Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Raze said:

That argument doesn’t work on me, because unlike you I’m not a blithering simpleton who falls for the cheapest propaganda in the book.

No, you are a moral warrior of justice. A noble hero. 

Edited Thursday at 11:41 AM by Breakingthewall

[Nivsch]

https://x.com/TomerPersico/status/1981310032609194207

Edited Thursday at 12:09 PM by Nivsch

[zazen]

59 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

So, what do you do if they declare war on you? Don't respond because they're hiding among the civilians? If you're in a position where you're threatened from all sides, showing weakness is a bad idea. It strengthens your enemies and paves the way for your destruction. All that morality stuff is fine, but when your existence it's at stake it disappears.

Resolve the core issue rather cause more issues by becoming a pariah state the world hates and getting hated on wherever you go as a tourist, sadly.

Their not threatened from all sides. Their existence isn't at stake - its not a survival issue but a security issue caused by occupation. In other words - a security dilemma they have created by their own actions and continue to perpetuate rather than resolving the core issue.

If a man takes my brother hostage with his gun to his head and arm around his neck - I don't just bomb the both of them. I also don't ask the criminal to step to the side to make space between him and my brother so I can bomb him anyway. If he wants something in exchange  - it depends on what he's asking for. If the demand is nonsense and maximalist (such as I commit suicide in exchange for my brothers life ie Israel doesn't exist in exchange for a Palestinian state) then things get complicated and messy. If its a balanced  demand (ie they want to exist in a Palestinian state with sovereignty along side Israel) then it should be entertained.

If the demand is for a inalienable right the world already has consensus on and that I have little ground in standing in the way of - unless I want to be hated by the world for doing so and gaslight everyone for being anti-Semitic - then it makes sense to let the right manifest. It's called diplomacy and win-win cooperation - something Western hegemony is too arrogant for.

[BlueOak]

4 hours ago, Raze said:

For starters, under international law.

You may or may not have noticed international law doesn't exist in the modern day anymore.

Not in China.
Not in America
Not in Russia
So why should it exist in Israel if the powers that could enforce it flagrantly do whatever genocides or war crimes they want?

Let me preempt your answer slightly: I don't care if you consider one conflict right or wrong. Or the numbers less or more.

In order for laws to be legitimate, they must be universal; otherwise, they erode as they have. It's no good just saying, of course, or well I understand their motivations, so their war crimes are less important or less impactful.

None of that makes a damned bit of difference to the people asked to follow international law across billions of perspectives.

More generally to all, try to put yourself in an Israel perspective to understand why they are doing what they are doing. Not only is it internationally acceptable now. We've got people saying they are not threatened on all sides. That's like 90% of the reason why they are acting as they are!  

Do they help themselves by being as aggressive as possible, I don't think so, but in this day and age, other countries and people disagree. They consider overwhelming force, suppression and ethnic cleansing and/or genocide not the last choice but one of the first.

Until people apply that to all warring parties, they'll just be shouting at a wall.

*Insert how one conflict isn't as bad, or I understand their motivations more* Missing the entire point that your perspective, is just that, yours. Its not going to apply to someone else. The rule of law has to be absolutely applied across all perspectives, from the president to the homeless, from the superpowers to the struggling small country, or it has less and less meaning. - That's my moralising for the day done.
 

Edited Thursday at 01:12 PM by BlueOak

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

then things get complicated and messy. If its a balanced  demand (ie they want to exist in a Palestinian state with sovereignty along side Israel) then it should be entertained

So they come into your city, gang-rape 18-year-old girls, then torture and burn them with gasoline while they scream with joy. They castrate some men, and you give them what they ask for.

You should try doing that with the Ottomans, for example, and then you ask them for things. Maybe they'll be more flexible than the evil Jews. Maybe the also Chinese would be more reasonable and give you a state if you torture enough girls. You tell them you had to torture the girls while videotaping it because the situation in Gaza was unjust, they will understand 

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Resolve the core issue rather cause more issues

Yes I understand your point: the Jews act evil then they deserve the tortures and murders. Your opinion It's legitimate, but maybe they think different. 

 

1 hour ago, zazen said:

pariah state the world hates and getting hated on wherever you go as a tourist, sadly.

Sure the people respect Muslims much more, raping 9 years old girls by parliamentary decree, as in Iraq. 

When the reason dissapears, the force is needed 

Edited Thursday at 02:11 PM by Breakingthewall

[Raze]

5 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

No, you are a moral warrior of justice. A noble hero. 

And you are a coward, to pathetic and weak to even acknowledge the evidence and arguments presented to you, afraid it will crush your weak fragile ego you’ve built around in your poorly informed views. But somehow so lacking in self awareness you continue blathering in replies with bloodthirsty rants and childish sarcasm, as though it does anything but emphasize to us all your intellectual inferiority. 

[Raze]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

So they come into your city, gang-rape 18-year-old girls, then torture and burn them with gasoline while they scream with joy. They castrate some men, and you give them what they ask for.

You should try doing that with the Ottomans, for example, and then you ask them for things. Maybe they'll be more flexible than the evil Jews. Maybe the also Chinese would be more reasonable and give you a state if you torture enough girls. You tell them you had to torture the girls while videotaping it because the situation in Gaza was unjust, they will understand 

Yes I understand your point: the Jews act evil then they deserve the tortures and murders. Your opinion It's legitimate, but maybe they think different. 

 

Sure the people respect Muslims much more, raping 9 years old girls by parliamentary decree, as in Iraq. 

When the reason dissapears, the force is needed 

Saying “they hide among civilians so anything goes” is a license to murder, not a policy. International humanitarian law requires distinction, proportionality, and precautions; it does not permit collective punishment or deliberate attacks on civilians. Treating dense urban population as a get-out-of-ethics-free card is lawless and obscene. ICRC+1

The reply weaponizes grotesque images (rape, mutilation) to short-circuit reason and demand barbarism in return. That’s an appeal to emotion and a false dilemma — “either you massacre or you look weak” — which ignores lawful, targeted, and politically wiser responses. Turning outrage into permission to commit atrocities is moral collapse, not moral clarity.

This rhetoric reeks of tribal, pre-moral thinking: dehumanize the enemy, legitimize vengeance, and call it “survival.” That psychological pathway — moral disengagement, group-centric reasoning, and us-vs-them absolutism — is exactly what fuels cycles of radicalization and long-term insecurity. Indiscriminate revenge destroys legitimacy, fuels more extremism, and makes the state a pariah, not a victor. PMC+1

Finally, facts matter: Gaza’s extreme density and concentrated civilian displacement make civilian harm more likely — which is precisely why the duty to protect civilians is stronger, not weaker, in such places. Bragging about “doing whatever it takes” in that context is strategically stupid and morally bankrupt. Visual Capitalist+1

It reveals a person driven far more by rage and tribal loyalty than by reason or ethics. Their language shows deep moral insecurity — a need to justify cruelty by inflating the enemy’s evil and framing brutality as “survival.” They collapse complex realities into primitive binaries of “us or them,” displaying poor emotional regulation and weak critical thinking. Rather than arguing, they moralize through disgust and dehumanization, showing an inability to separate justice from vengeance. In short, it reflects a mind trapped in fear, moral absolutism, and propaganda — someone who mistakes cruelty for strength and rage for moral clarity.

Edited Thursday at 05:51 PM by Raze

[Raze]

4 hours ago, BlueOak said:

You may or may not have noticed international law doesn't exist in the modern day anymore.

 

Then stop complaining about Russia, according to you what they’re doing is just fine and no one should have to sanction them or stop selling the weapons.

[zazen]

5 hours ago, BlueOak said:

You may or may not have noticed international law doesn't exist in the modern day anymore.

Not in China.
Not in America
Not in Russia
So why should it exist in Israel if the powers that could enforce it flagrantly do whatever genocides or war crimes they want?

If you acknowledge US as being a naughty devil and the uni-polar hegemon of the current world order - then extend that logic to understand that it may be the one proliferating the naughtiness of others in either pampering some into impunity (Israel) or trying to contain others (Russia/China) within the order they are the lords of, which causes those being contained to respond with more naughtiness.

The US itself bends under the pressure of its own contradictions within the same order it leads, whilst attempting to bend others it doesn't like and wishes to contain, while bending itself over for Israel and Bibis cock.

Jokes aside. The US and it's allies are the architects of the current world order in which the US undermines its very own rules by a mile beyond any other. It monopolizes enforcement by its selective application of the ''rules'' in this order - hollowing out the systems legitimacy by doing so. That’s why Israel acts with impunity - because it’s shielded by the same empire that exempts itself from accountability.

In fact, that empire literally has a law that allows itself and it's allies to be lawless via ''The Hague Act''.

Chat GPT:

''The Hague Act refers to a 2002 U.S. law that was designed to protect U.S. military and government officials from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The act gives the U.S. president the authority to use "all means necessary and appropriate," including military force, to free any U.S. or allied personnel held by the ICC.''

Imagine legalizing the invasion of Netherlands in order to allow oneself and his buddies to be unlawful all they want lool.

On 10/15/2025 at 7:42 PM, zazen said:

A good way to think of it at a systems level is that the US is like a landlord of an entire town with blocks of apartments (our global system).

Most tenants are grateful for the infrastructure, institutions, laws and policing provided. But this landlord also abuses his position: raising rent on tenants he dislikes (sanctions), entering their apartments without permission (interventions), and sometimes taking their belongings (resources or regime change).

Because he’s the only landlord in town, his power becomes monopolistic - if he evicts you, you’re homeless (locked out the global system).

Meanwhile, Russia is one of the tenants. It’s frustrated by how the landlord treats certain tenants better than others and fears that the landlord’s agents (NATO) are moving closer to them - who they have a bad history with. Russia’s neighbour apartment is their cousin Ukraine who is offering to split rent and room share with NATO.

On one level - Russia feels insecure for having a hostile neighbour, but on another level feels betrayed by family - adding vodka to the wound. What was a cold calculated security issue now becomes a personalised one only heightening the tensions.

Russia decides to pre-emptively turn this familial neighbours place uninhabitable for NATO and make their cousin Ukraine think twice about hosting them. Russia even goes as far as to extend their apartment into Ukraine and claim they used to be one penthouse but only split recently with a wall partition.

Obviously this is wrong - because if every tenant started smashing walls for “security” or making historical claims over other apartments for having lived in them before - the whole bloc and town would fall into chaos.

Russia can be understood, yet not excused. The landlord’s arrogance, selective enforcement of rules and total monopoly created the very insecurity that made the tenant act out - however unjustly and brutally.

 

The lesson is:

The landlord (US) maintains order but abuses its position within it - corroding trust through hypocrisy.

The tenant (Russia) violates rules out of fear and a sense of betrayal adding insult to injury.

The rest of the tenants (Global South) - just want a building / town where security and monopoly power isn’t abused.

One of the wealthier tenants (China) starts building a town next door alongside other irritated tenants (BRICS) who’d like to attain some bargaining power and hedge against the current landlord.

The current landlord (US), his agents (NATO) and most of his loyalist tenants who had preferential rates (Western bloc) oppose and feel threatened by this new development - as if enough residents left their town for the new one, their assets would depreciate in value, and their power along with it.

Check out John Mearsheimer speak on the changing order in the first 13min of this talk to make sense of it even more:

 

 

5 hours ago, BlueOak said:

We've got people saying they are not threatened on all sides. That's like 90% of the reason why they are acting as they are!  

Israel isn't surrounded by enemy state actors. It's not at existential threat objectively - perhaps subjectively: like that liberal progressive who feels threatened by being addressed by the wrong pronoun. But this isn't objective reality - let alone a micro-aggression, meanwhile the maco-aggression of ethnic cleansing taking place is an actual threat against Palestinians.

The threats are security related (not survival) and are non-state actors (Hamas, Hezbollah) that exist precisely due to the occupation and that would end being a security issue upon cessation of that occupation.

Edited Thursday at 07:05 PM by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

5 minutes ago, zazen said:

Israel isn't surrounded by enemy state actors. It's not at existential threat objectively - perhaps subjectively

Israel isn't surrounded by openly hostile states because it has been defusing that enmity by making people see the cost of confronting it. Without this strategy, Israel would have been destroyed.

It has 1.5 billion mortal enemies, and they number 9 million. It's an extremely tense situation. There are countries, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Morocco, that aren't formally its enemies, but their populations hate Israel to death and would take to the streets dancing and singing if an atomic bomb exploded in Tel Aviv. People who support Israel, with a few psychotic exceptions, don't celebrate the death of Arab civilians. The hatred Israel generates is colossal.

Why doesn't China generate that Muslim hatred when it's oppressing a country the size of Europe and 20 million Muslims? Or Russia, which has devastated Aleppo and Chechnya, killing hundreds of thousands? Is Israel the target of the world's hatred? Don't you understand what this means, the threat it represents?

 The attitude that being hated in this way generates in a group is absolute reactivity. Everyone claims without proof, based solely on Hamas's claims, that Israel intentionally kills children by shooting them in the genitals. Why do that? If that's your attitude, you bomb Gaza with phosphorus and kill the entire population, leaving no one alive in six months. It's a lie; it makes no sense to intentionally shoot children. What does make sense is to accept the death of civilians if it means defeating their enemy, something that absolutely every army in the world has done. If you can't do that, you can't fight in a war. Civilians are killed in wars, without hesitation. 

Some, let's say , not very smart people here will think that what i said means that I support and like the killing of civilians, that's because then can't think clearly, are emos and low IQ, it's sad but extremely common. The point is not support killings, is understanding the conflict and the attitude of the parts. Maybe you should try putting yourself in the situation of Israel without saying: they shouldn't be there. 

[Raze]

6 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Israel isn't surrounded by openly hostile states because it has been defusing that enmity by making people see the cost of confronting it. Without this strategy, Israel would have been destroyed.

It has 1.5 billion mortal enemies, and they number 9 million. It's an extremely tense situation. There are countries, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Morocco, that aren't formally its enemies, but their populations hate Israel to death and would take to the streets dancing and singing if an atomic bomb exploded in Tel Aviv. People who support Israel, with a few psychotic exceptions, don't celebrate the death of Arab civilians. The hatred Israel generates is colossal.

Why doesn't China generate that Muslim hatred when it's oppressing a country the size of Europe and 20 million Muslims? Or Russia, which has devastated Aleppo and Chechnya, killing hundreds of thousands? Is Israel the target of the world's hatred? Don't you understand what this means, the threat it represents?

 The attitude that being hated in this way generates in a group is absolute reactivity. Everyone claims without proof, based solely on Hamas's claims, that Israel intentionally kills children by shooting them in the genitals. Why do that? If that's your attitude, you bomb Gaza with phosphorus and kill the entire population, leaving no one alive in six months. It's a lie; it makes no sense to intentionally shoot children. What does make sense is to accept the death of civilians if it means defeating their enemy, something that absolutely every army in the world has done. If you can't do that, you can't fight in a war. Civilians are killed in wars, without hesitation. 

Some, let's say , not very smart people here will think that what i said means that I support and like the killing of civilians, that's because then can't think clearly, are emos and low IQ, it's sad but extremely common. The point is not support killings, is understanding the conflict and the attitude of the parts. Maybe you should try putting yourself in the situation of Israel without saying: they shouldn't be there. 

The passage mixes some correct facts with exaggerations, logical errors, and unsupported moral claims.

On numbers and political reality: Israel’s population (~9–10M) is roughly correct, but labeling ~1.5–2B Muslims as “mortal enemies” is false and meaningless. Population size ≠ hostility.

On Israel’s regional position: Israel isn’t surrounded by formal war states today due to treaties (Egypt 1979, Jordan 1994) and the Abraham Accords (2020). Suggesting survival depends solely on “making people see the cost” oversimplifies diplomacy, regional interests, and domestic politics.

On deterrence: Israel has used deterrence effectively against states, but its limits against non-state actors like Hamas are clear. The claim that “without this strategy Israel would have been destroyed” is counterfactual and ignores other factors like international support, military capacity, and diplomacy.

On civilian casualties and intent: Dismissing all allegations of intentional attacks as lies is misleading. International humanitarian law requires distinction and proportionality; deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime. Evidence is needed for each incident; blanket dismissal is not evidence-based.

On rhetoric and logic: The argument relies on sweeping generalizations (all Muslims = enemies), moral equivalence (“other states kill, so Israel is fine”), straw-manning (“low IQ”), and emotive hyperbole. This undermines credibility even if deterrence and war realities are correct.

On moral claims: Claiming that accepting civilian deaths is necessary to fight is dangerous. Civilian harm occurs in war, but lawful militaries must minimize it; treating it as inevitable or acceptable without effort is ethically and legally problematic.

The person who wrote this is spectacularly underinformed and embarrassingly unnuanced, masking raw prejudice and ignorance as “strategic insight.” They treat billions as a monolithic mass of hatred, dismiss decades of complex diplomacy, and flaunt moral illiteracy by glorifying civilian deaths as collateral. Their grasp of international law is laughable, reasoning riddled with straw men and ad hominem attacks, and military understanding shallow—relying on sweeping generalizations and counterfactual fantasies. It’s astonishing how confidently they spout simplistic, self-serving nonsense while imagining it constitutes deep analysis; the cognitive dissonance is almost comical, if not deadly serious.

They read less like a serious analyst and more like a petulant child who wandered into a library and decided skimming headlines counts as “research.” They parade ignorance as insight, treat billions as a single mob, and reduce complex diplomacy to playground logic. Believing civilian deaths are “acceptable” because others do it shows staggering moral immaturity, like a child convinced breaking rules is fine because someone else got away with it. After supposedly studying the issue, they still cannot distinguish nuance from hyperbole, evidence from rumor, or strategy from fantasy. It’s childish, blinkered certainty masquerading as expertise—the thinking of someone who read a paragraph online and now imagines they understand the world.

Edited Thursday at 07:34 PM by Raze

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Raze said:

Then stop complaining about Russia, according to you what they’re doing is just fine and no one should have to sanction them or stop selling the weapons.

There is no international law. Israel is acting as such. 

That doesn't mean I like it or won't offer argument or small aid where I can see atrocities being committed. Or when I see aggressors destabilizing the world further, or moreover starting wars wherever they like.

Bluntly Raze The day I see you complaining about the treatment of people with pictures in a war you tolerate is the day your argument is going to be elevated and have universal merit. Right now it's cherry-picked highlighted suffering to suit your view of the world.

 

51 minutes ago, zazen said:

If you acknowledge US as being a naughty devil and the uni-polar hegemon of the current world order - then extend that logic to understand that it may be the one proliferating the naughtiness of others in either pampering some into impunity (Israel) or trying to contain others (Russia/China) within the order they are the lords of, which causes those being contained to respond with more naughtiness.

People are responsible for their own actions.

Your rhetoric that these poor regimes, who people repeatedly tell me make up 90% of the world with an economic and military force that can crush anyone, are suppressed is wearing transparently thin. You set your framing in the past while understanding and legitimizing bloody conflicts and genocides in the present because it suits the side you've picked. Much like China and Russia do.

Personally,I think violent expanionist regimes need to be curtailed and hindered, yes. That's more obvious than ever now.

51 minutes ago, zazen said:

Jokes aside. The US and it's allies are the architects of the current world order in which the US undermines its very own rules by a mile beyond any other. It monopolizes enforcement by its selective application of the ''rules'' in this order - hollowing out the systems legitimacy by doing so. That’s why Israel acts with impunity - because it’s shielded by the same empire that exempts itself from accountability.

We will never have international law or peace until you can acknowledge, without justification, that a war crime is a war crime, and a war is a war.

And when you can drop the pretense that BRICS combined is not some poor hindered power but is infact as powerful as NATO if not more so, and as such every action they take is entirely by their agency and responsibility. So if a bloody, violent, or expansionist choice is made, it needs to be treated as such.

OR Israel is just fighting against a region that is much bigger than it, international law doesn't matter, and what the heck are you judging them for? 

 

51 minutes ago, zazen said:

The itself bends under the pressure of its own contradictions within the same order it leads, whilst attempting to bend others it doesn't like and wishes to contain, while bending itself over for Israel and Bibis cock.

Sounds more like China and Russia every word you say.
 

51 minutes ago, zazen said:

Israel isn't surrounded by enemy state actors. It's not at existential threat objectively - perhaps subjectively: like that liberal progressive who feels threatened by being addressed by the wrong pronoun. But this isn't objective reality - let alone a micro-aggression, meanwhile the maco-aggression of ethnic cleansing taking place is an actual threat against Palestinians.

Yeah i'm sure the bombs and decades of violence match up real well with pronouns. Honestly, I could head-desk repeatedly. Here let me do it: Palestinians aren't really suffering that bad, are they, I mean sure a few people have died, but you know its not too bad. A bit like republicans getting treated bad when they go to Mexico with their red hats; if they just stayed in their homes, none of this would have happened. 

Its surrounded by people armed by the opposite alliance. The Brics alliance that likes to also play god with other nations, but sssh we shouldn't mention that one, because then we'd have a real understanding of geo politics being expressed.

Let me tell you a story about the world. Russia has been arming and established its own order and cage globally for far longer than i've been alive. Cages for populations under dictators or any groups that might challenge their favored political allies and dynamic. So America kicked it to the curb in a bloody, violent, imperialistic madness, and now they are bad guys, but guess what? When it's America getting kicked to the curb, Russia and China are the good guys! Because they bring what you consider more beneficial. Because it suits your perspective and view of the world. So what if we genocide a few cultures, or bomb out a few cities, steal land and seas wherever we like, maybe nuke a nation? It'll be unfortunate but alright because it lines up with how you view the world should be.

Funny old world eh. 

Bad Israel. Just shoot less people at once, make some better propaganda, and you'll be in line with the rest of the world. Or just join BRICS then they'd be singing your praises. But seriously act less like genocidal maniacs, its not a good look, and that's what counts at the minute.

Edited Thursday at 07:54 PM by BlueOak

[UnbornTao]

How much of the conversation is AI-generated?

GPT vs GPT.

[Breakingthewall]

@Raze

Reading between the lines of that text, anyone with a bit of insight can see that the AI perfectly understands that you're a very limited emo, but it doesn't tell you so as not to depress you even further. Seriously, try to view political realities objectively. Being so emotional is stupid.

[Breakingthewall]

5 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

How much of the conversation is AI-generated?

GPT vs GPT.

Mine zero, raze all. Maybe he shouldn't do that, it's annoying, we are trying to share points of view, not trolling with 1000 words texts generated by ia. If he doesn't like the opinions that are different, there are other platforms where you can't talk exclusively with people in your line. 

Edited Thursday at 07:46 PM by Breakingthewall

[BlueOak]

4 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

How much of the conversation is AI-generated?

GPT vs GPT.

In my posts none of it unless I specifically say as such.

[Raze]

3 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

There is no international law. Israel is acting as such. 

That doesn't mean I like it or won't offer argument or small aid where I can see atrocities being committed. Or when I see aggressors destabilizing the world further, or moreover starting wars wherever they like.

Bluntly Raze The day I see you complaining about the treatment of people with pictures in a war you tolerate is the day your argument is going to be elevated and have universal merit. Right now it's cherry-picked highlighted suffering to suit your view of the world.

Wrong, there is international law, and it is being applied to Russia. Russia is currently the most sanctioned country in the world.

I don’t know what war you’re referring to that I tolerate. 

You’re using whatabaoutism to deflect from wars we are implicated in by pointing out wars we aren’t.

 

[Raze]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

Mine zero, raze all. Maybe he shouldn't do that, it's annoying, we are trying to share points of view, not trolling with 1000 words texts. If he doesn't like the opinions that are different, there are other platforms where you can't talk exclusively with people in your line. 

Actually, you were the first to start posting AI text walls directed at me.

I use AI because you are a bad faith actor who ignores points that contradict you and can’t do basic fact checking. 

[Raze]

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Raze

Reading between the lines of that text, anyone with a bit of insight can see that the AI perfectly understands that you're a very limited emo, but it doesn't tell you so as not to depress you even further. Seriously, try to view political realities objectively. Being so emotional is stupid.

Nope, I’m using a fresh chat each time. All I do is post your reply and the previous reply and ask it how accurate are the arguments, and to explain what you saying that says about your intellect and critical thinking using forceful language.

It isn’t set to be biased, the AI text you posted previously for example it agreed with, it just debunked the context you were using it in. 

Notice how you failed to dispute a single thing the AI ever said.  Because you can’t. 

Edited Thursday at 07:50 PM by Raze

[UnbornTao]

@Breakingthewall @BlueOak  @Raze Thanks guys, it was mostly an attempt to lighten up the conversation.

Keep fighting.

Edited Thursday at 07:49 PM by UnbornTao