General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

yessum15
Pod Save the World
comments

Comments by "yessum15" (@yessum15) on "Pod Save the World" channel.

The idea that people H&M are holding look emaciated makes sense when you consider that Izzy's primary strategy was to starve everyone in GZ.
14
To be clear: Izzy is breaking the cessation not, H&M. Izzy has liquidated a hundred people since the cessation started, is still blocking aid, and refuses to send reps to discuss phase two, and openly talks about restarting the conflict.
13
@troyaturner1979 Being critical of their government is not enough. Religious ethnostates probably shouldn't exist, but if they do, they simply can't be allowed to be built on top of indigenous populations.
10
We'll never occupy GZ. It's a distraction. It's the heavy ask so that allowing Izzy settle part of it and the wb themselves appears to be the reasonable compromise.
9
@OPFlyFisher304 The term indigenous is not problematic at all. The existence of a historic indigenous Palestinian people living uninterrupted for well over a thousand years on this parcel of land is a universally accepted historical fact. Documentary evidence of local commerce, culture, and governance is well established and rarely refuted among both contemporary and ancient scholars. It is important that we do not entertain the historical denialism and cultural erasure recently promoted by the colonists attempting to displace them.
8
@OPFlyFisher304 Being a part of multiple empires isn't relevant and there's no use trying to muddy the waters with this red herring. Egypt too was under the rule of multiple consecutive foreign empires stretching back to the pharonic period. Nonetheless we acknowledge that there is such a thing as Egyptians. The people who have lived in Palestine uninterrupted for 1300 years are Palestinians. Irrespective of what larger empire they fell under at one point or another. They have been recognized as "the people of Palestine" by historians and geographers for well over a millenia and there is little ambiguity here. Pretty simple.
8
America doesn't "think" anything. Policy is primarily a product of lobbying strength. Which itself is a product of wealth. This is especially the case on the cusp of a competitive election cycle wherein the support of a single powerful lobby may mean the difference between winning or losing. The challenger has already demonstrated during his tenure that he has no interest in global politics and that his foreign policy doctrine is 100% for sale. This has triggered a race to the bottom, wherein the incumbent must also reaffirm his commitment to crafting his foreign policy in accordance with monied interests. In this particular episode, the side committing war crimes has significantly more money and lobbying power than the victim. Thus, the US position will be to support and assist the commission of these war crimes by any means necessary including but not limited to financing, deploying military assets, concealing their extent, and providing moral justification for them. However, since the power of any individual lobby is not absolute, nor guaranteed to remain permanently unchanged, the US position will also be to hedge against this by simultaneously expressing performative sorrow over the loss of life and paying lip service to the notion of restraint. They may also feign helplessness as demonstrated in this podcast, wherein these spokespersons for the party currently in power are suggesting that US compliance with the will of the aggressor state is aimed at currying favor with the state in order to more effectively plead for restraint. This is a transparently ridiculous "tail wagging the dog" view of the power relationship, but again these people will say and do anything up to and including supporting war crimes to increase the chances of their candidate winning in the next election cycle.
7
@Bertinator-nm9ld The argument that our acquiescence to ISRL is due to its strategic importance is a myth. For the $300 billion we've given it, virtually any country in the region would become our strategic ally. Furthermore, if this were merely a matter of geopolitical strategy, we would have to acknowledge that Israel needs us significantly more than we need it. Even being a strategic ally is no explanation of the sheer amount of influence it wields over us. Case in point: By simply hinting at a mild reduction in foreign aid we could put an end to the current conflagration overnight. Them being outraged with us would be annoying, but us being mildly annoyed with them would be an existential threat. Our current relationship is simply not justifiable on geopolitical strategic grounds, but rather is explained primarily by internal electoral politics.
7
Are they really journalists though? This show is essentially "DNC: The Podcast". It's a campaign instrument.
7
@trevinbeattie4888 Every public statement she has ever made on the topic has been to reaffirm that there will be no substantive change on policy.
6
For anyone who did not support Harris: You were right. Even in the essentially invincible lameduck session, neither her nor the old man have made any move to stop or even slow down the gen. They should be cutting support from there and surging it to UKR in order to improve their bargaining position in a few weeks.
5
"What else are we going to do? 1) Stop sales 2) Cut all funding 3) Sanctions & embargo Stop pretending this is a difficult call. Let's be clear: This is a United States operation. Everyone knows how to stop it
5
@cenauge They're not "deliberating endlessly". They are enthusiastically supporting and actively providing material support for the violence. The US has deployed military assets in support of the operation, is financing the operation, is providing diplomatic cover for it, and is concealing the extent of the violence. These crimes against humanity are a joint US/ISRL operation.
5
1) Yes it would still be a crime. 2) There is no evidence of any use of H-Shields by the opposition and no evidence of this site containing any such combatant presence. 3) There is a great deal of evidence indicating that ISRL is targeting civ. sites irrespective of the presence or absence of a combatant force. 4) ISRL explicitly announced its intention to target civ. sites irrespective of the presence or absence of combatants as part of a "collective punitive" strategy. This is also a crime. 5) Official ISRL military doctrine allows for the targeting of civ. sites with or without combatants being present. 6) No, the US would not do this.
4
Why would Netenyahu give a win to a US president on the doorstep of retirement when he can keep looting for a few more weeks before a real president is elected? More importantly, why are you guys pretending everyone doesn't already know this? Securing peace is a pretty big poker chip. Why would Netenyahu hand it to a fading apparition when he could use it to either tip the scales of a close US election, or use it to curry even more influence with an incoming president elect?
4
@julieglobal Those who did not support Her were correct not to. They felt she would be marginally better than Orange, but not enough better to excuse backing an admin that should be in custody for gen. Turns out they were correct. In the essentially invincible lameduck session, neither she nor the old man have taken any step to stop or even marginally slow the gen. They could be cutting support from there and surging it to UKR in order to improve their bargaining position in a few weeks. But no, even in the absence of any consequences they are still supporting the gen with gusto.
4
They can't call it out because they're partners in it. The US has financed it, deployed military assets in support of it, provided diplomatic cover, and attempted to conceal the extent of the human toll. They obviously can't admit to a crime they meet the criteria of culpability for.
3
@TWE_2000 But we're not at war.
3
Ah, the pitfalls of being a European colonial ethnostate founded on an attempted genocide and justified on the basis of divine right.
3
@julesk1567 Haaretz published the breakdown on Oct 19. The list is always updated. Filter shows 30%+ combatants. Then you can check the other country's stats with wiki. For example: - US/IRQ War (2003 - 2013): Combatant to civilian is 40,000 to 174,000 or about 20% combatants.
3
@Bertinator-nm9ld "What other nation could be a reliable ally?" For $300 billion, a set of atomic weapons, open visas, a guaranteed UN vote, and unending support even Yemen could be transformed into a reliable US ally. Particularly given that ISRL is not a particularly reliable ally. Between constantly violating international laws, launching unapproved invasions of neighboring states, repeatedly flouting UN resolutions, routinely appointing international criminals to governing positions, and spying on us the bar is set quite low. We're paying vassal state money and getting a problematic and aggressive sometimes ally that repeatedly thumbs our authority. "Biden is already applying pressure" This is not what applying pressure looks like. Sending money and deploying military assets in support of their actions while repeatedly rationalizing it and vetoing any international attempt to condemn it is not "applying pressure". Would you like to know what is? How about this statement: "The US does not feel that the recent tragedy justifies the wholesale intentional violation of international law, nor the purposeful commission of war crimes in retaliation. To that end we will not support the current action militarily, financially or diplomatically and demand an immediate ceasefire followed by the deployment of an international peacekeeping force tasked with identifying war criminals on both sides of the conflict, arrest and trying them in the ICC. That would be applying pressure.
3
They are partners in the genocide. How could they possibly be objective?
2
The US is an enthusiastic partner in the atrocities, actively providing material support for it, deploying military assets, financing it, providing diplomatic cover, and concealing the extent of the civilian toll. How could these guys possibly be objective?
2
Just a reminder: the civilian to combatant mort. ratio of Oct 7 was lower than 3:1. Significantly less than that of US & RUS military operations and leagues below the current ISRL operation.
2
@brendondowdy5651 That's a pretty wild claim.
2
@waynelondon9776 "There are media reports" This vague statement is not evidence. There is no ambiguity here: evidence has not been provided. Bold claims of a sprawling command center existing under the hospital have been made but no evidence has been provided. This is not how the law works. We do not assault hospitals on the hope that we find something.
2
Better late than never? He still hasn't said what you just said. He's talking about the current violence, not the ZN concept as a whole. That's a bridge too far for a useless centrist to cross.
2
"We don't know how the algorithm works" Yes we do. Stop being silly.
2
@julieglobal Seriously Julie, their deadline for cutting support to the gen just expired yesterday. Rather than do anything they decided to double down on denying it and increasing support for it. On this topic in particular, there would be almost no difference between them and Orange. It was the right decision not to support her.
2
@hcoughing The previous admin already did that.
2
@alexwyatt2911 They are not the same. One side did a gen. This is like saying I supported the bad German regime because I was a fan of their economic policies.
2
BRICS suggests otherwise.
2
There is a difference between negligence and active complicity.
2
This is a really good point. You may want to elaborate further.
1
 @sacha96155 This is a reading comprehension deficiency.
1
@samhenr2392 HM is engaged in resistance which they have a legal right to engage in. Some of their tactics have broken the law, but this is very different from an annexation which is not legal to begin with.
1
 @samhenr2392 You're comparing guns to food. Stop being silly.
1
@samhenr2392 No, that's silly. The cost of doing so is prohibitively high. Particularly in the midst of an asymmetrical conflict. On the other hand, the notion that guns will be used for shooting is extremely plausible.
1
@samhenr2392 Anything that can be imagined has already happened. I'm sure someone once used a squirrel as a melee weapon. But it is silly to discuss wild outliers as legitimate risks. Redirecting an aid shipment is an incredibly risky and extremely high cost operation with low payout. It is inherently not scalable and is thus a rare occurrence. Using military aid for military purposes is not. Again, no comparison. But nice try.
1
@samhenr2392 And I'm saying someone has actually used a squirrel as a melee weapon and someone actually will again. It is still an outlier and would be remarkably silly to reframe otherwise. Some marginal amount of every aid delivery in the history of the world has been seized. In the current conflict both sides have stolen a bit. However, given the impracticality and unscaleability of such a strategy it remains an outlier event. In contrast using military aid for military purposes is neither a marginal or outlier event. This is why it is a silly & bizarre exercise to compare the two.
1
@samhenr2392 You're struggling to create a false equivalency in order to invent a dilemma where there isn't one. 1) Comparing the theoretical to the actual: The military aid given to iz is and has always actually been used overwhelmingly to break the law and to hurt a staggering amount of people, but could theoretically be used for good. The food aid given to HM has overwhelmingly actually been used to help people but could theoretically be redirected to harm a tiny amount of people.
1
@samhenr2392 2) Disregarding Scale: The food aid given to HM is a microscopic fraction of the military aid given to Iz. There is simply no comparison. 3) Disregarding Actual Effect: The military aid is the only thing keeping the conflict going and making all previous conflicts possible. The food aid is too small and too inefficient to have any significant effect on the conflict and has had no effect on previous conflicts. You're not comparing a gun to a squirrel (that would be silly enough). Rather, you're comparing thousands of guns to 1 squirrel.
1
@samhenr2392 4) Equating both Sides: HM is a resistance organization engaged in legal resistance that occasionally resorts ro illegal means to do so. They are allowed to be violent. Iz is engaged in a not legal annexation and every action they take in defense of it is not legal. They have no right to self defense. Iz created and built HM not vice versa.
1
@samhenr2392 5) The food aid is necessary because of the actions of Iz. But the military aid is not necessary because of the actions of HM. Because the military aid is not necessary at all.
1
@samhenr2392 This is not my opinion, I'm simply describing their legal status factually. Because the UN & ICJ have both classified the annex as illegal, use of violent resistance is legal under international law.
1
@samhenr2392 There's nothing tepid about what HM does. In the same way that there was nothing tepid about what Nat Turner or Nelson Mandela did. This is why occupation is not legal. It is terrible, and resistance is not pretty.
1
@samhenr2392 Harsh truths. Give it time.
1
The PM is a less important position in the UK system than the presidency is in the US system.
1
@mteacher9811 "Why does the rest of the ARB world not care?" Because the rest of the ARB world does not exist. These are not real countries, they are appendages of the US and Europe. They are typically characterized by chunks of land controlled by a US backed authoritarian who is extremely insulated & disconnected from his own people & would vanish overnight without his foreign backers. The militaries of these countries usually operate day to day as businesses that transfer the nation's wealth to the US in exchange for a cut for their families. They are only ever activated on rare occasions on US orders. This is the system of control that replaced the previous European system.
1
@mteacher9811 "Why does the rest of the ARB world not care?" Because the rest of the ARB world does not exist. These are not real countries, they are appendages of the US and Europe. They are typically characterized by swaths of land controlled by a US backed dictator that is extremely insulated & disconnected from the locals & would vanish overnight without his foreign backers. The militaries of these countries usually operate as businesses that transfer the nation's wealth to the US in exchange for a cut. They are only ever rarely activated on US orders. This is the system of control that replaced the previous European system.
1
@mteacher9811 "Why does the rest of the AB world not care?" Because the rest of the AB world does not exist. These are not real countries, they are clients of the US and Europe. They are typically characterized by chunks of land controlled by an American backed authority who is extremely insulated & disconnected from his own people & would vanish overnight without his American backers. The militaries of these countries usually operate as businesses that transfer the nation's wealth to the US in exchange for a cut. They are only ever activated on US orders. This is the system of control that replaced the previous European system.
1
 @mteacher9811 "Why does the rest of the ARB world not care?" Because the rest of the ARB world does not exist. These are not real countries, they are appendages of the US and Europe.
1
 @mteacher9811 They don't really have a choice. Most of these administrations are clients of the US completely insulated from their own denizens.
1
Israeli courts are like any other courts in the world whose rulings carry no legal weight! That commercial?
1
@la_belle_heaulmiere Sudan is another cost of the conflicts in ISRL & UKR. If the obvious misconduct of the USA & RUS in both these regions respectively wasn't taking up all the oxygen in the room, perhaps there would be more reporting.
1
 @jaimebergner He'll be unpredictable at least. With friends like these a foe lacking in competence might actually be an improvement.
1
@ccxcrazy We feel that we avoided supporting someone who did a genny and insisted they would continue. In exchange for someone who may or may not continue. Unclear as yet. So we either broke even or did better.
1
You're posting a comment on the channel for "DNC: The Podcast" and you expect traction?
1
@aricurtis1365 Paying lip service to the notion that violence is bad while reinforcing the primary driver of that violence is not a step forward. They repeatedly reaffirm the validity ZN, and have never once referred to the current conflict as a "gen", and constantly downplay our ownership of it. They have not once called for the prosecution of anyone involved.
1
@aricurtis1365 Given their position in the media landscape they must present as more even-handed. But in actuality this is just a more sophisticated application of the strategy "admit what you can't deny and deny what you can't admit."
1
@aricurtis1365 I didn't know we were fighting I thought we were just having a conversation. I am about as harsh on them as I would be on any newscaster in Germany downplaying events during the terrible time and then making small concessions when they see the game is up. They deserve no credit for intentionally concealing a truth they were familiar with day 1, and gradually hedging by making the mildest admissions as they see the event is beginning to wrap up anyway. Everyone knows this thing is over once the polls close. So now's the time to start speaking about ethics. They're doing the same thing the Blinken letter is doing.
1
@TPaine76 Iz is taking advantage of the fact that no one will risk upsetting their PAC during a campaign cycle. That's why Blinken's letter has a 30 day timeline. It's timed for when the polls close.
1
@TPaine76 Iz is taking advantage of the fact that no one will risk upsetting their political action committee during a close race. That's why Blinken's letter has a thirty day timeline. It's timed for when the booths close.
1
@mercer345 Pretty much the same way everyone else's does. It's not that difficult to reverse engineer the basics using a smattering of test accounts. This is not a real issue.
1
We should also note that despite the protests, the ISRL public has generally been in favor of Netenyahu's war and is at best 50/50 split on whether there should be a cessation. Among JSH people in ISRL (the people who actually matter), these numbers are even more in favor of Netenyahu.
1
She won't be, but the circumstances will be. The conflict can't go on forever. Bibi's just trying to wait out the lame duck in office. He'll give Biden's successor an early "win" by agreeing to a cessation, in order to extract concessions from the new administration and secure his influence. He's not going to waste this "I achieved peace" poker chip on a president that will be retired in a few weeks.
1
@julieglobal I did not support Harris and I was right not to. I suspected she would be marginally better than Orange, but not enough better to excuse voting for someone who should be in custody for gen. Turns out I was correct. In the essentially invincible lameduck session, neither Harris nor the old man have taken any step to stop or even marginally slow the gen. They could be cutting support from there and surging it to UKR in order to improve their bargaining position in a few weeks. But no, even in the absence of any fear of consequences they are still supporting the gen with gusto.
1
@OPFlyFisher304 The people of Palestine have lived on the land uninterrupted for over 1000 years. Their existence has been well documented historically and they are clearly the indigenous people of that land. As with any indigenous people, some of the total population arrived later than others and there has been occasional emigration & immigration. However, the group as a whole is easily distinguished from the group of European colonists associated with the current occupational force. No one on either side is disputing who constitutes the occupied and occupier and there is plenty of documentary evidence to quickly identify who is who. So this doesn't seem particularly complicated. If China were to occupy and settle Spain today, we would similarly be able to distinguish between the occupied indigenous Spanish people who lived there before the occupation, and the Chinese occupational force. There would be no need to muddy the waters by saying "oh but wait some of the Spanish population that lived here prior to the Chinese occupation arrived later than others so calling Spanish people indigenous to Spain is problematic." That would be a silly muddying of the waters.
1
@OPFlyFisher304 Godwin's law strikes again. Glad to see your argument has imploded in such a classic manner.
1
@OPFlyFisher304 There is no Palestinian state at the moment so no one can "become Palestinian". However if I state is constructed I would expect it to operate under common contemporary international standards employing some combination of jus de soli citizenship and a reasonable naturalization process for immigrants (usually a boilerplate oath, a minimum residency requirement, and occasionally a simple knowledge requirement). I also support the notion of dual citizenship so applicants should not be required to renounce any other citizenship.
1
@OPFlyFisher304 There is significant documentary evidence to identify who is who because both sides of the conflict have kept records and both tend to roughly agree with each other. Everyone knows who the colonists are and who the indigenous population is. The only dispute they have is that both feel equally entitled to the land. In the same way that if China were to invade Spain today, there would be significant documentary evidence of who is who, with both sides' records roughly aligning. The only dispute would be that both sides feel equally entitled to the land. Since, in both cases the ethical approach is to prioritize the interests of the indigenous victims over the colonist aggressor, our primary interest would be in simply restoring to the expropriated their land. Typically the process for this would be to gather up any documentary evidence of ownership and redistribute the land accordingly. In instances where this is not practical, financial remuneration would be made. The primary difficulty would not be in establishing original ownership, or in running out of land/money because (as I stated before) there are a good amount of records still being kept that establish ownership and this region tends to have significantly more land than people, the vast majority of which (90%+) is currently held in a government sponsored trust. The bizarre references you made to physical color and killings are random outbursts unrelated to anything I've said so obviously I have nothing to say on that weird topic.
1
Exit polls show the decision was made by yt people and 80% of people decided before she even started campaigning. If true, I think we all know what's up.
1