It's shitty out USD is used to propagate the sins of our allies when our backyard is a dumpster fire.

If Israel were in Gaza's position—isolated, blockaded, heavily bombed, with civilians suffering massive casualties—would you still claim that this level of destruction is proportionate? If an enemy justified their actions by saying that many Israelis supported their government’s policies, would you accept that as a reason for collective punishment against Israel?

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 24 2025 06:21am

Multiple things can be true at once:

1 - malicious Eastern European cosmopolitan Jews have been orchestrating a white genocide for many many decades now

2 - the Holocaust is extremely embellished, starving prisoners were due to lack of food supply in the later stages of war

3 - Hamas and their Islamist friends are barbarians who ought to be destroyed, in any other point in human history they'd be gone by now

4 - the State of Israel entraps and blackmails corrupt US politicians in furtherance of their own interests

5 - the State of Israel would be a nice place to visit and live and is a proper functioning Western-modelled society

This post was edited by El1te on Mar 24 2025 07:13am

Israel would never be in Gaza's position, as Gaza's position is purely due to Israel allowing them to exist in the first place. Islamists would not allow Israel to exist at all and this isn't in dispute

This is where moral arguments fall apart, Israel has had the power and ability to destroy them since the 40s but they only live by their mercy

Also Gaza isn't under siege, all of their utilities and food are provided by Israel still to this day

This post was edited by El1te on Mar 24 2025 07:24am

You're arguing that because Israel has the power to wipe out Palestinians but hasn’t, that somehow justifies the suffering they do impose? Not committing mass murder (even if they are currently) is not a moral argument—it’s a basic expectation. Gaza's suffering is not a result of Israel’s 'mercy,' but of deliberate control over their resources, economy, and movement. The fact that Israel provides some food or utilities does not negate the fact that it also restricts and weaponizes those resources

by your logic:

1. Any country that doesn't commit mass extermination of a weaker group is somehow acting morally?
2. If power alone justifies oppression, then historical colonial powers who "allowed" native populations to survive were also justified
3. If Israel really believes Gaza is not under siege, why do they control its borders and restrict imports? Why are goods and fuel not freely allowed in?

Some may say Islam is the problem, look at what the crusaders did. Hypocrisy at its finest.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 24 2025 08:28am

Still waiting for what pgms israel has been using for bombing civilian infrastructure where there is zero aa/ad and circular error probability doesnt matter.

If any of you think israel is hitting valid military targets, you really have no idea what youre talking about. Im not saying that ethnically cleansing gaza via indiscriminate bombings isnt a valid military tactic, but so far all its got is the ire of white people and Al-Qassam's still chillin in dem tunnels. The strategy of offloading the gazans into Egypt thus far, has been a colossal failure. Bombing gaza into an inhospitable wasteland has been a moderate success.

You dont get to kill women and children willy-nilly cause a bunch of 70iq retards with parachutes somehow managed to embarrass you.

That's not what I'm saying, but I am saying that the gleeful participation and support for the October 7 stone age barbarian attack warrants their total destruction. This may sound harsh but it's true. These barbarian attacks were a thing of the past, and they are a thing of the past because our ancestors made the consequences of such stupidity and cruelty so dire that no one else ever dare attempt it again because the consequences would be the destruction of their people. It's simply a matter of incentives and disincentives. If a population is allowed to get away with such atrocities, this sends a clear message to someone else that they can do the same thing and also get away with it. It's a matter of reality, logical principle, consequences and incentives.

The Persians and Romans first wiped this stuff out, then later on it was wiped out by the French English and Spanish. This order cannot be taken for granted as our entire civilization hinges upon it. You only believe Western Imperial standards of conduct are basic expectations because you take them for granted - the real world is brutal and unforgiving, and these basic standards must be enforced by Western Imperial rule.

1. Yes and it is to be commended. When one side has the power, ability, and justification to wipe out the other side but instead shows mercy, is a virtue to be commended.

2. Correct, it was moral to show them mercy

3. They do this for their own state security, to guarantee the security of their people. When these measures aren't taken seriously, Oct 7 happens.

We can discuss this here or in the other place, i dont mind, but there is alot of topics within your response. to make it very simple now, your post supports collective punishment. discuss (here or there).

Collective punishment is valid, as the technology to read minds and know what people are thinking doesn't exist

To be clear too, Hamas & friends also support collective punishment - those children and innocents on Oct 7 were not IDF soldiers

Collective punishment is also necessary for state security and has always been the norm throughout conflict, the side which does not collectively punish is the side that loses

In addition, every side ever in the history of war ever has utilized collective punishment, to believe that war can be conducted without collective punishment is folly. There may have been some smaller civilizations in history that didn't, but we don't even know of their existence because they lost and were wiped out

This post was edited by El1te on Mar 24 2025 12:44pm

ok so basically your saying that stuff like the geneva convention is irrelevant, international law is irrelevant and any nation, as long as they are strong enough, can ethnically cleanse, or genocide, their weaker neighbors. This also suggests that if a nation is barbaric or inhuman, its OK to respond in kind, or even to be disproportionately more barbaric. barbaric is probably the wrong word, say rather more technical and efficient in killing. as an example the 2000 lbs bombs that were used over the last couple of days by Israel (guided by the UK) to bomb the tents currently in gaza (400 dead in recent days). this is not a headline, its a reality.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 24 2025 12:54pm