3 ms·
You say this as if the side you're advocating for didn't start the war by killing over a thousand civilians. Just in general, asserting that everyone will agre
by lingrush4 9mo ago
You say this as if the side you're advocating for didn't start the war by killing over a thousand civilians.
Just in general, asserting that everyone will agree with your side in the future is such a bizarre rhetorical tactic. Do you honestly think this convinces anybody to reconsider their position?
- siltcakes 9mo agoAll the violence in the region stems from the Zionist invasion, land theft and genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
- primitivesuave 9mo agoMy point equally applies to everyone who condones violence to achieve some end goal. Jeanette Rankin was vilified for her lone dissenting vote against war, yet decades later she is among the few of her contemporaries to have a statue in the Capitol to honor her dedication to pacifism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin
- kbelder 9mo agoSomething to keep in mind, though, was that she was clearly wrong.
- primitivesuave 9mo agoYou are effectively saying that the indiscriminate slaughter of the Japanese civilian population was justified, due to the actions of a few Japanese leaders. In my opinion, there is no justification for violence against civilians. Notice that we have a holiday for MLK, and Indians have a holiday to celebrate Gandhi. Something deep inside all of us knows that pacifism is “correct”.