrific tragedy that's also infanticide. I assume Pakuni is able to discern the difference between A and C. He's unable to do so between B and C. Odd, but there's a lot of odd in this thread.

What is your opinion on 'accidentally' starving children to death?  Or 'accidentally' destroying infrastructure so that the ICU units at a hospital don't work and the child dies a slow agonizing death?

Are those accidents?  Or are they something that is acknowledged as a 'cost' of war?

How would you feel as a parent of one of those children?  Are they still dead?  Still murdered by a state actor all the same?

[forgetful]

Sexual violence against anyone is never justified as well.

Thank you for the correction. You are, of course, correct.