4 ms·

> A war can itself contain a genocide, and one would argue that's the norm. Nonsense. Plenty of wars have no genocide component at all. For example, Russia vs

> A war can itself contain a genocide, and one would argue that's the norm. Nonsense. Plenty of wars have no genocide component at all. For example, Russia vs Georgia in 2008. > Israel has made it clear that the existence of Palestinians in Palestine is what they are fighting against. This is new. If this is the goal, then why leave Gaza in 2005 in the first place? > That's a genocide by every definition I've ever seen Palestinians also claim that want all the land to themselves. Are they committing genocide too? Genocide has very specific definition, and it’s different from yours. > several people high in Israel's government are quite open about that fact, too Politicians? Politicians talk all the time, so? If every claim made by politicians became reality, we all would live in a perfect world, and all the problems would be solved (I mean, that is what always promised before the elections).

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
> Nonsense. Plenty of wars have no genocide component at all. It's the norm that a genocides occur during wars. Are you going to be this obtuse through this whole comment? > This is new. If this is the goal, then why leave Gaza in 2005 in the first place? I don't pretend to understand the political calculations done by mass murderers, aspirant or otherwise. That said it's no secret that there's been a surge in right-wing politics all over the world. Perhaps 2024 was more amenable in the minds of those in charge than 2005 was. I don't know and am not particularly interested. > Palestinians also claim that want all the land to themselves. Are they committing genocide too? The Palestinians who live in Palestine and want to remain living and in Palestine? Those Palestinians? No they are not committing a genocide. > Genocide has very specific definition, and it’s different from yours. From the UN: https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition > Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Think you could argue a solid case for all five. Certainly the first three. > Politicians? Politicians talk all the time, so? I mean there's also the bombed hospitals and piles of dead kids, the words of the IDF on the ground, rampant social media posts from Israeli's, if you don't strictly want to go by the words of Israel's leaders, the definition provided by the UN, the definition in common understanding... Like, to be clear, whether you want to call it a genocide or simply an international power abusing it's close ties to the West to obliterate a neighbor with the express purpose of colonizing their land, I think that's pretty fucking bad too, and am equally opposed to it.
- reliabilityguy 1y ago
  > It's the norm that a genocides occur during wars. Are you going to be this obtuse through this whole comment? The initial argument was that genocide and war are two distinct things. Saying “genocide normally happens during war” does not mean that every war leads to a genocide. If you are arguing that this is the case, then prove it. > I don't pretend to understand the political calculations done by mass murderers, aspirant or otherwise. That said it's no secret that there's been a surge in right-wing politics all over the world. Perhaps 2024 was more amenable in the minds of those in charge than 2005 was. I don't know and am not particularly interested. If you don’t want to understand why things happen, then it seems that this issue is like a religion to you. > From the UN: https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition Why did you omit the key word (intent) though? > I mean there's also the bombed hospitals and piles of dead kids, the words of the IDF on the ground, rampant social media posts from Israeli's, if you don't strictly want to go by the words of Israel's leaders, the definition provided by the UN, the definition in common understanding... > Like, to be clear, whether you want to call it a genocide or simply an international power abusing it's close ties to the West to obliterate a neighbor with the express purpose of colonizing their land, I think that's pretty fucking bad too, and am equally opposed to it. Can you show me a war without bombed hospitals and/or dead civilians? Civilian infrastructure, if used for military purposes looses its protections during war. So, to claim that the hospital was bombed just for the sake of it, you would have to prove that there was no military activity whatsoever in it. Yes, social media is like 100% reliable source. Did elections of 2016 thought you nothing? > colonizing their land Are you American? Non-white in Europe? Congrats, you are a colonizer! Israelis at least may claim some sort of belonging to the land, you can’t.
  - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
    > The initial argument was that genocide and war are two distinct things. Saying “genocide normally happens during war” does not mean that every war leads to a genocide. Genocide and war are two distinct things. One is not required for the other, hence saying: the norm is a genocide is contained within a war. A norm is not a requirement or a fact of any sort. I even went on to cite a genocide that did not, in fact, occur during a war. I don't see how this is being misunderstood. > If you don’t want to understand why things happen, then it seems that this issue is like a religion to you. I mean, I understand why it's happening. Israel wants some combination of Palestinian territory and/or dead Palestinians. That much is evident by their actions. The intricacies of their motivations aren't really something I care about. That doesn't make my desire to not see a pile of dead Palestinians "like a religion" and I have no idea what on earth this line of argument could possibly be driving at. > Why did you omit the key word (intent) though? Because their intent is unknowable, unless you've a mind-reading machine in your back pocket. I would argue they intend to genocide Palestinians, and to make that argument I would cite what I already have. You are unconvinced. I then go on to say: even if we grant that it's not intended genocide, merely Israel desiring territory it is not entitled to, that's still horrific and still completely worthy of condemnation. > Civilian infrastructure, if used for military purposes looses its protections during war. So, to claim that the hospital was bombed just for the sake of it, you would have to prove that there was no military activity whatsoever in it. Yes and I'm sure Israel would be the first to tell you that all 427 instances of them attacking healthcare facilities were justified because of military activity within them, them notably being a rather biased source to ask since they, you know, would be directly admitting to committing war crimes if they said literally anything short of that. I'm sure the Reich would've also said, equally full-throatedly, that Jews, Romani, homosexuals etc. were all a dire, ever present threat to Nazi Germany, and if you believe that too, I have a bridge to sell you. > Are you American? Non-white in Europe? Congrats, you are a colonizer! Sure am. Doesn't change a thing about the arguments I'm making. "AHA! Then you have benefitt-" Yes, I have, and if some time in the future when we have a more progressive leadership I am asked to give up an amount of my wealth, my land, hell, my ability to live here so as to create a more equitable world, I will do that. And yes, were I present during Nazi Germany, I would've said the same things I'm saying now. I wasn't alive then, nor during the colonial era, nor during any other time of mass human atrocity that is now factually human atrocity because it's far enough in the rear view mirror that the Powers That Be are comfortable with it being called that. But I AM alive and present during THIS ONE, which is why I'm out here saying: Yeah that sure as fuck looks like a genocide to me. And I'm going to keep saying it.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago

> Nonsense. Plenty of wars have no genocide component at all. It's the norm that a genocides occur during wars. Are you going to be this obtuse through this whole comment? > This is new. If this is the goal, then why leave Gaza in 2005 in the first place? I don't pretend to understand the political calculations done by mass murderers, aspirant or otherwise. That said it's no secret that there's been a surge in right-wing politics all over the world. Perhaps 2024 was more amenable in the minds of those in charge than 2005 was. I don't know and am not particularly interested. > Palestinians also claim that want all the land to themselves. Are they committing genocide too? The Palestinians who live in Palestine and want to remain living and in Palestine? Those Palestinians? No they are not committing a genocide. > Genocide has very specific definition, and it’s different from yours. From the UN: https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition > Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Think you could argue a solid case for all five. Certainly the first three. > Politicians? Politicians talk all the time, so? I mean there's also the bombed hospitals and piles of dead kids, the words of the IDF on the ground, rampant social media posts from Israeli's, if you don't strictly want to go by the words of Israel's leaders, the definition provided by the UN, the definition in common understanding... Like, to be clear, whether you want to call it a genocide or simply an international power abusing it's close ties to the West to obliterate a neighbor with the express purpose of colonizing their land, I think that's pretty fucking bad too, and am equally opposed to it.

reliabilityguy 1y ago
> It's the norm that a genocides occur during wars. Are you going to be this obtuse through this whole comment? The initial argument was that genocide and war are two distinct things. Saying “genocide normally happens during war” does not mean that every war leads to a genocide. If you are arguing that this is the case, then prove it. > I don't pretend to understand the political calculations done by mass murderers, aspirant or otherwise. That said it's no secret that there's been a surge in right-wing politics all over the world. Perhaps 2024 was more amenable in the minds of those in charge than 2005 was. I don't know and am not particularly interested. If you don’t want to understand why things happen, then it seems that this issue is like a religion to you. > From the UN: https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition Why did you omit the key word (intent) though? > I mean there's also the bombed hospitals and piles of dead kids, the words of the IDF on the ground, rampant social media posts from Israeli's, if you don't strictly want to go by the words of Israel's leaders, the definition provided by the UN, the definition in common understanding... > Like, to be clear, whether you want to call it a genocide or simply an international power abusing it's close ties to the West to obliterate a neighbor with the express purpose of colonizing their land, I think that's pretty fucking bad too, and am equally opposed to it. Can you show me a war without bombed hospitals and/or dead civilians? Civilian infrastructure, if used for military purposes looses its protections during war. So, to claim that the hospital was bombed just for the sake of it, you would have to prove that there was no military activity whatsoever in it. Yes, social media is like 100% reliable source. Did elections of 2016 thought you nothing? > colonizing their land Are you American? Non-white in Europe? Congrats, you are a colonizer! Israelis at least may claim some sort of belonging to the land, you can’t.
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago
  > The initial argument was that genocide and war are two distinct things. Saying “genocide normally happens during war” does not mean that every war leads to a genocide. Genocide and war are two distinct things. One is not required for the other, hence saying: the norm is a genocide is contained within a war. A norm is not a requirement or a fact of any sort. I even went on to cite a genocide that did not, in fact, occur during a war. I don't see how this is being misunderstood. > If you don’t want to understand why things happen, then it seems that this issue is like a religion to you. I mean, I understand why it's happening. Israel wants some combination of Palestinian territory and/or dead Palestinians. That much is evident by their actions. The intricacies of their motivations aren't really something I care about. That doesn't make my desire to not see a pile of dead Palestinians "like a religion" and I have no idea what on earth this line of argument could possibly be driving at. > Why did you omit the key word (intent) though? Because their intent is unknowable, unless you've a mind-reading machine in your back pocket. I would argue they intend to genocide Palestinians, and to make that argument I would cite what I already have. You are unconvinced. I then go on to say: even if we grant that it's not intended genocide, merely Israel desiring territory it is not entitled to, that's still horrific and still completely worthy of condemnation. > Civilian infrastructure, if used for military purposes looses its protections during war. So, to claim that the hospital was bombed just for the sake of it, you would have to prove that there was no military activity whatsoever in it. Yes and I'm sure Israel would be the first to tell you that all 427 instances of them attacking healthcare facilities were justified because of military activity within them, them notably being a rather biased source to ask since they, you know, would be directly admitting to committing war crimes if they said literally anything short of that. I'm sure the Reich would've also said, equally full-throatedly, that Jews, Romani, homosexuals etc. were all a dire, ever present threat to Nazi Germany, and if you believe that too, I have a bridge to sell you. > Are you American? Non-white in Europe? Congrats, you are a colonizer! Sure am. Doesn't change a thing about the arguments I'm making. "AHA! Then you have benefitt-" Yes, I have, and if some time in the future when we have a more progressive leadership I am asked to give up an amount of my wealth, my land, hell, my ability to live here so as to create a more equitable world, I will do that. And yes, were I present during Nazi Germany, I would've said the same things I'm saying now. I wasn't alive then, nor during the colonial era, nor during any other time of mass human atrocity that is now factually human atrocity because it's far enough in the rear view mirror that the Powers That Be are comfortable with it being called that. But I AM alive and present during THIS ONE, which is why I'm out here saying: Yeah that sure as fuck looks like a genocide to me. And I'm going to keep saying it.