Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Middle East Thread


Red Phoenix
 Share

Recommended Posts

Israeli politician and former Knesset member Moshe Feiglin describes Beirut's dreadful blast as "one of Israel's best days", saying "marking valentine's day, we've got a fantastic fireworks show from #Beirut's port."

 

And people wonder why this vile scum state was accused of something to do with it.   Wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

It was but I’m intrigued to see how you can say it wasn’t. Despite it seemingly not being accurate, literally thousands mentioning Israel within hours proves my point. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

Quote

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Grinch said:

Israeli politician and former Knesset member Moshe Feiglin describes Beirut's dreadful blast as "one of Israel's best days", saying "marking valentine's day, we've got a fantastic fireworks show from #Beirut's port."

 

And people wonder why this vile scum state was accused of something to do with it.   Wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. 

There was definitely one government directly responsible for it.  Any word on them?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Grinch said:

Israeli politician and former Knesset member Moshe Feiglin describes Beirut's dreadful blast as "one of Israel's best days", saying "marking valentine's day, we've got a fantastic fireworks show from #Beirut's port."

 

And people wonder why this vile scum state was accused of something to do with it.   Wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. 

Oh it’s wrong to assume it was anything to do with them apparently. Well at least by someone who can’t back up such a ridiculous claim. 
 

Despite it looking like it wasn’t Israel, a lot of people were fair to assume it might well have been. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

That’s not proven anything. Yet again you are spouting rubbish and deflecting from reality.

 

i clearly said it has turned out not to be true but the suspicion was right to be there. Any argument to the contrary is fucking stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

That’s not proven anything. Yet again you are spouting rubbish and deflecting from reality. 

 

You're the one failing to present any evidence, but it's me who is spouting rubbish.

 

The GF summed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

You're the one failing to present any evidence, but it's me who is spouting rubbish.

 

The GF summed up.

Present evidence of an assumption being fair? I did. Netenyahu made a statement earlier in the day about defending Israel by any means necessary then a huge almost atomic looking explosion happens in Beirut in a depot suspected of being a Hezbollah weapons dump. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

You're the one failing to present any evidence, but it's me who is spouting rubbish.

 

The GF summed up.

You ignoring the previous evidence. You calling people easily offended..... 
 

You summed up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SasaS said:

Just cannot believe this was purely accidental. Weren't fertilizer bombs in the old days relatively stable, you'd drive them around and without a good detonator, they were not that dangerous?

 

Even if this was not stored properly, people must have known what was stored there and what can happen.

The people in a position to make things safe knew the risks in Beirut, just as their counterparts in Bhopal or Rana Plaza knew the risks. Global capitalism doesn't provide enough incentives for powerful people to give a fuck.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The people in a position to make things safe knew the risks in Beirut, just as their counterparts in Bhopal or Rana Plaza knew the risks. Global capitalism doesn't provide enough incentives for powerful people to give a fuck.

If capitalism was to blame wouldn’t they have sold it? Or used it instead of leaving it in a shed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

No. Because there was no profit in storing or handling it safely and no clear lines of responsibility for doing so.

There are profits to be made and benefits to be achieved in cutting corners even without "global capitalism", with plentiful examples around the world. If it was down to that at all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SasaS said:

There are profits to be made and benefits to be achieved in cutting corners even without "global capitalism", with plentiful examples around the world. If it was down to that at all.

True. But in this instance it looks like (as at Bhopal and Rana Plaza) specific features of global capitalism incentivised the actions that led to the disaster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

The government of Lebanon throwing in the towel.

 

 

'Parliament will now have to decide on a new prime minister - a process involving the same sectarian politics at the root of the complaints, our correspondent adds.'

 

Does this mean they could just replace the Govt with another group just the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/08/2020 at 18:48, Fluter in Dakota said:

'Parliament will now have to decide on a new prime minister - a process involving the same sectarian politics at the root of the complaints, our correspondent adds.'

 

Does this mean they could just replace the Govt with another group just the same?

Means Hezbolah remain in power holding the reins on a puppet government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...