Do you see any difference at all between a) a willing perpetrator of genocide who intentionally murders members of a certain group because they are members of that group and b) a soldier in the opposing army who, in attacking that group, accidentally kills civilians of that group. — BitconnectCarlos
The killing of 8000 children isn’t accidental — they simply don’t care. They don’t care about Palestinian lives. That’s obvious in the rhetoric and the actions.
So ask yourself: what’s worse, someone who murders children and recognizes them as victims for some cause, or someone who murders children for some cause but who sees them as irrelevant statistics? — Mikie
There are way more than 1.6 million — Count Timothy von Icarus
Having justification, however, doesn't make the bad behavior good. — Ennui Elucidator
SOME RECENT AND ON-GOING WARS
Myanmar... around 15,000 killed in 2023 (around 200k since 1948)
Israel... around 30,000 +/- in 2023 (around 55,000 since 1948)
Sahel region... around 14,000 in 2023 (around 56,000 since 2002)
Russia-Ukrane.... between 30,000 and 90,000 in 2023 (around 200,000 since 2014)
Sudan... around 13,000 in current war
Columbia... around 2500 in 2023 (453,000 since 1964
Afghanistan... around 1000 in 2023 (between 1.5 and 2.5 million since 1978)
Somalia... around 9000 in 2023, (between 350,000 and 1 million since 1991)
DR of Congo... around 1400 in 2023 ((around 9,000 since 1996)
Nigeria... around 3,000 in 2023 (about 90,000 since 1998
Iraq... around 1,300 in 2023, (between 300k and 1.2 million since 2003)
DR of Congo & Rwanda... 2000 in 2023 (around 25,000 since 2004)
Mexican drug cartel wars... 6800 in 2023 (around 350,000 to 400,000 since 2006)
Sudanese Nomadic Conflicts... about 1240 in 2023 (around 300k to 400k since 2008)
Boko Haram insurgency... about 5,000 in 2023 (around 368,000 since 2009
(the list goes on and on)
What does this actually tell about the West itself? — ssu
Fact of the matter is even Jews are anti-semites because antisemtism is the consequence Judaism, a morality of hate and resentment which drives one into ressentiment. It popularized this formula. — Vaskane
Nietzsche felt that modern antisemitism was "despicable" and contrary to European ideals.[164] Its cause, in his opinion, was the growth in European nationalism and the endemic "jealousy and hatred" of Jewish success.[164] He wrote that Jews should be thanked for helping uphold a respect for the philosophies of ancient Greece,[164] and for giving rise to "the noblest human being (Christ), the purest philosopher (Baruch Spinoza), the mightiest book, and the most effective moral code in the world".[165] — RandomWiki
I'm a non religious atheist, you're an Islamaphobe with extreme prejudice who wants to assert fallacy to make a point. See how non prejudice works? — Vaskane
a morality of hate and resentment which drives one into ressentiment. It popularized this formula. — Vaskane
Deleuze on the Oedipal familial structure really shines some lights on the ugliness of the origins of the Judaic tradition. — Vaskane
The whole reason modern Zionism exists was to overcome the Judaic tradition. — Vaskane
implicates anti-Semitism starts with Judaism. — Vaskane
... ergo a fundamentalist ethnonational delusion; thus, the many generations of secular Jews who were/are conscientious anti-Zionists.Zionism is littered throughout the Torah with God promising the land to the Hebrews and describing Israel as a "land of milk and honey." Zionism is biblical. — BitconnectCarlos
... ergo a fundamentalist ethnonational delusion; thus, the many generations of secular Jews who were/are conscientious anti-Zionists. — 180 Proof
What was the west supposed to do about it? — frank
"The intelligence is clear-cut and indisputable," one source said.
The question is, if Israel is part of the West and it's really looking at the possibility of ethnic cleansing, what does it tell about the West?The west cautioned Israel not to go overboard attacking Gaza because of all the helpless, innocent people who would suffer or be killed. Israel didn't listen. What was the west supposed to do about it? — frank
Well, there is the possibility that here IS is used as a proxy, just as Iran is using the Houthis as proxy. Iran learnt to use proxies after using it's own forces against Western shipping with the US Navy launching the largest naval operation after WW2 against the Iranian Navy in Operation Praying Mantis. This short war that actually didn't surface so much in the media sunk a lot of the Iranian navy. Hence Iran uses proxies. Possibly now Israel / US has learnt it too? IS would be perfect as you cannot say it's an ally of the West... only with wearing an enormous tin foil hat, that is!Am I the only one who finds the use of language suspicious to say the least? — Tzeentch
Well, there is the possibility that here IS is used as a proxy, [...] — ssu
Like a disaster as everybody has for years anticipated it to be. Basically the US could simply mount a bombing campaign, something similar to Operation Desert Fox and likely nothing else. And Iran is far more powerful than the weak Iraq was after the liberation of Kuwait. A ground invasion? From where? Teheran is over mountains quite well inside Iran. Simply out of the question.There's a lot of talk about starting a war with Iran, but what would that look like? — Tzeentch
Iran-backed militias see the US as an occupying force interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs and undermining Baghdad’s sovereignty. Their operations are part of a wider campaign to pressure the US to exit Iraq and are aimed at two primary targets: military bases and convoys carrying logistical materiel (see graph below). Both these targets reflect a preference for indirect confrontation with US troops, and their respective prioritizations have fluctuated depending on the militias’ tactical objectives.
Hence I find this all very bleak and worrisome. — ssu
The biggest issue is that Americans don't want a war. It's the last thing they want. Only some 9/11 will push them eagerly to attack Iran. Yet Afghanistan is still quite in memory.I've heard some talk about Azerbaijan being used as a potential springboard, though the route to Teheran would still be very well-defendable. It'd be a stretch — Tzeentch
The biggest issue is that Americans don't want a war. It's the last thing they want. — ssu
The Royal Navy has already shot down Houthi drones and missiles and the French Navy is already escorting French cargo ships through the Bab el Mandeb.The only navy I can imagine putting itself in the line of fire of such weapons is the US navy. And possibly the Indians? But then again, the Indians are part of BRICS so it's unlikely their ships would be targeted in such a way.
I think other nations will not be willing to run the risk of having one of their vessels swamped in anti-ship missiles and sunk. It requires a lot of faith in one's equipment. — Tzeentch
Shooting down anti-ship missiles and drones has basically been the norm from the 1980's, so it's not so difficult. — ssu
Yet let's have a reality check here:I don't expect the French or British to stick around if there is a real risk such attacks are carried out on their ships. — Tzeentch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.