All races that share more likelihood to be afraid of dogs are more likely to engage in savage behaviour
Also only reason I don't agree is the nuking part, how are they farming after, might as well farm in Chernobyl, use standard carpet bombing with regular bombs for that lol
Not a terrible idea, but if we're going that far might as well remove the middle-man and regime change South Africa and Congo. Give the Whites some living space there.
Oh no, if only there was a competent, in no way corrupt (either monetary or ideological) International body that could enforce a cease to war crimes by either diplomacy or force (looks at UN). Real shame that's never existed... /s
I'm looking at the broader picture, for all purposes, Israel are probably going to make an example of Gaza after the attack so a lot of it is not going to be standing after and then be occupied.
If the 'allies' of Hamas do nothing other than gestures and no full on attacks, this'll probably go from a humiliation for Israel to weakening of those directly against Israel knowing that if one gets into a full war with Israel, they're on their own against an onslaught. Not to mention after they don't need to look West as much they can focus more force East.
Your argument boils down to "it's not genocide if they aren't really human ;)" rationalizing. It's quite easy to "other" any group, or be convinced to do so by years of media propaganda. See how some people here do it to the Jews.
That said, applying morality to group conflicts is silly and is what social justice warriors do. Nobody deserves to exist. It doesn't matter if they are a positive influence or not. Ultimately the only thing that matters is force. If Palestinians don't have the ability to defend their territory, they don't have territory, or a right to exist. Simple law of nature. Whether they should be allowed to live in their old homelands in Israel or not is a different question.
I can probably synthesize our positions together by restating your demand for proof as "does it benefit Israeli to stop killing the palestinians?" or "does it benefit the United States to help the palestinians?" Then I can agree with you that the answer is no. I don't know see how it benefits us to help Israel either. Military and economic reasons exist, but we can always swap one ally for another. Syria, Lebanon, or Jordan could all be excellent partners in the region.
It's not genocide if an aggressive enemy refuses to stay down. Israel would be right to wipe the Gazans off the map for the same reason the United States would have been right to wipe the Japanese off the map, had the nukes not knocked some sense into them.
I doubt a single person here can explain why Palestinians existing is in any way positive.
You can say that for almost any group.
Generally the problem with genocide is that you are targeting a group with potential...to better the human race which is why it is an atrocity.
If you're an absolute fucking sociopath, sure.
By all means though prove me wrong.
I don't have to; you could for the sake of argument be absolutely correct, but still be wrong on murdering innocent men, women, and children being the just thing to do. Even if they were 'low quality' men, women, and children.
Show me why a violent group of backwards nomads deserves to exist in an overcrowded world. Someone convince me that they have made any positive impact towards humanity as a people.
Convince me you have any positive impact towards humanity. Convince me anyone here has that positive impact. Most people in general do not. If we're going by your criteria, it's time to wipe out 90% of most peoples.
I don't believe we should require such proof to merit mere existence. That's an incredibly stupid prospect, and any enforcement of such an idea - no matter who carries it out - is going to be a fucking disaster.
But, hey, you do you.
EDIT: Ah, yes, the controversial "anti-genocide" take.
Ironically, Palestine's existence was caused BECAUSE of a 'genocide' (don't fuck with Roman Emperor Hadrian) so it not existing anymore by another one is almost a dark irony.
They will continue to exist. You will know because the same Zionists who are one degree removed (if that) from "total nigger death" language about them now will immediately pivot to talking about the need for compassion and the benefits of diversity when the fighting dies down because they're going to dump them in white countries. Stop falling for counter-jihad like a retard.
You call that a grenade, here's one:
All races that share more likelihood to be afraid of dogs are more likely to engage in savage behaviour
Also only reason I don't agree is the nuking part, how are they farming after, might as well farm in Chernobyl, use standard carpet bombing with regular bombs for that lol
Glass it and build city wide solar power panels?
I may have recently been re-reading the Invincible comic where this happens to Las Vegas so it might not be the best idea.
Unless... 🤔
Dinosaurus did nothing wrong!
Not a terrible idea, but if we're going that far might as well remove the middle-man and regime change South Africa and Congo. Give the Whites some living space there.
How are South Africans going to fare there after nukes?
Better than they will in South Africa ;)
Get out of my head.
Oh no, if only there was a competent, in no way corrupt (either monetary or ideological) International body that could enforce a cease to war crimes by either diplomacy or force (looks at UN). Real shame that's never existed... /s
I'm looking at the broader picture, for all purposes, Israel are probably going to make an example of Gaza after the attack so a lot of it is not going to be standing after and then be occupied.
If the 'allies' of Hamas do nothing other than gestures and no full on attacks, this'll probably go from a humiliation for Israel to weakening of those directly against Israel knowing that if one gets into a full war with Israel, they're on their own against an onslaught. Not to mention after they don't need to look West as much they can focus more force East.
Seeing as that territory was won from those allies in the first place...
Hot take, maybe. Better to ethnically cleanse than to send them to Europe and America like Israel's NGOs have been doing for years.
Israel has automated turrets on their border. Ask the jews if America should have those
Which is totally why more Palestinians are being born every year. That's how genocide works right?
how can there be war crimes when there isn't a war?
Your argument boils down to "it's not genocide if they aren't really human ;)" rationalizing. It's quite easy to "other" any group, or be convinced to do so by years of media propaganda. See how some people here do it to the Jews.
That said, applying morality to group conflicts is silly and is what social justice warriors do. Nobody deserves to exist. It doesn't matter if they are a positive influence or not. Ultimately the only thing that matters is force. If Palestinians don't have the ability to defend their territory, they don't have territory, or a right to exist. Simple law of nature. Whether they should be allowed to live in their old homelands in Israel or not is a different question.
I can probably synthesize our positions together by restating your demand for proof as "does it benefit Israeli to stop killing the palestinians?" or "does it benefit the United States to help the palestinians?" Then I can agree with you that the answer is no. I don't know see how it benefits us to help Israel either. Military and economic reasons exist, but we can always swap one ally for another. Syria, Lebanon, or Jordan could all be excellent partners in the region.
It's not genocide if an aggressive enemy refuses to stay down. Israel would be right to wipe the Gazans off the map for the same reason the United States would have been right to wipe the Japanese off the map, had the nukes not knocked some sense into them.
You’re jewish aren’t you
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Oy vey, I heard they decapitate babies
You can say that for almost any group.
If you're an absolute fucking sociopath, sure.
I don't have to; you could for the sake of argument be absolutely correct, but still be wrong on murdering innocent men, women, and children being the just thing to do. Even if they were 'low quality' men, women, and children.
Convince me you have any positive impact towards humanity. Convince me anyone here has that positive impact. Most people in general do not. If we're going by your criteria, it's time to wipe out 90% of most peoples.
I don't believe we should require such proof to merit mere existence. That's an incredibly stupid prospect, and any enforcement of such an idea - no matter who carries it out - is going to be a fucking disaster.
But, hey, you do you.
EDIT: Ah, yes, the controversial "anti-genocide" take.
Ironically, Palestine's existence was caused BECAUSE of a 'genocide' (don't fuck with Roman Emperor Hadrian) so it not existing anymore by another one is almost a dark irony.
They will continue to exist. You will know because the same Zionists who are one degree removed (if that) from "total nigger death" language about them now will immediately pivot to talking about the need for compassion and the benefits of diversity when the fighting dies down because they're going to dump them in white countries. Stop falling for counter-jihad like a retard.