The Gaza War

[pfife]

Congrats on the legend of your much higher morality than everyone else.  

[Motown Bombers]

The whole free Palestine and extreme left is all about high morality and purity contests. 

[Motown Bombers]

Although they forget their moral high ground when it comes to Hamas butchering Jews. 

[gehringer_2]

The whole concept behind conventional protest is turned upside down in the digital age. A protest can do one of two things - it can raise the visibility of an issue, or it can demonstrate there are powerful numbers behind a movement that TPTB need to reckon with. In the digital age, protesting for visibility is almost defunct - all issues are visible today. The people that want to support you can find you and your issue without you being on the street. That part is nearly superfluous today. The mass demonstration movement still has power, but it's only very rare issues/movements can bring the hundreds of thousands-> millions of people out (a la MLK in DC '63) that will actually move a needle in US politics.

So I would agree, small numbers of people being obstructive on the street are mostly doing it to satisfy their own need to virtue signal, they aren't actually accomplishing anything.

Edited April 16 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

They're satisfying a market demand.   There's a strong demand for viral videos.

[pfife]

The videos also serve to increase intra-group cohesion on both sides.   This thread is a clear example. 

While you guys would like to do psychoanalysis on these folks, the sociological analysis is much more obvious and much less speculative about people's motives

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, pfife said:

The videos also serve to increase intra-group cohesion on both sides.   This thread is a clear example. 

While you guys would like to do psychoanalysis on these folks, the sociological analysis is much more obvious and much less speculative about people's motives

If we follow that logic do we arrive at the conclusion that they are not actually protestors but provocateurs? Maybe the distinction can be subtle, but I'd argue it exists.

Edited April 16 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

If we follow that logic do we arrive at the conclusion that they are not actually protestors but provocateurs? Maybe the distinction can be subtle, but I'd argue it exists.

They're using the digital tools you earlier declared made being in the street obsolete 2 posts ago.

[pfife]

These videos get hundreds of thousands, millions of views.  Posters here help proliferate them.  Sides consolidate further.   

All of those are purposes for what they're doing that aren't armchair remote psychoanalysis by people who aren't psychoanalysts that also virtue signal while accusing others of virtue signaling

Edited April 16 by pfife

[Tigeraholic1]

I wonder why they don't protest Iran for escalating the war?

[pfife]

Just now, Tigeraholic1 said:

I wonder why they don't protest Iran for escalating the war?

Lucky for you we have three untrained psychoanalysts who have never met or talked to the people to answer that question definitively. 

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, pfife said:

They're using the digital tools you earlier declared made being in the street obsolete 2 posts ago.

However, I think we are fast getting to the point where the first assumption for all images, video, and soon voice, that comes over web is that they are inauthentic. The goose that laid the golden egg will have been plucked and cooked, and we will be back to word of mouth from people you trust as the only source of believable data, available possibly along with a few signed encrypted  sources vetted over long experience.

Edited April 16 by gehringer_2

[Tigeraholic1]

1 minute ago, pfife said:

Lucky for you we have three untrained psychoanalysts who have never met or talked to the people to answer that question definitively. 

You really don't have to be a jerk to people you don't agree with on a message board. We come here to debate and talk about things.....

[pfife]

However,  my understanding is they view Iran's attack as a response to Israel's attack on Iran's consulate in Syria.     

[pfife]

1 minute ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

You really don't have to be a jerk to people you don't agree with on a message board. We come here to debate and talk about things.....

You specifically have come here to this specific thread and accused me of antisemitism multiple times, so you can miss me Javy Baez swinging at the plate style with your ridiculously hypocritical virtue signaling.  

[gehringer_2]

12 minutes ago, pfife said:

However,  my understanding is they view Iran's attack as a response to Israel's attack on Iran's consulate in Syria.     

Each was an escalation. Iran attacks Israel via proxies maintaining a level of removal. Israel attacks an Iranian embassy - technically sovereign territory, but still with a level of practical removal. Iran responds with a direct attack on Israel at a level that certainly would normally elicit a formal declaration of war by classic international law rules. The missile attack was easily as large as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. I don't give Iran any credit for it being a tactical failure -- even if a significant degree of tactical failure may be been a strategic intent.

Edited April 16 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

Not a fan of hypotheticals but would having a consulate bombed normally lead to a declaration of war?

[ewsieg]

We could go for ever if we want to trade 'who started it' stories, but Israel hitting an embassy was grounds for war from Iran.  Israel crossed a line.  Iran, as stated, would prefer to let their proxies do the dirty work, but by launching everything at the same time, giving Israel and it's partners time to address each wave separately, that indicates to me Iran didn't want to create great damage.  Would they have preferred a few get through?  Probably, but I think they expected most to get knocked down.  On paper, they can still tout they fired so many to make it look impressive, but they wanted to no part in this, but felt they had to respond to a unprecedented attack on their embassy.

I agree with Biden's response to Israel, with multiple Muslim countries stepping up to defend Israel, Israel needs to accept it as a great win and see if it can't build from it with it's local partners.   

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

that's not a "kid".  There's noise ordinances and standards indoors.  They are just being rude assholes. 

Took me a few seconds to understand your reply, but I wasn't referring to the Starbucks thing, but instead the comment Shai Davidai made in his tweet, that kids yelling at each other in the middle of a street constitutes "domestic terrorism". That seems rather melodramatic.

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Would they have preferred a few get through?

I think this is what they were thinking - some of the ballistics would get through and maybe Iran even thought the Israel would try to minimize that as it would be seen as Iron Dome failure.

But I disagree that the embassy actually crossed any practical line in the light of Oct 7. It was basically a similar scenario to that we went to all out war in Afghanistan over. Oct 7 couldn't have happened without Iran. So from Israel's standpoint, they are already as much at war with Iran as they they could get. And the fact is that in terms of proportionality in this series, Israel remains the more restrained party. The embassy attack killed two civilians, the rest were military officers in an armed service actively engaged against Israel. Oct 7 casualties were mass and civilian, and the missile attack casualties would have been mass. Again, no moral or diplomatic credit to Iran for failing.

Edited April 16 by gehringer_2

[1984Echoes]

32 minutes ago, pfife said:

Not a fan of hypotheticals but would having a consulate bombed normally lead to a declaration of war?

Just FYI (you may already know this) but the consulate was bombed because the Iranian architect of the October 7th butchery (the Iranian support/ planner behind Sinwar) was in that location, and was killed.

Not a bad reason to take out a consulate.

From the POV of the recipient of a terrorist attack.

[ewsieg]

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think this is what they were thinking - some of the ballistics would get through and maybe Iran even thought the Israel would try to minimize that as it would be seen as Iron Dome failure.

But I disagree that the embassy actually crossed any practical line in the light of Oct 7. It was basically a similar scenario to that we went to all out war in Afghanistan over. Oct 7 couldn't have happened without Iran. So from Israel's standpoint, they are already as much at war with Iran as they they could get. And the fact is that in terms of proportionality in this series, Israel remains the more restrained party. The embassy attack killed two civilians, the rest were military officers in an armed service actively engaged against Israel. Oct 7 casualties were mass and civilian, and the missile attack casualties would have been mass. Again, no moral or diplomatic credit to Iran for failing.

I certainly don't want to get into moral high ground statements when we're talking Iran, but Israel bombed an embassy in an entirely different sovereign nation.  That just doesn't sit right with me, even if I'm not sad about the loss of life of the Iranian military members and acknowledge their sins.  

 

[1984Echoes]

31 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

We could go for ever if we want to trade 'who started it' stories, but Israel hitting an embassy was grounds for war from Iran.  Israel crossed a line...

No,

They did NOT cross a line.

See below:

 

Just now, 1984Echoes said:

Just FYI (you may already know this) but the consulate was bombed because the Iranian architect of the October 7th butchery (the Iranian support/ planner behind Sinwar) was in that location, and was killed.

Not a bad reason to take out a consulate.

From the POV of the recipient of a terrorist attack.

That attack was justified.

No different than killing Bin Laden in a compound in which he was NOT the only person killed.

[1984Echoes]

3 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I certainly don't want to get into moral high ground statements when we're talking Iran, but Israel bombed an embassy in an entirely different sovereign nation.  That just doesn't sit right with me, even if I'm not sad about the loss of life of the Iranian military members and acknowledge their sins.  

 

Do you mean like when Israeli embassies are constantly attacked by nefarious entities, with lots of deaths involved?

I'd have to look at the history books...

But their embassies are CONSTANTLY attacked, by Palestinian groups or Iranian; primarily, IIRC.

[1984Echoes]

To whit:

IRAN (in Israel's Argentine embassy):

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/world/middleeast/argentina-iran-1992-1994-attack.html

(I'll bet I can find lots more too... this is just one headline):

Argentine Court Says Iran Was Behind Israeli Embassy ...

The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com › World › Middle East

 

4 days ago — The ruling opens the possibility for relatives of victims of the 1992 and 1994 attacks to make claims against Iran in international tribunals.