Israel vs Palestinians

[85SugarVol]

It's more than a narrative, it's reality.

@n_huffhines here’s a poster that thinks Israel “deliberately bombs babies”

Somebody quote that so Huff sees it ^

 

[n_huffhines]

people are generally supportive and view positively that Tibetan monk that lit himself on fire. Not sure why this guy is viewed so different.

Because people don't want to acknowledge his cause. They're literally denying that he had one. Literal verbal denial. You can't make this up.

 

[hog88]

Because people don't want to acknowledge his cause. They're literally denying that he had one. Literal verbal denial. You can't make this up.

So what if he had a cause? It's his action that makes/made him a moron.

Well, so does his cause but that's another subject.

 

[n_huffhines]

His death will accomplish absolutely nothing, if he wanted to actually give his life for the cause he would have found his way to Gaza and fought for Hamas. The guy was a mentally unstable moron who killed himself for nothing.

You think his cause is Hamas and that means there is no bigger idiot on VN at the moment. Congrats.

Edit: I don't think you're actually an idiot, but you're being a idiot right now.

 

[EasternVol]

Oh yea, I can imagine the chatter at the IDF command node under the Kibbutz School

HQ, this is Bravo team, we have eyes on 6 to 7 toddlers currently toddling in sector four.
We have painted the target, you are clear to bomb the babies.

Something like that, like opening up on kids playing soccer on the beach.

 

[jp1]

Because people don't want to acknowledge his cause. They're literally denying that he had one. Literal verbal denial. You can't make this up.

I would argue that most people that I have read the response from are not denying he had a cause, more so denying his effort was useful/effective.

 

[hog88]

You think his cause is Hamas and that means there is no bigger idiot on VN at the moment. Congrats.

Let's say his cause was a free Palestine, or ending the war in Gaza or world peace or pick any cause. What will his killing himself accomplish? A person can do a whole lot more towards a cause alive than they can by committing suicide.

 

[Vol8188]

Because people don't want to acknowledge his cause. They're literally denying that he had one. Literal verbal denial. You can't make this up.

Literally no one has denied he had a cause.

 

[NashVol11]

I did ask the question somewhat out of ignorance, at least on my end. I think the point most have been making was, the act of self immolation is ineffective as a means of protest.

Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation was a catalyst for the Arab Spring as well

 

[85SugarVol]

I wonder if Airman Fuego’s parents view his act as righteous and worthy.

 

[n_huffhines]

Lol, dumbass. That was about Ras, not you.

The point remains. You called somebody a liar out of ignorance. This is why people put you on ignore.

 

[Vol8188]

I wonder if Airman Fuego’s parents view his act as righteous and worthy.

They’re probably upset with themselves for continuing to pay their taxes instead of getting out and doing something to make a difference like he did according to Huff

 

[Vol8188]

people are generally supportive and view positively that Tibetan monk that lit himself on fire. Not sure why this guy is viewed so different.

So you have a positive view of people who set themselves on fire for a cause and you believe that’s the view of the general public also?

I don’t think the majority view burning yourself alive as a noble act

 

[n_huffhines]

Let's say his cause was a free Palestine, or ending the war in Gaza or world peace or pick any cause. What will his killing himself accomplish? A person can do a whole lot more towards a cause alive than they can by committing suicide.

What do you want me to say? That he changed a million minds? It's impossible to say what the impact is or what/how he could've done something to make a bigger one. I'm not going to guess at that, but you guys certainly seem comfortable doing so.

 

[McDad]

Eventually it didn't work out how he wanted, but he did help change the government.

The US military changed the government.

 

[n_huffhines]

The US military changed the government.

And this had absolutely nothing to do with the awareness the monks brought to it?

Reminds me of the flood victim praying for God to save him.

 

[McDad]

Left some out, and I would bold different passages personally:



Hard to say that changed nothing, IMO

There are things you are aware of today that you weren't aware of a few years ago. Certainly, you are much more knowledgeable about the world and your unique place in it today than you were as a teenager. Hopefully we are all experiencing that maturation.
Awareness only becomes tangibly important if and when it creates action. In these cases of self immolation, action which changes the circumstances. Based on the wiki article, this monk and others who followed his tactics did nothing but kill themselves. The US was responsible for regime change. Was the US military motivated to action by burning monks? Honestly, i don't know. But I am dubious.

 

[McDad]

how so? if anything I am empathetic to him and willing to see him as human instead of casually dismissing something simply because I don't agree with his intents.

That's a wonderful quality. You're a good man to have that level of empathy.

I see it as an incredible waste of the gift of life.

I am admittedly more cynical and jaded than you.

 

[NashVol11]

There are things you are aware of today that you weren't aware of a few years ago. Certainly, you are much more knowledgeable about the world and your unique place in it today than you were as a teenager. Hopefully we are all experiencing that maturation.
Awareness only becomes tangibly important if and when it creates action. In these cases of self immolation, action which changes the circumstances. Based on the wiki article, this monk and others who followed his tactics did nothing but kill themselves. The US was responsible for regime change. Was the US military motivated to action by burning monks? Honestly, i don't know. But I am dubious.

Drawing the attention of people around the world including the U.S. President, increasing international pressure and leading to announced reforms as a direct result are all changed circumstances, and inarguably so. It seems like you’re saying anything short of single-handedly ending the conflict is a failure, which is laughably unfair

 

[McDad]

And this had absolutely nothing to do with the awareness the monks brought to it?

Reminds me of the flood victim praying for God to save him.

You of all people should be wary conflating correlation and causation. Unless you can find evidence that US leadership got involved because of monk's committing suicide, you can't honestly make the claim. Well, not true. You can make the claim but it lacks veracity.

 

[McDad]

Drawing the attention of people around the world including the U.S. President, increasing international pressure and leading to announced reforms as a direct result are all changed circumstances, and inarguably so. It seems like you’re saying anything short of single-handedly ending the conflict is a failure, which is laughably unfair

You are arguing with the wiki article, not me.

However, the promised reforms were not implemented, leading to a deterioration in the dispute.

 

[n_huffhines]

You of all people should be wary conflating correlation and causation. Unless you can find evidence that US leadership got involved because of monk's committing suicide, you can't honestly make the claim. Well, not true. You can make the claim but it lacks veracity.

OK, I admit that IDK everything about the geopolitics of this. I've read some books but it's been years...but we were already involved in supporting South Vietnam and then after the monks were self-immolating, we supported a coup of Dinh Diem. This is a guy we had previously supported in preventing free elections, and then we flipped on him.

You are right that correlation is not causation, but we got a hell of a correlation here, and I'm confused about why you are concluding that it had no impact. Based on what?

 

[85SugarVol]

The point remains. You called somebody a liar out of ignorance. This is why people put you on ignore.

No… I called Ras a liar about Ignore because he lies about Ignore.

Good to see you can’t even own a blatant mistake. Keep up your noble work.

 

[Vol8188]

The point remains. You called somebody a liar out of ignorance. This is why people put you on ignore.

Weird, because you’ve been openly lying for sometime in this thread now. I’m not convinced it’s out of ignorance either.

Because people don't want to acknowledge his cause. They're literally denying that he had one. Literal verbal denial. You can't make this up.

Who is actually saying it's "deliberate"?

 

[McDad]

OK, I admit that IDK everything about the geopolitics of this. I've read some books but it's been years...but we were already involved in supporting South Vietnam and then after the monks were self-immolating, we supported a coup of Dinh Diem. This is a guy we had previously supported in preventing free elections, and then we flipped on him.

You are right that correlation is not causation, but we got a hell of a correlation here, and I'm confused about why you are concluding that it had no impact. Based on what?

My conclusion is neither impact or not. My conclusion is that these events happened in sequence but we don't know the extent to which the first event had on the second. It's the same connectivity conspiracy theorists use. This isn't a conspiracy and you are not a CT. Using that connect-the-dots approach CT's use to discuss the same methodology here.
My most ardent conclusion is that even after the monks killed themselves, what was promised was not delivered. Only then, did the US military get involved....which I don't like. I am becoming more isolationist over time. I believe we will see that with the fella who killed himself to protest israeli-palestinian relations. We are all likely to go to our graves with that conflict continuing.