StrayCatFrump

They killed over 1000 innocent people in their latest attack, raped a bunch of people, and kidnapped people, including foreign nationals.

Turns out probably not. You should really stop believing Israeli propaganda at face value. A thousand or so people were killed, yes. Many of who were Israeli militants, and many more definitely settlers and not "innocents". Some were definitely killed by Palestinian militants (some of whom were Hamas members) during the prison break. But many were killed by IDF and Israeli police, who didn't care who got caught in the crossfire and literally shot Israeli homes with Israelis sheltering inside using tanks. And also literally did air raids on their own military facilities, where IDF soldiers were defending themselves until being killed by their own friendly (missile) fire. And reports of rape during that particular incident have, so far at least, been debunked.

This might, at least, be a bare start to actually educating yourself (though its clear from the sense of your participation here that that is not a priority for you): A growing number of reports indicate Israeli forces responsible for Israeli civilian and military deaths following October 7 attack

Anyway, Hamas good/bad is a distraction from basically everything. It's irrelevant when there's millions of people who have no choice but to engage in violent struggle against their oppressors or be (with more or less speed) genocided.

Their stated goal is the complete destruction of Israel and the Jews

Destruction of the apartheid state of Israel, yes. Not of Jews. You should pay more attention. And destruction of states is good. Destruction of colonialist states is even better. And destruction of apartheid states is an absolute necessity. That doesn't make other aspects of Hamas good, necessarily, but the destruction of Israel is most definitely not a point against them. Israel must, indeed, be destroyed.

Someone get this Zionist fucker out of here, eh?

You are just trying to posture and distract from the fact that you asserted one idiot with a gun can protect private property (thus demonstrating that fact that no: you don't even know what private property is.), you ignorant, liberal moron.

Unending storms of propaganda do a lot to influence how ignorant people react in a situation. And it serves to keep them ignorant as well.

(Not the person you were responding to, but that's my take on how people often react regarding Palestine.)

I'd say that's a meaningless distinction, and that actions speak louder than words. But as you will.

First, you are a very unpleasant person

You being wrong makes me unpleasant now. LOL. Okay. I'd say that fuckers who jump into to defend ignorant liberals in arnarchist forums are unpleasant, personally.

Second, that’s a weirdly specific definition of private property.

It's the definition that's been used by leftists since the advent of capitalism, and perhaps before. Yes, liberals' attempts to disarm our language by using to mean anything that's not owned by the state has done a number on your brain, making it sound "weird" to ignorant, propagandized fools. Can't argue with that.

Last, if I need to exploit other peoples labor to derive value to have private property, and we’re using violence to do it, then we just invented slavery again.

Yes, capitalism is wage slavery. Correct. It has somewhat different characteristics from chattel slavery (which capitalism still uses when convenient, such as in the U.S. prison-industrial complex), but slavery it is nonetheless.

Yeah, pretty much. The president has enormous power, and that power is even greater outside the country's borders. Especially because of things like the "Authorization to Use Military Force" which gives him pretty much carte blanche to "fight terrorism" anytime and anywhere he likes.

There's also this general process by which the president historically just does what he wants, and the rest of the government shrugs its shoulders and rolls over, and thus his office essentially just has that de facto power, no matter what the constitution or other laws say: Renegade Cut: No More Presidents.

The U.S. president is more powerful than any empire in the world has ever been, is pretty much a king, and basically does what he wants. Liberals often make excuses about how his hands are tied. It would be great if that were the case, but it's really, really not.

I was going to make a funny or meaningful comment, but fuck: look at this shithole full of liberals. Place is getting worse than Beehaw, TBH. Might as well be back on Reddit.

Where the heck is the notion that the U.S. government’s hands are tied coming from?

At least part of the claim is that the president himself has little power. It's the stupid finger-pointing game. "Biden needs Congress' permission to do anything at all, ever." 🙄

A useful excuse when the president doesn't want to do anything. Falls flat on its face when he actually wants to bomb, shoot, or cage the shit out of any brown people, foreign or domestic.

He could use that fucking awful AUMF bullshit to send in the U.S. military to attack the IDF, for that matter. "No power" is fucking nonsense.

Yeah, I know that is never going to happen, nor would I particularly want it to. But when you have the power to go that far, you have a fuck ton of options in between that and doing absolutely nothing (or worse than nothing, which is what Biden is doing now: providing them cover by pretending the empire doesn't 100% have the fascists' backs).

Yeah. Totally fair.

That's not what private property is. You can read my other comment if you care, or you can just go on feeling confident that you were right in swooping in and backing up the ignorant raving of some idiot liberal. I don't really care. 🤷

OK liberal.

You have no clue what private property even is, dude. It's not simply some kind of thing someone claims for their own. Private property is literally property which is used to exploit other people's labor and material needs. Your toothbrush is not private property. Your car is not private property. The house you live in is not private property. That land you rent to someone else just so they can live is private property. That factory you force people to work in so they can put food in their mouths because they have no access to land or other sources of sustenance...those are private property.

So yeah: good fucking luck protecting land and infrastructure you don't have the capacity to even use on your own with a gun. Again, NO: the capacity to do violence, alone, is NOT sufficient to protect private property. You need a lot more than that. Your ability to beat your wife doesn't make you able to patrol a large swath of agricultural land and make sure nobody encroaches on it. Your ability to shoot someone doesn't make you capable of keeping workers out of a factory that is rightfully their collective property by virtue of the value of the blood, sweat, and tears they used to build and run that factory, especially when they have the capacity to do violence themselves and there's no state to keep them from exercising it in self-defense.

You fucking ignorant dope.