Israel has been terrorising civilians since thie founding. Mass murder is the defining characteristic of the Israeli national identity.
25Fucking terrorist state. Can't wait for it to be abandoned by the U.S. and be torn apart as it deserves.
Note for pedantics: I'm talking about the state and its apparatuses, not the citizens of Jewish people. Similar to the distinction between Third Reich and German citizens of the time.
16Kindly remind me what happened to the "german citizens of the time" during the Third Reich?
-11They... A lot of them got drafted or volunteered to be a part of the larger German army? A lot of them didn't know about the heinous acts of the SS? What they knew about were propagandized about mostly moving the jewish population out of the country? Poles being liberated, same as we hear about "liberation" or bringing democracy these days? Most of them not even knowing about any extermination camps or such?
A lot of drafted/volunteered youth thinking it is about "the prosperity of the fatherland" got killed in the war? While I'm a proponent of not lauding the death of soldiers, I live in the real word where bullets can't be stopped by kind words, hugs, kisses or butterflies. So they kinda got what was needed to be done, maybe not what they deserved as their intentions weren't the ones of Nazis directly.
Rest of the civilian population? They suffered the consequences of bringing such an extreme nationalist party to power by their own votes and support, not by tyrannical power grab. And from what I see, Germans citizens are doing pretty well currently, after their fascist state has been torn apart and they got to see the outside of their propaganda bubble.
Kindly tell me which part of this sounds worse than the genocide that has been perpetuated in Palestine all these decades?
10Kindly remind me what happened to the “german citizens of the time” during the Third Reich?
They died by the millions right until the allies put a stop to the war their leaders started.
1
The entire operation in Gaza has been terrorism this entire time, much more than it is "war." That's why I tend to put the word in quotes whenever I am talking about it. If you stop and think for a second, "war" fits the description of what they're doing pretty badly overall.
Deliberate attempts to prevent food aid to put pressure on the civilian population, and specific destruction of important civilian targets like hospitals and universities, as well as the explicit linkage of an end to Israel's attacks with particular goals like removing Hamas or particular terms in the peace agreement, being key elements. A war against armed opponents that are part of an organized apparatus whether state-sponsored or otherwise would look very different from what Israel is doing.
14“war” fits the description of what they’re doing pretty badly overall.
I'm afraid not - as far as certain states are concerned, the slaughter of masses of civilians have pretty much always been what the term "war" means.
The firebombings of Hamburg and Tokyo are merely two examples on a laundry list of things that gets called "war" by the states that perpetrate them.
To a white supremacist settler-colonialist state like Israel, indiscriminately murdering masses of Palestinians with the push of a button isn't just "war" - it's glorious "war." When the other side shoots back, they don't call that war - they call that "terrorism." And they learned that trick from the imperialist states they also learned their white supremacism from.
0Dude. No.
The occupation after the war sure wasn’t pretty, but the allies didn’t hang around for 75 more years oppressing the shit out of Germany and going back in any time they felt like shooting some civilians, or wandering into somebody’s house and saying hey this one is mine now, or destroying water supplies just for the hell of it.
They didn’t kill around 10% of the civilian population of Japan over the course of less than a year after the war after any real military threat was ended, just because they felt like getting back at them for Pearl Harbor.
Yes, all countries commit atrocities in war. War is the process of atrocity. It’s an abomination. But not every way of going to war is the same, and what’s happening in Gaza is so different from “collateral damage” or bombing civilians in an actual military conflict, even an unequal one, that to describe it as such is basically apologia on behalf of Israel.
1
It's not an assault or an attack - it's a modern-day sacking.
The only modern history equivalents to this is the infamous "Rape Of Nanjing" and the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto.
7Using violence to achieve a political aim? Can someone help me answer this crossword question. It’s nine across.
5Z-i-o-n-i-s-m
2
I'll be the last man on Earth to defend Israel, but this is how wars have always been fought, breaking the will of the population. The Allies pounded Axis civilians and the North hammered Southern civilians.
At some point in past decades, the world decided that terrorizing civilians was off the board. Maybe it's because we can see the results with our own eyes? Israel didn't get the memo.
4During WWII, bombing civilians wasn't yet a war crime, but still frowned upon (Roosevelt wrote an appeal to stop it in September 1939 "Appeal to Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and Poland to Refrain from Air Bombing of Civilians").
It has been a war crime for ~80 years now, so no, Israel doesn't have an excuse. Especially since directly bombing civilians wasn't something generally practiced by the allies, with exceptions like Dresden, which while being for terrorising citizens, was also because of how important Dresden was for German infra.
Israel is indiscriminately bombing help convoys, hospitals, schools and everything with the guise of being at war with a vaguely defined terrorist organisation and not even the country they're bombing, per se.
At some point in past decades, the world decided that terrorizing civilians was off the board. Maybe it's because we can see the results with our own eyes?
People have been arguing against that since as long as wars have existed basically, but definitely after WWI and certainly after WWII when it was codified.
It's rather interesting, really.
3Especially since directly bombing civilians wasn’t something generally practiced by the allies
Bullcrap.
The mass-slaughter of civilians from the air became SOP for the allies by about 1943. The firebombings of cities like Dresden and Tokyo is still some of the most heinous mass-atrocities in modern history - if not all history. This secret is out of the bag - the (supposed) "military value" of these targets was secondary to the mass-slaughter of civilians - and the architects of these atrocities (like Curtis LeMay) wasn't shy about bragging about it, either.
And the US did even worse during the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
1
The bombing of Dresden which mainly targeted German civilians was one of the stupidest allied decisions in WW2 which only motivated the Germans to fight even harder.
Purely targeting civilians will only rally a population behind the armed resistance. Because armed resistance becomes the only option.
America has lost many a war from this.
2
Kind of like how Trump openly commits stochastic terrorism and the
crunchwrapsupreme court defends him giving him absolute immunity as if he were a king?1
