Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Raze]

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Raze

Using Chatgpt for data is acceptable, but for moral and value judgement , it's an insult to intelligence. If you can't understand it it's impossible have a conversation with you. 

Settler terrorism is something extremely negative, no one doubts it. You should also condemn Palestinian terrorism, not justify it.

The Palestinians must absolutely abandon violence, and from there begin to achieve things. The first thing they would achieve would be a change of government in Israel, and the second, a state. Then coexistence and development as society. But first they should want that. They want development or death and paradise? That is the question. 

This Palestinian thinks that they are focused in death 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9xQ3Vhp6yW/?igsh=czdoa3cwOWd0dHFq

Let’s begin with the most glaring failure: the speaker does not engage at all with the central arguments. These included:

That Israeli and Palestinian educational systems are both flawed, but the narrative of uniquely brainwashed Palestinian children is unsupported by data.

That Israel’s war conduct — as documented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International — includes war crimes such as the use of starvation as a weapon and indiscriminate bombing.

That Israel has strategically empowered Hamas over the years to undermine peace with more moderate Palestinian factions.

That “eliminating Hamas” via total war is a historically ineffective and morally ruinous approach, according to data from the RAND Corporation and conflict resolution experts.

Instead of addressing even one of these points, the speaker hand-waves it all away with the vague claim that "you can't use ChatGPT for value judgments" — as if truth becomes irrelevant when it doesn’t flatter one’s bias. It’s an intellectually bankrupt maneuver that reveals their strategy: dodge

At face value, the idea that "Palestinians must absolutely abandon violence" is not controversial — no serious analyst would argue that violence is a productive or sustainable means to achieve statehood. But the speaker frames this as if Palestinian violence exists in a vacuum, detached from the realities of occupation, systemic oppression, and repeated failures of diplomacy. The idea that Palestinians just need to want peace is absurdly reductive — as if the last 30 years of failed peace processes, assassinated leaders (like Rabin), and growing settlements never happened. This logic turns Palestinian suffering into a moral test, while ignoring the structural and historical forces that drive the conflict.

The claim that abandoning violence would magically lead to "a change of government in Israel" and "then a state" is sheer fantasy. Israel has had multiple periods of relative Palestinian calm — including under Fatah, which renounced violence and recognized Israel — only to see no meaningful progress toward statehood. In fact, during periods of low violence, settlement expansion accelerated, the Gaza blockade tightened, and political rhetoric in Israel shifted further right. The idea that Israel would suddenly reward Palestinian pacifism with concessions is not just unsupported by evidence — it’s contradicted by decades of Israeli policy and political behavior.

The speaker's reply shows no engagement with data, comparative analysis, or historical context. It is entirely anecdotal, reactive, and emotionally loaded. For example, no attempt is made to address the well-documented fact that Israel has, at times, strategically benefited from Hamas's existence (e.g., weakening Fatah, maintaining the "no partner for peace" narrative). Nor do they touch the many credible reports — from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the UN, and even Israeli human rights organizations — detailing collective punishment, violations of international law, and systemic discrimination. Instead of grappling with these findings, the speaker pivots to: “They just love death.” That is not analysis — it’s intellectual surrender disguised as insight.

Moreover, their criticism of using ChatGPT for moral argument is ironic: it’s not the tool that matters, it’s the reasoning. ChatGPT can aggregate and synthesize human rights reports, legal findings, and counterinsurgency data far better than a person who relies on vibes and Facebook-tier slogans. Dismissing those arguments because they came from an AI is a transparent dodge — a refusal to engage with the substance, dressed up as snobbery.

The statement is also profoundly hypocritical. The speaker insists that Palestinian violence be condemned (which it should), but treats Israeli state violence — including actions that have killed thousands of civilians — as either irrelevant or morally justified. Saying “settler terrorism is something extremely negative” is a glib throwaway line — a checkbox, not a condemnation. There's no exploration of the state’s role in enabling it, no acknowledgment of the ideological extremism now present in Israel’s ruling coalition, and no attempt to apply the same moral standards to both sides. This is a textbook case of selective outrage: Palestinian violence = proof of cultural pathology; Israeli violence = unfortunate necessity, or not worth discussing.

We can conclude that the speaker has limited critical thinking skills, poor research habits, and a disturbingly casual relationship with moral consistency. Their worldview relies on comfortable narratives, not rigorous analysis, and their refusal to engage with counterevidence suggests not confidence, but cowardice. It’s not that they can’t understand the counterarguments — it’s that they won’t, because to do so would require them to question their own ideological comfort zone.

Edited Saturday at 04:10 PM by Raze

[zazen]

@Breakingthewall

Don't forget to answer the question. Maybe you've been busy enjoying the nude beaches of Spain thanking god for not living under Hamas Islamists who'd never allow it on the beaches of Gaza - where Israeli bombs shred kids instead. Or maybe you can't admit your positions are incoherent lol

4 hours ago, zazen said:

Even so, why did they rebel, what were they rebelling against - colonialism correct? Are they stupid for rebelling against colonialism, according to your own logic? You don't seem to understand that no one willingly wants to be colonized, but when they are and become extreme in their ways - you then gaslight and use that as a excuse to keep colonizing them.

I pin you down to the floor, you scratch my eye, I point at your aggression as evidence for why I must continue to pin you down. That’s the circular logic your using, rather than the logic of perhaps I shouldn’t pin you down in the first place.

Why don't other Muslims elsewhere teach their kids those extremist views? You shared a video praising the Indonesian president for his moderate stance - and they take Islam very very seriously over there. Even more than some other Muslim countries which are much more liberal like Turkey or Lebanon.

So why are they moderate compared to Hamas - why is it that Hamas are extreme? It must be because of the environmental conditions they are in that started due to settler colonialism and persist till today as occupation. Duhhhhhhh.

Oh look, another Muslim country's ex-prime minister speaking on peace and not being a extremist Muslims - again, I wonder why?

What causes some Muslims to become extreme Islamists and not others - perhaps because of conditions they are placed in by larger powers more powerful than them which impose such conditions. Conditions that you keep trying to justify rather than facing your wrong about - you still haven't eaten your humble pie.

 

[Breakingthewall]

@zazen

There are radical Islamists in many places, not just in Gaza. Why is there radical Islamism in Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, or Nigeria? There are no Jews nearby. Iran is radical Islamism, and Erdogan is an Islamist, but he's moving slowly because Turkey wouldn't allow something like Iran. There is radical Islamism in Europe, and in general, there would be in all Muslim countries if it weren't repressed.

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Raze said:

including under Fatah, which renounced violence and recognized Israel

They renounced violence, but there was more violence than ever.

Look, there's a sector of Israel that seeks violence. Settler terrorism is a reality, and Smotrich and the other radicals support it. This is a fact, but these people are a minority in Israel. It's inevitable that there are radical lunatics on both sides, and there's no justification for a lunatic like that doctor who entered the mosque killing people, and whose tomb is now a site of pilgrimage.

But if they have Hamas and the martyrs of Al Aqsa in front of them, then the only solution is total war.

Imagine if Dr. Baruch massacres people in the mosque and then puts them in a van and makes a parade through Tel Aviv, while everyone cheers him hysterically? Then the condemnation of Israel would be absolute.

Well, that's how it is in Gaza, and in a large part of the Muslim world, many people celebrated the September attacks. Perhaps for you, that's justified. So, in my opinion, you're part of the problem. Massacring innocent people without any purpose and then celebrating it as a success is simply celebrating hatred. No one celebrates the deaths of innocent people in Gaza; it's seen as inevitable to erase the malignant tumor of radical Islam.

[Nivsch]

[Breakingthewall]

Let's look at the example of the Oslo Accords. Afterward, perturbed fanatic, Dr. Baruch, went to a mosque and killed 29 people. All of Palestine and the Muslim world in general took this act as proof of Israel's hypocrisy.

The fact is that Israel absolutely rejected the attack and called it repugnant. But this justified a wave of terrible attacks by the Palestinians, which were approved by the vast majority of Palestinians and seen as heroic by the Muslim world.

What do you think of this? They were right to respond to the mosque massacre with a wave of massacres, right? You're probably comparing it to the destruction of Gaza. This is selective blindness; it's completely different. Was a single fanatic, not an organization. Always there will be some fanatics. 

[Nivsch]

Equivalent to 3.5M Americans. Right now in the Hostage square.

Edited Saturday at 06:55 PM by Nivsch

[Raze]

26 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

They renounced violence, but there was more violence than ever.

Look, there's a sector of Israel that seeks violence. Settler terrorism is a reality, and Smotrich and the other radicals support it. This is a fact, but these people are a minority in Israel. It's inevitable that there are radical lunatics on both sides, and there's no justification for a lunatic like that doctor who entered the mosque killing people, and whose tomb is now a site of pilgrimage.

But if they have Hamas and the martyrs of Al Aqsa in front of them, then the only solution is total war.

Imagine if Dr. Baruch massacres people in the mosque and then puts them in a van and makes a parade through Tel Aviv, while everyone cheers him hysterically? Then the condemnation of Israel would be absolute.

Well, that's how it is in Gaza, and in a large part of the Muslim world, many people celebrated the September attacks. Perhaps for you, that's justified. So, in my opinion, you're part of the problem. Massacring innocent people without any purpose and then celebrating it as a success is simply celebrating hatred. No one celebrates the deaths of innocent people in Gaza; it's seen as inevitable to erase the malignant tumor of radical Islam.

 

14 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Let's look at the example of the Oslo Accords. Afterward, perturbed fanatic, Dr. Baruch, went to a mosque and killed 29 people. All of Palestine and the Muslim world in general took this act as proof of Israel's hypocrisy.

The fact is that Israel absolutely rejected the attack and called it repugnant. But this justified a wave of terrible attacks by the Palestinians, which were approved by the vast majority of Palestinians and seen as heroic by the Muslim world.

What do you think of this? They were right to respond to the mosque massacre with a wave of massacres, right? You're probably comparing it to the destruction of Gaza. This is selective blindness; it's completely different. Was a single fanatic, not an organization. Always there will be some fanatics. 

The speaker gestures vaguely at Israeli settler terrorism and names radicals like Smotrich — only to bury these facts beneath the tired cliché: “they’re a minority.” This is rhetorical sleight of hand, not serious analysis. That “minority” holds cabinet posts, controls police and military portfolios, and shapes West Bank policy. This isn’t fringe; it’s institutional. Dismissing their influence as marginal is either willful ignorance or bad faith — reflecting a mind too incurious to face reality, or too dishonest to admit it.

The speaker's hypothetical — “imagine if Baruch Goldstein paraded through Tel Aviv” — is a false equivalence. It frames Palestinian support for attacks as uniquely pathological, while ignoring documented Israeli celebrations of Palestinian deaths, especially during Gaza bombings. Goldstein’s tomb is already a pilgrimage site for Israeli extremists — a fact conveniently overlooked. This one-eyed moralism — pathologizing Palestinian violence while excusing Israeli brutality — isn’t just flawed analysis; it’s moral rot masquerading as outrage.

Citing the Oslo Accords and the Goldstein massacre as some turning point shows deep misunderstanding of the timeline. Oslo was unraveling due to extremists on both sides well before the retaliatory attacks. Israeli condemnation of Goldstein wasn’t moral reckoning — it was damage control. No reforms followed. Settler violence persisted. The political culture that produced Goldstein wasn’t dismantled — it was absorbed into the mainstream Israeli right.

Most damning is the speaker’s casual embrace of “total war” — as if mass killing were a rational response to extremism. This isn’t just morally bankrupt; it’s strategically ignorant. Waging “total war” on a blockaded, captive population — half of them children — is not counterterrorism, it’s collective punishment and a war crime. The speaker ignores decades of research — from RAND, International Crisis Group, and others — showing that such campaigns empower extremists, entrench violence, and alienate civilians. Calling for “total war” without pause exposes a mind unmoored from ethics, law, or strategy. This isn’t analysis — it’s bloodlust dressed as resolve.

Instead of addressing key issues — starvation as a weapon, indiscriminate bombing, Israel’s role in empowering Hamas, or the failures of total war — the speaker pivots to 9/11 celebrations and accuses critics of “justifying terrorism.” This is classic deflection: smear the messenger when facts can’t be refuted. The charge is not only dishonest, it’s cowardly — a desperate tactic to silence debate already lost.

This isn’t someone seeking understanding. It’s someone who wants to feel right — even at the cost of truth, evidence, and basic morality. It's the mindset of someone clinging to myths rather than confronting the realities of occupation and state violence.

If these hollow, selectively informed conclusions are the product of years of “serious study,” it’s not just embarrassing — it’s damning. Compared to those who’ve truly engaged with the conflict’s historical, legal, and humanitarian complexities, this person lags far behind . Their supposed intellectual growth is a closed loop: reinforcing prejudice, not challenging it. To study this conflict deeply and still cheerlead “total war” while waving away war crimes is not just a failure — it’s a grotesque form of regression. They haven’t evolved. They’ve built a more elaborate cage for their biases — and now mistake it for wisdom.

Edited Saturday at 07:00 PM by Raze

[Breakingthewall]

45 minutes ago, Raze said:

starvation as a weapon, indiscriminate bombing

Your IA lies, if this had been the case, the conditions would have been similar to the Siege of Stalingrad. Most of the bombings were announced and food was supplied to the population. That is, the enemy fed the population.

 

45 minutes ago, Raze said:

This isn’t someone seeking understanding. It’s someone who wants to feel right

Maybe it's talking about you. 

Look, I'm going to tell you a secret that will change your life:

AI is programmed to make you feel good so you use it more. It's intelligent (hence the "i") and knows what you want to hear based on your bias. If I ask the same AI about my message and it knows it's from me, it will say it's an accurate analysis worthy of a genius the world isn't yet ready to understand. 

Try to answer with your own mind. Maybe it's difficult now, but if you endure you will get some results fast. 

Edited Saturday at 07:36 PM by Breakingthewall

[Raze]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Your IA lies, if this had been the case, the conditions would have been similar to the Siege of Stalingrad. Most of the bombings were announced and food was supplied to the population. That is, the enemy fed the population.

 

Maybe it's talking about you. 

Look, I'm going to tell you a secret that will change your life:

AI is programmed to make you feel good so you use it more. It's intelligent (hence the "i") and knows what you want to hear based on your bias. If I ask the same AI about my message and it knows it's from me, it will say it's an accurate analysis worthy of a genius the world isn't yet ready to understand. 

Try to answer with your own mind. Maybe it's difficult now, but if you endure you will get some results fast. 

Let’s start with the speaker’s most laughable claim: that accusations of indiscriminate bombing and starvation as a weapon are false because Gaza doesn’t resemble “the Siege of Stalingrad.” This is both historically illiterate and strategically idiotic. Stalingrad was a WWII military siege, not a modern conflict governed by international humanitarian law. Under that law, intentionally starving civilians is a war crime, regardless of scale.

The Amnesty International July 2025 report directly contradicts this claim. It documents Israel’s systematic blockade of aid, destruction of water infrastructure, and strikes on bakeries, wells, aid centers, and UNRWA shelters — not as collateral damage, but as a calculated strategy of deprivation. Since October 2023, Israel has made aid delivery lethal, with multiple recorded attacks on humanitarian workers and convoys, including staff from World Central Kitchen, UNRWA, and the Palestinian Red Crescent.

Airwars reinforces this, detailing over 25,000 civilian casualties early on and identifying a pattern of IDF strikes on schools, hospitals, refugee camps, apartments, and evacuation routes. In 83 documented cases, no military targets were found nearby, even after reviewing IDF statements and geolocated footage. This isn’t “collateral damage” — it’s systemic disregard for civilian life, backed by forensic evidence, satellite imagery, and survivor testimony. Dismissing all this as “propaganda” isn’t just lazy — it’s dishonest.

The claim that the IDF “fed the population” is an obscene reversal of reality. The IDF has been documented firing on convoys, blocking aid, and weaponizing hunger. Gaza — under total blockade — is entirely dependent on international aid. To say its oppressor is “feeding” it is delusional. This is classic colonial logic: impose suffering, then demand praise for not finishing the job. According to the UN, WFP, and OCHA, over 90% of Gazans survive on one meal per day or less, with child malnutrition at famine levels. Every major humanitarian body identifies Israeli restrictions as the primary cause. This isn’t “feeding” — it’s slow, deliberate asphyxiation.

But beneath the factual collapse lies a deeper rot: the speaker’s moral and intellectual bankruptcy. They don’t assess proportionality, legal obligations, or civilian impact — they deflect, accusing critics of being manipulated by AI, as if reports from Amnesty and Airwars are just algorithms for comfort. It’s a reflexive defense by someone rattled by the truth but too insecure to admit it.

Their comment on AI psychology sounds like a Reddit-tier Jordan Peterson rant — pseudo-intellectual fluff posing as insight. The idea that AI “tells you what you want to hear” falls apart when the AI in question is telling them they’re wrong. This isn’t flattery — it’s a damning, sourced rebuttal. To claim bias here is to confuse discomfort with distortion, a classic move of shallow thinkers who mistake challenge for deceit.

On military affairs, their grasp is nonexistent. They treat “not as bad as Stalingrad” as a standard for lawful conduct. They show no understanding of proportionality, collective punishment, or counterinsurgency strategy. Their call for “total war” on a civilian population isn’t just immoral — it’s strategically illiterate. RAND and the International Crisis Grouphave long shown that such tactics strengthen extremists, weaken moderates, and prolong violence. They are unfit to comment on warfare or humanitarian law.

Morally, their worldview is bankrupt. Celebrating “total war” as a rational solution while dismissing mass civilian suffering as “inevitable” is not just callous — it’s fascistic. It’s the logic of annihilation, not justice. This is not someone wrestling with complexity; it’s someone hiding behind a crude binary: us vs. them, civilization vs. savagery, rationality vs. hysteria. This is the moral universe of an adolescent who read half of “The Art of War” and mistook it for a blueprint for modern geopolitics.

So how seriously should others take this person’s perspective? Not at all. Their arguments aren’t just flawed — they’re a cautionary tale in how ideology can rot your ability to think, feel, or learn. They offer nothing new, nothing thoughtful, nothing humane. They are, in every sense of the word, part of the problem.

Edited Saturday at 08:38 PM by Raze

[zazen]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@zazen

There are radical Islamists in many places, not just in Gaza. Why is there radical Islamism in Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, or Nigeria? There are no Jews nearby. Iran is radical Islamism, and Erdogan is an Islamist, but he's moving slowly because Turkey wouldn't allow something like Iran. There is radical Islamism in Europe, and in general, there would be in all Muslim countries if it weren't repressed.

But you didn’t answer why, what’s the common denominator in the places you mentioned? We went over the conditions that gave rise to radical Islam in Nigeria in the form of Boko Haram, who originate from the less developed North of Nigeria.

Why do some Muslims get extreme and others don’t? Because of their environmental conditions making them distort the religion in such a way for their own social, political or ideological ends. Poverty, grievances, lack of education or hope, foreign interventions, occupation in Palestines case etc.

You can take the most lovey dovey sounding book by some hippie guru and twist it to extremist ends if the correct environmental conditions are in place. You could have stage green eco terrorists burning down capitalist cities to save Gaia and bring a stage green revolution.

The point is to fight extremism and terrorism you have to tackle it at the level of environmental conditions - conditions like occupying a people and keeping them starless. Bombing campaigns don’t and haven’t worked as seen from the “war on terror”.

Edited Saturday at 08:58 PM by zazen

[Hatfort]

Quick response to Ben Shapiro's comments about Israel's generosity to the US.

[Breakingthewall]

8 hours ago, zazen said:

Why do some Muslims get extreme and others don’t? Because of their environmental conditions making them distort the religion in such a way for their own social, political or ideological ends. Poverty, grievances, lack of education or hope, foreign interventions, occupation in Palestines case etc.

you mean that it's not islam responsibility , it's west responsibility. 

But that's not the case. Where there's no radical Islamism, it's because governments don't allow it to develop. For example, in Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, or Morocco, it's repressed at its roots. Where there's anarchy, it emerges, as in Syria or Iraq. Then there are countries like Türkiye or Qatar that foster it.

In the internet age, uncontrolled Islam leads to radical Islamism. Perhaps because islam essence is quite radical and expansionist

[Breakingthewall]

@Raze sure man. Why aren't there photos of starved crowds? What were the Palestinians eating for 2.5 years?

Think by yourself, don't believe bullshit. Logic is the key. Stop being a believer. 

[Twentyfirst]

36 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

you mean that it's not islam responsibility , it's west responsibility. 

But that's not the case. Where there's no radical Islamism, it's because governments don't allow it to develop. For example, in Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, or Morocco, it's repressed at its roots. Where there's anarchy, it emerges, as in Syria or Iraq. Then there are countries like Türkiye or Qatar that foster it.

In the internet age, uncontrolled Islam leads to radical Islamism. Perhaps because islam essence is quite radical and expansionist

What about radical Judaism? That allowed Jews to steal a country due to "being promised by god"

Or radical Christianity? That allowed America to go through half a century of endless and unwinnable wars

[Raze]

37 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Raze sure man. Why aren't there photos of starved crowds? What were the Palestinians eating for 2.5 years?

Think by yourself, don't believe bullshit. Logic is the key. Stop being a believer. 

The reply you’ve quoted — “Why aren't there photos of starved crowds? What were the Palestinians eating for 2.5 years? Think by yourself, don't believe bullshit. Logic is the key. Stop being a believer.” — is not just a poor response; it is intellectually vacant, factually hollow, and morally embarrassing. For someone who claims to have deeply studied this issue and sees themselves as a highly moral and intellectual individual, this level of argumentation is a laughable betrayal of those claims. If this is what they consider deep thought, then the bar they’ve set for themselves is somewhere in the Earth’s crust.

Let’s begin with the absurdity of their opening line: “Why aren't there photos of starved crowds?” This is the kind of statement that would be laughed out of any introductory critical thinking seminar. The absence of a specific type of photograph is not evidence that starvation or deprivation is not occurring. That is a textbook case of argument from ignorance — a logical fallacy that says "X hasn't been shown, therefore X doesn't exist." It also shows a complete misunderstanding of how humanitarian crises are documented. Journalists and aid workers have been systematically blocked, targeted, and killed in Gaza. Media access is severely restricted. The idea that a lack of viral images equals lack of suffering is not just uninformed — it’s grotesque.

Moreover, this assertion ignores a mountain of documented evidence. As of October 12, 2025, reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and the World Food Programme (WFP) describe a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza that includes widespread malnutrition, stunting among children, disease from water contamination, and total collapse of the healthcare system. UNICEF reports have included data showing famine-level conditions in multiple sectors. Testimonies from aid workers and doctors describe children eating leaves, animal feed, or going days without food. Satellite imagery shows destruction of farmland and food infrastructure. If this individual had indeed “studied deeply,” they would know this. That they do not either shows willful ignorance or dishonest manipulation.

Their follow-up — “What were the Palestinians eating for 2.5 years?” — is a smug and sinister attempt to erase the context of total blockade and the war crimes associated with denial of humanitarian access. The answer, tragically, is that they were surviving — barely — on drastically insufficient humanitarian aid, often smuggled or dropped under fire. According to the UN and multiple NGOs, over 90% of Gaza’s population now relies on one meal or less per day. Gaza is under siege, and Israel controls every point of entry, from food and medicine to fuel and water. This person’s question is akin to asking what prisoners in a gulag “were eating for years” as if that somehow justifies or disproves allegations of abuse.

Their sneering line — “Think by yourself, don't believe bullshit. Logic is the key.” — is the worst kind of faux-intellectual bravado. It’s the cry of someone who wants to be seen as a contrarian thinker without actually doing any of the work that real critical thinking requires. What they call “logic” is nothing more than contrarian laziness: rejecting every credible source out of hand and replacing it with some imagined omniscience. There is no logic in dismissing hundreds of on-the-ground reports, satellite images, legal documentation, and firsthand testimony because it doesn’t fit your ideological comfort zone. That’s not independent thought — that’s cowardice wrapped in smugness.

They also conveniently ignore the meticulously sourced counter-argument that was provided to them. The response included citations from Amnesty, Airwars, the UN, and humanitarian organizations like World Central Kitchen and the Palestinian Red Crescent — all of which document the systematic nature of civilian targeting, aid obstruction, and starvation tactics. Rather than addressing any of that, they retreat to a reductive meme-tier dodge, pretending that their inability to handle uncomfortable evidence somehow elevates them above the conversation. It doesn’t. It disqualifies them from being taken seriously.

This person claims to be morally developed and intellectually serious. Their reply demonstrates neither. There is no demonstration of moral reasoning — only apathy toward human suffering. There is no display of intellectual integrity— only brittle ego and shallow provocation. They show no curiosity, no humility, and no willingness to revise their beliefs in light of overwhelming evidence. Their response reeks of someone who has confused stubbornness with intelligence and callousness with moral clarity.

Should they be proud of this exchange? Only if pride is measured in how effectively one can gaslight themselves into irrelevance. This isn't a badge of independent thought — it's a monument to their failure to meet even the most basic standards of serious discourse. They are not asking good-faith questions. They are trying to bluff their way through a moral and factual minefield they don’t have the courage to walk through.

In short: their response is a vapid, evasive dodge that betrays not just a lack of knowledge, but a willful refusal to engage with reality. If this is the best they have to offer after "deep study," then they should be deeply embarrassed.

Edited yesterday at 05:55 AM by Raze

[Raze]

55 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Raze sure man. Why aren't there photos of starved crowds? What were the Palestinians eating for 2.5 years?

Think by yourself, don't believe bullshit. Logic is the key. Stop being a believer. 

 

Edited yesterday at 06:13 AM by Raze

[Twentyfirst]

@Raze Now show pictures of Israelis in Tel Aviv eating sushi and ice cream

[Nivsch]

12 hours ago, zazen said:

the conditions that gave rise to radical Islam in Nigeria

And 35 years of terror attacks are conditions that give rise to far more fundamentalistic views of Israeli Right wingers.

Edited yesterday at 09:21 AM by Nivsch

[Breakingthewall]

@Raze sure, always the same boy. What about those?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPo5-mcjJrP/?igsh=bGRzcHJrZGw1aW9k