So you’re encouraging people to commit violence based solely on some shit they’ve seen on the internet?

What makes you any different than any other nutjob that does some crazy shit because “they did their own research” on the internet?

You aren’t going to have an impact on the violence that’s happening on the other side of the world by doing violence in your own country. Get some perspective. You’re saying that people should bring an end to violence by using violence. How does that make any damn sense?

You know Canada is always lobbying Congress for trade deals, right? Every country does these kinds of things with every country they have relations with. The term we usually use for it is “diplomacy”.

But yeah if you think that we were blameless on 9/11 disregards the history of US foreign politicy.

This is where “But yeah if you think those countries weren’t entirely blameless disregards these country’s support of terrorism”

I won’t though, because unlike you I don’t think there’s any valid rationalization for deliberately targeting civilians. That would just be me lowering myself to the level you lowered yourself to by rationalizing the targeting of civilians.

But you don’t really have any kind of argument against killing civilians because you’ve already suggested that it’s acceptable to do so.

Many many times more. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.

Why don’t you apply this to 9/11 and October 7? What al Qaeda and Hamas did are an “eye for an eye” mentality aren’t they? Why not just do the sensible thing and denounce these “eye for an eye” actions as inexcusable?

And what’s the point of bringing up that some of them may have done compulsory service at some point in their life under a story about Hamas killing six hostages?

There is a context to this, and there is a narrative being promoted that justifies Hamas taking hostages (which is a war crime) and justifies the killing of these unarmed hastages (which is also war crime) because they were at one time IDF (aeven if that were the case, it would also be a war crime to summary execution prisoners of war).

It’s all about building a permission structure to make the war crimes of Hamas acceptable by attempting to classify the hostages as IDF.

Twitter did have an office in Brazil (with legal representation) but after refusing to implement court ordered bans, the court fined them. Elon Musk threw a temper tantrum and shut down the Brazil office and eliminated his legal representation in Brazil.

Note that Musk will implement bans when requested by authoritarians, just for some reason he draws the line when it’s a court order in a democratic country.

Anyway the situation where Twitter doesn’t have legal representation is a situation Elon Musk created. Basically “I fired my lawyers so there’s nothing you can do against me now! Checkmate!” So Brazil says “fine, I guess we’re banning Twitter then…”

So Space Karen thinks the the law doesn’t apply to him and it’s going to cost him a lot of money. Again.

To be more fair, Brazil is a sovereign country, Starlink is not.

I see you there making an effort to dehumanize the hostages. Shame on you.

Good on you.

I think people are trying to reduce the most complicated problems in global politics into a simple good guy vs. bad guy narrative and that leads people down to all kinds of crazy thoughts.

To me the real enemy is hatred. Hatred of Palestinians have resulted in Israel having the corrupt and incompetent leadership of Netanyahu. Hatred of Israelis has led Palestinian to corrupt and incompetent leadership of Fatah on the West Bank and the corrupt and genocidal leadership of Hamas in Gaza. Those promoting hatred of either side are just pushing for the conflict to continue and like all conflicts in densely populated areas, there will be a lot of civilian casualties. The claim to be very upset by the loss of life but their actions indicate they want it to continue until “their side” kills the other.

Also how do you get flags on your username? I think I’ll put both an Israeli and Palestinian flag on mine. If people that hate the people of either place want to hate, then I’m fine with them hating me too.

Whatever the US may have done does not justify the killing of thousands of civilians. If that was the way the world worked than any civilian deaths the US inflicted after 9/11 are also justified by the same logic.

Rationalizations of terrorist acts is really insane. There’s no moral high ground you can gain from this, the best you can accomplish is to say “both sides are bad” which accomplishes nothing.

Far better to denounce terrorism and work to make a distinction between the terrorists and people that have harmed who are not terrorists.

“I have a hard time believing it. Could it have happened? Sure. Did it? Since the IDF says it did, it’s much more likely that it didn’t.”

You’re saying you have a hard time believing that a terrorist organization that murdered 1200 people in a day in the most brutal ways imaginable would kill hostages.

I think you have your default mode set to “blame Israel for everything”. You might want to turn that dial back a little, you’re getting a bit disconnected from reality.

Yeah it’s a weird thing about parasocial relationships. You like someone based on things you’ve seen about them on TV and then you start feeling like you know them. But really, nope you don’t.

I think it’s fine to like famous people, but just understand that you don’t really know them. If you later find out they’re a horrible person well then don’t like them anymore and it’s no big deal. You only like the things you know about the person, but if you avoid going down the road of feeling like you really know them, it’s fine.

Nah, there’s been enough spamming Israel hatred on this Ukraine thread. Please express your hatred towards Israel and it’s people to your daily Israeli hate threads so we don’t spam this thread about Ukraine with it any more than it already has been. Gaza might be the only thing your brain can have in it, but other people have other things they want to discuss.

Just someone that thinks anyone that disagrees on anything with them must support genocide. It’s become typical in with the self-righteous in the pro-Palestine crowd. And then they wonder why most of society is starting to ignore them.

The missile attack from Iran back in April de-escalated though. Not saying that will happen again this time, but it’s definitely imaginable Iran actually will let it go.

Especially considering the last missile attack proved to be ineffective. Missiles aren’t free, it takes time and money to make more. Once those missiles are fired they don’t have more for a while to fire back if and when Israel retaliates.

The last time Israel hit a field near to a strategic Iranian missile site as retaliation. So they “missed” and both sides de-escalated. It’s widely assumed that Israel didn’t actually miss, the missile hit exactly where intended as a warning. While Iranian missiles weren’t able to significantly penetrate Israeli missile defenses, Israel’s missiles can penetrate Iranian defenses even in areas of strategic importance. Next missile attack from Iran will result in that nuclear research site (and possibly other sites of strategic value) likely being destroyed.

So there will be a significant cost for Iran to fire missiles at Israel. They still might do it, hoping whatever improvements they may have made to their air defenses will work this time around. But it’s a big gamble for Iran to directly fire missiles at Israel again rather than have their Hezbollah proxies do it.

So further activity will likely come from Hezbollah, but it’s a similar situation for them as Iran. Missiles fired and shot down by Israeli air defenses is a net loss to them. Having the threat of being able to fire a lot of missiles goes away once those missiles are fired.

Have to wait and see how this plays out.

FFS stop bringing up Israel in threads that have nothing to do with it. There are many many threads about that subject, the need for gaza-brained people to derail every discussion to inject their propaganda into every discussion is getting really annoying, and really accomplishes nothing.

First of all, please consider using paragraphs.

Second of all, Ukraine was attacked by Russia. So why does Ukraine need to avoid triggering Russia, but Russia doesn’t have to worry about triggering Ukraine? We aren’t going to have a lot of geopolitical stability if countries can invade others without worry of consequences. Far better to make it extremely risky to invade another country, then the various despots of the world will think twice about doing it.

Besides, right now Ukraine is negotiating. Start with “we want to hit targets deep inside Russia” and then compromise down to using Storm Shadows only in specific parts of Russia, like the Kursk and Belgorad regions.

Hezbollah is a terrorist group, not an innocent child.

Could you please make an effort to discuss articles that are being linked to?

When Trump left office he took classified documents with him which was illegal. Like he possessed something it was illegal to possess. it’s over three years later and the prosecution is still underway.

So it’s very doubtful that a crime he just committed will be prosecuted before November. Though it will be prosecuted at a future date, if people go out and vote to keep him from being President again.

The big thing I remember hearing at the time was that it was an illegal war because Congress didn’t declare war and only they can.

That’s just internet nonsense. Nobody declares war anymore, because it’s going from zero to a hundred in an instant and it’s difficult to back down from. Which is something that could lead to World War 3 which is widely seen to be a bad thing. It’s all about escalation so there can be de-escalation if things seem like it’s getting out of hand.

Post-WWII, congress does what’s called an Authorization of Use of Force. Which is effectively the same thing if you’re worried about upsetting the dead slave masters that wrote the constitution. And there was an authorization for use of force for Afghanistan.

I thought the Russians calling their invasion of Ukraine a special military operation was a slightly tongue in cheek jab at the US since that’s basically what we called the invasion of Afghanistan.

Nope, it was called the “Global War on Terror” from the very beginning. The US did not avoid the use of the word war. The “special operation” bullshit is just a Putin propaganda thing.

The UN is a forum for diplomacy to happen. It’s not the fucking world police LOL.

International law is just a collection of treaties that countries may or may not have signed on to. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could be considered an illegal invasion because it violated treaties.

There was no such treaty prohibiting the US from invading Afghanistan, in fact there were UN security council resolutions in support of it, here’s some light reading for you on the UN supporting combating terrorism in Afghanistan after 9/11: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1386

While there isn’t actually a world police, NATO is the closest thing to it. 9/11 triggered Article 5 of NATO, so basically Al Qaeda punched the world police in the face and the Taliban tried to protect their Al Qaeda buddies.

Also remember the Taliban wasn’t recognized as the government by the UN. So in “UN law” terms, NATO was going into Afghanistan to support the UN recognized government (The Northern Alliance, previously called the Mujaheddin) against a terrorist group (al Qaeda) and their allies (Taliban). This was done with explicit endorsement by the UN security council.

Maybe you should read up on international law, it’s a little more complex than you’re assuming it to be. There are actually justifications for military action, like when a terrorist group attacks another country. Afghanistan also may be more complicated than you think with all the various factions within the country.