• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Hitler didn't really want to exterminate the Jews or that thread that you need to read before you report it

Status
Not open for further replies.
Careful, Umbran doesn't like that kind of passive aggressive thing.

:p
I think you're misunderstanding his point, and you're misunderstanding mine. You left your statement pen to interpretation.
The Palestinian spokesman taking Bibi to task on his loose grasp of historical timing agrees that Haj was an avid supporter of Hilter and the Holocaust, so...
It would be less likely that others will take what you say in a manner you didn't intend if you are just clear in what you say.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


CaptainGemini

First Post
To reply to the first post...

The sad part? Given the stories coming out of Israel and Palestine about what both sides are doing, it's apparent that the leaders of both sides are as bad as Hitler. They are apparently fighting a war of mutual genocide.

It's honestly getting increasingly to the point where I think the only way we can solve this is to treat both groups as enemies and just invade the whole region. Unfortunately, thanks to Israel being nuclear-armed any first strike we do in this invasion would have to be nuclear.

Yes, it's a bad solution. But there are no good solutions. This appears to be the least worst of a bunch of horrible choices.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
Yes, it's a bad solution. But there are no good solutions. This appears to be the least worst of a bunch of horrible choices.

I think there are better solutions. As I see it, in order for there to be some form of peace, there needs to be better parity. Palestine desperately needs development, of both its economy and defensive infrastructure, to negotiate from anything approaching equality. As long as Israel is in such a dominant position, they have no incentive to be conciliatory and the periodic bloodletting will continue. Which, of course, serves Netanyahu and his conservative bloc well. He's trying to stoke up the Palestinian hatred by blaming the Mufti for the Final Solution in front of the organizations supporting settlement in the occupied territories. The settlers, surrounded by people who hate their presence and what their security does to the local economy, naturally develop a siege mentality hardening their support of Likud and the other politicians putting them out there. It's an ugly political platform.
 

CaptainGemini

First Post
I think there are better solutions. As I see it, in order for there to be some form of peace, there needs to be better parity. Palestine desperately needs development, of both its economy and defensive infrastructure, to negotiate from anything approaching equality. As long as Israel is in such a dominant position, they have no incentive to be conciliatory and the periodic bloodletting will continue. Which, of course, serves Netanyahu and his conservative bloc well. He's trying to stoke up the Palestinian hatred by blaming the Mufti for the Final Solution in front of the organizations supporting settlement in the occupied territories. The settlers, surrounded by people who hate their presence and what their security does to the local economy, naturally develop a siege mentality hardening their support of Likud and the other politicians putting them out there. It's an ugly political platform.

And if we don't have both sides wanting peace, it won't come. Netanyu and those like him don't want peace, and the Palestinians actually have a legitimate reason for wanting the Israelis completely gone from the region.

See, the British promised what is now Palestine and Israel to the Palestinians before they even considered making it a Jewish homeland in return for Palestinian support during World War 2. From the Palestinian standpoint, all of the land the Israelis occupy is their land. Plus, the last time there was a peaceful division of land between the two groups, the Israelis screwed it up and took over land with military might. The Palestinians have absolutely no reason to believe the Israelis will keep their word on any peace solution, and thus no reason to come to the bargaining table except to buy time for their next counter-attack.

Now, given how many times the Palestinians have violated ceasefires, you can bet the Israelis have no reason to trust them to keep a peace accord either. And thus no reason to come to the bargaining table except to buy time or create distractions while they set up their next attack.

This is a situation where neither side has any reason to trust the other, any reason to want peace with the other, and plenty of reason to want the other gone. Parity cannot even begin to address that. And until that changes, those two sides will never have peace.

And now you know why most of the UN is fully on the side of punishing the Israelis for the entire war while still punishing the Palestinians for what they've done.

Edit: Want to know the saddest thing of all? Take a look at what Hitler said the Jews would do in power as his reason for kicking them out and then trying to flat-out exterminate them. Then take a look at what Israel is actually doing. Try not to facepalm or despair.
 
Last edited:

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
I think you're misunderstanding his point, and you're misunderstanding mine. You left your statement pen to interpretation.

It would be less likely that others will take what you say in a manner you didn't intend if you are just clear in what you say.
No, I got Umbran's point well enough, and clarified myself for him. He also asked what I meant. Your interpretation, however, was incredibly stained and had to intentionally assume that I was saying something horrible that wasn't at all indicated. You can complain that the ultimate point of my statement wasn't clear, but it would take an assumption that the speaker had very bad motives to get to where you went. I had, fit a moment, thought you were being funny about it all, but I'm reassessing that assumption, now.
Look, it doesn't mean what you think it does. Sure, I might be a bit curious and I am flattered, but I'm not going to be able to do it with a libertarian. Sorry.
Hmm. I see. There appears to be a few double standards about being clear and answering questions going around.
 

Your interpretation, however, was incredibly stained and had to intentionally assume that I was saying something horrible that wasn't at all indicated.
I disagree.
You can complain that the ultimate point of my statement wasn't clear, but it would take an assumption that the speaker had very bad motives to get to where you went. I had, fit a moment, thought you were being funny about it all, but I'm reassessing that assumption, now.
Well, I'll be honest, I don't know you from a can of paint. For all I know, you could have had bad intentions and wanted to suggest something without openly saying it. That's what happens when you aren't clear. If what I interpreted from your post was incorrect, please, clear things up. You can easily explain what you meant.
 

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
To reply to the first post...

The sad part? Given the stories coming out of Israel and Palestine about what both sides are doing, it's apparent that the leaders of both sides are as bad as Hitler. They are apparently fighting a war of mutual genocide.

It's honestly getting increasingly to the point where I think the only way we can solve this is to treat both groups as enemies and just invade the whole region. Unfortunately, thanks to Israel being nuclear-armed any first strike we do in this invasion would have to be nuclear.

Yes, it's a bad solution. But there are no good solutions. This appears to be the least worst of a bunch of horrible choices.

Invasion and nukes are the least worse choices?

What about economic sanctions on Israel? Or the US not using its veto at the UN to protect it from sanctions? Or have the Us not give the three billion dollars in military aid its been giving each year to Israel?

They seem like better choices with a lot less bloodshed. Right now the problem is that Israel has impunity to do what it wants.
 

CaptainGemini

First Post
Invasion and nukes are the least worse choices?

What about economic sanctions on Israel? Or the US not using its veto at the UN to protect it from sanctions? Or have the Us not give the three billion dollars in military aid its been giving each year to Israel?

They seem like better choices with a lot less bloodshed. Right now the problem is that Israel has impunity to do what it wants.

Considering how well economic sanctions have NOT worked to stop the Palestinians, and how Israel has pretty much said it will respond with nukes to any military power it considers invading that it cannot beat and just enforcing those sanctions would require us to take on the Israeli military pretty regularly and the entire nation is considered part of the military... I think "saving lives" is exactly the last thing that will happen.

We're talking about a nation that keeps the nuclear option on the table as standard military policy and considers its entire population part of its fighting force. And throwing in Netanyu-style crazy on top of that. There is no way bottling them up will end better than the options, and plenty of ways it can end far worse.

No matter what option we take to actually solve this, we're going to end up killing a lot of Israelis. And probably a lot of Palestinians as well. All of the options involve nukes... they just vary in who might be launching first and how many might be launched.
 

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
how Israel has pretty much said it will respond with nukes to any military power it considers invading that it cannot beat and just enforcing those sanctions would require us to take on the Israeli military pretty regularly and the entire nation is considered part of the military...
Why would there need to be military conflict with economic sanctions? Was there military conflict when sanctions were put on Iran recently? Or Russia? South Africa under Apartheid?

When I talk about economic sanctions is like restricting the flow of capital in and out of Israel. No need for soldiers.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top