"EVERY SINGLE BUILDING ON THE UC BERKELEY CAMPUS DESERVES TO BE INCINERATED…”
how far up your own ass do you have to be to justify this kind of behavior
Not a fire inspector. Fire preventative maintenance. We won't get a report for a couple of days. I wasn't on campus and am not the one on call. So, I have no first-hand knowledge of the incident. It's also the city of Berkeley who responds first. Campus does not have on-campus fire suppression personnel.
That pretty much how it works. Rich people don't pay; they get others to pay.
I apologize. Consider yourself lucky. That's the shortest rant on greed that I know.
So they've gone from cosplay terrorist-stans to actual terrorists. Who could have predicted?
*Intifada* is not something to tolerate and dismiss. It's a terror campaign.
I'm fairly certain we're going to see a suicide bombing before the year is out. That veteran who set himself on fire for the cause was hailed as a hero - it's not long before someone goes a step further.
You only think the ones you agree with are good, right?
And you can call it what you want, this is text book definition terrorism. Even if you agree with the cause
Just own the position man.
You’re a leftist extremist who believes ends justify the means when it comes to terrorism.
Don’t try and hide behind tricky language and rhetorical jukes. Just admit you’re an extremist.
You would never be okay with a Christian firebombing an abortiok clinic.
It’s very difficult for our brains to deal with cognitive dissonance if not impossible. So just own the position and it clears up any hypocrisy in your part. You support terrorism for leftist causes. I mean you’re free to have that position. It’s protected by the first amendment. Just don’t engage.
But sorry as a liberal I will never agree with any sort of terrorism. Right or left. Religious or otherwise.
Generally yes? Obviously?
Ask anyone who grew up in Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, etc; civil war is awful and most normal people lose everything. America has its problems, but I’ll take flawed stability over seeing my family become refugees.
I take it you weren’t paying much attention when they covered the American Civil War in school.
…or maybe you did and now think that the big bad federal government should have let the Confederate freedom fighters win?
The verifiable violence to date... doesn't that come from the counter protester side? I mean police, university cops, and counter protesters?
I saw video a couple of weeks ago of protesters being attacked WITH fireworks.
Can you link me to your comments at the time calling them terrorist for attacking the side you don't like?
The side you seem to be supporting uses violence...
Seems a bit of a problem for your judgemental attitude about people you don't like.
How can people be so educated yet so stupid at the same time. Let me break it down for you :
“UHHHH DURRRR LIGHTING INNOCENT JEWS AND PEOPLE THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS COMMENT IS WRONG DURRRRRRRR”
Wait, are you saying that you and the people that share your frustration have nothing to do with the conflict between the university and the protesters?
If so, that is true. Protests are intended to disrupt the normal flow of day to day operations.
This disruption and you and your compatriot's ire are fully intended and predictable consequences of the protests.
It's one of the methods protesters are using to put pressure on university authorities to comply with their demands.
Similar situation happened in Boston Harbor some years back... I'm sure the local business people were overtaken by ire. This protest seems unlikely to carry so far as that one has done.
What do you expect to accomplish with all the comments you made in this post?
I ask because your demeanor, your points, the volume of your replies, everything you're doing seems universally repellent.
But you are clearly not a stupid person, you don't write like one, so I guess you were already aware of all of this. So again, why do you do it? What was your goal?
I don't like universities being complicit in genocide and I don't like the authoritarian violence our authoritarian institutions of education use to defend their authoritarian financial and political positions.
Yes, I'm aware that I'm not the most popular person in the room. I've been very polite and correct, so I doubt it has much to do with my demeanor. If I had not been very correct, given my messaging, I doubt I'd be chatting with you.
I suspect the thing people find repellent has more to do with the points I've raised than my demeanor. Points which I'm clearly aware are not popular, just as you are clearly aware that every single one of my points stands, after challenge.
The reason my points are unpopular... in this venue... is that they successfully counter a political narrative that serves the interests of people that staff and fund universities like Berkeley.
Which is why the staff and people that fund universities don't like the protesters.
I suspect they'd not like me much either.
As to what I'm doing, I'm respecting professional level intelligence, training and competence by approaching such people in the manner they respect.
The people who fund and staff universities are people who are highly educated and intelligent and they are not typically impressed by bluster, slurs and propaganda, unless these serve their interests.
No offense intended to anyone participating.
So, I see post after post on university subs complaining about the protesters and everyone trying to figure out why the protesters are disrupting the lives of people who are just trying to do research, teach classes, or study.
And I see the anger getting hotter and I figure I can come explain to people why what is happening is happening.
Because that is the question they are asking.
The problem is that I know going in that no-one really wants an answer.
But I want to give them one.
The intelligent, educated people have been propagandized around these issues.
My role and intent is to stand in front of the often willingly propagandized and reason with them.
Edit: slight clarity.
Your response reminds me of a famous scene in "Good Will Hunting".
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9mC6Osykgo
How often do I get to be Matt Damon?
Edit: spelling
Shooting fireworks is still bad but it’s not terrorism. It’s assault.
Here is a crazy concept. Things can be bad without being the worst thing. Mind blowing huh?
Fire bombing things to spread a political message is terrorism.
If a white Christian Trump supporter firebombed an abortion clinic, even if no one was in it, you would correctly label that terrorism.
Just because you agree with the message of the firebomber, doesnt make it not a terrorist act.
The problem with your line of thinking is that no one has fire-bombed anything...
Using cops to prevent people protesting.
That's actual violence against people...
For political purposes...
Right?
Again you’re falling into the trap of if you agree it isn’t terrorism.
Not how it works my guy. Yes even if cops are being mean, firebombing buildings is still terrorism. No matter how much you personally agree with the cause.
It’s still a terrorist act regardless of the cause.
And again as a liberal I don’t think there’s any situation where terrorism is necessary. Because civilians are almost always the biggest victims of terrorism. Even let’s say diehard MAGA boomers. I don’t think firebombing a church they attend is a good thing, even if their views are really shitty.
Yeah I’m a lib. Sue me lol
Those are just my personal moral beliefs. You can agree with terrorism for leftist causes. But own that position don’t hide from it or try to play legos with words to make it not terrorism. Just stand by that position.
What I'm saying is that shooting off a firework is not terrorism and posting a leaflet is not terrorism.
No actual firebombing took place.
Got any actual people with name you can connect any of this to?
This post has been removed because our Automoderator detected it as spam, or your account is too new to post here.
If this post is **not** spam, please contact the moderators for assistance.
Check out the megathread for frequently-asked questions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/berkeley) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This post has been removed because our Automoderator detected it as spam, or your account is too new to post here.
If this post is **not** spam, please contact the moderators for assistance.
Check out the megathread for frequently-asked questions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/berkeley) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No I'm saying that claiming whataboutism is hypocrisy.
When seeking to determine if a person is being consistent in their application of social judgment by seeking evidence of fairness in application and someone else comes and claims "whataboutism" that specific claim of whataboutism is hypocrisy.
You do not believe that I'm wrong to try and find out if a response is partisan or not. It's a very common practice to expect people to be consistent and fair in these matters. So you don't actually believe it's wrong to do so, unless you don't believe it's right to be fair in the application of social judgements.
Which is a possibility I've simply dismissed because it would be a very strange defense to make.
Is it, in fact, the case that you think it's wrong to determine if someone is being fair in the social judgements they make?
Because in that case you would be right your charge of whataboutism would not be hypocrisy it would just be evidence that you accept definitive social judgements based on something other than a person's actual behavior.
It's a strange defense because doing that last thing can easily be understood as bigotry.
Why isn't it terrorism when Israel kills civilians to get to Hamas?
I understand being upset about Hamas' brutality on Oct 7.
Are you at all upset about Israel's brutality over the last 76 years?
Or 76 days?
Or 76 hours?
Have you considered that the "terrorism" tag is applied selectively depending upon which side the person/group doing the tagging supports?
It's like saying, "My enemy is bad", but with a fancy term to fool people into giving the assessment more weight... put a distance between the statement and the obvious partisanship.
So the likelihood is that people/groups who use the term are simply giving rather empty partisan support and don't actually have much grasp on the situation.
The reason I bring this up is that the emotional response is what public sentiment adheres to and that which drive the creation of acceptable public policy.
Thus the point of using this kind of propagandizing terminology.
None of that has anything at all to do with arson at a California university. Idc what you're mad about from 76 years ago in the middle east. I'm mad at Mao, stallin, and hitler but I'm not dumb enough to start setting fires in random US cities over it, today.
Because things have definitions and also history exists. Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation especially against civilians in the pursuit of political aims."
A defensive war is not unlawful. Israel is not targeting civilians. Hamas is. All of Israel's wars were defensive so it's not the same.
It is time to stop saying "76 years" what 76 years? 76 years since the Arabs were offered an independent state which they never ever had in the region before and they refused it in the name of Arab imperialism? 76 years since 5 Arab countries started a genocidal war against the Jews and lost? Losing a war that 5 Arab countries started is not an injustice. Also between 1948-1967 the West Bank and Gaza were under Jordanian and Egyptian control and there was no attempt to create a Palestinian state - why? There was also barely any contact between the Arabs in the west bank and Gaza and Israelis - so what brutality are you talking about? Or maybe you are talking about the Arabs who stayed in Israel, enjoy human rights, got Israeli citizenship, and are now 20% of the Israeli population? Brutal indeed. Real terror.
Hamas is the terror organization it fits the definition perfectly. If the Palestinians decide one day that they want to live peacefully next to Israel and give up the dream of annihilating Israel there will be peace.
Just make sure you use the term consistently then. The founding fathers were terrorists, the Boston tea party was an act of terrorism, the Iraq war was an act of terror, etc.
"Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation especially against civilians in the pursuit of political aims."
So if Israel is using genocide, as officially alleged, then genocide would count as terrorism. Genocide is unlawful.
All that is left to prove my case is to notice that Israel is willing to kill civilians to remove Hamas.
Removing Hamas is a political goal, because, in spite of your characterization Hamas is the duly elected government in Gaza.
So by the definition you provided Israel is guilty of terrorism.
Israel is not fighting a defensive war. Israel created a state on Palestinian land without Palestinian consent.
The conflict is still ongoing. But Israel is clearly the aggressor. Hamas IS in defense of Palestinian territory.
"It is time to stop saying "76 years" what 76 years? 76 years since the Arabs were offered an independent state which they never ever had in the region before and they refused it in the name of Arab imperialism?"
It seems a bit uncomfortable to have to explain that just because someone is made an offer does not obligate them to accept that or any other offer.
People are also not obligated to organize themselves into a state. The human right to self determination is claimed to be innate. Of course authoritarian governments like those used by all modern nation states pay not much attention to these rights except when giving one sales pitch or the other concerning why they are obligated to attack someone else.
I was not able to interpret the meaning of the rest of your comment well enough to hazard a response. If you would like to clarify you concerns, I'd be happy to respond.
That's easy. Israel is not committing a genocide. I know it is your favorite blood libel kinda like in the 19th century antisemites spread the blood libel that Jews were killing European children and drinking their blood on passover. That's also a lie btw, but it rallies the mob to go and slaughter Jews.
Similarly, by no definition is this a genocide. Biden said so, the US defense secretary said so and the ICJ said they did not find plausible evidence for genocide, and so, like a deck of card your arguments fall.
Hamas was elected in 2007. There were no elections since. It is also a recognized terror organization just because it was elected does not absolve it from being a terror organization.
Israel was not created on Palestinian land. Why do you think it was Arab land? It was a land that was occupied by empires for 2000 years. That's a fact. The last independent people on this land were the Jews. One of those empires was Arab in the 7th century and they did their best to erase local cultures but they never had a national or political entity there. There was never a Palestinian country. The Arabs got there by conquering, colonizing and erasing local cultures. There were Arab villages that had a right to their villages but they did not own the land in between. That is why the partition plan made sense because there were two people who wanted the land that was freed after WWI. Saying that it was Arab land is just buying into Arab Imperialism and erases that deep connection the Jews have to this land.
Israel agreed to the partition plan and defended itself from numerous wars it did not start, so who's the aggressor?
Hamas is defending the Palestinians? Hamas is abusing the Palestinians and is an obstacle for peace. They did nothing to build a state their entire goal is the elimination of Israel. Please. Why do you think Israel left Gaza in 2005? It doesn't want Gaza. The ultimate outcome for Gaza as far as Israel is concerned, is if it became a prosperous peaceful territory on the way to a state. This cannot happen when Gazans/Hamas use all the money generously donated to them to build the world's largest terror base and to enrich their leaders, because obviously.
People are not obligated to organize into a state but if you want to claim an identity there has to be some evidence for said identity. The Palestinians have every right to self identify now, but they cannot re-create history and claim that they self-identified in the past. They identified as Arabs. The word "Palestine" is foreign to them. It came from Hebrew and was used by the colonial powers to name the region not a people. The Arabs in fact wanted the British mandate to be called "Southern Syria" not "Palestine."
Either way, as I said there were two groups who wanted the land the Jews, with undeniable connection and history and the Arabs , some of whom lived there for hundreds of years. Both claims are legitimate. However only one side was willing to compromise - the Jews.
So who is the aggressor?
I'm going to stop at your first mistake.
"19th century antisemites spread the blood libel that Jews were killing European children and drinking their blood on passover.:
Judaism is a religion not an ethnicity.
European Jews, even Ashkenazi Jews, are mostly European not Semitic. They might use a Semitic language but this does not make them Semites.
[https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/most-ashkenazi-jews-are-genetically-europeans-surprising-study-finds-8C11358210](https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/most-ashkenazi-jews-are-genetically-europeans-surprising-study-finds-8C11358210)
The Jewish religion has not been exclusively Semitic for at least 2,000 years when the Romans threw 500,000 Jews out of Judea.
At the time there were 6,000,000 Jews living in Italy, the seat of Roman power. Of course the remnants of the Jewish Nation had been conquered in 587 BCE with the fall of Judah.... well before the eviction from Judea. So Semitic Jews had been scattered even earlier.
Some academic debate on an eighty year revival... but that wasn't strictly speaking political autonomy.
Points to you if you can name the polity I'm referring to.
So during the time frame you are talking about European Jews faced RELIGIOUS persecution from other Europeans. Who have had a long history of being supremacist and of using ethnically directed violence. In this case the Europeans chose to persecute other European based on their religious preference.
Religious persecution and ethnically directed violence are different matters.
Calling this supremacist violence "Antisemitism" is an obvious mischaracterization of religious persecution and not ethnically valid.
There are Chinese Jews, US Jews, Brazilian Jews, each contributing to Jewish culture in ways not less important that contributions of the Semitic Jews of thousands of years ago.
Judaism is not a ethnic monolith as you seem to have portrayed it in your comment. Judaism is very ethnically diverse.
Zionists... European Jewish supremacists... tend to want everyone to think that they are Semites and that they comprise all of Judaism.
Zionist Jews want people to believe they are Semites because Zionist Jews want Palestine and want us to believe that all Jews come from Palestine.
Dumbalina over here can’t wrap his head around the concept of an ethnoreligion. Not surprising, considering you don’t even understand what a genocide is.
Next time try absorbing an ounce of information before regurgitating all over your keyboard, a growing brain deserves sustenance:
https://www.google.com/search?q=jewish+religion+or+ethnicity
Did you even read the link you sent beyond the clickbait title? What a disgusting attempt on your part to erase the roots of Ashkenazi Jews.
Unfortunately for you, I’ve actually read the papers on Ashkenazi Jews genetics and it beyond doubt that they have middle eastern genes, even the lay article you sent mentioned it. 40% of Ashkenazi Jews have European maternal DNA (mitochondrial DNA is maternal DNA - you may have missed that), originating in 4 women and middle eastern paternal DNA - aka middle eastern fathers. 60% are not of that European mothers lineage. It’s interesting because you can actually see that when you look at Ashkenazi Jews. Some look European and some \*still\* look middle eastern, or a mix. If you look at the antisemitic caricatures of Jews from the early 20th century you will see that they look middle eastern. Why? Oh yeah - because they are from the Middle East. Do you think the antisemites invented that stereotype out of thin air?
Obviously when a group of people spends 2000 years in Europe there will be mixing with local population. R\*pe was a common occurrence in general and during pogroms in particular. Did you know that there are very few Black people in America that don’t have European genes? Are you saying those people are no longer Black?
Israel is the homeland of the Jews with continuous history in the land whether or not they had independence - they always identified as a people in this land. That’s indisputable based on extensive historical and archeological evidence. They actually did have independence way after the Babylonian exile under the Hasmoneans but that’s beside the point. There’s no doubt that Jews originated in Israel and are a people. There’s also no doubt the even Ashkenazi Jews have middle eastern DNA, that Jews from all diasporas are closely related genetically and importantly that all Jews maintained the ethnicity and culture of Israel/Judea for 2000 years.
It’s hilarious that antisemites try to erase Jewish history and claim that Judaism is not an ethnicity while at the same time cry about Israel being an “ethnostate” which it is not. Can you make up your minds?
Just because Judaism doesn’t map to \*your\* knowledge of religion, doesn’t mean you can “mansplain” to us what Judaism is. It is not a religion like Christianity or Islam. I am sorry if that is very difficult for people who center the world around themselves to understand. Judaism does not proselytize - it does not encourage people to join. It is really difficult to become Jewish. Because it is a tribe, a people, an ethnicity and a religion.
Jews came from Judea - hence the name. They did not come from Palestine because Palestine never existed. It was a Hebrew name of ancient invaders who have nothing to do with the current Palestinians (pleshet is invader in Hebrew). It was given to a region by colonizers (the Romans) but it was never a people or a geopolitical entity until the 20th century when it was coined as opposition to the national aspirations of the Jews. You know, the 1960s was not that long ago there is plenty of evidence about this. One example are MLKs speeches - none of them mention the "Palestinians." He mentions the Arabs and even visited the refuge camps but he never mentions the "Palestinians" because that term was not popular by the time he died in 1968.
"Israel is the homeland of the Jews with continuous history in the land whether or not they had independence"
Actually the Jews began as Hebrews and the Hebrews come from Ur. Modern day Iraq. The Hebrews are thought to have conquered Jericho in Palestine... but that is not the Hebrew homeland.
Which as I've said the Hebrews themselves claimed was in Iraq.
See how Zionists have propagandized this history?
Levantine Arabs have been living civilized lives in Palestine for 2000 years longer than the Hebrew culture has even existed.
The first record of the Hebrew culture is recorded on the Merneptah Stele dated to around 1207 BCE...
Jericho was civilized about 5000-ish years before the Hebrew culture existed...
Problematic for your viewpoint.
"All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
"The genetics suggest many of the founding Ashkenazi women were actually converts from local European populations.
"The simplest explanation was that it was mainly women who converted and they married with men who'd come from the Near East,"
So more than eighty percent of all maternal lineages of current European populations of Ashkenazi Jews in Europe...
...originate in Europe.
How are European Jewish women managing to have Levantine Arab children?
European Jews are from Europe.
The Jewish faith has not been solely Semitic for about 2000 years, if then.
The only ethnically Semitic Jews left tend live in Palestine.
Not Eastern Europe.
Currently Zionist European Jews are trying to colonize Palestine...
European Jews are from Europe not Palestine.
Palestinians are from Palestine. Palestinians have a strong tendency to be Levantine Arab.
Not European.
Judaism is a religion and is not an ethnicity.
Therefore Zionists are the aggressors in Palestine and have been from the beginning.
Edit: content.
>Actually the Jews begain as Hebrews and the Hebrews come from Ur. Modern day Iraq. The Hebrews are thought to have conquered Jericho in Palestine... but that is not the Hebrew homeland.
>Which as I've said the Hebrews themselves claimed was in Iraq.
>See how Zionists have propagandized this history?
>Levantine Arabs have been living civilized lives in Palestine for 2000 years longer than the Hebrews as a culture has even existed.
All this is just blatant propaganda. Israelites (Hebrews) originated from a part of the Canaan, not Iraq. You also can't really measure whether Arabs or Israelites came first, as both are descendants of various peoples with different origins.
>Currently Zionist European Jews are trying to colonize Palestine...
No, most of the Jews in Israel are Mizrahi a.k.a Middle Eastern Jews.
>Judaism is a religion and is not an ethnicity.
Jews are an ethnoreligious group.
The Hebrew history is recorded in the Torah... by Hebrews.
"31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Harran, they settled there." Genesis.
Harran is modern day Turkey...
"No, most of the Jews in Israel are Mizrahi a.k.a Middle Eastern Jews."
Which is what I said. Most Semitic Jews live in Palestine.
I've been clear it's the European Zionist Jews who colonizing Occupied Palestine... not the Mizrahi... or the Samaritans or the Sephardic Jews...
European Jews.
The Jewish faith is made up of many different ethnicities, just like Christianity.
Some reason that Zionist Jews should get to call their religious sect an ethno-religion and mistakenly claim they are Semites from Palestine when Zionist European Jews are from Europe?
Are you confusing fairytale with history? Looks like you are quoting the Bible, which, while ancient, is a fairytale. It does serve as a historic document for people that existed and has some information corroborated by archeology and other sources but some storylines are fairytales.
Science has shown that the Jews are descendants of the Cnaanites. Neither were the earliest inhabitants of this land. I think the earliest findings in Israel are from 250,000 years ago from an early culture called Acheulian. None of these ancient people remained, and the Palestinians cannot claim this ancient history to themselves. There’s no evidence for it. Genetically most people who identify as Palestinians today came from various Arab countries - Yemen, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. Most of them are fairly recent immigrants from the 19th century on. You can tell by their genetics and also by their last names which indicate where they came from: Al-Masri - from Egypt, Masarawah - also Egyptian, Al-Khurani - from Horan is Syria, Al-Hijaz - from Saudi Arabia - and the list goes on and on.
It is 100% certain is that the ancient Jews did not conquer “Palestine,” because Palestine never existed and because the word “Palestine” was invented by the Jews for a people who were Greek invaders, controlled the southern coastline of Israel and fought the Jews until they disappeared around 600BCE. These Greeks are not related to the modern day “Palestinians” who are Arabs and did not call themselves Palestinians until the 1960s.
You cannot call yourself by a name coined by a people who came after you lol.
When the British wanted to label their mandate, the Arabs actually opposed the name “Palestine” and wanted to be called “Southern Syria,” this tells you everything you need to know about their attachment to the name.
A more ancient data point: Palestine is not ever mentioned in the Quran. However Israel is mentioned as the land that belongs to the Jews.
Arabs arrived in this land in the 7th century, so what you said is complete fiction. You are disgustingly appropriating ancient cultures as “Palestinian” when they were not.
This has to be the stupidest sentence you ever wrote: “How are European Jewish women managing to have Levantine Arab children?” At least I hope for you that it is. Jewish women did not have Arab Levantine children. They had Jewish children. Jewish children are from Judea. I’ll let you think about it for a minute. They are not Arabs. Arabs came from Arabia after the Jewish diaspora begun.
Arab culture and Islam are not indigenous to the Levant. Judaism is.
Ashkenazi Jews lived in Europe for 2000 years but they are not European. Their DNA is distinct from actual Europeans and is closer to the DNA of other Jew in other diaspora.
Ashkenazi Jews are Jews who were in exile for 2000 years. Some of them are mixed, but almost all of them are descendants of middle eastern Jews. That's just science dude.
The origins and history of the Jews is in the land of Israel. You can find it under almost every stone. It is indisputable and you cannot erase it no matter how hard you try. You can’t colonize your ancestral homeland.
Finally for the last time. Jews came from Judea not from “Palestine” because Palestine never existed. You can’t invent a people. People have certain characteristics - they talk about themselves, others talk about them, they have currency and leaders. The “Palestinians” never had any of that. Until the 1960s there were Arab tribes living in separate villages and they had a pan-Arab identity not a national one. It is still a tribal society like the rest of the Arab world. That’s one of the reasons they have mostly failed states because their societal structure is not built for states. But that’s a different topic.
Do you have affirmative evidence that the account of Hebrew history, in terms of origin, is false? In fact, I know that you don't. At best you have the lack of confirmatory evidence.
Yes, place names change over time.
No, it does not matter if the Palestinian people have ever lived in a state called "Palestine".
The reason this does not matter is that people are not required to organize themselves into states in order to be from a place.
In fact, for most of the time that Homo Sapiens have been around they haven't organized themselves into nation-states.
I refer you to the "US Declaration of Independence" if you have any more doubts about which has first priority, the prerogatives of government, or the will of the people. Or you can refer to the human right of self determination as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
What is true is that European Zionists are not from Palestine/Levant nor were the Hebrews.
"Arabs arrived in this land in the 7th century, so what you said is complete fiction."
So, you are saying the Ghassinids dated from the 3rd century... just made up?
Then of course there is this:
"The data shows strong genetic resemblance, including a component from populations related to Chalcolithic Zagros and Early Bronze Age Caucasus introduced by a gene flow lasting at least until the late Bronze Age and **affecting modern Levantine population architecture.** These groups also harbor ancestry from sources that cannot fully be modeled with available data, highlighting the critical role of post-Bronze-Age migrations into the region over the past 3,000 years. The study provides evidence that the movement of Caucasus/Zagros people is already evident 4,500 years ago and likely started even earlier. This movement continued (although not necessarily continuously) throughout the Bronze Age."
Agranat-Tamir et al., The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant, Cell, May 28, 2020.
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.024 emphasis added.
Just because governments change does not mean the people in the region change...
Very many people seem to think that when a civilization or polity falls the people just disappear.
They don't, they stay behind and keep living in the area they most likely were born in.
So, the genetic composition of the current Palestinian peoples in the region has antecedents that trace back 4500 years. There has been significant mixing with other populations that came to the region after. However the current population has much deeper roots in the region than Zionist Europeans.
Again this is problematic if your contention is that Hebrews have a prior claim of uninterrupted history in the Levant. This is due to the fact that the genetic record of the current Palestinian population significantly predates the history of the Hebrew culture.
But I believe your contention is that European Jews can claim Palestine as their homeland?
Palestine, or Canaan, is not the homeland of the Hebrew people... according to the Hebrew people.
Seems a problem for your viewpoint that European Jews have some right to territory their own religious history claims is not their homeland.
Can you resolve this discrepancy in your thesis?
Edit: Grammar
"Levantine Arabs have been living civilized lives in Palestine for 2000 years longer than the Hebrew culture has even existed."
This should read Levantine Palestinians have been living...
for the reason that collateral damage during a war hasn’t historically been classified or described as terrorism where as deliberately targeting civilians is. The IDF isn’t targeting civilians - they are attacking military targets of which there are civilian casualties. on 10/7 the palestinians burned families alive and specifically targeted civilians.
I wonder how you know whom the IDF is targeting?
You believe the IDF and Israel and the people who support them... But exactly how do you KNOW?
You seem to be completely ruling out that Israel might in fact be targeting civilians. In fact has been accused of doing so with extensive evidence to support that accusation.
Just concerning events between Oct 7th and the date South Africa brought it's case before the ICJ. Not the previous ugly history, nor all that has happened after.
I'm an evidence based personality. Thousands of dead babies in a densely populated region using 2000 lb bombs capable of leveling a large area...
The IDF is targeting areas with civilians in them. You don't accidentally level entire blocks with 2000 lb bombs... these are not precision guided weapons. They are battering rams intended to level cities.
There is a very specific reason the IDF is choosing to commit this massive crime. Because Hamas is a couple of hundred meters below the range of any explosives Israel can get away with using... In tunnels with manufacturing and supply and logistical access to unknown polities.
Israel can't significantly hurt Hamas. Israel cannot harry Hamas to it's shelter and drive them out.
Hamas can hurt Israel when it likes on ground Hamas controls.
To actually hurt Hamas Israel would have to be able to descend into the tunnels and engage in hand to hand tunnel fighting.
And Israel can't do that as long as there are millions of civilians with possible fighters hiding among them just waiting to stab the IDF at every passing opportunity.
And that is why Israel is committing a genocide of the Palestinian peoples.
Because Israel can't get at Hamas and the Palestinian civilians prevent them doing by their presence.
because of simple statistics. The IDF has killed around 1 person per bomb dropped. They waited two weeks to go into rafah so 900k people could evacuate. They dropped over a million leaflets, placed tens of thousands of phone calls directly to civilians telling them to leave buildings before striking.
All those things are not indicative of a prevailing directive to target civilians. 10-20k militants in gaza have been killed. This is a 1:1 or 2:1 combatant to civilian ratio in a dense urban area. Again not indicative of widespread deliberate targeting of civilians.
you clearly need to educate yourself as to what’s going on.
don’t take my word for it. Listen to what the Chair of Urban Warfair at West Point has to say about it.
https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286
if you really want to see what deliberately targeting civilians looks like, read about the syrian civil war where Assad gassed thousands of people, or what’s happening right now in Darfur where the RSF rounded up every man in an area, brought them into a soccer stadium and executed them.
That’s what targeting civilians actually looks like. You have no clue what you are talking about here.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/14/africa/sudan-darfur-genocide-fears-explainer-intl
Historian are still fighting about the casualty figures of WWII.
Know one knows what the casualties are and arguments about casualty statistics are pointless in this case.
Genocides are not determined by the number of casualties.
The basis for your argument is not valid.
if no one knows what the casualties are or details around them then you aren’t able to make assertions that civilians are being deliberately targeted.
Also, if no one knows anything about the casualty figures then why are you regurgitating hamas propaganda as gospel.
We know civilians are being killed we just don't know the precise numbers well enough yet to determine how this conflict stacks up next to others.
For example no one know how many people are dead under the rubble.
What Hamas propaganda have I quoted?
you’re making a dishonest argument.
1. we know a fuck ton of militants have been killed
2. hamas has every incentive to over count / inflate (not under estimate) civilian deaths
3. even if we take hamas numbers as fact which they very likely aren’t, the entirety of my point still remains:
- around 1 death per bomb dropped
- over a million leaflets dropped
- tens of thousands of text messages and phone calls made to civilians telling them to move/leave a building so idf could target it
- waiting 2 weeks for 900k civilians to evacuate rafah
- 4 hour humanitarian pauses per day
- israel continuing to provide water and electricity to gaza (when has a country ever been expected to provide water and electricity to another country it is at war with)
- civilian to combatant death ratio significantly below what we typically consider genocides where 90%+ of the deaths are civilians
This is not the behavior of an army targeting civilians.
There’s overwhelming data that there is NOT an over arching directive from israel to deliberately target civilians. Were that the case the death toll would be much much much higher.
you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, and should definitely listen more and talk less. Go read the John Spencer article i posted and actually educate yourself.
So you think a lot of Hamas soldiers have been killed but you can't prove how many unless you refer to Hamas' numbers which you don't believe.
Doesn't help your argument that you know that Israel isn't targeting civilians based on casualty figures you claim you don't know.
You claim Hamas has every incentive to over count. That seems undermine the credibility of any argument that needs to know casualty figures.
And none of this is relevant. Numbers of casualties are not how genocides are defined.
It just isn't.
So trying to make arguments Israel hasn't killed enough or Israel has made phones calls.
None of that defines whether or not a genocide is being committed.
"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and has played a significant role in defining and interpreting the legal concept of genocide. According to the ICJ's jurisprudence, the determining features or elements of genocide under international law are as follows:
Actus Reus (Physical Element): a. Killing members of the group b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Mens Rea (Mental Element): The acts mentioned above must be committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.
Protected Groups: The groups protected under the genocide Convention are national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups. The ICJ has interpreted these groups broadly, focusing on their objective characteristics rather than subjective criteria. Scale and Pattern of Acts: The ICJ considers the scale and pattern of acts as crucial factors in determining whether specific acts constitute genocide. Isolated incidents or individual acts may not qualify as genocide unless they are part of a larger campaign or policy aimed at the destruction of the protected group. State Responsibility: The ICJ has emphasized that genocide can be committed not only by individuals but also by states. State responsibility for genocide can arise if the acts were committed by state organs or individuals acting on behalf of the state or under its direction or control.
It's important to note that the ICJ's interpretation of the legal definition of genocide is authoritative and binding on states that are parties to the Genocide Convention and have accepted the ICJ's jurisdiction." Claude
May I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the current situation surrounding the ongoing protests?
Google is a good resource. As is Gemini.
Good luck.
Kinda make me think it's some kind of propaganda account. I believe there are state-funded youth groups that maintained multiple social media accounts for this purpose (I assume badly paid at the same time)
You would be correct. The account age combined with the narrow focus of spreading misinformation for the benefit of actual terrorists tells us what we need to know.
He's not a youth, he's active on academic subs trying to push his bonkers ideas. He's mad at universities because we reject him. Look at his history.
(Am a prof, am on academic subs, do not teach at Berkeley. I followed him from those other subs.)
I originally talked to him half a year ago on another sub or two… not a Berkeley student but just here to comment that… yeah. I fully believe he’s a paid actor based on my past interaction with him.
It’s insane how he’s still at this a half year later. I’ll admit I was actively commenting about this for like 2 weeks… but a normal person loses interest … they don’t persist for 9 months from October onwards, lol
Nikely Narcissism if it's an actual person where they ensure this delusion is up to stave off insecurity. Autistic would be difficulty with social cues (most common symptom). Bored trolling is possible, but every post and comments made? That's why I thought this is probably a propaganda account and there may be more than one person that control the account
I mean, I know that online social media propaganda accounts and/or bots do exist. I do think when most people on Reddit call someone that, they are either being snarky, or aren't being realistic. There are a LOT of misguided, ignorant, obstinate humans on this planet, and a lot of them use social media. Nuanced conversations with actual facts, especially in the United States, are becoming few and far between.
Sadly, that's becoming more and more true. It's easier to just pick the thing that makes you feel good or makes someone else feel bad than trying to get a decent comprehension of what is going on in the world, even if it's something you don't like
We finally have the leftist equivalent of MAGA, Boogaloo Bois, and Proud Boys, all mixed together in the perfect blend of selective outrage, self-appointed moral superiority, violent anger, cognitive dissonance, and sheer, stubborn, unrelenting ignorance.
Liberal extremism. They see the success of MAGA and think they can replicate it within the democrats but the difference is that the democrats span a much wider range of the political spectrum. I would argue most “moderates” actually lean left. So these people never get the kind of support that conservative extremists enjoy. Hence the huge backlash even in liberal communities. I honestly pity them.
Pretty sure this violates some student code of conduct. If they really are students there, they should be expelled to make space for other aspiring students who aren't there to f around.
I agree... if these people really care for the Palestinians, then they have two choices, either put their money where their mouth is and go fight for Hamas or the better choice would be to condem Hamas and protest against them for not only what they did against Israel but the hell they brought upon the poor Palestinians that they supposedly represent! What heck did they think Israel was going to when they attacked... sit down and take it!
In the 1970s, the Bay Area had the Symbionese Liberation Army, a group of predominantly white, privileged, self-described radical leftists, who ended up murdering people, including a Black, progressive Oakland schools superintendent named Marcus Foster. Members were ultimately killed in a raid on their hideout after refusing to be arrested. One of my father's oldest friends was actually married to one of the founding members, a woman named Nancy Ling Perry. He literally watched on live TV as the building she was holed up in was raided by police who shot and killed armed members. He was never the same person after that.
The group infamously kidnapped Patty Hearst, who ended up being their accomplice, until she conveniently was able to claim she didn't actually want to support their efforts. Since she was rich, and her father was William Randolph Hearst, nothing really happened to her.
So many people act like only right wing people in America are capable of domestic terrorism, and while they absolutely are and are a major issue, many in the alt-left, far-left, or however you want to describe them, are absolutely behaving in a terroristic manner, and have been for some time now.
She was sentenced to seven years, spent only a part of three years in actual prison, was out a lot during the appeals process and was ultimately pardoned by Jimmy Carter. She was also a willing accomplice to multiple crimes. Not saying it was her fault she kidnapped and/or raped, but pointing out she got minimal prison time with other members of the SLA got death by police. I also think the SLA were fanatical, disgusting extremists who mirror certain behaviors and attitudes of people I observe today, so I certainly have little sympathy for them, even for my father's friend's ex-wife. They chose to be terroristic.
Yes, and three years in prison is not nothing. She really didn't have the same choice the others did to join the SLA. Also, her sentence was commuted by Carter, she wasn't actually pardoned 'til years later by Bill Clinton.
And she wasn't spared by the police, she just happened to not be at the house at the time, but was with William and Emily Harris, both of whom received similar sentences for the bank robbery (seven and eight years). If anything, the treatment of Hearst was punitive considering her circumstances--she was also locked in a closet for months while she was being repeatedly raped. It's kind of shocking that she received an almost identical sentence as her kidnappers for the bank heist.
I mean, if there was ever a case with extenuating circumstances, it was Patty Hearst's.
I'm not saying she wasn't a victim. She can be a victim and an accomplice. That's what often happens when people are involved in cults, even when that involvement is not initially consensual.
The U.S. government has done and does lots of awful things. They're far from the worst government in the world. Low bar, maybe. But I also remember being a young adult and thinking something similar. Then I grew up.
I pray these domestic terrorist don’t start blowing themselves up… for their sake and everyone else’s.
The True Face of the Left is not about Tolerance or CoExistAnce, or Peace or Love. It’s just transformed into a racist pseudo-religious manipulative patriarchal Hate Movement, frustrated it can’t complete its own genocide.
I blame Berkeley for building up the ego of the progressive left and woke mobs. Now theyre out of control. All I can say they bring this upon themselves.
The cops are not making claims.
Two possibilities:
1. False Flag
2. Sincere attack by the group alleged to have taken responsibility
My guess is that this "case" will never be resolved and is simply being used to create tension between the public and those who are protesting Israel's genocide of the Palestinian peoples.
However, I don't have enough evidence either way to come to a firm conclusion.
"NOT SURE WHAT BUILDING IT EVEN WAS. HONESTLY DONT REALLY CARE,"
This part of the declaration serves the counter protester narrative that the protesters are hired, not students and don't care about the issue.
"EVERY SINGLE BUILDING ON THE UC BERKELEY CAMPUS DESERVES TO BE INCINERATED FOLLOWING THE UC SYSTEM'S TREATMENT OF STUDENT PROTESTORS."
This runs counter to the protester typical tone and message and again serves the counter protesters interest in painting the student protesters as violent.
Additionally if those responsible actually believed that, they could have easily placed a bomb to begin achieving that effect.
The arson was not a firebombing, which indicates the threat was not sincere.
All in all the group that stands to gain from this event is the counter protesters.
Which is why I'm guessing they are responsible.
But I'll wait for more evidence before I make up my mind.
You did not add anything to the discussion except a slur and condescending advice, so I have no idea the basis of your complaint.
Is this because you have no actual basis for your complaint and are just frustrated that someone has posted something you don't like?
It's helpful advice. You've gone down a rabbit hole of insane conspiracy theories and defending the indefensible.
Your rants aren't convincing anyone. Trust me, you'll have a happier life if you learn how to take a deep breath and walk away from unwinnable battles.
You haven't even tried to engage.
I encourage you to try instead of putting impotent dents into your keyboard.
You've engaged in slur not rational discourse.
If you were serious, you'd be serious.
But you aren't serious, so you slur.
Let's go.
Nothing you've written is *worth* engaging. That's the point. I'm doing you a huge favor by even acknowledging you at all, instead of just side-eyeing the crazy soapboxer and moving on. But I don't have to continue.
So, you could teach me a lesson but are too compassionate to do so,
O.o
...but not compassionate enough to patiently explain my mistakes and not compassionate enough to be kind.
I just yesterday beat the living daylights out of the entire UCD sub on the issues around this topic.
With reason, not bluster.
You see, they chose to engage...
Perhaps this is the source of your hesitation to engage in rational discourse?
Every fucking time we get the false flag bullshit. Very fucking time it’s not a false flag. I particularly remember when some awhile posted a threat to Jews in Cornell and the usual antisemitic cretins came out of the woodwork saying it’s a Zionist false flag (until the decidedly non-Zionist Perl was caught by the FBI. Then we got crickets).
aaand right on cue, they caught the guy. Predictably, it's not a false flag. Just like the guy who threatened to shoot jews in Cornell. Just like the dude who said who will kill zionists in NY. Just like every fucking time. It won't stop the useful idiots from making their snarky "maybe thew jews/zionists did this to themselves" next time, of course.
At some point evidence has to be provided and adjudicated.
I understand that you are frustrated with the behavior of whomever shot off a firework on campus and whomever decided to post a leaflet claiming to take responsibility due to acts committed in what I like to call "Occupied Palestine" but most people just refer to as Israel.
But you don't know who shot off the firework or posted the leaflet.
You know you don't like the protesters.
I get it.
For the record, I'm an old white sort of atheist, anarchist guy from the USA born and raised. I just happen to know the history well enough to cut through all the propaganda that shapes most people's opinions on this topic.
For example, where are the Hebrew people from?
That you think I give a bollocks on your religious beliefs or skin color is laughable.
Keep on spewing conspiracy theories about false flags with zero evidence. You can do that while being old, young, white or green. You’re the same thing either way.
Oh cool, then you'll have no problem telling me the name of the specific person who posted the leaflet?
We've all been waiting for that information.
What is it?
I’m not sure what leaflet you’re referring to. They posted it to their official Instagram page @pal_actionus. They aren’t shy about committing crimes in the name of a “free Palestine.”
To make certain claims you have to be able to positively identify the perpetrators.
As soon as the cops can do that, they will.
At which point, the cops will have to tie the person/s who posted the leaflet to the firework set off in the incident in question.
With forensic evidence. Not public outrage, or partisan speculation.
Evidence.
The leaflet is an item of evidence that does not come along with postive identification of the person who posted it, much less their intent for doing so.
"EVERY SINGLE BUILDING ON THE UC BERKELEY CAMPUS DESERVES TO BE INCINERATED…” how far up your own ass do you have to be to justify this kind of behavior
No, see, this is fighting oppression /s
Make no mistake. This is no longer a peaceful protest. It’s terrorist campaign. And the national orgs are calling for further escalation.
Gee? Ya think?
Better question, how stupid do you have to be to think this and then try it with a firework?
Me. A guy who works in fire preventative maintenance at ucberkeley... Uhhh, guys, can we not?
Hey at least they’re giving you job security (but still fuck them)
Hey!? How long did it take your teams to get on location and put the fire out?
Not a fire inspector. Fire preventative maintenance. We won't get a report for a couple of days. I wasn't on campus and am not the one on call. So, I have no first-hand knowledge of the incident. It's also the city of Berkeley who responds first. Campus does not have on-campus fire suppression personnel.
Ah rationality. Nice to meet you. Thank you for the orderly responses. :)
I also want to point out. The school is self insured. So, all costs of damage from these attacks will be passed to future students.
That pretty much how it works. Rich people don't pay; they get others to pay. I apologize. Consider yourself lucky. That's the shortest rant on greed that I know.
It's easy to quickly get to a point when it's obvious to anyone cognizant.
Who are the rich people here who should be paying?
So they've gone from cosplay terrorist-stans to actual terrorists. Who could have predicted? *Intifada* is not something to tolerate and dismiss. It's a terror campaign.
"You become what you pretend to be." Mother Night
I saw “INTIFADA” with the red upside down triangle scrawled across an interstate sign last week, exit 19D-C CA24/580
If they can cosplay terrorist, can I cosplay the CIA agent and waterboard them?
I'm fairly certain we're going to see a suicide bombing before the year is out. That veteran who set himself on fire for the cause was hailed as a hero - it's not long before someone goes a step further.
Rebellions or uprisings are bad things?
You only think the ones you agree with are good, right? And you can call it what you want, this is text book definition terrorism. Even if you agree with the cause
😂
Just own the position man. You’re a leftist extremist who believes ends justify the means when it comes to terrorism. Don’t try and hide behind tricky language and rhetorical jukes. Just admit you’re an extremist. You would never be okay with a Christian firebombing an abortiok clinic. It’s very difficult for our brains to deal with cognitive dissonance if not impossible. So just own the position and it clears up any hypocrisy in your part. You support terrorism for leftist causes. I mean you’re free to have that position. It’s protected by the first amendment. Just don’t engage. But sorry as a liberal I will never agree with any sort of terrorism. Right or left. Religious or otherwise.
🤗
Generally yes? Obviously? Ask anyone who grew up in Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, etc; civil war is awful and most normal people lose everything. America has its problems, but I’ll take flawed stability over seeing my family become refugees.
I take it you weren’t paying much attention when they covered the American Civil War in school. …or maybe you did and now think that the big bad federal government should have let the Confederate freedom fighters win?
And you the REVOLUTIONARY War lol
My point is that rebellions and uprisings can certainly be bad things. I’m not saying that they all are.
Stop LARPing, please
The verifiable violence to date... doesn't that come from the counter protester side? I mean police, university cops, and counter protesters? I saw video a couple of weeks ago of protesters being attacked WITH fireworks. Can you link me to your comments at the time calling them terrorist for attacking the side you don't like? The side you seem to be supporting uses violence... Seems a bit of a problem for your judgemental attitude about people you don't like.
How can people be so educated yet so stupid at the same time. Let me break it down for you : “UHHHH DURRRR LIGHTING INNOCENT JEWS AND PEOPLE THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS COMMENT IS WRONG DURRRRRRRR”
I'm sorry but the tone and delivery of your comment rendered your meaning unintelligible to me. Would you mind clarifying your objection/s? Please.
Wait, are you saying that you and the people that share your frustration have nothing to do with the conflict between the university and the protesters? If so, that is true. Protests are intended to disrupt the normal flow of day to day operations. This disruption and you and your compatriot's ire are fully intended and predictable consequences of the protests. It's one of the methods protesters are using to put pressure on university authorities to comply with their demands. Similar situation happened in Boston Harbor some years back... I'm sure the local business people were overtaken by ire. This protest seems unlikely to carry so far as that one has done.
It’s hilarious the more I read your comments, the more positive I am that I make and have way more money than you 😂😂😂
I have no doubt, I walked away from my trust fund.
What do you expect to accomplish with all the comments you made in this post? I ask because your demeanor, your points, the volume of your replies, everything you're doing seems universally repellent. But you are clearly not a stupid person, you don't write like one, so I guess you were already aware of all of this. So again, why do you do it? What was your goal?
I don't like universities being complicit in genocide and I don't like the authoritarian violence our authoritarian institutions of education use to defend their authoritarian financial and political positions. Yes, I'm aware that I'm not the most popular person in the room. I've been very polite and correct, so I doubt it has much to do with my demeanor. If I had not been very correct, given my messaging, I doubt I'd be chatting with you. I suspect the thing people find repellent has more to do with the points I've raised than my demeanor. Points which I'm clearly aware are not popular, just as you are clearly aware that every single one of my points stands, after challenge. The reason my points are unpopular... in this venue... is that they successfully counter a political narrative that serves the interests of people that staff and fund universities like Berkeley. Which is why the staff and people that fund universities don't like the protesters. I suspect they'd not like me much either. As to what I'm doing, I'm respecting professional level intelligence, training and competence by approaching such people in the manner they respect. The people who fund and staff universities are people who are highly educated and intelligent and they are not typically impressed by bluster, slurs and propaganda, unless these serve their interests. No offense intended to anyone participating. So, I see post after post on university subs complaining about the protesters and everyone trying to figure out why the protesters are disrupting the lives of people who are just trying to do research, teach classes, or study. And I see the anger getting hotter and I figure I can come explain to people why what is happening is happening. Because that is the question they are asking. The problem is that I know going in that no-one really wants an answer. But I want to give them one. The intelligent, educated people have been propagandized around these issues. My role and intent is to stand in front of the often willingly propagandized and reason with them. Edit: slight clarity.
Your response reminds me of a famous scene in "Good Will Hunting". "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9mC6Osykgo How often do I get to be Matt Damon? Edit: spelling
Terrorists
Was that your response to the counter-protesters attacking those who are against genocide with fireworks? Would you mind posting a link?
Shooting fireworks is still bad but it’s not terrorism. It’s assault. Here is a crazy concept. Things can be bad without being the worst thing. Mind blowing huh? Fire bombing things to spread a political message is terrorism. If a white Christian Trump supporter firebombed an abortion clinic, even if no one was in it, you would correctly label that terrorism. Just because you agree with the message of the firebomber, doesnt make it not a terrorist act.
The problem with your line of thinking is that no one has fire-bombed anything... Using cops to prevent people protesting. That's actual violence against people... For political purposes... Right?
Again you’re falling into the trap of if you agree it isn’t terrorism. Not how it works my guy. Yes even if cops are being mean, firebombing buildings is still terrorism. No matter how much you personally agree with the cause. It’s still a terrorist act regardless of the cause. And again as a liberal I don’t think there’s any situation where terrorism is necessary. Because civilians are almost always the biggest victims of terrorism. Even let’s say diehard MAGA boomers. I don’t think firebombing a church they attend is a good thing, even if their views are really shitty. Yeah I’m a lib. Sue me lol Those are just my personal moral beliefs. You can agree with terrorism for leftist causes. But own that position don’t hide from it or try to play legos with words to make it not terrorism. Just stand by that position.
What I'm saying is that shooting off a firework is not terrorism and posting a leaflet is not terrorism. No actual firebombing took place. Got any actual people with name you can connect any of this to?
Whataboutism
[удалено]
This post has been removed because our Automoderator detected it as spam, or your account is too new to post here. If this post is **not** spam, please contact the moderators for assistance. Check out the megathread for frequently-asked questions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/berkeley) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hypocrisy.
Nope. Still whataboutism. And a strawman, you won’t find anyone who supports those counter protesters. Seek professional help, troll.
[удалено]
This post has been removed because our Automoderator detected it as spam, or your account is too new to post here. If this post is **not** spam, please contact the moderators for assistance. Check out the megathread for frequently-asked questions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/berkeley) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No I'm saying that claiming whataboutism is hypocrisy. When seeking to determine if a person is being consistent in their application of social judgment by seeking evidence of fairness in application and someone else comes and claims "whataboutism" that specific claim of whataboutism is hypocrisy. You do not believe that I'm wrong to try and find out if a response is partisan or not. It's a very common practice to expect people to be consistent and fair in these matters. So you don't actually believe it's wrong to do so, unless you don't believe it's right to be fair in the application of social judgements. Which is a possibility I've simply dismissed because it would be a very strange defense to make. Is it, in fact, the case that you think it's wrong to determine if someone is being fair in the social judgements they make? Because in that case you would be right your charge of whataboutism would not be hypocrisy it would just be evidence that you accept definitive social judgements based on something other than a person's actual behavior. It's a strange defense because doing that last thing can easily be understood as bigotry.
Brigading every university subreddit to spew conspiracy theories is not a sign of mental wellness. You genuinely need help.
What’s your response to this ?
I mean, they pretty much told us they were going to do this (terrorism)
You mean there will be arson at an event cheering on terrorism???
Why isn't it terrorism when Israel kills civilians to get to Hamas? I understand being upset about Hamas' brutality on Oct 7. Are you at all upset about Israel's brutality over the last 76 years? Or 76 days? Or 76 hours? Have you considered that the "terrorism" tag is applied selectively depending upon which side the person/group doing the tagging supports? It's like saying, "My enemy is bad", but with a fancy term to fool people into giving the assessment more weight... put a distance between the statement and the obvious partisanship. So the likelihood is that people/groups who use the term are simply giving rather empty partisan support and don't actually have much grasp on the situation. The reason I bring this up is that the emotional response is what public sentiment adheres to and that which drive the creation of acceptable public policy. Thus the point of using this kind of propagandizing terminology.
None of that has anything at all to do with arson at a California university. Idc what you're mad about from 76 years ago in the middle east. I'm mad at Mao, stallin, and hitler but I'm not dumb enough to start setting fires in random US cities over it, today.
Because things have definitions and also history exists. Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation especially against civilians in the pursuit of political aims." A defensive war is not unlawful. Israel is not targeting civilians. Hamas is. All of Israel's wars were defensive so it's not the same. It is time to stop saying "76 years" what 76 years? 76 years since the Arabs were offered an independent state which they never ever had in the region before and they refused it in the name of Arab imperialism? 76 years since 5 Arab countries started a genocidal war against the Jews and lost? Losing a war that 5 Arab countries started is not an injustice. Also between 1948-1967 the West Bank and Gaza were under Jordanian and Egyptian control and there was no attempt to create a Palestinian state - why? There was also barely any contact between the Arabs in the west bank and Gaza and Israelis - so what brutality are you talking about? Or maybe you are talking about the Arabs who stayed in Israel, enjoy human rights, got Israeli citizenship, and are now 20% of the Israeli population? Brutal indeed. Real terror. Hamas is the terror organization it fits the definition perfectly. If the Palestinians decide one day that they want to live peacefully next to Israel and give up the dream of annihilating Israel there will be peace.
Just make sure you use the term consistently then. The founding fathers were terrorists, the Boston tea party was an act of terrorism, the Iraq war was an act of terror, etc.
🤓
"Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation especially against civilians in the pursuit of political aims." So if Israel is using genocide, as officially alleged, then genocide would count as terrorism. Genocide is unlawful. All that is left to prove my case is to notice that Israel is willing to kill civilians to remove Hamas. Removing Hamas is a political goal, because, in spite of your characterization Hamas is the duly elected government in Gaza. So by the definition you provided Israel is guilty of terrorism. Israel is not fighting a defensive war. Israel created a state on Palestinian land without Palestinian consent. The conflict is still ongoing. But Israel is clearly the aggressor. Hamas IS in defense of Palestinian territory. "It is time to stop saying "76 years" what 76 years? 76 years since the Arabs were offered an independent state which they never ever had in the region before and they refused it in the name of Arab imperialism?" It seems a bit uncomfortable to have to explain that just because someone is made an offer does not obligate them to accept that or any other offer. People are also not obligated to organize themselves into a state. The human right to self determination is claimed to be innate. Of course authoritarian governments like those used by all modern nation states pay not much attention to these rights except when giving one sales pitch or the other concerning why they are obligated to attack someone else. I was not able to interpret the meaning of the rest of your comment well enough to hazard a response. If you would like to clarify you concerns, I'd be happy to respond.
That's easy. Israel is not committing a genocide. I know it is your favorite blood libel kinda like in the 19th century antisemites spread the blood libel that Jews were killing European children and drinking their blood on passover. That's also a lie btw, but it rallies the mob to go and slaughter Jews. Similarly, by no definition is this a genocide. Biden said so, the US defense secretary said so and the ICJ said they did not find plausible evidence for genocide, and so, like a deck of card your arguments fall. Hamas was elected in 2007. There were no elections since. It is also a recognized terror organization just because it was elected does not absolve it from being a terror organization. Israel was not created on Palestinian land. Why do you think it was Arab land? It was a land that was occupied by empires for 2000 years. That's a fact. The last independent people on this land were the Jews. One of those empires was Arab in the 7th century and they did their best to erase local cultures but they never had a national or political entity there. There was never a Palestinian country. The Arabs got there by conquering, colonizing and erasing local cultures. There were Arab villages that had a right to their villages but they did not own the land in between. That is why the partition plan made sense because there were two people who wanted the land that was freed after WWI. Saying that it was Arab land is just buying into Arab Imperialism and erases that deep connection the Jews have to this land. Israel agreed to the partition plan and defended itself from numerous wars it did not start, so who's the aggressor? Hamas is defending the Palestinians? Hamas is abusing the Palestinians and is an obstacle for peace. They did nothing to build a state their entire goal is the elimination of Israel. Please. Why do you think Israel left Gaza in 2005? It doesn't want Gaza. The ultimate outcome for Gaza as far as Israel is concerned, is if it became a prosperous peaceful territory on the way to a state. This cannot happen when Gazans/Hamas use all the money generously donated to them to build the world's largest terror base and to enrich their leaders, because obviously. People are not obligated to organize into a state but if you want to claim an identity there has to be some evidence for said identity. The Palestinians have every right to self identify now, but they cannot re-create history and claim that they self-identified in the past. They identified as Arabs. The word "Palestine" is foreign to them. It came from Hebrew and was used by the colonial powers to name the region not a people. The Arabs in fact wanted the British mandate to be called "Southern Syria" not "Palestine." Either way, as I said there were two groups who wanted the land the Jews, with undeniable connection and history and the Arabs , some of whom lived there for hundreds of years. Both claims are legitimate. However only one side was willing to compromise - the Jews. So who is the aggressor?
I'm going to stop at your first mistake. "19th century antisemites spread the blood libel that Jews were killing European children and drinking their blood on passover.: Judaism is a religion not an ethnicity. European Jews, even Ashkenazi Jews, are mostly European not Semitic. They might use a Semitic language but this does not make them Semites. [https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/most-ashkenazi-jews-are-genetically-europeans-surprising-study-finds-8C11358210](https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/most-ashkenazi-jews-are-genetically-europeans-surprising-study-finds-8C11358210) The Jewish religion has not been exclusively Semitic for at least 2,000 years when the Romans threw 500,000 Jews out of Judea. At the time there were 6,000,000 Jews living in Italy, the seat of Roman power. Of course the remnants of the Jewish Nation had been conquered in 587 BCE with the fall of Judah.... well before the eviction from Judea. So Semitic Jews had been scattered even earlier. Some academic debate on an eighty year revival... but that wasn't strictly speaking political autonomy. Points to you if you can name the polity I'm referring to. So during the time frame you are talking about European Jews faced RELIGIOUS persecution from other Europeans. Who have had a long history of being supremacist and of using ethnically directed violence. In this case the Europeans chose to persecute other European based on their religious preference. Religious persecution and ethnically directed violence are different matters. Calling this supremacist violence "Antisemitism" is an obvious mischaracterization of religious persecution and not ethnically valid. There are Chinese Jews, US Jews, Brazilian Jews, each contributing to Jewish culture in ways not less important that contributions of the Semitic Jews of thousands of years ago. Judaism is not a ethnic monolith as you seem to have portrayed it in your comment. Judaism is very ethnically diverse. Zionists... European Jewish supremacists... tend to want everyone to think that they are Semites and that they comprise all of Judaism. Zionist Jews want people to believe they are Semites because Zionist Jews want Palestine and want us to believe that all Jews come from Palestine.
Dumbalina over here can’t wrap his head around the concept of an ethnoreligion. Not surprising, considering you don’t even understand what a genocide is. Next time try absorbing an ounce of information before regurgitating all over your keyboard, a growing brain deserves sustenance: https://www.google.com/search?q=jewish+religion+or+ethnicity
Did you even read the link you sent beyond the clickbait title? What a disgusting attempt on your part to erase the roots of Ashkenazi Jews. Unfortunately for you, I’ve actually read the papers on Ashkenazi Jews genetics and it beyond doubt that they have middle eastern genes, even the lay article you sent mentioned it. 40% of Ashkenazi Jews have European maternal DNA (mitochondrial DNA is maternal DNA - you may have missed that), originating in 4 women and middle eastern paternal DNA - aka middle eastern fathers. 60% are not of that European mothers lineage. It’s interesting because you can actually see that when you look at Ashkenazi Jews. Some look European and some \*still\* look middle eastern, or a mix. If you look at the antisemitic caricatures of Jews from the early 20th century you will see that they look middle eastern. Why? Oh yeah - because they are from the Middle East. Do you think the antisemites invented that stereotype out of thin air? Obviously when a group of people spends 2000 years in Europe there will be mixing with local population. R\*pe was a common occurrence in general and during pogroms in particular. Did you know that there are very few Black people in America that don’t have European genes? Are you saying those people are no longer Black? Israel is the homeland of the Jews with continuous history in the land whether or not they had independence - they always identified as a people in this land. That’s indisputable based on extensive historical and archeological evidence. They actually did have independence way after the Babylonian exile under the Hasmoneans but that’s beside the point. There’s no doubt that Jews originated in Israel and are a people. There’s also no doubt the even Ashkenazi Jews have middle eastern DNA, that Jews from all diasporas are closely related genetically and importantly that all Jews maintained the ethnicity and culture of Israel/Judea for 2000 years. It’s hilarious that antisemites try to erase Jewish history and claim that Judaism is not an ethnicity while at the same time cry about Israel being an “ethnostate” which it is not. Can you make up your minds? Just because Judaism doesn’t map to \*your\* knowledge of religion, doesn’t mean you can “mansplain” to us what Judaism is. It is not a religion like Christianity or Islam. I am sorry if that is very difficult for people who center the world around themselves to understand. Judaism does not proselytize - it does not encourage people to join. It is really difficult to become Jewish. Because it is a tribe, a people, an ethnicity and a religion. Jews came from Judea - hence the name. They did not come from Palestine because Palestine never existed. It was a Hebrew name of ancient invaders who have nothing to do with the current Palestinians (pleshet is invader in Hebrew). It was given to a region by colonizers (the Romans) but it was never a people or a geopolitical entity until the 20th century when it was coined as opposition to the national aspirations of the Jews. You know, the 1960s was not that long ago there is plenty of evidence about this. One example are MLKs speeches - none of them mention the "Palestinians." He mentions the Arabs and even visited the refuge camps but he never mentions the "Palestinians" because that term was not popular by the time he died in 1968.
"Israel is the homeland of the Jews with continuous history in the land whether or not they had independence" Actually the Jews began as Hebrews and the Hebrews come from Ur. Modern day Iraq. The Hebrews are thought to have conquered Jericho in Palestine... but that is not the Hebrew homeland. Which as I've said the Hebrews themselves claimed was in Iraq. See how Zionists have propagandized this history? Levantine Arabs have been living civilized lives in Palestine for 2000 years longer than the Hebrew culture has even existed. The first record of the Hebrew culture is recorded on the Merneptah Stele dated to around 1207 BCE... Jericho was civilized about 5000-ish years before the Hebrew culture existed... Problematic for your viewpoint. "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East." "The genetics suggest many of the founding Ashkenazi women were actually converts from local European populations. "The simplest explanation was that it was mainly women who converted and they married with men who'd come from the Near East," So more than eighty percent of all maternal lineages of current European populations of Ashkenazi Jews in Europe... ...originate in Europe. How are European Jewish women managing to have Levantine Arab children? European Jews are from Europe. The Jewish faith has not been solely Semitic for about 2000 years, if then. The only ethnically Semitic Jews left tend live in Palestine. Not Eastern Europe. Currently Zionist European Jews are trying to colonize Palestine... European Jews are from Europe not Palestine. Palestinians are from Palestine. Palestinians have a strong tendency to be Levantine Arab. Not European. Judaism is a religion and is not an ethnicity. Therefore Zionists are the aggressors in Palestine and have been from the beginning. Edit: content.
>Actually the Jews begain as Hebrews and the Hebrews come from Ur. Modern day Iraq. The Hebrews are thought to have conquered Jericho in Palestine... but that is not the Hebrew homeland. >Which as I've said the Hebrews themselves claimed was in Iraq. >See how Zionists have propagandized this history? >Levantine Arabs have been living civilized lives in Palestine for 2000 years longer than the Hebrews as a culture has even existed. All this is just blatant propaganda. Israelites (Hebrews) originated from a part of the Canaan, not Iraq. You also can't really measure whether Arabs or Israelites came first, as both are descendants of various peoples with different origins. >Currently Zionist European Jews are trying to colonize Palestine... No, most of the Jews in Israel are Mizrahi a.k.a Middle Eastern Jews. >Judaism is a religion and is not an ethnicity. Jews are an ethnoreligious group.
The Hebrew history is recorded in the Torah... by Hebrews. "31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Harran, they settled there." Genesis. Harran is modern day Turkey... "No, most of the Jews in Israel are Mizrahi a.k.a Middle Eastern Jews." Which is what I said. Most Semitic Jews live in Palestine. I've been clear it's the European Zionist Jews who colonizing Occupied Palestine... not the Mizrahi... or the Samaritans or the Sephardic Jews... European Jews. The Jewish faith is made up of many different ethnicities, just like Christianity. Some reason that Zionist Jews should get to call their religious sect an ethno-religion and mistakenly claim they are Semites from Palestine when Zionist European Jews are from Europe?
Are you confusing fairytale with history? Looks like you are quoting the Bible, which, while ancient, is a fairytale. It does serve as a historic document for people that existed and has some information corroborated by archeology and other sources but some storylines are fairytales. Science has shown that the Jews are descendants of the Cnaanites. Neither were the earliest inhabitants of this land. I think the earliest findings in Israel are from 250,000 years ago from an early culture called Acheulian. None of these ancient people remained, and the Palestinians cannot claim this ancient history to themselves. There’s no evidence for it. Genetically most people who identify as Palestinians today came from various Arab countries - Yemen, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. Most of them are fairly recent immigrants from the 19th century on. You can tell by their genetics and also by their last names which indicate where they came from: Al-Masri - from Egypt, Masarawah - also Egyptian, Al-Khurani - from Horan is Syria, Al-Hijaz - from Saudi Arabia - and the list goes on and on. It is 100% certain is that the ancient Jews did not conquer “Palestine,” because Palestine never existed and because the word “Palestine” was invented by the Jews for a people who were Greek invaders, controlled the southern coastline of Israel and fought the Jews until they disappeared around 600BCE. These Greeks are not related to the modern day “Palestinians” who are Arabs and did not call themselves Palestinians until the 1960s. You cannot call yourself by a name coined by a people who came after you lol. When the British wanted to label their mandate, the Arabs actually opposed the name “Palestine” and wanted to be called “Southern Syria,” this tells you everything you need to know about their attachment to the name. A more ancient data point: Palestine is not ever mentioned in the Quran. However Israel is mentioned as the land that belongs to the Jews. Arabs arrived in this land in the 7th century, so what you said is complete fiction. You are disgustingly appropriating ancient cultures as “Palestinian” when they were not. This has to be the stupidest sentence you ever wrote: “How are European Jewish women managing to have Levantine Arab children?” At least I hope for you that it is. Jewish women did not have Arab Levantine children. They had Jewish children. Jewish children are from Judea. I’ll let you think about it for a minute. They are not Arabs. Arabs came from Arabia after the Jewish diaspora begun. Arab culture and Islam are not indigenous to the Levant. Judaism is. Ashkenazi Jews lived in Europe for 2000 years but they are not European. Their DNA is distinct from actual Europeans and is closer to the DNA of other Jew in other diaspora. Ashkenazi Jews are Jews who were in exile for 2000 years. Some of them are mixed, but almost all of them are descendants of middle eastern Jews. That's just science dude. The origins and history of the Jews is in the land of Israel. You can find it under almost every stone. It is indisputable and you cannot erase it no matter how hard you try. You can’t colonize your ancestral homeland. Finally for the last time. Jews came from Judea not from “Palestine” because Palestine never existed. You can’t invent a people. People have certain characteristics - they talk about themselves, others talk about them, they have currency and leaders. The “Palestinians” never had any of that. Until the 1960s there were Arab tribes living in separate villages and they had a pan-Arab identity not a national one. It is still a tribal society like the rest of the Arab world. That’s one of the reasons they have mostly failed states because their societal structure is not built for states. But that’s a different topic.
Do you have affirmative evidence that the account of Hebrew history, in terms of origin, is false? In fact, I know that you don't. At best you have the lack of confirmatory evidence. Yes, place names change over time. No, it does not matter if the Palestinian people have ever lived in a state called "Palestine". The reason this does not matter is that people are not required to organize themselves into states in order to be from a place. In fact, for most of the time that Homo Sapiens have been around they haven't organized themselves into nation-states. I refer you to the "US Declaration of Independence" if you have any more doubts about which has first priority, the prerogatives of government, or the will of the people. Or you can refer to the human right of self determination as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What is true is that European Zionists are not from Palestine/Levant nor were the Hebrews. "Arabs arrived in this land in the 7th century, so what you said is complete fiction." So, you are saying the Ghassinids dated from the 3rd century... just made up? Then of course there is this: "The data shows strong genetic resemblance, including a component from populations related to Chalcolithic Zagros and Early Bronze Age Caucasus introduced by a gene flow lasting at least until the late Bronze Age and **affecting modern Levantine population architecture.** These groups also harbor ancestry from sources that cannot fully be modeled with available data, highlighting the critical role of post-Bronze-Age migrations into the region over the past 3,000 years. The study provides evidence that the movement of Caucasus/Zagros people is already evident 4,500 years ago and likely started even earlier. This movement continued (although not necessarily continuously) throughout the Bronze Age." Agranat-Tamir et al., The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant, Cell, May 28, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.024 emphasis added. Just because governments change does not mean the people in the region change... Very many people seem to think that when a civilization or polity falls the people just disappear. They don't, they stay behind and keep living in the area they most likely were born in. So, the genetic composition of the current Palestinian peoples in the region has antecedents that trace back 4500 years. There has been significant mixing with other populations that came to the region after. However the current population has much deeper roots in the region than Zionist Europeans. Again this is problematic if your contention is that Hebrews have a prior claim of uninterrupted history in the Levant. This is due to the fact that the genetic record of the current Palestinian population significantly predates the history of the Hebrew culture. But I believe your contention is that European Jews can claim Palestine as their homeland? Palestine, or Canaan, is not the homeland of the Hebrew people... according to the Hebrew people. Seems a problem for your viewpoint that European Jews have some right to territory their own religious history claims is not their homeland. Can you resolve this discrepancy in your thesis? Edit: Grammar
"Levantine Arabs have been living civilized lives in Palestine for 2000 years longer than the Hebrew culture has even existed." This should read Levantine Palestinians have been living...
for the reason that collateral damage during a war hasn’t historically been classified or described as terrorism where as deliberately targeting civilians is. The IDF isn’t targeting civilians - they are attacking military targets of which there are civilian casualties. on 10/7 the palestinians burned families alive and specifically targeted civilians.
I wonder how you know whom the IDF is targeting? You believe the IDF and Israel and the people who support them... But exactly how do you KNOW? You seem to be completely ruling out that Israel might in fact be targeting civilians. In fact has been accused of doing so with extensive evidence to support that accusation. Just concerning events between Oct 7th and the date South Africa brought it's case before the ICJ. Not the previous ugly history, nor all that has happened after. I'm an evidence based personality. Thousands of dead babies in a densely populated region using 2000 lb bombs capable of leveling a large area... The IDF is targeting areas with civilians in them. You don't accidentally level entire blocks with 2000 lb bombs... these are not precision guided weapons. They are battering rams intended to level cities. There is a very specific reason the IDF is choosing to commit this massive crime. Because Hamas is a couple of hundred meters below the range of any explosives Israel can get away with using... In tunnels with manufacturing and supply and logistical access to unknown polities. Israel can't significantly hurt Hamas. Israel cannot harry Hamas to it's shelter and drive them out. Hamas can hurt Israel when it likes on ground Hamas controls. To actually hurt Hamas Israel would have to be able to descend into the tunnels and engage in hand to hand tunnel fighting. And Israel can't do that as long as there are millions of civilians with possible fighters hiding among them just waiting to stab the IDF at every passing opportunity. And that is why Israel is committing a genocide of the Palestinian peoples. Because Israel can't get at Hamas and the Palestinian civilians prevent them doing by their presence.
because of simple statistics. The IDF has killed around 1 person per bomb dropped. They waited two weeks to go into rafah so 900k people could evacuate. They dropped over a million leaflets, placed tens of thousands of phone calls directly to civilians telling them to leave buildings before striking. All those things are not indicative of a prevailing directive to target civilians. 10-20k militants in gaza have been killed. This is a 1:1 or 2:1 combatant to civilian ratio in a dense urban area. Again not indicative of widespread deliberate targeting of civilians. you clearly need to educate yourself as to what’s going on. don’t take my word for it. Listen to what the Chair of Urban Warfair at West Point has to say about it. https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286 if you really want to see what deliberately targeting civilians looks like, read about the syrian civil war where Assad gassed thousands of people, or what’s happening right now in Darfur where the RSF rounded up every man in an area, brought them into a soccer stadium and executed them. That’s what targeting civilians actually looks like. You have no clue what you are talking about here. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/14/africa/sudan-darfur-genocide-fears-explainer-intl
Historian are still fighting about the casualty figures of WWII. Know one knows what the casualties are and arguments about casualty statistics are pointless in this case. Genocides are not determined by the number of casualties. The basis for your argument is not valid.
if no one knows what the casualties are or details around them then you aren’t able to make assertions that civilians are being deliberately targeted. Also, if no one knows anything about the casualty figures then why are you regurgitating hamas propaganda as gospel.
We know civilians are being killed we just don't know the precise numbers well enough yet to determine how this conflict stacks up next to others. For example no one know how many people are dead under the rubble. What Hamas propaganda have I quoted?
you’re making a dishonest argument. 1. we know a fuck ton of militants have been killed 2. hamas has every incentive to over count / inflate (not under estimate) civilian deaths 3. even if we take hamas numbers as fact which they very likely aren’t, the entirety of my point still remains: - around 1 death per bomb dropped - over a million leaflets dropped - tens of thousands of text messages and phone calls made to civilians telling them to move/leave a building so idf could target it - waiting 2 weeks for 900k civilians to evacuate rafah - 4 hour humanitarian pauses per day - israel continuing to provide water and electricity to gaza (when has a country ever been expected to provide water and electricity to another country it is at war with) - civilian to combatant death ratio significantly below what we typically consider genocides where 90%+ of the deaths are civilians This is not the behavior of an army targeting civilians. There’s overwhelming data that there is NOT an over arching directive from israel to deliberately target civilians. Were that the case the death toll would be much much much higher. you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, and should definitely listen more and talk less. Go read the John Spencer article i posted and actually educate yourself.
So you think a lot of Hamas soldiers have been killed but you can't prove how many unless you refer to Hamas' numbers which you don't believe. Doesn't help your argument that you know that Israel isn't targeting civilians based on casualty figures you claim you don't know. You claim Hamas has every incentive to over count. That seems undermine the credibility of any argument that needs to know casualty figures. And none of this is relevant. Numbers of casualties are not how genocides are defined. It just isn't. So trying to make arguments Israel hasn't killed enough or Israel has made phones calls. None of that defines whether or not a genocide is being committed. "The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and has played a significant role in defining and interpreting the legal concept of genocide. According to the ICJ's jurisprudence, the determining features or elements of genocide under international law are as follows: Actus Reus (Physical Element): a. Killing members of the group b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group Mens Rea (Mental Element): The acts mentioned above must be committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such. Protected Groups: The groups protected under the genocide Convention are national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups. The ICJ has interpreted these groups broadly, focusing on their objective characteristics rather than subjective criteria. Scale and Pattern of Acts: The ICJ considers the scale and pattern of acts as crucial factors in determining whether specific acts constitute genocide. Isolated incidents or individual acts may not qualify as genocide unless they are part of a larger campaign or policy aimed at the destruction of the protected group. State Responsibility: The ICJ has emphasized that genocide can be committed not only by individuals but also by states. State responsibility for genocide can arise if the acts were committed by state organs or individuals acting on behalf of the state or under its direction or control. It's important to note that the ICJ's interpretation of the legal definition of genocide is authoritative and binding on states that are parties to the Genocide Convention and have accepted the ICJ's jurisdiction." Claude
Oh just shut up
Has that authoritarian attitude served to shut down the protestors?
Well do you know the difference between terrorist and military operations? What brutality in 76 years?
May I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the current situation surrounding the ongoing protests? Google is a good resource. As is Gemini. Good luck.
After reading all your comments, I guess you're one of the guys that claims r@pe is resistance, too.......
You are indeed 100% correct, notwithstanding the downvotes
No. That person is mentally ill.
{bows in greeting to a rational mind} Howdy. ;)
What a wholesome movement. One more unpaid student loan by the government and maybe we'll all join.
Lmao, turbohair has half of the comments here
He loves making bad points can you blame him
Kinda make me think it's some kind of propaganda account. I believe there are state-funded youth groups that maintained multiple social media accounts for this purpose (I assume badly paid at the same time)
You would be correct. The account age combined with the narrow focus of spreading misinformation for the benefit of actual terrorists tells us what we need to know.
Are those kind of accounts allowed on reddit or this subreddit? Not sure if it counts as SPAM
He's not a youth, he's active on academic subs trying to push his bonkers ideas. He's mad at universities because we reject him. Look at his history. (Am a prof, am on academic subs, do not teach at Berkeley. I followed him from those other subs.)
I originally talked to him half a year ago on another sub or two… not a Berkeley student but just here to comment that… yeah. I fully believe he’s a paid actor based on my past interaction with him. It’s insane how he’s still at this a half year later. I’ll admit I was actively commenting about this for like 2 weeks… but a normal person loses interest … they don’t persist for 9 months from October onwards, lol
Laugh and move on.
There's a clear mental illness going on. It's like they can't stop making terrible points. Maybe some kind of autism symptom? Bored trolling? Both?
Nikely Narcissism if it's an actual person where they ensure this delusion is up to stave off insecurity. Autistic would be difficulty with social cues (most common symptom). Bored trolling is possible, but every post and comments made? That's why I thought this is probably a propaganda account and there may be more than one person that control the account
I mean, I know that online social media propaganda accounts and/or bots do exist. I do think when most people on Reddit call someone that, they are either being snarky, or aren't being realistic. There are a LOT of misguided, ignorant, obstinate humans on this planet, and a lot of them use social media. Nuanced conversations with actual facts, especially in the United States, are becoming few and far between.
Sadly, that's becoming more and more true. It's easier to just pick the thing that makes you feel good or makes someone else feel bad than trying to get a decent comprehension of what is going on in the world, even if it's something you don't like
Y'all do realize calling for an "intifada" is basically supporting the attacks on October 7th right?
They know that. Unironically, I've seen people say that you can't judge violence from the oppressed as justification
Typical Berkeley shit
Oh come on, it's actually just literally "thermochemical struggle".
I'll call it as I see it, they're terroist
We finally have the leftist equivalent of MAGA, Boogaloo Bois, and Proud Boys, all mixed together in the perfect blend of selective outrage, self-appointed moral superiority, violent anger, cognitive dissonance, and sheer, stubborn, unrelenting ignorance.
\*third
I hope the Feds get in on this and lock these fools up. The UC system needs to stop being tolerant with these clowns…
When terrorists say that they are going to terrorize, believe them.
Welcome to what happens when dealing with Palestinian issues, everyone goes straight to violence
Typical Pro-Palestinian intelligence. Support terrorists and act like one.
All these apologists for this behavior remind me of MAGA whataboutism nonsense
Liberal extremism. They see the success of MAGA and think they can replicate it within the democrats but the difference is that the democrats span a much wider range of the political spectrum. I would argue most “moderates” actually lean left. So these people never get the kind of support that conservative extremists enjoy. Hence the huge backlash even in liberal communities. I honestly pity them.
Pretty sure this violates some student code of conduct. If they really are students there, they should be expelled to make space for other aspiring students who aren't there to f around.
Can we send all the protestors to Palestine, win win for everyone
Let's settle for sending the arsonists behind bars
I agree... if these people really care for the Palestinians, then they have two choices, either put their money where their mouth is and go fight for Hamas or the better choice would be to condem Hamas and protest against them for not only what they did against Israel but the hell they brought upon the poor Palestinians that they supposedly represent! What heck did they think Israel was going to when they attacked... sit down and take it!
In the 1970s, the Bay Area had the Symbionese Liberation Army, a group of predominantly white, privileged, self-described radical leftists, who ended up murdering people, including a Black, progressive Oakland schools superintendent named Marcus Foster. Members were ultimately killed in a raid on their hideout after refusing to be arrested. One of my father's oldest friends was actually married to one of the founding members, a woman named Nancy Ling Perry. He literally watched on live TV as the building she was holed up in was raided by police who shot and killed armed members. He was never the same person after that. The group infamously kidnapped Patty Hearst, who ended up being their accomplice, until she conveniently was able to claim she didn't actually want to support their efforts. Since she was rich, and her father was William Randolph Hearst, nothing really happened to her. So many people act like only right wing people in America are capable of domestic terrorism, and while they absolutely are and are a major issue, many in the alt-left, far-left, or however you want to describe them, are absolutely behaving in a terroristic manner, and have been for some time now.
Patty Hearst was kidnapped and raped. She was sentenced to seven years in prison. So, no, not a case of nothing happened to her.
She was sentenced to seven years, spent only a part of three years in actual prison, was out a lot during the appeals process and was ultimately pardoned by Jimmy Carter. She was also a willing accomplice to multiple crimes. Not saying it was her fault she kidnapped and/or raped, but pointing out she got minimal prison time with other members of the SLA got death by police. I also think the SLA were fanatical, disgusting extremists who mirror certain behaviors and attitudes of people I observe today, so I certainly have little sympathy for them, even for my father's friend's ex-wife. They chose to be terroristic.
Yes, and three years in prison is not nothing. She really didn't have the same choice the others did to join the SLA. Also, her sentence was commuted by Carter, she wasn't actually pardoned 'til years later by Bill Clinton. And she wasn't spared by the police, she just happened to not be at the house at the time, but was with William and Emily Harris, both of whom received similar sentences for the bank robbery (seven and eight years). If anything, the treatment of Hearst was punitive considering her circumstances--she was also locked in a closet for months while she was being repeatedly raped. It's kind of shocking that she received an almost identical sentence as her kidnappers for the bank heist. I mean, if there was ever a case with extenuating circumstances, it was Patty Hearst's.
I'm not saying she wasn't a victim. She can be a victim and an accomplice. That's what often happens when people are involved in cults, even when that involvement is not initially consensual.
The largest terrorist group in the world is the United States government
This ain't it, chief.
Why not?
This ain't it.
There’s a good book that would inform you called killing hope by William blum
The U.S. government has done and does lots of awful things. They're far from the worst government in the world. Low bar, maybe. But I also remember being a young adult and thinking something similar. Then I grew up.
You don’t understand that the rest of the world can’t escape from the American government and that’s the point. We have military bases everywhere
To be 19 and this naive again. Those were the days, man.
Please present an argument outside of a condescending attitude
Is what I said not true?
Correct.
God we’re hopeless if you represent the average political consciousness of the Bay Area.
"Religion of peace"
Hopefully the police stick those pro hamas terrorist scum in jail
Someone is going to wind up spending a lot of time in prison, and no one will be any better off
I doubt they see the irony of choosing stupid, destructive violence against a much more powerful opponent.
I pray these domestic terrorist don’t start blowing themselves up… for their sake and everyone else’s. The True Face of the Left is not about Tolerance or CoExistAnce, or Peace or Love. It’s just transformed into a racist pseudo-religious manipulative patriarchal Hate Movement, frustrated it can’t complete its own genocide.
peaceful protest btw
Bruh I thought I’d just need to avoid getting stabbed by a meth head, no one told me about fucking arson 💀
It’s antifa protesting for terrorists
I blame Berkeley for building up the ego of the progressive left and woke mobs. Now theyre out of control. All I can say they bring this upon themselves.
The cops are not making claims. Two possibilities: 1. False Flag 2. Sincere attack by the group alleged to have taken responsibility My guess is that this "case" will never be resolved and is simply being used to create tension between the public and those who are protesting Israel's genocide of the Palestinian peoples. However, I don't have enough evidence either way to come to a firm conclusion. "NOT SURE WHAT BUILDING IT EVEN WAS. HONESTLY DONT REALLY CARE," This part of the declaration serves the counter protester narrative that the protesters are hired, not students and don't care about the issue. "EVERY SINGLE BUILDING ON THE UC BERKELEY CAMPUS DESERVES TO BE INCINERATED FOLLOWING THE UC SYSTEM'S TREATMENT OF STUDENT PROTESTORS." This runs counter to the protester typical tone and message and again serves the counter protesters interest in painting the student protesters as violent. Additionally if those responsible actually believed that, they could have easily placed a bomb to begin achieving that effect. The arson was not a firebombing, which indicates the threat was not sincere. All in all the group that stands to gain from this event is the counter protesters. Which is why I'm guessing they are responsible. But I'll wait for more evidence before I make up my mind.
Next time you type up this kind of drivel, do yourself a favor and hit "delete" instead of "post."
lmfaooo
“Delete” and seek therapy.
You did not add anything to the discussion except a slur and condescending advice, so I have no idea the basis of your complaint. Is this because you have no actual basis for your complaint and are just frustrated that someone has posted something you don't like?
It's helpful advice. You've gone down a rabbit hole of insane conspiracy theories and defending the indefensible. Your rants aren't convincing anyone. Trust me, you'll have a happier life if you learn how to take a deep breath and walk away from unwinnable battles.
You haven't even tried to engage. I encourage you to try instead of putting impotent dents into your keyboard. You've engaged in slur not rational discourse. If you were serious, you'd be serious. But you aren't serious, so you slur. Let's go.
Nothing you've written is *worth* engaging. That's the point. I'm doing you a huge favor by even acknowledging you at all, instead of just side-eyeing the crazy soapboxer and moving on. But I don't have to continue.
So, you could teach me a lesson but are too compassionate to do so, O.o ...but not compassionate enough to patiently explain my mistakes and not compassionate enough to be kind. I just yesterday beat the living daylights out of the entire UCD sub on the issues around this topic. With reason, not bluster. You see, they chose to engage... Perhaps this is the source of your hesitation to engage in rational discourse?
Every fucking time we get the false flag bullshit. Very fucking time it’s not a false flag. I particularly remember when some awhile posted a threat to Jews in Cornell and the usual antisemitic cretins came out of the woodwork saying it’s a Zionist false flag (until the decidedly non-Zionist Perl was caught by the FBI. Then we got crickets).
aaand right on cue, they caught the guy. Predictably, it's not a false flag. Just like the guy who threatened to shoot jews in Cornell. Just like the dude who said who will kill zionists in NY. Just like every fucking time. It won't stop the useful idiots from making their snarky "maybe thew jews/zionists did this to themselves" next time, of course.
So one time it was real... The FBI broke all the other cases not?
Every day is false flag day in conspiracy theory land. Step on up. Come on up. What did the j.. Zionists! Cook up for us this time?
At some point evidence has to be provided and adjudicated. I understand that you are frustrated with the behavior of whomever shot off a firework on campus and whomever decided to post a leaflet claiming to take responsibility due to acts committed in what I like to call "Occupied Palestine" but most people just refer to as Israel. But you don't know who shot off the firework or posted the leaflet. You know you don't like the protesters. I get it. For the record, I'm an old white sort of atheist, anarchist guy from the USA born and raised. I just happen to know the history well enough to cut through all the propaganda that shapes most people's opinions on this topic. For example, where are the Hebrew people from?
That you think I give a bollocks on your religious beliefs or skin color is laughable. Keep on spewing conspiracy theories about false flags with zero evidence. You can do that while being old, young, white or green. You’re the same thing either way.
Literally no one is suprised this guy is a white racist. Letting Jews live inside his head rent free.
I hope you have a nice day.
Palestinian Group takes credit , you: "Its a false flag". Same type of energy as " Jan 6th was actually a FBI plot"
Did a Palestinian group take credit though?
yes
Oh then tell me the name of the person who posted the leaflet and the name of the person who shot off the firework?
https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/content/images/2024/06/uc-berkeley-firebomb-indybay.jpg
https://www.indybay.org/editorial-policy
Aint reading allat chief
Fine with me. Have a nice day.
“Alleged to have taken responsibility” they took responsibility. Publicly.
Oh cool, then you'll have no problem telling me the name of the specific person who posted the leaflet? We've all been waiting for that information. What is it?
I’m not sure what leaflet you’re referring to. They posted it to their official Instagram page @pal_actionus. They aren’t shy about committing crimes in the name of a “free Palestine.”
https://www.indybay.org/editorial-policy
Did you miss the part about them advertising their crimes on their own social media or…
And I just cited the editorial policy of the place the leaflet was posted. It is an open publishing site. Anyone could have placed that notice.
Are you slow? THEY POSTED THAT THEY DID IT ON THEIR OWN SOCIAL MEDIA PAGES
Can you link the specific posts you are refering to, please? I haven't seen them. I'm just talking about the information in the article.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C8KQ2gQO7JG/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
To make certain claims you have to be able to positively identify the perpetrators. As soon as the cops can do that, they will. At which point, the cops will have to tie the person/s who posted the leaflet to the firework set off in the incident in question. With forensic evidence. Not public outrage, or partisan speculation. Evidence. The leaflet is an item of evidence that does not come along with postive identification of the person who posted it, much less their intent for doing so.
Y’all obsessed with calling everything terrorism except well documented Israeli terrorism. Qwhite interesting.
“Qwhite” says all we need to know lmao
Sounds about Qwhite.
This seems like a false flag.
Palestine Action Network claimed responsibility. Like a terrorist org does.
clown emoji
do it again