4 ms·

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 eve

by 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...
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >If you would like to retract your previous statements, feel free. I am not retracting anything. But if you respond to the one I deleted, you should respond to the one I didn't. >As I said in my previous comment I have no opinion of intra semitic squabbles. It makes no difference to me. I understood you to be saying that the US military was who you wanted to bomb Israel, in the 21st century, in retaliation for the Liberty, and that is IMO not a feasible goal. By using the term "blow up" I meant to be inclusive of anything, whether or not considered conventional military action. The point is, it is believable to me to have the goal but not the hope of doing it that way. It's also logical that if you have a goal, you work with or promote people who have a similar goal, even if you don't share the underlying reasons. >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 There is no changing the past. If US foreign policy is to be judged by the Liberty, then it is unchangeable definitionally. I don't see how you can want what you say you want, because it's logically impossible. >If you are suggesting a disproportionate response that would be fine by me I haven't suggested any particular response would be the right one, in any circumstance, whether we are talking about the Israeli response or an imaginary US one in modern times. My point is that a proportional response to anything is never enough to deter, because it never can be applied 100% of the time. So people who advocate a proportional response to anything are not serious. I'm not debating whether it is the right moral standard, people claim it is a lot. I'm saying that it's impractical and nobody can expect it to become a rule. Proportional retaliation does not serve the purpose of retaliation. I believe this is a timeless principle. In a logical, not a moral sense.

by kfprt 5y ago

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...
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >If you would like to retract your previous statements, feel free. I am not retracting anything. But if you respond to the one I deleted, you should respond to the one I didn't. >As I said in my previous comment I have no opinion of intra semitic squabbles. It makes no difference to me. I understood you to be saying that the US military was who you wanted to bomb Israel, in the 21st century, in retaliation for the Liberty, and that is IMO not a feasible goal. By using the term "blow up" I meant to be inclusive of anything, whether or not considered conventional military action. The point is, it is believable to me to have the goal but not the hope of doing it that way. It's also logical that if you have a goal, you work with or promote people who have a similar goal, even if you don't share the underlying reasons. >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 There is no changing the past. If US foreign policy is to be judged by the Liberty, then it is unchangeable definitionally. I don't see how you can want what you say you want, because it's logically impossible. >If you are suggesting a disproportionate response that would be fine by me I haven't suggested any particular response would be the right one, in any circumstance, whether we are talking about the Israeli response or an imaginary US one in modern times. My point is that a proportional response to anything is never enough to deter, because it never can be applied 100% of the time. So people who advocate a proportional response to anything are not serious. I'm not debating whether it is the right moral standard, people claim it is a lot. I'm saying that it's impractical and nobody can expect it to become a rule. Proportional retaliation does not serve the purpose of retaliation. I believe this is a timeless principle. In a logical, not a moral sense.