One extrajudicial killing and you wanna call it off? By that reasoning, elections don’t solve social issues either.

But I get it: murder bad.

I’m arguing (and have been) that Egypt is looking out for Egypt only. Allowing Palestinian refugees introduces a possible liability for the Egyptian government to deal with down the line.

You’re right. I’m a monster for allowing myself to try and rationalize the actions of a government instead of assuming all they do comes from a place of humanity.

Governments are not people, they do not act as such. At best they are corporations with the endgoal of “stay in power” instead of shareholder value.

The case of the Palestinians now pretty neatly fits into “give up the chance of ever getting back”

No, individuals having to watch this on the border have it rough and the entire situation is shit, but Cairo playing realpolitik on the matter of refugees is not something I can reasonably fault them for: they are elected to prioritize Egypt’s interest, and allowing a group that may reasonably become a southern Hezbollah is in direct conflict with that mission.

Allowing mothers and children is the human thing to do, but with no actionable plan to return them, they become a liability with a fuse of some 16-20 years.

It is an emergency, but will the next one be on Egypt’s border, or Gaza’s is the question they seem to be asking.

Palestinians seem to have had no say up to this point, why change course now? I know why, but it’s mighty inconvenient for any powers that be.

Finally, Your Trail of Tears analogy is really strained. As far as I know there was (and still is) no hope of tribes getting their land back, the tribes had a designated “indian territories” they were being relegated to. as opposed to the Palestinians who have the destination of “not here”.

This abuts with the “right of return” arguments. If Palestinians were allowed to leave, would Israel permit them to return to the Gaza Strip, or would the front of Palestinian resistance instead shift to Egypt’s border?

I know where my money is, but…

Story is kinda optional. Depends on the genre. I’m big into Factorio and Dwarf Fortress, which go light (kinda? Df is a story generator?) on story, but big on mechanics.

That doesn’t refute the point? It just means that Musk has a grasp on politics inferior to a gifted 10 year old.

I’m pretty sure the “suffering of their people” was one of the major causes for their actions on 7OCT2023. Not the only cause, but a major one.

Unless they are his chosen people and then fuck the rest of us, I guess.

I’m sure he recognizes this, but also recognizes that he won’t be on the first front of that particular fight.

Israel’s security doctrine, it’s that Israel will defend itself, by itself—and rely on no other country to fight its battles

Huh. Their track record of having US assistance in every conflict kinda flies in the face of that.

Unless by “to fight its battles” is taken quite literally to mean boots on the ground.

Lets be real, France didn’t have a great track record of picking winning leaders.

So in our store-brand French revolution, we’re probably gonna go through quite a few Robespierres.

I dont blame the corporations. I blame the government.

I understand that corporations do what they do to further their prime directive (profit maximizing, as I figure), but blaming the government for not sufficiently innoculating itself against them is kinda wild to me. Yes, Citizens United is an abomination, but even if it weren’t the current meta, corporations would still do their utmost to influence the levers of power to their own ends.

Really, I’m more appalled at Yoon on this one. What kind of ignorant chump fails to gain the unquestionable support of the military before going all in on a military coup?

I adore this back-and-forth, but is the metaphor here doing anything any more?

Do Australian police typically wear full kit and bandanas to photograph drug busts?

Garbage argument anyway since they must know that even had Harris won, the next president might abuse it. To leave it an open vulnerability because ‘our guy won’t abuse it’ is asking for trouble.

The ‘don’t go fishing with just one mormon/evangelical/etc.’ argument.

The accountability partner being his son (over whom he has some power) kinda nullifies the concept.

Or a severely unsettling candy-cane stovepipe hat.

Sometimes? Its somewhat analagous to “foreign”. At least in my circles.