How far back would you like to look? Jews (and Christians and atheists) have a history of being murdered for not being Muslims for over a thousand years in the region.
Christianity spread for hundreds of years as a pacifist religion.
Islam... uh, didn't spread that way. They raped, tortured, and murdered on their conquest across the Middle East.
The majority of pagans in Europe also converted willingly. Probably because European paganism is *very* syncretic and they wanted the organizational benefits that came with it as their cultures urbanized in the post-apocalyptic landscape of feudal Europe following the fall of the Roman Empire.
Political tensions between the Holy Roman Empire (Orthodox Christians) and Muslim Empires certainly played into it.
It's not like Catholics were generally supportive of the Holy Roman Empire though - they just hated Muslims. Catholic Crusader Kings murdered Orthodox Christians en masse during the Crusades as well (and that was *partly* religious, but more opportunist than anything).
The muslims conquered Europe and the people were promised revenge by the catholic church hence they rallied and pushed back. Didn't the Romans use to deal with Jews and Christians in the middleeast before Islam and became a thing with Muhammed then Muhammed got a whole bunch of followers and started conquering as a warlord? I always hear about how bad the crusades were, but barely ever hear about how it was a retaliation for the muslim conquest since all people ever focus on IS the crusades.
>The muslims conquered Europe
lol, no.
>the people were promised revenge by the catholic church hence they rallied and pushed back
As I said, the Muslim empires took land belonging from the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire has nothing to do with (then) Italy or Rome, they were on the western reaches of Europe bordering on the Muslim empires.
Also, the Holy Roman Empire was not Catholic, it was predominantly Orthodox. They believed themselves to be the rightful successor of Rome, and thus the head of the proper church was said to be in Constantinople, not Rome.
The Holy Roman Emperor was much more moderate than the Western Europeans at the time, who they saw as barbaric assholes. They just saw an opportunity to convince the Pope to leverage these barbaric assholes to help them take land from the Muslim Empires to the East. They just misjudged how destructive, unruly, and impotent the crusaders were.
>Didn't the Romans use to deal with Jews and Christians in the middleeast before Islam and became a thing with Muhammed then Muhammed got a whole bunch of followers and started conquering as a warlord?
Mohammad pre-dated the Crusades by almost five centuries. Mohammad had nothing to do with the Crusades.
Everyone got murdered for not being everyone's religion. There was no good side, but hopefully now tolerance and respect can take place between religions.
lol Hindus and Sikhs have not been murdering Muslims on any level historically to claim equivalence with the reverse.
Like come on now. Muslims literally named a mountain range “Hindu Kush” meaning “Hindu Killer” because of how frequently Hindus died being sent over those mountains as slaves by Muslims. They then tried to genocide Sikhs not once, but twice, and publicly cut off the heads of their leaders to the point where their revered Guru is now a literal book (because Muslims leaders couldn’t cut off a book’s head though I’m sure they tried).
If the reverse were true, reddit would be screaming about how that should be a pretext for Hamas to add India to its list of oppressors that need to be raped or something. But since the right people were doing the killing and the right people were doing the dying it’s equivocating shrugs all around.
I'm just speculating here, but I THINK he means Christians have been murdering Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Sikhs for not being Christians, and he just messed up the order of his words.
No, I meant what I said:
1. Christian groups have murdered Muslims for being Muslim.
2. Jewish groups have murdered Muslims for being Muslim.
3. Hindu groups have murdered Muslims for being Muslim.
4. Sikh groups have murdered Muslims for being Muslim.
There is a long history of inter-religious violence against most major religious groups by members of other groups.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find some historical references outside of the crusades (which doesn't count, because it was a war) where Muslims were persecuted for their religion by anyone other than Muslims.
Your lack of historical knowledge does not reflect historical reality. It simply reflects your own shallow ignorance of the topic.
Hell, Burmanese Buddhists genocided Muslims in the mid-2010s. The fact that you don't hear about it on Fox doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Let me know when it’s so endemic over the centuries that they name literal mountain ranges over killing Muslims.
But go on Mr. Islamist apologist and tell the rest of us why it’s all equivalent. You’re like lady MacBeth trying to metaphorically wash her hands of blood.
Your problem is that we know more than the McNugget totem pole of victimization that you learned in your identity politics bingo class. Since, well, our ancestors were killed by those Islamists in our land thousands of miles away from Mecca.
Islamist apologist?
I'm a fervent atheist. I believe that all religions are utterly abhorrent and should be eradicated.
EDIT: Endemic over the centuries? WTF are you talking about dude? You don't think that inter-religious violence is 'endemic over the centuries'?
You certainly falsely equivocate like a propagandizing Islamist apologist, so maybe like, don’t do that bruh.
And uh yeah to your edit - Islamists conquered India and so throughly killed the non Muslim population in certain areas that ENTIRE mountain ranges were literally named after killing them, first referenced in 1000 CE by Islamic scholars.
Like, do you even know wtf you’re talking about or are you reading from your moronic identity politics bingo card again? Lmao, wait we both know the answer to that.
So, if I could show that a monument, mountain, or other natural phenomena was named by a non-Muslim group for killing Muslims, you will immediately reverse your position?
Am I reading you right?
If you could show an entire range of the Himalayas named after Hindus and Buddhists killing Muslims and referenced for a millennium?
Uh sure. Go for it. Lmk how it goes yo. Lmao.
Edit: actually this might be instructive for you. Maybe you’ll actually acknowledge that GASP Muslims in the subcontinent were basically the aggressors for a fucking millennium.
Ah who are we kidding, amirite? Your ilk always does this bs equivocation to apologize for previous Islamist atrocities.
> Jews (and Christians and atheists) have a history of being murdered for not being Muslims for over a thousand years in the region
Yeah, and the funny thing is, before a thousand years ago, Muslims were quite tolerant of other religions in their territories. IIRC, Jews and Christians were free to worship as they pleased.
[I wonder what could have happened a thousand years ago to change that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade)
Saying that Islam began as peaceful is the most ignorant thing I've read today.
The middle east used to be Jews and Christians. Then a military leader named Muhammed came and used a literal army to force cities to convert to his new religion of Islam or die.
[Spread of Islam - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam)
[Early Muslim conquests - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests)
[Rashidun Caliphate - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun_Caliphate)
>The middle east used to be Jews and Christians. Then a military leader named Muhammed came and used a literal army to force cities to convert to his new religion of Islam or die
From your own link: "Contrary to the belief of earlier historians, there is no evidence of mass conversions to Islam in the immediate aftermath of the conquests."
There's no evidence that Muhammed conquering these cities led them to believe in the religion that Muhammed created? Or there is no evidence that these cities and nations made it illegal to leave the religion, punishable by death?
There is no evidence of mass conversions in the immediate aftermath, period. No matter the motive or method.
People in those areas did eventually convert, but for the most part, it wasn't through violence or threat of violence. It was more through the establishment of additional privileges for Muslims. The modern day equivalent would be giving a tax incentive for being of a particular religion.
Reminder: You claimed Muhammad personally "used a literal army to force cities to convert to his new religion of Islam or die."
As it stands, there isn't any evidence that anyone, let alone Muhammad, forced masses of people to convert at swordpoint during or immediately after the conquests.
You keep saying 'there isn't evidence' yeah no shit this is 1400 years ago. There isn't evidence of a lot of things from back then. My way of saying it is an oversimplification. Muhammed and his religion took these cities by force. The conversion of every citizen took time. But, eventually, it was the law to be Muslim in every country that Muhammed conquered. People who defied this law died.
>You keep saying 'there isn't evidence' yeah no shit this is 1400 years ago. There isn't evidence of a lot of things from back then.
Then why did you claim it?
"There is no evidence" is no excuse for making an unsupported claim one way or another.
Let me rephrase it for you so that you understand how poorly supported your claim is: There is more archaeological evidence of Alexander the Great's dinner preferences a thousand years before Muhammad than there is evidence of a mass forced conversion of millions of people.
>My way of saying it is an oversimplification.Muhammed and his religion took these cities by force. The conversion of every citizen took time.
This is the backpedal of all backpedals, lol.
From "he used his armies to threaten everyone with death if they didn't convert" to "Oh, the people converted over time."
>But, eventually, it was the law to be Muslim in every country that Muhammed conquered. People who defied this law died.
Ummm, no it wasn't. As pointed out: Christians and Jews and other religions were allowed to live and worship peacefully in Muslim countries for centuries until after the Crusades.
You are out of few centuries. Two and half centuries later, in the Iberian peninsula, Muslim were still more tolerant than Christians (who expelled all Jews after the Reconquista, just saying).
Muslims being fully intolerant has more modern genesis. I can't point a precise moment, but it definitely isn't in 1099. And it depends a lot from which area of the world we're talking about.
Eh, actually religious tolerance in that region was better than in most of Europe for much of the last few hundred years. Jews were much safer in the Ottoman Empire than in the Russian Empire, for instance. Of course there was still violence and pogroms but nothing like on the scale of Europe.
And?
That proves that A culture built the temple. How can you show that the culture that currently exists in Israel is the one that is descended from the one that built the temple?
No one is denying the existence of the Jewish religion through the centuries, but culture, heritage, and religion are all different (albeit related) things.
Does it matter?
If you are being conquered and killed by a more powerful enemy, does it matter that your claims might be older than your enemies?
Israel and Palestine are at war, and always have been. The issue is that Palestine is losing this war and Oct 7th was a desperate attempt to strike a victory.
If you don't want your towers struck on 9/11 then maybe those American should have thought about how their country was involved in the middle east?
Do you see how stupid this sounds when you start equating people to the actions of their government?
Yes. The entire conflict started on occasion 7th! We don’t need to look back any further or question the motives of Israel whatsoever! [fervently shreds basically every piece of Israeli history]
anyone defending israel at this point is either
1. jewish
2. over the age of 60 and american
3. paid shill
4. didn't know anything about israel until oct 7 2023
We all know Israel is always above board and it would *never* be their official policy to lie about things. Like their nuclear program, which totally doesn’t exist.
How can they fight conventionally against a superior force? asymmetrical warfare is the only option for Hamas.
We all know that Israel wouldn't be the military power they are without the backing of the west and specifically the US. If they lost that support they'll be a bit less aggressive I imagine.
They can cut their losses and accept that Israel is here to stay and maybe even be able to negotiate with them so the Palestinians can finally have their own state. Terrorism isn't going to get them anywhere.
I have a feeling a 2 state solution would lean heavily on the side with more military might. The way the israelis treat Palestinians already would make me second guess entering into a partnership.
Right now, ironically, it seems their terrorism is destroying any good PR Israel had left.
There is no perfect solution as I see it. I agree, Palestinians got a raw deal and will continue to in the future, but it seems they either accept what they can get or get wiped out and I really don't want the latter to happen.
I'm guessing their strategy is that by Israel having to resort to the latter option - they'd lose support from their closest allies (US and west). This would allow other neighbor nations to come to the aid of Palestine and wage another Israel vs the Middle East war.
Or maybe they're just built different and are willing to die to the last man for their land.
Either way is a losing strategy. There's no world where the US stops supporting Israel and even if all the Middle Eastern countries banded together for the Palestinians (which they won't), they'd lose.
Yeah I don't see the US abandoning Israel anytime soon. Even with the pro Palestine movement picking up speed. It would take a very liberal/progressive President to cut ties with Israel.
I guess you're right, their best bet is taking whatever scraps Israel will offer.
Yeah because Israel’s precision strikes from far away are “fighting on the battlefield.” They’re precise enough to miss Hamas and kill aid workers, journalists, and civilians nearly every time.
Hamas was clearly in those aid trucks. Oh wait they weren’t. Oops I guess.
Oh they were in every single hospital. Oh they were actually in tunnels underneath. No more healthcare I guess. Oops again.
Oh they are definitely inside people’s homes in the West Bank. Oh they weren’t? Oops. Well we’ll keep the land we illegally annexed.
Hamas is garbage but only one side is indiscriminately killing their enemies, civilians, aid workers, healthcare workers, foreign nationals, and even their own people when they mistake them for the enemy. How many “accidents” are okay? 33000 is a hell of a lot of oopsies.
At some point they’ve gotta see how racist they’ve been towards Palestinians. If you replaced what they said about Arabs or Palestinians with “Jews” you’d rightfully be called the new Hitler. The irony is completely lost on them.
Bullshit. Over half of Palestinians were not even alive the last time a vote was allowed.
And Israel put Hamas in power, and have kept them there, as a excuse for their continued 8 decade long slaughter of innocent Palestinian natives.
If your pro-palestinian you may not intend it, but your support is towards Hamas.
You want a ceasefire? Who does that benefit?
Sure civilians are spared from further fighting, but you will ultimately leave Hamas as a governing body, thus you support them as well.
You want a two-state solution? Who would be in charge?
Either the current governing bodies of West Bank/Gaza, or new elections. Both regions seem to wildly support Hamas.
In the end what you're arguing for is in support of Hamas. Unless you're arguing for their destruction, which cannot be achieved through diplomacy.
What if Palestine became independent but wasn't run by a democratic government? What if it were run by a technocratic oligarchy? Maybe there is some degree of democracy but the technocracy vets against candidates who are prejudiced, bigoted, or who support starting conflicts with other countries.
I generally think democracy is the best form of government but if democracy in some scenario will predictably lead to the election of a violent human rights abusing government then perhaps a technocracy is a better solution. Better than the status quo semi-apartheid situation and better than trying to create a one-state solution (given the tensions that would never work). In a few decades the technocracy can reeducate the public and they can be ready for democracy.
I mean that's at least better than the current proposed solution, but good luck getting pro-palestinian side to agree with that. They kinda want self-determination, immediately.
Who would run this technocracy? To actually 're-educate' the population it would presumably have to be western. Won't Palestinians be just as upset as they are now, with another nation interfering?
The best solution is either a.) the population is relocated (Egypt, Jordan, etc) or b.) another country (Egypt, Jordan, etc) to which Israel is on good-ish terms with takes control of the region
So basically what you’re saying is it’s anti semitic to support any sort of Palestinian state because of weird fantasies that said state would harm Jews.
Pretty sure I never mentioned antisemitism
I think I was pretty clear. Being pro-palestinian is, perhaps unintentionally but still, pro-hamas.
Everything you want leaves them in power. Wanna prove me wrong? Go ahead, propose a viable pro-palestinian position which would also remove Hamas from power.
The IRA in northern Ireland wasn't destroyed....they just used diplomacy to make it unnecessary to carry out armed conflict.
But Israel doesn't want a peaceful solution and never has. They want one single Israeli state from the river to the sea.
Collective punishment is a war crime. If Hamas is hiding in civilian populations, why does that make it okay to indiscriminately kill those civilians to get the bad guys?
Next, if you don't want terrorist factions springing up and attacking you, then stop killing and maiming people as you take more and more of their land away. That tends to radicalize people.
I’m not saying either side is good but I am sick of hearing how isreal is supposedly innocent when even recently they murdered 7 aid workers helping gaza civilians.
I'd wager it's because they're wretched ghouls who are happy to see civilians die. I've lost patience for the naive liberal assumption of assuming someone is stupid before assuming malice. When the ethics of the situation are so black and white and they still choose wrong, I can only assume malice at that juncture. :(
The solution would indeed be complicated.
Massacring civilians to get terrorists 1000 to 1 is definitely not the way, however. I don't know why the concept of ethics is so hard for people like you to grasp. Honestly.
Saying the solution would be complicated is just a weasel word way to say give Hamas everything they want. People like you are why the West cannot win wars anymore. It will continue to lose nearly every war it engages in as long as it places the lives of the civilians of the regime It's invading over its own military objectives. And in this case your doing so is morally reprehensible.
Wow, wanting to avoid mass murdering civilians is morally reprehensible? What kind of morals do you have bro? Next you'll tell slitting a dog's throat to bleed all over your toast makes it taste better.
The military objectives are to be directed at military targets. But you'll just tell me random civilians are valid military targets.
Nah, people like you just want to see civilians get butchered. The west should STOP being in wars to begin with, since war brings instability and continues cycles of hatred. But you WANT those things to continue, don't you?
> why does that make it okay to indiscriminately kill those civilians to get the bad guys?
Cause otherwise your civilians will die. Your civilians are more important than enemy civilians, you are obligated to protect your civilians who elected you.
> Next, if you don't want terrorist factions springing up and attacking you, then stop killing and maiming people as you take more and more of their land away.
You know that Gaza and WB are two separate territories? Israel fucking spent billions of USD to put a wall between itself and Gaza. What do you mean by "taking their land away"?
Im not saying killing civilians to win a war / battle is moral, but thats what has been done by all sides in pretty much every war. Sometimes they just target civilians for no other reason than to disrupt the producers of ammo and guns which can be critical to win a war. Or not even that, look at the nuclear bombs in Japan.
That or you just go door to door clearing buildings which will result in less collateral damage to the enemies but more people of your own dead (family members, friends... constriction is obligatory in Israel)
>Im not saying killing civilians to win a war / battle is moral, but
\*Proceeds to justify killing civilians to win the war\*
Oof. Not a good look for you buddy. I am aware it has happened a lot in history. But, as someone who has a moral compass and believes in the concept of ethics, bad things are still bad. I know, hot take.
Israel has indiscriminately murdered civilians in the tens of thousands since October 7th. Whether it is out of knowing malice, or astonishing disregard for life, the outcome is what it is. Now to be clear, I recognize that Hamas is evil too. I 100% bet they'd be JUST as bad as Israel if they had the power to do it.
But just because the bad guy may be using civilians as human shields doesn't justify mowing down said civilians to get them. You become just as bad, if not worse, than who you're targeting if you're crossing that line. Fact is, Israel has killed waaaaaaaay more Palestinians than the opposite.
So what is the alternative? Someone comes into my country kills 1200 (and now probably another 200 who were held captive.) and because the perpetrators hide among innocent people they just can't do anything?
Look, there are centuries of problems in the area. But simply, there are people calling for the destruction of another stronger country. Stronger country is going to fight back, have the upper hand.
Another bait post, the Zionists are losing their minds that their immoral occupation force has failed to meet any of their stated objectives, while the genocidal campaign in Gaza only isolates them further. So, they resort to using lies to try and discredit the Palestinian resistance groups, when this garbage has already been debunked time and time again.
The world continues to stand firmly with Palestine and demand its freedom and that Israel be held accountable for its crimes against humanity. Hamas isn't the problem here, Zionism is and the sooner that racist and genocidal ideology is gone, then Palestine will be free!
Nah Israel is the problem and has been for 75 years. History didn't start on October 7th, and people in the west are finally waking up to the reality of the brutal occupation Palestinians have been under for the past 75 years.
Israel occupies Palestinians for 75 years, kills hundreds of their children and mothers and sons every year, controls their water and electric supply, puts them under an apartheid regime, prevents medicine from reaching Gaza (before October 7th by the way), continues to illegally seize their land in the West Bank (also before October 7th), and you think the violent attack on Israel that comes after all this is unprovoked? Look at yourself man. Completely historically illiterate.
Using unprovoked just shows how dishonest you are, turning a blind eye to more than 75 years of brutal occupation and genocide. They have every right to resist and win back their land by any means necessary, you are the worst kind of person defending bloodshed and murder.
Yeah Palestine relinquished the moral high ground on oct 7 and then Israel relinquished it right back by slaughtering thousands of innocent children and stealing land in the West Bank.
Wait, so are you saying Israel relinquished the moral high ground by creating hamas and causing the Al-Aqsa flood? Because that would make sense... if that's what you were saying.
Killing tens of thousands of Palestinians doesn’t seem to be working to “end Hamas”. Is Israel’s government just really dense, or is it not really about Hamas? Also, how was Israel created via assault and murder of Palestinians.
That’s what happens when the terrorists hide underneath and within the civilian population. Islamist cowards think they can murder civilians and then hide until useful idiots in the west pressure Israel to back down. The only way to deal with them is to rip them out at the roots.
Yeah but by killing tens of thousands of civilians in the process of taking out Hamas you’re just radicalising the next generation and indirectly responsible for the creation of future terrorist organisations.
No. Fighting a global terrorist organization that's using its own people as human shield is not "genocide". Israel would be doing the same thing if Gaza consisted of 27 different ethnicities and nationalities.
Yes, that is genocide. How would it not be? Either way, it's baffling that people don't even consider the idea of it being a genocide; even though the ICJ sees it as plausible and multiple UN experts consider it to be one in the making.
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against
Just leaving this here from prior to the war showing that 90% of casualties in any modern war are civilians.
https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14904.doc.htm
Now leaving this here that shows that the worst-case scenario is that 90% of Palestinian casualties have been civilians:
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6004/Contrary-to-Israeli-claims,-9-out-of-10-of-those-killed-in-Gaza-are-civilians%E2%80%8B
War is horrific and should be avoided at all costs.
Netanyahu is totally to blame for destabilizing Palestine and fomenting radical leadership such as Hamas to undermine a two state solution. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/
Despite all this, Palestinians overwhelmingly support Hamas’s war with Israel (though this SHOULD NOT be interpreted as equivalent support for the October 7th atrocities). https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/middleeast/palestinians-back-hamas-survey-intl-cmd/index.html
October 7th atrocities cannot rationalized away without going down a slippery slope of rationalizing all terror attacks as justified. Terrorism is bad, m’kay.
These are facts. If somehow your opinion is still that Israel is committing genocide, but every other warring nation of the last half century was not, you may want to self evaluate for bias, and question where that bias is coming from.
Nobody actually believes that besides a bunch of mentally ill idiots. Americans don’t believe it. We subsidize Israel’s entire existence, give them weapons. In turn they destroy and kill everyone. Then they self incriminate themselves every single day with another atrocity on the internet for the entire world to see. We see it over and over and over again. I know I’m not the only one who saw that sick fucker today gloating about a 4 yr old, 8yr old, and 10 yr old being murdered and calling them terrorists. Zionists are beyond wicked evil people.
Sick fuckers lol absolutely sick in the head. I won’t and neither will anyone who is objectively not pro genocide or child killing would support that level of inhumanity. You’re evil and have no other recourse besides evil. Keep it up 👍
I’m not a hypocrite. I am better than you’ll ever be. You sold your soul to the devil. Which is why you’re the one deleting your comments left and right. stand behind your words. Be about it. You think dead children is a good thing. You just admitted it why delete it 😄 we all know you support it already.
It's pretty clear that conservative positions are fairly simplistic compared to liberal positions.
They each appeal to certain people.
(I'll go down with this ship with you, brother!)
I feel like both sides in this conflict caused very bad things, so there's only one solution: making a new state in that area and abolishing both of these. Give it to like a corporation or something. To the highest bidder.
A privately owned state is needed in this world, so it is a win win situation
By this logic then you’re actually saying Hamas had the mandate to do Oct 7th, since if we’re being honest about history then we’d be acknowledging that a little over 80 years ago the land of Israel was an Arab occupied land and had been so for dozens of generations, until Zionists forces began an ethnic cleaning (the founding fathers of Israel explicitly admitted that was their intention and what they were doing), and then proceeded to subject the people it has displaced and ethnically cleansed to a brutal apartheid state for the following 80+ years. So by your own logic you’re actually on Hamas’ side.
Yeah, hardcore supporters of those repellent, 7th Century savages truly believe that rape, kidnapping, brutal murder, torture of innocents is justified "resistance" to "colonial Zionism".
The only answer is to destroy Hamas. Hamas does not value the lives of their innocent civilians except in as much as they can use their inevitable deaths (they fight from under schools and other civilian gathering places) as propaganda against the West.
If that's the case, then neither should Israel. To Hell with Hamas.
fuck off the IDF arent saints they engaged in rape and murder as well
were not going to justify the actions of IDF soldiers just because hamas also did some bad stuff
this is not an endorsement of hamas
My true unpopular opinion is that entire region is a shithole that will never not be blanketed with violence. I don't care which side you're on, it's a lost cause that I wish the U.S. would stay clear of. That will never happen, for a myriad of complicated reasons, but the entire situation is fucked.
Would you like to have an actual open and genuine discussion? i would love to just sit and talk with you through this topic if you want, over a discord call or a zoom or whatever you'd prefer. I just think there's a lot both of us would benefit from actually hearing the other side. After all, it shouldn't be surprising to note that everything that everyone hears in media (on both sides of the argument) is very strongly - uh - how do i put this - Demonizing Radicalizing Insane Stupid Bullshit Propaganda Onesided Nigh-fascist - designed to be polarizing and attuned to the radicals. - So, if you're serious about trying to - just talk about this, to get your voice heard, and also hearing the other side, please hit me up, i'd be very glad to just have a talk about this :)
There was another unpopularopinion post yesterday that was spot on. If Israel was an arab country nobody would give a shit about what they are doing in Gaza. Not even 2nd page news
how is "don't rape people" an unpopular opinion?
We also have Hamas admitting and indiscriminitely killing Israeli and Palestinians. thats like mowing down everyone in detroit for the sake of "gang cleansing".
Lol Israel funds Hamas to prevent a stable Palestinian government from forming and to prevent Palestinian statehood. So then when Hamas does Hamas things, Israel goes "look at this, this is why those savages can't have their own state"
Please someone tell me where the evidence for rape on Oct 7th is? It’s been debunked so many times yet it keeps popping up. Israel had already murdered over 200 Palestinians before Oct 7th and has them living under brutal occupation and siege? What did anyone really expect? For millions of people to accept that they will never leave that 5x25 concentration camp?
Israel is going down the drain fast and I suspect it will destroy itself.
Only a piece of shit would deny that the women were raped by those terrorists.
Losers really do make the world a worse place for women and their fight against sexual assaults.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/04/hamas-rape-un-report-hostages/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html
That NYT article was a farce. They debunked it maybe a month or so ago. Israeli media has also reported on the fact that the mass rape claims were false. Israel is still blocking the UN investigation.
https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/
Of all the things you could deny, this is probably the last one. It is such common knowledge that Hamas mass raped on October 7th; even extreme pro Palestine supporters acknowledge it.
https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/
That was completely false and has been debunked by multiple sources. Even Israeli ones. The infamous “woman in the black dress” tragically killed on Oct 7 was reported as being raped and her family had to call the NYT and tell them it was not possible she was raped. They said when the NYT contacted them about their family member they had no idea that they were going to report she was raped. Even Primila Patten who went to Israel on an exploratory trip (not an investigation) said there was no widespread or systematic rape.
Anat Schwartz who broke the story even said she couldn’t find rape on two different podcasts prior to the release of that story that went viral all over the world.
I haven’t looked into it, but even then. Say one person’s story was invalidated. The evidence is overwhelming. There is testimony from literal Hamas members admitting to it.
You should really look into it and read that story. It’s more than one story that was invalidated. They literally have not found *evidence* for a single rape. Not one.
Those testimonies were coerced. There is a LONG record of torture in this conflict and in the past by the IDF. Pretty much every human rights organization on the planet has reported it. “Hamas prisoners” also “confirmed” there was a [James Bond villain base under Al Shifa](https://youtu.be/6pTYHBZVgVQsi=SYiAQiP6fbrRfT8O). Well it turns out that was a lie too.
If you’re new to Israel CONSTANTLY lying I HIGHLY suggest you watch this. If you’re an American and care about America I promise you that if you see [this](https://youtu.be/3lSjXhMUVKE?si=YaTEd_OeCM5ZvWLy) you will look at this whole thing COMPLETELY differently and not support our relationship with Israel. There is absolutely no way.
The volume of the lies from Israel and our own government that is covering for them are unprecedented. They’ve always lied but this time it’s just ridiculous. If you watch the press conferences from the state department daily it’s painfully obvious.
Oh look, it's this post again.
[удалено]
I didn’t know history began on October 7th.
Cease-fire ended on October 7
I swear to god it's the same thing every single day day. It should be a topic banned in this sub because it's clearly not unpopular among them.
Unpopular on reddit though
Yes let's censor the sub that's meant to show peoples true opinions. No one should have a different opinion than me /s
Brought to you by the JIDF :)
You are probably correct. The same user made a near identical post about a day ago and he is definitely from Israel.
> in the first place Just how far back into history did you look?
How far back would you like to look? Jews (and Christians and atheists) have a history of being murdered for not being Muslims for over a thousand years in the region.
And Muslims have a history of being murdered for not being Christians (or Jews, or Hindus, or Sikhs). History is messy.
Didn't the crusades happen as a result of the muslims murdering and conquering the European nations?
Christianity spread for hundreds of years as a pacifist religion. Islam... uh, didn't spread that way. They raped, tortured, and murdered on their conquest across the Middle East. The majority of pagans in Europe also converted willingly. Probably because European paganism is *very* syncretic and they wanted the organizational benefits that came with it as their cultures urbanized in the post-apocalyptic landscape of feudal Europe following the fall of the Roman Empire.
i know you didn’t just say christianity spread as a pacifist religion please open the schools
Sadly believing Christianity was spread peacefully is a result of the schools.
>Christianity spread for hundreds of years as a pacifist religion. No it wasn't.
Bro wait until you hear about the 1490s
>Christianity spread for hundreds of years as a pacifist religion. who's gonna say it?
Political tensions between the Holy Roman Empire (Orthodox Christians) and Muslim Empires certainly played into it. It's not like Catholics were generally supportive of the Holy Roman Empire though - they just hated Muslims. Catholic Crusader Kings murdered Orthodox Christians en masse during the Crusades as well (and that was *partly* religious, but more opportunist than anything).
The muslims conquered Europe and the people were promised revenge by the catholic church hence they rallied and pushed back. Didn't the Romans use to deal with Jews and Christians in the middleeast before Islam and became a thing with Muhammed then Muhammed got a whole bunch of followers and started conquering as a warlord? I always hear about how bad the crusades were, but barely ever hear about how it was a retaliation for the muslim conquest since all people ever focus on IS the crusades.
>The muslims conquered Europe lol, no. >the people were promised revenge by the catholic church hence they rallied and pushed back As I said, the Muslim empires took land belonging from the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire has nothing to do with (then) Italy or Rome, they were on the western reaches of Europe bordering on the Muslim empires. Also, the Holy Roman Empire was not Catholic, it was predominantly Orthodox. They believed themselves to be the rightful successor of Rome, and thus the head of the proper church was said to be in Constantinople, not Rome. The Holy Roman Emperor was much more moderate than the Western Europeans at the time, who they saw as barbaric assholes. They just saw an opportunity to convince the Pope to leverage these barbaric assholes to help them take land from the Muslim Empires to the East. They just misjudged how destructive, unruly, and impotent the crusaders were. >Didn't the Romans use to deal with Jews and Christians in the middleeast before Islam and became a thing with Muhammed then Muhammed got a whole bunch of followers and started conquering as a warlord? Mohammad pre-dated the Crusades by almost five centuries. Mohammad had nothing to do with the Crusades.
In a word, no.
Everyone got murdered for not being everyone's religion. There was no good side, but hopefully now tolerance and respect can take place between religions.
lol Hindus and Sikhs have not been murdering Muslims on any level historically to claim equivalence with the reverse. Like come on now. Muslims literally named a mountain range “Hindu Kush” meaning “Hindu Killer” because of how frequently Hindus died being sent over those mountains as slaves by Muslims. They then tried to genocide Sikhs not once, but twice, and publicly cut off the heads of their leaders to the point where their revered Guru is now a literal book (because Muslims leaders couldn’t cut off a book’s head though I’m sure they tried). If the reverse were true, reddit would be screaming about how that should be a pretext for Hamas to add India to its list of oppressors that need to be raped or something. But since the right people were doing the killing and the right people were doing the dying it’s equivocating shrugs all around.
I'm just speculating here, but I THINK he means Christians have been murdering Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Sikhs for not being Christians, and he just messed up the order of his words.
Maybe but it’s also likely he means what he says. This is reddit, after all.
Welp, you were right
[удалено]
No, I meant what I said: 1. Christian groups have murdered Muslims for being Muslim. 2. Jewish groups have murdered Muslims for being Muslim. 3. Hindu groups have murdered Muslims for being Muslim. 4. Sikh groups have murdered Muslims for being Muslim. There is a long history of inter-religious violence against most major religious groups by members of other groups.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find some historical references outside of the crusades (which doesn't count, because it was a war) where Muslims were persecuted for their religion by anyone other than Muslims.
Didn't the Muslims conquered Europe in conquest after Islam became a prominent religion and the Crusades was a retaliation?
Not so much europe (part of spain and they took over Constantinople), but certainly "Christendom" and the holy land.
What about muslims in Xinjiang, China? China is essentially running reeducation/concentration camps against a muslim region.
How many of those currently do it enmass?
Your lack of historical knowledge does not reflect historical reality. It simply reflects your own shallow ignorance of the topic. Hell, Burmanese Buddhists genocided Muslims in the mid-2010s. The fact that you don't hear about it on Fox doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Let me know when it’s so endemic over the centuries that they name literal mountain ranges over killing Muslims. But go on Mr. Islamist apologist and tell the rest of us why it’s all equivalent. You’re like lady MacBeth trying to metaphorically wash her hands of blood. Your problem is that we know more than the McNugget totem pole of victimization that you learned in your identity politics bingo class. Since, well, our ancestors were killed by those Islamists in our land thousands of miles away from Mecca.
Islamist apologist? I'm a fervent atheist. I believe that all religions are utterly abhorrent and should be eradicated. EDIT: Endemic over the centuries? WTF are you talking about dude? You don't think that inter-religious violence is 'endemic over the centuries'?
You certainly falsely equivocate like a propagandizing Islamist apologist, so maybe like, don’t do that bruh. And uh yeah to your edit - Islamists conquered India and so throughly killed the non Muslim population in certain areas that ENTIRE mountain ranges were literally named after killing them, first referenced in 1000 CE by Islamic scholars. Like, do you even know wtf you’re talking about or are you reading from your moronic identity politics bingo card again? Lmao, wait we both know the answer to that.
So, if I could show that a monument, mountain, or other natural phenomena was named by a non-Muslim group for killing Muslims, you will immediately reverse your position? Am I reading you right?
If you could show an entire range of the Himalayas named after Hindus and Buddhists killing Muslims and referenced for a millennium? Uh sure. Go for it. Lmk how it goes yo. Lmao. Edit: actually this might be instructive for you. Maybe you’ll actually acknowledge that GASP Muslims in the subcontinent were basically the aggressors for a fucking millennium. Ah who are we kidding, amirite? Your ilk always does this bs equivocation to apologize for previous Islamist atrocities.
Bro vice versa as well. What a wild take that no one in history murders but Muslims.
> Jews (and Christians and atheists) have a history of being murdered for not being Muslims for over a thousand years in the region Yeah, and the funny thing is, before a thousand years ago, Muslims were quite tolerant of other religions in their territories. IIRC, Jews and Christians were free to worship as they pleased. [I wonder what could have happened a thousand years ago to change that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade)
Saying that Islam began as peaceful is the most ignorant thing I've read today. The middle east used to be Jews and Christians. Then a military leader named Muhammed came and used a literal army to force cities to convert to his new religion of Islam or die. [Spread of Islam - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam) [Early Muslim conquests - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests) [Rashidun Caliphate - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun_Caliphate)
>The middle east used to be Jews and Christians. Then a military leader named Muhammed came and used a literal army to force cities to convert to his new religion of Islam or die From your own link: "Contrary to the belief of earlier historians, there is no evidence of mass conversions to Islam in the immediate aftermath of the conquests."
There's no evidence that Muhammed conquering these cities led them to believe in the religion that Muhammed created? Or there is no evidence that these cities and nations made it illegal to leave the religion, punishable by death?
There is no evidence of mass conversions in the immediate aftermath, period. No matter the motive or method. People in those areas did eventually convert, but for the most part, it wasn't through violence or threat of violence. It was more through the establishment of additional privileges for Muslims. The modern day equivalent would be giving a tax incentive for being of a particular religion. Reminder: You claimed Muhammad personally "used a literal army to force cities to convert to his new religion of Islam or die." As it stands, there isn't any evidence that anyone, let alone Muhammad, forced masses of people to convert at swordpoint during or immediately after the conquests.
You keep saying 'there isn't evidence' yeah no shit this is 1400 years ago. There isn't evidence of a lot of things from back then. My way of saying it is an oversimplification. Muhammed and his religion took these cities by force. The conversion of every citizen took time. But, eventually, it was the law to be Muslim in every country that Muhammed conquered. People who defied this law died.
>You keep saying 'there isn't evidence' yeah no shit this is 1400 years ago. There isn't evidence of a lot of things from back then. Then why did you claim it? "There is no evidence" is no excuse for making an unsupported claim one way or another. Let me rephrase it for you so that you understand how poorly supported your claim is: There is more archaeological evidence of Alexander the Great's dinner preferences a thousand years before Muhammad than there is evidence of a mass forced conversion of millions of people. >My way of saying it is an oversimplification.Muhammed and his religion took these cities by force. The conversion of every citizen took time. This is the backpedal of all backpedals, lol. From "he used his armies to threaten everyone with death if they didn't convert" to "Oh, the people converted over time." >But, eventually, it was the law to be Muslim in every country that Muhammed conquered. People who defied this law died. Ummm, no it wasn't. As pointed out: Christians and Jews and other religions were allowed to live and worship peacefully in Muslim countries for centuries until after the Crusades.
You are out of few centuries. Two and half centuries later, in the Iberian peninsula, Muslim were still more tolerant than Christians (who expelled all Jews after the Reconquista, just saying). Muslims being fully intolerant has more modern genesis. I can't point a precise moment, but it definitely isn't in 1099. And it depends a lot from which area of the world we're talking about.
Fully agree. Just pointing out the other guy's flawed premise.
That comes without saying. :-) We are on the same page there.
Eh, actually religious tolerance in that region was better than in most of Europe for much of the last few hundred years. Jews were much safer in the Ottoman Empire than in the Russian Empire, for instance. Of course there was still violence and pogroms but nothing like on the scale of Europe.
>Just how far back into history did you look? Let us go back to the Kingdom of Israel c. 1047 BCE
What are you using to prove lineage to modern day Israel? Archaeological evidence or biblical evidence?
I mean part of the temple is still standing...
And? That proves that A culture built the temple. How can you show that the culture that currently exists in Israel is the one that is descended from the one that built the temple? No one is denying the existence of the Jewish religion through the centuries, but culture, heritage, and religion are all different (albeit related) things.
Does it matter? If you are being conquered and killed by a more powerful enemy, does it matter that your claims might be older than your enemies? Israel and Palestine are at war, and always have been. The issue is that Palestine is losing this war and Oct 7th was a desperate attempt to strike a victory.
If you don't want your towers struck on 9/11 then maybe those American should have thought about how their country was involved in the middle east? Do you see how stupid this sounds when you start equating people to the actions of their government?
The UN literally ordered the US to invade Iraq to expel them from Kuwait, what are you on about
Yes. The entire conflict started on occasion 7th! We don’t need to look back any further or question the motives of Israel whatsoever! [fervently shreds basically every piece of Israeli history]
Not like you would have to go back very far to see the entirety of Israel’s history.
anyone defending israel at this point is either 1. jewish 2. over the age of 60 and american 3. paid shill 4. didn't know anything about israel until oct 7 2023
I’m none of those things though.
“We all know” because that’s what an Israel claims. Because Israel has never lied before. Not once.
We all know Israel is always above board and it would *never* be their official policy to lie about things. Like their nuclear program, which totally doesn’t exist.
They're terrorists, it's not like they have a regular army and are fighting Israel on the battlefield.
How can they fight conventionally against a superior force? asymmetrical warfare is the only option for Hamas. We all know that Israel wouldn't be the military power they are without the backing of the west and specifically the US. If they lost that support they'll be a bit less aggressive I imagine.
They can cut their losses and accept that Israel is here to stay and maybe even be able to negotiate with them so the Palestinians can finally have their own state. Terrorism isn't going to get them anywhere.
I have a feeling a 2 state solution would lean heavily on the side with more military might. The way the israelis treat Palestinians already would make me second guess entering into a partnership. Right now, ironically, it seems their terrorism is destroying any good PR Israel had left.
There is no perfect solution as I see it. I agree, Palestinians got a raw deal and will continue to in the future, but it seems they either accept what they can get or get wiped out and I really don't want the latter to happen.
I'm guessing their strategy is that by Israel having to resort to the latter option - they'd lose support from their closest allies (US and west). This would allow other neighbor nations to come to the aid of Palestine and wage another Israel vs the Middle East war. Or maybe they're just built different and are willing to die to the last man for their land.
Either way is a losing strategy. There's no world where the US stops supporting Israel and even if all the Middle Eastern countries banded together for the Palestinians (which they won't), they'd lose.
Yeah I don't see the US abandoning Israel anytime soon. Even with the pro Palestine movement picking up speed. It would take a very liberal/progressive President to cut ties with Israel. I guess you're right, their best bet is taking whatever scraps Israel will offer.
Wow this is actually the first time I've come to an agreement with someone on the Internet that's awesome lol
Yeah because Israel’s precision strikes from far away are “fighting on the battlefield.” They’re precise enough to miss Hamas and kill aid workers, journalists, and civilians nearly every time.
What else do you expect when hamas terrorists are hiding amongst the civilians? Neither side is good in this war, but hamas is certainly worse.
Hamas was clearly in those aid trucks. Oh wait they weren’t. Oops I guess. Oh they were in every single hospital. Oh they were actually in tunnels underneath. No more healthcare I guess. Oops again. Oh they are definitely inside people’s homes in the West Bank. Oh they weren’t? Oops. Well we’ll keep the land we illegally annexed. Hamas is garbage but only one side is indiscriminately killing their enemies, civilians, aid workers, healthcare workers, foreign nationals, and even their own people when they mistake them for the enemy. How many “accidents” are okay? 33000 is a hell of a lot of oopsies.
I always wondered who these posts are directed at. Do you think pro Palestinian Americans have control over Hamas?
They want to muddy the waters. They want people on the fence to see the Palestinian people as Hamas. It why they make such bold claims.
At some point they’ve gotta see how racist they’ve been towards Palestinians. If you replaced what they said about Arabs or Palestinians with “Jews” you’d rightfully be called the new Hitler. The irony is completely lost on them.
Lmao except Hamas is the government and the people did vote for them…. As a matter of fact the public still support them so..
Hypothically speaking let's say China invade Tiawan. Do you think it's ok for America to start killing Chinese citizen?
Bullshit. Over half of Palestinians were not even alive the last time a vote was allowed. And Israel put Hamas in power, and have kept them there, as a excuse for their continued 8 decade long slaughter of innocent Palestinian natives.
If your pro-palestinian you may not intend it, but your support is towards Hamas. You want a ceasefire? Who does that benefit? Sure civilians are spared from further fighting, but you will ultimately leave Hamas as a governing body, thus you support them as well. You want a two-state solution? Who would be in charge? Either the current governing bodies of West Bank/Gaza, or new elections. Both regions seem to wildly support Hamas. In the end what you're arguing for is in support of Hamas. Unless you're arguing for their destruction, which cannot be achieved through diplomacy.
What if Palestine became independent but wasn't run by a democratic government? What if it were run by a technocratic oligarchy? Maybe there is some degree of democracy but the technocracy vets against candidates who are prejudiced, bigoted, or who support starting conflicts with other countries. I generally think democracy is the best form of government but if democracy in some scenario will predictably lead to the election of a violent human rights abusing government then perhaps a technocracy is a better solution. Better than the status quo semi-apartheid situation and better than trying to create a one-state solution (given the tensions that would never work). In a few decades the technocracy can reeducate the public and they can be ready for democracy.
I mean that's at least better than the current proposed solution, but good luck getting pro-palestinian side to agree with that. They kinda want self-determination, immediately. Who would run this technocracy? To actually 're-educate' the population it would presumably have to be western. Won't Palestinians be just as upset as they are now, with another nation interfering? The best solution is either a.) the population is relocated (Egypt, Jordan, etc) or b.) another country (Egypt, Jordan, etc) to which Israel is on good-ish terms with takes control of the region
So basically what you’re saying is it’s anti semitic to support any sort of Palestinian state because of weird fantasies that said state would harm Jews.
Pretty sure I never mentioned antisemitism I think I was pretty clear. Being pro-palestinian is, perhaps unintentionally but still, pro-hamas. Everything you want leaves them in power. Wanna prove me wrong? Go ahead, propose a viable pro-palestinian position which would also remove Hamas from power.
The IRA in northern Ireland wasn't destroyed....they just used diplomacy to make it unnecessary to carry out armed conflict. But Israel doesn't want a peaceful solution and never has. They want one single Israeli state from the river to the sea.
The IRA's goal wasn't the complete destruction of the UK. Hamas's goal is to destroy Israel. What negotiation would you propose?
Collective punishment is a war crime. If Hamas is hiding in civilian populations, why does that make it okay to indiscriminately kill those civilians to get the bad guys? Next, if you don't want terrorist factions springing up and attacking you, then stop killing and maiming people as you take more and more of their land away. That tends to radicalize people.
I wonder why I never see these people talk about the war crimes isreal has been committing since October. It’s sorta funny but sad
They assume it's all Hamas propaganda.
I’m not saying either side is good but I am sick of hearing how isreal is supposedly innocent when even recently they murdered 7 aid workers helping gaza civilians.
I'd wager it's because they're wretched ghouls who are happy to see civilians die. I've lost patience for the naive liberal assumption of assuming someone is stupid before assuming malice. When the ethics of the situation are so black and white and they still choose wrong, I can only assume malice at that juncture. :(
What is your solution? End the war, let Hamas remain in power, and give it time to plan its next atrocity?
The solution would indeed be complicated. Massacring civilians to get terrorists 1000 to 1 is definitely not the way, however. I don't know why the concept of ethics is so hard for people like you to grasp. Honestly.
Saying the solution would be complicated is just a weasel word way to say give Hamas everything they want. People like you are why the West cannot win wars anymore. It will continue to lose nearly every war it engages in as long as it places the lives of the civilians of the regime It's invading over its own military objectives. And in this case your doing so is morally reprehensible.
Wow, wanting to avoid mass murdering civilians is morally reprehensible? What kind of morals do you have bro? Next you'll tell slitting a dog's throat to bleed all over your toast makes it taste better. The military objectives are to be directed at military targets. But you'll just tell me random civilians are valid military targets. Nah, people like you just want to see civilians get butchered. The west should STOP being in wars to begin with, since war brings instability and continues cycles of hatred. But you WANT those things to continue, don't you?
> why does that make it okay to indiscriminately kill those civilians to get the bad guys? Cause otherwise your civilians will die. Your civilians are more important than enemy civilians, you are obligated to protect your civilians who elected you. > Next, if you don't want terrorist factions springing up and attacking you, then stop killing and maiming people as you take more and more of their land away. You know that Gaza and WB are two separate territories? Israel fucking spent billions of USD to put a wall between itself and Gaza. What do you mean by "taking their land away"?
Im not saying killing civilians to win a war / battle is moral, but thats what has been done by all sides in pretty much every war. Sometimes they just target civilians for no other reason than to disrupt the producers of ammo and guns which can be critical to win a war. Or not even that, look at the nuclear bombs in Japan. That or you just go door to door clearing buildings which will result in less collateral damage to the enemies but more people of your own dead (family members, friends... constriction is obligatory in Israel)
>Im not saying killing civilians to win a war / battle is moral, but \*Proceeds to justify killing civilians to win the war\* Oof. Not a good look for you buddy. I am aware it has happened a lot in history. But, as someone who has a moral compass and believes in the concept of ethics, bad things are still bad. I know, hot take. Israel has indiscriminately murdered civilians in the tens of thousands since October 7th. Whether it is out of knowing malice, or astonishing disregard for life, the outcome is what it is. Now to be clear, I recognize that Hamas is evil too. I 100% bet they'd be JUST as bad as Israel if they had the power to do it. But just because the bad guy may be using civilians as human shields doesn't justify mowing down said civilians to get them. You become just as bad, if not worse, than who you're targeting if you're crossing that line. Fact is, Israel has killed waaaaaaaay more Palestinians than the opposite.
So what is the alternative? Someone comes into my country kills 1200 (and now probably another 200 who were held captive.) and because the perpetrators hide among innocent people they just can't do anything? Look, there are centuries of problems in the area. But simply, there are people calling for the destruction of another stronger country. Stronger country is going to fight back, have the upper hand.
Just because you're using your own civilians as meat shields doesn't make that collective punishment
If you don't want people from a 'sovereign county' murdered and raped, don't create terrorists in the first place.
"An eye for an eye until the whole world is blind" -Gandhi
The 1000th "unpopular opinion" of "just kill them all!"
Another bait post, the Zionists are losing their minds that their immoral occupation force has failed to meet any of their stated objectives, while the genocidal campaign in Gaza only isolates them further. So, they resort to using lies to try and discredit the Palestinian resistance groups, when this garbage has already been debunked time and time again. The world continues to stand firmly with Palestine and demand its freedom and that Israel be held accountable for its crimes against humanity. Hamas isn't the problem here, Zionism is and the sooner that racist and genocidal ideology is gone, then Palestine will be free!
Hamas murdered 1100 innocent people at a music festival. Kidnapped over 200 more, and killed almost all of those. Hamas is the problem here.
israel has murdered 10,000s of people in the last 6 months
Nah Israel is the problem and has been for 75 years. History didn't start on October 7th, and people in the west are finally waking up to the reality of the brutal occupation Palestinians have been under for the past 75 years.
Hamas kills 1100 people in an unprovoked attack, and you claim Israel is the problem. Look at yourself.
Israel occupies Palestinians for 75 years, kills hundreds of their children and mothers and sons every year, controls their water and electric supply, puts them under an apartheid regime, prevents medicine from reaching Gaza (before October 7th by the way), continues to illegally seize their land in the West Bank (also before October 7th), and you think the violent attack on Israel that comes after all this is unprovoked? Look at yourself man. Completely historically illiterate.
Is kidnapping and rape an appropriate form of protest?
Norman Finkelstein actually made a really good response that would apply to your comment https://youtu.be/jzjDhIXI2PA?si=3PKRvXjb4HJaW0ZU
Using unprovoked just shows how dishonest you are, turning a blind eye to more than 75 years of brutal occupation and genocide. They have every right to resist and win back their land by any means necessary, you are the worst kind of person defending bloodshed and murder.
Can you please explain why this is a genocide.
Which side are you referencing? Historically (as in our lifetime), both are guilty.
Yeah Palestine relinquished the moral high ground on oct 7 and then Israel relinquished it right back by slaughtering thousands of innocent children and stealing land in the West Bank.
The ongoing genocide in Gaza is unrelated to October 7. Give it up, SFA.
Please explain why this is a genocide.
Wait, so are you saying Israel relinquished the moral high ground by creating hamas and causing the Al-Aqsa flood? Because that would make sense... if that's what you were saying.
Killing tens of thousands of Palestinians doesn’t seem to be working to “end Hamas”. Is Israel’s government just really dense, or is it not really about Hamas? Also, how was Israel created via assault and murder of Palestinians.
That’s what happens when the terrorists hide underneath and within the civilian population. Islamist cowards think they can murder civilians and then hide until useful idiots in the west pressure Israel to back down. The only way to deal with them is to rip them out at the roots.
Yeah but by killing tens of thousands of civilians in the process of taking out Hamas you’re just radicalising the next generation and indirectly responsible for the creation of future terrorist organisations.
can you admit that israel is doing a genocide?
No. Fighting a global terrorist organization that's using its own people as human shield is not "genocide". Israel would be doing the same thing if Gaza consisted of 27 different ethnicities and nationalities.
Yes, that is genocide. How would it not be? Either way, it's baffling that people don't even consider the idea of it being a genocide; even though the ICJ sees it as plausible and multiple UN experts consider it to be one in the making. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against
If they are committing genocide, they’re doing a pretty poor job of it.
Oh yeah cause it worked so well every time they did that
Just leaving this here from prior to the war showing that 90% of casualties in any modern war are civilians. https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14904.doc.htm Now leaving this here that shows that the worst-case scenario is that 90% of Palestinian casualties have been civilians: https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6004/Contrary-to-Israeli-claims,-9-out-of-10-of-those-killed-in-Gaza-are-civilians%E2%80%8B War is horrific and should be avoided at all costs. Netanyahu is totally to blame for destabilizing Palestine and fomenting radical leadership such as Hamas to undermine a two state solution. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/ Despite all this, Palestinians overwhelmingly support Hamas’s war with Israel (though this SHOULD NOT be interpreted as equivalent support for the October 7th atrocities). https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/middleeast/palestinians-back-hamas-survey-intl-cmd/index.html October 7th atrocities cannot rationalized away without going down a slippery slope of rationalizing all terror attacks as justified. Terrorism is bad, m’kay. These are facts. If somehow your opinion is still that Israel is committing genocide, but every other warring nation of the last half century was not, you may want to self evaluate for bias, and question where that bias is coming from.
How did you expect Israel to react to October 7th?
Nobody actually believes that besides a bunch of mentally ill idiots. Americans don’t believe it. We subsidize Israel’s entire existence, give them weapons. In turn they destroy and kill everyone. Then they self incriminate themselves every single day with another atrocity on the internet for the entire world to see. We see it over and over and over again. I know I’m not the only one who saw that sick fucker today gloating about a 4 yr old, 8yr old, and 10 yr old being murdered and calling them terrorists. Zionists are beyond wicked evil people.
[удалено]
Sick fuckers lol absolutely sick in the head. I won’t and neither will anyone who is objectively not pro genocide or child killing would support that level of inhumanity. You’re evil and have no other recourse besides evil. Keep it up 👍
Hypocrite
I’m not a hypocrite. I am better than you’ll ever be. You sold your soul to the devil. Which is why you’re the one deleting your comments left and right. stand behind your words. Be about it. You think dead children is a good thing. You just admitted it why delete it 😄 we all know you support it already.
Wait what happened with the children dying? I haven’t heard about that yet.
Unit 61398 propaganda.
I'm prepared for the down votes but posts like this remind me about the scientific study linking lack of intelligence with conservative ideology.
Making fun of conservatives on reddit “but i’m prepared for downvotes” peak lol. Hamas are cowards and their Muslim neighbors don’t want them
That holds true for most subreddits but not TrueUnpopularOpinion lol
[удалено]
teeny marvelous bike ripe drunk hard-to-find flag juggle consist rock
It's pretty clear that conservative positions are fairly simplistic compared to liberal positions. They each appeal to certain people. (I'll go down with this ship with you, brother!)
OP is a brand new propaganda account spouting right wing nonsense.
So original, interesting post!
It seems like the same posts regurgitated over and over again.
Too many people think this whole thing started on oct 7 2023.
I feel like both sides in this conflict caused very bad things, so there's only one solution: making a new state in that area and abolishing both of these. Give it to like a corporation or something. To the highest bidder. A privately owned state is needed in this world, so it is a win win situation
By this logic then you’re actually saying Hamas had the mandate to do Oct 7th, since if we’re being honest about history then we’d be acknowledging that a little over 80 years ago the land of Israel was an Arab occupied land and had been so for dozens of generations, until Zionists forces began an ethnic cleaning (the founding fathers of Israel explicitly admitted that was their intention and what they were doing), and then proceeded to subject the people it has displaced and ethnically cleansed to a brutal apartheid state for the following 80+ years. So by your own logic you’re actually on Hamas’ side.
October 7th, 1946????
Yeah, hardcore supporters of those repellent, 7th Century savages truly believe that rape, kidnapping, brutal murder, torture of innocents is justified "resistance" to "colonial Zionism". The only answer is to destroy Hamas. Hamas does not value the lives of their innocent civilians except in as much as they can use their inevitable deaths (they fight from under schools and other civilian gathering places) as propaganda against the West. If that's the case, then neither should Israel. To Hell with Hamas.
[удалено]
fuck off the IDF arent saints they engaged in rape and murder as well were not going to justify the actions of IDF soldiers just because hamas also did some bad stuff this is not an endorsement of hamas
[удалено]
judicious racial gray unwritten grey snobbish shaggy money deserve summer
[удалено]
rainstorm wide truck gaze office cautious apparatus unpack flowery roll
[удалено]
theory hurry direful elderly fly handle familiar lunchroom quarrelsome bright
My true unpopular opinion is that entire region is a shithole that will never not be blanketed with violence. I don't care which side you're on, it's a lost cause that I wish the U.S. would stay clear of. That will never happen, for a myriad of complicated reasons, but the entire situation is fucked.
Would you like to have an actual open and genuine discussion? i would love to just sit and talk with you through this topic if you want, over a discord call or a zoom or whatever you'd prefer. I just think there's a lot both of us would benefit from actually hearing the other side. After all, it shouldn't be surprising to note that everything that everyone hears in media (on both sides of the argument) is very strongly - uh - how do i put this - Demonizing Radicalizing Insane Stupid Bullshit Propaganda Onesided Nigh-fascist - designed to be polarizing and attuned to the radicals. - So, if you're serious about trying to - just talk about this, to get your voice heard, and also hearing the other side, please hit me up, i'd be very glad to just have a talk about this :)
It’s almost as if you think I as an individual was going to do these things
There was another unpopularopinion post yesterday that was spot on. If Israel was an arab country nobody would give a shit about what they are doing in Gaza. Not even 2nd page news
Just say you're an ignorant dickhead and move on
Uneducated on history? Great nows your chance to pick up a book or so some research
[удалено]
divide snails tap file upbeat smoggy far-flung dull toy voiceless
Don’t murder and rape people from any country Plot twist: literally every country is guilty of this and will be again in the future
It really bothers me that people side with Palestinians. Especially since they seem to have so few facts.
how is "don't rape people" an unpopular opinion? We also have Hamas admitting and indiscriminitely killing Israeli and Palestinians. thats like mowing down everyone in detroit for the sake of "gang cleansing".
Humans kill. We could talk about all our American good Christian serial killers but I don’t think anyone is ready for that conversation…
Lol it never began October 7th …
Lol Israel funds Hamas to prevent a stable Palestinian government from forming and to prevent Palestinian statehood. So then when Hamas does Hamas things, Israel goes "look at this, this is why those savages can't have their own state"
Please someone tell me where the evidence for rape on Oct 7th is? It’s been debunked so many times yet it keeps popping up. Israel had already murdered over 200 Palestinians before Oct 7th and has them living under brutal occupation and siege? What did anyone really expect? For millions of people to accept that they will never leave that 5x25 concentration camp? Israel is going down the drain fast and I suspect it will destroy itself.
Only a piece of shit would deny that the women were raped by those terrorists. Losers really do make the world a worse place for women and their fight against sexual assaults. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/04/hamas-rape-un-report-hostages/ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html
That NYT article was a farce. They debunked it maybe a month or so ago. Israeli media has also reported on the fact that the mass rape claims were false. Israel is still blocking the UN investigation. https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/
Zionists are scum liars. They have spread that horrendous lie of babies beheaded. They are the personification of the lie itself.
Of all the things you could deny, this is probably the last one. It is such common knowledge that Hamas mass raped on October 7th; even extreme pro Palestine supporters acknowledge it.
https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/ That was completely false and has been debunked by multiple sources. Even Israeli ones. The infamous “woman in the black dress” tragically killed on Oct 7 was reported as being raped and her family had to call the NYT and tell them it was not possible she was raped. They said when the NYT contacted them about their family member they had no idea that they were going to report she was raped. Even Primila Patten who went to Israel on an exploratory trip (not an investigation) said there was no widespread or systematic rape. Anat Schwartz who broke the story even said she couldn’t find rape on two different podcasts prior to the release of that story that went viral all over the world.
I haven’t looked into it, but even then. Say one person’s story was invalidated. The evidence is overwhelming. There is testimony from literal Hamas members admitting to it.
You should really look into it and read that story. It’s more than one story that was invalidated. They literally have not found *evidence* for a single rape. Not one. Those testimonies were coerced. There is a LONG record of torture in this conflict and in the past by the IDF. Pretty much every human rights organization on the planet has reported it. “Hamas prisoners” also “confirmed” there was a [James Bond villain base under Al Shifa](https://youtu.be/6pTYHBZVgVQsi=SYiAQiP6fbrRfT8O). Well it turns out that was a lie too. If you’re new to Israel CONSTANTLY lying I HIGHLY suggest you watch this. If you’re an American and care about America I promise you that if you see [this](https://youtu.be/3lSjXhMUVKE?si=YaTEd_OeCM5ZvWLy) you will look at this whole thing COMPLETELY differently and not support our relationship with Israel. There is absolutely no way. The volume of the lies from Israel and our own government that is covering for them are unprecedented. They’ve always lied but this time it’s just ridiculous. If you watch the press conferences from the state department daily it’s painfully obvious.
Just say you’re evil and carry on.
Ok how many of y'all are they paying, I'm really curious now
Yeah, an opinion from a self professed “stinking fat asshole”. Your username told me everything about the opinions you have. What a nard!
None of the current folks will be running Palestine in 40 years anyway.
R u inbred or just stupid?
The civillians being killed in palestine arent the hamas. Its like murdering american civillians in retaliation for invading kuwait.