5 ms·

I don't know who said this quote but "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" also rings true

by pajeets 2y ago

type0 2y ago
one man's terrorist is another man's war criminal
- jedimind 2y ago
  one man's terrorist is another man's subject of idol worship. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/23/bernie-sanders-netanyahu-speech https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/23/bern...
- pajeets 2y ago
  also relevant: "history is written by the victor" is especially relevant in understanding the Israeli/Palestine crisis. In the Palestine Mandate, Jews and Palestinians got along just fine. That all changed once the ideology that the land belonged to Jews began to make rounds following the conclusion of WW2 and awful events like Holocaust gave rise. It would've been fine if the creation of Israel happened peacefully but its egregiously ignorant to assume the other co-habitants who assumed control much of the land previously would excuse themselves especially when the earliest attempts were violent. It's not clear who fired the first shot in the Palestine/Israeli conflict but its important that those who write the history are essentially the voice of those that won WW2. Had Hitler won WW2, we would absolutely learn how bad one group was and why their extermination was justified. Then as economic prosperity set in, and wealth gap begins to naturally arise as well as freedom of expression, egalitarian ideology quickly spreads. Today's generation that argues that all humans are born equal and a blank slate would be defined as extremist ideology and a President who promotes that belief would be labelled a bigot, racist, and smeared 24/7 by the establishment that descended from the winning ideology. Eventually the political spectrum shifts back to the center violently and proliferation of information via various technological mediums takes foothold, the waters become murkier and the victor's version of history begins to become shaky until it feels threatened enough to launch a purge of its ideology once and for all and those that resist it to become embroiled in a prolonged civil conflict. This gives rise to a future where reality is so remarkably different than what we have, rather people hold a Bayesian model of reality one which is measured by statistics backed by groups of facts from both sides of the political fence. This ultimately results in a much more peaceful and less quarrelsome society one which can finally give path to true enlightenment, raising of the collective human consciousness so that we become interstellar species exactly like what we were supposed to do.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    In the Palestine Mandate, Jews and Palestinians got along just fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
    - pajeets 2y ago
      sure there were incidents like this on both sides but nothing whats unfolding today
      - jedimind 2y ago
        The hebron massacre happened 12 years after the Balfour Declaration so at that point the Palestinians were already fully aware that they were being colonized and they had also experienced discrimination and violence at the hands of the british and the zionists. Just describing this violence with "both sides" is erasing so much colonial history and justified resistance by Palestinians who had every right to oppose the colonization they saw unfolding right before their eyes.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        The issue of concern at the moment is that the statement you led off with above ("They got along just fine during that time period") was plainly untenable -- and not only untenable, but basically an outright inversion of what was happening at the time -- by any reading of the conflict, no matter how one might view its broader causes. There's nothing in the least controversial in regard to this point; it's just basic history -- and certainly nothing provocative in pointing it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercommunal_conflict_in_Mandatory_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercommunal_conflict_in_Mand... It's very much as if you had just said "Protestants and Catholics got along just fine in Northern Ireland during The Troubles", and then went on to extrapolate and moralize further about that conflict -- in terms of measured statistics and Bayesian analysis, no less. Do you not see any problem with this?

I don't know who said this quote but "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" also rings true

type0 2y ago

one man's terrorist is another man's war criminal

jedimind 2y ago
one man's terrorist is another man's subject of idol worship. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/23/bernie-sanders-netanyahu-speech https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/23/bern...
pajeets 2y ago
also relevant: "history is written by the victor" is especially relevant in understanding the Israeli/Palestine crisis. In the Palestine Mandate, Jews and Palestinians got along just fine. That all changed once the ideology that the land belonged to Jews began to make rounds following the conclusion of WW2 and awful events like Holocaust gave rise. It would've been fine if the creation of Israel happened peacefully but its egregiously ignorant to assume the other co-habitants who assumed control much of the land previously would excuse themselves especially when the earliest attempts were violent. It's not clear who fired the first shot in the Palestine/Israeli conflict but its important that those who write the history are essentially the voice of those that won WW2. Had Hitler won WW2, we would absolutely learn how bad one group was and why their extermination was justified. Then as economic prosperity set in, and wealth gap begins to naturally arise as well as freedom of expression, egalitarian ideology quickly spreads. Today's generation that argues that all humans are born equal and a blank slate would be defined as extremist ideology and a President who promotes that belief would be labelled a bigot, racist, and smeared 24/7 by the establishment that descended from the winning ideology. Eventually the political spectrum shifts back to the center violently and proliferation of information via various technological mediums takes foothold, the waters become murkier and the victor's version of history begins to become shaky until it feels threatened enough to launch a purge of its ideology once and for all and those that resist it to become embroiled in a prolonged civil conflict. This gives rise to a future where reality is so remarkably different than what we have, rather people hold a Bayesian model of reality one which is measured by statistics backed by groups of facts from both sides of the political fence. This ultimately results in a much more peaceful and less quarrelsome society one which can finally give path to true enlightenment, raising of the collective human consciousness so that we become interstellar species exactly like what we were supposed to do.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  In the Palestine Mandate, Jews and Palestinians got along just fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
  - pajeets 2y ago
    sure there were incidents like this on both sides but nothing whats unfolding today
    - jedimind 2y ago
      The hebron massacre happened 12 years after the Balfour Declaration so at that point the Palestinians were already fully aware that they were being colonized and they had also experienced discrimination and violence at the hands of the british and the zionists. Just describing this violence with "both sides" is erasing so much colonial history and justified resistance by Palestinians who had every right to oppose the colonization they saw unfolding right before their eyes.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      The issue of concern at the moment is that the statement you led off with above ("They got along just fine during that time period") was plainly untenable -- and not only untenable, but basically an outright inversion of what was happening at the time -- by any reading of the conflict, no matter how one might view its broader causes. There's nothing in the least controversial in regard to this point; it's just basic history -- and certainly nothing provocative in pointing it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercommunal_conflict_in_Mandatory_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercommunal_conflict_in_Mand... It's very much as if you had just said "Protestants and Catholics got along just fine in Northern Ireland during The Troubles", and then went on to extrapolate and moralize further about that conflict -- in terms of measured statistics and Bayesian analysis, no less. Do you not see any problem with this?