To be fair, in the aughts the US George W. Bush administration totally did torture for no good reason (except so that plutocrats could enjoy knowing brown people were suffering) and the US public let them get away with it, and even let the congressional report stay classified.

The Palestinian genocide's been part of the plan for a century now, though it was originally a British colonial plan.

The only difference now is that news media moguls don't control the narrative. Hopefully that's enough to get them to stop, but I doubt it.

Watching Iran's recent attempted revolution, violence is always unthinkable until the hour it's inevitable. They'll keep killing until enough people decide collectively it's time to kill back. Our plutocrats would rather scorch the Earth than lose their power, and this is exactly what is happening. Even if we just want them to be part of an egalitarian society with the rest of us.

I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing that Mahsa Amini has to die before Molotov cocktails are thrown and precincts are burned, if that is what is necessary to stop genocide. The problem is, it isn't going to help Mahsa Amini. It didn't help Armita Geravand. Whoever triggers the next public unrest won't be helped either, so this paradigm sucks.

So I wonder if all of Palestine will have to be lost before the people of the world are willing to take seriously the threat that our plutocratic elite present to the rest of us (and themselves). I hope not. But then I'm afraid the death of five million Palestinians still won't be enough.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The US did it not because they hate brown people, but because they value profit over brown people. The racism was profit-driven, out of pure greed for the military industrial complex, not because old neighbor Jim hates Muslims.

The sheer scale of war crimes the US has committed worldwide is purely out of desire for ever-increasing profits at the cost of unimagimable cruelty to human beings it considers unworthy of sympathy.

In 1991, for example, the US bombed an Iraqi air raid shelter housing women and children, murdering 408 people. On the lower floor, there was a liquified 1 inch layer of human fat, and multiple bodies fused together.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 7 points 6 months ago

Donald Rumsfield and Dickhole Cheney. Raytheon and Halliburton.

It's beyond disgusting.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 6 months ago

Oh, when it comes to torture, we can rule out actual proper interrogation, given the military (and CIA) were schooled enough to know the techniques developed by Hanns Scharff (which do not require violence or cruelty) are far more effective than enhanced interrogation. To the contrary, Rumsfeld actively sought to circumvent Geneva Convention proscriptions against torture, even trying to suggest waterboarding isn't torture. (Plenty of pundits, whether right-wing and trying to be macho, or left-wing and trying to demonstrate that they are being impartial, got waterboarded by SERE to get a first-hand experience, and they all found it was unbearable, traumatic and caused lasting -- possibly permanent -- psychological symptoms. It est, waterboarding looks, smells, waddles and quacks like torture.)

The only reason people were tortured by agents of the United States, either by the US armed forces, or by CIA in its extrajudicial detention and enhanced interrogation program, is because plutocrats with influence within the government wanted revenge over 9/11 and blamed every Arab Muslim in existence, and wanted them to suffer.

This doesn't necessarily inform the countless other war crimes that were committed in the global War on Terror, or Iraqi Freedom, but there really is no strategic or diplomatic reason to torture, so it had to be done for aristocratic kicks.

[–] Shampiss@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why would Britain want a Palestinian genocide?

And are you saying that a nation other than Gaza and maybe Iran planned the October 7 attacks?

[–] the_best_nerd@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Land

Israel

[–] Shampiss@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

What is more likely?

Hamas's founding document states their purpose is to eliminate Israel. Then they attack Israel

Britain wants land, their best plan is war in the middle east. Israel thinks that allowing an attack on itself and starting a military conflict in the middle east is a reliable and reasonable plan.

My guy, there's no one controlling the world. The world is a mess. World leaders are not playing 4D chess with each other. They're just looking out for the next election. Why do you so quickly go to conspiracy rather than incompetence? The world is chaotic because people are incompetent and there's 8 Billion of them.

[–] the_best_nerd@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

No one's playing 4D chess but it's not wise to think people aren't opportunistic, or might be following in the footsteps of people who came before - remember the US contra affairs? This kind of shit has been happening forever, and truthfully - even without literally funding their national bogeyman, there's a lot of things one can do to create their own enemy. Have you ever wondered why Hamas hates Israel? I'll give you a hint - it has to do with powerful people colonizing land.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Hamas began twenty years into the occupation during the first Intifada, with the goal of ending the occupation. Collective punishment has been a deliberate Israeli tactic for decades with the Dahiya doctrine. Violence such as suicide bombings and rockets escalated in response to Israeli enforcement of the occupation and apartheid.

Hamas 1988 Charter and Revised 2017 Charter

The 1988 Charter, which is certainly unreasonable in its fundamentalism with Sharia Law and is antisemitic, does not call for the extermination of all Jewish People. Hamas wants an end to Israel as an Apartheid State, not an extermination of all Israelis. Under Ahmed Yassin in the 1990's, truces were offered in exchange for Israeli to withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank to the 1967 borders. The 2017 Revised charter explicitly accepts a Two-State Solution of the 1967 Borders. Check Article 7 and 13 of the 1988 Charter to see yourself, compare it to Article 20 and 24-26 in the revised charter.

The slogan From the River to the Sea is about Palestinian liberation that started in the 60s by the PLO for a democratic secular state, not Genocide. The Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad in 1966 maybe, but he's not Palestinian.

History of Hamas supported by Netanyahu since 2012

[–] Shampiss@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

Nice info. Ty