Society/Culture Alex Pearce supports Palestine/promotes terrorism depending who you ask

[ReturningHawk]

I agree that opposing genocide is not the same as supporting Hezbollah or Hamas. And I don't support either. But I consider support of Israel to be the same as support of Hamas or Hezbollah. Pearce didn't say anything anywhere near that.

But you can say you support Israel without ramification despite them undertaking a genocide far worse than anything Hamas or Hezbollah have ever done.

I understand your point. But arguing over whose actions are more reprehensible is a race to the bottom that doesn’t serve anybody.

 

[spinynorman]

Kneecap are from Ireland, where there’s a, rightly or wrongly, more mixed view regarding terrorist/resistant organisations than there are in other western nations. That they’re more in strife for talking shit about Israel than they are the UK, the country they’re a part of, speaks to the times we’re in and the ability for anything critical of Israel to be spun as antisemitism.

Pearce needn’t apologise for anything, and I wish others were so bold.

 

[Saint]

I understand your point. But arguing over whose actions are more reprehensible is a race to the bottom that doesn’t serve anybody.

Trying to point out the hypocrisy of Israel being legitimate because of Genocide, but the same people making that argument think, for Palestinians, genocide is a better answer than statehood.

And get offended every single time it's pointed out.

 

[Wargreymon90]

Well done Pearce. Absolutely nothing to apologise for!

 

[Gethelred]

I understand your point. But arguing over whose actions are more reprehensible is a race to the bottom that doesn’t serve anybody.

Where as muddying the waters serves who, exactly?

 

[ReturningHawk]

Where as muddying the waters serves who, exactly?

Good question. Care to hop down off your high horse and be more specific?

 

[Gethelred]

Good question. Care to hop down off your high horse and be more specific?

... I have a high horse? One statement, pointing out that you're deliberately trying to obscure things, constitutes being on a high horse?

How about you speak plainly, instead of going on the attack when challenged?

 

[ReturningHawk]

... I have a high horse? One statement, pointing out that you're deliberately trying to obscure things, constitutes being on a high horse?

How about you speak plainly, instead of going on the attack when challenged?

Take your own advice. When another poster justified Hezbollahs actions, and I pointed out that it was both impossible and irrelevant to do so, you accused me of “muddying the waters”. Nobody could possibly have any idea what that means.

 

[Gethelred]

Take your own advice. When another poster justified Hezbollahs actions...

I rather think you need to reread the posts, my dude. This:

Been defending themselves against Israel. It's anti-semitic to do anything other than watch the bombs fall and say "thank you, mastah, may I please have another".

I'm very sick of people being "offended" by free speech, but not offended by Genocide. I might go into the Holocaust museum and complain about the portrayal of Germans and see how well that goes down.

... does not consitute support of Hezbollah, and attempting to spin it as though it does is disingenuous.

... and I pointed out that it was both impossible and irrelevant to do so, you accused me of “muddying the waters”. Nobody could possibly have any idea what that means.

You tried to divert conversation along avenues you wanted it to follow, and now you're kicking up a fuss because I don't accept your framing of the thing.

None of which constitues being on a high horse, merely an ability to read.

 

[ReturningHawk]

I rather think you need to reread the posts, my dude. This:

... does not consitute support of Hezbollah, and attempting to spin it as though it does is disingenuous.

You tried to divert conversation along avenues you wanted it to follow, and now you're kicking up a fuss because I don't accept your framing of the thing.

None of which constitues being on a high horse, merely an ability to read.

You made your cryptic accusation, got offended when I called you puffed up and vague, then you misquoted me (I never said anyone was in “support of Hezbollah”), and now you’re accusing me, the person who started the thread, of “diverting” and “framing” the conversation.

If you have more insights, could you please make sure they are associated in some way with the topic? What do you think about Alex Pearce?

 

[ferball]

We can leave out the defence of Hamas and Hezbollah, thanks.

The point of this thread is that support for Palestine and the opposition of Israel’s genocide does not equal support for the above.

They are Irish Republicans. The only reason Ireland is a republic is because of "terrorism".

 

[ReturningHawk]

They are Irish Republicans. The only reason Ireland is a republic is because of "terrorism".

Well that’s not really true, is it? Aren’t there are some differences between terrorism and a revolution?

Kneecap’s outward public stance is pretty tame, despite videos circulating of violant slogans. Good on them for sticking their necks out at Coachella to support Palestine.

 

[schneebly111]

They are Irish Republicans. The only reason Ireland is a republic is because of "terrorism".

A charged topic but Ireland became a Republic because of the war of independence.

If you want to see “terrorism” look at what the Black and Tans of the British Army did. Imagine watching an AFL match and during the 2nd quarter armoured military cars just drive into the field and start machine gunning spectators because of their ethnic background. That’s what happened on the first Bloody Sunday of 1920 (not to be confused with the 2nd Bloody Sunday of 1972 when the British Paratroopers murdered unarmed protesters in Derry).

It’s completely unsurprising to see why the Irish have a large affinity and support for the people of Palestine.

 

[Gethelred]

You made your cryptic accusation, got offended...

Lol.

... when I called you puffed up and vague, then you misquoted me (I never said anyone was in “support of Hezbollah”), and now you’re accusing me, the person who started the thread, of “diverting” and “framing” the conversation.

... because you are. Don't whine when someone notices.

If you have more insights, could you please make sure they are associated in some way with the topic? What do you think about Alex Pearce?

Pretty good defender who on occasion overrates his disposals. Is correct concerning the ongoing genocide in Palestine.

Don't know why there's a dedicated thread for it here, though. Is there a reason these posts shouldn't be in - for example - the general Hamas-Gaza thread in Int Pol?

 

[Some Idiot]

I think it's dangerous to conflate people being sad about civilian deaths with supporting terrorism.

 

[Episode IV]

A charged topic but Ireland became a Republic because of the war of independence.

Yes, there are significant points of difference between the conflicts in Ireland, and in Palestine and Israel.

If you want to see “terrorism” look at what the Black and Tans of the British Army did. Imagine watching an AFL match and during the 2nd quarter armoured military cars just drive into the field and start machine gunning spectators because of their ethnic background. That’s what happened on the first Bloody Sunday of 1920 (not to be confused with the 2nd Bloody Sunday of 1972 when the British Paratroopers murdered unarmed protesters in Derry).

It's also what happened on October 7th, 2023 in Israel.
I'm not saying you don't have a point, because of course you do.

It's just that things get a little murky when you apply that thought across the board.

It’s completely unsurprising to see why the Irish have a large affinity and support for the people of Palestine.

That's a fairly sweeping statement.
I suspect that "the Irish" aren't as completely represented by a band and some social media posts as you think they are.

As for Alex Pearce, well.. every account I've heard of him says a really good bloke, in general. Likeable. I don't know him personally, of course, just going by hearsay.
I'm going to echo Trump on this one. There are some very fine people on both sides.

Unfortunately, being a generally good person does not correlate with being well-informed, and using short form social media as a means of communication doesn't allow for any complexity of thought.

 

[Episode IV]

The fact Caro thinks the AFL should intervene with a penalty is real Black Mirror material.

I think Black Mirror is significantly more intelligent and thought provoking than Caroline Wilson is.

Hang on. Are you insulting the Black Mirror writers here using them as a comparison?
Outrageous!

 

[Harlott]

Yes, there are significant points of difference between the conflicts in Ireland, and in Palestine and Israel.

It's also what happened on October 7th, 2023 in Israel.
I'm not saying you don't have a point, because of course you do.

It's just that things get a little murky when you apply that thought across the board.


That's a fairly sweeping statement.
I suspect that "the Irish" aren't as completely represented by a band and some social media posts as you think they are.

As for Alex Pearce, well.. every account I've heard of him says a really good bloke, in general. Likeable. I don't know him personally, of course, just going by hearsay.
I'm going to echo Trump on this one. There are some very fine people on both sides.

Unfortunately, being a generally good person does not correlate with being well-informed, and using short form social media as a means of communication doesn't allow for any complexity of thought.

Cutting through all your bs, where’s the complexity in what humanitarian organisations have suggested probable genocide? All the mass killings? All the journalists and medics killed? The fact that a minister came out yesterday and basically saying they intend to totally destroy Gaza? Probably where Pearce is coming from I reckon

 

[schneebly111]

Yes, there are significant points of difference between the conflicts in Ireland, and in Palestine and Israel.

Well no because the Israel are the oppressive occupiers and the Palestinians are mostly copping it; it was the Brits who were the oppressive occupiers and the Irish who mostly copped it. Doesn’t mean there wasn’t violence directed at civilians by Palestinians and Irish but the overall oppresser is Israel/Britain.

I suspect that "the Irish" aren't as completely represented by a band and some social media posts as you think they are.

There’s Jews against Israel and Arabs against Palestinians, yes there are a variety of opinions in every country. I’m just saying there’s a wider undercurrent of support for Palestine in Ireland than most western nations going back to their support for liberations movements in line with Irish Republicanism.

Unfortunately, being a generally good person does not correlate with being well-informed, and using short form social media as a means of communication doesn't allow for any complexity of thought.

What was wrong with Pearce’s post?

 

[Episode IV]

Cutting through all your bs, where’s the complexity in what humanitarian organisations have suggested probable genocide? All the mass killings? All the journalists and medics killed? The fact that a minister came out yesterday and basically saying they intend to totally destroy Gaza? Probably where Pearce is coming from I reckon

The complexity in this instance is contained within all the other things that have happened over a history of conflict beginning (officially) with the creation of Israel in 1948 following a declaration of independence (sound familiar?), and a coalition of Arab nations forming with intent of wiping Israel off the map that very same year (that, too, sounds a bit familiar).

Further complexities involve the overly simplistic definition of "innocent civilians", when it's quite clear that innocence involves a wide spectrum of the level of support amongst the population for an armed body claiming to represent their interests.

Start there. Better off doing it, as someone said, in the appropriate thread.

I was simply mentioning that I've heard Pearce is a good bloke in general, that I don't particularly value the opinion of a footy player on short form social media*, that I'm of the opinion that short form social media is a curse (not necessarily in this thread, but I've said that numerous times elsewhere) and that I think being considered a good person doesn't make you well informed.
If you think otherwise, say so.

*edit - or anyone else's

 

[Episode IV]

Well no because the Israel are the oppressive occupiers and the Palestinians are mostly copping it; it was the Brits who were the oppressive occupiers and the Irish who mostly copped it. Doesn’t mean there wasn’t violence directed at civilians by Palestinians and Irish but the overall oppresser is Israel/Britain.

See above.

There’s Jews against Israel and Arabs against Palestinians, yes there are a variety of opinions in every country. I’m just saying there’s a wider undercurrent of support for Palestine in Ireland than most western nations going back to their support for liberations movements in line with Irish Republicanism.

That is probably true, but I'm not really sure of the extent to which it goes - nor whether it's as true now as it might have been a decade or two ago.

What was wrong with Pearce’s post?

I don't recall saying there was anything wrong with it, other than it being uninformed - or seemingly so due to the medium.

 

[Harlott]

The complexity in this instance is contained within all the other things that have happened over a history of conflict beginning (officially) with the creation of Israel in 1948 following a declaration of independence (sound familiar?), and a coalition of Arab nations forming with intent of wiping Israel off the map that very same year (that, too, sounds a bit familiar).

Further complexities involve the overly simplistic definition of "innocent civilians", when it's quite clear that innocence involves a wide spectrum of the level of support amongst the population for an armed body claiming to represent their interests.

Start there. Better off doing it, as someone said, in the appropriate thread.

I was simply mentioning that I've heard Pearce is a good bloke in general, that I don't particularly value the opinion of a footy player on short form social media*, that I'm of the opinion that short form social media is a curse (not necessarily in this thread, but I've said that numerous times elsewhere) and that I think being considered a good person doesn't make you well informed.
If you think otherwise, say so.

*edit - or anyone else's

I’m sorry maybe you didn’t understand what I was getting at. You don’t need to be well informed to know Israel’s current tactics are against all things humane. I’m not sure if Pearce is “well informed” or not.
Re this bit
Further complexities involve the overly simplistic definition of "innocent civilians", when it's quite clear that innocence involves a wide spectrum of the level of support amongst the population for an armed body claiming to represent their interests.

Who are you referring to?

 

[schneebly111]

I don't recall saying there was anything wrong with it, other than it being uninformed - or seemingly so due to the medium.

So tells us why it was “uninformed”?

 

[Episode IV]

So tells us why it was “uninformed”?

Or seemingly so, due to the medium.

 

[Episode IV]

I’m sorry maybe you didn’t understand what I was getting at. You don’t need to be well informed to know Israel’s current tactics are against all things humane. I’m not sure if Pearce is “well informed” or not.

Hmm. "Humane". "Tactics".

I'm getting the impression, amongst all this talk of genocide (a fairly recent word) and wotnot, that the argument is perhaps a more specific reaction formed as a result of the scale of the response rather than to the nature of it.

If you haven't already, you should read "Ender's Game" and the subsequent novels.
Orson Scott Card spent a considerable amount of time exploring a few ideas in that series of novels, and the debate surrounding Israel's response to a threat in this instance is the living embodiment of one of those themes.

Re this bit
Further complexities involve the overly simplistic definition of "innocent civilians", when it's quite clear that innocence involves a wide spectrum of the level of support amongst the population for an armed body claiming to represent their interests.

Who are you referring to?

Everyone and anyone who thinks a hard line between the civilian populace and that armed body is so easy to see (less so in the modern world than it has ever been), and particularly those who go on to use that hard line as an argument for one side but not the other.
Which leads one to wonder if they actually understand their "own" point.

Example:

I agree that opposing genocide is not the same as supporting Hezbollah or Hamas. And I don't support either. But I consider support of Israel to be the same as support of Hamas or Hezbollah.

Do you see it?
Qualifying sentence.