Serious question. Is this what Daily Kos has come to?
Personally, I think as long as a Palestinian (2+ / 1-)
…is left alive, Israel will be under attack.
I speak as a military strategist and anthropologist.
Israel has no choice but to murder them all, if it wants to survive.
The line of asymmetrical human obscenity within a civilization/tribe has been breeched.
by [redacted] on [redacted]
That comment, buried in a non-rec listed diary, got two uprates. I am not identifying the author for two reasons: First, the comment may simply be misplaced, tasteless snark. Second, we're not supposed to do call-out diaries. To be honest, though, depending on the answer to the question of snark, I believe the author should be named.
This is particularly relevant in light of the reclisted diary by Timaeus: GAZA: Yes, it's Genocide. Timaeus is asking a serious question in that diary, and raising some important points. One of those points goes to intent: Does Israel intend to commit genocide, as legally defined by International law, against the Palestinians? My concern is that if so, some Americans - including more than just a few on the Left - see no problem with it.
So, I ask you: Is this what we've come to?
Just wanted to add this update (seems only fair):
The person in question has answered inquiries of the WTF variety.
Then you advocate for genocide?(5+ / 0-)
Justice. -8.50, -7.38.
by IndieGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 11:17:45 AM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]
* [new] No. Of course not. (2+ / 0-)
I still cannot recover from the knowledge that the US is a genocide nation, as I walk across its blood-soaked soil. Clearly, I am far more sensitive to the horrors of biological genocide than your average American. It's in my mind at all times, and I comment about the US genocide often because it troubles me so.
I am speaking scientifically about a situation where two "races" cannot occupy the same space because they have an auto-immune disorder that causes them to destroy themselves.
* [new] I am describing the pathology of the specimen. (1+ / 0-)I don't agree, but as written I think they may have a defensible position.
Apart from the species or pathogens involved.
It is merely a prognosis. One might regard it from the point-of-view of a cancer. A long as the cancer cells are viable in situ, the host will be under attack.
I am calling neither side the cancer. I am saying they cannot occupy the same space. In the case of the US, we treated the indigenous people, USians decided to murder them all and round up the survivors into concentration camps where they remain to this day.
I am completely agnostic in my analysis, which is indifferent and unemotional. It merely discusses probable outcomes.
I don't know why people have such a strong reaction to observations of social/scientific patterns across time.