17 thoughts on “More Good News”

  1. I think a good way for the palestinians to protest the Israeli government would be for all the palestinian men to gather togethr in the street in large numbers and for them to bring dildoes with them with Israeli flags painted on the dildoes and each individual man would take the dildo and use it on his own anus using the standard motion as a symbolic gesture of how they feel the israeli government makes them feel. Such a gesture would help the international community understand how the palestinians are feeling with regards to the actions of the israeli government.

    This would be a better way for the palestinians to deal with the actions of the israeli government.

  2. I can’t support killing either way. If you’re going to go into moral imperatives that state any invasion of one’s land is wrong, it seems necessary to add also that killing in general is wrong. Moreover, I don’t know if things would be much better without Israel being there. It’d be like Egypt probably. Might be even more fascist than modern Israel. That’s no good argument, I understand, for Israel’s wrongdoing, so I choose merely not to take sides in this matter. In fact, I get pretty cold and pragmatic on this subject. Support our allies (so long as it makes sense to do so) and interests and try to stay out of divisive conflict as much as possible. If that means dropping Israel, fine, that’s okay by me.

    Perhaps that’s pretty uninformed of me. In all honesty, I’m confused on the whole conflict. There are really no easy solutions, if any at all. I’d like to see two states, that’s for sure, but I understand that Israel has to do what Israel thinks is best. You can’t expect them to give it up without something to gain. The ultra-orthodox ones are pretty nuts though. The more you think about this the more of a mess it gets to be. Some people think 9/11 was created by the Israelis to create awareness of the spread of Islam and turn the west against the region and for Israel. They make some good points. But I don’t buy it all yet.

    1. The adult settlers surely deserve to be killed. All settler-colonists do. I don’t support killing Israelis inside the Green Line though.

      It’s important for natives to resist the invasion and settlement of their land by armed settler invaders. The best way to deal with them is to kill them or otherwise drive them off the land somehow. It was right and proper for the Native Americans to kill adult settlers also. You can’t just sit back and let people steal your land. Fuck that. You need to fight back, and you really need to kill them. That’s the only thing they understand.

      However, I don’t support killing minor settlers. They are children and they don’t know what they are doing. Their invader parents brought them along and they don’t have the ability to take off. Killing kids is almost never right. I’m trying to think of how it could be justified, but I have a hard time.

  3. Lindsay. Jpost said she was nine months pregnant. It should be obvious. I also think women should be off limits because they raise children and none of the settler haredi women serve in the IDF.

    1. They drove up alongside the care late at night and fired. No way to tell if a woman is pregnant or not. Females are part of the invaders that are stealing your land. You need to kill them too, or drive them off somehow. If they want to leave, give them passage.

  4. On this ‘deserve to be killed’ business – I am a supporter of the death penalty for cold-blooded murderers, but I would never, ever phrase it as ‘they deserve to be killed’ – I would say that the only penalty that atones for taking a human life is for a murderer’s own life to be taken – this is NOT the same as that horrible, horrible crudity ‘deserve to be killed’, which is repulsive in the extreme.
    Shades of an old-testament Jehovah there.
    Of course it was the Nazis who took ‘deserved to be killed’ to its logical extreme.Those whom the Nazis deemed undesirable (ie ‘deserved’) were killed.

    1. If people want to let invaders take over their land without resisting, they can be my guest. But others do decide to resist. For the resisters, the question of targets comes up. It is here that we get into the deserve to be killed stuff.

      Deserve to be killed means a legitimate target for those using armed resistance against the armed invaders who are stealing their land and displacing them. You really need to try to kill them, because if you just hurt them, it won’t be enough.

      I’m not wild about the death penalty either, this is war we are talking about here.

      1. I’ve no doubt that the authors of the 9/11 attacks deemed that the Americans in the Twin Towers ‘deserved to be killed’ because the uS government was complicit, in their eyes, of the Israeli occupation of Arab territory.
        Where does your ‘deserve to be killed’ meme end Robert ?

        1. War is war. Targeting civilians in a war is tricky business. However, clearly it’s legitimate to target those who invade your land, steal it, and displace you. There’s no argument with that. However, minors must be spared. Invaders who wish to leave in peace must be allowed to do so, taking all of their possessions.

          In a civil war, spies need to be killed. End of argument. Anyone reporting revolutionaries to the authorities to turn them in or providing info to the state to help build cases against the guerrilla is culpable. Prosecutors are legitimate targets. As are members of the death squads and their funders.

          High ranking state politicians who foment and support war against the guerrilla via state office are not innocent. Those intimately tied to the counterinsurgency are legitimate targets.

  5. Nope. Only talking about a war situation here, declared or otherwise.

    Though it’s true sometimes I don’t mind. Some Black guy gave AIDS to a bunch of Black girls in East St. Louis. They released him back to the communities and he was dead pretty quickly. The cops never found the killer, and no one is talking.

    Problem with this shit is everyone is a vigilante. Gang violence is just vigilantism. They’re getting the guys who got them. And who could say that some vigilantes would not want to string me up sometime? So it doesn’t make sense to support that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)