861–870 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hah, check out this video on "Egon Cholakain", in regards to fake online personalities. I promise you this is actually a good rabbit hole. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zLCZ_Ic1hI
WTH did I just watch. That’s extremely weird
I rolled my eyes when I first saw the title, but damn it was a bit of a rabbit hole.
They jumped the shark. You can't openly bomb a bunch of women and children into the dirt, on a daily basis for months and years, and smooth it over with some think tank articles. Might have worked 20 years ago, but not now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If continuous presence in a land doesn't define a people's right to exist as a nation, you know what does? You're playing a deliberate sleight of hand here. A tiny number of Jews lived as a small minority in Palestine, therefore Jews were always there, therefore European Jews have the right to turn Palestine into a Jewish state. The "continuous presence" was tiny, and had nothing to do with the millions of Jews who…
Albert Einstein legally traveled to British Mandate Palestine in 1923 to help set up the Hebrew University - on land that was legally purchased. While some Arabs (and Jews) were displaced during the War of independence, most of Israel’s cities are built on land that was legally purchased, and the vast majority of Israelis immigrated legally. Making it sound like all of the land was stolen because some Jews immigrated…
You're claiming that visiting once made him native to Palestine? He was a German. That was his native language, his culture, the world he grew up in.
> Making it sound like all of the land was stolen because some Jews immigrated from Europe is like saying that Muslim migrants are stealing European land.
Have Muslim immigrants to Europe established their own country through the mass expulsion of the pre-existing European population?
The Zionists weren't just immigrants to Palestine. They openly declared that their goal was to turn Palestine into their own country.
> most of Israel’s cities are built on land that was legally purchased
This is simply untrue. The vast majority of what became Israel was conquered, and the local population was expelled. Haifa, Jaffa, Nazareth, Ramle, Lod, Be'er Sheva, Ashdod - these were all Arab cities that Israel conquered.
> the vast majority of Israelis immigrated legally
They arrived under British rule, when the native population of Palestine had virtually no say in its own governance. The native population deeply resented the British promising Palestine to a foreign people, and allowing them to come in and build up their own settlements and quasi-governmental institutions. The Palestinians knew exactly what the intentions of the Zionist movement were, and they obviously opposed it, as any people in their situation would have done. So yes, much of the Zionist immigration was "legal" according to the British, but the British were illegitimate colonial occupiers who were pursuing a policy that was almost universally opposed by the native population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care what they built. If you want to fight them, man up and go get them! US forces did this in Iraq. Let's see gods chosen people be so brave.
> I don't care what they built. If you want to fight them, man up and go get them! US forces did this in Iraq. Let's see gods chosen people be so brave. It's a war, military strategy doesn't tend to put much emphasis on making wars a fair fight. Israel isn't under any obligation to go out of their way to preserve structures built on top of military infrastructure(i.e. tunnels). There were certainly not tunnel network…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Defending your home and against genocide is not "extremism". The Nakba is not genocide, it might be considered ethnic cleansing but that's not remotely the same as genocide. It also wasn't just one side doing ethnic cleansing either, Israel has a large Arab minority population with full citizenship while the same is not true for Jews in other Arab countries or Palestinian controlled territories(i.e. Area A in the w…
> The Nakba is not genocide, it might be considered ethnic cleansing but that's not remotely the same as genocide It was absolutely an ethnic cleansing and the killing never stopped. Israel has been murdering Palestinians (and it's Arab neighbors), since its inception. All of the things you're saying have been said by Zionists a million times, and presumably are being pumped out by the think tank in the OP to flood t…
Sure, but it wasn't just one side losing homes.
> the killing never stopped
There never was a final peace deal and only Israel ever made concrete final settlement offers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't care what they built. If you want to fight them, man up and go get them! US forces did this in Iraq. Let's see gods chosen people be so brave. It's a war, military strategy doesn't tend to put much emphasis on making wars a fair fight. Israel isn't under any obligation to go out of their way to preserve structures built on top of military infrastructure(i.e. tunnels). There were certainly not tunnel network…
Tunnel networks are not a reason to bomb civilian apartments. Let's arm both sides equally if you want to talk about a war. What would happen in a equal fight, do you think?
According the laws of war military infrastructure(i.e. tunnels) is a valid reason.
> Let's arm both sides equally if you want to talk about a war.
Nobody at war wants the fight to be fair, they will always want to be on the winning side.
> What would happen in a equal fight, do you think?
If a fight were truly equal then neither side would win, so I guess if it were equal then the conflict would be even more endless since neither side would win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We will repeat oct 7 over and over until Isreal is destroyed" and Hamad still supports that statement and maintains that Oct 7th was good and violence against Isreal is always justified.
Yes October 7th came out of nowhere and for no reason but TERRORISTS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both of their legal teams utilized bots to drive online discussions[1][2] Neither of these sources support this claim as none of them include any discussion on Amber Heard('s legal team) using bots?
I'll be completely honest with you about what I believe: I think the the UK trial unequivocally proved that Johnny Depp is a violent and abusive. The US trial, which was only about defamation, was clearly a sham trial and did not address the legitimacy of the evidence (UK's case found clear evidence for 12 of the 14 alleged incidences of violence. It also established a clear pattern of abuse). Depp's behavior during…