Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Marenghi
Oct 16, 2008

Don't trust the liberals,
they will betray you

Typo posted:

I'm just going to post some figures from wiki for context

36% of IRA inflicted deaths being civilians does not seem to back up your point.
Though I'll concede not all of them were intentional. For the remainder of the conflict they did try to call in warnings to limit causalities. But back to my original point, it's factually incorrect to say the IRA never intentionally targeted civilians and that's why they were 'moral' freedom fighters while Hamas are 'immoral' freedom fighters.

My contention is people using the white-washed image of other freedom movements to paint Palestinians as being particularly blood-thirsty or not standing up to some standard by which freedom fighters must adhere to. But almost everything said about Hamas was said about the IRA, or ANC during the actual campaigns. The historiography changes after they were successful to forget the atrocities, and excesses. But they happened, and they weren't commendable, or justified, but they happened in the course of a broader campaign for freedom, which itself is a just cause.

I won't disregard the Palestinian cause because some members engaged in abhorrent acts during their struggle, but I also won't excuse those acts. I just hope we don't see repeats of them in the future. Again calling back to the IRA as an example, the leadership learned from atrocities that they were counter-productive to the overall struggle, and worked hard to stop random sectarian killings. Which is the lesson Hamas should learn from this.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Capri Sunrise
May 16, 2008

Elephants are mammals of the family Elephantidae and the largest existing land animals. Three species are currently recognised: the African bush elephant, the African forest elephant, and the Asian elephant.

Engorged Pedipalps posted:


We forced a lot of German people to leave homes they made in France, Poland and Czechoslovakia too. It wasn't a genocide


Post WW2 led to enormous ethnic displacements across Eastern Europe estimated to have killed hundreds of thousands of people; not exclusively Germans.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Engorged Pedipalps posted:

I just don't see how you can argue that removing a bloodthirsty genocidal power from the people they are genociding is ethnic cleansing, especially when half or more of the population has a less than hundred years old claim to the land

See again you're thinking about claims to the land on a national level - this culture has claim to this land and it's very old so we have to respect it, this culture just arrived in this land so they're Interlopers and we can boot them out. It's evident in the scale of time you're discussing - a hundred years is more than a typical human lifetime.

Your whole way of talking about this issue is ultimately deeply reactionary, like there's not actual people in Palestine, just a Good Nation with the proper property rights, and a Bad Nation without the proper property rights, and the Bad Nation has to be expunged because for two nations to share land is unworkable. Totally parallel to Zionism.

quote:

We forced a lot of German people to leave homes they made in France, Poland and Czechoslovakia too. It wasn't a genocide

Because that was immediately after WWII. Talking about expelling Israelis from Israel isn't just talking about forcibly relocating settlers back to their personal countries of origin, it's talking about forcibly relocating people from the only country where they've ever lived, because they're the wrong ethnicity.

Forcibly relocating people from the only country where they've ever lived, because they're the wrong ethnicity, is horribly wrong. The Nakba was horribly wrong and your proposed Nakba-for-the-Jews would be horribly wrong. The difference is that one actually happened (and is still happening), the other is only possible in the minds of the most terrified-to-reaction Israelis and some posters here.

quote:

If the Israelis didn't want to experience this problem they should not have exported ethnic cleansing and ethnofacism from the Nazis

You mean "imported" and "from the US."

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Oct 25, 2023

punishedkissinger
Sep 20, 2017

Biden is leaning hard into genocide denial.

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1717245490826272911

mannerup
Jan 11, 2004

♬ I Know You're Dying Trying To Figure Me Out♬

♬My Name's On The Tip Of Your Tongue Keep Running Your Mouth♬

♬You Want The Recipe But Can't Handle My Sound My Sound My Sound♬

♬No Matter What You Do Im Gonna Get It Without Ya♬

♬ I Know You Ain't Used To A Female Alpha♬
.

mannerup fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Nov 5, 2023

Engorged Pedipalps
Apr 21, 2023

Marenghi posted:

36% of IRA inflicted deaths being civilians does not seem to back up your point.
Though I'll concede not all of them were intentional. For the remainder of the conflict they did try to call in warnings to limit causalities. But back to my original point, it's factually incorrect to say the IRA never intentionally targeted civilians and that's why they were 'moral' freedom fighters while Hamas are 'immoral' freedom fighters.

Something like 8 civilians died in Iraq for every insurgent that was killed, that number is very low

Killing more troops than civilians in a war is virtually unheard of by modern standards

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Raenir Salazar posted:

It's hard to be sure but either you seem to be justifying ethnically cleansing millions of people which is still a large number of people even just limiting ourselves to the green line, or you're assuming pedipalps made a very different argument then the one they have in fact literally presented as of me writing this post of moving everyone from Israel to the US.

Forcible moving any number of people for reasons of collective punishment is wrong, can you clarify your position, how many people would this be? Do you think this is just about the Israeli settlers in the west Bank or does this also include the millions within the internationally recognized Green line?

I'm not endorsing ethnic cleansing. I was just wondering what you meant by the people of Israel.

I said come in!
Jun 22, 2004


Pretty disgusting thing to say but not at all surprising considering Bidens considerable history of racism. But anywho, the death toll is not being reported by just the Palestinians, but also the U.N. and other 3rd parties within Gaza. So denial of the death toll is genocide denial.

NovemberMike
Dec 28, 2008

Engorged Pedipalps posted:

We forced a lot of German people to leave homes they made in France, Poland and Czechoslovakia too. It wasn't a genocide

It was at a bare minimum ethnic cleansing. If you want to hold to a broad definition of genocide it was that too. The German minority in Poland came in a migration in the 1200s. It gets messy because of WWII and the whole Nazi thing but the reaction to ethnically cleanse large portions of Eastern Europe was an ethnic cleansing.

Gumball Gumption
Jan 7, 2012


I don't even understand the point of this line from them. So because they admit that they're killing civilians but because they think the number is smaller than what Hamas says, something they can't prove and their own argument depends on them not proving it because Hamas controls the evidence according to them, it makes killing civilians ok? Or that it's the price of waging war and if you're worried the price is too high, don't worry it's not, just trust us?

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

It is not very surprising for the president of the united states to hold the position that any number of civilian deaths is fine if it's them or their allies doing it. That would be entirely consistent with the historical conduct of the US armed forces so he would be inviting some rather difficult questions if he said anything else.

Paladinus
Jan 11, 2014

heyHEYYYY!!!

Engorged Pedipalps posted:

Isn't this literally what y'all are arguing in maintaining the israeli apartheid state?

I don't see how they continue to exist as a state without continuing their pattern of behavior. You either relocate the people who already largely have somewhere to go, or you continue to let Israel execute every single gazan man woman and child before they move on to the west bank and wash that place with blood too

If you have a better proposal I'd like to hear it. The Israeli state has expressed, openly, that they have no desire to make peace or end the mass indiscriminate murder of people who, by state policy, israel does not view as human beings

That is not a good argument. Only 10% of Israelis have dual citizenship, and out of those not all have a place to go in the other country, and not all even reside in Israel as is. Not to mention that should any international body try to displace ~7 million Israeli Jews, a lot of them would fight with the same conviction as Hamas to avoid that. You're proposing 70 Nagorno-Karabakhs somehow to happen peacefully and not destabilise the region further, it's completely unfeasible at this point.

I also strongly disagree with the implication that there is something inherently wrong with Israeli people that would prevent them from having a state that doesn't commit atrocities. Israel doesn't have to continue to exist as an apartheid state. Laws can be changed, international oversight can be properly maintained, and public opinion can be swayed, if there is political will. There is, unfortunately, not enough political will from major players to pressure Israel, but there is literally zero political will to displace millions of Israeli Jews.

celadon
Jan 2, 2023

Marenghi posted:

My contention is people using the white-washed image of other freedom movements to paint Palestinians as being particularly blood-thirsty or not standing up to some standard by which freedom fighters must adhere to. But almost everything said about Hamas was said about the IRA, or ANC during the actual campaigns. The historiography changes after they were successful to forget the atrocities, and excesses. But they happened, and they weren't commendable, or justified, but they happened in the course of a broader campaign for freedom, which itself is a just cause.

I don't really understand this sentiment. "I like the good parts that lead to the revolution but i categorically reject the bad parts'" just seems like an extremely weak position to hold. Basically ever act of progress in human history required civilian casualties to implement, its kinda dogshit to say the means are bad and unjustified and you dont support them but the outcome is good and justified and you're proud to support that.

And if someone's position is 'I support revolutions and the freeing of slaves just as long as noone gets hurt' then they dont actually support basically any disruption to the status quo.

Neurolimal
Nov 3, 2012
I feel like it would be very easy for anyone skeptical of the health ministry's figures to point to any other point in time of this conflict where the ministry's numbers did not align or were vastly out of proportion with the confirmed death total. That's a pretty convenient thing about this war; you have quite a big sample size.

Raenir Salazar
Nov 5, 2010

College Slice

Engorged Pedipalps posted:

I just don't see how you can argue that removing a bloodthirsty genocidal power from the people they are genociding is ethnic cleansing, especially when nearly half of the population has a less than hundred years old claim to the land

We forced a lot of German people to leave homes they made in France, Poland and Czechoslovakia too. It wasn't a genocide

If the Israelis didn't want to experience this problem they should not have exported ethnic cleansing and ethnofacism from the Nazis

You're probably right I think I might have looked at bad data there

Fwiw the mizrahi are welcome to stay. Their current problems however are the fault of a white European rear end in a top hat from Pennsylvania

You're not advocating removing the "power" though. A state and its current and specific government is not its people? You could destroy the current government the same way the Allies destroyed the Nazi and Imperial Japanese governments, leaving the core nation and national boundaries intact. When ethnic Germans were ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe (also horrible) they still had a homeland to be moved to, Germany wasn't merged into Poland and France and 100 million Germans expulsed to around the world.

Prussia as a state within Germany was destroyed, Germany denazified, Japanese leaders were put on trial, and both occupied until reliable government(s) could be put in charge who wouldn't do the same wars and the same crimes as before.

There's no justified reason to forcible remove even your preferred specific subset of Jews no matter how horrible the current Israeli state is from their legitimate borders. We're not in and will never be in the position to make this sort of decision, so there's no reason to think it is something plausible or acceptable in any hypothetical, it is not a reasonable solution to the conflict.

NovemberMike
Dec 28, 2008

TBH if you're fine with the ethnic Germans being cleansed post WW2 I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between that and the Nakba?

Oscar Wilde Bunch
Jun 12, 2012

Grimey Drawer

Judgy Fucker posted:

No it doesn't. If I rear-end someone and hurt myself in the accident, but no police report is filed, I suffered consequences from my actions without "being held accountable."

But a short list of consequences that have already happened:
  • End of Abrahamic Accords between Israel and KSA
  • Turkey ending plans for joint energy exploration
  • Increased fighting with Hezbollah and other forces in the north
  • Increased violence in the West Bank

The Saudi statement wasn't that strong. I feels like they basically said we'll pick this up when the war ends, further confirming they're overall lack of care.

Engorged Pedipalps
Apr 21, 2023

NovemberMike posted:

It was at a bare minimum ethnic cleansing. If you want to hold to a broad definition of genocide it was that too. The German minority in Poland came in a migration in the 1200s. It gets messy because of WWII and the whole Nazi thing but the reaction to ethnically cleanse large portions of Eastern Europe was an ethnic cleansing.

:chloe:

It's almost as if genocide and annexation does not endear you to the global community or leave you with a legitimate claim to your land

DeadlyMuffin
Jul 3, 2007

celadon posted:

I don't really understand this sentiment. "I like the good parts that lead to the revolution but i categorically reject the bad parts'" just seems like an extremely weak position to hold. Basically ever act of progress in human history required civilian casualties to implement, its kinda dogshit to say the means are bad and unjustified and you dont support them but the outcome is good and justified and you're proud to support that.

And if someone's position is 'I support revolutions and the freeing of slaves just as long as noone gets hurt' then they dont actually support basically any disruption to the status quo.

There's considerable room between "I support revolutions and the freeing of slaves just as long as noone gets hurt" and "the cause is just, therefore literally anything done in furtherance of it is acceptable". I think it's reasonable try and stake out a line somewhere in between those extremes.

Gumball Gumption
Jan 7, 2012

Congratulations to the polite Hitler factory and the new models being rolled out.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Engorged Pedipalps posted:

:chloe:

It's almost as if genocide and annexation does not endear you to the global community or leave you with a legitimate claim to your land

See again this is the thing where you're not thinking about actual people, and whether have the right not to be forced from the only homes they've ever known.

You're just thinking in terms of ethnic identities - which ethnicities have earned a good reputation in the global community, which ethnicities get to live on what land.

The entire way you write about your ethnic cleansing proposal is totally reminiscent of the most outrageous right-wing Zionists. It's deeply racist in the way it prioritizes the imagined rights and claims of races over the rights and claims of human beings.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Oct 25, 2023

Darth Walrus
Feb 13, 2012

mannerup posted:

I agree that Hamas likely isn’t telling the truth, but saying Palestinians are potentially untruthful is just more conflating of the two. Not great messaging from the President of the United States.

Hamas is the government of Gaza, and therefore runs the public health ministry. Being a government means that they care a lot more about keeping an accurate track record of who is alive and dead in their territory than exaggerating casualties to play for the sympathy of countries that have already written off two million people as acceptable losses, and so their death figures have historically been very accurate (which is why the World Health Organisation uses them as a primary source). After Operation Protective Edge in 2014, for example, the Gaza Health Ministry estimated 2,310 people were killed. Independent UN observers estimated it was 2,251. If they're off now, they're likely undercounting because the total collapse of Gaza's medical/bureaucratic infrastructure and the sheer devastation Israel has wrought means they simply haven't found and put names to all the corpses yet.

I get there's an instinctive drive to go 'Palestinians aren't Hamas', but when it gets to the point of ignoring that they're the government of the Gaza Strip, with all the attendant responsibilities, personnel, and resources, it gets incredibly unhelpful. One of the main problems with the belief that you can cleanly excise Hamas from Gaza is that they're not just a tiny mob of gun-waving fanatics, but the entire loving public sector. You're broadening the list of acceptable targets for Israel, not narrowing it.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!
Collective punishment is wrong. Random German families living east of the Oder-Neisse weren't all guilty of annexation and genocide, and little kids certainly weren't.

The post war ethnic cleansing was a crime against humanity, and if we justify it on the basis of racial guilt, how can we condemn the atomic bombings of schoolchildren in Japan, or for that matter airstrikes on Gaza which are also based on a notion of the collective guilt of the Palestinian people for the killings that some Hamas fighters did.

Engorged Pedipalps
Apr 21, 2023
Gonna put myself out there and say it was not wrong to collectively punish the Germans for voting for and spending a decade supporting the worst genocide of the 20th century

I said come in!
Jun 22, 2004

Engorged Pedipalps posted:

Gonna put myself out there and say it was not wrong to collectively punish the Germans for voting for and spending a decade supporting the worst genocide of the 20th century

I thought the support for the Nazi party wasn't actually that high? That the Nazi's more or less forced their way into power. I mean if U.S. presidential elections are anything to go off of, its totally possible for someone to come into power with significantly less popular support than their political opponent (because our election system is loving stupid).

punishedkissinger
Sep 20, 2017

I said come in! posted:

I thought the support for the Nazi party wasn't actually that high? That the Nazi's more or less forced their way into power. I mean if U.S. presidential elections are anything to go off of, its totally possible for someone to come into power with significantly less popular support than their political opponent (because our election system is loving stupid).

It was low until they took power and then most Germans were like "ok sure, this is what we're doing now" and went all in.

Private Speech
Mar 30, 2011

I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.


I said come in! posted:

I thought the support for the Nazi party wasn't actually that high? That the Nazi's more or less forced their way into power. I mean if U.S. presidential elections are anything to go off of, its totally possible for someone to come into power with significantly less popular support than their political opponent (because our election system is loving stupid).

It was very high among the expatriate Germans, a vast majority in places - but that doesn't justify it on it's own, especially when said support was in part also a reaction to the breakdown of the Austrian and to a lesser extent German empires, which led to a loss of privileged status for Germans in the newly independent states after WWI.

For the record I think ethnic cleansing is bad and it shouldn't happen to anyone and especially not Israelis. Not the Palestinians either though.

Private Speech fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Oct 25, 2023

celadon
Jan 2, 2023

Why would it be ethnic cleansing to return stolen houses to Palestinians but allow their current Israeli occupants to remain in the country, just not in that particular house?

Raenir Salazar
Nov 5, 2010

College Slice

Engorged Pedipalps posted:

Gonna put myself out there and say it was not wrong to collectively punish the Germans for voting for and spending a decade supporting the worst genocide of the 20th century

I think the problem here is what this implies is that you don't have a principled objection to ethnic cleansing; it seems like you have an unclear definition of what this constitutes, you seem to believe that crimes against humanity depend on whether the target deserved it or not? This definitely undercuts your argument insofar as you're justifying this on behalf of Palestinians, because the only reason according to your presented argument that what Israel is doing is wrong is because Palestinians didn't do anything deserve it? Would you agree with this?

celadon posted:

Why would it be ethnic cleansing to return stolen houses to Palestinians but allow their current Israeli occupants to remain in the country, just not in that particular house?

This isn't what Pedipalps is suggesting?

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Engorged Pedipalps posted:

Gonna put myself out there and say it was not wrong to collectively punish the Germans for voting for and spending a decade supporting the worst genocide of the 20th century

I think really putting yourself out there would be to complete the analogy to the present day, and say "it would not be wrong to collectively punish the Jews for the crimes of the Israeli state."

You believe in collective punishment, specifically forced relocation, based on ethnic identity, so you're a reactionary racist. I encourage you to think about people, and their rights, more, and to realize that racal, cultural, and ethnic identities are not vectors for moral contamination.

Maybe read a book about the internment of the Japanese in WW2, you'll either develop a new perspective or enjoy reading about the appropriate execution of collective punishment on a criminal ethnicity.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Oct 25, 2023

the holy poopacy
May 16, 2009

hey! check this out
Fun Shoe
1948 was an entire lifetime ago and some Israeli roots go back a century or more. At some point you're just punishing people for being born in the wrong place.

A not-insignificant chunk of Israel's population were originally refugees from other Arab countries that drove out most of their Jews following the Nakba, too. Do they get their ancestral homes back or was that just more of that "good ethnic cleansing" because of the crimes of their co-religionists in another country?

I said come in!
Jun 22, 2004

celadon posted:

Why would it be ethnic cleansing to return stolen houses to Palestinians but allow their current Israeli occupants to remain in the country, just not in that particular house?

I didn't think anyone was suggesting this.

I personally feel the best course of action is to dismantle the Israeli government and form a new one with international support and actual ability to help lead it and see that it grows into something actually good. So the complete polar opposite of what it is now. All Jews and Palestinians have to have equal rights, with a constitution and laws that protect those rights and prevent any attempts to do away with them. Everyone high up in the current Israeli government needs to be held accountable and brought to trial for their crimes as well, and it should be Palestinians that get to decide the punishment for those crimes.

None of this is going to happen of course, the western super powers will never allow it. Israel is going to stay and be allowed to continue doing what they are doing, and will probably collapse in on themselves when they no longer have the Palestinians as their enemy.

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012


Lipstick Apathy

celadon posted:

I don't really understand this sentiment. "I like the good parts that lead to the revolution but i categorically reject the bad parts'" just seems like an extremely weak position to hold. Basically ever act of progress in human history required civilian casualties to implement, its kinda dogshit to say the means are bad and unjustified and you dont support them but the outcome is good and justified and you're proud to support that.

And if someone's position is 'I support revolutions and the freeing of slaves just as long as noone gets hurt' then they dont actually support basically any disruption to the status quo.
It seems like the debate is really about whether the means justify the ends, or whether the ends justify the means. If the Palestinian cause is just, then are there any limits on what can be done to pursue that end? Does that justify blowing up a schoolbus of Jewish children with an RPG? Or shooting Olympic athletes or hijacking airplanes? Even the last one while less bloody put civilians in harm's way in a very intentional way. And maybe I'm wrong, but a lot of people seem to think that's justified. The ends justify the means.

I tend to believe the means justify the ends. People are almost always responsible for what they do, and if they're not, then it can only go back to God, which can justify anything.

From a practical or strategic point of view too, "the ends justify the means" also seems to reinforce what the right-wing Israeli Zionist people say anyways. They dig in further if they're hearing (whether real or perceived) that the liberation of the Palestinians entails the mass murder of their people but that's justified because the end is just. Are they wrong? The result of Hamas' raid into Israeli territory didn't seem to divide the Israeli population, it unified them in this emergency war mode, and that doesn't seem desirable if your goal is to beat them. If you're weak and are taking on the strong, you have to divide the strong and then defeat them one-by-one in more manageable bite-sized chunks. Israel was much more divided before the raid. Now it is united. So either Hamas is just incompetent, which doesn't bode well for them, or what they're doing only uses the name of liberation but is really about something else and Palestinians are being exploited as tools in the pursuit of whatever that is. I don't have a high opinion of the Palestinian leadership.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Oct 25, 2023

theCalamity
Oct 23, 2010

Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

mannerup posted:

I agree that Hamas likely isn’t telling the truth, but saying Palestinians are potentially untruthful is just more conflating of the two. Not great messaging from the President of the United States.

https://vxtwitter.com/jstein_wapo/status/1717252005683449925?s=46

Their estimates are good enough for HRW

Engorged Pedipalps
Apr 21, 2023

the holy poopacy posted:

1948 was an entire lifetime ago and some Israeli roots go back a century or more. At some point you're just punishing people for being born in the wrong place.

A not-insignificant chunk of Israel's population were originally refugees from other Arab countries that drove out most of their Jews following the Nakba, too. Do they get their ancestral homes back or was that just more of that "good ethnic cleansing" because of the crimes of their co-religionists in another country?

No, I am suggesting punishing the people of Israel for the genocide they are doing right now, not because of where they were born

I would be willing to call the nakba water under the bridge, it's the huge decades long history of war crimes and mass scale ethnic violence that these people should be punished for, and the generational scale on which they have engaged in this behavior. The nakba is the start of decades of this. It never stops. At some point you have to admit things aren't working.

The fact that half of the people doing this did not originate there in the first place is only secondary to my point, that the people of Israel have shown they do not have the capability to exist as a sovereign state by any standard we have previously accepted. If your family lived there a thousand years and you still woke up one day and decided it was okay to murder your neighbors (because you think they are inferior) you're probably an rear end in a top hat and don't deserve nice things

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Obviously you don't mean Palestinian citizens of Israel, right? That they should be kicked off the land in a second Nakba because they made the mistake of being born with second-class citizenship instead of no citizenship at all, that's ridiculous.

Intellectual honesty demands you speak clearly - "I am suggesting punishing the Jews" (and maybe the Druze, the Bahai, other ethnic groups which are given protected status under Zionism).

Is there a reason you won't say "I want to see the Jews punished"?

I might blame the palestinian residents of Israel if your people didn't take away their right to vote and travel freely inside of their own country lmao

Your ethnostate created this problem for the people who choose to live under it, I am not going to play this childish antisemitism game when your theocracy denies people their basic rights based on their faith and race

An ideology based on ethnic supremacy is always wrong and it doesn't make me or anyone else antisemetic for saying that

Engorged Pedipalps fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Oct 25, 2023

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Engorged Pedipalps posted:

No, I am suggesting punishing the people of Israel for the genocide they are doing right now, not because of where they were born

Obviously you don't mean Palestinian citizens of Israel, right? That they should be kicked off the land in a second Nakba because they made the mistake of being born with second-class citizenship instead of no citizenship at all, that's ridiculous.

Intellectual honesty demands you speak clearly - "I am suggesting punishing the Jews" (and maybe the Druze, the Bahai, other ethnic groups which are given protected status under Zionism).

Is there a reason you won't say "I want to see the Jews punished"?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Typo
Aug 19, 2009

Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Marenghi posted:

36% of IRA inflicted deaths being civilians does not seem to back up your point.


36% being civilian (and that includes informants/civil servants etc) is actually pretty low, especially when the PIRA was fighting as insurgents, who usually has less leeway in avoiding collateral damage for practical reasons

you are certainly right that there were massacres (thanks for pointing out kingshill), it's just that it doesn't seem to be systematic. To me at least it seem like the PIRA did take pains to avoid civilian casualites.

that being said, I fully admit to not knowing enough about the troubles to state whether the PIRA was "morally superior" to hamas or vice-versa. I do think it's an interesting comparison and I'm very open to arguments

punishedkissinger
Sep 20, 2017

Typo posted:

that being said, I fully admit to not knowing enough about the troubles to state whether the PIRA was "morally superior" to hamas or vice-versa. I do think it's an interesting comparison and I'm very open to arguments

the big thing for me is that every living member of the PIRA i've seen comment on Hamas is pretty supportive.

Noise Complaint
Sep 27, 2004

Who could be scared of a Jeffrey?

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Obviously you don't mean Palestinian citizens of Israel, right? That they should be kicked off the land in a second Nakba because they made the mistake of being born with second-class citizenship instead of no citizenship at all, that's ridiculous.

Intellectual honesty demands you speak clearly - "I am suggesting punishing the Jews" (and maybe the Druze, the Bahai, other ethnic groups which are given protected status under Zionism).

Is there a reason you won't say "I want to see the Jews punished"?

Stop trying to conflate being Jewish with Zionists, it's intellectually dishonest and you're just trying to bait this poster.

Also, yes, Zionists should be punished for genocide.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Szarrukin
Sep 29, 2021
https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1716848578453287052

here's the link to said blueprint and although my Hebrew is rudimentary, the words "final settlement" do appear in a very title. There's no possible way of Israeli think tank not seeing how "final settlement" sounds in historical context.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply