Enjoy!
- Inspiring post by JACP - Because I Can, And So I Did.
- A Soldier's Mother posts a moving letter from a soldier to the Palestinian house he stayed in in Gaza.
- Northern Light discusses the homeless and how attitudes have changed since the Great Depression.
- EoZ has a comic from 1956 that's... well, nothing has changed. (I've seen this flying around since yesterday - Jameel had it today, too.)
- Via Freakonomics, Will Wilkinson asks if economists are completely clueless.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Ezzie's Blog Roundup II, 1/29
Been wanting to post this (hat tip: Ed) for a while, but it's better after a couple weeks of news pieces. The difference is that this is a comedy show.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think to update that comic, you'd have to have the Jew kill not just the troublemaker, but his whole family and a hundred or two of his neighbors. Then it'd be up-to-date.
ReplyDeletea) You mean punch.
ReplyDeleteb) Perhaps if the "troublemaker"'s family and friends were tied around him and encouraging of his actions.
c) You're a nut. (I had to change that many times.)
a) True.
ReplyDeleteb) Or just live in the same general area.
c) Even if you disagree with my position, you should at the very least understand why a person could be opposed to killing hundreds of civilians in response to attacks which killed about 15.
B) Simply untrue. If it were, we'd have tens of thousands dead, with a tiny percentage of militants. Not the reverse.
ReplyDeleteC) One has nothing to do with the other. It's not about numbers whatsoever, and you don't need to have my views to understand how that is not at all comparable to what you said and suggest.
B) Simply untrue. If it were, we'd have tens of thousands dead, with a tiny percentage of militants. Not the reverse.
ReplyDeleteYou're really arguing that civilians weren't killed just for being in the same general proximity as the "militants?" (What are you, the liberal media? ;-)
C) One has nothing to do with the other. It's not about numbers whatsoever, and you don't need to have my views to understand how that is not at all comparable to what you said and suggest.
It's not about "the numbers" TO YOU. Other people think that hundreds of civilians being killed and maimed and terrified are what it's all about. You don't have to agree, but you should at least concede that such a position is not "nutty."
That's correct. They were being killed for being in *close* proximity. You want to argue they have no choice? Okay. But "general proximity" is false. There was a great piece - in the liberal media - detailing just how precise the attacks were.
ReplyDeleteNo, it IS nutty. If you think that wars should be fought on the basis of total numbers, you end up with majorities trading deaths while crying "disproportionate!" if it goes away from that... and that's not even taking into account which side has a moral high ground and which side is committing terror attacks from within crowded civilian populations. So yes - such a position is nutty at best if you're capable of thinking beyond a basic "hey, it's 40-1 in deaths!"
Ok, close proximity.
ReplyDeleteAnd they're not numbers, they're people. People just like you except they were born to Palestinians instead of American Jews.
Hamas is still firing missiles. What great good is it that came out of Isreal's operation that it was worth those hundreds of innocent lives?
I never said they weren't people. You started talking about equality in numbers; I'm telling you that if you think that matters, you're nuts. Just like "only 13 Israelis dead" as being a problem is nuts.
ReplyDeleteIf you really want to count so badly, count missiles fired specifically on civilian targets. Hamas 12,000+, Israel... 0.
And you're right - I'm not sure why Israel stopped and pulled out. While they were there, the numbers were steadily decreasing. Almost everyone in Israel in the middle or on the right feels the same. They certainly should have continued until every threat was destroyed.
You started talking about equality in numbers;
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about inequality in PEOPLE killed.
And you're right - I'm not sure why Israel stopped and pulled out. While they were there, the numbers were steadily decreasing. Almost everyone in Israel in the middle or on the right feels the same. They certainly should have continued until every threat was destroyed.
LOL, that's what the hawks always say... if we could have only stayed longer! Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, etc. It's a beautiful excuse because it's unfalsifiable and it always works!
No, you're talking about inequality in the NUMBER of people killed.
ReplyDeleteIt's actually quite verifiable: We stayed after WWII. The Civil War was won by completely decimating the South until they no longer had the will to fight. The surge in Iraq, for a more recent example, has led to much greater stability.
Meanwhile, every single time a country has pulled out before attacks were completely stopped has led to continued or renewed attacks.
Find me one example where this is not the case.
Meanwhile, every single time a country has pulled out before attacks were completely stopped has led to continued or renewed attacks.
ReplyDeleteNo, I agree with that, of course. That's why I said from the beginning the Israelis weren't going to accomplish anything with all this death and destruction. The only possible military "solutions" to such terrorism are ethnic cleansing, genocide, or brutal occupation. And none of those was going to happen or is going to happen. So what the hell was Israel thinking initiating this action?