Karmadhi

Member
  • Content count

    2,025
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Karmadhi

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,431 profile views
  1. Zionism is a toxic stage blue ideology which hurts Jews more than it helps them. It basically claims Jews should have a country which is at first not a bad idea. Issue is that it is obsessed with having that country in X land based on religious nonsense and this goal is to be achieved with 0 regard for the damage it can do to others. Selfishness 101. I do not think Israel wanted to kill the Palestinian Arabs, they wanted to expel them so they would have their holy land to make their state. Killing people is a good way for them to flee. The difference with the Nazis is that Nazis wanted to kill the Jews meanwhile Israel wants to expel the Palestinian Arabs. So it is the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing although horrible is still better than genocide. A real life comparison would be someone stealing your house and kicking you out versus killing you. Murder is sentenced more than theft. There are countless cases of Jews trying to flee during the Holocaust (after the Final solution was passed in early 1942). If they were caught they were killed. "Let me leave your land" would not work. Meanwhile in ethnic cleansing it would work.
  2. It is true that the "Palestinian identity" might be a new thing but I think Palestine existed as a country before WW2. I have seen this clip of Hitler in a meeting at the Bunderstag in Germany in 1938 reading a letter from Roosevelt. In the letter Roosevelt calls for "Germany should not invade the following countries" which include basically all of Europe. Palestine is on the list. So USA did recognize it as an entity even before WW2. Now regarding national identities they are indeed fictions but my point is about the tangible components which is houses and people living in X place. Those people lived there for centuries and the idea of them having to move out is not acceptable nor desirable. They will not be happy with it. Whether they were called Palestinians or this or that is irrelevant. I am very open to the idea that Palestine is a new concept, so we can agree on that part. And do not forget that you have a shit lot of Jews being dumped into that land which started at early 1930s and culminated after WW2. Considering people in that area were not involved with the Holocaust it is kind of understandable why they would not be happy with this dumping because it had nothing to do with them. It was an European issue. If it was just Arab Jews I think the situation would be different. White people going in Arab land can give the idea of colonization which is why liberals support Palestine so much. Keep in mind here I am playing mostly the devil advocate and explaining to you the reasons why people are not happy about this rather than giving my personal opinion. Personally to me the whole idea of "nations" is just fiction human nonsense and I despise nationalism and hardcore religion. However I care deeply about people dying, having their homes destroyed and other things I consider "tangible". The main reason I despise Israeli occupation of Palestine is not because "national identity gets erased" and stuff like that. It is because Israel treats them like absolute shit, denies rights, kill them, torture, jail them etc. If they treated Palestinians Arabs as well as White Jews I would care far less about this whole issue.
  3. Fair. There is a difference between spontaneous random war crimes which happen in every war and a systematic organized attempt to do war crimes and atrocities. I currently lack the information to know whether back then it was the former (acceptable), or the latter (unacceptable).
  4. Arent Palestinian Arabs? I thought they lived there for centuries which is why they claim that land.
  5. Do you think it justifies the massacres they did afterwards? I saw some disturbing clips of Israeli old soldiers talking about putting kids in ovens and depleting their machine gun ammo on civilians in villages. They were also laughing about it which made it downright horrible to me. That is a good point but keep in mind the Jews had more reason to accept it. Palestinians lived there for centuries so for them it felt like they had to give up land to European refugees and they did not want to. Jews meanwhile were getting a free state out of nowhere so they were more willing to do so. If you get something out of nowhere for free you will be more willing to negotiate. Palestinians and Arabs in general felt like they were getting screwed over. There were Arab Jews there too but I saw it was like 5% of the population? Feel free to correct me here. And "Jews used to live there 2000 years ago" is not a valid argument to be honest. Nobody will accept it. Also Israel had more than 50% of the land from the partition but I do not know how useful the land was per say.
  6. I have positioned myself on this forum as a super pro Palestinian guy but when it comes to the Nakba I feel like it is a bit overblown. I am not saying that it was not awful or unfair but it happened 80 years ago or so, and at those times we had much worse things happening in the world which now are mostly healed. For example Poland after loosing 6 million citizens during WW2, and having its capital razed to the ground (85% of all structures destroyed), it lost a ton of historical territory to USSR and caused mass migrations. Today Poland is in OK terms with Russia and in decent terms with Germany (which killed close to 17% of its population). That would be the equivalent of Israel killing in Gaza close to 375.000 civilians (12 times what it has so far). So still being so hung over about the Nakba is counter intuitive to peace to me. What I find totally unacceptable by Israel though is the fact that a mini Nakba has been happening for decades now. That is the true issue that is counter intuitive to peace. It is this constant occupation and shit treatment which causes so much hatred. This has to stop. No justification for it. ESPECIALLY in the west bank. I love how Pro Israelis immediately disregard it because it does not suit their deeply biased views.
  7. I do not like any of the republicans but he seemed better to me than Niki Hailey. She gave me warmonger vibes. The world does not need more wars, it needs to end the current ones.
  8. Their population is 4x less than Russia. All the war is being done on Ukranian territory, destroying the country gradually. I saw on 2023 they did a major counter offensive in summer which did not do anything. And back then they still had decent supply of NATO weapons. It will just go down from here considering Ukraine cannot replace its troops as much as Russia. And going on offensives is always more costly for the attacker since the defender can build defenses. Considering now Russia has a shit lot of defenses on eastern Ukranian territory it holds, Ukraine lacks the manpower for a major breakthrough. They did try it, all it did is kill people and no results. And Ukraine again in a long war of attrition cannot defeat Russia. If they make peace now they can keep most of their country intact. Russia only occupies Russian majority areas. Most ethnic Ukranians are not in those territories. Hence dying for them is foolish to me.
  9. I am very torn about this. From one hand I see the war continuing as totally pointless from the Ukranian POV and just killing people in Ukraine and destroying the country further for no reason (Russia wont be kicked out). They tried last year with tons of support and still failed. And Russia now is stronger than then. On the other side I feel like Ukraine should be backed up considering USA told them "We will back you up for as long as it takes", hence they need to keep their word. What do you think about this?
  10. Trash vs garbage. All of them. Only reasonable one is Bernie Sanders but USA is too under developed to elect him. I am wondering about Vivek. He seems interesting but I am not very familiar with him. What do you guys think of him? Especially those familiar with him.
  11. I mean I do not know. But this is the status quo which kept peace until now. Also during the cold war which was super tense at some moments, this is what kept war from breaking out. The only reason USSR did not storming in and taking Western Europe during cold war was the fear of MAD. So I assume it is the same situation now. If there is a difference you can tell me. Also, even in a conventional war, I doubt Russia can take on all of NATO. They are struggling with Ukraine. Afterwards they will need rest. Also NATO has far more troops and budget than Ukraine does. So it is not a war Russia can win regardless. Whole reason Putin attacked Ukraine is because Ukraine was not in NATO and it is next to Russia. Also Ukraine is far more important to Russia than Poland is. Basically they see Ukraine as part of Russia. Poland they do not.
  12. We did not have nuclear weapons in the past. Now we do. Like 12.000 of them. That is why I say big scale war will not happen. It did not happen during the Cold War and it will not happen now. We all die if it happens. NATO has like 7000 nuclear weapons. Because Baltics are in NATO. Too risky of a move. It is like taking on someone with a shotgun in his hand. If Baltics were not in NATO then It would likely happen. Outside of being in NATO, Poland has a powerful military. Much stronger than Ukraine. Also they are super nationalists so they will fight hard. Not to mention Russia will be very tired after the Ukraine war. They cannot take on another strong opponent anytime soon. Moldova is a different story because not only they have pro Russian parts but the whole country is small, weak, and not in NATO. I think he wants Russia to be a respected superpower more than rebuilding the USSR. USSR entails annexing 15 countries. And Poland was never in USSR. I doubt that is his goal. He wants for Russia to be feared and respected like the USA is rather than be circle jerked by the West like it did in the 1990s. Also he wants every ex USSR country to have a pro Russian government. How come Kazakstan is not at risk at being invaded but Moldova is? Georgia was attacked in 2008 and Ukraine too. Because these countries have or had a pro Western government. That is equated to "please invade me". If they are smart, they will keep a friendly Pro Russian foreign policy. Ukraine learned it the hardest way. So did Cuba when it decided to become anti USA while being near the USA. It got both invaded and had an embargo. So its not a Russian only thing. It is the nature of big powers. Smaller weaker countries next to them need to accommodate them otherwise they will suffer either by sanctions, embargo, economic pressure, invasions etc. I dont know why it is so hard to understand.
  13. These fear mongering that "Russia will invade Poland if they take Ukraine" is absolutely ridiculous. They first cannot take on NATO head on. Secondly, why would they even take Poland? No Russians there like in Ukraine. Also Poland does not have the same relationship with Russia that Ukraine has. Russians and Ukranians are super close historically. You can make the case for the Baltics but even there I doubt they would go through the trouble. There is a very slim chance but not worth worrying about imo. Moldova is way more likely since they are so small and not in NATO.
  14. I think there should be a peace deal where Russia keeps the 20% they have taken and Crimea and Ukraine keeps the rest of the land. Also, Russian is made an official language for Ukraine just like it was before 2014 and Ukraine cuts all military ties with the West and becomes a neutral state. Also, they can be allowed to join the EU as long as their foreign policy is somewhat catering to Russia. Lastly, they should treat the Russian minority that will remain with equal rights to Ukrainians. On Russia side, they should prosecute some of their military people for war crimes and give some sort of financial compensation to the destroyed parts of Ukraine that will not be annexed by Russia. Now whether this is a fair deal, who knows. But to me it would be the most realistic in terms of pleasing both sides. It is the West job to ensure this happens. At the moment Russia will want to take half the country, pay no reparations and trial nobody for war crimes (of course not top generals or Putin but perhaps some of the people responsible for Mariupol or Bucha where most of the war crimes happened). . Neither will it allow the rest of Ukraine to join the EU. The West job is to ensure this does not happen. I was thinking perhaps funding Ukraine militarily to the point where Russia is forced to negotiate rather than face off against a buffed up Ukraine could be an option. So to use the 60 billion as a tool of deterrence against further fighting rather than using it to actually fight. What do you guys think about that? I have not heard this anywhere, would be curious to hear your thoughts. However I am very against this retarted nationalism by Zelensky and some Ukranians to "fight until total victory and we get back Crimea". It is totally not grounded in reality and is destroying Ukraine. They accepted loosing Crimea over 10 years ago already, get over it. It is not worth loosing half the country just for that...
  15. I see that he is anti the war in Ukraine and says Russia is doing bad things there while ignoring the 10x worse things Israel does. This makes me think he is either lowkey racist or white supremacist or anti Muslim. There is no way you can support Ukraine and not support Gaza unless you see Ukranians as more worthy of living. Especially considering people in Gaza are suffering far more. Hence racist.