• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cuomo defeated in NYC Democratic Mayoral Primary

So from what I've been seeing:

Mamdami has received some more endorsements since the primary, namely people who previously endorsed Cuomo. Make of this what you will.

Cuomo meanwhile has not campaigned but did release videos to try and make himself look more relatable. In the videos he makes awkward handshakes and helps jump start a car (incorrectly) and looks rather low-energy.

Adams hasn't seemed to do much except try and find more ways to call Mamdami a communist.

Both Cuomo and Adams have been telling the other one to drop out so they have a chance at Mamdami. But neither can shrink their ego enough to be the one to drop out.
 
Hercules56 said:
No decent person can support the concept of "Globalize the Intifada". All decent persons reject and condemn it.
Click to expand...
There are different interpretations of the term in practice. Some interpret "Intifada" as encompassing various forms of resistance, including non-violent resistance, civil disobedience, and political activism aimed at achieving Palestinian human rights and self-determination. In light of this horrific occupation, all decent persons support it.

But I suspect I would agree with the indecency of the term as you interpret it.
 
grunion said:
There are different interpretations of the term in practice. Some interpret "Intifada" as encompassing various forms of resistance, including non-violent resistance, civil disobedience, and political activism aimed at achieving Palestinian human rights and self-determination. In light of this horrific occupation, all decent persons support it.

But I suspect I would agree with the indecency of the term as you interpret it.
Click to expand...
Most rational and honest people associate intifada with violent uprising. Not necessarily always against civilians but definitely including such acts. Blowing up crowded buses, restaurants, etc. if the term intifada did not clearly associate with violent uprising, people would not be calling for it to be globalized.

They would say "globalize the Palestinian jihad" instead.
 
You are ignoring the possibility of deliberate misrepresenting, like we have seen with "Black Lives Matter", which was incorrectly portrayed in the media.
Just because something has been conflated with something doesn't mean that this is reasonable to do.

Most Intifada actions are non-violent.
 
grunion said:
There are different interpretations of the term in practice. Some interpret "Intifada" as encompassing various forms of resistance, including non-violent resistance, civil disobedience, and political activism aimed at achieving Palestinian human rights and self-determination. In light of this horrific occupation, all decent persons support it.

But I suspect I would agree with the indecency of the term as you interpret it.
Click to expand...

Hercules56 said:
Most rational and honest people associate intifada with violent uprising. Not necessarily always against civilians but definitely including such acts. Blowing up crowded buses, restaurants, etc. if the term intifada did not clearly associate with violent uprising, people would not be calling for it to be globalized.

They would say "globalize the Palestinian jihad" instead.
Click to expand...
The fact that intifada is rightly associated with violent uprising should be more than enough to tell people they need to find another word for their non-intifada aspirations.

"Intifada doesn't just mean terrorism" isn't the argument you think it is, @grunion. It just makes your arguments look like a smokescreen for terrorism.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
...Most Intifada actions are non-violent.
Click to expand...
Cute.

During the first few weeks of the uprising, the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed was around 20 to 1.[17] Israeli security forces engaged in gunfights, targeted killings, tank attacks, and airstrikes; Palestinians engaged in gunfights, stone-throwing, and rocket attacks.[18][19] The approximate 138 suicide bombings carried out by Palestinian militant factions after March 2001 became one of the prominent features of the Intifada and mainly targeted Israeli civilians.[20][21][22][23][24] With a combined casualty figure for combatants and civilians, the violence is estimated to have resulted in the deaths of approximately 3,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis, as well as 64 foreign nationals.

en.wikipedia.org

Second Intifada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
theprestige said:
The fact that intifada is rightly associated with violent uprising should be more than enough to tell people they need to find another word for their non-intifada aspirations.

"Intifada doesn't just mean terrorism" isn't the argument you think it is, @grunion. It just makes your arguments look like a smokescreen for terrorism.
Click to expand...
Indeed, rational and intelligent people associate the term "intifada" with violent uprising against Israelis.

If the people who are calling for globalized intifada mean peaceful resistance and nonviolent protest, they best pick a different term.
 
Here's the big question: does the term "globalized intifada" include the use of violence?? If so, anyone running for office needs to repudiate the term.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
You are ignoring the possibility of deliberate misrepresenting, like we have seen with "Black Lives Matter", which was incorrectly portrayed in the media.
Just because something has been conflated with something doesn't mean that this is reasonable to do.

Most Intifada actions are non-violent.
Click to expand...
Yes, the term intifada was introduced in the Palestinian context to separate the non-militant political groups in the struggle for Palestinian independence from the militant (violent) groups. Those who would take non-violent direct action from those who believed a military solution was necessary. Most importantly Intifada does not have an Islamic context, so it was a term that Christian and Muslim Palestinians could unite behind, unlike Jihad (which can mean a religious struggle both personal e.g. against sin and social which might include war of religious liberation).

The struggle against apartheid predominantly involved people taking peaceful legal action around the world, some took non-violent direct action, a few predominantly South Africans did take violent action that could be defined as terrorism. No one claimed that those partcipating in anti-Apartheid demonstrations and boycotting were anti-white racists and terrorist supporters. (I am sure that at least one person would have claimed this, but I mean in the rational space.)
 
Last edited:
When these idiots are calling for worldwide intifada, they ain't calling for peaceful non-violent resistance. Anyone who claims otherwise is tragically naive or a liar.
 
As someone without a dog in the fight and having a mostly osmotic impression of this stuff, I would have guessed the average New Yorker would associate 'jihad' with 'holy war' and 'intifada' with 'large scale protests that will probably escalate because everyone is blood feuding.' Another word could be better but I would have expected our usual suspects to pooh-pooh participating in the euphemism treadmill. Whatever 'way to say it that means you don't support violence' you come up with, It'll really mean you support violence by the end of the week. In general, it's a complete minefield to try to find a way to express support for Palestinian civilians that cannot be attacked as de facto support for Hamas.

I'm in my mid forties and I don't hear 'intifada' and think 'bus bombings' though I am aware of the latter. 'jihad' for me is the one that reads as a call for war, though I learned the fuller meanings later.
 
Last edited:
Mamdani chooses to not use the term "globalize the intifada" because he knows its a call for violence. If it was generally associated only with nonviolent and peaceful resistance, he would embrace the term with open arms.
 
Hercules56 said:
Mamdani chooses to not use the term "globalize the intifada" because he knows its a call for violence. If it was generally associated only with nonviolent and peaceful resistance, he would embrace the term with open arms.
Click to expand...
Your criticism of this mayoral candidate is that he didn't use a phrase you think he shouldn't use?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom