rule
rule
rule
More people should get genocided. It let's you get away with anything
IDK, but it shouldn't be "Genocide or be gencided".
If you are not getting genocided you are probably genociding right now!
It actually isn't.
We used to have swastikas on tanks. Now everyone hates swastikas. If they keep putting the star of David on tanks, people are gonna hate that one too
... you know about antisemites right? Are you dumb?
You don't have to be racist against Germans to hate the swastika. The same may soon apply to the Star of David.
Whoosh.
Human only respect ultraviolence. That's why every country should have nuclear arms.
Muslims didn't do the holocaust. That was Romans. Romans have been persecuting Jews for so long it's the plot of the Bible.
pisses me off so bad when people are like “the jews and the muslims have been fighting for centuries 🥺” bitch NO ur thinking of the “christian” europeans
'Would you rather be a face being stomped by a boot or a boot stomping in a face'
I'd rather be neither though
Oppressed often fantasizes with becoming the oppressor. Growing out of that desire is true humanity.
Not to agree with the other commenter leaping right to fallacies... I feel like I know how you meant it, but it's important to avoid dehumanizing people - yeah even repulsive war criminals and bigots.
Not to police phrasing in the middle of a genocide. It's just we sometimes have legit bigots or bad actors wading into these threads and trying to muddy the waters.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
Lots of humans are petty abusers
But those aren't TRUE humans
Are you just conditioned to say that when you see the word true? This isn't a No True Scotsman scenario because the claim isn't that "all oppressed humans grow past a desire to become the oppressor" at all, it's saying that people that do are morally good. The post is about someone viewing the world as having oppressors and the oppressed and nothing in between (would rather have a symbol on a tank than a concentration camp prisoner's uniform). So saying "Growing out of that desire is true humanity." is describing what the commenter views as good traits for humans.
No True Scotsman fallacy is this,
It has to do with excluding people from a group. The commenter is clearly not trying to say people with this belief aren't humans, moreover they wouldn't have any need to do so because they're not trying to defend a point they made against someone pointing out some humans do that (because they never said it was a requisite for being a human).
Oppressed here, had to grow out from my wanting to be the oppressor phase.
I'm glad we're all agreed that putting religious symbols on war machines is some weirdo theofash shit, Europe.
will always hold my hot take that Christianity’s greatest marketing-optics failure was that one time Constantine put the cross symbol on his shield
idk if he was the first one to hit that vibe but the trend it set off is one of humanity’s greatest blights
I maintain it was John the Baptist, who was an Apocalyptic Jew, convincing The Christ that the Apocalypse was definitely going to happen within the next century or two. Despite the fact that Apocalyptic Jews has been expecting the end of the world for almost 3000 years at that point.
Constantine put the cross symbol on his shield
AfaIk, it wasn't the cross, but the PX symbol.
Agreed and it still amazes me how much of all of history is affected by something that small
“The only way to not be exterminated is to exterminate”… chilling
I was thinking it probably means that "the only way for us to prevent Holocaust ever happening again is strong defence" not so much that "we need to roll tanks into Gaza" type of thing
This is essentially the Zionist stance.
It started with a view that 'in order for Jews to escape persecution, an ethnostate for the Jewish faith must be established'. During this time it was still in contention within the movement on where Zion should be established, but it's also noteable that independant zionist groups were buying land in Palestine for establishing Zion at the same time. This was during the time that Palestinians (and Arabs within the Ottoman empire in general) were helping the British with destabilizing the Ottoman empire under the agreement that these resistance groups would be given their land back from the Ottomans.
Then the Balfour Declaration occurred in 1917 which promised British support in making Palestine a safehaven for Jews, and shortly after the promise of giving Palestinians their land was reevaluated.
As tensions and conflict arose between the well-funded Zionist collective growing in Palestine and the Palestinian forces who wanted the Zionist project out of Palestine, a new tone ended up showing up in Zionist literature. A noteable essay, 'The Iron Wall' by Ze'ev Jabotinsky communicates that shift fairly well.
Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.
Essentially Ze'ev concludes in his essay that the Zionist project will fail unless it takes on a fully colonialist design. This was also just after Winston Churchill prohibited Zionists from settling on the East side of the Jordan River in 1923.
These are mostly snippets of the whole history, but it is essentially the trajectory we've followed since, from what I've read.
"if we want to survive as a people, we must exterminate them, or else they will exterminate us"
a common excuse for genocide, as well as Literally Nazi Propaganda
Literally what the Nazis said, btw
Turns out fascism is the same no matter who’s perpetrating. :/
Cycle of abuse mentality.
israel probably has concentration camp uniforms ready to go too so...
defensive ethnic cleansing
people often forget that “self defense” narratives like this was hitler’s excuse for institutionalizing antisemitism. he literally fed the flames of the racist narrative that jewish people were to blame for germany’s economic woes in order to get support.
like this isn’t godwins law this is literally what hitler did
"True safety lies in the extermination of others."
I mean... weapons can be built for self-defense. Obviously, genocide is what's happening here, not self-defense. But it's not like there couldn't be some alternate universe where ✡ on a tank is not inherently bad.
Kind of an odd post.
I think we can trust everyone involved to know exactly what the question meant and what the reply means.
If he would think in your categories he could have answered something like "I would be happy if it wouldn't be needed." Or reply back with "In which context?" or something.
He immediately jumped to making it "its either tanks or holocaust for us."
I guess I dislike this post because Zionists usually phrase Israeli's actions in terms of self-defense. So to people who are already anti-zionist, this post is interpretable; but to pro-zionists, it is at best nonsensical or at worst hateful. Either way -- it's polarizing.
Just seems like the way we should be not using social media.
Even then, I think religious symbols being national symbols and therefore on national flags and tanks is inherently bad.
I think, in western media at least, that the tank is rarely used as an image of defence. A tank’s artillery is not personal or protective, it obliterates its targets from a distance. Its treads allow it to travel in terrain that has been decimated by war. The image of a tank ominously rolling over rubble and bodies in a war zone is contractually obliged to be in every war movie.
The heavy armour on a tank is perhaps its only ‘defensive’ trait, but it only exists to let the men inside blow things up for as long as possible.
It’s an all terrain cannon, and a country owning a fleet of them requires their neighbours to also invest in a fleet of them, just in case. This then causes their neighbours to invest in more tanks just to be extra ‘safe’
Unfortunately humans haven't evolved from vilifying other groups of humans. What a shitty species we’ve demonstrated ourselves to be.
Yes, based on the history of Jews for several centuries. Either Jews are attacking or are under attack.
The Qur'an says Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all people of the book, and that they can all live in peace together. Muslims have generally not subjected Jews to the same persecution that Christians have.
Or in other words, just because white people are racist, doesn't mean brown people are too.
Brown people aren't racist?
Can't wait to see how people justify it when Israel attacks Indonesia.
Jews lived mostly peaceful and Jewish communities were often thriving in Muslim majority countries. Things usually got bad when the "white European" Christians came, like during the crusades or the conquest of the Iberian peninsula. The same people whose descendants now want to blame their Antisemitism on Muslims and solve their Antisemitism by having "the Jews" live outside of their European home countries.
this is such a bad take i can’t even tell if you’re zionist or antisemitic
schrodingers bad take on the middle east
bs false dichotomy, as IDF are wearing that sign in the concentration camps they made to kill Palestinians.