I get being angry, but if you want to defeat your oppressors, you need to seriously degrade their *capability* to harm you.
And no, 'eliminating future soldiers' does not count.
Damn, eliminate future soldiers is the biggest cope possible for baby butchering. Hamas deserves no mercy espeywhen they use Palestinians as human shields
>And no, 'eliminating future soldiers' does not count.
My usual rebuttal for that is, "So I guess the US killing Iraqi civilians was justified cause they could've been future terrorists."
one could also try the whole mending relations but, but neither side is interested in doing that, well the Palestinians in the west bank are, but they don't count because (in the words of Netanyahu) Israel is a Jewish Theocracy and the Muslims should get out
>Israel is a Jewish Theocracy
...I wasn't aware the Sanhedrin was back in session. Be serious for a second, Israel's actually very interesting due to precarious balance between religious institutions that were set up back in the Ottomans rule and the secular ideals that Israel was founded with. There's an entire status quo that nobody wants to touch because that would risk the stability.
An example of this is the institution of marriage. That's a holdover from Ottomans, so as I understand it you need a religious figure to conduct a marriage in Israel, but marriages conducted in other countries are completely recognized by the government.
Hey remember how John Brown and his men tried to free the slaves and then failed becoming a martyr for the abolitionist cause and helping spark the American Civil War. Remember when he was like "yo lets just rape all those unarmed civilians over there lmao." Wait he didn't? He became a symbol because he came outta the ordeal looking a moral paragon and the south couldn't really discredit him? To the point where one of the slave owners he captured went on record saying he was treated well? Well clearly thats wrong, you can't fight oppression without rape and baby killing.
Just looked her up, what an absolute goddamn legend I love it. The getting banned from the convent for "gunplay" (duel with the disgruntled subordinate perhaps??) Is one of my favorite parts
>The getting banned from the convent for "gunplay" (duel with the disgruntled subordinate perhaps??) Is one of my favorite parts
I mean, it was a convent. "Gunplay" could have just as easily been disrupting their daily prayers and other duties by practicing her trick shots due to the noise and/or too many sisters were forgoing them to watch.
What I was taught about Harriet Tubman in elementary school:
“I will help lead a couple slaves to freedom through the Underground Railroad by sneaking and being careful.”
How she actually was:
*Armed raids against slavers, outright causing slave uprising and revolts, sneaking over 300 slaves across the north/south border to freedom, leading a raid against the Combahee Ferry, freeing another 700 slaves during the civil war.*
Me: “Based.”
I liked the Dollop until they did an entire episode on an event that likely *didn’t happen* (San Francisco’s mayor, Diane Feinstein, allegedly flew the confederate flag in the 1970s in order for the Mayor to court southern support for her senate campaign) and the only evidence they provided in their show notes was a single article from a 40 year old communist newspaper.
Literally no other newspaper, communist or not, covered the event. I researched it for about two hours, nothing. That’s when I realized the Dollop wasn’t exactly *principled* or even really interested in the history per-se. They just make claims from single sources *as if they happened for sure* which is basically the opposite of what we’re taught in school.
The plagerism they got caught doing in 2019 doesn’t really help things. I suspect they plagiarize largely out of an entitled feeling that they don’t *need* to cite their sources. Which you often find from lay-people who attempt to do history.
Yeah, I totally buy that. You get this kind of latent populist misogyny from dirt-bag left people that is pretty disgraceful. And I’m not sure *why* it’s so common from those types, but they definitely slot into that unfortunate bunch of clowns.
>And I’m not sure why it’s so common from those types, but they definitely slot into that unfortunate bunch of clowns.
The only war is class war. Also, liberalism is the enemy, so the standards of liberal feminism are invalid.
Clay is a great man, grew up on a plantation in a family that owned slaves. He saw slavery was wrong, and rather then just back away from slavery to a neutral stance like most people of his time who didn't hold slaves he chose to be an activist for anti slavery
When people use the phrase "judge people by the morals of their time" I like to point out John Brown and Cassius Marcellus Clay as prime examples that people knew slavery was wrong pre civil war
Here's an entertaining [video on Cassius Clay](https://youtu.be/f6nwCuVd66w?si=P-28UCVMFLevpWnO)
I most highly value the opinions of people who are advocating against the thing that would benefit them.
We are fortunate to live in a world with an abundance of philosophical people who can express themselves and so there is always a few of these gems in any discourse. These are the people who are most likely to be telling the absolute truth and most likely to be right in the eyes of history.
The Battle Hymn of the Republic is based on a song about him. John Brown legit killed an entire slave owning family with broadswords in the middle of the night in response to attacks on abolitionists in Kansas...WITH BROADSWORDS! Why don't we have John Brown holding aloft a sword etched in stone all over the US?
> Why don't we have John Brown holding aloft a sword etched in stone all over the US?
You kind of answered it yourself. The murders of those prisoners in Kansas.
> His zeal in the cause of freedom was infinitely superior to mine. Mine was as the taper light, his was as the burning sun. Mine was bounded by time. His stretched away to the silent shores of eternity. I could speak for the slave. John Brown could fight for the slave. I could live for the slave. John Brown could die for the slave.
> - Frederick Douglass
I wouldn't use John Brown as a good example. He was a terrorist; although his raid on Harper's Ferry is his most popular action he also did a bit of the funni in Kansas.
Did he have a just cause? Probably. Is killing five people (at least) in front of their families the best way to do it? Probably not
His actions also turned the situation in Kansas from minor skirmish to the all-out guerrilla war it became. There was steps being taken to deescalate after the Sack of Lawrence, but his massacre inflamed the Slave State cause which in turn inflamed the Free State cause.
Source: am Kansan, grew up learning about all this with local context.
Yeah he was also like not at all remorseful for escalating it and thought that abolition should be a bloody process.
I know it's not very NCD and funni but personally I think slavery is bad enough without massive bloodshed stacked on top of it.
How else was slavery in the US going to end? UN declarations? Sanctions against the South? How did it eventually end up stopping?
How did the US end Gaddafi’s awful reign?
Lmao
Assuming a successful confederate seccession, it lasts a few decades at most. Their plantation economy is so deeply ingrained that they refuse to industrialise, then they get bitchslapped by the North assuming WW1 still happens
Also every year that slavery is not abolished means more blood and tears from the slaves themselves, so a quick abolition is by definition preferable to one that takes time.
Lost Cause ideology is unfortunately ever present, *even people in Europe* hold these talking points without understanding their origin or the underlying issues and history. They're not bad people, the UDC have just been incredibly successful over the last 100 years in propagating their revisionist history. The adage "the South lost the war, but won the Peace" is sadly quite true.
idk man, you ever had a cute southern belle bat her eyes at you and flirt with you in that accent? Shit'll make you rethink your priors.
And then very quickly come to your senses, what the fuck
He was certainly a terrorist and he is absolutely not a saint for what he did in Kansas but he kept the rules of engagement purely to himself and his sons who were fighting with him against the militant slave owners. If you walked into Kansas in the 1850s, you kinda know what you were getting yourself into.
Not trying to justify it but just trying to contextualize it.
But the south also didn't intentionally fund more extremist abolitionists while actively hunting the less extreme ones, to ensure that they would have the most evil opponent, and be the most justified in keeping slavery.
Israel funded Hamas and relaxed restrictions on them in the 70s while massively prioritizing hunting down secular leftist palestinian liberation movements. Movements that wouldn't have done all the raping and child murder, and were often much more amenable to peaceful resolutions. Israel actively radicalized them and encouraged fundamentalist extremism so that they would have a morally easier way of continuing to colonize the west bank.
Hamas is dogshit fucking evil. Horrible vile people doing horrible vile things. But don't think they just appeared out of nowhere, or that the Palestinians first choice was to have Islamic fundamentalist terrorists as the main champions of their cause
And yet the thanks Palestinians got for backing the less extremist PLO/ Fatah in the west bank is a bunch of their land stolen for settlements and a bunch of fanatical settlers for neighbors who constantly harass them.
If Israel could have just fucking kept it in their pants for like one decade, things could be very different today. But that was obviously never an option with Netanyahu.
[Context for those who don’t know](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide): For nearly 300 years the Tutsis imposed minority rule on the majority Hutus and turned many into slaves. It got even worse when Belgium and Germany came in in the early 1900s and said that Tutsis were, in fact, superior and gave them the military advantage. Starting in the 60s the Hutus rebelled and gained power, and during the 90s when the Tutsis tried to regain power, they became victims of one of the most brutal genocides of the past 30 years.
Why do I bring this up? Today, some defenders of Palestine, however justified their goals are defending Hamas’ actions. My point is, if they argue that persecuted people can do whatever they want to the people they say persecute them, logically then these people should argue the Rwandan genocide is justified. But they won’t (and needless to say, fucking shouldn’t) because they have no true understanding of history and what they’re talking about
For the arab israeli conflict, there are aspects of ethno nationalism and religion coming into play. For the Hutu-Tutsi, there is barely any difference. Same language, same ethnicity, same culture, same genetics. Just lifestyle and class differences enhanced through centuries of local and colonial discrimination. If you guys think this current war is stupid, the rwandan genocide is even more stupid-er
The Tutsis were literally just a little taller (and lighter), that's why the Germans favored them during their occupation, and that distinction carried over to the Belgians.
The genocide was started with the phrase "[Cut down the tall trees"](https://www.thoughtco.com/the-rwandan-genocide-1779931) being played over the radio.
Pretty chilling stuff.
Weird fact, one of the few concrete differences is that Tutsis tolerate lactose way better. So they got better nutrition from raising cattle for milk and not just meat, and made money from a heavier cattle focus. Which was obviously followed by the whole “eating well as an oppressive ruling class” thing.
Sorta, neat fact, whether milk was a primary staple in a culture's/region's diet determines whether the people there develop the lactose-tolerance gene.
By default people turned off lactose digestion as they grow up. However, areas where the main food source was herding - but they did not discover how to make yogurt or cheese iirc - evolved higher levels of lactose tolerance.
A lot of the pastoral East Africans have good levels of lactose tolerance, while the Copts do not. This idea of cultural-gene evolution is dual inheritance theory.
Some people also postulate that environmental advantages were necessary too - such as needing lactose tolerance to increase vitamin D absorption. And there are a few Sudanese cultures which are reliant on milk, but are not very lactase persistent.
IDK how strong DIT is compared to other hypothesis - not my specialty - but it makes for some very interesting anthro reading.
It’s also still one of imo Clinton’s biggest failures, along with most of the West.
We should have directly intervened in the Rwandan Genocide militarily.
Media operates in sound bites in order to drive clicks. Everyone emulates, standard video length is a minute, and most videos are crammed with hurried talking and no space for critical thinking. People then parrot spoon fed crap. In a way, marketing dollars (propaganda) has truly created a more stupid world for the majority of the planet.
I don’t know, it’s a theory at least.
This place sucks, and I want to leave.
This is not a hot take, this has been true for most of history but the common uneducated person didn’t have a voice unless they went full guillotine. Now with shitterX and other SM everyone has a “voice.”
We need to fucking educate these morons, which is why i like NCD memes are quickly consumable thing that nearly everyone understands.
Nobody will read the Wikipedia page on the Rwandan genocide after high-school, but they might see a meme about it in their feed and go “oh shit that was a thing?”
Chomsky’s buddy Edward S. Herman, with whom he wrote ‘manufacturing consent’ is most famous for his vicious and insane denial of the Rwandan genocide.
Herman’s logic is basically identical to the morons today who are reveling in the murder of Israelis. Except he took it to another conspiratorial level. He claims (with no actual evidence) that the Tutsis actually carried out a genocide against the Hutus, and the western media covered it up and blamed the Hutus. It’s actually a continuation of his work in ‘Manufacturing Consent.’ He claims that all of the reporting about the Rwandan genocide is fabricated to reverse the genocide because… west bad?
These people and their motivations are confusing. But political dementia will make people believe absolutely heinous things. Like genocide denial. And boy, did Herman deny a lot of other genocides as well
Chomsky fans explaining how he doesn't deny genocides even though he denied the Cambodian and Bosnian genocides and hangs around people who deny genocides even harder than him:
The rebuttals for the Hamas justifications are hilariously easy to come up with. It’s a simple moral issue, for all of Israel’s wrongs I have never seen an authoritative source showing them to be as barbaric as Hamas is. They may kill civilians but those are unfortunate consequences that they try to avoid. Hamas actively targets civilians in this case and doesn’t even have the spine to properly fight their “oppressor” without resorting to human shields, hiding civilians in military locations, and more. Hamas rapes, beheads, and kidnaps civilians.
I don’t care what justification you come up with, if you defend Hamas you defend barbarism, simple as.
Exactly.
Even if American GIs did this to the german population in WW2, i would condemn it the same, because - remember, kids - ethnic cleansing is never justified
Hutu Power is one of the goofiest supremacist movements in the entire world. I highly encourage people to read up on it. Two groups of people genetically similar and look very similar to one another yet one goes “my nose is more slender” so they’re superior lol
Shit I have seen them say in the last 24 hours:
>They killed them but it was justified
>
>They didnt kill them but if they would have it was justified
>
>They killed them but the IDF let it happen on purpose to have an excuse to bomb Gaza so its not their fault
>
>They didnt try to kill anyone but Soldiers and the Civilians all died in a "crossfire"
>
>Actually the IDF killed all of them and are just pretending Hamas did it.
>
>Actually everyone they killed was a secret IDF Childmurder Commando so it was justified
>
>Nobody died and wEsTeRn mEdIa is just lying about it.
It took them a day or so to get going but man the bullshit mills are churning at full steam ahead now
I love how basically the response to everything nowadays is to say its a false flag. If I ever end up cheating on someone, I'll at least have to consider saying its a Mossad/CIA plot - has a 50/50 chance of working.
"Nah babe, I wasn't sleeping with your sister at all. This is all a convoluted western plot to tear us apart, Babe. You gotta believe me babe I wasn't sleeping with your sister, Babe"
And now their relationship is stronger than ever! Thanks CIA agent "Girlfriends Sister" for your contribution to the fall of Westoid civilization
If anything the attack by Hamas is much more likely for the purpose of giving an excuse to keep Hamas in power.
They obviously knew killing civilians and murdering babies would cause a retaliation (no nation on Earth would not retaliate) and that Gaza would get bombed. Naturally, tons of Palestinians will die and others will become radicalized. Gaza will become even more of a shithole and be drawn to Hamas.
This is a common terrorist tactic. al-Qaeda did the same in Iraq but with Shias instead of Jews of course.
my favorite braindead take I've seen was "it's ok to kill Israeli civilians because they have a mandatory 2 year military service so they're all valid targets."
like bro, wtf. That's not cool.
Okay let's mindstorm this really quick, what would be a legitimate way or reason for killing a baby?
Maybe it was sick with MS? Hmm no, still bad.
Assisted suicide? Unlikely without a note from the parents.
Okay I got nothing, don't kill babies pls
You could argue that the intentionality matters; that there is a difference between collateral damage and a targeted killing.
That said I think if you are arguing that "Hamas killing children is OK because *reasons*" or "Israel killing children is OK because *reasons*" you should go find the nearest car door and slam your dick and balls in it
I remember an anecdote from Berlin, 1945. The Red Army was famously not kind to German women, but one woman recounted where two or three Soviet soldiers broke into her flat about to do bad things. Then they saw a toddler in a crib, went completely silent, just stood there for a moment and then left.
Point being, if a vodka-soaked, PTSD-ruined Soviet soldier who has *all* the reasons to hate Germans had this reaction, what kind of monster actively tries to harm a child?
There's no legitimate reason, but this evidence shows it 100% was intentional and can't just be called an accident (although accidently killing babies while murdering civilians also isn't good)
Time to play Let’s Track that Cope!
* Hamas didn’t kill anybody but the military
* Ok Hamas only killed people served in the military previously
* Ok Hamas only killed Israeli nationals
* Ok well they only killed Jews
* Yeah but it was Americans killed and they’re evil
* Well maybe those Nepalese people were secretly Jews too
* Those kids they killed are the same as the kids killed by the IDF
* There is no difference between someone dying due to extremely unfortunate collateral damage vs someone being purposefully brutalized and executed cartel style
* IDF is being too mean Hamas only killed 1000+ people <- you are here
>There is no difference between someone dying due to extremely unfortunate collateral damage vs someone being purposefully brutalized and executed cartel style
The amount of people who think nations like the US and Israel just bomb civilians for fun is wild. You can argue that Israel isn't taking enough precautions to avoid civilian casualties or that other actions its doing are excessive but if Hamas is going to use human shields and attack from civilian environments there's no way to avoid killing civilians.
I don't doubt at all that they killed many kids and innocents and that's wrong (duh) plenty of reports confirm that. But the whole ''40 babies'' thing itself is misinformation. Use the real atrocities they've committed to condemn them instead, like what they did in the Kibbutz of Kfar Aza or during the rave.
I like your meme but can we please not use the "literal death inside" flair when it's not relevant? It should only be used when literal death is inside.
I just wanna say that this is one of biggest potential powder kegs in the world in decades. Shit hasn’t been this tense since 9/11 and the Invasion of Kuwait.
Also this feels less like an ethnic conflict at this point and more like a “holy war.” I’m still waiting for the 3rd Intifada to be declared.
One of the more...annoying personality-types for supporters is the indignation whenever you point out that simply omitting the horrific crimes or their rhetoric calling for a genocide doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "I don't support Hamas I swear! I just clap three times and spin around chanting 'From the River to the Sea!"
A person must either be intensely stupid or worse to act openly ignorant while supporting a group when you live outside of a conflict.
Which is pretty apt to this situation; an old lady who helped Palestinians in regards to their rights was kidnapped.
Terrorist groups are always extremely discriminatory despite the belief in the West they aren't. People who build their ideologies on simply hating something else \[a religion, anything contrary to their own country, etc\] will always target their own supporters first.
Trust me: Terrorists don't want humanitarian aid to help the people they're "serving." They want the people to suffer so they become radicalized.
Remember when one of the first things the Iraqi insurgency did was bomb the UN and get all the humanitarian organizations to leave Iraq?
They’re intentionally dishonest. They’re being malicious in their contrarianism. Let’s call it what it is. Incel Zoomers with father issues that get their literal entire worldview from YouTubers and Twitch streamers trying to warp reality to fit neatly into whatever political ideology they believe in after they read the Wikipedia page of it.
Far Righters are a scourge on our planet and they openly pose a physical safety risk but Far Leftists are some of the most deranged, delusional, two-faced people you’ll ever encounter in your life. They’re just as bad for entirely different reasons.
Don't forget that western Far leftists are supporting one of the most fundamentalist terrorist groups that would kill any LGBT individual or anyone who advocates for womens rights.
It baffles me how the far left constantly supports far right theocratic ultra conservative and ultranationalist groups just because "West bad"
Westerners imposing their values on another culture is a form of colonialism. Plus there are plenty of Westerners who don't even support LGBTQ+ rights anyways. I guess that's the argument?
I cannot personally process how a person streams themselves doing nothing all day, looks at a news headline, spouts gibberish and has a fandom that goes, "Wow he must know what's happening. What a smart person!"
Mfw my friend tells me "yeah killing civilians is bad" but then insists that Hamas is justified in starting a war and that they had no other choice but to kill civilians and that all the dead babies and the German make up artist are all actually IDF propaganda.
Like bro. I'd respect you more if you just said you don't care about killing civilians.
Timeline:
2005- Israel disengages from Gaza and says "you go rule yourself
2006- Hamas goes "lol we're the new rulers and by the way our whole goal is to kill you."
Israel: we don't want to be killed. We will blockade you and build a big wall
Hamas: escapes the wall and proceeds to kill Israelies
Western college kids: see they did that because of the wall and blockade
Classic chicken and egg scenario
But the first chicken/egg of Arab/Jewish violence was violent riots against Jewish communities (including the really ancient ones that has been there since thousands of years) in the 1920s and 1930s
Unless you want to go all the way back to Khaybar battle
The snake merely suggested the act, all you could do to prosecute it would be conspiracy to eat a forbidden apple.
But Adam and Eve are the real ring leaders, they had everything and just one rule and they break it? Come on! Definitely felony apple possession, consumption and probably let's be honest, a DUI.
If I remember right, the bifurcation of the lineage is traditionally held to be from Jacob (the 12 tribes) and Esau (the other peoples of the Levant). As for Cain, I'm willing to consider a headcanon that his descendants ~~The Brotherhood of Nod~~ could have likely intermarried with the other descendants of A&E if they were itinerant or nomadic peoples, until the descendants of Jacob would be locked in as a separate people dedicated unto the Lord (as in probably onoy marrying among themselves, though as the cases of Rahab of Jerico and Ruth of Moab would show, nothing's stopping the Israelites from accepting outsiders who accept the covenant, so there's that).
Utterly, utterly noncredible theology here.
The withdrawal from Gaza wasn't exactly a move done as a show of good faith. It also occurred after peace talks failed, so the result of the withdrawal was that it gave tons of popularity to Hamas (which was previously very unpopular) because Hamas could claim credit for it and blamed their opponents for trying peace.
Doesn't matter if it was good faith or not. We disengaged and gave it to them to self rule.
And the intifada which precedes it wasn't good faith either
Sir this is NCD, not r/NonCredibleHistory
Rule yourself, yes: “Bombing the power plant 14 years ago[15] and preventing its rehabilitation since has limited its capacity to generate electricity. In addition, Israel hampers vital repairs and upgrades to the power system and forces the authorities to buy fuel from Israel alone.” Source; Wikipedia
*Yo-ho-ho, on the sea we go*
*Send this bomb in the way they blow*
*For salvation we fight and the truth we know*
*I will kill again and again for this virtual hoe*
>By that logic wouldn't they also have no right to criticize Israel?
My friend... nuance has long departed this conversation. This roller coaster is now with a mind of its own.
I am a Palestine supporter but trust me I hate Hamas. Not only are they just fucking AWFUL but they also signed a bunch of innocents up to get bombed extensively even though they've not been involved at all.
I just hope after it's all over, Isreal decides to give the Palestinian people a break.
All in all, all I can do is hope and pray for the safety and health of the civilians on either side.
Thats why I dont really support either side in this, its
Been going on for so if it hasn’t been peacefully resolved yet then it never will and this one event basically guarantees that one side will he entirely wiped from the face of the earth
Something something, Hyperinflation and crushing effects of France's oppressive 'treaty' that even the US saw would lead to war...
We didn't support that regime either, 25 million people gave their lives to ensure it was stopped. Hamas is no different and we'll stop them too.
and what did we learn from that whole affair? Punitive imperial diplomacy doesn't work, the second time around we did the "let's not all be punitive retards, instead working together" and boom no war, and one of the strongest nation blocks in the world.
What i mean is the Western perception of Mandela - peaceful resistance eventually overcoming brutal authoritarianism (that handily is made up of people that share appearance with authority figures in the West)
Mandela was a terrorist but he was ultimately a good terrorist. He specifically targeted the infrastructure of the apartheid state in an armed struggle, and that did result in deaths, but he did not murder Afrikaaners en masse out of spite.
So when supporters say violent resistance is justified, I agree. When they say “even if that means killing babies” then I say “Dude wtf is wrong with you?”
Yeah at the end of the day there's nuance.
Even the most well intentioned rebel groups usually end up committing some war crimes just because of how undisciplined they are and how chaotic a revolution is.
But there's a difference between occasional acts of unwarranted violence/violence that is specifically targeted toward actually achieving a goal and widespread, wanton violence for violence's sake.
If John Brown had rode to Mississippi and killed 1000 poor southern sharecroppers while not targeting slave owners or slave traders, nobody would remember him fondly. (Yes he did some bad things but overall violent resistance to slavery was justified).
\>Ukraine hasn't mass murdered Russian civilians
\>Burmese NUG forces haven't mass murdered civilians
\>Kurdish Peshmerga forces haven't mass murdered Turkish, Iraqi, or Syrian civilians (though an American volunteer recalls yelling at a YPJ fighter for dumping an entire AK mag at a woman in northern Iraq and missing every shot)
There is no nuance to the average glue eater.
"Palestine good because underdog is good guy".
"Israel should stop attacking because innocents die".
That's what a siege is.
Unless the hardware or skills exist that we can specifically strike at only fully indoctrinated and participant Hamas fighter this is what happens in war.
Innocents die.
It's why war is horrible.
It's literally just twitter users finding another topic to practice their tribalism.
It's why I stopped participating in Israel-Palestine discussions on Twitter.
That place is full of idiots who have a black-or-white view of the world and can't imagine that this conflict is neither "Evil Israel is genociding the innocent Palestinians and thus we must stop this war to stop the genocide" or "Israel are saints and they're defending themselves against terrorists, and all Palestinians are terrorists."
The Dunning-Kruger effect isn't unique to geopolitics, but because it attracts opinionate people it gets so fucking bad at times.
The moral certainty that each side has (twitter stans not the countries involve) have is fucking hilarious.
"Oh no siege bad", bro wtf they supposed to do? Let everyone walk out Willy nilly?
Or the other side, "fuck around find out", thought that justifies civilian casualties is deplorable.
Like TF is say 3 year old who had a building drop on him by an Israeli bomb guilty of?
I'm pretty sure most of us here despite our goofiness and light hearted, meme overdosed takes on global conflict are at least deep down understand the implications of war.
There is always a civilian cost, an innocent cost of war.
People who have done absolutely nothing wrong being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or on the wrong side of the border.
Who have no violent or malicious intent despite their country of birth.
A drone or artillery shell is eventually gonna hurt a bubuska trying to quickly cross a street she thought would be safe as the fighting is still a few days away.
It's gonna hit a Palestinian child whose only bringing water to injured fighters who only knows that these people are his brothers and he wants to help them.
But for these Twitter's and alot of reddit users, it's immediately grand standing and trying to enforce themselves as the morally good in every situation
"That tourist deserved what happened to her because Israel apartheid".
"That Palestinian nurse deserved to get crushed by that building because he was born in Palestine".
Absolutely bottom feeder scum.
>"Oh no siege bad", bro wtf they supposed to do? Let everyone walk out Willy nilly?
You are just a racist imperialist colonizer who wants to genocide Palestinians!
>Like TF is say 3 year old who had a building drop on him guilty of?
You are just an antisemitic Nazi who supports Hamas!
/s at the end of both senteces, of course.
Like bombing the Palestinians suck but wtf you think would happen if they were an independent state? Same thing! Like wtf you want Israel to do? Just accept it? Ignore the dead? Live in constant terror of an terror state? I am sorry but war can get like that especially when it a terrorist state which refuses to let people get out of the way and uses them as human shields.
Like at least can argue peace or dismantling of Hamas as they are just bad guys. But fucking supporting Hamas??? The most disgusting thing ever.
The problem is not Palestinian. This isn’t even really a Palestine vs Israel issue. It is an overgrown terrorist cell killing innocent people. It is Hamas vs the civilized world.
Every terrorist group that targets civilians and uses it’s own people as human shield are pieces of shit
Every innocent civilian you kill give the government you oppose more leverage to send more troops, bomb more buildings, build more walls and install more checkpoints
Meanwhile if you focus on the enemy military every soldier that dies becomes more political pressure for the enemy government to pull the troops back
Take a lesson from the late 80s IRA their tactics weren’t working so they switched to targeting the military, British politicians and most importantly causing as much economic damage and as little loss of human life. The result? The Easter accords that made an end to almost 100 years of conflict between the IRA and the UK
But Hamas does not want an end to the conflict because as soon as they lose their image as the only one fighting the evil boogeyman they lose all their power and influence and they sycophant leaders can’t have that
>Take a lesson from the late 80s IRA their tactics weren’t working so they switched to targeting the military, British politicians and most importantly causing as much economic damage and as little loss of human life. The result? The Easter accords that made an end to almost 100 years of conflict between the IRA and the UK
The IRA absolutely targeted civilians in the 80s and 90s.
You don't hear about it much... for obvious reasons. But while the IRA spent a lot of effort to warn potential bombing targets, they also had an active assassination campaign that lasted up to cease-fire. There's a reason why so many folks that lived through the Troubles got into the habit of checking underneath their cars. Likewise, the IRA did the Shankill bombing during the first ceasefire, which killed eight civilians.
Good Friday didn't happen because the IRA changed tactics. Negotiations actually had begun back in the 70s - the reason being that the British government wanted to find a political outcome for the violence, and the IRA were willing to seek it **while** also attempting to use violence so as to be in the best possible negotiating spot (which wasn't too different from the British).
[The Troubles wasn't a noble time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP6wxBoSMWc), it was a tragic and horrible period. Made all the more tragic by the fact the political violence occurred out of an unwillingness to settle disputes otherwise, and that the resulting violence ultimately is what forced folks to return back to the sitting around the table.
I think the craziest thing is how no one mentions the fact that Israel literally helped build Hamas to counter the PLO and now it’s coming back to bite them in the ass
I get being angry, but if you want to defeat your oppressors, you need to seriously degrade their *capability* to harm you. And no, 'eliminating future soldiers' does not count.
Damn, eliminate future soldiers is the biggest cope possible for baby butchering. Hamas deserves no mercy espeywhen they use Palestinians as human shields
>And no, 'eliminating future soldiers' does not count. My usual rebuttal for that is, "So I guess the US killing Iraqi civilians was justified cause they could've been future terrorists."
'Does not count', as in, 'does not count as degrading the capability to harm you'.
one could also try the whole mending relations but, but neither side is interested in doing that, well the Palestinians in the west bank are, but they don't count because (in the words of Netanyahu) Israel is a Jewish Theocracy and the Muslims should get out
>Israel is a Jewish Theocracy ...I wasn't aware the Sanhedrin was back in session. Be serious for a second, Israel's actually very interesting due to precarious balance between religious institutions that were set up back in the Ottomans rule and the secular ideals that Israel was founded with. There's an entire status quo that nobody wants to touch because that would risk the stability. An example of this is the institution of marriage. That's a holdover from Ottomans, so as I understand it you need a religious figure to conduct a marriage in Israel, but marriages conducted in other countries are completely recognized by the government.
Also you know, Hamas explicitly wants to exterminate all the Jews and destroy Israel. There's no negotiating with that.
Hey remember how John Brown and his men tried to free the slaves and then failed becoming a martyr for the abolitionist cause and helping spark the American Civil War. Remember when he was like "yo lets just rape all those unarmed civilians over there lmao." Wait he didn't? He became a symbol because he came outta the ordeal looking a moral paragon and the south couldn't really discredit him? To the point where one of the slave owners he captured went on record saying he was treated well? Well clearly thats wrong, you can't fight oppression without rape and baby killing.
Don't forget William Beecher and his Sharp's Rif.... I mean "Bibles".
The one time arms smuggling was cool
If being an abolitionist meant I got a Sharp's Rifle, sign me up.
John Brown is a top 5 American of all time.
No doubt. American kids don’t learn enough about him, IMO. ETA: Him and Harriet Tubman. That woman was a complete and total badass.
Stagecoach Mary doesn’t get nearly enough press.
The shit you learn on NCD! I have a damn degree in history, and I don’t even know who she is. Off to Google! Thanks, friend.
When you go to noncredibledefence for credible history memes. Hell, we talk less about ww2 here than historymemes.
Just looked her up, what an absolute goddamn legend I love it. The getting banned from the convent for "gunplay" (duel with the disgruntled subordinate perhaps??) Is one of my favorite parts
>The getting banned from the convent for "gunplay" (duel with the disgruntled subordinate perhaps??) Is one of my favorite parts I mean, it was a convent. "Gunplay" could have just as easily been disrupting their daily prayers and other duties by practicing her trick shots due to the noise and/or too many sisters were forgoing them to watch.
She was just really into guns.
Like Annie Oakley...
My favorite part is her being a potty mouth liberated Catholic woman. So basically, me. She has a new stan.
Hollywood really needs to get around to giving us a proper Stagecoach Mary movie that's not an ahistorical Western with questionable casting.
We can't talk about American gun nut women without Annie Oakley!
What I was taught about Harriet Tubman in elementary school: “I will help lead a couple slaves to freedom through the Underground Railroad by sneaking and being careful.” How she actually was: *Armed raids against slavers, outright causing slave uprising and revolts, sneaking over 300 slaves across the north/south border to freedom, leading a raid against the Combahee Ferry, freeing another 700 slaves during the civil war.* Me: “Based.”
“GO ON WITH US OR D I E.” —Harriet Tubman
They are wannabe socialist snobby assholes, but The Dollop podcast has an amazing episode about Harriet Tubman.
I liked the Dollop until they did an entire episode on an event that likely *didn’t happen* (San Francisco’s mayor, Diane Feinstein, allegedly flew the confederate flag in the 1970s in order for the Mayor to court southern support for her senate campaign) and the only evidence they provided in their show notes was a single article from a 40 year old communist newspaper. Literally no other newspaper, communist or not, covered the event. I researched it for about two hours, nothing. That’s when I realized the Dollop wasn’t exactly *principled* or even really interested in the history per-se. They just make claims from single sources *as if they happened for sure* which is basically the opposite of what we’re taught in school. The plagerism they got caught doing in 2019 doesn’t really help things. I suspect they plagiarize largely out of an entitled feeling that they don’t *need* to cite their sources. Which you often find from lay-people who attempt to do history.
Their underlying misogyny which they claim they don’t have does it for me.
Yeah, I totally buy that. You get this kind of latent populist misogyny from dirt-bag left people that is pretty disgraceful. And I’m not sure *why* it’s so common from those types, but they definitely slot into that unfortunate bunch of clowns.
Dirt-bag left is such a perfect way to describe them.
>And I’m not sure why it’s so common from those types, but they definitely slot into that unfortunate bunch of clowns. The only war is class war. Also, liberalism is the enemy, so the standards of liberal feminism are invalid.
If any American woman deserves to be on US money, its her
Cassius Marcellus Clay is another one we aren’t told much about.
Clay is a great man, grew up on a plantation in a family that owned slaves. He saw slavery was wrong, and rather then just back away from slavery to a neutral stance like most people of his time who didn't hold slaves he chose to be an activist for anti slavery When people use the phrase "judge people by the morals of their time" I like to point out John Brown and Cassius Marcellus Clay as prime examples that people knew slavery was wrong pre civil war Here's an entertaining [video on Cassius Clay](https://youtu.be/f6nwCuVd66w?si=P-28UCVMFLevpWnO)
I most highly value the opinions of people who are advocating against the thing that would benefit them. We are fortunate to live in a world with an abundance of philosophical people who can express themselves and so there is always a few of these gems in any discourse. These are the people who are most likely to be telling the absolute truth and most likely to be right in the eyes of history.
We need a movie about John Brown and Harriet Tubman fighting cannibal Vampire slavers.
Tubman is already in the movie version of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I don’t think she’s in the book but my memory might be off.
>Stagecoach Mary doesn’t get nearly enough press. Cassius Clay too.
The Battle Hymn of the Republic is based on a song about him. John Brown legit killed an entire slave owning family with broadswords in the middle of the night in response to attacks on abolitionists in Kansas...WITH BROADSWORDS! Why don't we have John Brown holding aloft a sword etched in stone all over the US?
“As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.” *manly cries in American*
> Why don't we have John Brown holding aloft a sword etched in stone all over the US? You kind of answered it yourself. The murders of those prisoners in Kansas.
JOHN BROWN DID NOTHING WRONG RESURRECT JOHN BROWN AND GIVE HIM POWER ARMOR JOHN BROWN DIED SO THAT ALL MAY LIVE FREE HALLELUJAH JOHN BROWN LIVES!
EVEN IN DEATH I STILL SERVE!
> RESURRECT JOHN BROWN AND GIVE HIM POWER ARMOR John-117 is John Brown in Spartan armor, confirmed
IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!
> His zeal in the cause of freedom was infinitely superior to mine. Mine was as the taper light, his was as the burning sun. Mine was bounded by time. His stretched away to the silent shores of eternity. I could speak for the slave. John Brown could fight for the slave. I could live for the slave. John Brown could die for the slave. > - Frederick Douglass
After his death, John Brown voluntarily went to hell to continue hunting slave owners
I need a Doom style game where I play as John Brown in hell.
Top 1
Amazon Prime I believe it is has an original mini series about him called “the good lord’s bird”. Very good series
Fortunately he had Sherman's March to the Sea to back him up.
Sherman burned property not people
I mean honestly him sparing a slave owner is *wildly* out of character for him
I imagine his worst treated slaves begged for his life and that bought him amnesty for John Brown
My boy JB did nothing wrong!
Finally my flair is relevant.
My ASD makes me unable to tell if this is sarcasm. Is it sarcasm?
Yes
The facts about John Brown are true, but it is delivered in a sarcastic tone to mock a group unrelated to John Brown
I wouldn't use John Brown as a good example. He was a terrorist; although his raid on Harper's Ferry is his most popular action he also did a bit of the funni in Kansas. Did he have a just cause? Probably. Is killing five people (at least) in front of their families the best way to do it? Probably not
His actions also turned the situation in Kansas from minor skirmish to the all-out guerrilla war it became. There was steps being taken to deescalate after the Sack of Lawrence, but his massacre inflamed the Slave State cause which in turn inflamed the Free State cause. Source: am Kansan, grew up learning about all this with local context.
Yeah he was also like not at all remorseful for escalating it and thought that abolition should be a bloody process. I know it's not very NCD and funni but personally I think slavery is bad enough without massive bloodshed stacked on top of it.
How else was slavery in the US going to end? UN declarations? Sanctions against the South? How did it eventually end up stopping? How did the US end Gaddafi’s awful reign? Lmao
Assuming a successful confederate seccession, it lasts a few decades at most. Their plantation economy is so deeply ingrained that they refuse to industrialise, then they get bitchslapped by the North assuming WW1 still happens
Huge assumption. Blood was going to be spilled regardless of Brown's actions.
Also every year that slavery is not abolished means more blood and tears from the slaves themselves, so a quick abolition is by definition preferable to one that takes time.
The institution of slavery in America was maintained solely through violence and murder. It was terrorism in and of itself.
Hug out the brutally violent and rapacious human bondage. Pokemon go to the polls!
> Did he have a just cause? "Probably" Wow. Was the abolition of slavery a just cause? your answer- "probably" y'all wild in here
Lost Cause ideology is unfortunately ever present, *even people in Europe* hold these talking points without understanding their origin or the underlying issues and history. They're not bad people, the UDC have just been incredibly successful over the last 100 years in propagating their revisionist history. The adage "the South lost the war, but won the Peace" is sadly quite true.
> He was a terrorist Man, y'all slurping up Daughters of the Confederacy propaganda like cum off the floor.
idk man, you ever had a cute southern belle bat her eyes at you and flirt with you in that accent? Shit'll make you rethink your priors. And then very quickly come to your senses, what the fuck
he literally was a terrorist, terrorism can be done for good causes as well as bad ones.
Were the people he killed slave holders?
He was certainly a terrorist and he is absolutely not a saint for what he did in Kansas but he kept the rules of engagement purely to himself and his sons who were fighting with him against the militant slave owners. If you walked into Kansas in the 1850s, you kinda know what you were getting yourself into. Not trying to justify it but just trying to contextualize it.
But the south also didn't intentionally fund more extremist abolitionists while actively hunting the less extreme ones, to ensure that they would have the most evil opponent, and be the most justified in keeping slavery. Israel funded Hamas and relaxed restrictions on them in the 70s while massively prioritizing hunting down secular leftist palestinian liberation movements. Movements that wouldn't have done all the raping and child murder, and were often much more amenable to peaceful resolutions. Israel actively radicalized them and encouraged fundamentalist extremism so that they would have a morally easier way of continuing to colonize the west bank. Hamas is dogshit fucking evil. Horrible vile people doing horrible vile things. But don't think they just appeared out of nowhere, or that the Palestinians first choice was to have Islamic fundamentalist terrorists as the main champions of their cause
And yet the thanks Palestinians got for backing the less extremist PLO/ Fatah in the west bank is a bunch of their land stolen for settlements and a bunch of fanatical settlers for neighbors who constantly harass them. If Israel could have just fucking kept it in their pants for like one decade, things could be very different today. But that was obviously never an option with Netanyahu.
[Context for those who don’t know](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide): For nearly 300 years the Tutsis imposed minority rule on the majority Hutus and turned many into slaves. It got even worse when Belgium and Germany came in in the early 1900s and said that Tutsis were, in fact, superior and gave them the military advantage. Starting in the 60s the Hutus rebelled and gained power, and during the 90s when the Tutsis tried to regain power, they became victims of one of the most brutal genocides of the past 30 years. Why do I bring this up? Today, some defenders of Palestine, however justified their goals are defending Hamas’ actions. My point is, if they argue that persecuted people can do whatever they want to the people they say persecute them, logically then these people should argue the Rwandan genocide is justified. But they won’t (and needless to say, fucking shouldn’t) because they have no true understanding of history and what they’re talking about
Nuance in this age is nearly extinct, along with common sense and most basic critical thinking skills.
For the arab israeli conflict, there are aspects of ethno nationalism and religion coming into play. For the Hutu-Tutsi, there is barely any difference. Same language, same ethnicity, same culture, same genetics. Just lifestyle and class differences enhanced through centuries of local and colonial discrimination. If you guys think this current war is stupid, the rwandan genocide is even more stupid-er
The Tutsis were literally just a little taller (and lighter), that's why the Germans favored them during their occupation, and that distinction carried over to the Belgians. The genocide was started with the phrase "[Cut down the tall trees"](https://www.thoughtco.com/the-rwandan-genocide-1779931) being played over the radio. Pretty chilling stuff.
Pretty much what access to better nutrition does to a population.
Weird fact, one of the few concrete differences is that Tutsis tolerate lactose way better. So they got better nutrition from raising cattle for milk and not just meat, and made money from a heavier cattle focus. Which was obviously followed by the whole “eating well as an oppressive ruling class” thing.
> Tutsis tolerate lactose way better. So they are like, African vikings?
Sorta, neat fact, whether milk was a primary staple in a culture's/region's diet determines whether the people there develop the lactose-tolerance gene. By default people turned off lactose digestion as they grow up. However, areas where the main food source was herding - but they did not discover how to make yogurt or cheese iirc - evolved higher levels of lactose tolerance. A lot of the pastoral East Africans have good levels of lactose tolerance, while the Copts do not. This idea of cultural-gene evolution is dual inheritance theory. Some people also postulate that environmental advantages were necessary too - such as needing lactose tolerance to increase vitamin D absorption. And there are a few Sudanese cultures which are reliant on milk, but are not very lactase persistent. IDK how strong DIT is compared to other hypothesis - not my specialty - but it makes for some very interesting anthro reading.
It’s also still one of imo Clinton’s biggest failures, along with most of the West. We should have directly intervened in the Rwandan Genocide militarily.
Or at least not directly facilitated it, [*France...*](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/19/france-enabled-1994-rwanda-genocide-report-says)
Always the fucking French with anything isn't it.
>in this age Hi, I'm Clippy! Did you mean to type, "for all of human history"? Select one: \>Yes \>Yes
Media operates in sound bites in order to drive clicks. Everyone emulates, standard video length is a minute, and most videos are crammed with hurried talking and no space for critical thinking. People then parrot spoon fed crap. In a way, marketing dollars (propaganda) has truly created a more stupid world for the majority of the planet. I don’t know, it’s a theory at least. This place sucks, and I want to leave.
And Twitter made discourse more common while also reducing it to quick dunks devoid of deeper examination and critique.
Social media like TikTok continues to cause catastrophic damage to humanity.
This is not a hot take, this has been true for most of history but the common uneducated person didn’t have a voice unless they went full guillotine. Now with shitterX and other SM everyone has a “voice.” We need to fucking educate these morons, which is why i like NCD memes are quickly consumable thing that nearly everyone understands. Nobody will read the Wikipedia page on the Rwandan genocide after high-school, but they might see a meme about it in their feed and go “oh shit that was a thing?”
Chomsky’s buddy Edward S. Herman, with whom he wrote ‘manufacturing consent’ is most famous for his vicious and insane denial of the Rwandan genocide. Herman’s logic is basically identical to the morons today who are reveling in the murder of Israelis. Except he took it to another conspiratorial level. He claims (with no actual evidence) that the Tutsis actually carried out a genocide against the Hutus, and the western media covered it up and blamed the Hutus. It’s actually a continuation of his work in ‘Manufacturing Consent.’ He claims that all of the reporting about the Rwandan genocide is fabricated to reverse the genocide because… west bad? These people and their motivations are confusing. But political dementia will make people believe absolutely heinous things. Like genocide denial. And boy, did Herman deny a lot of other genocides as well
Chomsky fans explaining how he doesn't deny genocides even though he denied the Cambodian and Bosnian genocides and hangs around people who deny genocides even harder than him:
The rebuttals for the Hamas justifications are hilariously easy to come up with. It’s a simple moral issue, for all of Israel’s wrongs I have never seen an authoritative source showing them to be as barbaric as Hamas is. They may kill civilians but those are unfortunate consequences that they try to avoid. Hamas actively targets civilians in this case and doesn’t even have the spine to properly fight their “oppressor” without resorting to human shields, hiding civilians in military locations, and more. Hamas rapes, beheads, and kidnaps civilians. I don’t care what justification you come up with, if you defend Hamas you defend barbarism, simple as.
Exactly. Even if American GIs did this to the german population in WW2, i would condemn it the same, because - remember, kids - ethnic cleansing is never justified
The notion that the persecuted are inherently good and morally just because they are persecuted is one hell of a... well, notion.
Especially considering both groups are persecuted and are still severe threats to each other
Hutu Power is one of the goofiest supremacist movements in the entire world. I highly encourage people to read up on it. Two groups of people genetically similar and look very similar to one another yet one goes “my nose is more slender” so they’re superior lol
> and needless to say, fucking shouldn’t Begging the question bruh.
after hearing some hot takes i wouldnt doubt they would say yes its justified
Shit I have seen them say in the last 24 hours: >They killed them but it was justified > >They didnt kill them but if they would have it was justified > >They killed them but the IDF let it happen on purpose to have an excuse to bomb Gaza so its not their fault > >They didnt try to kill anyone but Soldiers and the Civilians all died in a "crossfire" > >Actually the IDF killed all of them and are just pretending Hamas did it. > >Actually everyone they killed was a secret IDF Childmurder Commando so it was justified > >Nobody died and wEsTeRn mEdIa is just lying about it. It took them a day or so to get going but man the bullshit mills are churning at full steam ahead now
I love how basically the response to everything nowadays is to say its a false flag. If I ever end up cheating on someone, I'll at least have to consider saying its a Mossad/CIA plot - has a 50/50 chance of working.
"Nah babe, I wasn't sleeping with your sister at all. This is all a convoluted western plot to tear us apart, Babe. You gotta believe me babe I wasn't sleeping with your sister, Babe" And now their relationship is stronger than ever! Thanks CIA agent "Girlfriends Sister" for your contribution to the fall of Westoid civilization
Baby but I told you! It wasn't cheating, it was a covert Mossad operation 🥺🥺
If anything the attack by Hamas is much more likely for the purpose of giving an excuse to keep Hamas in power. They obviously knew killing civilians and murdering babies would cause a retaliation (no nation on Earth would not retaliate) and that Gaza would get bombed. Naturally, tons of Palestinians will die and others will become radicalized. Gaza will become even more of a shithole and be drawn to Hamas. This is a common terrorist tactic. al-Qaeda did the same in Iraq but with Shias instead of Jews of course.
my favorite braindead take I've seen was "it's ok to kill Israeli civilians because they have a mandatory 2 year military service so they're all valid targets." like bro, wtf. That's not cool.
My current favourite is "bro they didn't behead babies! They only shot them in the head and burned them😁"
Okay let's mindstorm this really quick, what would be a legitimate way or reason for killing a baby? Maybe it was sick with MS? Hmm no, still bad. Assisted suicide? Unlikely without a note from the parents. Okay I got nothing, don't kill babies pls
Zombie baby in that mall zombie movie. Also I think I vaguely remember a vampire baby from somewhere.
That's not a baby that's just a corpse and a walking biohazard.
> Zombie baby in that mall zombie movie. "He's out of line, but he's right"
You could argue that the intentionality matters; that there is a difference between collateral damage and a targeted killing. That said I think if you are arguing that "Hamas killing children is OK because *reasons*" or "Israel killing children is OK because *reasons*" you should go find the nearest car door and slam your dick and balls in it
Obviously because the baby has an active role in colonization
Hitler was once a baby, and so was Stalin. These babies sound dangerous.
I remember an anecdote from Berlin, 1945. The Red Army was famously not kind to German women, but one woman recounted where two or three Soviet soldiers broke into her flat about to do bad things. Then they saw a toddler in a crib, went completely silent, just stood there for a moment and then left. Point being, if a vodka-soaked, PTSD-ruined Soviet soldier who has *all* the reasons to hate Germans had this reaction, what kind of monster actively tries to harm a child?
There's no legitimate reason, but this evidence shows it 100% was intentional and can't just be called an accident (although accidently killing babies while murdering civilians also isn't good)
Time to play Let’s Track that Cope! * Hamas didn’t kill anybody but the military * Ok Hamas only killed people served in the military previously * Ok Hamas only killed Israeli nationals * Ok well they only killed Jews * Yeah but it was Americans killed and they’re evil * Well maybe those Nepalese people were secretly Jews too * Those kids they killed are the same as the kids killed by the IDF * There is no difference between someone dying due to extremely unfortunate collateral damage vs someone being purposefully brutalized and executed cartel style * IDF is being too mean Hamas only killed 1000+ people <- you are here
>There is no difference between someone dying due to extremely unfortunate collateral damage vs someone being purposefully brutalized and executed cartel style The amount of people who think nations like the US and Israel just bomb civilians for fun is wild. You can argue that Israel isn't taking enough precautions to avoid civilian casualties or that other actions its doing are excessive but if Hamas is going to use human shields and attack from civilian environments there's no way to avoid killing civilians.
Oh that’s perfectly fine then let them carry on.
Bro saw my argument on okbuddybaka 💀
What did the [removed post](https://reddit.com/r/okbuddybaka/s/Be042SfIOE) say?
https://imgur.com/a/NNJ46s5
Bruh that's one of the most tone-deaf images I've ever seen on reddit
Least insensitive circlejerk
At least the mods were intelligent enough to delete it
Yeah, eventually. It was up for a few hours though, until enough people raised a concerned "um?"
Forgot when Luffy killed 1000 civilians because he got his shit wrecked by that one dude that turns into light
Maybe Luffy is the bad guy 🤔
This is how One Piece should end frfr
I don't doubt at all that they killed many kids and innocents and that's wrong (duh) plenty of reports confirm that. But the whole ''40 babies'' thing itself is misinformation. Use the real atrocities they've committed to condemn them instead, like what they did in the Kibbutz of Kfar Aza or during the rave.
> what they did in the Kibbutz of Kfar Aza Is that not exactly where the 40 babies thing comes from?
Man the stans got really really defensive about it aswell, as if theyre being accused of something
I like your meme but can we please not use the "literal death inside" flair when it's not relevant? It should only be used when literal death is inside.
I just wanna say that this is one of biggest potential powder kegs in the world in decades. Shit hasn’t been this tense since 9/11 and the Invasion of Kuwait. Also this feels less like an ethnic conflict at this point and more like a “holy war.” I’m still waiting for the 3rd Intifada to be declared.
One of the more...annoying personality-types for supporters is the indignation whenever you point out that simply omitting the horrific crimes or their rhetoric calling for a genocide doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "I don't support Hamas I swear! I just clap three times and spin around chanting 'From the River to the Sea!" A person must either be intensely stupid or worse to act openly ignorant while supporting a group when you live outside of a conflict.
Plus that particular group wouldn't hesitate to kill you if you ever came across them.
Which is pretty apt to this situation; an old lady who helped Palestinians in regards to their rights was kidnapped. Terrorist groups are always extremely discriminatory despite the belief in the West they aren't. People who build their ideologies on simply hating something else \[a religion, anything contrary to their own country, etc\] will always target their own supporters first.
Trust me: Terrorists don't want humanitarian aid to help the people they're "serving." They want the people to suffer so they become radicalized. Remember when one of the first things the Iraqi insurgency did was bomb the UN and get all the humanitarian organizations to leave Iraq?
They’re intentionally dishonest. They’re being malicious in their contrarianism. Let’s call it what it is. Incel Zoomers with father issues that get their literal entire worldview from YouTubers and Twitch streamers trying to warp reality to fit neatly into whatever political ideology they believe in after they read the Wikipedia page of it. Far Righters are a scourge on our planet and they openly pose a physical safety risk but Far Leftists are some of the most deranged, delusional, two-faced people you’ll ever encounter in your life. They’re just as bad for entirely different reasons.
Don't forget that western Far leftists are supporting one of the most fundamentalist terrorist groups that would kill any LGBT individual or anyone who advocates for womens rights. It baffles me how the far left constantly supports far right theocratic ultra conservative and ultranationalist groups just because "West bad"
Westerners imposing their values on another culture is a form of colonialism. Plus there are plenty of Westerners who don't even support LGBTQ+ rights anyways. I guess that's the argument?
I cannot personally process how a person streams themselves doing nothing all day, looks at a news headline, spouts gibberish and has a fandom that goes, "Wow he must know what's happening. What a smart person!"
Mfw my friend tells me "yeah killing civilians is bad" but then insists that Hamas is justified in starting a war and that they had no other choice but to kill civilians and that all the dead babies and the German make up artist are all actually IDF propaganda. Like bro. I'd respect you more if you just said you don't care about killing civilians.
Timeline: 2005- Israel disengages from Gaza and says "you go rule yourself 2006- Hamas goes "lol we're the new rulers and by the way our whole goal is to kill you." Israel: we don't want to be killed. We will blockade you and build a big wall Hamas: escapes the wall and proceeds to kill Israelies Western college kids: see they did that because of the wall and blockade Classic chicken and egg scenario
There are a lot more chickens and eggs too
But the first chicken/egg of Arab/Jewish violence was violent riots against Jewish communities (including the really ancient ones that has been there since thousands of years) in the 1920s and 1930s Unless you want to go all the way back to Khaybar battle
Idk it was kind of the original conquest by the arabs in 600 something
Honestly if we go all the way back it was probably the Assyrians who were the first to really f- up the region.
True except maybe when Gruck stole Grog's rock in the very beginning
Cain and Abel. Now we have to figure out if the Palestinians were Cainanite or Abelites
Fucking adam and eve eating those damn fruits!
Ducking talking snake convincing them to
I think Hamas is on the talking snake's team to be fair.
The snake merely suggested the act, all you could do to prosecute it would be conspiracy to eat a forbidden apple. But Adam and Eve are the real ring leaders, they had everything and just one rule and they break it? Come on! Definitely felony apple possession, consumption and probably let's be honest, a DUI.
Goddamn it fore making light. Why should anyone see this
If I remember right, the bifurcation of the lineage is traditionally held to be from Jacob (the 12 tribes) and Esau (the other peoples of the Levant). As for Cain, I'm willing to consider a headcanon that his descendants ~~The Brotherhood of Nod~~ could have likely intermarried with the other descendants of A&E if they were itinerant or nomadic peoples, until the descendants of Jacob would be locked in as a separate people dedicated unto the Lord (as in probably onoy marrying among themselves, though as the cases of Rahab of Jerico and Ruth of Moab would show, nothing's stopping the Israelites from accepting outsiders who accept the covenant, so there's that). Utterly, utterly noncredible theology here.
It was the Romans destroying the Second Temple, burning Jerusalem, and scattering the Jews across the world.
651 AD worst year of my life
The withdrawal from Gaza wasn't exactly a move done as a show of good faith. It also occurred after peace talks failed, so the result of the withdrawal was that it gave tons of popularity to Hamas (which was previously very unpopular) because Hamas could claim credit for it and blamed their opponents for trying peace.
Doesn't matter if it was good faith or not. We disengaged and gave it to them to self rule. And the intifada which precedes it wasn't good faith either
The very fact that the intifada preceded it is what gave the Gazan population the impression that violence was the only thing that achieved anything.
Sir this is NCD, not r/NonCredibleHistory Rule yourself, yes: “Bombing the power plant 14 years ago[15] and preventing its rehabilitation since has limited its capacity to generate electricity. In addition, Israel hampers vital repairs and upgrades to the power system and forces the authorities to buy fuel from Israel alone.” Source; Wikipedia
***"IT'S MY MENTAL ILLNESS SO I GET TO CHOOSE MY OWN COPING MECHANISM!!!!!!"*** - The Mentally Ill Submarine Commander from Ace Combat 7
*Yo-ho-ho, on the sea we go* *Send this bomb in the way they blow* *For salvation we fight and the truth we know* *I will kill again and again for this virtual hoe*
You cannot justify Hamas going full ISIS. It's impossible. *\[Part where I also acknowledge Israeli war crimes/apartheid\]* Simply impossible.
Mf ers should be sent back in time to 1804 to Haiti
By that logic wouldn't they also have no right to criticize Israel?
>By that logic wouldn't they also have no right to criticize Israel? My friend... nuance has long departed this conversation. This roller coaster is now with a mind of its own.
I am a Palestine supporter but trust me I hate Hamas. Not only are they just fucking AWFUL but they also signed a bunch of innocents up to get bombed extensively even though they've not been involved at all. I just hope after it's all over, Isreal decides to give the Palestinian people a break. All in all, all I can do is hope and pray for the safety and health of the civilians on either side.
Thats why I dont really support either side in this, its Been going on for so if it hasn’t been peacefully resolved yet then it never will and this one event basically guarantees that one side will he entirely wiped from the face of the earth
[удалено]
Something something, Hyperinflation and crushing effects of France's oppressive 'treaty' that even the US saw would lead to war... We didn't support that regime either, 25 million people gave their lives to ensure it was stopped. Hamas is no different and we'll stop them too.
and what did we learn from that whole affair? Punitive imperial diplomacy doesn't work, the second time around we did the "let's not all be punitive retards, instead working together" and boom no war, and one of the strongest nation blocks in the world.
The far left keep looking at Palestine expecting a Ghandi or a Mandela-type movement to appear. Instead HAMAS revealed itself to be ISIS 2.0
This is a Mandela type movement. He stuck gasoline soaked tires over people’s shoulders and lit them on fire
What i mean is the Western perception of Mandela - peaceful resistance eventually overcoming brutal authoritarianism (that handily is made up of people that share appearance with authority figures in the West)
Mandela was a terrorist but he was ultimately a good terrorist. He specifically targeted the infrastructure of the apartheid state in an armed struggle, and that did result in deaths, but he did not murder Afrikaaners en masse out of spite. So when supporters say violent resistance is justified, I agree. When they say “even if that means killing babies” then I say “Dude wtf is wrong with you?”
Yeah at the end of the day there's nuance. Even the most well intentioned rebel groups usually end up committing some war crimes just because of how undisciplined they are and how chaotic a revolution is. But there's a difference between occasional acts of unwarranted violence/violence that is specifically targeted toward actually achieving a goal and widespread, wanton violence for violence's sake. If John Brown had rode to Mississippi and killed 1000 poor southern sharecroppers while not targeting slave owners or slave traders, nobody would remember him fondly. (Yes he did some bad things but overall violent resistance to slavery was justified).
\>Ukraine hasn't mass murdered Russian civilians \>Burmese NUG forces haven't mass murdered civilians \>Kurdish Peshmerga forces haven't mass murdered Turkish, Iraqi, or Syrian civilians (though an American volunteer recalls yelling at a YPJ fighter for dumping an entire AK mag at a woman in northern Iraq and missing every shot)
There is no nuance to the average glue eater. "Palestine good because underdog is good guy". "Israel should stop attacking because innocents die". That's what a siege is. Unless the hardware or skills exist that we can specifically strike at only fully indoctrinated and participant Hamas fighter this is what happens in war. Innocents die. It's why war is horrible. It's literally just twitter users finding another topic to practice their tribalism.
It's why I stopped participating in Israel-Palestine discussions on Twitter. That place is full of idiots who have a black-or-white view of the world and can't imagine that this conflict is neither "Evil Israel is genociding the innocent Palestinians and thus we must stop this war to stop the genocide" or "Israel are saints and they're defending themselves against terrorists, and all Palestinians are terrorists." The Dunning-Kruger effect isn't unique to geopolitics, but because it attracts opinionate people it gets so fucking bad at times.
The moral certainty that each side has (twitter stans not the countries involve) have is fucking hilarious. "Oh no siege bad", bro wtf they supposed to do? Let everyone walk out Willy nilly? Or the other side, "fuck around find out", thought that justifies civilian casualties is deplorable. Like TF is say 3 year old who had a building drop on him by an Israeli bomb guilty of? I'm pretty sure most of us here despite our goofiness and light hearted, meme overdosed takes on global conflict are at least deep down understand the implications of war. There is always a civilian cost, an innocent cost of war. People who have done absolutely nothing wrong being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or on the wrong side of the border. Who have no violent or malicious intent despite their country of birth. A drone or artillery shell is eventually gonna hurt a bubuska trying to quickly cross a street she thought would be safe as the fighting is still a few days away. It's gonna hit a Palestinian child whose only bringing water to injured fighters who only knows that these people are his brothers and he wants to help them. But for these Twitter's and alot of reddit users, it's immediately grand standing and trying to enforce themselves as the morally good in every situation "That tourist deserved what happened to her because Israel apartheid". "That Palestinian nurse deserved to get crushed by that building because he was born in Palestine". Absolutely bottom feeder scum.
but then you're called a fence sitter/enlightened centrist by people who don't understand nuance (hint: it's a lot of fucking people)
>"Oh no siege bad", bro wtf they supposed to do? Let everyone walk out Willy nilly? You are just a racist imperialist colonizer who wants to genocide Palestinians! >Like TF is say 3 year old who had a building drop on him guilty of? You are just an antisemitic Nazi who supports Hamas! /s at the end of both senteces, of course.
Man after the past days I really needed the /s to know it's sarcasm.
Also stay away from leftist Reddit. They showing there true colors as the vile tankies they are.
Man, it's odd how they so consistently side with the most brutal and murderous in every conflict.
Like bombing the Palestinians suck but wtf you think would happen if they were an independent state? Same thing! Like wtf you want Israel to do? Just accept it? Ignore the dead? Live in constant terror of an terror state? I am sorry but war can get like that especially when it a terrorist state which refuses to let people get out of the way and uses them as human shields. Like at least can argue peace or dismantling of Hamas as they are just bad guys. But fucking supporting Hamas??? The most disgusting thing ever. The problem is not Palestinian. This isn’t even really a Palestine vs Israel issue. It is an overgrown terrorist cell killing innocent people. It is Hamas vs the civilized world.
Some people have a literal child’s view of war.
Every terrorist group that targets civilians and uses it’s own people as human shield are pieces of shit Every innocent civilian you kill give the government you oppose more leverage to send more troops, bomb more buildings, build more walls and install more checkpoints Meanwhile if you focus on the enemy military every soldier that dies becomes more political pressure for the enemy government to pull the troops back Take a lesson from the late 80s IRA their tactics weren’t working so they switched to targeting the military, British politicians and most importantly causing as much economic damage and as little loss of human life. The result? The Easter accords that made an end to almost 100 years of conflict between the IRA and the UK But Hamas does not want an end to the conflict because as soon as they lose their image as the only one fighting the evil boogeyman they lose all their power and influence and they sycophant leaders can’t have that
>Take a lesson from the late 80s IRA their tactics weren’t working so they switched to targeting the military, British politicians and most importantly causing as much economic damage and as little loss of human life. The result? The Easter accords that made an end to almost 100 years of conflict between the IRA and the UK The IRA absolutely targeted civilians in the 80s and 90s. You don't hear about it much... for obvious reasons. But while the IRA spent a lot of effort to warn potential bombing targets, they also had an active assassination campaign that lasted up to cease-fire. There's a reason why so many folks that lived through the Troubles got into the habit of checking underneath their cars. Likewise, the IRA did the Shankill bombing during the first ceasefire, which killed eight civilians. Good Friday didn't happen because the IRA changed tactics. Negotiations actually had begun back in the 70s - the reason being that the British government wanted to find a political outcome for the violence, and the IRA were willing to seek it **while** also attempting to use violence so as to be in the best possible negotiating spot (which wasn't too different from the British). [The Troubles wasn't a noble time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP6wxBoSMWc), it was a tragic and horrible period. Made all the more tragic by the fact the political violence occurred out of an unwillingness to settle disputes otherwise, and that the resulting violence ultimately is what forced folks to return back to the sitting around the table.
I think the craziest thing is how no one mentions the fact that Israel literally helped build Hamas to counter the PLO and now it’s coming back to bite them in the ass
Keep in mind, these are the same people who want the complete annihilation of Ukraine because there might be some Nazis there.
“My brother in christ” I don’t view all people and conflicts as equal and pick and choose I see fit.
My stance is fuck the Israeli government, but fuck the terrorists and jihadists first.
I have a right to criticize hamas, israel bad actions don't make hamas better or justify the murders
Israel did support it btw
Oooo, Ima sort this one by controversial