10 ms·

The implications seems to be that 'It was a long time ago, it didn't happen and if it did happen it doesn't matter'. An impressive amount of cognitive dissonanc

by kfprt 5y ago

The implications seems to be that 'It was a long time ago, it didn't happen and if it did happen it doesn't matter'. An impressive amount of cognitive dissonance. It's not that people aren't trying to re contextualize the past all the time, the 1619 project for example. There is also much still kept secret 50 years on and it would be nice to learn more. Anyone who isn't pushing an agenda would agree with that. Personally I find it extremely distasteful that people here are still trying to bury this.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
perl4ever 5y ago
You're not being specific, and you're addressing an imaginary monolith. Are you saying that it's revisionism to point out the US and Israel haven't been BFFs going all the way back to 1948? If that's what you think, clarify, don't insinuate.
- kfprt 5y ago
  Since you deleted your other comment I'll reply to it here. >I haven't been talking to you about it for 50 years. I haven't been talking to anyone about it even as often as every year. Despite that, you can't engage in any way other than considering me part of the conspiracy? >I'm not an Israeli, and I'm willing to discuss the topic without debating whether Israel should in fact exist or what motivations someone might have for wishing it didn't. >Furthermore, I am not especially hostile, as an American, to the idea of disengaging from the middle east and the particular relationship the US currently has with Israel. >So I'm completely sincere and trying to be constructive when I give my personal view on tactics to disrupt it. I'd like to get behind the facade and understand what motivates people like you. >It's important to not believe your own BS even if you are propagandizing. To be aware of the correct history, for your own sake. Why do you assume I care about whether Israel exists or not? From my perspective it's a world away and has absolutely zero impact on my life. It's not my place or America's for that matter to get involved in intra semitic squabbles. What I find insidious are those who would propagandize and coverup the incident within this country. Such activities are utterly poisonous to an open democratic society. Frankly unamerican. As an addendum I think that if anyone deliberately attacks US military personnel then they deserve a proportional response. Who they are is irrelevant. If it's Gaddafi bomb him. If it's Al Qaeda bomb them. If it's the Vietnamese bomb them If it's Israel bomb them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >What I find insidious are those who would propagandize and coverup the incident within this country. Demanding that the US bomb something at random because of the Liberty is obviously futile. Especially on HN, which does not control the US military. If you want to blow up Israelis, and you are able to post coherently about it, you are smart enough to know that talking about the Liberty incident is not an effective way. Also, "proportional response" is a red flag for me, for BS. It is mathematically impossible to deter anything with a proportional response, and therefore nobody has ever been serious when they suggest it as a standard. Also also, if you can reply to a deleted comment, you can reply to the one that wasn't. It seems like you won't break character. I am interested in your actual beliefs and am not drawing premature conclusions about them. Still, the overarching goal of destroying the US's relationship with Israel is the only political motivation I can think of. I carefully refrained from condemning that or moralizing, in the interest of discussion.
    - kfprt 5y ago
      >Also also, if you can reply to a deleted comment, you can reply to the one that wasn't. If you would like to retract your previous statements, feel free. >If you want to blow up Israelis As I said in my previous comment I have no opinion of intra semitic squabbles. I'm merely suggesting the US should have a foreign policy that treats other countries equally and that it would be in the national interest to be seen as a fair arbiter in the world. >Also, "proportional response" is a red flag for me If you are suggesting a disproportionate response that would be fine by me. There are details for military planners not foreign policy advisers. >It seems like you won't break character. I think you are arguing in bad faith if you accuse me of being 'in character'. >Still, the overarching goal of destroying the US's relationship with Israel is the only political motivation I can think of. As an American my only consideration is that which is in the national interest. Ideologically I'm mostly a america first non interventionist. I am well aware there are many in this country that would lobby on behalf of foreign powers and I think they should register under FARA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Ac...

by kfprt 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

perl4ever 5y ago

You're not being specific, and you're addressing an imaginary monolith. Are you saying that it's revisionism to point out the US and Israel haven't been BFFs going all the way back to 1948? If that's what you think, clarify, don't insinuate.

kfprt 5y ago
Since you deleted your other comment I'll reply to it here. >I haven't been talking to you about it for 50 years. I haven't been talking to anyone about it even as often as every year. Despite that, you can't engage in any way other than considering me part of the conspiracy? >I'm not an Israeli, and I'm willing to discuss the topic without debating whether Israel should in fact exist or what motivations someone might have for wishing it didn't. >Furthermore, I am not especially hostile, as an American, to the idea of disengaging from the middle east and the particular relationship the US currently has with Israel. >So I'm completely sincere and trying to be constructive when I give my personal view on tactics to disrupt it. I'd like to get behind the facade and understand what motivates people like you. >It's important to not believe your own BS even if you are propagandizing. To be aware of the correct history, for your own sake. Why do you assume I care about whether Israel exists or not? From my perspective it's a world away and has absolutely zero impact on my life. It's not my place or America's for that matter to get involved in intra semitic squabbles. What I find insidious are those who would propagandize and coverup the incident within this country. Such activities are utterly poisonous to an open democratic society. Frankly unamerican. As an addendum I think that if anyone deliberately attacks US military personnel then they deserve a proportional response. Who they are is irrelevant. If it's Gaddafi bomb him. If it's Al Qaeda bomb them. If it's the Vietnamese bomb them If it's Israel bomb them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >What I find insidious are those who would propagandize and coverup the incident within this country. Demanding that the US bomb something at random because of the Liberty is obviously futile. Especially on HN, which does not control the US military. If you want to blow up Israelis, and you are able to post coherently about it, you are smart enough to know that talking about the Liberty incident is not an effective way. Also, "proportional response" is a red flag for me, for BS. It is mathematically impossible to deter anything with a proportional response, and therefore nobody has ever been serious when they suggest it as a standard. Also also, if you can reply to a deleted comment, you can reply to the one that wasn't. It seems like you won't break character. I am interested in your actual beliefs and am not drawing premature conclusions about them. Still, the overarching goal of destroying the US's relationship with Israel is the only political motivation I can think of. I carefully refrained from condemning that or moralizing, in the interest of discussion.
  - kfprt 5y ago
    >Also also, if you can reply to a deleted comment, you can reply to the one that wasn't. If you would like to retract your previous statements, feel free. >If you want to blow up Israelis As I said in my previous comment I have no opinion of intra semitic squabbles. I'm merely suggesting the US should have a foreign policy that treats other countries equally and that it would be in the national interest to be seen as a fair arbiter in the world. >Also, "proportional response" is a red flag for me If you are suggesting a disproportionate response that would be fine by me. There are details for military planners not foreign policy advisers. >It seems like you won't break character. I think you are arguing in bad faith if you accuse me of being 'in character'. >Still, the overarching goal of destroying the US's relationship with Israel is the only political motivation I can think of. As an American my only consideration is that which is in the national interest. Ideologically I'm mostly a america first non interventionist. I am well aware there are many in this country that would lobby on behalf of foreign powers and I think they should register under FARA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Ac...