Israel or Palestine?

[zenith coyote]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War#Invasion

When you try to assassinate an ambassador the country is going to attack back

“The Israeli military operation, codenamed Operation Peace for Galilee, was launched after gunmen from the Abu Nidal Organization attempted to assassinate Shlomo Argov, Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom”

From the Hezbollah wiki

As well as it says the official found date is in 1985 while above it says it was made in 1982 but that’s probably like some linguistic thing

[thorny stone]

The difference being that it wasn't Lebanon that tried to assassinate Shlomo Argov, but it was still Lebanon that was invaded by Israel. However you look at it, that was Israel attacking people who weren't already attacking it.

This is the problem with the idea that it is acceptable to kill innocent people in order to target guilty ones. All it does is expand the war.

Probably worth mentioning that the Israeli PM at the time was Menachem Begin, formerly the leader of Irgun, the terrorist organisation who believed it was necessary to conduct terrorist attacks against innocent people in order to conquer the whole region.

[shell laurel]

Active
1931–1949
Disbanded
12 January 1949

Again I ask how come the jews can fogive something that happened that long ago and the arabs can't

[zenith coyote]

I’ve yet to see you condemn any indiscriminate attacks against Israel. Your bias is very clear. I no longer wish to engage, but your statement about October 7th not being an escalation was just to insane. Your bait got me. Israel didn’t have a formal government during the Nakbah it was the militant group there was no balance of power, not the same Israeli government as today. Even if so, you cannot deny that Palestine increased their attack and escalated the conflict, they knew Israel would attack back as they did. They’ve been planning this for years.

[thorny stone]

The Zionist Jews haven't forgiven something that happened 2000 years ago, so I'm not sure I agree with your premise never mind your conclusion.

[zenith coyote]

Forgiven or forgotten?

[shell laurel]

you keep saying ZIONIST, TERRORIST etc. I doubt you actually know their definition

[shell laurel]

I doubt they forget. Forgive is something that you do for yourself and not the other person(s)

[shell laurel]

Ah so it's okay for the "palistinians to say" We own the land before you so you can't have it. But when the jews make such a claim from 2000 years ago you say it's not okay?

And the jews actually add: You can also live on it. Where the palisinians say: ALL JEWS need to leave

And all of a sudden you can't reply anymore when prompted to provide evidence or a proper response

[thorny stone]

Maybe check your wording. "Condone" means approve. And yes, I am yet to approve of attacks on Israel, just like I'm yet to approve of attacks on anyone else. I oppose all violence.
I've said very clearly a number of times that I oppose Hamas's attacks on innocent Israelis, as well as Israel's attacks on innocent Palestinians and other groups. In fact, I've said this directly to you before.

#1238854947756310620 message

Escalation normally refers to the conflict, not just one side. You escalate a conflict when you respond with something worse than what has been done to you, that is how we normally use the word. The 7th October 2023 attacks by Hamas were not an escalation of the conflict because Israel had already done worse.

[thorny stone]

Let me know when you can have a rational conversation. Take your time.

[shell laurel]

You amuse me I must give you that.

[thorny stone]

Whenever you are ready.

[shell laurel]

ok narc

You can't entitle yourself to respect especially if you don't show it towards others. But I guess that's hard for a narcesist to comprehend, after all they are special and always right.

Anyway I'll just stop engaging for the 2nd attempt. As I've tried before but it apears you always need to have the last word to feel some kind of superiority or pretend like the opposition doesn't have a comeback. So make your statement and have a good day

[thorny stone]

Anyway I'll just stop engaging for the 2nd attempt.
Sounds good. Take your time to learn how to have a conversation before trying again.

[zenith coyote]

^

[shell laurel]

I guess they still can't be bothered to provide something

[thorny stone]

I think we've discussed that question before. Certainly I've discussed that before, but maybe it was with someone else.

I would imagine that Hamas expected Israel to massively overreact and conduct extremely disproportionate attacks on Palestinians in revenge. So in other words, exactly what Israel did.

I can see that from Hamas' point of view, they know that the only way they can achieve their goals is if the US stops unconditionally backing Israel. So it makes a certain kind of sense (not one I agree with, but one that is understandable) that they would try and bait Israel into doing something that would eventually force the US to abandon it's support. Morally legitimate or not, is a larger question. But as a military tactic, it's a reasonable approach given their situation of desperation.

Whether it was "worth it" depends on what happens in the future. We're yet to see the full effects. But it has certainly bolstered opposition to Israel internationally.

[shell laurel]

Bro is it a Bot? Like seriously it always responds to certain prompts at any given time

[shell laurel]

Talking with certain people is impossible. But we are not allowed to think of them in their "Steriotypes" But this phenominon is seen all over the world and in these comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmy7dn613bQ

[thorny stone]

Whenever you're ready.

[shell laurel]

Whenever your ready in this topic or that

Just use some self reflection if you even can

[shell laurel]

But once more you prove the point needing to have a last word so if you want you can reply again but I'm just closiing this topic as you've not proved capable of providing any usefull insights aside from a select few

[thorny stone]

You are still yet to demonstrate you are capable of having a rational conversation, so I'll just continue to remind you until you're ready to be able to write messages without being rude and disrespectful.

If you want to continue to make a fool of yourself in the meantime I can't stop you, but if you keep breaking server rules then someone who can probably will.

[shell laurel]

I'll just leave this here for anyone needing a reminder of some of the claims without evidence

[thorny stone]

It is certainly one of the biggest terrorist attacks there have ever been. I'm not sure I would describe it as impressive. Worrying, shocking, certainly. But there's nothing positive about it.

[thorny stone]

And here is the link to the most recent time that I have posted the evidence for those claims in this thread:
#1238854947756310620 message

Any other obviously ridiculous statements you want to make? Or are you perhaps ready to have a normal conversation finally?

[shell laurel]

If you want to count that evidence sure

[zenith coyote]

Now answer with condemn. You haven’t condemned any attack against Israel. Its pretty clear you have a bias

[thorny stone]

Yes I have, and I linked you to where I condemned them to you.
#1238854947756310620 message

And here are some more times I've said I oppose Hamas' attacks on civilians. Will you stop making baseless accusations now?
#1238854947756310620 message
#1238854947756310620 message
#1238854947756310620 message
#1238854947756310620 message

[cerulean obsidian]

Of course Israel can be held accountable for their actions. The Arabs were resisting the efforts by the Zionists to conquer their lands by force, so of course they fought back. The majority of the lands were owned by Arabs, and the Zionists tried to take it all from them. It's as simple as that. The Zionists were an invading force, who murdered tens of thousands of innocent people and forced hundreds of thousands more to leave their homes. It is one of the largest atrocities in human history, and it is still going on.

is not what happened... like, at all...

the Zionists didn't take one bit of Arab land by force until they were attacked in 1947, by the Arabs who rejected the partition plan

and land conquered in defensive wars is fair game, as far as the international law is concerned

although only the US recognizes Golan Heights as part of Israel

you can make a good-faith argument on many things, but "The Arabs were resisting the efforts by the Zionists to conquer their lands by force" simply did not happen.

[thorny stone]

By 1948 the Zionists and Arabs had been attacking each other for more than two decades, which was a result of increasing tensions between the two groups, brought about by the huge (and at times illegal) immigration of Zionists into Palestine that had begun around 1881. That immigration was part of the attempt by the Zionists to wrest control over Palestine away from the Arabs who represented the vast majority of the population there at that time. The Arabs didn't agree to give control of the region to the Zionists, so the Zionists were attempting to take it by other means, i.e. force.

I don't think any of that is disputable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercommunal_conflict_in_Mandatory_Palestine#Background

[cerulean obsidian]

Either way, all of that is ancient history, and while the root of this conflict, the present day situation is actually very simple. The entire purpose of Hamas and Hezbollah is to destroy Israel.

Their goals do not include peace at all.

[cerulean obsidian]

I didn't dispute the fact that there were hostilities going back decades

[thorny stone]

I agree.

[cerulean obsidian]

only the claim that you made that Zionists were taking land by force

[thorny stone]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

[cerulean obsidian]

March 1948

exactly.

the UN partition plan was adopted in November 1947

the Arabs wanted war. It just didn't go the way they had hoped.

[thorny stone]

The UN Partition plan was never adopted. It was agreed by the UN in November 1947, but never implemented.

[cerulean obsidian]

obviously, because the very next day Arabs ramped up the attacks on Israelis

[thorny stone]

It was never implemented because the Arabs and Zionists were already engaged in a full-scale war by the time it was due to be implemented, making it irrelevant as both sides had ignored it.

[cerulean obsidian]

the Israelis were not happy with it, but they accepted it

[thorny stone]

They pretended to accept it, and explicitly only went that far so they could use it as a stepping stone to conquering the whole region.

[cerulean obsidian]

that is a very bold claim

conquering the whole region? the Israelis didn't even have an organized military at that point

[thorny stone]

The hostilities go right back to at least 1920, with both sides constantly escalating matters.

[cerulean obsidian]

you're just moving goalposts

there's no evidence at all of any Arab land being taken by force prior to November 1947

so Israel fought a war of independence and won it. Big deal.

many such wars have happened in not that distant history, and nobody disputes the outcome of them

Israel is a tiny country surrounded by enemies on all sides, just let them be

while the Palestinian suffering is tragic, they are making no attempts to make amends at all

of course Israel isn't helping by illegally settling what is rightful Palestinian land

it is a massive shitshow, but Israel has every right to exist, and every right to fight these terrorist groups. The one single purpose of Hamas and Hezbollah is to destroy Israel. Obviously they can't let that stand.

yes, a lot of civilians have died in the past year, but honestly -- who cares?

not even neighbouring Arab countries care

[thorny stone]

It's indisputable. There are any number of records of Israeli leaders making comments along those lines.

https://www.palestineremembered.com/download/B-G LetterTranslation.pdf

What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish - Ben Gurion

https://archive.org/details/expulsionofpales00masa/page/106/mode/2up

He further made clear his support for the establishment of the Jewish state in part of Palestine only as an intermediate stage.

[cerulean obsidian]

yes, because that's what they wanted

but they accepted a lot less

[thorny stone]

They accepted it only as a temporary measure until they could get the whole land. They were very explicit about that. That was the only way they were able to get the Zionist Congress to agree to it.

[cerulean obsidian]

until

and when did they get the whole land?

[thorny stone]

They started conquering it by force in 1948.

[cerulean obsidian]

[thorny stone]

Well, debatably 1947. But certainly by 1948.

[cerulean obsidian]

you might not be aware of this, but nothing resembling a Palestinian state even existed until the end of the Six-Day War

[thorny stone]

Why do you think that is relevant?

[cerulean obsidian]

between 1948 and 1967 Gaza was under Egyptian occupation, and West Bank under Jordanian

[cerulean obsidian]

because I'm going to make an atrocious claim

Israel literally created the entity known as Palestine

by liberating Gaza from Egyptian occupation, and West Bank from Jordanian

and that's when Palestinians proved that they don't actually want a state, they just want to fight Israel until the bitter end

[thorny stone]

Palestinians want their homes back, first and foremost.

[cerulean obsidian]

not going to happen, end of story, it's time to move on

[thorny stone]

They have never been given chance to organise their own state, they have been living in one perpetual war or occupation after another.

[cerulean obsidian]

would that have anything do with the President of Palestine currently serving 20th year of his 5 year term and being completely disinterested in making live any better for ordinary Palestinians?

[thorny stone]

and conquering a region hardly counts as liberating if you're going to occupy it yourself.

[cerulean obsidian]

Israel has offered many chances for an independent Palestinian state

the Palestinians themselves have now ruined that prospect

[thorny stone]

Are you referring to Mahmoud Abbas, the Israeli puppet they installed to pretend that the Palestinians had self-rule?

[cerulean obsidian]

eh, all you have are strawman arguments

[thorny stone]

Israel has always only ever offered settlements that give Israel more land and legitimacy than it currently has. There has never been an Israeli proposal that didn't involve Israel being given even more than it had already.

[cerulean obsidian]

it baffles me as to why only (usually liberal) westerners care about the Palestinian suffering

nobody else actually cares

Arabs have better life in Israel than in any Arab country

[thorny stone]

I don't agree with your premise, the Arab countries also care.

[cerulean obsidian]

which one in particular?

[thorny stone]

No they don't. Maybe by your values system, but not by theirs. And yours is irrelevant to them.

[cerulean obsidian]

Egypt was willing to send military to prevent Gazans from entering Egypt

[thorny stone]

Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, Iraq etc.

[cerulean obsidian]

Iran is not Arab, Syria & Iraq are Iranian puppets

[thorny stone]

Egypt is acting out of self-preservation, as Israel would invade them yet again if they were to aid the Palestinians beyond anything very basic.

[cerulean obsidian]

Egypt and Jordan absolutely do not care and they are happy that the Palestinians are Israel's problem, not theirs

and what I mean by "Egypt" and "Jordan" is of course the leadership, 90% of the people there hate Israel, but again, who cares, because what say do they have? They are not democracies, for better or worse.

[thorny stone]

The Palestinians are a problem for every country in the region, and many countries elsewhere. But the fact is that Israel, with US backing, has successfully bullied a lot of them into submission.

[cerulean obsidian]

again with the moving of the goalposts

[thorny stone]

What goalposts?

Who is making goalposts?

[cerulean obsidian]

so do they care, or has US bullied them into not caring? Or are they not caring out of self-preservation?

I'm at a loss here

[thorny stone]

They care, and Israel and the US have bullied them into not acting. Clear enough?

[cerulean obsidian]

oh yeah, they totally care!

which is obviously why none of the Arab countries that recognized Israel in Abraham Accords have even broken off diplomatic relations with Israel

[thorny stone]

If they broke off diplomatic relations they would be invaded. That's what Israel always does when there are diplomatic difficulties with a neighbouring country.

[cerulean obsidian]

are you seriously suggesting that if Jordan broke off diplomatic relations with Israel, the next thing Israel would do would be to invade Jordan?

on what basis and with what war goal?

you're completely missing the bigger picture here

the anti-Iran alliance

[thorny stone]

They would probably fire rockets first. But yes. Their goal would be regime change, and the conquest of land.

[cerulean obsidian]

this is just completely bat-shit insane

[thorny stone]

They already did it in the past.

[cerulean obsidian]

I'll tell you why Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the rest of the gulf countries don't care

because peace is good for business

not because the US bullied them into not caring

[thorny stone]

Yes, peace is better, because the alternative is you have US-made rockets raining down on your homes.

[cerulean obsidian]

so we're in agreement then

the question then is why can't Palestinians just accept peace?

it's offered to them every day

[thorny stone]

Because that offer of peace involves them accepting the Israeli theft of the homes and the destruction of their lives and livelihoods, as well as the cold-blooded murder of their relatives.

[cerulean obsidian]

that's going to happen no matter if they accept it or not

[thorny stone]

It's not a realistic offer. It's only made because Israel knows for sure that the Palestinians can never accept it.

[cerulean obsidian]

so what you're suggesting is that Palestinians should fight Israel until they're all dead

[thorny stone]

I'm suggesting the US should stop unconditionally supporting Israel, and force the more extreme Israeli to abandon their insane religious crusade of conquest.

That's the obstacle to peace.

[cerulean obsidian]

that changed on October 7

[thorny stone]

Then, Israel needs to sit down and talk about how they are going to compensate Palestinians for all the harm they have caused them.

[cerulean obsidian]

before that Israel was willing to abandon the settlements

[thorny stone]

That changed nothing.

[cerulean obsidian]

they're not, Palestinians have caused equal harm

[thorny stone]

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

[thorny stone]

Nowhere near equal harm. Not in the same order of magnitude of harm.

[cerulean obsidian]

would it matter if I did?

[thorny stone]

Yes, because it would make that claim potentially valid.

[cerulean obsidian]

and would that matter?

because the reality on the ground is that there's just not going to be a Palestinian state

[thorny stone]

Yes, because I would like to discuss facts and ideas, not baseless nonsense.

[thorny stone]

There's no way to solve the conflict without one.

[cerulean obsidian]

how's this for baseless nonsense?

[cerulean obsidian]

THE PALESTINIANS DO NOT WANT A STATE

[thorny stone]

Of course they do.

[cerulean obsidian]

and you actually believe that?

[thorny stone]

Hamas doesn't, but they don't represent all Palestinians.

[thorny stone]

I know that.

I have listened to them say that, many, many times.

[cerulean obsidian]

actually yes, let me correct myself

the Palestinians in fact do want a state, but one that includes the ENTIRETY of Israel

they have never even been willing to go back to the post-1967 borders

[thorny stone]

Some of them want that, yes. But most would be happy with any state where they could lead safe, secure lives away from the constant persecution from Israel.

[cerulean obsidian]

"persecution from Israel"

Israel does not persecute Palestinian civilians

[thorny stone]

Yes they do. It's indisputable.

https://www.ochaopt.org/50Stories/

Here's 50 stories to start off.

[cerulean obsidian]

that's very funny considering that before October 7 many Palestinians were working in Israel and routinely went to Israel for medical care

[thorny stone]

...because they are prevented from offering certain kinds of medical care where they live, by Israel.

[cerulean obsidian]

ok yeah I'm out, there's no point in continuing this debate

[thorny stone]

It is a military occupation where the Israeli goal is to make life so bad that the Palestinians leave.

[cerulean obsidian]

leave to where? they have nowhere to go. No Arab country is going to let them in

[thorny stone]

The religious extremists in Israel don't care where they go.

[cerulean obsidian]

last time Jordan let a significant number of Palestinians in, they tried to overthrow the government of Jordan, so Jordan promptly expelled them

so yes, life for Palestinians suck

but that's 100% of their own making

[thorny stone]

"Last time"? There are more than 3 million Palestinians living in Jordan.

[cerulean obsidian]

they've made their bed, now they have to sleep in it

[cerulean obsidian]

they are called Jordanians, not Palestinians

[thorny stone]

The Palestinians have had virtually no say in the circumstances they find themselves in.

[cerulean obsidian]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September

[thorny stone]

I think you should ask them before making that claim.

[cerulean obsidian]

again, doesn't matter

the same is true for most people living in any Arab country

no democracy, no human rights

[thorny stone]

It matters a lot, because when you are trying to solve a problem, you need to identify the cause.

[cerulean obsidian]

the cause is Palestinians will just keep attacking Israel

[thorny stone]

And the cause is Zionism.

Palestinians only attack Israel because Israel is torturing them, murdering them, and stealing their homes and lands.

That's the basic fact behind all of this.

[cerulean obsidian]

and this exact mentality is why there will never be peace

and why Israel must prevail in this conflict

[thorny stone]

We just need the US to stop enabling the state terrorists, and Israel will have to make peace.

[cerulean obsidian]

haha, yes, because Hamas and Hezbollah are just going to "make peace"

[thorny stone]

Israel can't prevail. It's physically impossible for them to ever win the war they have started, and none of the rest of the world would accept them even if they did.

[cerulean obsidian]

sure, the rest of the world would accept it

they would just not admit it publicly

[thorny stone]

We don't need Hamas and Hezbollah to make peace. We just need to allow the Palestinians to have an alternative government of their own that doesn't need to be either Hamas or a similar organisation.

If we allow them a better option, they will take it. But right now, there is no other option, because Israel kills any other leaders the Palestinians choose.

[cerulean obsidian]

and in this fantasy of yours, Hamas and Hezbollah would just lay down arms and become friendly neighbours to the Jews, yes?

[thorny stone]

I think you underestimate just how much protection the US is giving Israel on the intnernational stage. Were it not for the US, there would be arrest warrants for several Israel leaders and Israel would be facing a total embargo of trade.

[cerulean obsidian]

ah yes they totally would

they would be facing such a total embargo of trade that UAE would even keep trading with Israel

[thorny stone]

No, of course not. But over a succession of years the Palestinian (and Iranian) support for those organisations would dwindle away to nothingness if the cause of the problems disappeared, and Palestinians could get on with their lives without needing to rely on those organisations.

[cerulean obsidian]

the actual root cause of the problem is Iran

[cerulean obsidian]

and Palestinians could get on with their lives without needing to rely on those organisations.
you think Hamas/Hezbollah care about the Palestinian plight?

[thorny stone]

Again, the only problem Iran has with Israel is Israel's policy of attacking Iran.

[cerulean obsidian]

they fucking don't, Hamas has stolen virtually every single bit of aid that was sent to Gaza

[thorny stone]

It doesn't matter. Without the support of the Palestinians, those organisations cease to exist.

[cerulean obsidian]

Hamas destroyed Gaza's water supply so they could make rockets out of the pipes

[cerulean obsidian]

they don't need the support of Palestinians

[thorny stone]

The control the distribution of it, that's all. Palestinians still receive the aid.

[cerulean obsidian]

they just need weapons and a goal to destroy Israel

and Iran who continues to sponsor them

[thorny stone]

They only have a goal to destroy Israel because Israel is harming them.

People don't try and kill others without having a reason.

[cerulean obsidian]

are you suffering from some sort of a mental difficulty?

[thorny stone]

Can you understand a basic timeline of events?

[cerulean obsidian]

the Hamas charter literally states "Israel exists and will continue to exist until Islam obliterates it"

[thorny stone]

...and?

[cerulean obsidian]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Hamas_charter

and that's why the countries supplying Israel's war effort won't stop doing that

and that's why Israel will continue to exist

and that's why nobody actually fucking cares about the palestinian plight, because they themselves are responsible for this shit

very tragic, I know, but that's the reality of the situation

[thorny stone]

Hamas is an organisation that was created by Palestinians to fight Israel. If Palestinians don't need to fight Israel any more, support for Hamas will dry up and the organisation will fade away into nothingness.

[cerulean obsidian]

you're delusional

[thorny stone]

They receive the most international aid of any persecuted peoples. Tons of people care.

[thorny stone]

And you're very rude.

[cerulean obsidian]

no, the international aid is just a measure of how little the international commuity cares

"we'll just throw some money and civilian goods at them, problem solved"

you know who cares? Iran, by sending weapons

[thorny stone]

...and constantly badger Israel via the UN to stop it's actions.

I'll say it again. Since the US is protecting Israel, and since the US is the strongest military power in the world and using threat of force to protect Israel, it is only the US that can do anything about Israel.

[cerulean obsidian]

UN is a completely irrelevant organization today, nothing they do matters

[thorny stone]

The only thing anyone else can do is try and manage the humanitarian crises, and try and persuade Israel and the US to change their minds.

[cerulean obsidian]

they won't

[thorny stone]

On a long enough time scale it will happen.

[radiant dirge]

Personally I think Palestine was wrong to attack first, and now Israel is exaggerating too much.

[thorny stone]

The US won't stay as the world's leading military for ever. It has lots of problems, give it another 50 years and it won't have anything like the international influence it has now.

[kind dagger]

Does Israel help Palestinians flee?

[kind dagger]

Palestine didn't attack first, Hamas did

[thorny stone]

Actually, Palestinians didn't attack first. It was the Zionists who invaded Palestinian lands first.

[radiant dirge]

If that's true, doesn't that leave Palestine in the right?

[radiant dirge]

^^^

[thorny stone]

It doesn't leave anyone in the right. There is lots of wrong. But it does mean that the conflict was ultimately created by the Zionist desire to conquer the region.

[radiant dirge]

Of course, war is never right... Yet there's always someone who attacked first is there not?

[kind dagger]

Israel wants to settle Palestine, they always have

[radiant dirge]

I think negotiating is better than death

Same with Ukraine and Russia

And all wars in all honesty

[kind dagger]

unless everyone consents to the war

[thorny stone]

It's rarely as simple as that. What happened in this case, was a gradual increase of aggression, from shouting, to shouting louder, to trying to physically impose themselves, to pushing, to shoving, to hitting, to throwing, to shooting, etc. etc. Each side did a bit more than the previous side, but the level of violence increased slowly but surely throughout the 1920s, 30s and 40s. When the Zionists decided they were never going to be able to take the lands peacefully, they decided to take them militarily, and began their military campaign of conquest first through a series of terrorist organisations, and later through a combined group of all of the terrorist organisations that was renamed the IDF.

[radiant dirge]

Consenting to a war should be hated on, shame to whoever would do such a thing.

[radiant dirge]

Well explained, thanks

[kind dagger]

The soldiers of Caesar and Pompey each consented to war and they were the only ones who suffered. Was that war necessarily bad?

[radiant dirge]

How are they the only ones who suffered

[thorny stone]

If you want a longer version with more historical context, I included more detail here:
#1238854947756310620 message

[radiant dirge]

I'll read it through

[kind dagger]

no civilians were killed

[radiant dirge]

If they had family, the family suffered, if they were a role model people would lose hope..

[radiant dirge]

Can you really call that a war?

With death comes suffering

[kind dagger]

It was the choice of the soldier though so it doesn't feel like the war's fault, perhaps the soldiers had no family

Back then you went to war to give your family honour partially anyway, so it would help your family

[thorny stone]

Terminology gets complicated. I agree with the principle of negotiating being better than death, but unfortunately there are some circumstances where some people are not given that option.

[radiant dirge]

Imagine being a soldier in that situation

[radiant dirge]

There's always the option, till they both escalate it, basically like risk

[thorny stone]

In theory yes, there is that option. But unfortunately people regularly act based on emotion rather than reason, and that tends to remove the choice aspect.

[kind dagger]

many soldiers then wanted to fight, take Sparta where every men was raised with the destiny to fight and die in battle, it's all they wanted, if two Spartan states go to war with each other where everyone understood that and was happy, would it be bad?

[radiant dirge]

If two leaders hate each other, a war could erupt, if normal civilians hated each other, a mere fight might happen. One person with enough power to force people into his own problems is an issue. Im not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying I wish

[radiant dirge]

Wanting that is sick. You get 1 life. Not more.

[thorny stone]

Yes, the real problem is power imbalance, I agree.

[radiant dirge]

That being ruined by a war

[radiant dirge]

🙏

[kind dagger]

They would call you sick, you would call them sick, you say you get one life, they say you get one death

[radiant dirge]

Death will 100% happen eventually, many young soldiers wanting to die in battle is without a doubt sick.

You may get one death, but with death your life too, with the life you don't lose anything

[kind dagger]

Perhaps they know and will never know a greater purpose than to die in battle

[radiant dirge]

Another issue created by wars..

Imagine Einstein died in a war before he came up with anything

Or Isaac Newton

The creator of devices

The person who discovered how x-rays are done

Without a doubt one of those people had a greater purpose which was cut short

[kind dagger]

But that's you saying that discovering something for the betterment of humanity is the greater purpose, but they may disagree, I would say the average Spartan would

[radiant dirge]

The average Spartan would rather die than discover something for the betterment of humanity? Did war cause them to think like this?

Without war would there be no purpose for them?

[kind dagger]

It was just their culture

[kind dagger]

Yes

[radiant dirge]

Oh dear

I hope this doesn't lead them to hope for war..

[kind dagger]

In peace time they would train and act as mercenaries

but that isn't reallly the point

[shell laurel]

Good attempt to reason with someone who refuses to listen. I see you've drawn the same conclusion on the lad

[thorny stone]

I'm always happy to listen. So, whenever you feel capable of having a conversation, just let me know. I'm still waiting. In the meantime, if you want to continue to act like a 5 year old, I would appreciate it if you did it elsewhere. You're not really adding anything useful to this conversation right now.

[kind dagger]

wtf that's so messed up

ik a guy from gaza and he has two girls

he has never done anything and certainly not his children

like 1% of Palestinians are violent/hamas/whatever

and the majority of that is because of Israel's attacks

imagine if you were in gaza

imagine if those were your kids

and these people are bombing you day after day

[cerulean obsidian]

there’s no denying that the civilians of Gaza are complicit in the crimes of Hamas

while individual cases where people have done nothing wrong are truly tragic

collectively that’s not the case

[cerulean obsidian]

so ultimately it’s war and death for the civilians of Gaza anyway

either they fight Hamas themselves (they won’t)

or they suffer the consequences of Israel going to war with Hamas

and they have nowhere to go, because no country is going to let them in

their situation is truly tragic

[cerulean obsidian]

https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/palestinians-in-your-country-what

it is very tragic that 2 million human beings are in a situation where everybody prefers them to be someone else’s problem

but there’s no solution to that, Hamas has to go and they cannot be allowed to administer Gaza in any way shape or form

[granite prawn]

There's no point arguing with these kinds of people man. They have picked their team, and think that anything done to their team is unforgivable and anything they do to the other team is justified.

It is how humans naturally think. Tribalism can only be beaten back by empathy and rationality, but some people just can't do it.

[cerulean obsidian]

empathy has nothing to do with rationality

and I strongly oppose tribalism, I’m very much an individualist

[granite prawn]

That's why I stated them separately. They don't have to be related for you to use them both in assessing a situation.

[cerulean obsidian]

and I didn’t say that anything “my team” does is justified—I disagree with many things Israel does

the judicial reform, the shift to the far-right, the settlements, and giving the ultra-orthodox the free reign to do whatever they want (although that’s changing now)

I simply agree with their war goals and recognize the reality of life that being a palestinian just fucking sucks pretty bad.

[granite prawn]

Israel is the real world embodiment of the line "Die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain".

[cerulean obsidian]

there are no heroes or villains anymore

it’s just a matter of perspective

[granite prawn]

Well no heroes that's for sure, pretty much all villains. Except for the innocent civilians who have no say over what their governments do in the short term.

[granite prawn]

This is cope. And why empathy matters. Israel is more than capable of doing targeted strikes on terrorist leaders while limiting civilian casualties.

They would not try to sneak pager bombs to targets if they knew those targets were currently in an area with large numbers of their civilians, or hiding in a friendly country.

No, but they find it acceptable to do if the innocent civilians are a certain nationality. That tells you all you need to know about them.

How anyone could support them after they carelessly killed their own civilian hostages because they didnt think the look into the unarmed folks waving white flags before mowing them now is astonishing.

[kind dagger]

like 1% of them are?

[cerulean obsidian]

accidental civilian casualties are acceptable

it’s just a state of war

[kind dagger]

but anyway, if there are people killing you and your friends, I reckon you'd want to get revenge

[kind dagger]

you want them to fight Hamas with all the rubble from the buildings that Israel has destroyed?

[cerulean obsidian]

I’m not the vengeful kind

[kind dagger]

that's racism

[kind dagger]

what if they killed your children?

[cerulean obsidian]

no, that’s facts

[kind dagger]

💀

[cerulean obsidian]

yes

I’ve accepted many tragedies in life

I feel it’s much easier to just move on and to accept the new reality

[civic karma]

Because they believe that Israel has illigitimately laid claim on their lands. It isn't rocket science.. If someone invaded your city tomorrow and throw all of you out to the nearby desert/forest/whatever, you would want to get them out too and get your house / land back.

Now I am not making any claims on whether the Israeli claim of the land is in fact legitimate or not. I don't want to get involved in such discussions anymore

But you seem to fail to understand the most basic timelines and passing of events in this region in the past 150 years.

[cerulean obsidian]

Israel has a legitimate claim to the land, period.

if you really want to go that far in the past, blame the British for promising the land to both sides

funny lads they were, the only reason why Kuwait exists is because a couple of Lords had a map and a pen handy, and were having a good laugh about it all

[civic karma]

Depends on who you ask

That's what I'm trying to say

I am not going to judge on the legitimacy of their claims

All I am saying is that there is at least one party in the conflict that does not agree

You asked why Hamas wants to destroy israel

I explain to you why

[cerulean obsidian]

and I’m trying to say, that Israel (was) recognizing palestinian claim to the land

but the Palestinians were never recognizing Israeli claim

[civic karma]

Hamas and PLO did not

Hamas / PLO is not the same as Palestinians

And i get the feeling you are deliberately mixing those up in order to make a non-existing point

That'd be the same as me saying Israel is the US

or some other bullshit like that

[thorny stone]

Israel has a legitimate legal claim to the ~56% of the land they were allocated by the UN. They don't have any legitimate claim to the other ~44% that they took by force.
The Zionist idea that the whole region rightfully belongs to the Jews is based on two clearly unacceptable principles, firstly that Jews should be allowed to claim ownership of land simply because their distant ancestors once lived there, and secondly because their imaginary friend (their god) told them they could. Since we cannot accept the validity of either of those two claims, the only remaining claim is from the UN partition plan.

Palestinians have a legitimate legal claim to ~44% of the land, and a moral claim to ~94% of the land, since they owned it and were using it and had it stolen from them. The UN is responsible for dealing with some of that, the ~50% of the land they wanted to remove from Arab control, and Israel is responsible for the remaining ~44%.

[cerulean obsidian]

legal != legitimate

[thorny stone]

That's a pretty silly argument. The vast majority of Palestinian civilians have no say whatsoever in the actions of Hamas, and even the ones that do have any say have no alternative to choose.

By that logic, every Israeli is personally responsible for shooting innocent children.

[cerulean obsidian]

becauze both sides have a legitimate, not legal claim to 100% of the land

[cerulean obsidian]

inaction equals complicity

there are massive protests in Israel every day

[thorny stone]

No it doesn't.

[cerulean obsidian]

of course it does

[thorny stone]

No they don't. I explained it already. Israel has no legitimate claim to anything more than ~56%.

[cerulean obsidian]

Israel has a legitimate claim to 100%, because it was Jewish land for thousands of years until Romans expelled them

[thorny stone]

By that logic you are also responsible for Hamas' actions since you didn't do anything to stop them.

[thorny stone]

That's not a legitimate claim.

[cerulean obsidian]

why not?

the connection between Jews and virtually all of the land is irrefutable

[thorny stone]

Because events of 1400 or more years ago are not relevant to the present day. Nobody can claim land simply because their ancestors lived there, otherwise we could all claim ownership of more of the region because everyone has ancestors who lived there.

[thorny stone]

and also irrelevant.

[cerulean obsidian]

most Palestinians who survived the nakba are no longer alive today

by the same logic the Palestinians don’t have a claim to the land Israel took

[thorny stone]

All Palestinians who are alive today are current survivors of the Nakba. It's still going on.

[thorny stone]

1400 years ago is different from 100 years ago.

The Palestinians today are directly impacted by the theft of the land by Israel. The Jews alive today are not impacted by the theft of their lands 1400 or more years ago.

[cerulean obsidian]

so does Germany have a claim to Koenigsburg? because if I recall correctly, Soviets took it some 3 years before Israel took some Arab land

[thorny stone]

I don't know, I don't know anything about that situation.

[cerulean obsidian]

you know nothing about WW2 and have such a strong opinion on this conflict?

oh boy, the injustices with land transfers in WW2 aftermath

[thorny stone]

I know a lot about WW2, but not about the specific case of Koenigsburg

[cerulean obsidian]

it’s currently called Kaliningrad

[thorny stone]

But we get nowhere in this conversation if we start getting side tracked by whataboutism.

Many injustices exist. We should deal with them all fairly.

'Fair' in the case of Israel and the Palestinians means both groups having a safe and economically viable place to live.

I'm not suggesting that Israel should give back all of the land it stole in practice. That's impractical now. But the starting point for discussions about how to end the conflict needs to acknowledge that the needs of both sides need to be addressed, and that neither side has any special justification beyond the basic legal and moral facts.

[zenith coyote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

"In 1558, Selim II (1566–1574), successor to Suleiman, whose wife Nurbanu Sultan was Jewish,[188] gave control of Tiberias to Doña Gracia Mendes Nasi, one of the richest women in Europe and an escapee from the Inquisition. She encouraged Jewish refugees to settle in the area and established a Hebrew printing press. Safed became a centre for study of the Kabbalah. Doña Nasi's nephew, Joseph Nasi, was made governor of Tiberias and he encouraged Jewish settlement from Italy.[189]"
"In 1799, Napoleon briefly occupied the country and planned a proclamation inviting Jews to create a state. The proclamation was shelved following his defeat at Acre.[193] In 1831, Muhammad Ali of Egypt, an Ottoman ruler who left the Empire and tried to modernize Egypt, conquered Ottoman Syria and imposed conscription, leading to the Arab revolt.[194]

Jewish workers in Kerem Avraham neighbourhood of Jerusalem (c. 1850s)
In 1838, there was another Druze revolt. In 1839 Moses Montefiore met with Muhammed Pasha in Egypt and signed an agreement to establish 100–200 Jewish villages in the Damascus Eyalet of Ottoman Syria,[195] but in 1840 the Egyptians withdrew before the deal was implemented, returning the area to Ottoman governorship. In 1844, Jews constituted the largest population group in Jerusalem. By 1896 Jews constituted an absolute majority in Jerusalem,[196] but the overall population in Palestine was 88% Muslim and 9% Christian."

zionism isnt a new idea

there wasn't as much for a push for a jewish state because although there was antisemetism, they were mainly able to live pretty peacefully, besides the spanish inquisition

look at the demographic change of the land, see arab conquest on why its so Muslim

The jews has a common enemy of the russians in WW1 so a lot of them supported britian which is why britian wanted the jews in the area leading to the Balfour declaration.

Also thoughts on the 1917 Jaffah deportation? Its ok to kick the jews from the land but not the muslims?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots

anti semetic riots against jews, this wasn't the mindset of everyone but there was racism against the jews who they blamed because britian wouldn't follow through on the deal

"The Arab riots were publicly protested by sheikhs from 82 villages in the Jerusalem and Jaffa areas who issued a formal statement saying that, in their view, Zionist settlement was not a danger to their communities. Similar declarations would be repeated in cablegrams sent to London in 1922, as hundreds of sheikhs and mukhtars lent their authority and support to Jewish immigration. The tenor of these positions was that such immigration would, as the Zionist movement itself affirmed, improve the lives of Arabs as industrial development progressed. The sheikhs protesting the riots, and telegramming later the British colonial secretary to express solidarity with the Zionist programme were sometimes bribed to state this position by the World Zionist Organisation. Their opinions were procured."

The russian jews that immigrated helped transform the land from a desert into fertile land to use because they were self sufficient farmers

I am in no means denying palestinian right to self determination, the more i learn about the conflict the more i think we need two sides. But stop acting like the palestinian right is somehow more right or true because of israels treatment.

Bernard Lewis argues it was not as a Palestinian nation that the Palestinian Arabs of the Ottoman Empire objected to Zionists, since the very concept of such a nation was unknown to the Arabs of the area at the time and did not come into being until later. Even the concept of Arab nationalism in the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire "had not reached significant proportions before the outbreak of World War I."[17]

Daniel Pipes asserts that "No 'Palestinian Arab people' existed at the start of 1920 but by December it took shape in a form recognizably similar to today's." Pipes argues that with the carving of the British Mandate of Palestine out of Greater Syria, the Arabs of the new Mandate were forced to make the best they could of their situation, and therefore began to define themselves as Palestinian.[18]

Benny Morris concurs, suggesting that the emergence of the Palestinian national identity can be traced through the successive postwar Palestine Arab Congresses. The First Congress, held in January 1919, resolved that "We see Palestine as part of Arab Syria," while the third, meeting in December 1920, called upon the British to establish a "native government," making no further mention of "Southern Syria."[19]

Palestine is not as old as israel, they were kicking whatever jews that have lived in that land for thousands of years, its not illogical for them to have their own land, especially in response to anti semetism in the world (which existed before modern day israel)

stop blaming jewish migration to the land as the sole reason why palestinians don't have their own land

Palestinian Arab A’ayan ("Notables") were a group of urban elites at the apex of the Palestinian socio-economic pyramid where the combination of economic and political power dominated Palestinian Arab politics throughout the British Mandate period. The dominance of the A’ayan had been encouraged and utilised during the Ottoman period and later, by the British during the Mandate period, to act as intermediaries between the authority and the people to administer the local affairs of Palestine.

What gives the palestinians the right to their own land when they have never self governed? The people of the land have changed dozens of time over its history. Many historians agree that the palestianian nationilism came aroudn the same time as zionism, this isn't an argument for any denial.

"Under the Ottomans, Palestine's Arab population mostly saw themselves as Ottoman subjects. In the 1830s however, Palestine was occupied by the Egyptian vassal of the Ottomans, Muhammad Ali and his son Ibrahim Pasha"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_nationalism

where is any of this energy for the people of taiwan? Or china literal concentration camp. Or the fight for womans rights under sharia law. This isn't saying that any one topic is more important than the other but why is israel getting more shit for defending themselves against countries bombing them everyday than china is for supressing taiwan. As ive said again and again this is a war of attrittion for hamas, they have no regard for any civilain life and the only thing they care about is making as destructive war possible so israel looks bad. If the world would hold them accountable instead of trying to hold israel accountable the situation would be different

I once again feel the need to condemn the actions of Netanyahu, he has not made the situation worse and has made it so hamas knows that israel will retaliate making the situation worse

[zenith coyote]

After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran severed all diplomatic and commercial ties with Israel, and its theocratic government does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a state.

The relations between Iran and Israel are divided into four major phases: the ambivalent period from 1947 to 1953, the friendly period during the era of the Pahlavi dynasty from 1953 to 1979, the worsening period following the Iranian Revolution from 1979 to 1990, and the ongoing period of open hostility since the end

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_relations#:~:text=The relations between Iran and,open hostility since the end

Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel as a sovereign state after Turkey.[1

[zenith coyote]

Just as Palestinian nationalism is linked to Zionism, Zionism is linked to anti semetism. there were always jews in their holy land unless they were forced out, so they should be able to go back but thats not my point. It is not the jews fault that the arabs of the ottoman empire could not make a palestine. The elites (not jews the muslim/arab ones) wanted to stay in control and when egypt took over from the ottomans they didnt wan't to get taxed from them

"In 1844, Jews constituted the largest population group in Jerusalem. By 1896 Jews constituted an absolute majority in Jerusalem,[196] but the overall population in Palestine was 88% Muslim and 9% Christian.[197]"

[zenith coyote]

Eh way over simplification to blame it all on hamas and hezbollah, the root is anti zionism and anti semetism which caused the tensions in zionism which caused this present day situation

During the ottoman empire around 5% of all jews lived there, around 10% in 1900 and the percent of all jews around the world in israel has increased

[shell laurel]

Lmao still replying to me I suppoce like the child you are yourself. Keep projecting and being angry like a todler.

[shell laurel]

There are not really teams in my opinion. But one state that's capable of running both Israelish, Arabash (and anything else) and the other has yet to show it's capability in all these years without hatespeach, deathtreats and indoctranating the next generation into YIHAD

[shell laurel]

You are correct. They didn't sneak them, they where ordered and intercepted. They performed surviance, espionage, and had insiders and outsiders expose details about the order and use. Then they continued to monitor and where forced to blow up all the pagers (wich went to the orginazation of Hisbollah) so no innocents where "Directly targeted"

They are constantly monitoring any site they strike and give public appologies if they make a mistake... Unlike some who just randomly shoot rockets hope to hit anything..

[shell laurel]

Isn't allah an immaginary friend either. Kind of hypocritical. Either "God' and "Allah" are the same or they aren't . but they can't both be immaginary or one is "There, the other doesn't exist" lmao.

But please don't respond you refuse to actually read and interpret or look at things I have to say, link or write. So again. Keep living in a bubble.

[shell laurel]

They voted them into power, They didn't rise up against their powerclaim. They continue to state they agree with the actions of Hamas on Oct 7 TO THIS DAY. That sounds pretty complacent to me.

[shell laurel]

Yeah sure, of course that hasn't anything to do with they where impacted by the holocaust. They wheren't welcome there either.

[shell laurel]

says enough

To your claim "Why is the holocaust relevant" that's why I linked the video you never watched clown

[shell laurel]

Taling about "whataboutism" is like ignoring your own "ignorism" Whataboutism is a term often used by 'woke/left' leaning individuals, but instead of being able to reflect, interpret or feel it "tought provoking" instead they feel like it distracts from the matter at hand while in fact if is suppoced to make one look at it from a different angle and THEN draw their conclusions.

[shell laurel]

Man with the facts and neutral P.O.V.

[thorny stone]

look at the demographic change of the land, see arab conquest on why its so Muslim
The people of the land have changed dozens of time over its history.
As I've explained several times in this thread, all that changed with the various conquests of the land, was the name given to the people who lived there. The actual people, the families who lived there, largely stayed the same. They just gradually converted to a different culture and religion over time. Look at the studies on the genetic history of the Palestinians. They are descended from the same people the modern day Jews are, the Canaanites. Any historical claim to the land the Jews might claim to have, the Palestinians have the exact same claim.

Also thoughts on the 1917 Jaffah deportation?
I don't know what you're trying to compare it to. It was just one part of efforts by the Ottoman Empire to remove citizens of enemy countries from its lands during the First World War., which involved the deportation of tens of thousands of people of all religions and national backgrounds from Ottoman lands, not just Jews.
It is obviously not even remotely comparable to the Nakba, if that is what you are suggesting.

anti semetic riots against jews
The Nebi Musa riots were not antisemitic. There is no indication of any widespread racism involved as far as I'm aware. They were protesting Zionist immigration and the growing conflict between Jews and Arabs in the region at the time. They had legitimate cause for complaint against the Zionists.

The sheikhs protesting the riots, and telegramming later the British colonial secretary to express solidarity with the Zionist programme were sometimes bribed to state this position by the World Zionist Organisation. Their opinions were procured.
It really is worth noting that a lot of Arabs didn't have a problem with a reasonable Jewish presence in Palestine even in 1920. But as you also point out there, it is also worth mentioning that the Zionists were acting somewhat dishonestly even at that stage. The later illegal influx of Zionists to the region was what tipped the balance and created an unsustainable situation for the majority of the Arabs who lived there.

It is not the jews fault that the arabs of the ottoman empire could not make a palestine.
We will never know if the Palestinian Arabs could have made a nation of their own without the Zionists interference. They never had a chance to try, as they went straight from colonial rule to a brief all-out war followed by colonial rule again.

But stop acting like the palestinian right is somehow more right or true because of israels treatment.
I think you're conflating two separate issues. The first issue is who should have the land. If you're saying that the land should be split between Israel and the Palestinians, then I agree with you. The second issue is who is responsible for the current war. On that, some people on both sides have been in the wrong since at least the 1920s, but it seems very clear that Israel's actions as a nation have escalated well beyond any reasonable response to Palestinian actions since at least 1948 and the beginning of the Nakba. There is nothing that the Palestinians have done, either before or since, that justify the ongoing Nakba. Israel is not solely responsible for all of the actions of the whole war, but it is solely responsible for the effects of the Nakba.

What gives the palestinians the right to their own land when they have never self governed?
The fact that they owned the land and were living there peacefully and legally. Whether or not someone has self-governed before is completely irrelevant when thinking about whether they deserve to self-govern. Everyone has a right to self-govern regardless of circumstances.
Both the Zionists of Europe, and the Arabs of Palestine, wanted to self-govern again after a long period of not being able to. The major difference being that the Arabs already had a piece of land that they owned, that they lived on and had fought to remove their oppressors from, and the Zionists didn't. The Zionists therefore chose to take someone else's land, disregarding the rights of the people who already lived there. That's the long and the short of it.

why is israel getting more shit for defending themselves against countries bombing them everyday than china is for supressing taiwan
Simply because China isn't killing currently tens of thousands of innocent Taiwanese citizens. The Palestinian situation is far more urgent.

As ive said again and again this is a war of attrittion for hamas, they have no regard for any civilain life and the only thing they care about is making as destructive war possible so israel looks bad. If the world would hold them accountable instead of trying to hold israel accountable the situation would be different
More or less the only people that actively support Hamas are those who have been directly impacted by Israel's attacks and who genuinely don't see any other way to respond any more. The vast majority of the world condemn Hamas' actions. But the vast majority of the world also recognises that there is nothing to be done about Hamas while Israel is acting the way it is. If we got rid of Hamas then it would just be replaced by something even worse, because the Palestinians would still be attacked and would still attack back in any way they can.

It's a question of taking the right steps, in the right order. Yes, we need to get rid of Hamas. That's one of the steps, for sure. But it's not the step we are on right now. Before we get to that step, we need to create the right conditions which will allow us to not just get rid of Hamas, but stop anything like Hamas from replacing it. And the only way to do that, is to create a sustainable peace settlement. The purpose of Hamas is war. Without a war, Hamas has no purpose and disappears. It will take a long time to die completely, but it's the only way. That's the bottom line. There is no other way.

[thorny stone]

I've been very clear. As soon as you demonstrate you are capable of having a conversation, then I will participate with you. There are many of us in this conversation who are capable of making points without being rude, and our conversation is continuing without a problem. If you would like to join in, you need to play by the same rules as everyone else. If you're just going to keep on being rude, then I know that your contributions are worthless and so there is no need for me to spend any energy engaging.

[thorny stone]

And to nobody's surprise, Iran now retaliates for Israel's attacks. So the cycle continues.

[magic glacier]

I've been stuck in the bomb shelter for 45 minutes

Rip

[thorny stone]

Stay safe.

[cerulean obsidian]

300 missiles and not a single casualty

Iran is a complete clown state

[thorny stone]

You have no way of knowing either of those things at this point.

[cerulean obsidian]

this is not "retaliation"

this is "we desperately want to remain relevant but we also don't want to attack Israel because we're actually too pussy for that"

[thorny stone]

If it turns out there were no casualties then great. But I don't think we can say for sure this soon after the attack.

[thorny stone]

Any way you look at it, this is an attack on Israel by Iran. And in the words of Iran itself it is a response to Israel's attacks on Iran and Hezbollah.

[cerulean obsidian]

not really

[thorny stone]

I don't think there's a lot of point disputing Iran's statement.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/oct/01/israel-lebanon-attacks-live-blog-ground-offensive-hezbollah-hamas-gaza-war?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-66fc30958f08dc8c162243aa#block-66fc30958f08dc8c162243aa

[cerulean obsidian]

I tend to judge by actions, not words

300 rockets is nothing

Iran is full and well aware of Iron Dome's ~90% interception rate, and that they use it only if the rockets pose a serious threat to life

there's no scenario where Iran expected more than 10 rockets to actually hit anything

[thorny stone]

Well, I guess it's up to you how you look at it. I certainly don't think Israel will consider it to be "nothing".

[cerulean obsidian]

of course not

shame IDF doesn't have any expeditionary experience

because I'd love to see a regime change in Iran

[thorny stone]

I think the reports I saw said possibly 200 missiles, and I've seen footage on twitter of maybe 30 missiles and what looked like at least 5 making it through. My guess is that a lot more than 10 rockets hit their target.

[thorny stone]

Israel doesn't have the capability to do that. The US does, and we will wait to see what the US' response to this will be.

The US has threatened Iran a lot, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the US attack Iranian targets on behalf of Israel.

Which then escalates things even more.

[cerulean obsidian]

exactly, which is why I said "shame the IDF doesn't have any expeditionary experience"

[cerulean obsidian]

Israel has the capability to attack Iranian targets and they've done so several times

they don't have the capability to orchestrate a regime change though

[thorny stone]

They have, but they are also fighting on two fronts already, so I imagine their ability to strike Iran is more limited now than previously. That's why I wouldn't be surprised to see the US target Iran, as it's about the only assistance the US can offer Israel.

[kind dagger]

Why are you so rude

[dry jay]

Hope you're well and safe❤️

I cannot imagine how difficult it must be out there

[thorny stone]

So the reports are now saying it was around 180 ballistic missiles that were fired, and they were aimed at three military bases. That would explain the lack of civilian casualties, despite a significant number of missiles getting through, and would also make sense from Iran's point of view as Iran is obviously going to be very careful about not being seen to escalate the conflict.

Israel is of course going to try and take revenge, because that's what Israel always does. But I hope someone in Israel's military decision-making circle realises that Israeli civilians are going to be targeted by these rockets sooner or later if Israel continues on this course of starting wars with everyone. This was clearly a warning shot. No good things happen from Israel continuing to escalate the war.

[civic karma]

Not again please

Can the US and by extention Israel please for once stop militarily interfering in international conflicts

[civic karma]

I hope you are doing fine at the moment and you did not suffer any significant losses ❤️

[cerulean obsidian]

This time everyone wants a regime change in Iran

including most of the Iranian people

[cerulean obsidian]

I mean, you kinda have to agree, that the world was in a much safer and peaceful state when we had US hegemony

[cerulean obsidian]

The only ones that don’t want to see the ayatollahs go are religious fundamentalists, and in my opinion religious fundamentalism is basically the equivalent to cancer.

or perhaps that’s just me being a silly westerner who doesn’t understand religion

[civic karma]

Uhm...

[civic karma]

But it is not the job of the US or ''the west'' to determine HOW that process will develop

[civic karma]

Agreed

Though it would be silly of you to insinuate that the wars that the west have waged in the middle east in the past 100 years were not religiously motivated

Which you surely are not insinuating right?

You wouldn't agree with me that since 9/11, muslims and the Islam have been disproportionally targeted right?

Surely the US didn't invade Iraq in 2003 out of religious fundamentalism right?

Okay I am being really sarcastic, I hope you notice

The point is, its not the ''job'' of the US or in broader context ''the west'' to decide or determine who governs what land and which regime is the boss where.

And in the past 50 years, every time that ''the west'' intervened in order to establish some sort of pseudo-government, it failed

And now you are proposing to do it AGAIN

why?

But no, I do not agree that with US hegemony the world is a better or more peaceful place. Rather, I argue for the exact opposite. Military interventions by the west only created more instability for longer periods of time.

[cerulean obsidian]

yes, since 9/11 muslims have been disproportionately targeted

[civic karma]

Which you claim to not be religiously motivated at all right?

[cerulean obsidian]

no, invading Iraq had nothing to do with religious fundamentalism. US has to invade somewhere, and why not Iraq? Bush Jr. could get a shot at doing what Bush Sr. failed at

[civic karma]

US has to invade somewhere

Is this ragebait or are you serious? I honestly can't tell

[cerulean obsidian]

No, I'm quite serious. They had to show the world that actions like that will not be without consequence.

[civic karma]

In case you were serious, US did not have to invade anything

well, we differ on ideology on that then

I can for the life of me not give a single reasonable argument on why the US was warranted to invade the middle east

after 9/11

But we see it differently, that's clear

[cerulean obsidian]

the public demanded it

the public didn’t care even if it was the right country, or the people remotely responsible, but they wanted to see a serious action being taken

one of the flaws of democracy

[civic karma]

Yeah i said reasonable argument

[civic karma]

That's not at all a flaw of democracy

You can demand whatever you want as the public, but you choose in elections, and then the elected people are given the trust to make proper decisions

The fact that politics fall for a public demand, that's a flaw of the politics, not a flaw of democracy itself

Anyway, we believe completely opposite things on this topic

I don't think arguing makes any sense

I understand where you are coming from, i just fundamentally disagree

[civic karma]

The way I see it, any country has the responsibility to all other countries to treat them with respect where possible. If the public demands a random country to be attacked because they want revenge, then the government of that country should step in and respect the boundaries of other countries.

US government is weak to fall for this public outcry shit and i heavily doubt that to be the main motivation for invading

although that's pure speculation so nvm that last statement

[cerulean obsidian]

oh the British were fully on board too

[civic karma]

Then i condemn them with the same amount of passion

and any other western alliance that was in too

[cerulean obsidian]

but I'm pretty sure that Iraq in particular was chosen because Bush Jr. wanted to do what Bush Sr. failed at.

[civic karma]

its just hard to speak US/West because there is much overlap

when i talk US, generally i talk ''the west''

But im quite confident that iraq was pushed by US

not by britain

[cerulean obsidian]

of course

[civic karma]

Anyway to wrap up my point. I am done with the increasing and ongoing escalation that is done by western parties without a proper plan or end-goal.

And the current middle-eastern conflict is not just Israel

[cerulean obsidian]

compared to Middle East, for the west war is incredibly good for business

because most people in the west live a very sheltered life

[civic karma]

It is all western allies that support with military equipment, information and/or monetary support

[civic karma]

Yes i understand that, but i have the feeling that people in power don't care about the actual human lives that are involved

they only think about money and see the middle east only as a color on a map

rather than see the people that live there and are displaced due to wars that are mostly fueled by the west

And it is truly inexcusible to fight ideological wars on another continent over the backs of innocent people

[cerulean obsidian]

this isn't strictly true

[civic karma]

Strictly no, but mostly yes

[cerulean obsidian]

the arabs in particular are very good at killing each other for completely idiotic reasons

[civic karma]

Yes but that is in their own backyard

[cerulean obsidian]

like "this particular group belong to a different branch of islam, and thus they are infidels and must be massacred"

[civic karma]

Although i still think that its a bad thing

i specifically mentioned waging war on another continent

And we have no business intervening unless they directly threaten us or our safety

which at this point they don't

[cerulean obsidian]

also not strictly true

if you let the various terrorist groups get too powerful, they will once again be in a state where they can routinely carry out attacks on European or American soil

[civic karma]

Is this a fact or is this your expectation?

because they can very well do these kinds of terrorist attacks tomorrow if they want for all i know

[cerulean obsidian]

I think you understimate the network it requires to effectively carry out such attacks

[civic karma]

But ye, i am not talking small scale terrorist attacks

i am talking existential threats to nations

[cerulean obsidian]

small scale terrorist attacks are an existential threat

[civic karma]

I dont believe so

Division as a result of terrorist attacks is an existential threat

the attacks themselves are not

But that's besides the point

The point is, actively mingling in wars across the world when we don't need to is wrong and we should not do it, unless not forcing ourselves into the situation causes a direct threat to the existence of our own nation or people

So for example

If Hezbollah attacks Israel, Israel is perfectly allowed to retaliate in such a way that they can decrease the threat level by killing people in the Hezbollah hierarchy

However, making explosive devices that can be triggered on demand on people you know will be in public places is already more of a gray area

[thorny stone]

The only reason terrorists target the US or Europeans, is because the US and Europeans have previously hurt them. Hurting them more is the first stage of mutually assured destruction, because it will only ever have the same result.

[civic karma]

And making a ground offensive into foreign countries (israel into libanon) is a big no-no

because at that point its not defending your own interest anymore

at that point it is about revenge

and revenge is bad

We shouldn't do revenge

maybe thats the whole conclusion of my argument

as soon as we interfere or create conflicts out of revenge, than that is wrong

it is not a proper motivator for international conflict

i UNDERSTAND why you would want to revenge yourself

the problem is that by revenge politics, you create an endless cycle of pain and suffering

because now we take revenge on hezbollah, but in 10 years they take revenge on israel, then 5 years later israel takes revenge on hezbollah again etc etc

[thorny stone]

It's a good conclusion to draw in my opinion. But it's not the full story, as to stop the conflict starting in the first place you also need to treat other people as equals all of the time, and not allow your desires to negatively impact on others.

That's the more fundamental point for me.

[civic karma]

yeah i agree

[thorny stone]

This conflict started because the Zionists and the UN thought they could ignore the people living in Palestine and create a new country there by moving the existing people out of the way.

More or less every other conflict starts in a similar way. The war between Israel and Hezbollah started because Israel thought it could ignore the people living in Lebanon and still target Palestinian groups hiding there. The war with Iran is starting because Israel thought the same about Iran. The war with Iraq started because the US thought it could force Iraq to do what it wanted regardless of the views of the citizens there and it turned out it couldn't. Pick a war, and the chances are it was started by someone thinking that they could ignore or override the needs or desires of someone else.

It's always about someone interfering in someone else's life.

This is why thinking it's ok to impose a government change on another country is such a bad idea. There's literally no way for it to turn out well. The only thing that annoys people more than having a bad government, is having a bad government they didn't choose and can't change. And instead of being angry at the government, the people will get angry at the person imposing the government, i.e. you.

You can't use force to make someone do what you want. It just doesn't work out well, ever.

[civic karma]

This is the reason behind my initial "oh no not again" statement aswell

but you word it better than I do

so thanks i guess

[thorny stone]

Yes, I was more or less just repeating some of the points you were making, in a different way.

I don't know if how I word it is any better, I just like to try and find a way of explaining something that fits more precisely into my own frame of reference.

[shell laurel]

First of all I've been brought up relegious and am currently neither denying or confirming the existance of any god altough in my opinion if there is a god(s) they are all the same but religions are simply different interpretations of our reality just like science is.

There is plenty interaction on this forum where they come across hostile and intollerant. Unable to read deeper into articles provided and use 'attacks' instead of examples.
#1196286273506250753 message
#1196286273506250753 message
#1196286273506250753 message
#1196286273506250753 message
#1196286273506250753 message

Tell me again who's rude or why. I'm mirroring their behaviour towards others and myself. If they can't look in the mirror and see their dark side (shadow) then that's on them not me.

#1196286273506250753 message
But they said earlier:
#1196286273506250753 message

But considering you seem to have the same stance and seemingly narrow minded vieuw I doubt it makes much sence to point it out.
#1196286273506250753 message

Fails to awnser what about Allah? Is he also an "Imaginary friend"? Since that seems to be the justifying claim by Islam especially the actual terrorist organization. He claims the IDF is a terrorist group. You can have that opinion but that's not a fact but an accusation.

There are many more examples but he calls it "nitpicking" altough unlike them I've read the treat and all responses in it before making a comment.

you cannot read and type a response within 4 minutes regarding an article. He does

[civic karma]

they are all the same but religions are simply different interpretations of our reality just like science is.
Did you just compare science to religion, as in you think they are similar?

[shell laurel]

Yes such as "reincarnation" taken litterally you would bury a corpse and insects etc eat it eventually flowers sprout. The thing that was once you "lives on".

Many religions have explanations for certain historical events (like the great flood etc) wich could have been climate change we see today OR the work of a god.

But I'm simplifying and compressing the broader picture.

[civic karma]

Noted

[shell laurel]

And religions are a good tool to use for numerous things.

"To justify war, or encourage soldiers that a god protects them"
But also to set laws or teach morals.

They all do it in their own way but they all come to the same idea generally speaking: "Do good and good comes to you"

[civic karma]

Ok

I don't want to get into a discussion, i just wanted to clarify on your stance regarding science and religion

[shell laurel]

It's more for the other forum anyway as this is a different topic.

[civic karma]

Sure

[shell laurel]

An redit article that seems to draw a similar vieuw
https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/comments/ltqw65/is_science_considered_a_belief_system_in_the_same/

https://thewitness.fandom.com/wiki/Audio_log:_Einstein_mystical
(The transcript) a quote from Einstein about science and religion

But I'll leave it at that if you want to talk further ping me in that other forum

[kind dagger]

His are somewhat points as opposed to insults for the sake of insults, you're just being rude, but being rude doesn't fix anything anyway so at the very least neither of you should be rude

[shell laurel]

Yes I agree and I've apologized for my behaviour earlier and have attempted to remove myself from interacting with them but they kept replying.

I think it's mostly due to both our interpretations of one another and what is being said or why.

[kind dagger]

that doesn't feel like a very scientific approach

but then again you can't really discuss anything about religion with a scientific approach

okay that was a bit controversial and mean

[civic karma]

I dont want to argue about this. In my experience, anyone that holds such a stance or similar, either is genuinely ignorant about the scientific process, or are deliberately misrepresenting science. I am not saying you'll do that too, but I have had too many religious bigots in the past doing that, to a point that I am no longer willing to spend my time discussing this.

[kind dagger]

Yeah they're all a good way for kings to control their people... it's almost as if that's what they were designed for--

[civic karma]

For example, I have had people claim that the bible is as reliable as some maths textbook because they are both books

completely disregarding their function, the way the knowledge inside those books are established etc etc

[shell laurel]

Science would discribe the decomposition process as us being a bunch of atoms mollecules it's more about the principle of describing 'something' and giving an 'explanation' for what is happening.

[civic karma]

"both are books so they are the same''

[kind dagger]

I think the purpose of science is to take it as far away from belief as possible, though it's impossible to entirely take it away from belief I think

[kind dagger]

yeah yeah more philosophical

I understand

[civic karma]

there are certainly beliefs within science

but not religious beliefs

[shell laurel]

Fair well I'm not religious but I like to try and see both sides

[civic karma]

and there is a very important distinction there

[kind dagger]

as long as we don't know every law of physics, it's impossible to prove anything with science 100% true

[civic karma]

And we will never know every law of physics, so go figure ;0

[kind dagger]

why do you think that?

[civic karma]

Because we are limited in what we can observe, even using tools

[kind dagger]

ic

[civic karma]

So we can not observe everything, therefore the likeliness of us knowing every law of physics at any point in time is astronomically low

That is, assuming that the universe is even guided by strict physical laws in the first place

something we don't know either

[kind dagger]

though we could stumble upon it on accident (every law), we could never be able to prove it true in every instance, because we don't have access to every instance

[civic karma]

yep

[kind dagger]

I see

[civic karma]

We know that the laws of physics work in the cases where we applied them

E.g. gravity works on the moon, on earth on anything we observe

But that does not mean that our description of gravity works in all cases generically across the entire universe

So we will never know if our description is generally true, or is only a specific subset of an overarching idea/system/rule/force etc

Take for example newtonian physics. Before quantum mechanics was discovered, it was assumed to be the final description of physics that would ever be required

that's until we discovered sub-atomic particles and suddenly newtonian physics couldn't accurately describe quantum systems anymore

but there was no way of knowing that before hand

Basically, we don't know what we don't know and therefore we cannot know whether we know everything

So we will never know every law of physics

But that's a completely different type of "belief" compared to religion

[shell laurel]

Maybe we are just like ants. Ants are able to scavange for food but if you let's say kill a wasp and drop it on the ground they don't know how or why that happened. They might ask themselves or claim that it simply died or was killed but will never know the cause.

Perhaps we just simply cannot comprehend it or we are limited by our methods to prove or look at any observable truth

[civic karma]

So comparing the two is like comparing apples and ... tokamak nuclear power plants

[civic karma]

That is under the assumption that an observable truth even exists, which we don't know

[kind dagger]

Richard Feynman uses the analogy that we're in one corner of a chess board being played by nature. We look at pawns and we see they move one square at a time, but then in 400BC someone notices they can move diagonally if they take a piece! This is experimentally proved, we think we know everything and then we see En Passente happen! etc

[shell laurel]

I've taken a break, I wish everyone to remember this day/prior day as the day we will NEVER AGAIN tollerate these actions of oct 7 and before..

Again why I personally believe an Israeli state will be better than either:

1. A two state
2. or 'Palistine'

https://www.memri.org/tv/iran-press-tv-cry-nasrallah-death-sacrifice-my-children-to-have-him-back

No mother I know would even come close to wishing their children would be death over any other 'unrelated' person. yet here they are. Indoctrinated like sheep. Cattle for the cannonfodder.

It saddens and sickens me to think there are people who truely believe it's okay to 'sacrifice your children' for any cause.

[cerulean obsidian]

It’s crazy how the PLO ruined Lebanon

[thorny stone]

It saddens me to think there are people who are willing to sacrifice any lives for their goals. It's all a tragedy. But I have a lot more sympathy for people who clearly value human life and are willing to sacrifice their own anyway, than the people in the Israeli government and army who do not value human life to begin with.

[cerulean obsidian]

because when PLO was expelled from Jordan (for violently robbing the local population for raising the funds to “attack Israel”, and when that didn’t work, attempts to overthrow the Jordanian government), PLO moved into Lebanon, and… Ruined it.

Beirut was “Paris of the Middle East” before PLO

[thorny stone]

You're missing the first step in that. Before the PLO even existed they were expelled at gunpoint from Palestine by the Israelis.

[cerulean obsidian]

Israel values human life enormously

They just don’t particularly care about the lives of those wanting to destroy them, and also because those who want to destroy them are also very good at killing each other

[thorny stone]

...or anyone who happens to live in the same country as those people.

[cerulean obsidian]

that’s collateral damage, which is of course inevitable

[thorny stone]

It's only inevitable because Israel doesn't place value on human life. If Israel did, then they wouldn't do things that cause collateral damage. Collateral damage is, itself, disregard for human life, and there's no way of avoiding that fact.

[cerulean obsidian]

if you get an opportunity take out the entire Hezbollah leadership, but the collateral damage is to level 4 residential buildings, you take the collateral damage and take out the Hezbollah leadership

[thorny stone]

Speak for yourself. I regard that as a war crime.

All war is a crime, but that is another level of horrific.

[cerulean obsidian]

you can regard it as a war crime, but it simply is not, as the target was clearly military

[thorny stone]

What the main target was is irrelevant for the definition of war crimes. Even in the watered down UN definition of war crimes, you're not allowed to cause excessive civilian damage or casualties just because you also happen to kill an enemy at the same time.

[cerulean obsidian]

I wouldn’t deem it excessive, as it has clearly very seriously crippled Hezbollah

we’re talking most of the Hezbollah high-level leadership, not some random mid-level commander

[thorny stone]

"Excessive" is a subjective word so you can judge it however you like. For me, any civilian death is excessive.

Civilian deaths as collateral damage are simply a matter of convenience for the attacker. It is always a case of putting the risk involved in your actions onto others rather than yourself, and that is always wrong.

It's literally just the Israeli government and military saying "I want to kill this person, but I don't want to risk my own life to kill this person, so I'll choose to kill a bunch of innocent people in order to avoid the risk."

It's one of the most barbaric (and in most moral systems evil) things a human can do, sacrifice multiple innocent lives to save your own.

[cerulean obsidian]

This idealism doesn’t help anyone

Civilian casualties are inevitable

[thorny stone]

Rejecting evil morality isn't idealism.

[cerulean obsidian]

Israel is fighting true evil

[thorny stone]

Only if you accept and allow people to act int his barbaric way.

[thorny stone]

...within themselves.

[cerulean obsidian]

Israel is fighting an enemy that indiscriminately kills civilians & intentionally puts civilians in danger so they can be “martyred”

[thorny stone]

Israel is itself an enemy that kills innocent civilians indiscriminately.

[cerulean obsidian]

Israel on the other hand doesn’t indiscriminately kill civilians, and they do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties

[thorny stone]

They categorically do target civilians indiscriminately, on multiple occasions.

Read and watch the interviews with former IDF soldiers.

And they always have a choice to not fire a rocket, so they clearly don't come anywhere near doing "everything possible" to avoid civilian casualties.,

[cerulean obsidian]

Read and watch the interviews with former/current Hamas/Hezbollah/PLO terrorists/leadership

[thorny stone]

Why?

[cerulean obsidian]

for the same exact reason you told me to do that with IDF soldiers

[thorny stone]

You're saying Israel doesn't do that. I'm not saying Hamas and Hezbollah don't do that.

[cerulean obsidian]

as I said, your idealism of “even one civilian casualty is too much” doesn’t help anyone

[thorny stone]

It's not idealism, it's basic human empathy and compassion. It's non-negotiable.

Idealism would be to try all the Israeli politicians and military commanders for war crimes.

[cerulean obsidian]

it is idealism

civilians have died in every armed conflict that’s ever happened

[thorny stone]

Then you prefer to live in a much darker world than I do.

[cerulean obsidian]

civilian casualties are inevitable

[thorny stone]

...and they have all been wrong.

[cerulean obsidian]

how is that not idealism?

[thorny stone]

In the past, sure. That doesn't mean we have to continue to accept it forever.

[cerulean obsidian]

the world is not a peaceful place

humans are inherently violent

[thorny stone]

But we can make it better.

and we should try. We have the moral imperative to do so.

[cerulean obsidian]

and Israel does

[thorny stone]

Israel doens't know the meaning of moral imperative.

[cerulean obsidian]

Israel is far more careful with enemy civilians than the US

[thorny stone]

Israel forgot its morals 80 years ago.

[thorny stone]

That's not saying much.

The US is also one of the biggest perpetrators of war crimes.

[cerulean obsidian]

👌 😂 💯

[thorny stone]

Also, I'm not sure I agree with that. When we checked out the figures, Israel was causing more civilian deaths than the US did in its recent conficts.

[cerulean obsidian]

compare that with the population density in the places they were fighting

have you ever been to a place as densely populated as Gaza?

[thorny stone]

I still don't find that a valid excuse.

[cerulean obsidian]

because I’ve been to Malta, which is a bit less densely populated than Gaza, but I can’t imagine a scenario where civilians don’t die there in an armed conflict

urban warfare is brutal as-is

and the more densely populated the place, the harsher it is

and there’s nothing that can be done to avoid that

[thorny stone]

I've been to a few that are more densely populated.

[thorny stone]

Yes there is. Armies train for close-quarters urban combat all the time. It's simply that Israel doesn't want to risk its soldiers doing it.

and neither does the US.

nor many other militaries that have disregard for human life.

[cerulean obsidian]

and why should they risk their soldiers lives for it?

they value human life way too much for it

[thorny stone]

So they chooses to kill civilians, to remove the risk to themselves from those attacks.
But that is a short-sighted approach, because all it does is create a whole load of extra people who are angry at you because you killed their innocent relatives. So you still put yourself in danger, just a different way.

[cerulean obsidian]

which is why the goal is to of course disarm & dismantle these terrorist groups

[thorny stone]

Because it's always wrong to sacrifice other people's lives for your own personal goals.

Nobody has the right to kill someone just to achieve something they want.

[thorny stone]

Which you absolutely 100% cannot do if you kill more civilians every time you attack them.

[cerulean obsidian]

tell that to the 60000 displaced Israelis that had to leave their homes in the north because Hezbollah started firing rockets at them

[thorny stone]

Every attack creates more enemies this way.

[cerulean obsidian]

and Hamas & Hezbollah created an enemy of the probably 5th strongest military power in the world that’s backed by the 1st

[thorny stone]

They are experiencing, in a much smaller way, what they have caused the Palestinians to experience.

[cerulean obsidian]

unlike the palestinian terrorist groups, they just want to live in peace

[thorny stone]

I think we've been over this before. Israel's attacks created them, not the other way round.

[thorny stone]

They demonstrably don't.

[cerulean obsidian]

no, you’ve got it wrong

[thorny stone]

Well ok, let's be specific about who we're talking about.

[cerulean obsidian]

the palestinians started this by rejecting the UN partition plan

[thorny stone]

Israel also rejected the UN partition plan. So did Britain. Everyone rejected the UN partition plan.

Britain had pointed out it wouldn't work 20 years earlier.

[cerulean obsidian]

sure they did

which is why it passed 33-13

[thorny stone]

and yet was never implemented.

[cerulean obsidian]

yeah because Israelis accepted it, but palestinians didn’t.

[thorny stone]

Israelis didn't accept it! They were busy slaughtering innocent Arabs in their thousands when the implementation day came around.

[cerulean obsidian]

are you being intentionally dense?

[thorny stone]

Can you be polite, or is there something wrong with your brain?

Look up Plan Dalet.

[cerulean obsidian]

The Plan was celebrated by most Jews in Palestine[13] and reluctantly[14] accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine with misgivings.

they accepted it, it’s just a fact.

[thorny stone]

Yes, and what were those misgivings?

[cerulean obsidian]

“not good enough, but we’ll take it”

[thorny stone]

That word "misgivings" is a shorthand way of saying that the Zionists said they would only accept it as a temporary step on the way to ownership of the full region.

[cerulean obsidian]

yeah, you’re just being intentionally dense

[thorny stone]

meaning they didn't accept it as a resolution of the problem at all.

[thorny stone]

You're certainly being intentionally rude.

Rein yourself in

[cerulean obsidian]

the simple fact of the matter is that Israel accepted the plan, Palestine rejected it and went to war

[cerulean obsidian]

this is just flat out false as I’ve just proven

it doesn’t matter what some leaders wanted to do later

[thorny stone]

I've already explained that that isn't true, and provided evidence. You can't just continue to state something that has been proven wrong and hope someone accepts it.

[cerulean obsidian]

they accepted it!

the palestinians never gave the Israelis a chance for peace

and they still don’t

[thorny stone]

and neither did the Israelis ever give the Palestinians a chance for peace.

[cerulean obsidian]

yeah because Israel was fighting a war for the right to exist

while Palestine was fighting a war to destroy Israel and to throw the jews in the sea

[thorny stone]

For the right to rule the whole region, you mean. That was the stated goal from all the way back in the 1880s

[cerulean obsidian]

Palestine wanted to orchestrste another genocide against the Jews, and they lost

and then they lost again

and then they lost again

[thorny stone]

...fighting a war to expel the invaders.

[cerulean obsidian]

and then they lost again

and then again

and now they’ll lose again

[cerulean obsidian]

what invaders? most of them legally immigrated there

[thorny stone]

and yet the problem still won't be solved. Maybe trying to win wars against them isn't the solution here?

Maybe we should try a peaceful solution, since all of the violent ones have achieved absolutely nothing for 100 years.

[cerulean obsidian]

winning one final war that’ll end Hamas and Hezbollah once and for all might end it though

[cerulean obsidian]

tell that to Hamas and Hezbollah. The entire purpose for their existence is to destroy Israel, not seek peace

[thorny stone]

Most of them legally immigrated to the lands they owned, I agree. But there were tens of thousands who immigrated illegally, and all of them who used force to remove Arabs from their lands were invading the Arab lands.

[thorny stone]

Nobody seriously thinks that's possible.

[cerulean obsidian]

no force was used to take any land until the palestinians rejected the partition plan

[thorny stone]

That's not a legitimate reason to kill people.

[cerulean obsidian]

of course it is, it’s one of the few reasons under which you can still legally declare war under international law

either way, I’m tired of debating this, I’m out.

Long live the State of Israel.

[thorny stone]

Of course it's not. Having a UN agreement that you can settle somewhere does not allow you to kill people living either there, nor in the other places you also happen to want.
If you disagree, show me a place in the UN Partition Plan that said it would be ok for Israel to kill Palestinians.

[thorny stone]

Israel can live as long as it wants, as long as it gets rid of the xenophobes running it and makes amends for all the things it's done wrong.

If it can't do that, there's no reason for the rest of the world to tolerate it.

Right now, Israel is a terrorist state actively taunting the rest of the world to try and stop it on its mission of revenge.

[cerulean obsidian]

you’re not the rest of the world

the rest of the world tolerates Israel just fine, including most Arab countries

[cerulean obsidian]

Iran is also not “the rest of the world”

[thorny stone]

Except for all of the embargoes, protests and arrest warrants for it's leaders, sure.

[cerulean obsidian]

embargoes? who has embargoed Israel?

[thorny stone]

Wanting to convict someone for war crimes counts as tolerating them?

[thorny stone]

Google "BDS".

[cerulean obsidian]

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is a nonviolent[2][6] Palestinian-led[7] movement promoting boycotts, divestments, and economic sanctions against Israel.

ok so?

[thorny stone]

There are many organisations that refuse to deal with Israel.

[cerulean obsidian]

there are many organisations that refuse to deal with Palestine

[thorny stone]

How is that relevant to the question of whether the rest of the world approves of Israel's actions?

[cerulean obsidian]

there’s basically no condemnation from the leaders of any country, with a few exceptions

it’s all just watered down “not cool please tune it down a bit”

[thorny stone]

No condemnation, except for the condemnation.

[cerulean obsidian]

nobody actually cares, except you

[thorny stone]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr3zd4d8y5o

That looks like a leader condemning Israel's actions to me.

[cerulean obsidian]

“look at me, I’m doing something”

nothing is going to come of it

[thorny stone]

That's an entirely separate question though.

[cerulean obsidian]

but it really isn’t

[thorny stone]

It is a fact that many people oppose Israel's actions.

[cerulean obsidian]

talk doesn’t matter if no actions are taken

[thorny stone]

It all leads somewhere.

Everything has an effect on something.

If it doesn't matter, why does Netanyahu care about it?

[cerulean obsidian]

Israel should just conduct a nuclear weapons test to prove to the world that they actually have them, maybe then they’ll be left in peace

comprehensive nuclear-test ban treaty is still not in effect lol

[thorny stone]

Yes, they can test it on Netanyahu's house.

Better still, they can use it to power the rocket that delivers all the Zionists to Mars to colonise there.

[cerulean obsidian]

wow, this is just one stop short of saying “from the river to the sea” thing.

[thorny stone]

It's very different from that, since I was making a joke, and that phrase you quoted is an expression of a serious desire for freedom for one of the most oppressed peoples on the planet.

[cerulean obsidian]

no, “from the river to the sea, palestine will be free” is not an expression of a serious desire for freedom, it’s an expression of a desire to commit genocide

[thorny stone]

It's simply not that. Just because there are some people who use that slogan who would like to commit a genocide doesn't mean that all of the people who use the slogan think the same. That would be like claiming that everyone who dyes their hair brown is a nazi simply because Hitler had brown hair.
It's very clear that most of the people who use that slogan do not want a genocide.

[cerulean obsidian]

1. look at the map of the region
2. find the river (it's called Jordan River, in case you didn't know)
3. find the sea (Mediterranean Sea, if you also didn't know that)
4. "free palestine" would be between the said river and the said sea

it's exactly that and there's no other way to interpret it

[thorny stone]

We're all clear what region is being covered. But the word "free" does not mean genocide.

[cerulean obsidian]

of course it does, how else is "palestine" going to be "free" unless the Jews are thrown into the sea?

[thorny stone]

It means "free", because the Palestinian people who lived in that region are being severely oppressed.

[cerulean obsidian]

they are being oppressed by their own leadership

[thorny stone]

It's not actually necessary to throw someone into a sea in order to get them to stop oppressing someone else.

There are other ways of resolving that kind of situation.

Some might say that most cases of oppression don't result in anyone being thrown into the sea.

[cerulean obsidian]

you should tell that to the palestinians, not me

[thorny stone]

I don't need to, they tell me that already.

[civic karma]

Although you are right, there is a big difference between trying to minimize civilian casualties and accepting them as collateral damage. If a civilian happens to be close to a military target, than that's unlucky, but nothing you can really do about it. But destroying whole civilian buildings with hundreds of people in them in order to ensure you kill a couple of them. You can still say that's collateral damage, but is sure ain't minimizing casualties.

[civic karma]

Which means there is more responsibility for the fighting sides to account for that. It means they have to change their warfare tactics to more effectively strike in urban areas. It is not an excuse to just bomb civilian buildings and accept the collateral damage.

[civic karma]

It is not. Anyone that has ever read any literature on power structures and power vacuums in organisational theory understands that killing some high level dude within a terrorist organisation will not result in the collapse of that organisation.

Now assuming the Israeli military are not complete morons, they know and understand this. Which would in turn mean that they actively choose to ignore the literature and do it anyway, which makes it all the more reckless.

[civic karma]

The current Israeli government lead by Netanyahu has absolutely no benefit from making peace right now. Their goal is to prolong war as long as possible.

[dry jay]

With Hamas putting it (partially) in their 2017 charter it clearly got more than 1 interpretation. It is best not to use it, in my opinion.

[civic karma]

Many pro-Palestinian activists consider it "a call for peace and equality" after decades of Israeli military rule over Palestinians, while for many pro-Israeli activists it is seen as a call for the "destruction" of Israel.

Depending on who you ask, the meaning is different. You cannot impose your percieved meaning on that phrase to then judge someone's intentions or character. Just because you believe it is a expression of the desire to commit genocide, does not mean that someone saying that thinks of it the same way.

[thorny stone]

It doesn't have more than one interpretation. Free means free. It doesn't mean genocide, not even in Hamas' charter.
The only people who claim there is a hidden meaning with the phrase are the racist Zionists who make all sorts of false claims to try and delegitimise valid criticism of their barbaric actions. There's no reason to accept, or act like we accept, their distorted world view.

Palestinian campaigners stopping using the phrase wouldn't have any positive effect on anything. All it would do would embolden the Israelis who already feel like they are untouchable, and that's the last thing we should ever do.

@cerulean obsidian I notice your level of engagement has been reduced to trying to make fun of people who disagree with you, rather than engage in conversation. I think that's a good indicator of the lack of merit of your side of the discussion.

[cerulean obsidian]

that’s because you made the ridiculous claim that the only people who see a different meaning in the saying are “racist Zionists”

it’s pretty clear that you’re just an anti-semite

and thus there’s no point in engaging you in a conversation anymore

[dry jay]

Literally read the quote one message above yours...

Many pro-Palestinian activists consider it "a call for peace and equality" after decades of Israeli military rule over Palestinians, while for many pro-Israeli activists it is seen as a call for the "destruction" of Israel.

[thorny stone]

It's pretty clear you're making that accusation in an attempt to discredit me when you realise there are no valid criticisms of what I'm saying.

That's a common tactic among Israel's supporters.

[cerulean obsidian]

you’ve said plenty of provably false things here

like making the claim that Israel rejected the UN partition plan

[thorny stone]

And yet you can't provide evidence to dispute any of them.

[cerulean obsidian]

while all the evidence says they accepted it?

[cerulean obsidian]

Are you suffering from some sort of a mental difficulty?

[thorny stone]

Did they stick to the borders? No. It's obviously true that they didn't accept it.

[cerulean obsidian]

Never mind, yes

https://tenor.com/view/you-and-me-you-and-me-over-talk-to-the-wall-gif-12070623

[thorny stone]

I don't disagree with that that quote. I just don't agree with the assessment of Israel's supporters, and think they are claiming that interpretation without valid evidence.

[thorny stone]

Well, you seem to be the one who is unable to have a conversation without descending to pure insults, so I think it's pretty clear where the problem lies in this instance.

[zenith coyote]

Your prejudice towards israel, zionist, and jews is showing here. You have no problem making assumptions about these groups but when its either, groups attacking israel or zionism, people calling zionist nazis or just plain anti semetism masked as anti israeli propganda in a way similiar to how people respond to the #metoo movement and BLM. You are the people who respond whitelivematter and notallmen. You defend/ do not condemn whoever attacks israel because "they started it" but you claim to be against violence bombarding any response israel has because you dont think they have a right to both: defend themselves against bombs, or attack back because they should just take it. Not once have i seen you say the hostages should be returned unconditionally, its always "israel should agree to a ceasefire first". That is just not how war works, you cannot take hostages and say they wont give them back until they agree to not attack you back for doing an horrific event. Im tired of you blaming israel and not hamas for hiding terror infrastructure, yes israel will attack it. It is a war crime first and foremost to hide it in civilian areas, and then a war crime to attack it indescriminately, which israel IS NOT DOING. you show me another time in history where there has been so much carnage done, so much destructive power dropped and so little civilian lives destroyed. Anyways back to the original point, yes saying "from the river to the sea" is a genocidal chant. If some people used heil hitler as a chant for friendship and then hitler comes and changes the meaning, and they still use it knowing the meaning. they are nazis. if you have nazis at your rallies and nobody stops them, you are nazis. If you have people chanting for the death and destrutction of jews, along with israel that is a genocidal chant. I ask you once again to look at every other group of people besides muslims in the areas and how their numbers have transformed over the years.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/gcc-and-arab-league-declare-hezbollah-terrorist-organization

[thorny stone]

You're also just trolling here.

I know for sure you're lying deliberately in that message. You know for a fact that I have condemned terrorist attacks on Israel, so every time you claim that I haven't you are deliberately trying to mislead whoever is reading your posts. Anything you say is entirely worthless until you stop doing that.

You're also lying about my comments regarding the Israeli hostages. I've never said Israel should agree to a ceasefire first before the hostages are released, I've said that they need to for common sense reasons, because you can't release hostages in a rain of bullets and rockets. The hostages won't survive that. Since we've already seen hostages killed by Israeli attacks, that seems like a pretty obvious requirement.

All hostages should be released. Israeli, Palestinians and all others.

We covered the figures regarding civilian casualties previously in the thread. Israel kills substantially more innocents by direct attacks than any other armed conflict in modern history, bar the Russian attack on Chechnya. That's what the data says.
It's simply a lie to say that Israel takes special care to avoid harm to civilians. As has been mentioned in this thread many times, it is Israel's explicit policy to not care about harming civilians, because it considers all Arab civilians to be combatants. And there are many, many examples of them doing it deliberately.

The argument you make about a chant being genocidal simply because it is sometimes used by people who also express a desire for a genocide is pure nonsense. That's not how you determine the meaning of a phrase. The phrase is meant in the way that the people saying it mean it, and the vast majority of the people using that phrase are meaning it to express a desire for freedom from Israeli tyranny.

[shell laurel]

Also, is "Allah your imaginary friend?"

As you happily refer to god

[thorny stone]

If you have questions about another thread you should reply there.

But no, I don't have any imaginary friends.

[shell laurel]

Doesnt awnser the question check

[thorny stone]

I answered your question.

Even though you are being rude, I am still making an effort to try and have a conversation here.

[shell laurel]

The initial question you didn't read and awnser yet

[thorny stone]

Which is the "initial question"?
Are you asking if I consider the Islamic god to be imaginary as well as the Jewish and Christian ones? Yes, of course I do. But that would be a question more appropriate for the thread on religion, not this one.

[zenith coyote]

You know for a fact that I have condemned terrorist attacks on Israel

You have not, you saying "i dont want civilians on either side to die" is not condeming.

i've never said Israel should agree to a ceasefire first before the hostages are released, I've said that they need to for common sense reasons, because you can't release hostages in a rain of bullets and rockets.
Youre trolling right? So a country can go into another country, kidnap and kill their civilians and they are the ones in control? Once again i ask where are the calls to pressure hamas to release to hostages. Israel must put down all their defensense and leave themselves vulnerable to another attack right?

We covered the figures regarding civilian casualties previously in the thread. Israel kills substantially more innocents by direct attacks than any other armed conflict in modern history, bar the Russian attack on Chechnya.

Show me the numbers, look at the number of bombs dropped and compare to civilian deaths. Israel is so precice its incredible and its a shame that hamas hides behind its civilians. Hamas is more about looking israel look bad and making their citizens matrys than actual liberation.

The argument you make about a chant being genocidal simply because it is sometimes used by people who also express a desire for a genocide is pure nonsense.

That is how chants gain meaning. THey are calling for the removal of jews and zionist. Half the people at the rallies chanting it, at least in america, dont even know what river or sea, they just dont want israel there. I do not deny that it can be used for peaceful protest, but it is being used to call for the death of jews and zionist by some people which you cannot deny

[thorny stone]

You have not, you saying "i dont want civilians on either side to die" is not condeming.
That's not what I said and you know it.
#1238854947756310620 message
Please stop lying.

Youre trolling right? So a country can go into another country, kidnap and kill their civilians and they are the ones in control?
I have never said or implied that either.

Once again i ask where are the calls to pressure hamas to release to hostages.
We don't need to pressure them to do it, they are already willing to do it. It's Israel that has been refusing the deals to free them, so it is Israel that we need to focus on energy on right now.
Saying Israel are the bigger problem right now is not in any way saying that Hamas are not a problem. Of course Hamas are a problem. But to resolve the conflict we need to take steps forwards and Israel are the ones preventing us taking the first steps from where we are now. I've explained several times how it is impossible to do anything about Hamas until we first do something about Israel. Israel's actions will not solve the problem of Hamas, they will only make it worse. That means our efforts need to focus on Israel first.

Show me the numbers
#1238854947756310620 message

look at the number of bombs dropped and compare to civilian deaths
The ratio of military to civilian deaths is a more accurate reflection of the desire to avoid civilian casualties. Israel uses far more of its bombs to destroy infrastructure than most countries do in most wars, so that will heavily distort any stats trying to compare ordinance fired and casualties.

it is being used to call for the death of jews and zionist by some people which you cannot deny
It is simply not. The people who actually want the deaths of Jews or Zionists say so explicitly without needing to hide behind a completely different statement with a different meaning.

[thorny stone]

And now Israel is apparently firing on UN peacekeepers.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/10/un-peacekeepers-in-lebanon-say-israel-has-fired-on-their-bases-deliberately
If it was any other country acting this way, the US would have invaded and removed the government long ago. It's way past time for the US to stop enabling these genocidal maniacs.

[cerulean obsidian]

UNIFIL has no legitimate reason to exist

the reason for UNIFIL to exist was to disarm PLO / Hezbollah and to ensure that the Lebanese army is the only armed group in Lebanon

[thorny stone]

So you reject the UN as legitimate?

[cerulean obsidian]

mostly yes, but UNIFIL actually has no legitimate reason to exist at all

[thorny stone]

It exists to stop Israel invading Lebanon, so given Israel is invading Lebanon anyway, you could be right.

[cerulean obsidian]

you’re being intentionally dense again

UNIFIL is a UN peacekeeping mission established on 19 March 1978 by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426, and several further resolutions in 2006 to confirm Hezbollah demilitarisation, support Lebanese army operations against insurgents and weapon smuggling, and confirming Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, in order to ensure that the government of Lebanon would restore its effective authority in the area.

[thorny stone]

Oh good, it's rude o'clock on your internal bag of monkeys.

[cerulean obsidian]

Israel withdrew and it’s a fact

did Hezbollah demilitarize?

thus UNIFIL has no justification for its existence

If they interfere with Israeli actions against Hezbollah, they are also a perfectly legitimate target in my book

[thorny stone]

Interfere by existing?

[cerulean obsidian]

if mere existence interferes, sure

[thorny stone]

There's no way to spin this as acceptable.

Israel is firing on intnernationally sanctioned troops, who are clearly not hostile.

[cerulean obsidian]

UNIFIL has no reason to exist, they are just another band of goons with guns is reason enough

[thorny stone]

Ergo, Israel has lost all sense of reason.

[cerulean obsidian]

Either way, nobody is going to do anything about this

Ireland might say a couple of harsh words

[thorny stone]

That is both untrue, and irrelevant to whether or not Israel is allowed to attack them.

[cerulean obsidian]

But Ireland is already fully supportive of the terrorists, so doesn’t actually matter

[thorny stone]

Ireland, Italy, France...

[thorny stone]

Everyone's a terrorist in this war.

[cerulean obsidian]

It is composed of 10,000 peacekeepers from 46 nations, tasked with helping the Lebanese Army keep the south of the country protected from "unauthorized armed personnel, such as Hezbollah"

UNIFIL’s mandate was literally to keep Hezbollah in check

not only they have not done so, they interfere with Israeli ground operations

ergo, fuck UNIFIL

[thorny stone]

Makes sense, attack troops who are supposed to be restricting your enemy.

[cerulean obsidian]

this is just flat out false

[thorny stone]

Kill anyone who doesn't help you? I don't think that's a viable tactic on any level.

[cerulean obsidian]

UNIFIL was preventing Israel from evacuating civilians from the south of Lebanon

[thorny stone]

The only possible outcome of the way thing are headed is the UN putting so much pressure on the US that the US has to give in and then Israel gets fucked.

[cerulean obsidian]

Essentially turning them into a human shield

US just won’t give in, because there’s much more at stake here

[thorny stone]

Israel has no legitimate reason to evacuate anyone in Lebanon, so that's hardly a compelling reason.

[cerulean obsidian]

in fact US will likely get pressured by the Saudis to not give in

[cerulean obsidian]

You actually lost all credibility when you said this

so nothing else really matters

you didn’t even know the purpose of UNIFIL, just “Israel bad”

[thorny stone]

Please think for more than a microsecond before you type. If Hezbollah is armed and able to attack, then Israel will invade because that's what it always does whenever anyone they don't like has any armed forces nearby. The UNIFIL was sent in to oversee the disarming of Hezbollah so Israel wouldn't need to interfere and start more wars. So yes, it very clearly was there to stop Israel invading Lebanon again.

[cerulean obsidian]

they did fuck all and allowed Hezbollah to do whatever they want

they did not “oversee” the “disarming of Hezbollah”, thus no reason to exist

[thorny stone]

Lebanon isn't able to combat Hezbollah, and that was part of the deal also. Hezbollah is just too strong and too ingrained for the original plan to work.

They have a very clear reason for existing, they just haven't been able to complete their mission.

[cerulean obsidian]

Israel has a perfectly legitimate cause to attack Lebanon on the grounds that Lebanon is willfully sheltering a terrorist group that is constantly attacking Israel

[thorny stone]

Lebanon has no choice in the matter.

[cerulean obsidian]

That’s Lebanese fault for allowing Hezbollah to grow stronger than their military

[thorny stone]

It's not like Lebanon can just ask Hezbollah to leave. Hezbollah is more powerful than Lebanon.

[cerulean obsidian]

now Israel is left to liberate them from Hezbollah, because the UN also proved to be completely useless in the matter

[thorny stone]

They had no say in that. It was beyond Lebanon's power to stop Hezbollah growing.

Hezbollah's existence and strength is entirely on Israel.

[cerulean obsidian]

So you do in fact support Israel attacking Hezbollah, because who else would do that?

[thorny stone]

The more Israel attacks Hezbollah, the stronger it will get.

[cerulean obsidian]

I think you mixed up Israel with Iran

[cerulean obsidian]

Yeah they seem pretty strong now, running around like headless chicken because someone wiped out their entire leadership and at least 4 heir apparents

[thorny stone]

No, I don't. I support everyone stopping attacking everyone else. The first step of that, is Israel stopping attacking innocent people and starting new wars. Then we can try and deal with the existing wars.

[cerulean obsidian]

but you’re really a clown, you’re saying that Israel is the reason why Hezbollah destroyed Lebanon, because oh poor Lebanon never got a choice in the matter, which they definitely did, and it started with PLO

[thorny stone]

Hezbollah only exists because Israel attacked Lebanon. Their entire existence is the result of Israel's actions.

[cerulean obsidian]

[thorny stone]

Didn't anyone ever teach you how to have a conversation with someone without being unnecessarily rude?

Or are you literally 5 years old?

[cerulean obsidian]

you’re intentionally dense, igoring outright facts and defaulting to your default stance of “Israel bad”. You’re not engaging in a conversation. You’re engaging in propaganda.

Go fuck yourself.

[cerulean obsidian]

Nah, I’m 29

[magic glacier]

@cerulean obsidian I'm saying this as a staff member, not as an argument. Rule 1 of the server is be respectful. Show your fellow interlocutors some respect.

No need to argue with me about this.

[waxen smelt]

You aren't arguing with the prime minister or someone in power

You arguing with a stranger on the internet

No need to get that angry.

[cerulean obsidian]

I got angry with the outright misinformation presented as facts

but yeah, I'm not going to participate in this debate with the individual in question any more, because there's nothing I can do or say to change his beliefs

[waxen smelt]

That's fair

[waxen smelt]

He prob. lives in palenstine or has some reason to like them more

[waxen smelt]

Do you know anything about this...

[cerulean obsidian]

yeah, that's the misinformation I got angry about, it takes less than 30 seconds to find out for a fact what the mission of UNIFIL is, and the double and triple downing on it.

[thorny stone]

Nope, I just pay attention to what is going on and choose to learn more about it.

Everything I've said in this topic has been backed by facts, and I'm always happy to explain the reasoning behind any of it. Unfortunately not all of the other participants seem to be able to do that.

[waxen smelt]

"Everything I've said in this topic has been backed by facts"

[thorny stone]

Are you asking me, or SJohnson?

[waxen smelt]

Now we got you

You say a literal lie

Then say "Everything I've said in this topic has been backed by facts"

[thorny stone]

Oh good, someone else accusing me of lying based on absolutely no evidence. Just what this topic needed.

[waxen smelt]

"It exists to stop Israel invading Lebanon, so given Israel is invading Lebanon anyway, you could be right." This is one lie you made

I not planning to look for more

You favor palestine for some reason

[thorny stone]

That's a factual statement. Do YOU know anything about how and why Hezbollah was created?

[waxen smelt]

Nope, I don't know anything.

[thorny stone]

I've already explained why that statement is true.

[waxen smelt]

I just a random stranger planning to argue with you

Without knowing anything about this conversation

[cerulean obsidian]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Force_in_Lebanon please quote from here where does it state that UNIFIL's purpose was to "stop Israel from invading Lebanon"

[waxen smelt]

Hope that answers your question 🙂

[thorny stone]

That's fine, but don't make random accusations based on nothing.

[waxen smelt]

Oh, looks like some evidence is shown

Seems like I was right

"Everything I've said in this topic has been backed by facts" By Arkular
"It exists to stop Israel invading Lebanon, so given Israel is invading Lebanon anyway, you could be right." BY Arkular
This is a lie 👆
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Force_in_Lebanon (The evidence it’s a lie)

Not only that but you favor Palestine for some reason or the other. I don't feel like arguing atm

[thorny stone]

I've already explained this to you.

If Hezbollah is armed and able to attack, then Israel will invade because that's what it always does whenever anyone they don't like has any armed forces nearby. The UNIFIL was sent in to oversee the disarming of Hezbollah so Israel wouldn't need to interfere and start more wars. So yes, it very clearly was there to stop Israel invading Lebanon again.

[cerulean obsidian]

that's not facts

[thorny stone]

I don't favour either side. I oppose people on both sides who act in immoral ways.

[cerulean obsidian]

that's like... your opinion

[thorny stone]

You want me to explain it step by step?

[waxen smelt]

https://tenor.com/view/ups-error-facepalm-gif-15403364

Your ruining my happy day

I usally don't argue here since it's your choice what you like but...

[thorny stone]

Are you aware of the rules of this discord? Specifically the one quoted by the staff member in this topic yesterday, about treating fellow users with respect?

[waxen smelt]

How am I not treating you with respect

Is calling peopel 5 showing respect

[cerulean obsidian]

the facts are:
UNIFIL exists to:

• assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area
• Assist the Government of Lebanon, at its request, in securing its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel <--- that means Hezbollah
• A naval component of UNIFIL was set up to assist the Lebanese Navy as an interim measure to prevent arms proliferation to Hezbollah while the Lebanese Navy builds its capacity.
• UNIFIL's mandate is renewed annually by the United Nations Security Council; it was most recently extended on 28 August 2024 with the passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2749. It is composed of 10,000 peacekeepers from 46 nations, tasked with helping the Lebanese Army keep the south of the country protected from "unauthorized armed personnel, such as Hezbollah"

[waxen smelt]

"Or are you literally 5 years old?"

So you can say that

Do you know what "respect" means

[thorny stone]

You're trying to make fun of my statement with that gif.

[waxen smelt]

Has nobody ever taught you

To get respect, treat others with respect

[cerulean obsidian]

you can't say things that are outright false, claim that they are "facts", and then hide behind the rules when people get angry at you for ignoring actual facts

[waxen smelt]

No, I was trying to make you happy

[thorny stone]

It was a question, designed to make SJohnson re-evaluate how immature they were being. Since they were not able to recognise that themselves, that's why a staff member had to get involved.

[waxen smelt]

Obvisouly, just use your brain to figure that out. Oh wait... You don't have one

[cerulean obsidian]

the staff member intervened because I told you, I quote, "go fuck yourself"

[waxen smelt]

So more lies you say

[thorny stone]

So I'm guessing you're a sock puppet account?

[cerulean obsidian]

that's a thing you could also have verified by spending 5 seconds of your time

I didn't even know what RISK was when @waxen smelt joined this server

[waxen smelt]

"Everything I've said in this topic has been backed by facts" By Arkular
"It exists to stop Israel invading Lebanon, so given Israel is invading Lebanon anyway, you could be right." BY Arkular
“It was a question, designed to make SJohnson re-evaluate how immature they were being. Since they were not able to recognise that themselves, that's why a staff member had to get involved.”
These are two lie 👆
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Force_in_Lebanon (The evidence it’s a lie for my first point)

[waxen smelt]

No, I a'm a very good risk player

Gm (While getting their in fixed manual 6 player)

However I don't have much time for playing risk anymore

[thorny stone]

Either way, you're only here in this topic to cause trouble.

[cerulean obsidian]

is calling out your (easily provable) lies "causing trouble"?

[waxen smelt]

I wish they was a rule to ban people

For spreading lies

[thorny stone]

Being disrespectful to other users is "causing trouble", yes. A staff member has told you this directly.

[cerulean obsidian]

and how has anyone disrespected you today?

[waxen smelt]

How about you ping

the staff memeber

And let's see what they do

If they don't ban you I would be sad

Nothing personal though

[cerulean obsidian]

they won't, free speech is allowed here, and he's entitled to keep lying

but rule number 1 is to be respectful

[thorny stone]

If you think a statement is incorrect, what you should do is provide the evidence that you think disproves it, and then talk about it so we can all understand the situation better. There is absolutely no need to accuse anyone of lying.
I'm participating in this conversation in good faith. You need to do that as well, if we are to have a constructive conversation. If you do not want to have a constructive conversation, then you are causing trouble.

[last python]

I think their conflict has reached a point where both sides have accumulated degenerate war crimes. Which, believe it or not is not how wars should be fought.