[-] ThePerfectLink@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Yah I mean, if your narrow understanding of what war is is Trumpets trying to take over the white house than yah, I guess one would hate the idea of using violence for the greater good.

[-] ThePerfectLink@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Still, that sort of sacrifice should be expected if you want to make changes in your country (the US)

[-] ThePerfectLink@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Lol. Us vs them mentality has stretched back since the beginning of the homo genus... probably before that. Racism is just an extension of that but with larger communities. It's more accurate to say "The Christian Nationalist Views of Inferior People have Roots Stemming from the Concept of Race". Which is kinda obvious and doesn't make much of a headline.

[-] ThePerfectLink@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I can't see how relying on the preference from North Korea could possibly help one's election campaign.

[-] ThePerfectLink@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I hate pacifists, man. They always try to publicly shame you by making it seem like violence is never justified... stupid deontological thinking

[-] ThePerfectLink@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

While I'm sure there would be a net positive, it's also a completely absurd hypothetical. To get rid of hateful and rightwing propaganda networks, you'd have to completely change the political donor system in the US. You'd have to change the political landscape, you'd have to change the population, the rules on election and numerous other things.

You can't just get rid of something that's so beneficial to those in power. You have to completely remove that power in its entirety.

[-] ThePerfectLink@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

What are you talking about dude? Have you read anything regarding the shooter?

[-] ThePerfectLink@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Need a source on that or I'll just assume you're lying through your teeth. As literally every major news outlet is reporting he made that donation

[-] ThePerfectLink@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I'm curious as to which side I was taking before I submitted this discussion. Because I think it's quite clear that I simply thought this was just another battle in the middle east sparked by land and racial tensions, and despite one side being much better equipped for extermination than the other, it wasn't particularly notable. My language doesn't feel pro Hamas, maybe It could be seen as pro Israeli because of that though. But I feel like that's exactly what everyone in this thread has been pointing out, that there aren't just two sides, and people aren't picking between Israel and Hamas (or even Palestine for that matter).

Heck I'm not even arguing with anyone here except you, so what do you think I could possibly be trying to achieve? Let me remind you the community we're currently discussing this in is !outoftheloop@lemmy.world .

[-] ThePerfectLink@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Ah, I see. Given those numbers it's pretty clear that Isreal is pretty much going scorched earth when it comes to Gaza. Good to know, thank you. I had just assumed the damages to infrastructure weren't as extensive as they were.

Edit: I also hadn't known about the active blocking of humanitarian aid, so that alongside some of those numbers really speaks volumes.

Edit 2: also no need to apologize, I mean I'm the one asking all the questions and you're graciously taking your time to answer them. The fact that you're splitting them makes sense to me. You've overall been very helpful and I can imagine that anyone that stumbles across this entire thread will likely also leave equally as informed as I have after reading most of it.

Alright, some of the side taking makes sense to me now.

62

I feel like I've been kind of in the loop for most of the headlines regarding this confrontation. Yet somehow I can't find it within myself to actually care about either side. It seems like both are lead by genocidal parties, hell bent on indoctrinating their populace into hating the other side. Yet at the same time people are able to discern which state is the good one. And some going so far as to believe that one state might even be right over the other.

So far from what I've read and heard, it seems that overall Isreal is just more successful militarily and is encroaching on Palestinian land, and is exhibiting control over some of it. Is that the reason why one might support Palestine? Is it the fact that Isreal has more direct power in the region and thus can easily execute its will a problematic issue for some? From what I can see, both sides have caused massive civilian casualties and neither side wants a two state solution, so neither of those reasons can be a contributing factor to side picking, right? That being said, I can't find a reason for supporting Isreal, so does Palestine win out by default? But what of the people that support Isreal, do they do that purely because they're an American ally? Is any of this side taking have anything to do with the insertion of Jews into the region? What is expected to be done outside of a two state solution or genocide by those taking sides?

I have a lot of questions, and I obviously don't expect all of them to be answered in a single post. So maybe focusing on the elements you're highly informed on would be helpful and then I can kind of piece together the details. Thank you in advance!

view more: next ›

ThePerfectLink

joined 6 months ago