ok I will. Not sure when...
maybe you can come up with something too in the meantime.

It's all true. You just don't want it to be true. do some research.
again dodging the questions there pal.

and so was the far right.

Do not drive Ford. He backed them.

There is no way only 65 Hamas guys have been killed and 10k civilians have been killed also. I call BS

I'm no expert on UK politics, but I do know that Winston Churchill was an ultra-racist genocidal maniac.

Ah it's pointless, the Hamas ADOLPHO guy.. sup man? How are the swastikas hanging?? all straight?

I'm sorry, I genuinely have zero idea what you're talking about. As I said, I've been skipping over your posts; you've been arguing with other people who aren't me. I'll answer your questions as well as I'm able, if you re-state them in some kind of context I can understand.

Connect the dots for us washoe. Palestinians = Naz _ _

Here you go Karl

knock yourself out...

The context is the tv man told washoe it’s good to hate someone and washoe listens to the tv man.

yes and you left out drunkard, but thank god he was around

of course it's all bs.

Yes. It's also true that Jews attack Muslims every day, both of them attack Christians every day, Christians attack Jews and Muslims every day...

There are many millions of adherents to each of these moronic religions. They all attack each other all the time.

To some degree, yes. My understanding is that Hitler had cozy relations with a number of Middle Eastern and north African governments, some of whom are allies of America today.

Hitler also committed genocide on Arabs, viewing them as racially impure. That didn't prevent him from using their governments in any way that might further the Reich.

Right about what?

I mean, if he said, "Zionism is bad", that is indeed a correct statement which of course massively pales in comparison to the litany of horrors he inflicted on the world.

https://ia800901.us.archive.org/21/i..._the_Nazis.pdf

You are wasting your time here. Your arguments make no sense are amazingly wrong to the point you have to try. Now do your reading. This is seriously a great learning opportunity for you.

When he’s not stumbling into hate speech he’s just amusingly wrong.

we're now at the point where people are arguing they can't see the difference between sending people over to take over a village or concert and systematically massacring the unarmed civilians one by one vs firing upon enemy positions and being largely indifferent to taking out bystanders

both are wrong, but they are orders of magnitude apart from each other and one of them has no plausible explanations

we also have a bunch of brand new accounts all spamming this stuff up

i genuinely feel bad now because I can now see how a lot of my positions are in league with these wackos who showed up recently

It's not the movies. With their current nuclear potential, assuming everything Iran has and everything going according to plan, what happens to Iran after their nukes kill 100K-200K Israelis in Tel Aviv?

To avoid all those millions and millions of Iranian civilian causalities and considering Iran's current regime and their denial of Israel's right to exist, probably the best course of action is to put a tin can underwater with 100+ Tomahawks to surgically take out Iran's nuclear program. Attack subs are pretty self-descriptive; they exist for one purpose and it's not deterrence. We probably won't even hear about it until after it happens.

ok thanks. You should look at some numbers there with the attacks worldwide imo. he said it's the J problem that's the the root...and Zionism imo, which would correlate with your opinions.

thanks

it would start ww3 no kidding.
maybe that's the goal. it didn't make any sense at all? maybe that's why...
but idk. just speculating.

They have been armed. They've often used their arms in a questionable strategic approach. Arming them some more when the west has nukes and is is willing to kill them at a 100 to 1 ratio is a good way to turn the middle east into a cemetery

It surprises me every time someone says that Iran might use nuclear weapons against Israel. They CAN'T do that because the fall-out will make the entire area uninhabitable including Gaza and the West Bank along w/ the two or so cities they hit. I suppose that waiting until there's a huge storm blowing westward might be their plan (that's a joke, btw).

---------------

Also, for those of you on the Palestinian's side: You need not worry, Hamas is winning the war. They (and Palestinians in general) are professional sufferers, constantly shouting out the horrifying degree to which they are made to be killed, shamed and all the rest of it. In order to keep up that bit they need a constant supply of victims and they are now hip deep in them. That there are world wide demonstrations supporting a people capable of cutting off a baby's head is exactly what they want.

Who is arguing that they "can't see the difference between sending people over to take over a village or concert and systematically massacring the unarmed civilians one by one vs firing upon enemy positions and being largely indifferent to taking out bystanders"? One is terrorism, one is standard military bullshit. In this case, as I argued earlier, it was totally inevitable that Palestinian fighters would resort to terroristic acts. Nothing else works.

I hope you don't believe that Israel doesn't intentionally kill civilians as well; it's not that they only bomb military targets and are cool with collateral damage. Imperial states like the US and its proxies have been murdering civilians (straight up, not as collateral damage) for many decades. This isn't an opinion of mine, it's a fact, and if you disagree, read a book.

So you condone what they did?

Anyone who condones it is a pos

Armed with... rocks? AKs? Paragliders? Any arms they have dramatically pale in comparison to the absurd armory Israel has. Do you want to take away their arms so that Israel can exterminate them more efficiently? What do you want here?

"questionable strategic approach", you say. Let me ask, what strategy should Palestine engage in that might have the effect of ending Israeli occupation and oppression? More mild measures have been attempted; diplomacy, sanctions, what have you, and Israel still has a severe stranglehold over Palestine.

You mention nukes. In a realpolitik kind of way, arming yourself with nukes has shown to be the best deterrent against invasion and regime change. Hell, Gaddafi might still be around if he had a nuke or two. The Kim family would probably have been long since deposed if they didn't make every effort to be nuclear. If I'm Iran, I do everything possible to obtain nukes. No amount of moral lecturing is gonna change that reality.