PugJesus avatar



Cripple. History Major. Vaguely left-wing.

PugJesus avatar

Here I thought I was condemning it as unambiguously a genocide and advocating for the complete removal of military aid from Israel. Silly me. I'm glad you're here to correct me on what I believe.

PugJesus avatar

Man, I've been on both since the beginning. I was calling the Palestinian genocide a genocide before October 7th and the current, heightened phase of the genocide. I've been advocating removal of military aid from Israel since I was in my damn teens.

PugJesus avatar

Yeah, something to do with voting from Kbin causing a loop and a huge amount of data to pass back and forth. Hope Ernest fixes it soon.

PugJesus avatar

Oh, good, Russia has mastered the same technology that the Soviet Union did 60 years ago.

PugJesus avatar

I'm generally more hostile towards local cops, who have less oversight. Not that policing is great at any level in this country.

PugJesus avatar

It's not just that rural people are hurting from actual problems and assigning blame incorrectly. Bigotry, tribalism, and fear of others being 'better' than them in some way are all contributors.

PugJesus avatar

"Critical support for military dictatorships!" - Morons and Russian bootlickers

PugJesus avatar


I believe this is the same helmet with a slightly worse angle.

PugJesus avatar

Found over a decade ago. Unearthed is my bet, though I suppose the past century of conflict in the region makes a bomb viable anyway.

Biden vows ‘ironclad’ US commitment to Israel amid fears of Iran attack (www.theguardian.com)

Joe Biden has vowed that US commitment to defend Israel against Iran was “ironclad” as concerns rose in Washington that a “significant” Iranian strike could happen within days, in retaliation for the bombing of an Iranian consular building in Damascus....

PugJesus avatar

our commitment to Israel’s security against these threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad.

"Hey Iran, feel free to attack Israel" would not exactly be a recipe for LESS death and destruction in the Middle East.

PugJesus avatar

No, but we need to be more nuanced than this. His vows of “ironclad” support echo the earlier misguided vows.

It's tone-deaf at minimum. But world politics are often performed on the public stage. I don't know if there was another viable answer he could have given as POTUS.

We can’t be world cops. And certainly can’t allow genocidal maniacs drag us into WW3.

That precludes giving Iran an open shot to make an attack on Israel. That has the potential to set most of the Middle East aflame, metaphorically speaking.

PugJesus avatar

it does. but so does Israel picking this fight. I don’t think anyone has the answer to conflict in the middle east. And nobody has had the answers in very long time. I certainly don’t. But constantly defending Israel when it’s obviously bullying other nations… is just as bad as letting Iran attack Israel.

Is it? Are two massacres more right than one? If it was a question of "Let Palestinians be genocided OR let Israel be attacked and potentially start WW3", I might be inclined to agree on principle. But it's not an either/or. Iran isn't going to knock out Israel in three days. Genocidaires tend to intensify their genocidal efforts when under attack, not diminish it. Letting Israel get invaded just means that we have a massive body count of Israeli civilians in addition, not instead of the Palestinian genocide.

Defending Israel against outside attack is the less bad option for now.

Ultimately, we should decouple from Israel completely, but even then, the more invasions of sovereign countries are tolerated, the more it will happen. That's one of many, many reasons the Iraq War was such a colossal fucking atrocity.

I would like to emphasize that my position on genocide is the same - the more it is tolerated, the more it will happen, and the moral move would be to put immense pressure on Israel to cease its ongoing operations and restore the flow of aid to Gaza, at minimum.

PugJesus avatar

at a certain point, you have to recognize that “not as bad” is still “Bad enough”.

Fuck man, have you looked at the international scene? The Middle East more than most? We don't have 'good' choices, they're all 'bad enough'. And inaction is a choice just as any other. Inaction SHOULD be chosen in many scenarios - but because it is often the best choice, not because it relieves moral responsibility. It doesn't.

The moral option is to pick the path with the least bad outcome.

Israel and Netanyahu are probably going to accelerate the genocide no matter what we do. Iran getting involved will make it worse. doesn’t mean we need to fucking support the genocidal maniac in committing more genocidal maniac- and remember, Netanyahu et al want to have a war with Iran, too.

No longer supporting the ongoing genocide is a very different issue than allowing Iran to attack Israel. Discouraging Iran from attacking Israel is not supporting one genocide - it is preventing another.

Your acting like it’s somehow hypocritical to condemn both countries.

Am I? News to me. I stated outright that Israel is committing genocide currently. How much harsher do you want me to get in condemnation? Is 'genocide' no longer the lowest sin a country can commit? Do I have to invent a new form of democide to assign them before my condemnation is strong enough?

it’s not. it’s hypocritical to not condemn both countries.

It's not about condemnation. It's about what happens if we allow Iran to provoke a war with Israel. It's inhumane to demand another 100,000+ (assuming it DOESN'T kick off WW3) added to the body count because 30,000+ have already been killed. Why? What does allowing Iran to attack Israel solve?

Materially speaking, what are the effects, and can you answer for them?

PugJesus avatar

It’s also an about what happens if we allow Israel to provoke a war with Iran. They’re both escalating.

Certainly. That doesn't change that giving one of them the green light to start a war would be catastrophic.

Biden can “condemn” Israel until he’s blue in the face. But he’s still arming them, still enabling them- and Israel sees that as tacit approval.

At no point have I argued against cutting off arms sales to Israel. Only that Biden stating an intent to defend Israel in the case of attack by Iran or Iranian proxies is the only reasonable choice to be made in the scenario.

Right now, it’s Israel that is destabilizing the Middle East the most. Its attacks on Iranian generals, in Syria, against houthis. Raids in the West Bank. Genocide in Gaza.

Ignoring the endless arguments we could have over this and how deep and how toxic Iranian influence in the region is, or the issue of the Saudis and the catspaws, if we accept your premise as true, that still doesn't change the core argument I'm making.

An Iranian-Israeli war would significantly increase human suffering for no gain. It is desirable to avoid such a war.

Making a statement that discourages attacks from one party during a period of heightened activity from that party is thus a good thing, or, at least, less bad than saying nothing.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • cubers
  • rosin
  • everett
  • DreamBathrooms
  • cisconetworking
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • mdbf
  • tacticalgear
  • osvaldo12
  • thenastyranch
  • kavyap
  • HellsKitchen
  • khanakhh
  • InstantRegret
  • ethstaker
  • Leos
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tester
  • modclub
  • normalnudes
  • Durango
  • relationshipadvice
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines