941–950 of 989 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You appear to be supporting the mass murder of Jews.
So when I say myself and no one here supports any mass murder, you somehow conclude that I support mass murder. Brilliant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So when I say myself and no one here supports any mass murder, you somehow conclude that I support mass murder. Brilliant.
When someone is asked to stop being evil and their response is to deflect and then lie, we can conclude that they are gonna continue doing that evil thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this is propaganda. There's no way to substantiate this claim. 1. Israel blocks aid agencies besides their own from accessing gaza. This is undisputed fact. 2. All evidence from doctors and reporters on the ground suggests that people are starving. Videos of people rioting over food, also pretty solid evidence people are starving. 3. While it is possible “hamas” is stealing food and not sharing - this is a problem…
> Israel blocks aid agencies besides their own from accessing gaza. This is undisputed fact. You are who thinks this is a fact. But it isn't. The aid is being delivered to Gaza. A bunch of international organizations are there, cooking meals, distributing supplies etc. Not only Israeli agencies participate in aid delivery. For example WCK is still there. Israel, legitimately, doesn't allow aid from organizations that…
Right, not like how you mindfully repeat “facts” sourced directly to the idf - a notoriously unbiased and honest source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Numbers 24:9 is the verse that states that those who support and help Israel will be blessed and those that curse it cursed.
Numbers 24:9 (and Genesis 12:3) were about ancient Israel, but Paul reinterprets them in Galatians 3:16. The true “seed of Abraham” is Christ, and the promise applies to those in Him: Christians, not Jews. There’s no biblical mandate to support modern Israel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The (arguably) relevant metric is population change during a purported genocide, not afterward.
If a definition of genocide is sensitive to where we mark the start and end of the genocide, then it isn't a very good definition of genocide. We can do the same thing with area: suppose some ethnic group was being genocided in a particular region, but overall population growth of that group was positive. Does that make it no longer a genocide? Clearly not.
I think most people claiming a genocide is occurring are using a broad scope, like the conflict in Gaza since Oct 7 (if not something even broader), so it seems appropriate to look at the population change within that time period.
OTOH noone is claiming a genocide of Jews occurred from 1933-2025, so it wouldn't make sense to look at population change for that entire period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Please don't make generalizations based on religion or culture. Please also make an effort to follow the guidelines, in particular these ones:
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
[flagged]
Please don't introduce religion-based flamebait like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I misunderstand your position. Are you ok with children starving to death in Gaza for any reason?
[flagged]
"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."
That's all there is to it - pure propaganda. No data, no evidence, no science, just pure, unadulterated propaganda from half a century ago, still very much alive and kicking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I refuse to get into the weeds because I reject your premise. Occam's Razor would indicate that you have made an unsubstantiated claim that you cannot justify and have been deflecting, desperately. Starting discussions in bad faith, is not constructive.
Occam's Razor based on your priors.
More deflection. Case in point.