← Back to context

Comment by primitivesuave

16 hours ago

Completely agree with you on this. It will be an unfortunate exercise for future historians to look back on this time, crunch through the enormous amount of data with their quantum computers, and end up realizing just how many people were willing to condone the slaughter of innocent civilians.

You say this as if the side you're advocating for didn't start the war by killing over a thousand civilians.

Just in general, asserting that everyone will agree with your side in the future is such a bizarre rhetorical tactic. Do you honestly think this convinces anybody to reconsider their position?

Only one side stormed through civilian areas killing everyone they met, and it wasn't the Israelis.

  • Yes, it actually was and is the Israelis:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

    Palestinians have every right to resist occupation.

    • Incredible that they have a term for a war they initiated and subsequently lost. Is whats happening now in Gaza also a Nakba?

      Genuinely curious what you think would have happened if all the Islamic countries would not have attacked Israel. Would there be a peaceful Palestinian country? Guess we'll never know....

      But that's all history. Your "occupation resistors" decided to rampage through towns and a music festival and massacre everyone they met. And somehow you seem okay with that.

      1 reply →

  • In my reply above, I evoked the memory of Jeanette Rankin, who was the lone dissenting vote against the Pacific War after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (somewhat analogous to the October 7th attack).

    It is a natural human tendency to desire that the people who inflict pain upon others to also feel pain inflicted upon them. This has been the human condition since ancient times, and yet the most revered figures in human history have been the pacifists who consistently advocate against violence (e.g. Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Lao Tzu, Gandhi, MLK, etc).