WW3 breaking out

[Impenitent]

People forget that Jews have a very deep history in all of those countries, having lived in them long before there was any such thing as 'islam'. Clearly they were forced out by 'someone'.

the Comanche did it

-Imp

[godelian]

Jews wanted a homeland where they could look out for each other after hundreds of years of persecution by other peoples.

So, is that why the Zionists were allowed to forcibly "transfer" the Palestinians out of their land?

The British gave them the territory.

Who the hell do the British think that they are that they can give away someone else's land?
Why didn't they give Great Britain away to the Zionists?

Perhaps the peace process should start with where things are now and move forward.

The balance of power is now rapidly shifting in favor of the Palestinians.
Furthermore, Netanyahu does not want a peace process.

I actually think that it is preferable for the Palestinians to give Iran (and Turkey) time to join the war on the side of the resistance. It is also a question of letting the Russian Federation counterbalance the United States. Let's see if the Americans are truly willing to risk their lives and die for Zionism. I think that it is mostly bluff. When push comes to shove, the Zionists will stand alone against the entire seven nation army.

I've heard many rational minds talk favorably of the "two state" solution.

Netanyahu does not want a "two state" solution. It makes more sense to let Netanyahu do what he really wants to do and to let him expand the war.
The Zionists are convinced that a Jewish life is worth much more than a Palestinian life. In the end, nobody else is willing to endorse that view. So, let the war continue until the war has outlasted the Zionists.

[accelafine]

Jews wanted a homeland where they could look out for each other after hundreds of years of persecution by other peoples.

So, is that why the Zionists were allowed to forcibly "transfer" the Palestinians out of their land?

The British gave them the territory.

Who the hell do the British think that they are that they can give away someone else's land?
Why didn't they give Great Britain away to the Zionists?

Perhaps the peace process should start with where things are now and move forward.

The balance of power is now rapidly shifting in favor of the Palestinians.
Furthermore, Netanyahu does not want a peace process.

I actually think that it is preferable for the Palestinians to give Iran (and Turkey) time to join the war on the side of the resistance. It is also a question of letting the Russian Federation counterbalance the United States. Let's see if the Americans are truly willing to risk their lives and die for Zionism. I think that it is mostly bluff. When push comes to shove, the Zionists will stand alone against the entire seven nation army.

I've heard many rational minds talk favorably of the "two state" solution.

Netanyahu does not want a "two state" solution. It makes more sense to let Netanyahu do what he really wants to do and to let him expand the war.
The Zionists are convinced that a Jewish life is worth much more than a Palestinian life. In the end, nobody else is willing to endorse that view. So, let the war continue until the war has outlasted the Zionists.

It's plasticinians who have consistently rejected a 'two state solution'. What does that even mean anyway? Gaza's had self-rule since 2005. What do you think they mean when they say 'river to sea'? For such a gigantic ignoramus you seem to be alwfully 'privy' to what goes on inside Netanyahu's head.

[accelafine]

See a pattern here? Jew-hating 'pro plasticine' wank-jobs always refuse to debate me.
He's only responding to Gary because he smells weakness and lack of conviction. It's why IC always homes in on Gary as well

[godelian]

See a pattern here? Jew-hating 'pro plasticine' wank-jobs always refuse to debate me.
He's only responding to Gary because he smells weakness and lack of conviction. It's why IC always homes in on Gary as well

Zionism and Nazism are essentially one and the same thing. Who exactly gets targeted for hatred is just a template variable. It's all about Ubermenschen and Untermenschen, all over again. We have enough of these evil European ideologies. The Zionist colonization has to stop. We are waiting for Netanyahu now, for him to make Iran (and Turkey) join the war on the side of the resistance.

[Gary Childress]

See a pattern here? Jew-hating 'pro plasticine' wank-jobs always refuse to debate me.
He's only responding to Gary because he smells weakness and lack of conviction. It's why IC always homes in on Gary as well

What am I supposed to do, cling to lies? I'm sorry to disappoint, however, a solid foundation cannot be built on lies. In the end it takes everyone at the table to create a world that works and right now there is a lot for the world to work on, such as saving our climate and habitat from disaster. War is not going to clean up all the waste and improve the climate.

[accelafine]

See a pattern here? Jew-hating 'pro plasticine' wank-jobs always refuse to debate me.
He's only responding to Gary because he smells weakness and lack of conviction. It's why IC always homes in on Gary as well

Zionism and Nazism are essentially one and the same thing. Who exactly gets targeted for hatred is just a template variable. It's all about Ubermenschen and Untermenschen, all over again. We have enough of these evil European ideologies. The Zionist colonization has to stop. We are waiting for Netanyahu now, for him to make Iran (and Turkey) join the war on the side of the resistance.

Ok. So more meaningless nothingness. How 'surprising'. You are a fucking moron.

[accelafine]

See a pattern here? Jew-hating 'pro plasticine' wank-jobs always refuse to debate me.
He's only responding to Gary because he smells weakness and lack of conviction. It's why IC always homes in on Gary as well

What am I supposed to do, cling to lies? I'm sorry to disappoint, however, a solid foundation cannot be built on lies. In the end it takes everyone at the table to create a world that works and right now there is a lot for the world to work on, such as saving our climate and habitat from disaster. War is not going to clean up all the waste and improve the climate.

Just stop being such a weak sop. Do your own proper research (if you know how).

[Gary Childress]

See a pattern here? Jew-hating 'pro plasticine' wank-jobs always refuse to debate me.
He's only responding to Gary because he smells weakness and lack of conviction. It's why IC always homes in on Gary as well

What am I supposed to do, cling to lies? I'm sorry to disappoint, however, a solid foundation cannot be built on lies. In the end it takes everyone at the table to create a world that works and right now there is a lot for the world to work on, such as saving our climate and habitat from disaster. War is not going to clean up all the waste and improve the climate.

Just stop being such a weak sop. Do your own proper research (if you know how).

Do you believe might makes right?

[accelafine]

What am I supposed to do, cling to lies? I'm sorry to disappoint, however, a solid foundation cannot be built on lies. In the end it takes everyone at the table to create a world that works and right now there is a lot for the world to work on, such as saving our climate and habitat from disaster. War is not going to clean up all the waste and improve the climate.

Just stop being such a weak sop. Do your own proper research (if you know how).

Do you believe might makes right?

I know that facts. logic and reason do. Don't you? Your question was moronic. What caused you to ask me that?

[Gary Childress]

Just stop being such a weak sop. Do your own proper research (if you know how).

Do you believe might makes right?

What caused you to ask me that?

Your obsession with the term "weak". I think you mistake weakness for being reasonable.

[accelafine]

Do you believe might makes right?

What caused you to ask me that?

Your obsession with the term "weak". I think you mistake weakness for being reasonable.

I don't, and nor do they.

[Gary Childress]

ChatGPT on whether Israel's war is justifiable.

You said:
Is Israel's conduct in the current war in Gaza since October 7, 2023 justifiable according to just war theory?

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The conduct of Israel in the war against Hamas in Gaza, beginning on October 7, 2023, has sparked significant debate regarding its justification within the framework of just war theory (JWT). Just war theory is a moral and philosophical framework used to assess the legitimacy of engaging in war (jus ad bellum) and how war is conducted (jus in bello). Here’s an evaluation of key criteria of JWT in relation to Israel's actions in Gaza since October 7:

1. Jus ad Bellum: Just Cause
Just Cause: A war is justifiable if it is waged for the right reasons, such as self-defense or preventing massive harm. Israel’s justification for its military actions is based on self-defense after the unprecedented and deadly attack by Hamas on October 7, in which over 1,400 Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed, and many others were taken hostage.
Evaluation: From the perspective of JWT, self-defense in response to such an attack would generally be seen as a just cause. Hamas’ actions, including attacks on civilians, are widely condemned as violations of international law.

2. Jus ad Bellum: Legitimate Authority
Legitimate Authority: A war must be declared and conducted by a legitimate government or authority.
Evaluation: Israel’s military operations are conducted by the state of Israel, which is recognized as a legitimate authority.

3. Jus ad Bellum: Right Intention
Right Intention: The intention behind waging war must be to achieve a just outcome (e.g., defending the population, restoring peace), rather than for revenge, domination, or expansion.
Evaluation: Israel’s stated intention is to dismantle Hamas' military capabilities and ensure the security of its citizens. However, some argue that the intensity of Israel's military response, including the blockade and bombardments of Gaza, may go beyond self-defense and verge into excessive retribution.

4. Jus ad Bellum: Proportionality
Proportionality: The overall harm caused by the war must be proportionate to the initial harm suffered, and the military response should not result in disproportionate loss of civilian life or infrastructure damage.
Evaluation: This is where Israel's actions face the most scrutiny. The airstrikes, ground operations, and the blockade of Gaza have led to significant civilian casualties, displacement, and destruction of civilian infrastructure, including homes, hospitals, and schools. As of late October 2023, thousands of Palestinian civilians, including children, have been killed. Critics argue that Israel’s military response has caused harm disproportionate to the threat posed by Hamas, raising questions about whether the response meets this criterion of just war theory.

5. Jus in Bello: Discrimination (Non-Combatant Immunity)
Discrimination: Combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilians, and attacks must be directed only at legitimate military objectives.
Evaluation: Israel claims to target Hamas militants and infrastructure, which are often embedded within civilian areas in Gaza, making it difficult to avoid civilian casualties. While Israel asserts that it takes measures to warn civilians and mitigate harm, the high civilian death toll raises serious concerns about adherence to the principle of discrimination. The destruction of civilian homes, refugee camps, and critical infrastructure has prompted accusations that Israel may not be sufficiently distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants.

6. Jus in Bello: Proportionality (in the Conduct of War)
Proportionality (in conduct): Even if the cause is just, each military action must be proportionate and should avoid excessive use of force, ensuring the harm caused is not excessive compared to the military advantage gained.
Evaluation: Israel's widespread bombardment of Gaza, which is densely populated, has led to claims of disproportionate force. The destruction of essential services, including hospitals and water infrastructure, as well as the severe restrictions on humanitarian aid into Gaza, has drawn widespread condemnation from international human rights groups and some governments. Critics argue that the use of force appears disproportionate to the military objectives, violating this principle of JWT.

7. Jus Post Bellum: Justice After War
Justice After War: Although this applies to the aftermath of conflict, the principle suggests that the outcome of the war should lead to lasting peace and stability. Humanitarian concerns and the rights of civilians should be addressed.
Evaluation: It is too early to assess this principle fully, but any long-term resolution would need to account for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Palestinian self-determination, and security guarantees for Israel. The ongoing destruction of Gaza without a clear path to peace raises concerns about whether this principle can be fulfilled.

Conclusion
In the context of just war theory, Israel's initial response to the October 7 Hamas attacks may be justifiable under the jus ad bellum principles of self-defense, legitimate authority, and just cause. However, the jus in bello principles of proportionality and discrimination are highly contested given the high civilian toll and widespread destruction in Gaza. Critics argue that Israel’s actions may exceed the limits of proportionality, especially regarding the scale of harm to non-combatants. Others defend Israel’s position by emphasizing the difficulty of combating an adversary embedded in civilian areas.

Ultimately, the application of just war theory to this conflict is subjective, and perspectives on whether Israel’s actions are justifiable will vary based on interpretations of proportionality, intention, and the conduct of military operations.

[godelian]

ChatGPT on whether Israel's war is justifiable.

The other question is whether Hamas' 7 Oct attack on the Zionists was justified given the right of the Palestinians to defend themselves from the European colonial ideology of ethnic cleansing and "transfer" away from their original homeland. The answer is obviously yes. The Palestinians will keep attacking the Zionists until they can return to their original homeland. It is of no importance whatsoever what the Zionists themselves think about the matter.

[Gary Childress]

ChatGPT on whether Israel's war is justifiable.

The other question is whether Hamas' 7 Oct attack on the Zionists was justified given the right of the Palestinians to defend themselves from the European colonial ideology of ethnic cleansing and "transfer" away from their original homeland. The answer is obviously yes. The Palestinians will keep attacking the Zionists until they can return to their original homeland. It is of no importance whatsoever what the Zionists themselves think about the matter.

According to ChatGPT Hamas' attack was not justifiable according to International humanitarian law.

Gary asked: Was Hamas justified in attacking Israel on Oct 7, 2023?

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, was widely condemned as unjustifiable by many governments and international organizations. The attack resulted in the deaths of civilians, including women, children, and elderly people, and included kidnappings and other acts of violence. Such actions constitute violations of international humanitarian law, which prohibits targeting civilians in armed conflict.

Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by several countries, including the United States, the European Union, and others. Its attack was viewed as an act of terrorism, not a legitimate or justified military operation. While some argue that Hamas was responding to long-standing grievances related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this does not justify the deliberate targeting of civilians under international law.

The broader political and historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex, but indiscriminate violence against non-combatants is illegal and condemned by the international community.