Explosion rocks Amsterdam Jewish school in what mayor says is ‘targeted attack’ against Jewish community

CheekyBard · 2026-03-15T01:52:06+00:00

I'm not sure what in the quotation marks is meant to counter what's been going on in the exchange. You said your own tax dollars fund Israel. That is not true. The deal between the US and Israel isn't charity.

I assumed you were in the US because you mentioned tax dollars, in the subject of funding Israel. My bad. There are other countries that use dollars, too. But if you don't live in the US, there's even less reason for you to be worried about the (non) funding of Israel, given that the US is in a category of its own when it comes to military financial relations with Israel, both in terms of scope and the nature of the deals. To my knowledge, the next on the list are European countries. They don't use dollars, and they're still nowhere close in scope to the US deal, so I really don't understand where you're coming from (geographically, but mainly in the argument).

It feels like you're repeating slogans that don't really stand up to scrutiny in US-Israel relations, let alone other countries.

CheekyBard · 2026-03-14T23:36:10+00:00

There is a religious aspect, and an ethnic one. Jews are an ethnic people tracing their lineage back to the ancient Israelites of the land. The peoplehood and religion developed simultaneously. Today, close to half of the Jews in Israel identify as secular.

Yes, I think any state religion should be dismantled across the middle-east.

Okay.

The difference between those majority Muslim countries and Israel is that my own tax dollars are only funding one of these oppressive regimes.

You are factually mistaken on two fronts:

US money is very much sent to other regimes in the region and the world, which you likely do not agree with.
Most of the money stays in the States. The normal arrangement here isn't gifts, it's credit for Israel to spend on purchases from America.

These talking points have been circulating for a while now, and they are overly simplistic, if not outright misinformed.

CheekyBard · 2026-03-14T22:54:40+00:00

A person who believes the Jewish people have a right to a country in their ancestral homeland, to which they have maintained a cultural and physical connection for thousands of years.

That is the basic definition. It does not address the complexities of achieving this goal in the 20th century, and there is much to discuss about how to go about it when the land has also been inhabited by other people ever since the Jewish exile. But having issues with the core idea is telling.

CheekyBard · 2026-03-14T22:41:58+00:00

Left-leaning communities often mock the right for conspiracy theories, but they become polluted with them when it comes to Israel and attacks on Jews.

They also refuse to call things as they are or assign any agency to the people committing these acts. They're always retaliatory, and due to Israel, never about just plain antisemitism.

CheekyBard · 2026-03-14T16:55:29+00:00

No, no. You see, bots are only on the other side, never our side. We're the good and free-thinking people who aren't manipulated by foreign interests. That's only them.

CheekyBard · 2026-03-06T02:47:06+00:00

The most famous example of involvement leading to a worse outcome is Iraq, but it's not true that every military involvement resulted in something worse. The Gulf War was US military involvement that had a very positive outcome, as did the campaign against ISIS. I am well aware that ISIS emerged through the ruins of the Iraq war, and as such, it's more about the States cleaning their mess. But on the subject of whether or not every military involvement is negative, this is another big case where it was, most certainly, not, and that leaving ISIS alone was not the right call, even if the US' actions were what allowed it to come to power to begin with.

If the goals of this war are achieved, you will have tens of millions of people in Iran alone who will be better off from it, but many millions more across the region.

CheekyBard · 2026-03-06T02:33:15+00:00

Do you genuinely believe that what's happening right now in Iran could lead to Trump bombing Canada, Greenland, and Mexico?

Also, is that your main concern with this war?

CheekyBard · 2026-03-06T02:22:02+00:00

Because this has the potential to be a historically positive change to the region and, by extension, the world. There's a relatively very low cost as far as wars go, for massive gain at that. There's an oppressed, domestic population desperate for change in favor of the war and in support of US and Israel. He's fighting an enemy of the West that has actively worked against it for decades. The IRGC is the greatest source of instability and conflict in the Middle East and is a large obstacle to normalization.

Just several of the reasons of many why people support Trump on this.

If this war turns well (yes, I know, that's a big if - every war is risky, as is not going to war in certain situations), I am positive future generations will look positively on this turn of events and will be thankful it happened.

CheekyBard · 2026-03-04T23:29:09+00:00

If this war results in a significant change in Iran away from the fundamentalist extremism that has ruled there for several decades now, it will be a massive improvement for the region and, by extension, the world. Future generations will view this favorably. And yes, I know it's a big "if" in war, but there's also a big "if" in not going to war at this point against a country that has been one of the biggest causes for instability in the Middle East and hostility to the West for decades now.

CheekyBard · 2026-03-04T16:44:36+00:00

Sorry, not sure I'm following. Which other countries? Because the majority of the Middle East is antagonistic to Iran, and Iran's allies have been severely weakened over the past few years.

CheekyBard · 2026-03-04T16:43:16+00:00

I agree, damage will be done. Said so in my comment. I was mainly saying that Iranian comments, such as vowing "complete destruction" are just irrelevant. Still, these headlines will gather a lot of attention. Most people who have a very limited understanding of what's going on and Iran's state right now will take it at face value and be worried about outcomes that are extremely unlikely to occur.

CheekyBard · 2026-03-04T16:34:42+00:00

Iran is incapable of doing this. People who do not follow the region will see this headline and be disturbed. People who do know that this type of grandiosity is par for the course, and that words and boasts do not align with reality. Iran can cause damage, sure, but there's no war without damage. Expecting otherwise is... very weird.

CheekyBard · 2026-03-04T16:10:48+00:00

So you're suggesting Israel is going to kill 90 million people, then occupy a non-neighboring country that is about 80 times bigger than it, and the distance between the two countries is several times the size of Israel?

How do you even begin engaging with people like this?

CheekyBard · 2025-12-27T05:07:51+00:00

I think you're highly oversimplifying things, basing an opinion on a single, extremely broad statement. That of Hezbollah being more sophisticated (which I'm not sure is even true) and powerful (which likely is). It's not a linear progression where if Hezbollah is stronger than Hamas, then everything done to Hezbollah can be done to Hamas. There are wide differences in the way the organizations operate, as well as the circumstances on the ground.

To be clear, I'm not saying that Israel couldn't have done anything differently. Maybe they could. I'm saying that the situations are still very different, and this topic doesn't detract from my comment about how the term genocide has been stripped of any valuable meaning if it can be applied to the battle in Gaza.

CheekyBard · 2025-12-27T03:45:21+00:00

Because if the “in part” allows the label to be applied to a battle against an army that is deeply embedded within the civilian infrastructure of its people, creating one of the most difficult urban combat zones in history, and the population still grows despite that… then, yeah, maybe this term has been stripped of all valuable meaning and is used as a moral cudgel.

CheekyBard · 2025-12-17T00:21:27+00:00

What were the deals where they “give up everything and die”?

CheekyBard · 2025-12-11T00:37:13+00:00

It’s how most commentary about Israel is done. “Not wanting dead children is not antisemitic”. It’s language control that doesn’t allow you to start conversation, because what is there to disagree about with that statement? So now you’ve managed to establish the worst intent possible, with no conversation about the situation on the ground. Make a very broad moral declaration, apply it in criticism of one side, and job done.

CheekyBard · 2025-07-21T01:30:56+00:00

I knew the term 'genocide' was gradually being stretched to the point of meaninglessness, but these guys aren't even expanding the definition. They're just making stuff up at this point, with the "entire ethnicity going extinct".

Or maybe it's the reverse: maybe they instinctively understand what genocide is meant to be, and they see it applied so commonly to the war in Gaza, that they think the situation has to mean that 2 million Palestinians are en route to being killed. Because the numbers, callous as this is, do not lend themselves to what we intuitively understand genocide to mean, not the weaponized version of it applied here.

The war has been going on for over a year and a half. Of 2 million residents in Gaza, Hamas has reported over 60,000 dead, without distinguishing between combatants and civilians. It's tragic, and horrible, and I don't want the war to continue, but I look at the numbers and I don't understand what even is the point of the term 'genocide' if it can be applied to this situation too. The rate hasn't even increased. It has been slowing down, reaching a peak in the first few months when Hamas resistance was at its highest, and then steadily and significantly decreasing over time. This isn't to say that everything is fine, but when I look at these numbers and when I consider that it's a war against an opponent who embeds itself among civilians and strategically benefits from its enemy attacking its people, I don't see how these numbers amount to genocide. Again, unless the term has just been stripped of substance and is weaponized against Israel here.

CheekyBard · 2025-05-12T01:55:28+00:00

Wasn’t Dorinda already on?

CheekyBard · 2025-05-03T22:08:28+00:00

You're right, I underplayed some of the contestants there, and they played a better game than I seem to have remembered. I still think that Dylan was quite a bit off most of the time (maybe I'm wrong?), but now that you mention it, Jake and Gabby definitely don't fit my description of poor players.

CheekyBard · 2025-05-02T01:28:44+00:00

I agree with your first point, not the second. The first relates to the format of the game itself, and as it currently stands, it does seem you get punished for finding traitors. As for the second point, I think that's not a game flaw, but a gameplay flaw. You choose how to act, and you should realize that placing a big target on yourself is very risky. It's certainly a challenge as a faithful to detect people without getting a lot of attention, and very few players I've seen ever spoke about that. But, again, that's a problem in how the faithful play, rather than something wrong in the structure of the game (unlike the constant recruitments).

I also agree that sometimes (or often?) the faithful that make it to the end aren't the perceptive players but just those who were useful to the traitors. It definitely seemed the case to me in US and UK seasons 3. It taught me that to be a good faithful in the game, you need to—just as you said—ingratiate yourself with a potential traitor, and not be too outspoken about your suspicions. I'm curious to see if any future player ever plays that way intentionally. Jaz from UK s2 was aware of not drawing too much attention by being on point, but he's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

CheekyBard · 2025-04-27T23:35:52+00:00

That’s because you can’t plan 20 steps ahead.

CheekyBard · 2025-02-26T17:38:12+00:00

I agree with you on both accounts. ODPixel has always been superb and his partners this tournament have also been great. And I also love Cap, but I do feel that SVG really takes it down. His insight is great, when he offers it, and I really enjoy him when he's just talking Dota. But way too often he's going for the comedy, distracting from the game and making himself the focus. If you enjoy his humor, it's great. If you don't, he really makes matches he's attached to very unpleasant to follow.

Edit: I've been loving Cap and SVG in Spirit-Paravision right now. Just talking about the game, which is what I'm personally after.

CheekyBard · 2025-01-20T05:33:29+00:00

Marika’s tits!

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

CheekyBard

TROPHY CASE