Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

That the church wasn't hiding Hamas members?
No.Was hiding christians.About 30 was murdered by Izrael there.Do you honestly belive,that Hamas members are stupid enough to belive that jews would not destroy Church? they could hide in synagogue ,if they found any there.
Or some protestant place,especially build by USA.
 
No.Was hiding christians.About 30 was murdered by Izrael there.Do you honestly belive,that Hamas members are stupid enough to belive that jews would not destroy Church? they could hide in synagogue ,if they found any there.
Or some protestant place,especially build by USA.
Hamas will use anything to thier advantage if it would prevent Israel from attacking them.
Do you think Hamas cares if Christians, Jews ir Muslims die in thier war?
 
BTW, why would it matter even if it was? At the end of the day, this war only ends if Hamas is dead. Even if they took Israel, historical precedent says they'll immediately proceed to turn on us.

Or on each other, but that won't be any better because it will drive up oil prices and complicate transit through the Suez Canal.
 
Blame Hamas for using the church and the countless civilians as human shields.
The only one claiming in that attack that there was an Hamas leader somewhere near the vicinity of the Church is Israel. NEAR. NOT IN THE CHURCH.
What, would you rather the civilians die by gunfire as the buildings are cleared one by one woth the casualty count being higher?
Oh don't pull that card you are the first not caring about civilian casualties you have made that very clear multiple times in different threads.
Hamas should have given up and not killed the hostages.
You do know that many of the hostages might have died because of the bombardment by Israel?
It's not thier responsibility to put the lives of thier troops at needless risk because terrorists don't know how to play fair.
That has nothing to do with the point of Palestinians being shipped to the rest of the world.
 
The only one claiming in that attack that there was an Hamas leader somewhere near the vicinity of the Church is Israel. NEAR. NOT IN THE CHURCH.
I never said Hamas leader.
Can you show the evidence you are talking about with the strike
And are we sure there wasn't any Hamas in the church? Or they wernt hiding in a tunnel under it?
I can tell you the answer
its no, because welcome to fighting terrorists
Oh don't pull that card you are the first not caring about civilian casualties you have made that very clear multiple times in different threads.
civilians casualties are apart of war yes.
there is a diffrence though.
Specifically targetinf civilians is diffrent from them being used as human shields
You do know that many of the hostages might have died because of the bombardment by Israel?
I mean, obviously the ones found decapitated, dismembered, raped, burned, in tunnels, under UN buildings are all caused by bonbardments.
its not israels fault that Hamas didnt tell them where the Hostages were and wanted Israel to clear buukding to building with infa try so they could rack up kills on the IDF.
learn war my dude, stop being stuck defending a group that would have used you as a human shield
That has nothing to do with the point of Palestinians being shipped to the rest of the world.
I mean, it's either Israel kills them all, allows thousands of future terrorists to live in thier country, or let the western nations who will welcome them with open arms take them.
No matter what Israel does, the west will get mad at them.
 
How was that a bad thing, Libertarian?
It was a good thing in a perfectly theoretical sense, separated from its real world second order consequences. But chiefly, it wasn't the US's business, or shouldn't have been. Japan wasn't an evil empire at that point, just an empire. They hadn't gone around the bend yet psychologically to the death cult it became. So it wasn't at the level of intervention being better than doing nothing. If it's so bad and the Empire so evil that sanctions are necessary, you have an obligation to go to war if feasible, and if not go full throttle. The half assedness of America's response shows that it wasn't necessary at the time.

And messing with them, or even messing with countries that DO deserve it, has real world consequences for US citizens at home. 9/11 was blowback for the US empowering the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Now taking down the USSR and stopping the cold war may have been worth facijg the consequences, but there were consequences nonetheless.
 
Japan wasn't an evil empire at that point, just an empire
They were already invading China and Korea.

There are no good empires. And at any rate, a Japan that's basically a US vassal with stationed troops is better than the anarcho-tyranny that was destroying US interests in the region and was unstable at best.
 
It was a good thing in a perfectly theoretical sense, separated from its real world second order consequences. But chiefly, it wasn't the US's business, or shouldn't have been. Japan wasn't an evil empire at that point, just an empire. They hadn't gone around the bend yet psychologically to the death cult it became. So it wasn't at the level of intervention being better than doing nothing. If it's so bad and the Empire so evil that sanctions are necessary, you have an obligation to go to war if feasible, and if not go full throttle. The half assedness of America's response shows that it wasn't necessary at the time.

And messing with them, or even messing with countries that DO deserve it, has real world consequences for US citizens at home. 9/11 was blowback for the US empowering the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Now taking down the USSR and stopping the cold war may have been worth facijg the consequences, but there were consequences nonetheless.
I mean, rhe fact that before world war 1 Japan invaded and took over Korea from China and basically set forth a prerequisite for thie future invasion of Manchuria kinda shows this was always thier plan.
Even had we given then the Asian holdings of Germany, they would eventually want more, and they invaded China because if a Flase Flag THEY set up in the 30s
 
They were already invading China and Korea.

There are no good empires. And at any rate, a Japan that's basically a US vassal with stationed troops is better than the anarcho-tyranny that was destroying US interests in the region and was unstable at best.
There's a qualitative difference between empires like the British Empire or the the Japanese one prior to 1930 (which yes are inherently bad like all governments), and stuff like the USSR, Nazi Germany, or post 1937 Japan: namely the introduction of purposely organized mass murder of conquered people.

Libertarians are not internationalist, and don't believe that you need freedom for everyone everywhere and to export democracy, because we know it (both the exporting and the democracy) doesn't work.

There's a godzilla threshold though, at which point some libertarians, me included, will be okay with an intervention.

For example, I've little to no problem with the Korean War or Vietnam's invasion of Khmer Rouge controlled Cambodia, because the bad guys were so bad and how necessary and effective the intervention was.

But Japan pre-1930 doesn't even rate.
I mean, rhe fact that before world war 1 Japan invaded and took over Korea from China and basically set forth a prerequisite for thie future invasion of Manchuria kinda shows this was always thier plan.
Even had we given then the Asian holdings of Germany, they would eventually want more, and they invaded China because if a Flase Flag THEY set up in the 30s
Yeah, I know. They weren't great, they were an empire which means invasions happened, whatever. So was the British Empire. So is the American Empire that exists now. They weren't (yet) on nazi levels of fucked.
 
There's a qualitative difference between empires like the British Empire or the the Japanese one prior to 1930 (which yes are inherently bad like all governments), and stuff like the USSR, Nazi Germany, or post 1937 Japan: namely the introduction of purposely organized mass murder of conquered people.

Libertarians are not internationalist, and don't believe that you need freedom for everyone everywhere and to export democracy, because we know it (both the exporting and the democracy) doesn't work.

There's a godzilla threshold though, at which point some libertarians, me included, will be okay with an intervention.

For example, I've little to no problem with the Korean War or Vietnam's invasion of Khmer Rouge controlled Cambodia, because the bad guys were so bad and how necessary and effective the intervention was.

But Japan pre-1930 doesn't even rate.

Yeah, I know. They weren't great, they were an empire which means invasions happened, whatever. So was the British Empire. So is the American Empire that exists now. They weren't (yet) on nazi levels of fucked.

This topic deserves a thread of its own: how bad does a country have to become before externally-imposed "regime change" is needed and justified?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top