Israeli War Crimes Thread

[indiscriminate_hater]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alternatively, call Israelis war criminals but harbor the same views of Muslims (violent dickheads incapable of anything but murder, w/ nukes no less!) but post indignantly on a game forum about how at least you aren’t Israeli

It's possible to be critical of people on both sides of a conflict.

Hope this helps!

[Byue]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My point was, as always, the answer is somewhere between “Israelis are war criminals and the Palestinians dindu nuffin” and the opposing position that asserts “the Palestinians are terrorist animals and get what they deserve”. Centrism and compromise are underrated positions

Also, this conflict will never be solved. All middle eastern people hate one another too much. The quicker we completely get off of oil, the better.

Actually, before America came in the region and decided that in order to get a better foothold, it would be easier if people regressed back into theocratic ways, jews and muslims lived in relative peace.

Actually when the jews were expelled from europe, they mostly went to either south America or in the maghreb. Lawrence of Arabia explains well (yet subtly) why the area is a shit show.

Colonial powers drew the lines of their borders, very straight and putting minorities in power or erasing them completely and added a clause tot he constitution they wrote for these countries: if unstable, we can come stabilize it. (in the case of France, only France can interfere with the former colonies)


Palestine being an occupied state in an ongoing war against Israel and having no official army, cannot be judged by the same standards.

You would not judge an American taking up arms against an invader.
You really would not.
What's the difference here?

Also Hamas get a bad rep when throwing rockets but nobody mention them when Israel bomb an hospital and Hamas provide medical attention to the citizens because few people in the ASA know that there is two wings of hamas.

A social one and a military one.
And people saying that Israel has the right to defend itself miss the point that Israel could sue for peace at any time, given that Palestine is pretty much annihilated yet they prefer continuing the war and occupying so in that regard, who could refuse to argue that Palestine also has a right to defend itself? Against a much stronger aggressor who is occupying their territory for the past 67 years.

Originally Posted by indiscriminate_hater [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Better as in "by the time the world drops their dependence on oil and the economies of middle eastern countries collapse, several of them will have attained nuclear arsenals and harbor a massive resentment against each other and the rest of the world"?

I mean right now, USA has nukes and according to the last president, most of the world is a shit hole and if we have nukes, why not use them?
There is a post about Cucknadians, major allies to the USA and there is a pervasive myth about American exceptionalism so I guess you already have a nuclear armed rogue country who look down on every country with major contempt. Projection is great. (edit: I forgot the part about harbouring a massive resentment against each others and look at how united the country is after the last pres who did everything he could to sow it back together.)

[indiscriminate_hater]

Originally Posted by Byue [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I mean right now, USA has nukes and according to the last president, most of the world is a shit hole and if we have nukes, why not use them?

What's the point of this sentence, aside from throwing out some half-baked strawman? What does the U.S. have to do with the fact that middle eastern countries all full of dinosaur cultures which are unable to adapt to a changing world? Countries whose dominant religion literally instructs them to annihilate anyone who believes differently? The literature of which endorses rape and pedophilia?

But fine. After realizing the horrors of nuclear warfare, despite having the dominant arsenal, the U.S. has not dropped a single bomb on another country. I guess it's hard for someone living in a country with absolutely no international relevance to understand why that makes the U.S. different.

[Byue]

Originally Posted by indiscriminate_hater [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What's the point of this sentence, aside from throwing out some half-baked strawman? What does the U.S. have to do with the fact that middle eastern countries all full of dinosaur cultures which are unable to adapt to a changing world? Countries whose dominant religion literally instructs them to annihilate anyone who believes differently? The literature of which endorses rape and pedophilia?

But fine. After realizing the horrors of nuclear warfare, despite having the dominant arsenal, the U.S. has not dropped a single bomb on another country. I guess it's hard for someone living in a country with absolutely no international relevance to understand why that makes the U.S. different.

Yes, because we routinely see muslim cutting heads in the USA because you did not convert, can you kindly fuck off please?

Quick question, how did the native fare in contrast to christian conversion, brother?

Also, didn't 45 not only ask if we have nukes why can't we use them? (yes)
Also, didn't 45 end the treaty on nuclear non proliferation? (YES)

So I guess if the middle east has nukes (which it does, Israel has some and Israel even threatened to detonate europe, amongst many sites) it is increasingly clear whose fault it is.

(I'm fairly certain you don't even know what proliferation means and much less what the treaty is about and why 45 struck it down)


Also, not sure if you know what a strawman is.
But nice try on finding the correct fallacy.

Strawman is equating muslims with beheading converts and then making an allusion that if they have nuclear weapon, which they don't, they, unlike you, would use it to bad results and you would not.
(not sure how you can nuke someone "good" but hey)

I did not push your logic to any extreme, to make a false point.
You really need to read a god damned book, wanting to talk fallacies with a philosophy major.


Strawman would be to say Biden want to reduce CO2 and then make a claim that he wants you to give up burgers.
Glad I could help you a little.

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by indiscriminate_hater [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What's the point of this sentence, aside from throwing out some half-baked strawman? What does the U.S. have to do with the fact that middle eastern countries all full of dinosaur cultures which are unable to adapt to a changing world? Countries whose dominant religion literally instructs them to annihilate anyone who believes differently? The literature of which endorses rape and pedophilia?

But fine. After realizing the horrors of nuclear warfare, despite having the dominant arsenal, the U.S. has not dropped a single bomb on another country. I guess it's hard for someone living in a country with absolutely no international relevance to understand why that makes the U.S. different.

https://youtu.be/88zvm7-fhKo

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by Byue [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually, before America came in the region and decided that in order to get a better foothold, it would be easier if people regressed back into theocratic ways, jews and muslims lived in relative peace.

Actually when the jews were expelled from europe, they mostly went to either south America or in the maghreb. Lawrence of Arabia explains well (yet subtly) why the area is a shit show.

Colonial powers drew the lines of their borders, very straight and putting minorities in power or erasing them completely and added a clause tot he constitution they wrote for these countries: if unstable, we can come stabilize it. (in the case of France, only France can interfere with the former colonies)


Palestine being an occupied state in an ongoing war against Israel and having no official army, cannot be judged by the same standards.

You would not judge an American taking up arms against an invader.
You really would not.
What's the difference here?

Also Hamas get a bad rep when throwing rockets but nobody mention them when Israel bomb an hospital and Hamas provide medical attention to the citizens because few people in the ASA know that there is two wings of hamas.

A social one and a military one.
And people saying that Israel has the right to defend itself miss the point that Israel could sue for peace at any time, given that Palestine is pretty much annihilated yet they prefer continuing the war and occupying so in that regard, who could refuse to argue that Palestine also has a right to defend itself? Against a much stronger aggressor who is occupying their territory for the past 67 years.





I mean right now, USA has nukes and according to the last president, most of the world is a shit hole and if we have nukes, why not use them?
There is a post about Cucknadians, major allies to the USA and there is a pervasive myth about American exceptionalism so I guess you already have a nuclear armed rogue country who look down on every country with major contempt. Projection is great. (edit: I forgot the part about harbouring a massive resentment against each others and look at how united the country is after the last pres who did everything he could to sow it back together.)

Britain is 100% responsible for Israel. France is half of sykes-picot

Your ancestors are more responsible for the current Middle East than any American Frenchie. Seek Christ

Also, trump only threatened to nuke North Korea, and that’s being loose with “fire and fury”. He didn’t threaten to nuke anyone else, remove your head from your ass

[Toxigen]

Sloppy job, Mossad!

[unsunghero]

In regards to the Mexico firing rockets into the US, and our response being based on whether Mexico’s government was “in on it” or not....

Any country would be completely moronic to take responsibility for any terroristic act. The best position has always been denial. Do a horrible thing, deny deny deny that you had any involvement in it

Here’s an example. At one point in time Iran was proliferating nuclear technology and threatening Israel. All of a sudden, Iranian scientists working at nuclear facilities were being murdered or committing suicide. Iran nuclear facilities were being secretly bombed from within. Israel would deny it until their last breath, but everyone suspected undercover operations.

So if Mexico ever wanted to fire rockets into the us, the strategy would be simple. Do it, then pin it on some rogue faction and deny it officially. Common sense

[Byue]

Oh bro, no doubt.
I don't know who said that the US would respond like Israel if Mexico did that and just explained how the situation would be totally different.
Obviously any country would refute the notion they fired the missiles into the USA.
And obviously, USA's side would be to convince the world it was in fact, Mexico and not a rogue terrorist agent because then, Mexico is not Afghanistan, it wouldn't wok so easily, to battle with Mexico.

This is all I mentioned and you got it right and bravo.

[indiscriminate_hater]

Good to see that you're still feverishly editing your post 10 minutes after you wrote it. I think you should let it sit there, untouched, as a testament to canadian education.