And now it has escalated to Final Solution levels
The Kids are All Right
- Thread starter Phoenixmgs
- Start date
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,317
- 4,126
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
That would make more sense if the population of Palestine wasn't growing year after year. You can't really have population growth in the middle of e "genocide" or ethnic "cleansing."
Ugh, my bad, not the huthies, I meant the Hutu.
No its not.
nowhere in the definitions of genocide or ethnic cleansing are there stipulations about or references to the rate of population growth.
Last edited:
Yes, you absolutely can, because ethnic cleansing is geographic. The population of the entirety of Palestine may have been growing year on year before 2024, but not the areas under active settler encroachment; there Palestinians have been systematically expelled until only settlers are able to live and work there. Palestinians are often unable to even approach or enter such territory. That territory has been subject to ethnic cleansing.
Secondly, since the assault began, Gaza's population has dropped by 160,000 (~6%).
OK. Firstly, the Rwandan genocide was not primarily carried out with machetes; most of the death toll was down to army units with guns and bulldozers.
Secondly, the Rwandan genocide was perpetrated by a government on its own citizens within its own territory. They were usually the sole authority in each area (until territory was taken by the RPF well into the timeline). The gov were not attempting to reach into territory they did not govern to carry it out, as the IDF is. That obviously makes a massive difference in capability.
Thirdly, what point are you even trying to make with this anyway...? What's happening isn't as huge as one of the worst genocides in modern history, so therefore it cannot be ethnic cleansing? What?
Joe Rogan? He did the exact same thing that you accuse us of and look how that turned out. The ass has fallen out
Rowling is a has been. Who cares what she says. Now, here's the lie that you're spinning. Rowling went out and insulted people First. So other people insulted back.
It's not about being nice. It's about you not holding people you approve of to the same standard as you do us
Like you always do
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,317
- 4,126
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
You haven't proven anything that can't just be explained by this is war. The settlers should have been kicked to the curb immediately, that shit should not have been allowed to fly.
That's not what I've read, but regardless it would still prove my point. Guns and Bulldozers should be slower then bombs and artillery. Especially with how dense the population is in Gaza.
Territory in this case doesn't matter since Gaza and the West Bank are right up against Israel and the geographic size is smaller then Rwanda. Would be easy and quick to fly bombers over or for big artillery strikes to kill tens of thousands.
The point of the paragraph to which you're responding here wasn't to "prove" anything; it was to show that your own objection ("you cannot have ethnic cleansing with overall population growth") was baseless. I've done that.
Territory matters enormously, and to doubt that shows ignorance. Any campaign by a government against its own citizenry unopposed, in an area it itself governs, is going to have greater capability than a campaign into territory they do not control, held by an opposing force. That should be obvious.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,317
- 4,126
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
We are talking about two different things here. I'm talking about territory geographically and how distances and such would affect a military operation. Israel striking Gaza or the West Bank would be very easy because of proximity.
Regardless of how you try to cut it, no serious person can dispute that an unopposed government will have greater capacity to carry out repression and killings against its own civilians in its own territory than any outside force attempting to do so in an area controlled by an opposing force. That should be blindingly obvious.
This is an irrelevant distraction anyway. It's not as great in scale as one of the worst genocides in modern history, so you believe it therefore cannot qualify as ethnic cleansing...? What sort of utter nonsense is that?
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,317
- 4,126
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Ehh, kinda but there are plenty of instances in history where an outside force managed it just fine.
Doesn't have to be the same level, but considering the population of Gaza is just over 2 million and the population density is like 15k per square mile. I would expect so much more death if Israel was actually going for a genocide.
They have been pushing their impunity quite hard, but it is difficult for them to know just how hard they can push it without triggering a nightmare scenario for themselves in which they lose the diplomatic support of the United States and United Kingdom and Germany and others and suddenly they're faced with a decision concerning whether to launch their nukes and go out with a bang or flee their tumorous settler colony.
So what? Were they in exactly the same situation as Israel and Palestine, same international context, same variables and pressures, domestic and international? This sort of comparative approach-- "if worse has been done elsewhere, this can't be ethnic cleansing" -- is a complete distraction and a logical dead-end.
Then your expectations don't match reality.
IDF capability is somewhat restrained by two factors: 1) they know that if they push too hard or too fast, they risk undermining their international support; and 2) active armed resistance.
Taking these factors into account, what they've managed to pull off nonetheless is of immense magnitude.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,317
- 4,126
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
That just points to it not being a genocide. They already lost a lot of international support and pretty much said "fuck you" we aren't stopping, but we still don't see huge death numbers if they really wanted to kill a ton of people.
I'm not sure who you are arguing with here, but it doesn't seem to be a response to me.
The democratic party massively panders to the far left in things that don't really matter like identity politics. Sure, the democrats aren't for like any major changes on economic issues or healthcare.
Did you not see how the Democratic National Committee held Party Officer Elections? It was essentially a South Park episode about virtue signalling. Literally no one wants this bullshit.
I'm not a Joe Rogan listener or watcher really (I probably click on a couple 10 min videos a month on Youtube from his show). Maybe once a year, I'll listen to a whole podcast if he has someone on that really interests me. I've never really seen Rogan tell people how wrong they are and he usually has an open mind on things and will even look things up during a conversation to make sure he's remembering something right.
Rowling got attacked for LIKING A POST... She definitely speaks her mind far more than most celebrities but she didn't start it. You say "who cares what she says" and my response is exactly, why did people ever care what she says to begin with, I didn't and I don't now either. You literally had people making a list of streamers that played the Harry Potter game. What the fuck is wrong with these people? And now every review of something Harry Potter related has to have some bullshit disclaimer like even thebobmaster from this forum did for the recent review of the Chamber of Secrets.
It's been a while since I reviewed the first movie, so I feel I need to make the same disclaimer I made there. Anything I say about this movie has nothing to do with my views of J.K. Rowling or her very upsetting beliefs. I am judging this movie as a movie, nothing more or less.
A ★★½ review of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
"Follow the spiders? Why couldn't it be follow the butterflies?" It's been a while since I reviewed the first movie, so I feel I need to make the same disclaimer I made there. Anything I say about this movie has nothing to do with my views of J.K. Rowling or her very upsetting beliefs. I am...
letterboxd.com
They would like to be seen to be onboard with them, but that mostly boils down to not opposing them too much and paying lip service, rather than definitely promoting them in a meaningful way.
They lost a lot of international support... but not practical support from their primary backers. The weapons still flow.
Oh, it's definitely you, don't worry. It's you that chose to argue that if worse stuff happened elsewhere, therefore it cannot be ethnic cleansing. I'm responding on what complete bollocks that is.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,317
- 4,126
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
If they lost weapon support from their primary packers they would just get it from russia or china. Not like the US is the only weapons manufacturer.
I don't recall saying that, are you sure you don't have a mouse on your head?