Sure you would.
Can someone please thread ban this plum, he's a troll and is adding nothing to this discussion.
Israel - Palestine Discussion
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Can someone please thread ban this plum, he's a troll and is adding nothing to this discussion.
I stated my position numerous time but I will yet again. Neither side actually wants a two state solutions. Both side have explicitly said so. I realized that back in the 90s and since then have decided that I will not be a party to the conflict.
Yup, I wonder how many are on here.Another fecking hasbara.
So you side with whichever extremist is at the top and don't actually keep a neutral position or a position that benefits the majority on both sides? Do you see how your position isn't neutral or impartial?
By the way, I'm not attacking you and realize that you are being bombarded with questions. I'm genuinely trying to make you see that your position isn't neutral, for some reason you became partisan maybe without realizing it and are championing extremes.
Also the Camp David agreement wasn't neutral or any good, not when IDF was supposed to keep most key powers over Palestine especially Gaza until both sides agree on how to manage Palestine in key aspects through committees, no one reasonable would accept that for his own country.
You stated that you disagree with the premise of the hypothetical situation I presented to you, but didn't specify what you disagreed with exactly. What you've mentioned above doesn't answer that question.
Then leave this thread. You will not be missed.
Grow up. I can discuss events without taking a side.
To be fair that one is obvious, they disagree with the idea that Israel intend to commit a genocide or an ethnic cleansing.
For someone who doesn't want to be party to it or have any interest in the outcome, you sure do have a lot to say.
Whilst it would be very comforting to know they were just clueless, I very much doubt it.
If that's the case then they're failing to realise that they have in fact taken a stance.
Simply replying to other's questions and attacks.
Yeah, he's either a troll, an Israel supporter, or just completely fecking clueless about the conflict. Or all three.
Regarding this latest outrage. 100+ dead, several hundred injured trying to get aid. The desperation to get just a handful of flour is utterly heartbreaking. To then fire on such a desperate mass of people is always going to create a panic and a stampede. This resulting carnage is inevitable.
Really horrendous stuff.
Really horrendous stuff.
I'm not intending to attack you, nor am I suggesting you leave the thread, but considering your alleged apathy or 'neutrality', I'm curious what it is you're wanting to discuss or debate in this thread. So far your sole contribution is insisting you're impartial and feel like the whole situation is hopeless. If so what's there to discuss? Is there anything in particular surrounding this conflict you want to put to debate?
That particular topic is a bit difficult and not necessarily obvious is you only follow your local daily news. To me the ethnic cleansing aspect is obvious, we are talking about governments that for decade have created and promoted the oppression of Palestinians and when people complained about it, one of the popular response has been "why don't you take them?. One of the obvious long game is to see palestinians flee by the thousands every year and kill several hundreds or thousands with impunity on a yearly basis while stealing their homes and lands.
It may not reach the threshold for any of the "big" crimes that we sometimes mention but the goal is eerily similar.
That's the point that I tried to make. I don't know the poster so I can only assume that they are honest and it seems that they honestly chose a side without realizing it.
Nahh, I'm not having that. This is the most obvious and in your face example of genocide since world war 2, if you're taking time to come into a thread and make comments like (paraphrasing) " I don't believe in a Palestinian state" and "we should just let them fight it out and take whatevers left of the population afterwards", you best at least come armed with some knowledge of the conflict.
I think that most of the old crowd in the West and other places tbf has been fed constant propaganda about the conflict being too complex and there's no solution. There's also the fact many don't want to see it constantly on the news and refuse to care. When they do care and engage, it's usually to repeat the same points that Western media has drilled into them for decades.
He actually deserves applause.
I don't post much on this thread now but read it.
One thing I've noticed is that whenever Israel commits another atrocity that can't be defended along comes someone like this guy. Writes a post which is worded a certain way, que 2/3 pages of whatboutery (for want of a better word). Perfect way to steer the conversation into a sort of he said she said.
That not an excuse.
This is just objectively not true.
I also don't know what Kyonn's aim is exactly but I don't think the thread benefits from being just the same 3/4 posters posting tweets at each other and decrying how horrible everything is, when I personally think the thread probably has a bit of a potential educational role to play, especially on such a large forum.
Yeah, it's like clock work, very clearly organised.
Flipping hell i was just going to say the same thing. Imagine it's the same elsewhere on social media.
Name a more in your face genocide then. We're getting second to second video and statistical evidence of this genocide. I don't know of any that have been more obvious, certainly not while it was unfolding.
He's not looking to be educated, he's looking to run interference on the latest atrocity in this endless list of atrocities. This is why he should be swiftly dealt with and permabanned from this thread. His replacement will be along in a couple of days anyway.
If there's an issue feel free to report it. Otherwise, please don't publicly advocate for bans/threadbans or anything similar.
Apologies, I will use the report function instead. I will use it any time one of these trolls rears their head.
Just to make things clear - I don’t see this as competition of genocides. First, my position is clear - Israel is not comiting a genocide. And second each of these conflicts is bad enough already on its own.
But man. Have you hear About Rwanda? 800 000 people killed. Or when Assad butchered 600 000 of his fellow citizens?
And the list go on.
I think he means the visual aspect of it. There's lots of Syria footage. With Rwanda I assume there's less but others can correct me.
The thing you wanted to make clear became unclear in the rest of your post. Is it just a numbers game to you? Will it become a genocide when half a million palestinians die?
Lets crunch some numbers. Rwanda was 500k-800k so between 7-10% population of 8 million. Syria was 300k civilians. 600k is overal. so 300K is 1.5% of civilian population. Even so, not all civilians were killed by Assad, so under 1.5%
officially (most likely more), we are talking about 30k (25K kids and women and we agree that not all men are hamas). so at least 1.5% gaza civilian population and counting what it puts it above your example of Syria
I don't believe that numbers constitutes a genocide but the intent and the receiving population. A clear example is Srebrenica with less deaths than Gaza
But you want to play the number games. So I would like to ask you 2 clear questions and hopefully you will answer
So if you consider Syrians civilians deaths a genocide and proportionally Gaza is above this, would you consider this a genocide?
If the Gazans death toll ever surpasses the 150-200k over a 2 million population (7-10% like Rwanda), would you consider this a genocide?
I hate how this question comes across, but for educational purposes: why is Srebrenica called a genocide and not 'just' a massacre?
My comment literally says in your face. I wasn't talking about numbers, but I'm sure you knew that anyway.
I am not the one that can answer in a proper manner. I have limited information in my mind and english is not my first language
As far as I know a massacre kills indiscriminately while a genocide is a massacre that kills on intent of singling out for reasons that can go from nationality, religion, ethnicity and any other things that makes us "different". And is basically planned in advanced while a massacre might (or no) happened on the spot. So a genocide is basically a massacre but a massacre is not a genocide
In the case of srebenika, they enter in town (as in many others) looking for "turks" how they refered bosnian muslims. While they were fleeing as they knew what it was happening to other towns (raping, tourture, concentration camps and executed even with list names), they were ambushed and killed for the reason of being different
Again, massacre is just killing for killing as you are perceived as enemy, white, black, muslim, christian...it doesn't matter. Genocide is planned to single out who you want to kill
Srebenica and ethnic cleansing/genocide was proven planned to kill the bosnian mulsims
But please, someone that has a better command of english and definitely better working than me, please correct me and/or put it in better words
Srebrenica 8,000? Is it a number game to you?
No, it is not game of numbers. There is no threshold. Srebrenica is an example. I fully agree that for something to be called genocide, you dont have to kill every single person. Or even try to. It is the question of intent. And no, some stupid comments from idiots like Ben gvir does not constitute an intent. There has to be a clear line of longterm systematic governmental policy of this aim. And here I guess, the opinions will differ.
Two questions. Firstly, what do you suggest as the threshold for genocide?
And secondly, do you accept Israel is at the very least heading towards a policy of ethnic cleansing?
You might be right. But he also mentioned statistics, so I provided some.
Thanks. Your post was clear to me anyway regardless of your English.