The Political Satire & Cartoon Thread II

[Axl Van Sixx]

 

[8wid]

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Greece under occupation again

Targeting the Iranian nuclear program

Being Muslim in the US

Prevent another Holocaust - bomb Iran!

 

[CGHulk]

edit.

 

[Smashlilman]

In The Know Panel Analyzes Obama's Furious, Profanity-Filled Rant At Nation

 

[Lighthouse]

In The Know Panel Analyzes Obama's Furious, Profanity-Filled Rant At Nation

The Onion is a national treasure.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

In The Know Panel Analyzes Obama's Furious, Profanity-Filled Rant At Nation

I actually find the Onion pieces have an irritating pro-Obama subtext, and this is the best example I've seen yet. It's always along the lines of, "this president has got sooo much on his plate. How can you be angry at him? Do you expect him to just wave a magic wand and fix everything?"

...which, coincidentally, is the same excuse brainwashed Democrats use when they want to explain why you should vote for a war criminal who rivals George W. Bush in his enthusiasm for war and contempt for civil liberties.

 

[8wid]

 

[Smashlilman]

Predator Drone TR425 Takes The Stand
[YT]LVCdLV3Xlbo[/YT]

 

[Smashlilman]

Panelists Discussing GOP Debate Clearly Didn't Watch It

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon

TEHRAN—Amidst mounting geopolitical tensions, Iranian officials said Wednesday they were increasingly concerned about the United States of America's uranium-enrichment program, fearing the Western nation may soon be capable of producing its 8,500th nuclear weapon. "Our intelligence estimates indicate that, if it is allowed to progress with its aggressive nuclear program, the United States may soon possess its 8,500th atomic weapon capable of reaching Iran," said Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, adding that Americans have the fuel, the facilities, and "everything they need" to manufacture even more weapons-grade fissile material. "Obviously, the prospect of this happening is very distressing to Iran and all countries like Iran. After all, the United States is a volatile nation that's proven it needs little provocation to attack anyone anywhere in the world whom it perceives to be a threat." Iranian intelligence experts also warned of the very real, and very frightening, possibility of the U.S. providing weapons and resources to a rogue third-party state such as Israel

 

[Shemtov]

Defending yourself from Hostiles is now Oppression?
EDIT Also, the Cartoonist obviously never heard of a Guy named Sharansky, WHO WORKS FOR THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT and came up with a system to differentiate between Anti-semetism and Legitimate Criticism of Israel. And that system consists of signs to tell when somebody criticizing Israel is being anti-semetic not of signs to tell when somebody criticizing Israel is Legitimately Criticizing Israel, thuis showing his belief that Legitimate Criticism of Israel is the norm.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Defending yourself from Hostiles is now Oppression?
EDIT Also, the Cartoonist obviously never heard of a Guy named Sharansky, WHO WORKS FOR THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT and came up with a system to differentiate between Anti-semetism and Legitimate Criticism of Israel. And that system consists of signs to tell when somebody criticizing Israel is being anti-semetic not of signs to tell when somebody criticizing Israel is Legitimately Criticizing Israel, thuis showing his belief that Legitimate Criticism of Israel is the norm.

If your government has been occupying somebody's land for 40 years, treating them as second-class citizens, demolishing their homes and attacking them with guns, tanks, F-16 fighter jets and white phosphorus, I can see why they might be a little "hostile".

But all those facts are invisible to you. Like the American media and political establishment, you look at Palestinian rocket attacks and asymmetrical warfare in a total vaccum, removed from the context of the occupation.

There's a bit of a difference between "defending yourself from hostiles" and collective punishment of an entire population (Gaza War of 2008-9).

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Funny 'cuz it's true.

 

[Shemtov]

If your government has been occupying somebody's land for 40 years, treating them as second-class citizens, demolishing their homes and attacking them with guns, tanks, F-16 fighter jets and white phosphorus, I can see why they might be a little "hostile".

But all those facts are invisible to you. Like the American media and political establishment, you look at Palestinian rocket attacks and asymmetrical warfare in a total vaccum, removed from the context of the occupation.

There's a bit of a difference between "defending yourself from hostiles" and collective punishment of an entire population (Gaza War of 2008-9).

Just like you view the Occupation in a total Vacuum, forgetting that the west Bank and Gaza were Captured only when Jordan, and Egypt began massing troops against Israel.
Also, The Balfour Declarations where Britain Declared all of Palestine west of the Jordan to be Jewish Country, and Palestine East of the Jordan (the State of Jordan) would be the Palestinian State. Jordan is the Palestinian State, just the Palestinian leaders were greedy and wanted more land, and deny it.
And the "collective punishment of an entire population" was actually attacks on Palestinian Missile Silos, which the Gazan Government put in civilian Areas, because they put hurting Israel in front of their own Citizens lives.
And you ignored the fact that the Cartoon is stupid, because their are PEOPLE WHO WORKED FOR THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT, who beleive in Legitimate criticism of Israel.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Just like you view the Occupation in a total Vacuum, forgetting that the west Bank and Gaza were Captured only when Jordan, and Egypt began massing troops against Israel.
Also, The Balfour Declarations where Britain Declared all of Palestine west of the Jordan to be Jewish Country, and Palestine East of the Jordan (the State of Jordan) would be the Palestinian State. Jordan is the Palestinian State, just the Palestinian leaders were greedy and wanted more land, and deny it.
And the "collective punishment of an entire population" was actually attacks on Palestinian Missile Silos, which the Gazan Government put in civilian Areas, because they put hurting Israel in front of their own Citizens lives.
And you ignored the fact that the Cartoon is stupid, because their are PEOPLE WHO WORKED FOR THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT, who beleive in Legitimate criticism of Israel.

You really want to play this game? We could go do this ad nauseum: "Palestinians are responding to A." "Oh, yeah? Israel was only responding to B." "Well, that's because Israel did C." "But you forget that Jordan and Egypt did D first", etc., etc.

I mean, I could mention the terrorist attacks of Jewish settlers prior to the declaration of the State of Israel and the ethnic cleansing that went on, just like you could then respond by mentioning the hostility of Israel's neighbours. We're obviously coming at this from two very different angles, so let's just agree to disagree.

You are right about one thing though: there is WAY more criticism of the Israeli government from within Israel itself than there is in the United States. It's crazy.

 

[The Overlord]

If your government has been occupying somebody's land for 40 years, treating them as second-class citizens, demolishing their homes and attacking them with guns, tanks, F-16 fighter jets and white phosphorus, I can see why they might be a little "hostile".

But all those facts are invisible to you. Like the American media and political establishment, you look at Palestinian rocket attacks and asymmetrical warfare in a total vaccum, removed from the context of the occupation.

There's a bit of a difference between "defending yourself from hostiles" and collective punishment of an entire population (Gaza War of 2008-9).

Its a two way street, just as one can be two sympathetic to the Israelis, one can be too sympathetic to the Palestinians. Its a gray issue, not a black and white one.

If more Palestinians used non violent resistance against the Israelis, more people would have sympathy for them. Likewise if the Israelis stopped building settlements in the disputed zones and withdraw to the 1948 borders, there would be less criticism of Israel.

Also when you think about it the land doesn't belong to either the Israelis or the Palestinians, it really belongs to the Canaanites. Frankly I would say neither of them truly has the rights to the land and I say just split the land between the two of them based on the 1948 borders, not because I care about any sort of claim either of them has on the land, but I think the world would be in better shape if this issue is resolved. Its a compromise, both sides have to give something up, its not perfect, but its the most realistic compromise possible. The Israelis will not give up their state and the Palestinians will not give up theirs, let them have one state each.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Its a two way street, just as one can be two sympathetic to the Israelis, one can be too sympathetic to the Palestinians. Its a gray issue, not a black and white one.

If more Palestinians used non violent resistance against the Israelis, more people would have sympathy for them. Likewise if the Israelis stopped building settlements in the disputed zones and withdraw to the 1948 borders, there would be less criticism of Israel.

Also when you think about it the land doesn't belong to either the Israelis or the Palestinians, it really belongs to the Canaanites. Frankly I would say neither of them truly has the rights to the land and I say just split the land between the two of them based on the 1948 borders, not because I care about any sort of claim either of them has on the land, but I think the world would be in better shape if this issue is resolved. Its a compromise, both sides have to give something up, its not perfect, but its the most realistic compromise possible. The Israelis will not give up their state and the Palestinians will not give up theirs, let them have one state each.

I just think it's funny that nobody ever demands that the Israelis "renounce violence".

Personally, I'm in favour of a one-state solution. The idea of a specifically Jewish state is antithetical to secular Enlightenment principles.

 

[The Overlord]

I just think it's funny that nobody ever demands that the Israelis "renounce violence".

Because there is a practical reason why the Palestinians shouldn't use violence, using violence against the Israelis just angers the Israelis and that would lead to the possibility of a war and the Palestinians have no chance of winning that war. The Palestinians should do everything to avoid such a war, because they would lose everything, they can't win and they would be completely driven out of those territories completely. If you are in a position were you cannot win through force, non violence is your only option. Its about logic, as well as morality. The Palestinians lost the 6 day war and were worse off then before, trying to get the Israelis really mad by blowing up their civilians could lead to war were they will lose everything.

Gandhi used non violent resistance not just because moral, but also practical.

Personally, I'm in favour of a one-state solution. The idea of a specifically Jewish state is antithetical to secular Enlightenment principles.

I doubt most Israelis would care about that, they would say the world has been mistreating Jews for centuries, so they need their own state to have an defender to prevent the mistreatment of Jews in the future. I don't think the Israelis are just "evil capitalists" who want ed to steal land from the Palestinians because they are evil and greedy, its more complex then that. Like wise I don't believe the Palestinians just attack the Israelis because they are "evil terrorists" I do think they have legitimate complaints against Israel. Again presenting this as black and white issue turns a complex issue into a Sat morning cartoon.

These people hate each other, I don't think putting them together in one country would a good idea, at all. Africa was craved up into states up the Europeans and often tribes who hated each other were put into the same country and that became a mess. I don't believe in a perfect world, so I have no problem with imperfect solutions to the problems of an imperfect world.

 

[Shemtov]

Its a two way street, just as one can be two sympathetic to the Israelis, one can be too sympathetic to the Palestinians. Its a gray issue, not a black and white one.

If more Palestinians used non violent resistance against the Israelis, more people would have sympathy for them. Likewise if the Israelis stopped building settlements in the disputed zones and withdraw to the 1948 borders, there would be less criticism of Israel.

Also when you think about it the land doesn't belong to either the Israelis or the Palestinians, it really belongs to the Canaanites. Frankly I would say neither of them truly has the rights to the land and I say just split the land between the two of them based on the 1948 borders, not because I care about any sort of claim either of them has on the land, but I think the world would be in better shape if this issue is resolved. Its a compromise, both sides have to give something up, its not perfect, but its the most realistic compromise possible. The Israelis will not give up their state and the Palestinians will not give up theirs, let them have one state each.

Those Borders are indefensible.

 

[The Overlord]

Those Borders are indefensible.

And wasting resources defending zealot settlers in the disputed zones is defensible? These settlements stretch the military and are a PR nightmare for Israel. To me the settlements are based on religion zealotry rather then anything rational and really occupying the disputed zones means that the Israelis have to govern a bunch of hostile Palestinians, which I don't think they want to do. To me concentrating resources on defending the 1948 borders is better, its not a PR nightmare and its easier to defend one small nation state, then trying to defend the nation state and many scattered settlements at once.

 

[Shemtov]

The Palestinians already have their own state; it's called Jordan.
Before 1922, Palestine consisted of:
Israel
The West bank
Gaza
and Jordan
Then Britain said that all of Palestine east of the Jordan was the Palestinian State and all land west would be the Jewish state.
However, The Leaders of the Palestinians, on both sides of the Jordan, were antisemitic, and didn't want the Jews too get any land. They began a propaganda campaign against their own followers and the world, that Palestinians east of the Jordan were not real Palestinians, and that therefore, the Palestinians were still owed their own state.

 

[The Overlord]

The Palestinians already have their own state; it's called Jordan.
Before 1922, Palestine consisted of:
Israel
The West bank
Gaza
and Jordan
Then Britain said that all of Palestine east of the Jordan was the Palestinian State and all land west would be the Jewish state.
However, The Leaders of the Palestinians, on both sides of the Jordan, were antisemitic, and didn't want the Jews too get any land. They began a propaganda campaign against their own followers and the world, that Palestinians east of the Jordan were not real Palestinians, and that therefore, the Palestinians were still owed their own state.

I don't think its feasible to think that the Palestinians would just want to move Jordan, that's a deal breaker right there. They will never agree to that, so its a non starter. Its like the Palestinian right of return, the Israelis will never agree to that, so its a non starter, there is no point in brining it up. This line of logic is not feasible.

Also frankly Britain was a colonial power in the Middle east, so I really don't care how they divided the land decades ago, they have less claim to it then either the Israelis or Palestinians. The fact is the Palestinians didn't have anything to do with the Holocaust or the Jews getting kicked out of Israel in 70 A.D by the Romans, so I do think they have some legitimate complaints in terms of them having to pay for something Germany did. That's why this is not a black and white issue, both sides have legitimate points.

I care about getting the most feasible and fair compromise today, not arguing about how the British divided up the Middle East in the 40s.

 

[Shemtov]

It's not about "how the British divided up the Middle East" it's the fact that the Jordanisns are Palestinians, which means Jordan is the Palestinian state.

 

[The Overlord]

It's not about "how the British divided up the Middle East" it's the fact that the Jordanisns are Palestinians, which means Jordan is the Palestinian state.

And modern Britain was founded by German tribes in the 5th century, hence the name Anglo Saxons, but no one would say the British and Germans are exactly the same or say you can just move Germans out their homes and into Britain and either the British or the Germans would be happy with that.

I again, I don't care whether the Palestinians are Jordanians or not, I care about getting the most feasible and fair solution today, not arguing about who was on what border in the 1920s.