MovieChat Forums > Politics > So republicans, Israel aid good, Ukrania...

So republicans, Israel aid good, Ukranian aid bad?


We all knew republican outrage over Ukraine spending was a big farce. they could only pretend it was about being fiscally responsible and the spending for so long.

We couldnt help an ally, and clearly victim of an aggressive dictator Russia. that was too much

then comes along Israel, an arguably messy, not clear cut conflict. and all of a sudden they want the help to flow.

Republicans will never fail to always take the exact wrong side on an armed conflict. they failed in iraq and afganistan and they want to continue that trend.

reply

"...an ally, and clearly victim of an aggressive dictator..."

Oh please.

"then comes along Israel, an arguably messy, not clear cut conflict. and all of a sudden they want the help to flow."
AIPAC

"they failed in iraq and afganistan and they want to continue that trend."
They did what the deep state wanted, and dems continued that trend in Syria and Libya.

reply

ukraine isnt an ally? russia clearly wasnt the aggressor? it isnt a dictorship? imagine addressing waht i said instead of "oh please"

your concession is noted.

oh "the deep state" the new buzzword so republicans can never have to take account for what they do! got it!

reply

Ukraine is a nazi-infested sesspool of corruption. They're only our "ally" if you hate Putin and want to use their people as cannon fodder in a proxy war. Russia was only the aggressor if you start the timeline from Feb 24, 2022. No, it's not a dictatorship, unless you consider routine 80% approval, and people respecting what you say, a "dictatorship".

reply


Ukraine is a nazi-infested sesspool of corruption.


the nazi infested cesspool, led by a jew? you are just spouting russian propaganda.
im trying to find the far right nationalist neo nazi parties? youd think for a "nazi infested" country the nazis and their representatives would be everywhere!

oh wait you are right! former leader of the azof battalion, Andriy Biletsky did run in the 2019 election! so this nazi got lots of support and won seats right since its a cesspool of nazi?

In the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election he was placed 2nd on the joined list of Svoboda with the far-right National Corps, the Governmental Initiative of Yarosh and Right Sector.[34] His party did not win enough votes to clear the 5% election threshold and thus did not gain any parliamentary seats....This coalition won a combined 2.15% of the nationwide


look at that cesspool!!! every single far right party combined to form a colation! and they couldnt even reach 3%!

As for of corruption. is Ukraine perfect? no. are they far less corrupt than "you disagreed and criticized Putin? that was horrible you shot yourself in the back of the head 5 times then jumped out the window" Russia? without a doubt. a know oligarchal mafia state

They're only our "ally" if you hate Putin and want to use their people as cannon fodder in a proxy war.


We've been supporting Ukraine awhile long before any war. they have the right to self determination. Russia is already a shithole. the US has no need to fight and weaken them through proxy wars like the cold war. they are simply supporting an ally.

Russia was only the aggressor if you start the timeline from Feb 24, 2022


Wrong again Bob! Russia was the aggressor the other times they invaded Ukraine and stole land. give me the date ukraine invaded Russia?

No, it's not a dictatorship, unless you consider routine 80% approval, and people respecting what you say, a "dictatorship".

i consider jailing your opponents and shooting critics in the fucking face as a dictatorship. amazing how many votes you can win when your biggest political threats get jailed, journalists who criticize you get shot in the head, and the entire media is your propaganda tool who cant criticize the dear leader.

reply

So, if Trump goes to jail, is that Biden jailing his opponent? When Ashli Babbitt got killed, was that Biden shooting his critics? When 4 people kidnapped a special needs teenager and forced him to yell "fuck Trump", was it Biden's fault? When they tortured Bradley Manning and Julian Assange for publishing evidence of corruption, does that make Obama a dictator? When the media makes up lies about Joe Rogan and Russel Brand, does that make them a propaganda tool, and criticizing the government isn't allowed? I'm just trying to see if what you're saying is a real principle, as opposed to meaningless propaganda.

reply

it seems all you can right are conflation fallacy's. acting like any of those situations are remotely similar.

lets just take one example because i am not writing paragraphs on paragraphs explaining how stupid you are

"When Ashli Babbitt got killed, was that Biden shooting his critics?"

are you trying to say a random officer tasked to protet the capital. who shot a violent rioter and was well within the law in the US and would be in every other democratic state. an officer Biden and the biden administration had ZERO direct or indirect control over (you do know trump was still president when it happened dont you?" was "biden shooting his critics". and comparable to

the Russian state sending out agents to assasinate journalists and opponets. including shooting an opposition party leader in public to silence him on purpose

you really think these are comprable?

also what happened to "nazi cesspool"?

reply

"you really think these are comprable?"
They can be used to sling accusations the same way, so yes. The "Clinton body count" is way higher than Putin's. Quite suspicious!

"what happened to 'nazi cesspool'?"
It is one. Lol. By your logic, a black man was president, so there's no white supremacy in America. Imagine if we let card carrying nazis run for office, or display nazi symbols on their military uniforms. It goes without saying it's a sesspool. Even desperately attempting to twist my words, you still fail.

reply

Omg the clinton body count? oh my bad i didnt realize i was talking to a crazy person

no no they cant be shown to be comparable. Putin has been objectively shown to have enemies assassinated. its a common thing and well known and poison or straight up execution by gunfire has been shown to happen all the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23/here-are-ten-critics-of-vladimir-putin-who-died-violently-or-in-suspicious-ways/

hese a list of his victims

show me a single shred of evidence of "clintons body count". show me all the clinton critics gunned down and poisoned. show me a conceted effort to kill clinton critics. give me a single shred of evidence lining the clintons to a dead. Also wtf does alshli Babbit got to do with clinton? you blamed Biden! who again was not even president, and has zero control over capital security. what the hella re you talking about?

please after writing that bullshit analogy, never use the word logic again. no words were twisted. you are just stupid and cant make coherent points. i never said there was no nazis in Ukraine. YOU said it was a nazi cessopool. pretty much every single western country has a very small percent of extreme right wingers, including nazis.again all the far right parties combined couldnt even win 3%. by that "logic" every single country is a 'nazi cesspooL" because a very very very small percent are far right extremists. what total bullshit

reply

I didn't use the words, "nazi cesspool" numbnuts, I said it's a sesspool of corruption and nazi-infested. You can't even read properly. And yeah, I can post a link to Clinton associates dying "violently or in suspicious ways" but I'm not stupid enough to think that proves the Clintons did it. You are, but that only applies to people you don't like. I'm consistent on this matter, I only bring it up to show you're a hypocrite, and you proved it. How is it any different? Where's your fucking proof the Russian government was involved in those murders? I may as well say the Clintons killed people, there's the same fucking amount of proof for either accusation, Jeeze you're dense.

reply

", I said it's a sesspool of corruption and nazi-infested"

a day earlier

""Ukraine is a nazi-infested sesspool of corruption"

maybe write clearly and dont blame me for your stupidity? infested proves my point.the defintion is "(of insects or animals) be present (in a place or site) in large numbers, typically so as to cause damage or disease." so its even worse because you are saying theres a large number of them. which you havent shown i showed is the opposite is true. you fail

And yeah, I can post a link to Clinton associates dying "violently or in suspicious ways" but I'm not stupid enough to think that proves the Clintons did it.


so you have no proof. so why bring it up? one is your delusion, one is a known fact that Putin has enemies killed.

you arent consistent with anything. you are all over the place. you arent forming coherent thoughts. you went from Biden to the CLinton, to compare the known fact of Putin assassinating people to a conspriacy about the Clinton's you have no evidence of.


reply

Your ignorance and hypocrisy isn't my problem.

reply

nice little escape to not address the nonsense you spread.

so

1. you have not show ukraine is a nazi infested cesspool of corruption
2. you failed in your analogy to compare Putins assassination to anythng remotely similar to Biden, no sorry i meant Clinton! i cant keep up with your incoherent bs.

reply

I already addressed those retarded arguments.

reply

you didnt. you failed. you focused on cesspool and not "infested" where i showed you were wrong cause that means a large amount. you cannot show any large amount of nazis

your analogies and comparisons have been utter shit. from Ashli babbit to Clinton's.

you are dumb.

reply

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

https://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php

reply

You really cannot help but put your full stupidity on display can you?

at its peak in 2017 azov had 2300 members, as of 2021 it had 800. where is this nazi INFESTATION.

in a country of 43 million thats 0.0000086% of all ukranians

in the election the coalition "right sector" won 5100 votes lol. the secondary source says 2.1% but the only primary source is in russian which i can read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_parliamentary_election

so finally conceed ukraine is not infested with nazis and stop spreading russian propaganda.

as for your body count nonsense. wow some conspiracy site. so we went from ashli babbit and Biden, to somehow Clinton. all so you can deflect away from the objective well recognized fact, that russia is indeed a murderous dictatorship that assassinates political enemies and critics of Putin.

are you off your meds?

reply

Your lack of principles isn't my problem. If I was playing your stupid game I'd just go "Waaaahhhh!! Earlier you said 'jailing opponents', but now you're saying 'assassinating political enemies', therefore you are wrong!" Meanwhile, you offer nothing in the way of proof besides "suspicious circumstances". What a waste of time.

reply

its not a lack of principles. my principles and morals are just fine. its an excess of stupidity on your side and piss poor attempt to spread lies.

Earlier you said 'jailing opponents', but now you're saying 'assassinating political enemies', therefore you are wrong!" Meanwhile, you offer nothing in the way of proof besides "suspicious circumstances". What a waste of time.


what i said in my original reply

i consider jailing your opponents and shooting critics in the fucking face as a dictatorship. amazing how many votes you can win when your biggest political threats get jailed, journalists who criticize you get shot in the head,


then in my second reply

"the Russian state sending out agents to assassinate journalists and opponets. including shooting an opposition party leader in public to silence him on purpose"

ive been consistent. nothing has changed idiot. you said " but now you're saying 'assassinating political enemies'" when i literally said that since post one.

the proof is the long history of consistent blatant killings of putin critics either through gunfire or poisoning or other shady circumstance. Unless you are saying there is some rogue mysterious vigilante, who has been going around since Putin got power, who just SO HAPPENS to be shooting and poising anyone who is too vocal, whether its a journalist looking into putin and being too critical, or a political opponent again being too critical or gaining too much traction. assassinating them in Russia and abroad. who also are also at times using almost impossible to attain things like radioactive polonium-210 and nerve agents??? random vigilantes are going abroad using radioactive polonium-210 to kill people who just so happen to be critics and enemies of Putin?? are you on crack?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/27/history-killing-how-russia-has-silenced-putins-opponents

https://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-people-putin-is-suspected-of-assassinating-2016-3

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23/here-are-ten-critics-of-vladimir-putin-who-died-violently-or-in-suspicious-ways/

https://www.rferl.org/a/enemies-kremlin-deaths-prigozhin-list/32562583.html

you are a disingeuous weasel playing defence for a sicko.

reply

I'm bored with this going in circles, I'm gonna go smoke some more crack. I'll say hi to Hunter Biden for you.

reply

there are no circles. i offer evidence. you offer bullshit and garbage analogies and say things that make no sense.. im arguing with an idiot.

still waiting to see proof of that nazi infestation!

reply

You were the boss in this exchange.

reply

You are an idiot. ya it sure is being a "boss" to make incoherent points. compare ashli babbit being shot to targeted russian political assassinations, then whne that gets exposed as dumb as hell change it to the clintons.

make claims like "its nazi infested", not back it up.

then act like i changed what i has said from "'jailing opponents', but now you're saying 'assassinating political enemies'". when i said that all along.

reply

You're too dumb to understand what the argument was even about. No wonder you're confused.

reply

im not, as i just clearly demonstrated i was on topic the whole time. i was the only one addressing arguments. you kept running to new things every time i showed your nonsense

you are now trying to muddy the waters to make yourself look good. you look like a little weasel man.

reply

Look how fucking small your text window is now. This is getting ridiculous.

reply

Ukraine has been their own country since 1991. Independence from Russia is a cornerstone of their national identity. They've lost tens of thousands of people in this conflict and you think they're continuing to fight because the US is making them? Israel will accept our aid but they don't actually need it, at least not for the the Gaza operation. Ukraine needs our aid to survive.

reply

Why do people pretend Eastern Ukraine doesn't exist? Western Ukraine needs our aid, they have a right to self-determination, Eastern Ukraine fuck their self-determination, bomb them into compliance. Have a violent right wing coup force one party out and hold the vote without them. Say Putin is an aggressor because he sides with them, and because he doesn't want NATO to surround Russia with missiles and US military bases. What a fake controversy.

reply

sending in your little green men to support and help local separatists and having a dictatorship oversee a "fair election" is a joke. if you consider this legitimate you are dumb.

reply

Are these Putin sources?

Ukrainian Nazis as cited by members of the WEF/Democrat party media.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/03/10/ukraine-azov-brigade-nazis-abuses-separatists/24664937/



And this…

https://www.codepink.org/how_the_us_has_empowered_and_armed_neo_nazis_in_ukraine



And this…

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary/commentary-ukraines-neo-nazi-problem-idUKKBN1GV2TY

reply

1. what sources? link 1 and 2 dont work

2.where did i say there weren't any nazis? i said there werent many. and the size of the azov group (900 in a country of 43 million) and the horrible horrible election results for the coalition of extreme right wing parties proves this.

3. link 3 talks about a rally of SIX HUNDRED PEOPLE. 600 man. again in a country of 43 million.

you are dismissed for weak ass evidence

reply

Dumbass, all you had to do was paste-search the titles and they would appear "directly" from those sources.

you are dismissed for weak ass evidence

And you provided no rebuttals or counter-arguments to refute or disprove otherwise, but nice try with that straw-man bullshit.

reply

still dont know what a burden of proof is huh?

And you provided no rebuttals or counter-arguments to refute or disprove otherwise

the original claim was putin and the invasion isnt that bad because "ukraine is INFESTED with nazis". his source claims there was a rally of 600. that is hardly "infested". i have rebutted and provided counter evidence. in the form of their amssive election failure and how few nazis there are in ukraine. rebutted, countered, refuted. you fail again.


show me a european country where you couldnt find 600 nazis/neo nazis.

go back into hiding weasel :)

reply

There were only 100 in the infamous tiki torch horde, and our population is 330 million. I guess there aren't many racists in America!

reply

i already whooped your ass before right above here and yu ran after i called out your nonsense. so you came to nip at my heels like a rat dog because you wouldn't win there?

I guess there aren't many racists in America!


no that wasnt what was said.... what you said was "infested". you are so stupid you cant even remmebr your own comment and discussion from yesterday.

reply

My bad, I forgot you're the only one allowed to use stupid semantic arguments and declare yourself the winner. I'll be sure to follow your hypocritical rules in the future. Not.

reply

ohhh now its semantics!! you never were saying that ukraine had a problem with having lots of nazis? funny thats the first time ive heard you say that.you had that entire conversation to say you mispoke or thats not what you meant. but we both know it is what you mean.

must be some nice little coping mechanism. you make bombastic claims, got proven wrong, cant back them up, and then ran away from them.

it sucks getting held accountable for your lies doesnt it?

reply

Earlier, you said "where did i say there weren't any nazis? i said there werent many." NOW you say, "No! The word was infestation!" Therefore I win.

I have no fucking idea, moron. Apparently you're the one who gets to determine these ratios, so you tell me. How many roaches do I need in my house to call it an infestation?

reply

Earlier, you said "where did i say there weren't any nazis? i said there werent many." NOW you say, "No! The word was infestation!" Therefore I win.


did that comment even make sense in your head? are you on drugs?

yes i responded with "where did i say there weren't any nazis" when GD gave me a link talking about nazis in ukraine.. I wasnt sure why he was trying to disprove me with sources i agree with providing numbers i used against you and accept. he was acting as if i said there were no nazis in ukraine.

yes you used the word infestation... which there isnt. the only thing you won is looking like an unhinged retard. i even gave you the definition before. which i will do again. "of insects or animals) be present (in a place or site) in large numbers, typically so as to cause damage or disease."

you never denied that you said there wasnt a large number

you are now ATTEMPTING to turn this and act like it was a semantic argument all along. nice try. your little weasel tactics are sad.

reply

Let's try this again. Hi, troll. How many Nazis do I need to call it an infestation? I'm sure you're not saying 600 Nazis is too few to cause damage or disease. Do they have to be animals or insects? What kind of semantic rules are we using?

reply

hahahahahah troll/ when im the one who actually backed up my arguements with sources. oh now you want to talk about our conversation from before? you mean the one you ran away from?

its transparent what you are attempting. even you know what you are trying to do. You could of had some dignity, but instead tried to be a little weasel.

i guess i shouldnt expect better from a boot licking apologist for putin.

reply

Stop wasting my time.

reply

you are pathetic. i think you only rival kowalski and tvfan in terms of that. bye weasel.

reply

i think you only rival kowalski and tvfan in terms of that

It's like dejavu; you said something similar with your previous account.

reply

you sure you are all there?

have you found evidence the election was stolen yet?

reply

Not a direct ally unlike Israel. More of an associated ally that's heavily corrupt.

reply

America First.

reply

You look at the bloody attack aimed at mass murdering civilians as a goal, and you find it "NOT clear cut"?


MMm, I believe you.

And I think that says all that needs said on this. YOU, speaking for dems/libs, can't tell the difference between terrorists and their victims, while republicans can.

reply

i look at a terrorist extremist group that won support because Israel is an apartheid state. was some peaceful party that does non violent sit ins going to win elections and be like "no israel thats bad! we disagree! we will not respond with violence". of course radical idiots who would engage in violence have the political power. an extreme act like aprtheid will be met with an equally extreme opposition

4000 gazan kids are dead from Israeli bombing so far. were they terrorists? if gazans killing afew hundred israelies makes them terrorists, what does 4000 dead gazan kids make israel?

you clearly have a simplistic outlook like a little a small child

reply

Israel is not an apartheid state. Thus your whole position is delusional and supporting evil.

You might want to compare contrast the fate of palestinian communities inside of Isreal with jewish communities inside of say, any neighboring arab states.

That would let you know who is the "apartheid state". Hint, it's neither.

reply

comparing palestinians inside israel vs insraels in other arab states. is like saying "south africa wasnt an apartheid state! compare it to jews in other arab states! see its not"

i should have known you were dumb.

reply

Why does it not make sense to compare how palestinians in Isreal are treated to how jews are treated in near by arab states?


reply

because the fact X is treated worse than Y, by Z. does not prove Y is not under oppression by X or that X is not running an apartheid state. this is grade 11 introduction to philosophy and logic.

reply

So, why you afraid to compare then? Could it be because you KNOW that if you actually LOOK at how palestinians are actually treated in Isreal, that any claims of "apartheid" is shown to be utter nonsense?

reply

contact your local highschool and see if you can sign up for grade 11 philosophy and logic courses again. itll help you since you are struggling with basic logic.

reply

So, then let's dig into it. Show me the apartheid rules that are soooooo oppressive.

Are they allowed to vote? To hold office? What rights do jewish citizens of Isreal have that palestinian citizens don't have?

Or is this more of a, you heard it was, and you are just parroting the narrative?

reply

if you cant get past the basics of simply logic you are hopeless.

il write it for you again. this time take the time to ponder it before making yourself look stupid. ill even fill it in so your simple mind can handle it

the fact X(Israelies) are treated worse than Y (palestinians), by Z (other muslim countries), than X's treat Y(palestinians). does not prove Y (palestinians) are not under oppression by X (israelis) or that X is not running an apartheid state.

thats like saying that during world was two the british didnt oppress indians because germans were worse. Error. Logic not found

reply

Shadow, I know that one being treated worse, does NOT mean that another is not being treated badly.

It was a leading challenge, the end result, if you dared to look at anything, would reveal that the palestinians are NOT being treated badly.


But, you have such poor communication skills that you failed to have a conversation.


I actually dropped that line of argument, because it was beyond you. But you didn't notice.

I instead just challenged you to support your claim.

You have done nothing to support your claim.


reply

does NOT mean that another is not being treated badly


where did i say this once? give me the quote.

https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2017/50-years-illegal-settlements/index.html

id say stealing large amounts of land is pretty bad.

also strangling them economically

The settlements have only been able to thrive through severe economic exploitation of the occupied West Bank at the expense of the natives.

While the majority of the Palestinian population in the West Bank live in Areas A and B, the infrastructure upon which their livelihood depends either lies in or crosses into Area C.The area encompasses the territory's water resources, most fertile pasture and agricultural land, as well as mining and mineral extraction resources and tourist sites.

Palestinian access to Area C, some 60 percent of the West Bank, is either completely prohibited or highly restricted, causing an annual loss of $3.4bn to the economy."


also

Home demolitions
While building homes for settlers, Israel employs a policy of home demolitions to restrict the expansion of Palestinian communities on the pretext that homes were built without necessary permits, while refusing to issue them.



.
Settler violence
In 2018 alone, 262 Palestinians were killed and nearly 25,000 injured by Israeli forces.
The main forms of violence by Israeli settlers include throwing stones at Palestinian homes and vehicles, physically assaulting Palestinians, uprooting or damaging olive trees, vandalising property, or setting fire to agricultural lands.
Over 2.5 million trees have been uprooted by Israeli forces since 1967.
The overwhelming majority of complaints filed against settler violence pass without any punishment of the perpetrators..


reply

The west bank is a seperate country. The Palestinian Authority governs there.

To support your claim, you need to show oppression of ISREALI CITIZENS who are palestinian.


That is what "apartheid" means.


I hope that you knew that....

reply

"Although they may apply for naturalization, few have done so due to the Hebrew language requirement and resistance to acknowledging Israeli control of Jerusalem. About 19,000 residents, representing five percent of the East Jerusalem Palestinian population, held Israeli citizenship in 2022."

thats like claiming only jews who were german citizens in germany could claim
nazi oppression. no other jew could if they were a non german jew or a jew in the other country germany ccupied.

yes the israelis stea lpalestenian land and mistreat them

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/

https://www.vox.com/23924319/israel-palestine-apartheid-meaning-history-debate

reply

So, to show that they are oppressing their own citizens you make the point that many palestinians refuse to become citizens?

That... is irelevant. Try again, or admit that you cannot.


reply

ShadowHunter,

The idea that Israel is an apartheid state is completely absurd. The people who say that it is have no idea what they're talking about:

https://www.thetower.org/article/the-apartheid-libel-a-legal-refutation/

The Allies killed thousands of children by bombing Germany and Japan during World War II and they weren't terrorists. Hamas uses Gaza's children as human shields and that makes Hamas responsible for their deaths. Article 28 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War says that "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

reply

Looky, another moron who thinks the Israel-Palestine conflict started October 7th

reply

So you are a mindreader eh? btw, where did he imply that the conflict started on that date?

reply

CarterBlunt,

Nothing Corbell said indicated that he believed that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict started on October 7th. The fact that it didn't start on October 7th doesn't in any way justify the Hamas attack. You point out that the conflict didn't start on October 7th as if the Hamas attack somehow improved the lives of Gazans, which it clearly did not.

reply

The idea Israel has a right to defend itself, but not Palestine, is such a hypocritical and potentially racist stance. I dismiss it out of hand.

reply

The idea that the Hamas massacre of a thousand Israeli civilians constitutes "defense" is completely moronic. How can you possibly tell me about Palestine's "right to defend itself" when you don't even know what the word 'defend' means? All you've acomplished is to crap all over everyone who's spent the past month claiming that Hamas doesn't legitimately represent the Palestinians.

reply

Ok, then Israel massacring civilians doesn't count as defense. How long you wanna go in circles on this one?

reply

It doesn't work like that. The fact that the Hamas massacre wasn't defensive is completely independent of anything Israel does. Your argument makes it sound like you're saying that what Israel does makes what Hamas does okay, which is not even an attempt to prove that the Hamas massacre was defensive.

And Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza is clearly defensive. Israel is fighting to destroy the Hamas terrorist group that just attacked Israel and poses a continuing threat to Israel. The mere fact that Gazan civilians have died in the process doesn't prove that it's not defensive. Those civilians have died mostly because Hamas is using them as human shields. It's impossible for Israel to destroy Hamas in Gaza without killing any civilians in the process. I defy you to show me a single instance of another military attack on a terrorist-held urban area that successfully defeated the terrorists without killing civilians in the process.

reply

Hamas is underground, Israel is bombing above ground. They bombed 400 in a refugee camp because they "thought there was a Hamas guy there". What's the ratio of civilian to IDF killed by Hamas??

reply

Not all of the Hamas fighters and infrastructure are underground. Some of it is above ground. And Israel sometimes drops bombs on the surface to destroy what's underneath. The Israeli strike on the Jabalia refugee camp is an example of this. The target of this strike was an underground tunnel complex. Israel carried out this strike to kill Hamas commander Ibrahim Biari. Do you have any basis for claiming that he wasn't really killed?

Even Hamas only claimed that there were 195 killed. They claimed that number by the next day and it's quite incredible that in all the chaos of the ongoing war they they were able to figure out the exact number killed so quickly. Recall the Hamas bullshit claim immediately after the explosion at the Al Ahli Hospital that 500 were killed. You don't know how many were actually killed in the Israeli strike on the Jabalia refugee camp and you don't know how many of the people killed were actually civilians.

reply

Wow, only 195?? Nevermind then... I thought it was disproportionate or something.

Turns out the 400 number includes wounded, and was only an estimate. However, if you count from October 9th to yesterday, you easily get 300 dead. Do I give a shit about the number? No. The entire point is that the Hamas attack was equally defensive. Israel murders and terrorizes civilians regularly, whatever rules apply to them also apply to their competitor. Hamas are terrorists for firing missiles, but Israel aren't for firing BIGGER missiles? Maybe if Hamas uses nukes, certainly then it will count as defense?

reply

First off, 195 is the number killed according to Hamas. Somehow they had that exact figure by the very next day in the middle of the chaos of the war. You don't know that it was actually that many people killed or how many of them were just civilians instead of Hamas. And that's "disproportionate" compared to what? Compared to the 270 Israelis massacred at the Re'im music festival? What does "proportionate" in these circumstances actually mean? If Hamas wants the IDF to stop targeting the Jabalia refugee camp then Hamas should stop using it as a base of operations. Do you really still not understand that Hamas is using the civilian population of Gaza as human shields?

Your argument that the attack by Hamas is "equally defensive" absolutely sucks. I already explained to you that the fact that the Hamas massacre wasn't defensive is completely independent of anything Israel does. Your actual argument is really just that the Hamas attack was "okay" because Israel has also killed a lot of Palestinians. Which is actually quite a bizarre argument because the Hamas attack came first. You're actually defending the Hamas attack because of the Israeli response to that attack! And arguing that the Hamas attack was "okay" because Israel has also killed a lot of Palestinians during the course of a response to that attack is not even an actual attempt to try to prove that the Hamas attack was "equally defensive".

The laws of war don't automatically make Israel terrorists just because they have bigger missiles than Hamas. It’s not the size of the missiles that counts but how you use them. Hamas embeds itself in Gaza’s civilian population in a way that makes it impossible for Israeli missiles to hit Hamas targets without also killing civilians. You’re basically arguing that Hamas should be totally immune from IDF attack because it embeds itself in Gaza’s civilian population, which is completely illegitimate. Article 28 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War says that "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." That means the deaths of the civilians Hamas uses as human shields are all on Hamas. And Hamas's entire strategy is actually to get as many Gazan civilians killed as possible. There isn't a single part of the Hamas strategy that actually involves defending the people of Gaza.

reply

Again, you are acting like the conflict started October 7th. Please refer to graph.
https://thewire.in/world/chart-6407-palestinians-and-308-israelis-killed-in-violence-in-last-15-years

You're gonna whine over Israel getting a fraction of what they dish out? What could Palestinians do that you would consider defense, besides get on their knees and beg? Is there even any place in Gaza that DOESN'T have civilians? Maybe Israel is using human shields in their illegal settlements to keep Hamas from going further in where they can hit the juicy military targets. How about the IDF send their tiktok bimbos into the tunnels and fight... I would love to see that.

He wants us to kill as many civilians as possible... hmm, let's see... how to approach this problem? I have an idea, let's kill as many civilians as possible! We're the good guys!

reply

I never denied that the conflict didn't start on October 7th. Again, you're acting like the fact that the conflict didn't start on October 7th somehow justified the Hamas attack, which it clearly did not. Again, you're acting like the Hamas attack somehow improved the lives of Gazans, which it clearly did not.

Arguing that I'm "whining" because Israel is "getting a fraction" of what they've "dished out" only proves just how dishonest you are to claim that the Hamas attack somehow constituted "defense". You're clearly trying to make a justification for revenge, not defense. The Palestinians don't necessarily have to do anything at all violent in order to improve their situation. Getting on their knees and begging would almost certainly be a lot more successful than everything Hamas has done. Jews went over a thousand years without trying to defend themselves against Muslims. Who knows how much the Palestinians could accomplish if they tried the same strategy with the Israelis?

Asking if there's any place in Gaza that doesn't have civilians only proves my point that it's impossible for the IDF to target Hamas in Gaza without killing civilians in the process. You absurdly suggest the possibility that Israel is somehow "using human shields" in its "illegal settlements" to somehow keep Hamas from getting near military targets. This is clearly just a desperate attempt to copy my own argument about Hamas's use of civilian shields without making any attempt to get your facts straight. I remind you that all of the Israeli communities attacked by Hamas on 10/7 were within the 1949 armistice borders. You couldn't explain to me what military targets those communities are somehow "defending" or even how they actually defend those targets. Hamas has spent many years attacking those communities, first with rockets and now with a ground assault. Even if Israel was trying a "human shield" strategy here it clearly never worked.

And Israel is NOT killing as many civilians as possible. If Israel wanted to do that then it would just carpet bomb Gaza like the Allies did to Germany and Japan during World War II. Carpet bombing Gaza would be certain to kill most of the population. Less than one person so far has been killed per each Israeli bomb dropped on Gaza. That clearly demonstrates Israel's discriminatory approach to bombing Gaza. You admit yourself that there's nowhere in Gaza without civilians so you know it's impossible for Israel to destroy Hamas without inevitably killing civilians in the process. You simply need to follow the logic of your own conclusions to understand the Israeli dilemma.

reply

"Israel defensive by definition, Hamas terrorist by definition" is all I hear. Even if they carpet bombed Gaza, you would say "the allies did it in WW2 and it was awesome", but if Palestinians piss downwind it's terrorism.

reply

The October 7th Hamas attack on Israel was terrorism because it was specifically directed at civilians. The IDF response is defensive because it's specifically directed at Hamas terrorists. Gazan civilians die because Hamas uses them as human shields. I never said that the Allies carpet bombing Germany during World War II "was awesome". If Israel carpet bombed Gaza I would NOT say that was defensive. Only when Palestinians attack Israeli civilians is it terrorism.

reply

And when they starve the people in Gaza, I suppose that's also aimed at Hamas.

reply

So now you're changing the subject. I guess you acknowledge that the Hamas attack on October 7th was not defensive. Israel is not starving the people of Gaza:

https://www.camera.org/article/is-israels-siege-denying-water-and-food-to-gaza-just-the-facts/

reply

I'm still of the opinion that Israel is an aggressor, so I'm not sure what would be the point of me acknowledging Hamas isn't defensive. I said equally defensive, which is to say barely defensive on both sides. if you want to parse terms with me all day, we'll never move on from the subject. And I'm not nearly as invested as you in spinning the narrative for one side.

Your link is rather biased as well. To give a shit about their excuses, I would have to assume Israel are always right, and Hamas is responsible for how they respond, but not the other way around. Same boring ass story.

reply

I already explained why your argument sucks. Why do you keep ignoring my explanations? I don't know what that means when you say that Israel is an "aggressor" or if that were even true how it would prove that the Hamas massacre was "defensive". For the hundredth time, the fact that the Hamas massacre wasn't defensive is completely independent of anything Israel does. The massacre wasn't defensive because it simply didn't constitute defense. It was simply an attack on Israeli civilians who weren't bothering Gazans. Your argument is just completely illogical. Your claim that the Hamas massacre is "equally defensive" is just more of the same completely illogical nonsense.

Your argument that the Israeli response is "barely defensive" because it unavoidably kills civilians in a crowded urban area where terrorists go out of their way to use them as human shields doesn't hold any water. Saying that you're not nearly as invested as I supposedly am in spinning the narrative for one side just makes it sound like you're actually aware that you're making a terrible argument about the Hamas attack being "defensive".

Calling my link biased is just nonsense. I simply presented the hard data about the food situation in Gaza. You can't just ignore the facts.

reply

Taking hostages to get leverage can be defensive. Barely, but it's a thing.

Again, Hamas isn't responsible for Israel's shitty response. Sucks to be an Israeli who gets taken hostage. They would rather blow up their own people than admit to losing leverage.

Hard data = Israel's only choice is to level Gaza? Not buying it.

reply

Oh, so now you're changing the subject. We were talking about the Hamas massacre and now you're talking about Hamas taking hostages. At least you admit the massacre clearly wasn't defensive. And taking hostages isn't defensive because there's nothing "defensive" about trying to get Israel to release imprisoned terrorists.

Hamas is very much responsible for Israel's response. This war wouldn't even be happening right now if it weren't for the Hamas attack. Hamas has gone out of its way to use civilians as human shields. And as I pointed out before, there isn't a single instance of another military attack on a terrorist-held urban area that successfully defeated the terrorists without killing civilians in the process.

And you're also changing the subject on the issue of food. You said Israel is starving Gaza and I showed that's wrong. Now you somehow converted that into a claim that I said that "Israel's only choice is to level Gaza". I never made such a statement and Israel clearly hasn't leveled all of Gaza.

reply

No, I don't consider murdering civilians defensive, kind of how I don't see Israel murdering civilians to be defensive. If you aren't willing to call Israel a terrorist government, I'm not sure why I should accept the characterization of Hamas as terrorists, that's not very fair. I'm not changing the subject on anything, I'm actively avoiding the subject because I'm arguing with a brick wall. Who gives a shit if they leveled Gaza, you're saying their only choice is war and I'm rejecting that. Let the fucking food through.

reply

If you don't consider Hamas murdering Israeli civilians to be defensive then why did you repeatedly argue that it was defensive? And Israel isn't "murdering civilians". It's conducting warfare. It's fighting terrorists and in the process civilians are unavoidably killed. And that's in large part because Hamas is using them as human shields. As I told you before, Article 28 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War says that "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

I won't call Israel a terrorist government because they're not a terrorist government. And the fact that Hamas are terrorists is completely independent of anything Israel has done. The fact that Hamas are terrorists is a self-evident fact. All you've proved is that you just don't want to admit it.

You're not arguing with a brick wall. You're just making very bad arguments and I explain their bad logic. Israel's only choice clearly is war. How the hell is there any other option for dealing with people who just massacred more than a thousand Jews? And Israel is allowing food into Gaza.

reply

Yeah, you already said literally all of that. "Israel good, Hamas bad", we get it. Damn. I'm ready to move on.

reply

if you don't have any counterargument to prove me wrong about anything then you don't have to say anything at all

reply

You've already categorized Israel as "good" by definition, there's nothing to prove. Israel is "good", well how is good defined? Good is defined as whatever Israel says it is. Well, fuck off then.

reply

I never said that Israel is "good". I said that Israel is defending itself. Which is necessary. Because Israel is necessary.

There's no need for you to use 4-letter words with me. I haven't talked to you that way.

reply

This Israeli conflict with Hamas stinks as much as the Ukraine debacle does. Isn't it interesting that it starts up the moment the Ukrainian crap is dying down? Or that it's happening just one year before an election year? And isn't Israel going to war with Hamas almost every other year? Hamas never lets up.

It should be noted that Israel is America's only ally over in the Middle-East, and if she falls, we're screwed. So there's a reason Israel gets more support from the Right than a crappy, corrupt, money-laundering backwater like the Ukraine does.

reply

"It should be noted that Israel is America's only ally over in the Middle-East, and if she falls, we're screwed."
Why? Because we meddled in all these countries and armed jihadists terrorists so they could overthrow the more secular governments, and they're gonna attack us next? Tough luck.

reply

Orchestrated by the DS and the uniparty establishment; your "tough luck" apathy also applies to you.

reply

For the most part there are only two types of demographics that own everything in America and they have been pretending to fight each other for Millennia while the rest of us wallow in poverty

reply

I'm not sure what two demographics you are talking about, but two thirds of America is middle class or above and foriegn policy disputes are valid.

reply

Republicans love corrupt autocrats.

reply

the jews chopped off most McMuricucks dickskin and the country is enamored with them or something. I don't fucking understand it, my momma never let them jews near my dickskin 🙌

reply

You’re misrepresenting history by suggesting Democrats did not support the Iraq and Afghanistan military authorizations. The Congressional voting by Democrats is part of the historical record. Heavily liberal national media sources like the NYT and WaPo were unabashed supporters of the WMD lies that led to the second Iraq War. You are allowing partisanship to cloud the reality that these disasters were bipartisan creations of the elite America media and political leaders

reply

looks like i have to educate you huh!

Although the war would not begin until March 2003, the House passed the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for Iraq in October 2002. The vote was 296 to 133. 215 Republicans and 81 Democrats voted for it. 126 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent (Sanders) voted against it.


so a majority of dems voted against iraq. the vast majority of republicans voted for it. Democrats were also doing protests in the streets. while republicans them traitors and said they hated america.

Heavily liberal national media sources like the NYT and WaPo were unabashed supporters of the WMD lies that led to the second Iraq War.


these sources reported what the president claimed intelligence was saying. No one thought the president would literally lie us into a war with such overblown misrepresentations and fabrications. do presidents exaggerate or bend the truth? sure. But this was a clear and orchestrated conspiracy to mislead americans into the war and invade another country. were these new sources perfect? hell no. But what Bush did was unheard of.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/

You are allowing partisanship to cloud the reality that these disasters were bipartisan creations of the elite America media and political leaders


stop with your false equivalency nonsense. a majority of Democrat politicians and political leaders voted against the war. this was a partisan issue and not bipartisan. republicans unquestionably supported the war. democrats didnt. As more facts came out and it was clear it was built on a lie, republicans continued to slander Democrats and call them traitors and support the war. the war lost all support from pretty much every democrat

your false equivalency is nonsense.

reply

Well, your original take is evolving. First you exclusively blamed Republicans for the second Iraq war and now you’re conceding the war authorization would not have passed absent bipartisan support of 40% of the Democrat representatives. And NYT and WaPo enthusiastically and manifestly lied in their WMD articles which relied on fabricated sources having no connection to the U.S. government. It’s also sad that anyone would excuse the two media titans by suggesting they were simply reporting what the president claimed…. That is the complete antithesis of the role of national media outside of Pravda. Your partisan loyalties also miss the fact that just like Republicans, the most prominent Democrats support the Israel war in Gaza with Joe Biden the unequivocal advocate and financial supporter among all the Western leaders. So apparently, the political party that enjoys your unwavering devotion thinks the Republicans are “taking the right side” in the Gaza war. We have to get beyond this Republican vs. Democrat bullshit when it comes to seeing that elites from both political parties are fundamentally corrupt and destructive

reply

my take didnt evolve. it went from a general to the specific.

yes republicans are to blame. it was a republican president. even after being shown they were in error and lied, republicans continued to support the illegal war. i dont fault the democrats who voted for it. they were deeply misled by an outright conspiracy by bush. it was unthinkable that a president would misrepresent and lie and manufacture so much false info to commit a large scale invasion of a country for nothing other than his own personal gain and legacy. not even the nazis did that. they did it for perceived military advantage. Bush did is soley and completely for his own ego.

While journalists do and should investigate, how are they supposed to interview supposed anonymous CIA sources? or supposed top secret documents on "iraqi wmds". many reported on what was supposed to be trusted sources. they absolutely should ahve done better and any sloppy or misleading reporting deserves to be criticized.

im a partisan? my unwaivering devotion? when did i vote for the dems? ever? give me dates

you are just lying at this point. its all you have left apparently.

reply