Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,666
Daps
203,891
Reppin
the ether
What are you arguing exactly?


He's making the right-wing "all war should be total war" argument, the pro-violence extremist idea that our wars only fail to achieve their objectives when we don't fight them hard enough. It's the same excuse we see used over and over again when violence fails. He's using that argument both to justify the killing of Palestinian civilians right now, and to create some sort of false history of the Middle East where all their problems are somehow the result of not killing enough people. then he threw in the ridiculous subargument that American soverignity is just hanging on a tiny thread of war crimes and we'd be invaded and occupied if we hadn't been willing to commit so many war crimes. My position is that is historical, logical, and moral nonsense.
 

ADevilYouKhow

Rhyme Reason
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
33,800
Reputation
1,404
Daps
61,782
Reppin
got a call for three nines
He's making the right-wing "all war should be total war" argument, the pro-violence extremist idea that our wars only fail to achieve their objectives when we don't fight them hard enough. It's the same excuse we see used over and over again when violence fails. He's using that argument both to justify the killing of Palestinian civilians right now, and to create some sort of false history of the Middle East where all their problems are somehow the result of not killing enough people. then he threw in the ridiculous subargument that American soverignity is just hanging on a tiny thread of war crimes and we'd be invaded and occupied if we hadn't been willing to commit so many war crimes. My position is that is historical, logical, and moral nonsense.

What is your best final solution? Is it historical, logical, and moral? Do you think a one state solution is still possible?
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
310,140
Reputation
-34,200
Daps
620,144
Reppin
The Deep State
What is your best final solution? Is it historical, logical, and moral? Do you think a one state solution is still possible?
We could pay Egpyt $750B for the land that would become Palestine in the Sinai and then add another secret $250B for under the table funds etc that would be used to get people to move faster and to cut the necessary deals to make it happen.

Then we’d tell palestinians to remember that the Kurds dont even have a country…and theres 2-3x more of them than the palestinians and they’re not going to ever get Israel back as long as they have nukes so they better find god in the their new home cause the world doesn’t give a fukk anymore.
 

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
45,977
Reputation
6,947
Daps
146,481
Reppin
CookoutGang
We could pay Egpyt $750B for the land that would become Palestine in the Sinai and then add another secret $250B for under the table funds etc that would be used to get people to move faster and to cut the necessary deals to make it happen.

Then we’d tell palestinians to remember that the Kurds dont even have a country…and theres 2-3x more of them than the palestinians and they’re not going to ever get Israel back as long as they have nukes so they better find god in the their new home cause the world doesn’t give a fukk anymore.
Gonna be hard to reconcile that America needs to pay reparations to Palestinians but not black Americans.

:sas1:
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,666
Daps
203,891
Reppin
the ether
What is your best final solution? Is it historical, logical, and moral? Do you think a one state solution is still possible?


I'm not an expert in the region at all, but I don't see how a one-state solution is possible with all the mistrust that's been built. It reminds me of the India-Pakistan errors, where perhaps the ground for a positive one-state solution could have been built in the 1910s-20s when things were just getting started, but the British fukked shyt up, used division to their own advantage, and the biggest haters on both sides were allowed to take over the narrative and capitalize on distrust of the British to inflame long-standing animosities and poison the well. By the time "independence" happened in 1948, it would have been difficult to get either side to accept leadership from the other side. And for good reason - neither side has proven it can rule the other side in good faith. So a two-state solution is the only choice I see.
 
Top