Pro-Hamas Rallies in Canada

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, User said:

The Palestinian people voted for and continue to support Hamas with strong pluralities since 2006

In how many elections since 2006 were these pluralities derived? Most democracies have had 3 or more elections since then.

6 minutes ago, User said:

HOW DO YOU HOLD HAMAS ACCOUNTABLE?

In court.

[User]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

In how many elections since 2006 were these pluralities derived? Most democracies have had 3 or more elections since then.

To my point... Hamas controls Gaza. You want to leave them in power so they can keep killing Israeli people. 

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

In court.

What court? Who is going to bring Hamas to court? How will they bring Hamas to court?

Edited June 18, 2024 by User

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, User said:

You want to leave them in power so they can keep killing Israeli people. 

Where did i say that? You just made that up.

2 minutes ago, User said:

What court? Who is going to bring Hamas to court? How will they bring Hamas to court?

It'll have to be a court that's brought into existence through negotiation between Israel and Palestine in the future. Otherwise it'll have to be an international court that takes up their cases.

[User]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Where did i say that? You just made that up.

No, that is the result of all your disingenuous arguments here, just like how you keep refusing to say how anyone can hold Hamas accountable. 

Lets review:

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It'll have to be a court that's brought into existence through negotiation between Israel and Palestine in the future. Otherwise it'll have to be an international court that takes up their cases.

This leaves Hamas in power until this magical court comes into existence... because Hamas is in power now, there is no Palestine in the future anytime soon where they are not in power. 

So again, you want to leave Hamas in power, and they will continue killing Israelis. 

[WestCanMan]

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No what I posted is what Global Ministries called peace. I gave you their interpretation because I knew you'd steadfastly refuse to accept mine.

Now you apparently refuse to accept Global Ministries because it makes your head explode.

So do you accept Global Ministries interpretation then?

You believe that they were on friendly terms that whole time, in an unbiased, equal society?

You utterly reject my assertion that codified religious bigotry existed for that whole time, and that there were genocides, and that Jews were forbidden from praying at their holiest sites?

And don't just give a yes or no answer, answer in complete sentences so that I can quote you. Just copy and paste the following if you'd like: "There was no codified religious bigotry in the Ottoman Empire, there were no genocides, and the Jews were allowed to pray at their holiest sites whenever they wanted." 

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It's less about preferring a more authoritarian state, and more about lacking the legal and democratic institutions that could safeguard against it.  Hitler "won" an election in 1933, supported by a massive campaign of violence, repression and intimidation, along with the jailing of political enemies.  Prussia alone had 50,000 SS or militia members 'monitoring' the polls. 

 

That's true but that was still with the support of the people against the commies who were also using violence repression and intimidation.  And he Ended democracy with the support of the people as well. Not ALL the people but a very large hunk. 

If the people don't want it then democracy has a pretty minimal impact.  Germany got rid of a monarchy in favour of democracy only to vote a monarch right back in essentially. 

When you get right down to it democracy is the will of the people and if the people want what is a theocracy that's what's going to happen. 

 

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

There are always going to be people who are dumb and cynical enough to support/enable dictatorship.  If that dictatorship can deliver results, they may even end up with wide popular support...but only until the music stops.  It's when things aren't going great that folks start to rethink their choices, and by then it's too late. 

Sure, and always people who prefer the idea of personal freedom and responsibility.  the question is always how much is there of the first vs the second.

I just don't see any indication that the gov't would be much different there under a 'democracy', which i'm pretty sure would very quickly wind up either being rigged or just ignored.  the coup wouldn't have worked if the people were truly against it. 

 

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, User said:

This leaves Hamas in power until this magical court comes into existence...

Not if we change the regime in Iran.

Quote

So again, you want to leave Hamas in power, and they will continue killing Israelis.

No I do not want that at all. 

Edited June 18, 2024 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not if we change the regime in Iran.

 

That's been done before. Didn't really help. 

Quote

No I do not want that at all. 

Well if the fighting stops now that's what happens  so what's your plan. 

[User]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not if we change the regime in Iran.

So, you are not even willing to remove Hamas from power, but now you want to remove Iranian leadership from power instead?

So... how exactly does that work without a lot of people dying?

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No I do not want that at all. 

Yes, you do. Your plan leaves them in power. They keep killing Israelis. 

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

So do you accept Global Ministries interpretation then?

Sure why not?

Quote

You believe that they were on friendly terms that whole time, in an unbiased, equal society?

No, and neither do Global Ministries. Did you even read what they said?

All I'm doing is refuting your apparent position that they've always been on unfriendly terms the whole time.  Its just not true no matter how important it is for you to pretend otherwise.  As I'm sure you've said many times yourself the facts don't care about your feelings.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, User said:

So, you are not even willing to remove Hamas from power, but now you want to remove Iranian leadership from power instead?

Look who's being disingenuous now. Clearly I'm saying you need to do the latter to achieve the former. You honestly believe that simply levelling Gaza and killing how many more tens of thousands will achieve this? You're dreaming.

Quote

Yes, you do. Your plan leaves them in power. They keep killing Israelis.

Mowing the lawn instead of digging up the roots is what does this - a forever war IOW.

[WestCanMan]

Just now, eyeball said:

Sure why not?

No, and neither do Global Ministries. Did you even read what they said?

All I'm doing is refuting your apparent position that they've always been on unfriendly terms the whole time.  Its just not true no matter how important it is for you to pretend otherwise.  As I'm sure you've said many times yourself the facts don't care about your feelings.

Of course they were on unfriendly terms. 

If I was an autocrat and said that you could live with your family in a studio apartment in this city, and gave you a list of shitty-to-mediocre jobs that you could do, and that you weren't allowed to go to church (pretend it was important to you), would we ever be on friendly terms? 

No. Not even for a second. 

We could co-exist without war, based on the power imbalance, but we'd never be on friendly terms.

Muslims can be on friendly terms with people here because there's no power imbalance. They can worship as they like, they can apply for any job, etc.

Stop confusing the Ottoman Empire with Canada ffs. All you're doing is exposing your own colossal historical ignorance.

[User]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Look who's being disingenuous now. Clearly I'm saying you need to do the latter to achieve the former. You honestly believe that simply levelling Gaza and killing how many more tens of thousands will achieve this? You're dreaming.

Not disingenuous at all. Hamas stays in power while you instead argue for removing Iranian leadership from power. Hamas keeps killing Israelis while you go off on this pipe dream of yours, leveling Iran instead. 

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Mowing the lawn instead of digging up the roots is what does this - a forever war IOW.

Again, Hamas stays in power and keeps killing Israelis. 

Everything you propose leaves Hamas in power to keep killing Israelis. 

You don't get to act like this isn't what you want. 

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, User said:

Not disingenuous at all. Hamas stays in power while you instead argue for removing Iranian leadership from power. Hamas keeps killing Israelis while you go off on this pipe dream of yours, leveling Iran instead. 

Again, Hamas stays in power and keeps killing Israelis. 

Everything you propose leaves Hamas in power to keep killing Israelis. 

You don't get to act like this isn't what you want. 

There's no reasoning with that guy. He's one of those people that will pretend Canada is an unjust society and then pretend that everyone sang Kumbayah together in the Ottoman Empire. It's more likely that you could get your head chopped off for singing that there. 

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

In how many elections since 2006 were these pluralities derived? Most democracies have had 3 or more elections since then.

In court.

in the last 50 years how many criminals has the ICC brought to justice....and why do you think this is an effective means ?

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

in the last 50 years how many criminals has the ICC brought to justice....and why do you think this is an effective means ?

Looks like about 16 since 2005 after acquittals and no shows. Not a great track record. 

 

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That's true but that was still with the support of the people against the commies who were also using violence repression and intimidation.  And he Ended democracy with the support of the people as well. Not ALL the people but a very large hunk. 

No.  He didn't end democracy with support of the people.  He mobilized a deluded, angry "hunk" of the population into a band of thugs, and he terrorized and intimidated his opposition into submission.  

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If the people don't want it then democracy has a pretty minimal impact.  Germany got rid of a monarchy in favour of democracy only to vote a monarch right back in essentially. 

Also no. Germany's monarchy was forcibly dismantled by the Allies, along with crippling reparations.  They weren't just forced into democracy, they were also forced into hopeless poverty.  

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

When you get right down to it democracy is the will of the people and if the people want what is a theocracy that's what's going to happen. 

The Iranians chose secular democracy in the early 50's.  The US and Britain helped overthrow that and reinstall the Shah, who ran a repressive police state for ~20 years before the revolution that ushered in what turned out to be an equally repressive or worse regime.   I think you're underestimating the resentment but also fear that goes along with that.  

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No.  He didn't end democracy with support of the people.  He mobilized a deluded, angry "hunk" of the population into a band of thugs, and he terrorized and intimidated his opposition into submission.  

He did. He had wide support and he knew it.  A lot of people didn't like the whole 'democracy' idea in the first place. 

Quote

Also no. Germany's monarchy was forcibly dismantled by the Allies, along with crippling reparations.  They weren't just forced into democracy, they were also forced into hopeless poverty.  

Sigh.  That really doesn't have anything to do with it. And what I said was 100% correct. Sometimes your argumentative for the sake of it.

Germany went from being a monarchy into being a democracy. But many of the people did not believe in a democracy and it wound up going back to being what is essentially a monarchy or dictatorship shortly thereafter. And that DID have the will of the people by and large. The point being that if for whatever reason the people do not strongly support the idea of a democracy and they're just going to vote for the same type of government they had before even if they had to elect it. 

 

Quote

The Iranians chose secular democracy in the early 50's.  The US and Britain helped overthrow that and reinstall the Shah, who ran a repressive police state for ~20 years before the revolution that ushered in what turned out to be an equally repressive or worse regime.   I think you're underestimating the resentment but also fear that goes along with that.  

Anything is possible. There might be some deep-seated widespread desire to overthrow the current regime, but history says that in most such cases the people will install something very similar to what they've already got to replace it. As you know they went from a Shah To a democracy and back to a Shah then got rid of that  and replaced it with a Government that is as bad or worse. 

History suggests you can't really 'install' democracy.  where people want it then it tends to show up and if they don't then even if they get it they just vote in similar gov'ts and while it's POSSIBLE it would be different in this case i'm not seeing anything that would lead to that conclusion. 

[Venandi]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

History suggests you can't really 'install' democracy.  where people want it then it tends to show up and if they don't then even if they get it they just vote in similar gov'ts...

I keep wondering when we will learn that.

Western people seem to think that everyone else in the world wants what they want and have the same values (mostly liberal now) as they do. 

Well, they don't... and it's the sort of thinking that leads to poor political topography assessments and foreign policy failures. Even at the micro level it isn't popular. Try donning a blue hat and explaining this to village elders in Africa: 'https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/primary-school-drops-women-for-people-with-a-uterus

IMO, there's only one cure for this and it's extended vacations in the country you plan to force your wisdom on. Anyone not prepared to do that can streamline the experiment by going to the Legion, finding a veteran with lots of medals and see if they agree with your excellent plan.

You never know... but my guess is that they won't.

 

Edited June 19, 2024 by Venandi

[Moonbox]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

He did. He had wide support and he knew it.  A lot of people didn't like the whole 'democracy' idea in the first place. 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "wide support".  I'd consider the fact that he never won even 40% of the vote until he imprisoned/murdered the opposition and began "monitoring" the polling stations with tens of thousands of thugs to question that, but I guess we can just agree that there was obviously "enough" support for him to do that.  

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh.  That really doesn't have anything to do with it. And what I said was 100% correct. Sometimes your argumentative for the sake of it.

The Treaty of Versailles and the crippling reparations had nothing to do with the anger and hopelessness of the German people in the early 30's?  Really!? 

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

History suggests you can't really 'install' democracy.  where people want it then it tends to show up and if they don't then even if they get it they just vote in similar gov'ts and while it's POSSIBLE it would be different in this case i'm not seeing anything that would lead to that conclusion. 

What do you figure you'd need to "see" to lead you to the opposite conclusion?  Remember the censorship and brutal repression within Iran?  

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

The Treaty of Versailles and the crippling reparations had nothing to do with the anger and hopelessness of the German people in the early 30's?  Really!? 

 

Again, we are not talking about the anger and the hopelessness of the german people. We are talking about the german people turning against democracy. There is no evidence anywhere that the german people blamed democracy for the Treaty of Versailles.

Hitler came along and said"We are doing away with democracy" and the people said "Okay". There is a reason for that.

30 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

What do you figure you'd need to "see" to lead you to the opposite conclusion?  Remember the censorship and brutal repression within Iran?  

So just to be clear, your argument is that it's not possible to detect this 'huddle the masses yearning for freedom' thing due to censorship and brutal repression, yet you have some special knowledge of it that you can't demonstrate but are sure is true? That's your position.

If there is no evidence then we really have no reason to believe it would be any different than it has been everywhere else foisting democracy upon a population has been tried. 

And even if we could find evidence that the people don't like THIS gov't, it wouldn't mean they would chose a democratic model that was substantially different rather than just a different ruler.  Remember  china is technically a 'democracy' and so is russia after kicking out their 'ruling class' of commies. There were also plenty of revolutions and rebellions that removed one aristocracy only to replace it with a different aristocracy. 

like I said, it's not impossible but there's really no evidence to support it at this time

[Moonbox]

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Again, we are not talking about the anger and the hopelessness of the german people. We are talking about the german people turning against democracy. There is no evidence anywhere that the german people blamed democracy for the Treaty of Versailles.

Nobody said they did.  The Treaty of Versailles set the conditions that made democracy almost certain to fail.  When Germany went from super-prosperous European powerhouse under the Kaiser to an impoverished rump state under the Weimar Republic, it's no surprise there were a lot of angry people looking for other options.  The fact that democracy wasn't really to blame is too nuanced for the average angry mook, not when you can use it and the jews, communists and capitalists as scapegoats.  

42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So just to be clear, your argument is that it's not possible to detect this 'huddle the masses yearning for freedom' thing due to censorship and brutal repression, yet you have some special knowledge of it that you can't demonstrate but are sure is true? That's your position.

No, my argument is that the Iranians are living under comic-book-villainous repression, and live in poverty.  Dictatorships only remain popular when the social contract (prosperity/safety in exchange for freedom) is upheld.  When it is not, as it is not in Iran, sentiment turns sour.  In that environment of repression, the protests in 2022 were remarkable.  This wasn't a bunch of hooligans causing a fuss and getting clapped with fines and petty jail time.  These were people going out knowing they faced very real risk of injury, death or disappearance.  That isn't "special knowledge".  That's just common-sense inference.  

In what world is a violent crackdown where you kill and maim 1000+ people an indication that Iranians are pleased with their repression?  

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Nobody said they did.  The Treaty of Versailles set the conditions that made democracy almost certain to fail.  When Germany went from super-prosperous European powerhouse under the Kaiser to an impoverished rump state under the Weimar Republic, it's no surprise there were a lot of angry people looking for other options. 

I think it's more likely that people blamed the Kaiser and the war for it rather than democracy which had just come along and elected hitler who was pretty popular. I've read a fair number of books discussing this and i don't recall any of them suggesting that people blamed democracy for the economic conditions per se.  I think they were just very comfortable with the idea of a 'permanent ruler' model and thought hitler was doing great (remember a lot of their problems got better when he showed up) and were not sold on democracy. 

And if it was the ONLY example maybe it would be different but democracy never seems to stick unless it's something the people pushed for. 

17 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

No, my argument is that the Iranians are living under comic-book-villainous repression, and live in poverty.  Dictatorships only remain popular when the social contract (prosperity/safety in exchange for freedom) is upheld.  When it is not, as it is not in Iran, sentiment turns sour.  In that environment of repression, the protests in 2022 were remarkable.  This wasn't a bunch of hooligans causing a fuss and getting clapped with fines and petty jail time.  These were people going out knowing they faced very real risk of injury, death or disappearance.  That isn't "special knowledge".  That's just common-sense inference.  

In what world is a violent crackdown where you kill and maim 1000+ people an indication that Iranians are pleased with their repression?  

Again though, even if we accept all of that as being the gospel truth without any further evidence and accept that Iranians don't really like the current government, that in no way suggests that they would willingly move to and stick with a different model of government such as democracy. Or that they wouldn't wind up voting in a party that was very similar as far as it's activities and political leanings. "Revolution" very often doesn't change the gov't model, it just changes the gov't. 

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, I see nothing that indicates to me that there would be any difference and I feel that your position is based on the idea that if people are unhappy with the current government they will flock to a different government model and elect completely different leadership, and i believe that idea comes from the fact that that's what we would likely do. And that's not necessarily the case.

I can't prove you wrong in this case, but History is not in your favor and I'm not seeing anything to suggest that people would move to a democracy permanently even if it was given to them or that if they did the gov't they'd elect would have a more pro israeli or non interference policy.

Edited June 19, 2024 by CdnFox

[eyeball]

On 6/18/2024 at 3:25 PM, Army Guy said:

in the last 50 years how many criminals has the ICC brought to justice....and why do you think this is an effective means ?

It's effectiveness sucks for sure but jurisprudence will have to be part of the path to reconciliation and peace.

The reason institutions like the ICC or UN fail is that so many of the brokers using them are not being honest. But at the end of a very long day there is no other way forward besides force and where might makes right...except...one look around the world should show how that's working.

[User]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

It's effectiveness sucks for sure but jurisprudence will have to be part of the path to reconciliation and peace.

So... Hamas stays in power and keeps killing Israelis with your plan.