Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[LarryBnDC]

Since you are up, Banks, I look forward to your answers

But if you have questions rather than baseless charges, I'd be happy to answer them

Can we “have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity” at the same time as we take into account and “judge relativity and context” of the victimization?

Should acts by Hegemonic nations or international bodies (those with the power to act) addressing crimes against humanity gauge their response more by the circumstance of the victims in effort to do right by them or more by where the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity (a clearly defined term agreed to via treaty that you can look up) fall on a scale of atrocity committers?

If the focus should be on perpetrators rather than victims, should the scale we judge perpetrators on be based on all-time crimes against humanity or just ones by regimes still in power or recent crimes against humanity or only those exactly concurrent?

Can there be justice for victims without punishment for perpetrators or are the two inextricably linked in a zero sum equation?

In terms of actions against perpetrators, is there a difference between punitive and preventive measures? Is one preferable to the other in crafting a response?

I’ll stop here. Hopefully in answering with nuance and substance, Banks, in however many characters that takes you, you can deliver something worth gnawing on that relates to the topic rather than the personalities discussing it.

 

[facilitatorn]

http://www.vice.com/en/article/m7e3eq/5-big-trump-fails-jared-kushner-will-probably-leave-out-of-his-book

[bankshot1]

Since you are up, Banks, I look forward to your answers

But if you have questions rather than baseless charges, I'd be happy to answer them

Can we “have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity” at the same time as we take into account and “judge relativity and context” of the victimization?

Should acts by Hegemonic nations or international bodies (those with the power to act) addressing crimes against humanity gauge their response more by the circumstance of the victims in effort to do right by them or more by where the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity (a clearly defined term agreed to via treaty that you can look up) fall on a scale of atrocity committers?

If the focus should be on perpetrators rather than victims, should the scale we judge perpetrators on be based on all-time crimes against humanity or just ones by regimes still in power or recent crimes against humanity or only those exactly concurrent?

Can there be justice for victims without punishment for perpetrators or are the two inextricably linked in a zero sum equation?

In terms of actions against perpetrators, is there a difference between punitive and preventive measures? Is one preferable to the other in crafting a response?

I’ll stop here. Hopefully in answering with nuance and substance, Banks, in however many characters that takes you, you can deliver something worth gnawing on that relates to the topic rather than the personalities discussing it.

 

Fac I answered the questions regarding Omar and her tweet and my criticisms of her in depth and in a straight forward manner to several posters here. And for my efforts at honest discussion, I get shit on.

Which is fine, I'm not that thin-skinned, and understand an insult generally takes the place of a reasoned comeback.

Sheesh.

You now pose questions that require some thought on at least legal, moral, social, historical, cultural and philosophical grounds, that are all interesting questions, but which go far beyond the scope of criticisms of Omar's 2 line tweet. 

Should state's be accountable for their actions? Yes.

But should they or can they be held to the same level of accountability? I don't know. Should the US as the most powerful country in the world, at least today, be more accountable for its actions than a weaker state, or a non-state actor that act against the US's interests. Can a non-state actor be held accountable in a legal sense? How do you collect?

I'd have to give it some thought.

Perhaps others can answer it from whatever perspective they like.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Speaking of ‘American Greatness’ I don’t agree with everything this guy says but he does get his point across...

“...  All Americans, especially all white Americans are to blame 



https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/14/grievance-and-forgiveness-or-civil-strife/

Bullfuckingshit. He's just another bigot looking for cash.

Did you read... oh never mind. <snicker>

Do you think....oh never mind <guffaw>

Did you read the article?

January 1, 1892. Do you know the significance of that day? If you do, you know how ridiculous it is to make a statement such as "All Americans, especially all white Americans are to blame".

So, fuck that asshole. And the article.

Oh man, this is so funny.

So you DON'T KNOW the significance of January 1, 1892. Apparently, the writer of your piece didn't know it either, or he'd understand that was the day Ellis Island opened. Or are all those immigrants indicted by virtue of their race, too?

[Hamilton Samuels]

Some similarities between the CRT troll and the Omar troll.

By the time Republicans and centrist Democrats had united late last week to scold Representative Ilhan Omar for a tweet—one of the few pastimes that still draw the two parties together, and something those selfsame chiders would doubtlessly decry, under different circumstances, as cancel culture or censorship—it no longer mattered what, exactly, Omar had said. They had already managed to make a news cycle out of it: mission accomplished.

Now, following Democratic outrage and Republican calls for a floor vote to strip Omar of her committee assignments, let me record the following for posterity: Omar demonstrably did not say what she’s been accused of having said; what she did say was true; and every politico using this opportunity to take a swing at her likely knows those two things—they just think you don’t...   

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/what-ilhan-omar-actually-said/619196/

I doubt any bashers here will read all of this article and concede any of its factual points,  but YNK.

OC

You would be wrong. I read the article.

and without parsing every argument made, it seems the author's point hinged on Omar telling the truth.

I think Omar told a truth, but not the truth.

Have atrocities  been committed in war, yes. Can we judge relativity or context?

We should.

Did Omar?

In my opinion she did not. If she did, she would have been more circumspect in her argument and approach.

Should I equate the atrocities committed by the Germans and Japanese in WW2 with those committed by the US?

Were the victims of US atrocities any less victimized?

that seems to be Omar's argument.

I will leave it to others far more pure than I to make that call.

Further, as already posted, Omar used a very limited platform in Twitter.

A nuanced and complicated matter as this is, would have been far better addressed in a speech or a multi-page press release. Not a 200 character post. And she knew better, and her press people knew better.

But she knowingly grabbed some publicity off the blood of victims by issuing a headline grabbing tweet that appealed to certain of her supporters. She now says that the obvious false equivalence of her tweet was not meant in the manner it was received.

Bullshit.


So I read the article, and agree she told a truth.

But not the truth.

Fuck her.


ymmv

So your problem is, in this era of social media, she tweeted? Really?

The writer,if you read the article, excused Omar on the basis of her being limited in her explanation because she used Twitter.

[Hamilton Samuels]

But if you have questions rather than baseless charges, I'd be happy to answer them

Can we “have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity” at the same time as we take into account and “judge relativity and context” of the victimization?

Should acts by Hegemonic nations or international bodies (those with the power to act) addressing crimes against humanity gauge their response more by the circumstance of the victims in effort to do right by them or more by where the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity (a clearly defined term agreed to via treaty that you can look up) fall on a scale of atrocity committers?

If the focus should be on perpetrators rather than victims, should the scale we judge perpetrators on be based on all-time crimes against humanity or just ones by regimes still in power or recent crimes against humanity or only those exactly concurrent?

Can there be justice for victims without punishment for perpetrators or are the two inextricably linked in a zero sum equation?

In terms of actions against perpetrators, is there a difference between punitive and preventive measures? Is one preferable to the other in crafting a response?

I’ll stop here. Hopefully in answering with nuance and substance, Banks, in however many characters that takes you, you can deliver something worth gnawing on that relates to the topic rather than the personalities discussing it.

 

You're overthinking it, Che.

When someone attacks you while stating that their primary purpose is to destroy you and your way of life, do you not have an obligation and a right to defend yourself?

I mean, if you think it's all about the perpetrators, begin at the beginning, Che.

No terrorism, no counterattack.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Some similarities between the CRT troll and the Omar troll.

By the time Republicans and centrist Democrats had united late last week to scold Representative Ilhan Omar for a tweet—one of the few pastimes that still draw the two parties together, and something those selfsame chiders would doubtlessly decry, under different circumstances, as cancel culture or censorship—it no longer mattered what, exactly, Omar had said. They had already managed to make a news cycle out of it: mission accomplished.

Now, following Democratic outrage and Republican calls for a floor vote to strip Omar of her committee assignments, let me record the following for posterity: Omar demonstrably did not say what she’s been accused of having said; what she did say was true; and every politico using this opportunity to take a swing at her likely knows those two things—they just think you don’t...   

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/what-ilhan-omar-actually-said/619196/

I doubt any bashers here will read all of this article and concede any of its factual points,  but YNK.

Good piece - thanks

And?   You agree?   With some points,  not others?  Care to expand?   

And Banks,  not really understanding why you single out Omar for using Twitter, like,  erm,  every other politician in America.   

Nor do I understand why it's wrong to point out that international criminal courts should impartially look at all war atrocities,  regardless of how nice we think a country is.   Indeed,  I would think those countries purported to be standard bearers of democracy and human rights should be subject to the most careful scrutiny.

You would think that, and can. But waging an endless war has consequences.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Poor Ilhan

 She has spoken about school bullying she endured during her time in Virginia, stimulated by her distinctive Somali appearance and wearing of the hijab. She recalls gum being pressed into her hijab, being pushed down stairs, and physical taunts while she was changing for gym class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilhan_Omar

No wonder she has a chip on her shoulder and says slanderous outrageous things about infidel Americans and Israelis. Oh no, gum in her hijab. No respect at all for big Mo!  In Somalia we cut off your hand and sew up your lips, it is so written.

it is so written you’re a fucking Islamaphobe. Not a good look, luee.

He could be, but your love of Omar and your willingness to excuse her makes you anti-American.

[Holly Martins]

And?   You agree?   With some points,  not others?  Care to expand?   


No.

Then what are you doing in a political discussion forum?? OC wasn't looking to be "thanked" for posting his link.  Clearly the purpose was discussion.  An empty "thanks for posting" sounds patronizing. 

[Holly Martins]

First round of Biden-Putin talks ends early.


Joe had to tinkle.

Pees in our times.

Urine trouble if you poke fun at a head of pro-State.

[Hamilton Samuels]

And?   You agree?   With some points,  not others?  Care to expand?   


No.

Then what are you doing in a political discussion forum?? OC wasn't looking to be "thanked" for posting his link.  Clearly the purpose was discussion.  An empty "thanks for posting" sounds patronizing.

Thanks for explaining.

[Holly Martins]

No wonder she has a chip on her shoulder and says slanderous outrageous things about infidel Americans and Israelis. Oh no, gum in her hijab. No respect at all for big Mo!  In Somalia we cut off your hand and sew up your lips, it is so written.

Where is the actual slander?  Look up her actual comments, rather than her comments filtered and decontextualized by Right Wing tools.  Discuss what she actually said, not her personal history or your speculations on her bruised psyche. 

[Holly Martins]

Poor Ilhan

 She has spoken about school bullying she endured during her time in Virginia, stimulated by her distinctive Somali appearance and wearing of the hijab. She recalls gum being pressed into her hijab, being pushed down stairs, and physical taunts while she was changing for gym class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilhan_Omar

No wonder she has a chip on her shoulder and says slanderous outrageous things about infidel Americans and Israelis. Oh no, gum in her hijab. No respect at all for big Mo!  In Somalia we cut off your hand and sew up your lips, it is so written.

it is so written you’re a fucking Islamaphobe. Not a good look, luee.

Yes since 9-11.  Do you think Islam is an inherently peaceful religion that's been perverted by a small percentage of followers or is it an inherently violent religion?

Fallacy.  You're offering a binary "either/or," when there are other possible characterizations of Islam and its followers. 

[Holly Martins]

It's so strange that people talk about "Islam" like this single monolithic thing, but are liable to get huffy if someone does that with Christianity.  Christianity, they will hasten to remind you, is a vast range of sects that encompasses mainstream Protestants, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, secular humanist Unitarians, Roman Catholics (with a dizzying array of beliefs that range from Leftist to Far Right Conservative), Eastern Orthodox, et al.  Their practices vary considerably, their attitude towards other religions vary considerably, some reject politics, others embrace political activism, some are hawkish, some are dove-ish, some preach asceticism, others preach getting as rich as you can....need I go on?  Perhaps it would be wise to consider that Islam is also not a monolith, with its adherents all marching along in perfect lockstep.

[Hairy Lime]

Poor Ilhan

 She has spoken about school bullying she endured during her time in Virginia, stimulated by her distinctive Somali appearance and wearing of the hijab. She recalls gum being pressed into her hijab, being pushed down stairs, and physical taunts while she was changing for gym class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilhan_Omar

No wonder she has a chip on her shoulder and says slanderous outrageous things about infidel Americans and Israelis. Oh no, gum in her hijab. No respect at all for big Mo!  In Somalia we cut off your hand and sew up your lips, it is so written.

it is so written you’re a fucking Islamaphobe. Not a good look, luee.

Yes since 9-11.  Do you think Islam is an inherently peaceful religion that's been perverted by a small percentage of followers or is it an inherently violent religion?

Fallacy.  You're offering a binary "either/or," when there are other possible characterizations of Islam and its followers.

luee sees Islam as monolithic, which is highly amusing to anyone with any familiarity with history.