Does the "reign in the influence of Israel" movement need a Tucker Carlson to be credible?

Yeshua HaDerekh · Jul 10, 2025

Desk trauma said:
Yeah that’s the propaganda. Reality is it’s a totally one way relationship with us subsidizing and enabling Israel for no benefit to US interests.

No it's not. We invest in many countries technologies if they are in our interests.

ThatRobGuy · Jul 10, 2025

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Here are some status before the war

Life in GAZA

GDP per capita $5K

Unemployment rate 25%

Infant Morality 12%

Maternal Morality 20%

Below poverty level 60%

Safe drinking Water 80%

This describes life in Gaza before Israel took any action, when the world sent $2 billion annually in aid.

I never heard anyone complain about the life in Gaza under their elected officials, Hamas.

Suddenly, many people are concerned about 70% of civilian infrastructure in Gaza.

Where were they when 60% of Gaza's civilians lived in poverty and only 80% had access to safe drinking water?

That'd be like saying

Life in Flint Michigan in the years following the plant closures:
Unemployment rate - 22%
Infant Mortality - 8%
Maternal Mortality - 7%
Below Poverty Level - 49%
Safe drinking water - Virtually none of the public water was safe
Receiving large amounts of state and federal aid

If some entity came in, by force, and leveled a third of the schools, hospitals, grocery stores, and 70% of the homes... (and killed 6% of the population and forced another 8% to flee in the process)

Would "I didn't see you guys saying you were concerned about Flint before" be a justifiable dismissal of people's concerns?

The reality is, with all of those bad statistics you mentioned, leveling 70% of civilian infrastructure just adds "high homeless rate" and "high malnutrition rate" to that list.

ThatRobGuy · Jul 10, 2025

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
No it isn't. We provide intelligence that we can and so do they. Israel is VERY high tech. We support our ally. the US invests in to technology here and abroad if it is in our interests...

What exactly have they developed that has been in our interests or that has helped us?

I'm aware of a few laser guiding systems and some drone tech that we've adopted from them.

Although, we're not "partners in that", we're financial backers in the R&D, then in turn, customers.

We give them tanks, missiles, no-strings-attached cash transfers, fighter jets, and $2 billion a year of defense research money.

When they develop anything usable, they sell it to us at full market value via commercial transactions. What a swell "partnership".

But if those types of arrangements seem fair...
I have a business proposal for you. I'm quite skilled when it comes to communications software.

You give $15 million so that I can have the time and resources to develop a new encrypted messaging system, and if it turns out to be a winner, I'll let you buy from me for another $3 million dollars. I'll also be selling it to a bunch of other people for $3 million a pop as well, as well as leveraging it for myself to spy on and crush my competitors. I'll also use a lot of the money I make from it to throw cash incentives at board members from your company to make sure they all vote to give me more project contracts in the future.

Now... you won't be getting a discount on the price, nor any sort of kickback on the profits I make selling it to all those other people, but that's not important...what's important is that you'll be able to sleep soundly knowing that you're not an AntiRobite and that we're super best friends. Do we have a deal?

The fact that people even try to deny the glaring asymmetry in the US/Israel relationship is bordering on the comically absurd.

The "partnership" we have with Israel is liken to the "partnership" I have with my brother when me & m'lady go out to eat with him and his GF at a nice restaurant. He recommends a "great bottle of wine we need to get for the table", and I pick up the tab for all 4 people on my Amex.

eclipsenow · Jul 10, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
Valid points... however, my underlying premise was that the "reign in the influence of Israel" efforts aren't being done any favors by having cheerleaders celebrating other problematic ideologies. People are left with the impression "So to critique Israel, I have to pretend that Palestinian & Iranian culture, left to its own devices, is some sort of beautiful thing worth embracing??"

I don't think it's a valid approach to try to critique Israeli governance by pretending that "everyone who's against Israel must be 'the good guy'"

I've used the cartel wars as an example before.

The Medellin Cartel was brutal, murderous, and lacked any and all empathy... their main rival was the Cali Cartel (who was not quite as bad, they tried to be a little less violent, but still pretty bad). I don't think someone's advocacy would be done any favors by wearing a pro-Pacho shirt to demonstrate how "anti-Escobar" they were.

As far as our involvement being the motivation for Islamic terrorism, I don't know that theory holds as much water as people think it does.

The history of conflicts with the Barbary pirates show that one doesn't need to be interventionist in order to draw Islamic ire towards those who are non-Muslim.

I still remember this infamous "Hitch-slap" in which Hitchens put Bill Maher in his place when Bill was trying to assert that the main reason Islamic fundamentalists hate us is because we intervene in middle eastern affairs.

I say all of that to basically say: It doesn't do anyone any favors to try to protest Israel's violations by giving lip service to ideologies that would be just as problematic even if Israel didn't exist.

That's why I think it's important that some mainstream critiques of Israel come from sources that aren't going to try coddle Islamism in the process.

There is a lot here I agree with. Both sides have plenty of blame to go around.

However - America does prop up one side which is running the world's largest concentration camp. Why?

On slavery I'll take Hitchens story at face value.
But historically Western "Christian" nations also practiced slavery "based on the Bible" because it was in the economic interests to read the Bible that way.

I've read good chunks of the Koran and a fair bit about Islam - but am a little rusty on its attitude to slavery. I thought the idea of kidnapping someone like that was condemned? As long as people of the book paid their tax - they were ok?

Christians, Jews and Moslems all lived peacefully in the bible lands before 1948. Then Jews marched in and kicked over half a million Palestinians out of their land and started generations of this mess. That's not to generate whatever the previous geopolitics of the nations were doing - but the way the British Empire and WW1 had recently carved up and redefined the whole area kind of made those concerns irrelevant anyway.

Also Iran was a fairly secure democracy until the USA decided they had no right to nationalise their oil. So they instigated that whole mess with the Shah - who the Iranians hates - which sparked the rise of the fundamentalists we have problems with today.

Yeshua HaDerekh · Jul 10, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
What exactly have they developed that has been in our interests or that has helped us?

I'm aware of a few laser guiding systems and some drone tech that we've adopted from them.

Although, we're not "partners in that", we're financial backers in the R&D, then in turn, customers.

We give them tanks, missiles, no-strings-attached cash transfers, fighter jets, and $2 billion a year of defense research money.

LOL where do I start? A big one is farming...drip irrigation. Trophy Active Protection System (APS), Iron Fist Light Configuration, Common Laser Range Finder,Skystar 180, ADM-141 TALD, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, Reactive Armor Tiles, UAVs, AI, cybersecurity, space technologies and other military tech.

We don't give anyone anything, they BUY it or invest in it.

ThatRobGuy · Jul 10, 2025

eclipsenow said:
However - America does prop up one side which is running the world's largest concentration camp. Why?

Because AIPAC has been effective in their lobbying.

eclipsenow said:
On slavery I'll take Hitchens story at face value.
But historically Western "Christian" nations also practiced slavery "based on the Bible" because it was in the economic interests to read the Bible that way.

I fact checked the Hitchens claim, it's legit, both in the numbers of slaves the Barbary Corsairs took, as well as their ambassadors justification for why they did it.

Barbary corsairs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to take slaves from, and make war upon, nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet are sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

eclipsenow said:
I've read good chunks of the Koran and a fair bit about Islam - but am a little rusty on its attitude to slavery. I thought the idea of kidnapping someone like that was condemned? As long as people of the book paid their tax - they were ok?

eclipsenow said:
Also Iran was a fairly secure democracy until the USA decided they had no right to nationalise their oil. So they instigated that whole mess with the Shah - who the Iranians hates - which sparked the rise of the fundamentalists we have problems with today.

I actually touched on this in another recent thread, I can dig up all of the posts or link their here if you're interested...but the Iranians actually saw more prosperity, greater social equality, the fastest growing middle class in the region, and more oil revenue from their oil and more personal freedoms under the Shah than they did under the predecessors. (net, of course... there were obviously some freedoms the Shah did restrict) Hence the reason during the 2017 and 2022 mass protests in Iran, the common chant was "Shah, Bless your soul".
(I also linked a piece by a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was the first Female judge in Iran - which happened under the Shah - who had it taken away by the Ayatollah, who notes that people were so obsessed with the "thrill of revolution" that they weren't thinking straight, and she apologized to the current generation for her generation's part in overthrowing the Shah to make way for the system they're stuck with now)

If you're interested, I can link the thread...

Fantine · Jul 10, 2025

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
I agree with your support for Israel; we're on the same page.

US aid to Israel, whether $3 billion or $10 billion annually, is a relatively small amount.

But , If I must compromise with those who do not support unconditional aid to Israel, I am willing to make concessions. Given a choice between no aid or providing aid when needed, I would choose to provide aid to Israel.

And the way to do that is to deny access to many of the most deadly weapons that kill large numbers of people indiscriminately, including many civilians and children.

ThatRobGuy · Jul 10, 2025

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
LOL where do I start? A big one is farming...drip irrigation. Trophy Active Protection System (APS), Iron Fist Light Configuration, Common Laser Range Finder,Skystar 180, ADM-141 TALD, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, Reactive Armor Tiles, UAVs, AI, cybersecurity, space technologies and other military tech.

We don't give anyone anything, they BUY it or invest in it.

I mentioned the laser systems... we paid large sums for the R&D for them to develop, and then they sold it to us for $80 million. (given that we've supported them to the tune of 30 billion per decade...would've been nice to get "mates rates" on that...

You do realize we could've paid R&D teams here to develop those things right?

As far as the drip irrigation system, that was invented by an Israeli in the 60's, but that doesn't represent some sort of "two-way partnership between nations", a lot of inventions come out of a lot of countries, that doesn't make us "best buds" or "strategic allies" because we (like everyone else) decided to buy it at full retail price.

A Chinese person invented paper... the US buys paper
A Russian invented the periodic table, everyone uses that
The Stethoscope was invented by a Frenchman...

Because the US has utilized those things, should we be supporting China, Russia, and France in everything they do, no questions asked?

Some of the things you tossed on your list aren't even exclusive to Israel... AI and space technologies?

Israel was only the 8th country to launch satellites (surprise surprise, using stuff we gave them as the starting place), the ISA only gets $40million per year from their domestic budget, the rest of the money comes from the US, Germany, and India.

JosephZ · Jul 10, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
I fact checked the Hitchens claim, it's legit, both in the numbers of slaves the Barbary Corsairs took, as well as their ambassadors justification for why they did it.

Barbary corsairs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to take slaves from, and make war upon, nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"It was written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet are sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."

Parts of that quote are incorrect. It should read:

"...it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

ralliann · Jul 10, 2025

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
Should we ask the hostages Hamas took? Oh, wait, most of them died...

They still hold hostages.

ralliann · Jul 10, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
It could have never happened and it has always in the power of Hamas to end it any time.

Hamas could stop attacking their own people attempting to get aid packages and food deliveries.
Hamas could stop putting rocket launchers in schools and hospitals and then scream bloody murder when innocents get killed.
Hamas could allow their people to leave area's where the Israelis warned them that military action is about to happen. Instead they have such little regard for life they use woman and children as human shields.
Hamas could stop launching thousands of rockets into civilian area's of Israel.

So why don't they?

In the original Hamas charter - they called for the elimination of the Jews - they don't want Jewish land - they want Jewish people off the face of the earth.

They have been offered two state solutions repeatedly - they have been rejected by HAMAS repeatedly - why?

They want the elimination of the Jews.

they could have released all the hostages too. And still refuse.

ThatRobGuy · Jul 10, 2025

JosephZ said:
The beginning of that quote is incorrect. It should read:

"...that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority are sinners,"

According to the national archives:

Founders Online: American Commissioners to John Jay, 28 March 1786

American Commissioners to John Jay, 28 March 1786

founders.archives.gov

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet,1 that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

So, while the words I pasted may not have been exact, the meaning is the same.

Anyone who didn't acknowledge the authority of their prophet were sinners, and it's written in the Koran/Quran that it was their right and duty to make war on them wherever they could be found, and make slaves of all them they could take as prisoners.

This is the part that a lot of people don't like to talk about... While all 3 of the Abrahamic monotheistic religions have holy texts that include various calls to violence (hence the talking points we hear of "well, accchtually, all religions have extremist texts"), only one of them encourages reverence and emulation of a warlord.

While I don't believe in any of the 3 faiths, I'm at least objective enough to see crucial difference between Jesus and Muhammed.

JosephZ · Jul 10, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
According to the national archives:

Founders Online: American Commissioners to John Jay, 28 March 1786

American Commissioners to John Jay, 28 March 1786

founders.archives.gov

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet,1 that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

So, while the words I pasted may not have been exact, the meaning is the same.

The meaning isn't the same at all. The Qur'an and the teachings of Islam don't allow Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslims, reject Muhammad, or even if they are sinners for doing so. However, they can wage war against those who invade their territory or ignore the laws of their land.

The incorrect quote made it sound as if Tripoli's ambassador was saying those nations who reject the authority of Muhammad are fair game, but that's not what he was saying. He was saying that the Qur'an gives them the right to attack and enslave those who reject the authority of the Barbary nations.

ThatRobGuy · Jul 10, 2025

JosephZ said:
The meaning isn't the same at all. The Qur'an and the teachings of Islam don't allow Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslims or becsuse they reject Muhammad. However, they can wage war against those who invade their territory or ignore the laws of their land.

The incorrect quote made it sound as if Tripoli's ambassador was saying those nations who reject the authority of Muhammad are fair game, but that's not what he was saying. He was saying that the Qur'an gives them the right to attack and enslave those who reject the authority of the Barbary nations.

Perhaps you should inform the Islamists that they're misinterpreting their own texts.

We've already seen enough modern examples that highlight that some Muslims do, in fact, think that rejection or insulting of their prophet is enough of a reason to leap to violence.

They're getting that idea from somewhere, if not from their holy texts, then where?

Is there a reasoning they have for that, that you wouldn't expect christians to self-flagellate for? (like when southern white Christians used to use the bible to justify slavery)

Yeshua HaDerekh · Friday at 5:18 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
I mentioned the laser systems... we paid large sums for the R&D for them to develop, and then they sold it to us for $80 million. (given that we've supported them to the tune of 30 billion per decade...would've been nice to get "mates rates" on that...

You do realize we could've paid R&D teams here to develop those things right?

As far as the drip irrigation system, that was invented by an Israeli in the 60's, but that doesn't represent some sort of "two-way partnership between nations", a lot of inventions come out of a lot of countries, that doesn't make us "best buds" or "strategic allies" because we (like everyone else) decided to buy it at full retail price.

Some of the things you tossed on your list aren't even exclusive to Israel... AI and space technologies?

Israel was only the 8th country to launch satellites (surprise surprise, using stuff we gave them as the starting place), the ISA only gets $40million per year from their domestic budget, the rest of the money comes from the US, Germany, and India.

Much of what you said are semantics. of course drip irrigation is used worldwide. My point was that many many good things have come from Israel. I posted specific things...I never said AI and space tech were only specific to Israel. I said WE get some of those things developed IN Israel.

Desk trauma · Friday at 5:55 AM

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
Much of what you said are semantics. of course drip irrigation is used worldwide. My point was that many many good things have come from Israel. I posted specific things...I never said AI and space tech were only specific to Israel. I said WE get some of those things developed IN Israel.

At full price like any other customer after subsidizing their development and funding the country in general. What a deal.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Friday at 7:11 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
That'd be like saying

Life in Flint Michigan in the years following the plant closures:
Unemployment rate - 22%
Infant Mortality - 8%
Maternal Mortality - 7%
Below Poverty Level - 49%
Safe drinking water - Virtually none of the public water was safe
Receiving large amounts of state and federal aid

If some entity came in, by force, and leveled a third of the schools, hospitals, grocery stores, and 70% of the homes... (and killed 6% of the population and forced another 8% to flee in the process)

Would "I didn't see you guys saying you were concerned about Flint before" be a justifiable dismissal of people's concerns?

The reality is, with all of those bad statistics you mentioned, leveling 70% of civilian infrastructure just adds "high homeless rate" and "high malnutrition rate" to that list.

The people of Gaza and their elected officials initiated a full-scale conflict against Israel. And now that Israelis retaliated, the world blaming Israel. The hypocrisy of the antisemite is in full display.

Since 2000, Hamas has launched over 20,000 rockets toward Israel. As the elected governing authority of Gaza, Hamas represents the people residing there. On October 7, Hamas started full-scall war with Israel. Those seeking to assign responsibility should consider addressing the actions of the Palestinian government for initiating hostilities and placing civilians at risk. Israel maintains the right to defend itself and respond to threats as it deems necessary to ensure its national security.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Friday at 7:16 AM

Fantine said:
And the way to do that is to deny access to many of the most deadly weapons that kill large numbers of people indiscriminately, including many civilians and children.

Israelis are not killing anyone indiscriminately.

Desk trauma · Friday at 7:36 AM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
The people of Gaza and their elected officials initiated a full-scale conflict against Israel. And now that Israelis retaliated, the world blaming Israel. The hypocrisy of the antisemite is in full display.

Since 2000, Hamas has launched over 20,000 rockets toward Israel. As the elected governing authority of Gaza, Hamas represents the people residing there. On October 7, Hamas started full-scall war with Israel. Those seeking to assign responsibility should consider addressing the actions of the Palestinian government for initiating hostilities and placing civilians at risk. Israel maintains the right to defend itself and respond to threats as it deems necessary to ensure its national security.

Elections have not been held in Gaza for almost twenty years.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Friday at 8:51 AM

Desk trauma said:
Elections have not been held in Gaza for almost twenty years.

What are the reasons elections have not taken place in Gaza for the past 20 years?

This is because, when Palestinians in Gaza were given the opportunity to vote, they elected Hamas as their representative.

Does the "reign in the influence of Israel" movement need a Tucker Carlson to be credible?

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Part of the IT crowd

Dona Quixote

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

christian

christian

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

The pickles are up to something

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The pickles are up to something

Well-Known Member

Similar threads