October 7th: The Crumbling Facade of a Western Security Asset

a reply to: BigRedChew

I've spent the last seven bloody months arguing against the Jew haters.

They have tried nearly every tactic to debase, insult, disparage the Jews and the nation of Israel.

Your tactics are not new, nor are the innovative or creative.

Finals week over?

a reply to: DBCowboy


It’s clear that instead of engaging in a substantive debate, you’re content to throw around baseless accusations and dismiss anyone who doesn’t align perfectly with your views. Accusing me of “Jew hatred” for critically analyzing Israel’s geopolitical strategies is not just irresponsible; it’s intellectually dishonest and frankly, a lazy defense mechanism.

Your efforts to trivialize my arguments by likening them to a student’s “finals week” activity are both condescending and indicative of your unwillingness to address the real issues. If your position is so robust, why not dismantle my arguments with facts instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks and smears?

This conversation could have been an opportunity for a genuine exchange of ideas, but you’ve chosen to reduce it to accusations and mockery. If you’re as dedicated to fighting hatred as you claim, start by recognizing the difference between hate speech and legitimate criticism. Until you do, you’re not defending anyone or anything—you’re just shouting into the wind. Let’s see if you can elevate this discussion beyond insults, or if that’s all you have left.

a reply to: BigRedChew

I treat the Jew haters the way I do because I don't want to grant them the illusion of credibility.

a reply to: BigRedChew

Not only did you not learn in those law classes, you did not learn in speech class ether.

You must always adjust your vocabulary to the intended audience. In this case, the general public. Your polysyllabic renderings of your speech are loosing a vast part of your reading audience

Just a helpful suggestion that might get more people engaged in your discussions, turn it down some.

a reply to: DBCowboy


Your approach of labeling anyone who offers a critique of Israel as a "Jew hater" is not just intellectually lazy; it's a glaring example of your inability to engage in critical discourse. You default to this accusation to avoid the hard work of debate, which requires addressing specific points and acknowledging complexities, not just dismissing opposing views out of hand.

By refusing to distinguish between legitimate criticism and actual hate speech, you’re not protecting anyone—you’re undermining the very credibility you claim to uphold. This isn't about granting illusions of credibility; it's about being intellectually honest and open to examining all facets of a geopolitical issue.

You seem more interested in silencing discussion than enhancing understanding, which is a disservice to everyone involved in this conversation. If you can’t participate in a reasoned discussion without resorting to reductionist labels and avoidance tactics, then it’s you who lacks credibility, not those you disagree with. Step up with substantial arguments, or step aside and let those capable of nuanced discussion take the floor.

a reply to: BigRedChew

This will be my last response to you and here’s why:

1. I’ve been teaching High Schoolers all day and my brain is tired.

2. You’ve already denied Israel the dignity of their own historical personhood by your comments in your last thread. How in the hell could anyone’s argument with your “points” ever gain any traction when you’ve denied an entire race basic personhood? You’ve robbed them of their recorded history, basically calling Hebrews “fictitious” because you disregard any historical record of them as mythos and unsubstantiated cultural legend? I choose not to waste my time that is better spent mindlessly scrolling through ATS or Facebook, rather than crafting responses to your *checks notes* “substantive arguments.”

Your arguments aren’t substantive. They are merely outward expressions of an inward bitterness against an entire race of people that you clearly only seek to examine from a myopic prejudice perspective.

Good day, Felicia.

a reply to: BigRedChew

Not at all, offer something better than something that's distilled to "Joos er bad" and I might entertain it.

a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3


Your condescension is noted, but it misses the mark. My vocabulary is perfectly suited to the depth and seriousness of the issues we're discussing. If the complexity of my language is your biggest critique, then it seems you’re struggling to find substantial faults with the arguments themselves.

Suggesting that I "turn it down" to cater to the audience is not only patronizing to the readers—it's an attempt to dilute the robustness of this debate. We're discussing intricate geopolitical matters, not simple everyday topics. If the audience is as intelligent as I believe them to be, they can handle, appreciate, and engage with complex ideas and terminology.

Instead of policing language, perhaps focus on elevating your own arguments. The general public, whom you're so concerned about, deserves a well-argued debate, not a watered-down one. Let’s keep the standards high and the discourse sharp, shall we?

a reply to: Lapidoth
I

Your decision to bow out of this discussion underscores your inability to address the nuances of historical analysis and critique. Contrary to your claim, my discussion of biblical narratives and their archaeological and historical examinations does not deny any group "basic personhood" or their recorded history. It challenges traditional narratives using scholarly evidence to promote a more nuanced understanding of history, which is essential in any academic or intellectual discourse.

Accusing me of diminishing an entire race's history because I present critical scholarly perspectives on biblical narratives is not just an over-simplification—it’s a gross misrepresentation of the argument at hand. Historical critique is not an attack on a people; it’s a reexamination of the stories and contexts that shape our understanding of the past. If such discussions threaten your worldview to the extent that you prefer scrolling through social media rather than engaging in substantive debate, it reflects more on your intellectual stamina than on the validity of the points raised.

Your use of dismissive and demeaning language like "Good day, Felicia" only highlights the lack of seriousness with which you approach this debate. If you’re going to engage in discussions on complex historical and political issues, be prepared to encounter and engage with challenging perspectives without resorting to personal attacks or flippant dismissals.

If this truly is your last response, it’s a pity you choose to end on such a note, avoiding meaningful engagement. Those interested in genuine understanding and discourse will, thankfully, look beyond such tactics.

a reply to: BigRedChew

Again, you are entirely failing to engage your audience in your discussion by not discussing as a normal human would. Remember, you are not writing a law paper, you are not writing a prestigious collegiate volume that is the end of all information on the subject.

You subject is another matter but I can see your wording as off putting or bordering on being Artificial Intelligence created.

a reply to: BigRedChew

You mentioned being in law school in another thread which makes me wonder if you're using ATS for practice to hone your skills. You've certainly got 'talking in circles' and 'flowery language' down. In fact, I think you're ready to become one of those career politicians everybody loves to hate!

Fifty years of shooting children in occupied territory

You missed the part where they've had 50 years of unprovoked attacks on their own citizens by a violent group that wants to kill every person on the planet that doesen't worship their version of God.

a reply to: DBCowboy


Your flippant reduction of my detailed critique to "Joos er bad" is not only an egregious misrepresentation of my argument but a clear indication of your refusal—or inability—to engage with the complexity of the issues at hand. This kind of mockery is a cheap tactic to sidestep the substantive critique of Israeli policies and geopolitical actions that I've outlined. It does nothing to further the conversation and everything to display your lack of serious engagement.

If you're truly interested in debate, then respond to the specifics of my arguments about the strategic, legal, and moral implications of Israel's policies, rather than distorting my words into a caricature. The challenge was to address the points raised, not to caricature them. Your failure to do so speaks volumes about your approach to discourse. It's easy to dismiss and deride; it takes intellectual courage to engage thoughtfully and critically.

Stop hiding behind snide remarks and show some capacity for actual debate. Offer a counter-argument, substantiate your claims, or admit that you’re out of your depth here. Until then, your responses are nothing more than noise, contributing nothing of value.

a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3

It's quite telling that your primary critique remains fixated on the style of my language rather than the substance of the arguments. This continued focus on how I present my points, rather than what those points actually convey, suggests a lack of substantial counterarguments on your part. Accusing me of not engaging like a "normal human" simply because the discussion demands a higher level of discourse reflects poorly on your readiness to tackle serious geopolitical issues.

If the depth and rigor of my language is so off-putting, it's perhaps because it challenges you to step outside simplistic narratives and engage with complex realities that don't fit neatly into everyday banter. This isn't about dumbing down content to make it palatable; it's about elevating the discussion to where it needs to be to foster genuine understanding and debate.

Instead of critiquing the delivery, I'd challenge you to rise to the occasion and address the content. Can you refute the points made, or will you continue to hide behind the veneer of language critique? Your attempts to police my expression are a transparent effort to divert from your inability to engage with the core issues at hand. Let's see if you can bring more to the table than just style critiques.

a reply to: nugget1

Firstly, your attempt to discredit my arguments by suggesting I'm just practicing law school exercises on ATS is a poor strategy to sidestep the real issues. If the best you can do is accuse me of "talking in circles" and using "flowery language," then it's clear you're struggling to directly address the points I've raised. This isn't a practice session; it's a serious discussion about complex geopolitical dynamics, which seems to be something you're either overlooking or intentionally ignoring.

Regarding your claim about "50 years of unprovoked attacks," it’s essential to correct your gross oversimplification and mischaracterization of the conflict. To portray the violence as entirely unprovoked and to frame it as one side wanting to "kill every person on the planet that doesn't worship their version of God" is not only inaccurate but dangerously misleading. The historical and ongoing violence in the region is deeply rooted in a complex web of political, territorial, and nationalistic disputes, with provocations and retaliations from both sides. Ignoring the provocations by Israeli policies, such as the expansion of settlements, military checkpoints, and the blockade of Gaza, contributes to a one-sided and biased narrative that does nothing to promote understanding or peace.

Your simplification of the conflict serves only to fan the flames of division, rather than fostering any real insight or solutions. If you're going to participate in this debate, I challenge you to bring more nuanced and factually accurate arguments to the table. Dismissing the legitimate and well-documented grievances that have led to retaliatory attacks against Israel does not contribute to a truthful or productive discussion. Let's aim for a higher standard of debate, shall we?

a reply to: BigRedChew

What if I just countered this with, "They should just get it the hell over with and slaughter the red cow on The Mount of Olives, raze Al Aqsa to the ground, and build the 3rd temple ahead of messianic schedule!"

Just baiting, right?

I like in between better. Where Iran knocks it the f*ck off and Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia all return to the Abraham agreements.

Before 10/7, and for a few moths after, I was against giving Mecca an inroad to East Jerusalem. "Why does Islam need EVERY holy site?"

But it's an important Mosque. And I'm not for swapping it out for a 3rd Temple, I'd prefer Saudi Arabia take over as "Guardian of The Islamic Holy Places".

In the similar way Jordan and Saudi Arabia deployed military assets in indirect defense of Israel against Iran.

Why bother clinging to this crap, if Iran goes away, and Israel goes through their post-Netanyahu progressive shift, peace is possible. Israel is democratic, and Netanyahu likely wont survive this politically.

I feel that once Saudi Arabia recognizes Israel sovereignty (it is possible), the ginger cow slaughter is moot, and the impossible comes to pass.

A Third Temple could get build alongside the still-standing mosque, and be connected by a "Friendship Plaza".

It could happen.



Sorry to keep using South Pak, but they are better than The Simpsons for prophetic social commentary.

a reply to: DBCowboy

*yawn* Basically a word salad to justify you hating on Jews.

50 cent words and a bunch of them makes some feel superior to others. it's sad but true.

a reply to: Degradation33


Your comment borders on reckless, showcasing a profound disregard for the complex and sensitive nature of the issues at play. Suggesting actions like slaughtering the red cow, demolishing Al Aqsa, and preemptively constructing the Third Temple are not just provocative—they're inflammatory and deeply disrespectful to the religious and cultural significance these sites hold for millions.

The casual manner in which you toss around scenarios involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel under the guise of the Abraham Accords ignores the grave realities of regional politics. Peace and diplomacy are not games to be played on whimsical boards of geopolitical fantasy. They require serious, thoughtful engagement with the actual histories, grievances, and aspirations of all parties involved.

To propose that Saudi Arabia take over as the "Guardian of The Islamic Holy Places" without considering the intricate religious, historical, and political dynamics between the Islamic nations, especially Jordan’s current role, is to simplify matters to the point of absurdity. The guardianship of holy sites is not a mere token to be passed around but a deeply rooted duty respected by the international community.

And the idea of building a Third Temple next to the Al Aqsa Mosque connected by a "Friendship Plaza"? This isn't just unrealistic; it's indicative of a complete misunderstanding or disregard for the tension and historical conflicts surrounding these sites. Such proposals need more than naive optimism; they require a grounded understanding of the profound implications such actions would have.

If you're going to engage in this conversation, you need to approach it with the gravity and respect it demands. This isn't a matter for idle speculation or fantasy—real lives and centuries of history are at stake. Step up with a more nuanced and responsible perspective, or step aside for those who grasp the weight of these discussions.

a reply to: BigRedChew

Wasn't that what they were talking about before Iran's proxy play using Hamas?

And I think it can be remarkably simple. Fickle and stupid are dominant social attributes.

Saudis have been pushing for the Guardian duties since the Abraham Accords were established. They supported it and saw it as a way to gain administrative control.

I'm all for that. Saudis are THE Islamic country with THE MOST sway. They get their wants, recognize Israel in a world shattering agreement, and militancy falls out of favor.

Like something trendy, Saudis are the freaking Kardashians of Muslim fashion. Iran and proxies find themselves on the outside of the new opinion.

It starts with something as simple as Alpha Dog Muslim country taking control and leading by example.

Tensions can be reprogrammed by influential likes. Saudis provide all the likes needed to to reprogram the opinion on Israel.

Herds are too simplistic to be nuanced. Nuance is born from leaders and followers being their most basic form.

a reply to: BigRedChew

I'm following you and can see what you're saying. It makes sense to me considering that the West's facade is crumbling, so countries like Israel, who are buddies with the U.S., will likely crumble along with it, even if just a little sooner and faster. The hadjis would think of that as the little Satan and the Big Satan beginning to fall.

@BigRedChew


I am getting huge amount of AI generated content from your replys to this thread. Most your replys were 100% AI generated by using two detectors ,GPTzero and copyleaks .

You want to explain why you reply with AI generated content to this thread ?