The article you cited states:

The compound was founded in 1988 by Hafiz Saeed, the founder of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), a charity organisation widely considered to be a front for the LeT. The compound’s seminary, Jamia Dawa Islami, was also named after the group.

This wasn’t a random mosque. It clearly had links to a terrorist organisation. The interviewees claim the place wasn’t tied to terrorism, but I am not convinced.

Note how they never explicitly mention what exactly they teach.

The broad spread of extremism in Pakistan’s mosques and their use by terrorist/Islamist groups is widely documented (just search it).

Note I can’t stand Mohdi and I think he is an embarrassment for India, but that doesn’t mean I am going to ignore the how fucking crazy Pakistani Islamists are (and that all Pakistani governments have supported and nurtured violent Islamist movements as long as they didn’t directly challenge the government).

I wouldn’t be so quick to portray the strike as solely a bombing of religious institutions. I don’t know which exact Mosque India hit and what its background is, but the situation is a bit more complex than you describe.

Many of the mosques in Pakistan are little more than extremist training camps and arguably have little to do with Islam. This isn’t unique to Pakistan, from living in the US, I got the impression that many Christian “churches” are more like corruption/tax fraud schemes and/or fronts for enabling political corruption.

It’s fascinating how Gavrilo Princip put himself into the historical record of humanity. He will be discussed in history books many centuries from now (if we get that far and if the concept of “learning” as we think of it now is even relevant then).

This looks really cool. Thanks for sharing.

The points raised about Pakistan are true though. The government has always been pro-terrorism.

Modi is a piece of shit and is honestly an embarrassment for India. One of India’s strengths was relative tolerance of cultural diversity and a strong commitment to democracy (something you don’t often see with relatively poor countries).

Whether it is Russia, Israel, North Korea, China, USA, Iran, or any other hostile nation is unimportant and they are all the same when boiled down. You can claim it is entrenched in Russians, but I wonder why you don’t make the same claim for the other countries that are just as entrenched in their beliefs. Modern Israelis and Palestinians included.

I don’t feel that I know enough about the other countries to make claims (excluding US where I have lived and travelled extensively, but I want to avoid bringing in US for now).

I would like to learn more about the polemical narratives of different Israeli factions. For example, while a strong majority of russians are clearly supportive of genocidal imperialism, they also claim that they don’t hate Ukrainians and it’s all because of NATO and Nazis and some other gibberish. And there is much more to it; imperialist revanchism, victimhood narratives, the notion of the “mysterious russian soul” etc.

I am just curious what the framing is in Israel and how local factions approach statements by Smotrich. For example, imperialist, great power revanchism doesn’t seem to be a relevant narrative for Israel.

I guess I should just start a post in r/Israel (assuming there is no equivalent on Lemmy). Although they might just immediately ban me.

I am not going to discuss US and I don’t speak Chinese/Korean, but I can comment on russia.

In russia, it’s not a “follow the leader” issue. Putin is symptom, not a cause. Russians in general believe themselves to be superior to the citizens of their former colonies and think they have the right to dominate them and destroy their culture. It is bottom up support for genocidal imperialism (there is wealth of research, both quantitative and qualitative, across multiple decades, using many different methodologies, that aligns with this statement).

I have seen many somewhat moderate pro-Israeli claim (online) that Netanyahu et al. aren’t representative of Israeli; is this a common view among moderate Israeli nationalists?

The russians “opposition” claims that it’s only putin, 1 or 2 oligarchs and Vanya the cow that are root of all problems. This is clearly bullshit, but that’s not what I am talking about. The argument has a measure of coherence in context of the aims and attitudes of the russian opposition (even if it is false).

What is the argument of moderate Israeli nationalists who don’t align with Netanyahu, Smotrich et al?

I guess I am trying to understand how Smotrich’s statement are framed by Israeli who maybe support a more aggressive posture towards Palestinians, but aren’t all in with Netanyahu and Smotrich. How do they expect observers to react towards to their country? Or do they explain this by claiming that everyone is antisemitic (be it in good faith or not)?

Smotrich also called for starving the Palestinians in Gaza.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich implies he believes that blocking humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip is “justified and moral” even if it causes 2 million civilians to die of hunger, adding however that the international community won’t allow this to happen.

“We are bringing in aid because there is no choice,” Smotrich says at a conference in Yad Binyamin hosted by the Israel Hayom outlet. “We can’t, in the current global reality, manage a war. Nobody will let us cause 2 million civilians to die of hunger even though it might be justified and moral until our hostages are returned. Humanitarian in exchange for humanitarian is morally justified, but what can we do? We live today in a certain reality, we need international legitimacy for this war.”

I honestly don’t understand how Israeli society expects people to interpret this sort of rhetoric and not come to the conclusion that Israel is a genocidal state.

Is there anyone pro-Israel reading this post that can provide an explanation? Is the argument that Smotrich and Netanyahu aren’t representative of Israeli society?

I almost feel like I am missing something. I am genuinely curious. I don’t understand what’s going on. Is this just bad faith arguments or do the Israeli supremacists not considering this to be genocide because of reasons?

I am talking about blaming everything on sanctions.

I am not that knowledgeable about Cuba, but I have met people from Cuba who moved to the Eastern Block and I know a little bit about events Cuba in context of global history (missile crisis, overthrow of Batista).

Your approach doesn’t sound nuanced enough based on my experience talking to Cubans (and they are not your descendants of Cuban exiles in Florida types).

Comparison is fine. But you are engaging in whataboutism. We are discussing Cuba’s brutal authoritarianism, this topic can evaluated with references to the US.

So what? There are countries that have free healthcare and also have a democratic political system and aren’t run as a brutal dictatorship.

You keep doing the “but what about the US?”, thing. We are not discussing the US, we are discussing Cuba.

This sounds awfully simplistic.

“What about the US?” is not a real arguement. We are discussing Cuba, not the US, Botswana or Uruguay.

The Cuban regime is brutal and authoritarian with minimal respect for human rights.

Would you prefer a more celebratory article? What’s your arguement?

This is a pretty simplistic, almost child-like take.

You can recognize the self-interested nature of the US, while also pointing out how they are not being efficient for their own goals (that also benefit us).

That’s not out of this world for the type of tech that is being discussed, especially considering costs in the US are very high.

If the US had true gumption, they would be testing their hypersonic missiles via launches out of Ukraine aimed at high value russian military targets, with a pretend excuse that it was actually Ukraine launching the missile.

I can guarantee you most of Ukraine would support this (I live in Ukraine) and the “red line” bla bla is just westerners falling prey to russian foreign propaganda initiatives.

Corrupt American oligarch thinks he can deal with incredibly complex issues just because he’s been able to run scams in the US for a few decade (a country which is arguably one of the most friendly places for oligarchs in the world, some smaller exceptions notwithstanding).

Perhaps this is cope on my part, but I believe we have leverage in this situation.

As the saying goes:

If you owe the bank $100K, that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $100M, that’s the bank’s problem.

I don’t think most people understand how critical this is. US treasuries losing safe haven status is the type of thing that will be taught in history books 80 years from now.

It will be like learning about Gavrilo Princip in 2025. Seemingly “meaningless” tedious historical facts, but at a closer look Princip (indirectly) shaped the course of much of human history in the 20th century.

That’s the real problem, China so far has made the Americans look good. But the way Americans are behaving (and their medium capabilities for reform) makes the calculus a little bit more complex.