Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "Piers Morgan Uncensored" channel.

  1. 9
  2. 6
  3. 6
  4. 6
  5. 5
  6. 4
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. His argument was incoherent and illogical. It was unpacked to sound like typical naive leftism. Which is all that it was. It could have been written by Saul Alinsky. It's boilerplate bad faith Marxism. They hate "nationalism" of all kinds. They don't care if the Palestinians get their own sovereign state. Marxists want to showcase "the struggle" and have victims to show. Marxists love ongoing wars. Marxists in the CCP for example love Russia and Ukraine battling it out and wasting resources while showing the futility of going against the CCP "Vanguard Party" status as the top Marxist political party in the globe. It's the same reason China appears to both support and condemn every side of every war. While making sure none run out of weapons. And yes, Marxists have run agencies of the US government. Their oath was to the USA so they thought it was OK to fight "Russian Communism" while expanding their own unconstitutional powers through fearmongering and so forth. Cenk's view is not difficult to understand. It's difficult to support because it's childishly explained and actually quite delusional. Cent probably does not know that his form of rhetoric is boilerplate agitation propaganda as taught by Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals. Well yeah, of course if "special forces" can magically do all of this that would be great. Notice when ISIS had civilian captives as hostages it was only a few in number. And they did not capture them en masse while slaughtering even more. ISIS must now be regarded as relatively humane in comparison to the new uber-terrorists calling themselves HAMAS. But let's look at how ISIS was handled. They were tracked for months and years. The hostages were rescued one by one in most cases and the special operators had to wait for just the right time to accomplish their mission. ISIS did not hide amongst innocent civilians and the hostages were so few in number they could be focused on one at a time. This situation is unlike any other. This would be like Nazi Germany in the middle of WWII sending out film of the concentration/death camps in order to taunt everyone. And we still had to carpet bomb Germany to win WWII without having any verified intelligence on the camps. We only new about the "lawful" POW camps. Imagine if the Nazis kept the POW next to the Jews they slaughtered and sent out newsreel films. That's what HAMAS has done. And the Nazis had real world objectives. Killing Jews was not the literal centerpiece of their operations. Nothing like this has ever happened before. There is no playbook for this. The closest one would be war with Nazi Germany where everyone in the "liberal democracies" wanted them to be bombed in to the next world. They didn't like that civilians would be killed but there were no other options. No magic "special forces" or "AI drones" with Social Justice lasers like we have.
    1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. The definition of sovereign is "not subject to outside influence". Sovereign nations go to the UN to negotiate. OK. Now when you talk about "human rights" the sovereigns are the ones that control "the rights" of their citizens and subjects. If Israel is providing utilities to Gaza but Gaza (or its de facto rulers) are at war, how can Israel fight the hostile actors while extending "human rights" to the same polity? This in and of itself is highly problematic and should have been contemplated long before roque terror organizations got rooted in. But anyway, you can only talk about "rights" and "justice" within a single judicial system, one by one. For Israel to extend "human rights" to Gaza means they must submit to the same judicial system. Or the sovereign of Gaza must enter in to a treaty that allows interaction with the courts. Like Canada and the US have. Talking about the morality of this or that is a totally different conversation and couching it in "human rights" terms is inherently fallacious and itself unjust because it implies that "power" has "obligations" in accordance with some universal system that none of you can even define or contemplate realistically. In my relatively short life time all academic institutions in the West have gotten increasingly more delusional and arrogant. Stupid, closed minded and utterly self-righteous in their chaotic arrogance. And by the way, if the Palestinian Authority was established as the sovereign of the territory being fought over they would have a security treaty and would join together to purge the terrorists as a "law enforcement" operation. Asking to "Free Palestine" without understanding how that can really happen while talking about "Freedom Fighting" Hamas terrorists is just arsonists posing as fire fighters. Actually, only cheerleaders. And all of the Westerners promising "Human Rights" for Palestinian national liberation don't distinguish between the Palestinian vision and their own. The whole "trans rights" insanity is about Marxists getting nations to destroy themselves from within and while you're all doing that you're pretending to support "Palestinian national liberation" but you're not serious at all when you pretend to have some opinion on "human rights". Hamas and the PA must make peace with each other and with Jordan and Egypt. Or the PA must eliminate Hamas, with or without outside help. And all of these insane Western diplomats and talking heads need to get a grip about, well, everything. Start with the fundamentals and a knowledge about how "rights" developed in the West. I think very few of you have any clue whatsoever because almost everyone I talk to can't separate fact from fantasy about the status quo nor their Utopian delusions about what is realistic to expect. You have to study the Peace of Westphalia as the model for international relations and "human rights" on a completely different track under the development of "due process" in the Western tradition. If you have no clear vision of universal standards for due process you have no idea what "rights" even means. You're all just confusing yourselves and your audience.
    1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1