Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
knox_harrington
Feb 18, 2011

Running no point.


Pretty clearly that's not what the quote says? It says the US won't draw the red lines for Israel, not that there aren't any.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

That Works
Jul 22, 2006

Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy


knox_harrington posted:

Pretty clearly that's not what the quote says? It says the US won't draw the red lines for Israel, not that there aren't any.

Logic up there with “died with covid”

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

knox_harrington
Feb 18, 2011

Running no point.

What do you mean?

That Works
Jul 22, 2006

Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy


knox_harrington posted:

What do you mean?

That its a bullshit semantics cover for an irrelevant distinction. The UN member that has already vetoed security council sanctions stating there are no red lines means that anyone else drawing them will be ignored.

knox_harrington
Feb 18, 2011

Running no point.

That Works posted:

That its a bullshit semantics cover for an irrelevant distinction. The UN member that has already vetoed security council sanctions stating there are no red lines means that anyone else drawing them will be ignored.

The guy literally did not say "there are no red lines for Israel".

psydude
Apr 1, 2008

Also the second part of the quote very clearly qualifies the statement.

Handsome Ralph
Sep 3, 2004

Oh boy, posting!
That's where I'm a Viking!


bulletsponge13 posted:

Al Jeezera is reporting that they were approached by US and Israeli Officials to suppress reporting.

Shortly after, the AJ Gaza Reporter (he had an official big title I can't recall) had his family killed in a targeted strike.

Do you have a source for that? Because while I'm seeing AJ reporting his family was killed (which is loving awful in itself), none of their articles seem to be insinuating that his family was targeted specifically because of his reporting or that they were directly approached to tone down the reporting.

Handsome Ralph fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Oct 28, 2023

BUUNNI
Jun 23, 2023

by Pragmatica

knox_harrington posted:

The guy literally did not say "there are no red lines for Israel".

quote:

"We're not drawing red lines for Israel," Kirby said Friday on a call with reporters. "We're going to continue to support them"

This means the US will keep sending as many bombs, munitions, and fuel as the Zionists need. He does go on to say that they will have “conversations” but it’s clear the US is backing a genocide.

psydude
Apr 1, 2008

BUUNNI posted:

This means the US will keep sending as many bombs, munitions, and fuel as the Zionists need. He does go on to say that they will have “conversations” but it’s clear the US is backing a genocide.

It really feels like you intentionally omitted the rest of the quote in your block there.

"but since the beginning we have, and continue to have, conversations about the manner they are doing this."

That Works
Jul 22, 2006

Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy


psydude posted:

"but since the beginning we have, and continue to have, conversations about the manner they are doing this."

What does that mean to you?

Because so far they have been getting cover in the UN from the US and I'm not getting the impression the IDF is operating with great restraint here because of outside influence myself.

BUUNNI
Jun 23, 2023

by Pragmatica

psydude posted:

It really feels like you intentionally omitted the rest of the quote in your block there.

"but since the beginning we have, and continue to have, conversations about the manner they are doing this."

That doesn’t nullify what he said before. He’s clearly using media language to hedge his statement as to not make it so obviously bloodthirsty, our support will continue even while the Zionists genocide people, but we will have a “dialogue” while this happens.

Both outcomes, one with a “conversation” and the one without, end up in genocide committed by racist zionists and backed by the US.

kill me now
Sep 14, 2003

Why's Hank crying?

'CUZ HE JUST GOT DUNKED ON!

BUUNNI posted:

That doesn’t nullify what he said before. He’s clearly using media language to hedge his statement as to not make it so obviously bloodthirsty, our support will continue even while the Zionists genocide people, but we will have a “dialogue” while this happens.

Both outcomes, one with a “conversation” and the one without, end up in genocide committed by racist zionists and backed by the US.

Yeah, my take on his statement is "We will talk to them about toning down the genocide, but if they keep doing it and don't take our advice we are going to continue to give them everything they need to kill all the people of Gaza."

BUUNNI
Jun 23, 2023

by Pragmatica

kill me now posted:

Yeah, my take on his statement is "We will talk to them about toning down the genocide, but if they keep doing it and don't take our advice we are going to continue to give them everything they need to kill all the people of Gaza."

This framework, of course, has been the standard for decades. There is nothing that will make us stop arming and funding Israel, evidently.

psydude
Apr 1, 2008

That Works posted:

What does that mean to you?

Because so far they have been getting cover in the UN from the US and I'm not getting the impression the IDF is operating with great restraint here because of outside influence myself.

I take it as a notable departure from the previous (and historical) position that US support for Israel is unqualified and without question. This is probably about as close as we're gonna get to a public rebuke.

knox_harrington
Feb 18, 2011

Running no point.

kill me now posted:

Yeah, my take on his statement is "We will talk to them about toning down the genocide, but if they keep doing it and don't take our advice we are going to continue to give them everything they need to kill all the people of Gaza."

You're revising what he said so you can react to it.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

kill me now
Sep 14, 2003

Why's Hank crying?

'CUZ HE JUST GOT DUNKED ON!

BUUNNI posted:

This framework, of course, has been the standard for decades. There is nothing that will make us stop arming and funding Israel, evidently.

Historically at least, there have been times where the IDF stopped doing what they wanted to after the US stepped in and told them to stop.

That Works
Jul 22, 2006

Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy


psydude posted:

I take it as a notable departure from the previous (and historical) position that US support for Israel is unqualified and without question. This is probably about as close as we're gonna get to a public rebuke.

"we'll continue to support them and talk to them about things" doesn't seem like a rebuke if any to me, but this is getting into reading tea leaves to me at least so not gonna try to press that point against you.

BUUNNI
Jun 23, 2023

by Pragmatica

kill me now posted:

Historically at least, there have been times where the IDF stopped doing what they wanted to after the US stepped in and told them to stop.

Can you provide me a link that goes over the history of the times the US stepped in? Genuinely curious.

bulletsponge13
Apr 28, 2010

Handsome Ralph posted:

Do you have a source for that? Because while I'm seeing AJ reporting his family was killed (which is loving awful in itself), none of their articles seem to be insinuating that his family was targeted specifically because of his reporting or that they were directly approached to tone down the reporting.

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/25/tony-blinken-qatar-israel-hamas

His family home was bombed shortly after.


After this meeting, his family was killed in a strike. A suspicious number of Palestinian peace activists- particularly non-violent ones- keep getting killed in targeted strikes.

kill me now
Sep 14, 2003

Why's Hank crying?

'CUZ HE JUST GOT DUNKED ON!

BUUNNI posted:

Can you provide me a link that goes over the history of the times the US stepped in? Genuinely curious.

Its usually through their roll in the UN, but the US played a big part in the ending of hostilities in the following conflicts.
1957 Suez crisis
1967 Six day war
1973 Yom Kippur war
1982 Lebanon war and siege of Beirut

Not so much lately

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israe...t%20a%20minimum

BUUNNI
Jun 23, 2023

by Pragmatica
I wonder if the IDF spokesperson will ever have a “are we the baddies” moment

https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1718240244129059167

Stultus Maximus
Dec 21, 2009

USPOL May

BUUNNI posted:

I wonder if the IDF spokesperson will ever have a “are we the baddies” moment

https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1718240244129059167

Given that the message is being delivered in English via the internet to Arabic speakers in a region where electricity and cell service has been cut off by the people delivering the message...

I don't think that message is actually directed at Gazans.

BUUNNI
Jun 23, 2023

by Pragmatica

kill me now posted:

Its usually through their roll in the UN, but the US played a big part in the ending of hostilities in the following conflicts.
1957 Suez crisis
1967 Six day war
1973 Yom Kippur war
1982 Lebanon war and siege of Beirut

Not so much lately

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israe...t%20a%20minimum

lol there’s No loving way I’m just learning now that the US is sending Israel money to build housing for Zionists while letting housing shortages become a crisis in our own country

quote:


Since 1972, the United States has also extended loan guarantees – a form of indirect U.S. assistance to Israel, as they enable Israel to borrow from commercial US banks at lower rates – to Israel to assist with housing shortages

My Spirit Otter
Jun 15, 2006


CANADA DOESN'T GET PENS LIKE THIS

SKILCRAFT KREW Reppin' Quality Blind Made American Products. Bitch.

psydude posted:

It really feels like you intentionally omitted the rest of the quote in your block there.

"but since the beginning we have, and continue to have, conversations about the manner they are doing this."

us gov: make sure you dont kill any innocent people, now move outta the way so the dumptruck full of guns, ammo, and money can unload and then you can do whatever you want with it... just please, only hamas fighters :)

orange juche
Mar 14, 2012



BUUNNI posted:

lol there’s No loving way I’m just learning now that the US is sending Israel money to build housing for Zionists while letting housing shortages become a crisis in our own country

But something something rapture Armageddon.

Seriously, the US' Israel policy is significantly driven by evangelical wing nuts who believe that the nation of Israel is essential for Jesus to come back and rapture all the right people and leave the sinners on a ruined earth

psydude
Apr 1, 2008

orange juche posted:

But something something rapture Armageddon.

Seriously, the US' Israel policy is significantly driven by evangelical wing nuts who believe that the nation of Israel is essential for Jesus to come back and rapture all the right people and leave the sinners on a ruined earth

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

Yep. Before the Reagan administration, US policy regarding Israel was (to a large degree) in the interest of counteracting Soviet influence in the region. Since Reagan began recruiting evangelicals into the Republican party, it's become the primary driver.

That Works
Jul 22, 2006

Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy


psydude posted:

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

Yep. Before the Reagan administration, US policy regarding Israel was (to a large degree) in the interest of counteracting Soviet influence in the region. Since Reagan began recruiting evangelicals into the Republican party, it's become the primary driver.

Did they forget the part where ultimately ALL nations must turn against Israel to usher in the next steps in Revalations etc?

I always wondered how evangelicals squared that circle but not enough to try and ask my family about it. Any ideas?

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

That Works posted:

What does that mean to you?

Because so far they have been getting cover in the UN from the US and I'm not getting the impression the IDF is operating with great restraint here because of outside influence myself.

It's almost like most of the discussions happen behind closed doors and you're not in the room.

That Works
Jul 22, 2006

Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy


Godholio posted:

It's almost like most of the discussions happen behind closed doors and you're not in the room.

It's almost like the US facilitating oppression of palestine has been ongoing throughout our lifetimes and largely accepted as the status quo by US administrations.

Reading a very vague statement that declares our full support alongside "we'll talk with them" isn't exactly a strong point towards expecting the IDF to not engage in slaughter in Gaza.

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?
Entirely correct, but as mentioned it's about as strong a position as you're going to see in the press.

Electric Wrigglies
Feb 6, 2015

I'm very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but I wish BUUNNI would knock it off with blaming Zionism and instead correctly blame the Israel state and its enablers. I understand the anger about what is happening but I am also completely comfortable that a state apparatus of any religious (or non-religious) persuasion, given the free hand that Israel has, would act in a similar way.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Count Roland
Oct 6, 2013

bulletsponge13 posted:

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/25/tony-blinken-qatar-israel-hamas

His family home was bombed shortly after.


After this meeting, his family was killed in a strike. A suspicious number of Palestinian peace activists- particularly non-violent ones- keep getting killed in targeted strikes.

Someone asked for a source above and I'll copy that. What constitutes a suspicious number of non-violent activists? In Gaza I'm going to assume there's a relatively large number of activists, and they're currently getting bombed into the ground with thousands already killed. I assume most are civilians. Are all of these "targeted" strikes? How does one tell what is targeted and what is not?

Lum_
Jun 5, 2006

Count Roland posted:

Someone asked for a source above and I'll copy that. What constitutes a suspicious number of non-violent activists? In Gaza I'm going to assume there's a relatively large number of activists, and they're currently getting bombed into the ground with thousands already killed. I assume most are civilians. Are all of these "targeted" strikes? How does one tell what is targeted and what is not?

Israel's already said they're being far looser with targeting this war. The reasons vary depending on who you ask (no time for planning adequate pinpoint bombing / hamas is embedded in civilian infrastructure anyway / they know what they did and we're going to flatten everything to the ground) but no one in Israel is seriously disputing that civilians are being hit. Their response is that the entirety of North Gaza has been declared a free-fire zone and if anyone's still there it's their fault (or Hamas' fault for not letting them leave).

And yes, that is a pretty open-and-shut case of a war crime.

As for if Israel specifically targeted AJ journalists or journalists in general, I seriously doubt they have enough intel and free airpower to divert it to whacking reporters. Occam's Razor suggests it's far more likely that Israel is just being extremely free with bombardments and journalists are being caught just like everyone else in the area.

Lum_ fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Oct 28, 2023

Count Roland
Oct 6, 2013

Lum_ posted:

Israel's already said they're being far looser with targeting this war. The reasons vary depending on who you ask (no time for planning adequate pinpoint bombing / hamas is embedded in civilian infrastructure anyway / they know what they did and we're going to flatten everything to the ground) but no one in Israel is seriously disputing that civilians are being hit. Their response is that the entirety of North Gaza has been declared a free-fire zone and if anyone's still there it's their fault (or Hamas' fault for not letting them leave).

And yes, that is a pretty open-and-shut case of a war crime.

Well yes obviously civilians are being bombed in large numbers, yes that's a warcrime.

What I was asking about was OPs implication that the journalist's family was targeted as some sort of intimidation tactic after AJ was pressured to change its reporting.

Lum_
Jun 5, 2006

Count Roland posted:

Well yes obviously civilians are being bombed in large numbers, yes that's a warcrime.

What I was asking about was OPs implication that the journalist's family was targeted as some sort of intimidation tactic after AJ was pressured to change its reporting.

I edited my post to address my thought on that but I'll add that Israel's actual response to AJ's reporting is to ban them from the country.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-769432

notwithoutmyanus
Mar 17, 2009

Lum_ posted:

I edited my post to address my thought on that but I'll add that Israel's actual response to AJ's reporting is to ban them from the country.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-769432

lovely, but in line with Israel's perpetual control over media within Israel. In short, their general stranglehold there makes it difficult for any effective reporting - and at the same time, they're supposed to be our source of truth/accurate information (And clearly aren't).

bulletsponge13
Apr 28, 2010

Count Roland posted:

Well yes obviously civilians are being bombed in large numbers, yes that's a warcrime.

What I was asking about was OPs implication that the journalist's family was targeted as some sort of intimidation tactic after AJ was pressured to change its reporting.

OK, you can disregard the connection if you feel, but it appears pretty obvious to me that they killed his family after having tried to apply pressure not only through their people, but the US on AJ reporting. Maybe I'm a naysayer, but given the Israeli conduct and the suspicious timing, it seems clear to me.

Not trying to sound dismissive or dickish.

Potato Salad
Oct 23, 2014

nobody cares


orange juche posted:

But something something rapture Armageddon.

Seriously, the US' Israel policy is significantly driven by evangelical wing nuts who believe that the nation of Israel is essential for Jesus to come back and rapture all the right people and leave the sinners on a ruined earth

I'm never going to forget the "The evangelicals know I'm doing this [escalation with Iran] for them, right?" moment.

That Works posted:

Did they forget the part where ultimately ALL nations must turn against Israel to usher in the next steps in Revalations etc?

I always wondered how evangelicals squared that circle but not enough to try and ask my family about it. Any ideas?

A cornerstone of my political reading is that people are going to do what they want to do. A whole and complete reading of text has not prevented people from cherry picking whatever lets them do what they want, and that's not going to change any time soon.

Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Oct 28, 2023

BUUNNI
Jun 23, 2023

by Pragmatica

Electric Wrigglies posted:

I'm very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but I wish BUUNNI would knock it off with blaming Zionism and instead correctly blame the Israel state and its enablers. I understand the anger about what is happening but I am also completely comfortable that a state apparatus of any religious (or non-religious) persuasion, given the free hand that Israel has, would act in a similar way.

What a trite and meaningless distinction

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Potato Salad
Oct 23, 2014

nobody cares


"The Israeli State and its enablers" potentially includes US-domestic political sects that enable the ongoing policy of Palestinian displacement and second rate citizenship. The US sits on the Security Council, so it's challenging to separate US domestic political issues from its foreign policy outcomes.

As these atrocities continue to flow from recent days and we now stand at the precipice of the land invasion of the few places on this planet where Palestinians are still allowed exist, I'm seeing previous few differences between the Palestinian struggle for the right to continue to exist and other historical peoples' struggles for their right to continue to exist in the face of a genocidal foe.

Despite how many times genocides like this have played out in history, we do not seem to be prepared or willing to prevent yet another, and that's really really sad.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply