Hypocritical: forum

Calling them preemptive strikes is manufacturing consent, if Iran struck first people wouldnt call it preemptive, they'd just say it's an aggressive act of war - that they'd no desire for diplomacy.

A lot of innocent people are going to die so israel can continue to expand and invade neighbouring countries.

I'm like 2 posts away from convincing everyone that all my points are correct, maybe 3 tops.

If the violent left keeps missing, does that mean Charlie was kirked by a right winger?

This isn't socialism and the US isn't a socialist country. This is capitalism not paying their workers, in a capitalist country and these laws were enacted by capitalist politicians voted in by capitalist voters.

You have to stop blaming the failings of capitalism on socialism, it's embarrassing and shows everyone how ignorant you are.

Pretty much the same time 3 teenagers in Colorado were shot and seriously wounded today:

Their life was put at risk due to policies that Charlie Kirk supported and pushed for,  some of the thousands wounded or killed every year, in part due to lax gun laws that he supported.

Edit: For Vernunzio posting on the first page about the left's "monopoly" on political violence, factually not true: https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism

Either you just don't really consider right wing violence as political, or you aren't reading about it at all. 

Kinda hard to take Irans oil given they are clearly winning the war, what are they gonna do, harvest the missiles that are destroying us military bases and scrape them for oil residue?

Staff Edit: Discrimination

israel needs its lebensraum to achieve their goal of a "greater" israel which most zionists used to claim was just a fringe ideology, it's always been an expansionist colonial project, now filled with some of the most despicable scum humanity has produced this century.

Zionism is s disgusting and shameful ideology which has been the main driver for instability in the Middle East for decades now, there is no redeeming it, it requires genocide and ethnic cleansing to function, liberal zionists will wring their hand and claim "ah shucks I don't support this" and then go on and continue supporting it. At their core they aren't functionally different from itamar ben-gvir, he's just more open about it and that's why he's gaining popularity in israel.

Alex Pretti as the example of killing a protester which is recent, no punishment I believe either. For sponsored terrorists, there are more recent ones (and I'll not get into the debate of is the idf a terrorist organisation) and just say the training/arming of Al Qaeda and how that backfired on the US - note: Bin Laden claimed the attacks were justified because of US imperialism throughout the world, kinda like people justifying attacking Iran.

"That was the reason given at the start, which is why I supported it." - Fair that would be a reasonable reason to support it, not attacking you, Rubio has repeatedly said the US joined because they knew Israel was about to attack and they didn't want them hit with the retaliation, so that's the actual reason.

"Yeah, America messed up with that bombing. "

Anyone punished for it?

"Because Iran decided to steal British property. "

Irans a long way from Britain, strange place for them to keep their property, do you think that's were it all started or did the worlds largest empire maybe practice some form of imperialism to extract oil and profits from Iranian natural resources while the Iranian people would keep pennies from it?

"As for America backing Iraq, Iran decided to take over the American embassy and kidnap folks. Which is what led to the plane being blown up as well."

And that was done in retaliation for the US overthrowing their democratically elected leaders and imposing a brutal 20 year dictatorship on them. It's a bit ridiculous to be involved with the oppression, torture and murder of a people for basically an entire generation, then act aghast when they hit back.

"Still does not change the fact that Iran has been the instigator for the past 10-15 years, and Israel finally had enough and asked for help from an ally."

History didn't start 10-15 years ago? Also here's a timeline of netenyahu's claims of Iran being close to a nuclear bomb and therefore needs attacked, they started 34 years ago (at this point israel already had multiple undeclared, unmonitored nuclear weapons). For being the instigators, it's odd that it was Iran genuinely approaching negotiations in good faith while israel/America used them as a decoy while they snuck round and killed the Iranian leader and scores of schoolchildren and other civilians.

Tbf America has killed it's own protesters and America also sponsors terrorist organisations, brutal war crime committing militaries and dictatorships around the world, doesn't mean people have legal or moral right to attack America for that.

America didn't attack Iran because they killed protestors, that was just a blatant attempt to manufacture consent - we know this to be true because on day 1 America double tapped a girls school killing 160+ innocents and have yet to punish anyone for that while also having their leader talk about destroying their civilisation.

Also seen you mention "Iran has been attacking Israel and the West for years now, directly and indirectly" and I don't want to get into a "who started it" match, but the West did overthrow Irans democratically elected prime minister in 1953 and then backed a brutal and oppressive regime for decades, while also heavily backing and supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war and also the US blew up an Iranian civilian plane while it was flying over Iranian waters killing 290 and never admitting to it. So if anyone started this back and forth, it was probably the West and we even went against our supposed ideals of supporting democracy to do it

No doubt the idf terrorists who deliberately murdered Hind Rajab will get a slap on the wrist at most, as will the idf terrorists who murdered the 15 paramedics and then tried to cover it up (with the help of the government). It makes sense that they'd get a slap on the wrist, the government and the general israeli population support this kind of thing.

Remember the Red Cross has informed the idf that Hind Rajab was in that car and injured when they opened fire and murdered her. Mad that zionists try and claim that Hamas use human shields, given we know the idf are willing to murder children even when they aren't shielding anything.

What's happening for the past 15 years in Nigeria with tens of thousands dead is terrible and a humanitarian crisis, your own source states that both Muslims and Christians are being targeted on it's opening line "Nigeria continues to face a severe genocidal crisis, particularly targeting Christians and moderate Muslims in the Northeast, Northwest, and Middle Belt regions."

You trying to get a reaction out people with your "you're so heartless" thing is also pathetic, you shows you're just using these deaths to look for reactions.

I am not Palestine and their words are not mine, very weird of you to bring it up. Floundering this much when trying to ragebait is very embarrassing. You said you were going to leave P&L, I think you should stick to your word

"I am not ragebaiting for attention, I am ragebaiting..."

That's all that needs to be read from that. As multiple people said, still waiting on that thread.

Everyone knows you're attempting to bait responses here, especially after your thread admitting that you ragebait, clearly desperate for attention. Bringing up Genocide/crimes against humanity just to be edgy and get a reaction is a deeply sick thing to do. 

A lot of respect to Sangita Myska for speaking out - it can be a lot easier and more profitable to just toe the line which we see much of from the media. She's obviously not been the only journalist that israel has targeted, kill the people who report on your crimes and suddenly the crimes go away.

You should be upfront about your religious beliefs to your family. However if you still wish to hide it and come off as Catholic, the most important thing is to feel (or pretend to feel) a great amount of guilt about any action that brings pleasure, people will soon be suggesting you are for the priesthood.

Anyone with even the slightest bit of common sense could have said this would be the exact outcome. Just to really stress another point here, 0.55% of the UK population is trans, about 1 in 200 people so a pretty small minority of people, so all this derogation of women's rights is over being cruel a tiny amount of people that most people wouldn't even interact with on a daily basis.

Also it's not just discrimination against women who don't appear womanly enough, here's some nutjob trannvestigators accusing Margot Robbie of being trans, apparantly because of a “squared mandible” or “sloped back forehead”

Bridget Macron and Michelle Obama are also accused of being trans.

On the other hand, we have Daywne Johnson who was obiovulsy born a women and is trans:

Paul Mescal was also born a women and is trans:

For those who don't know, Paul Mescal played GAA (a very physical game) at a pretty high level and the Rock obviously doesn't need any backstory. We can have women transitioning to men and having no problem competing at physical sports , but apparently having a man transitioning and playing sports is akin to releasing an enraged silverback gorilla into a nursery according to these people.

So Margot Robbie and people who look like her have to use the mens toilet according to these people (which probably comes with a relatively high chance of sexual assault) while the Rock/Paul Mescal lookalikes would be in the women's toilets.

Because unless you have some sort of weirdo dick and fanny inspector at every toilet, it'll be at the whim of people like the above making random accusations to police this. I'd not be surprised if there was a push for pubic inspectors though, no one thinks about other peoples genitalia more than transphobes.

The single largest group of the population that commits sexual assault comes from cis men - if you want to prevent sexual assault then that is the group you'd be targeting, especially if they are in positions of power (grab her by the pussy anyone?). If you wanna be cruel though and aim for social division to create a bogeyman, then just point at an oppressed minority and release the hounds, could be black people, could be immigrants, could be Muslims, could be travellers, could be gay people, or in this case can be trans people

I think this clip sums up pretty well how silly the argument is that keeping transwomen out of trans toilets.

If someone who transitioned to a women has to go to the mens toilets regardless, then someone who transitioned to a man would have to use the womens toilets regardless, so for example, this dude below would have to use the womens toilets:

would certainly be more intimidating than say Elliot Page. Would definitely be easier for a predator to claim that they are trans man so should use the womens toilets than to fake a transition to get into the womens toilets. 

In case no one has realised, in our society it is extremely easy and common for men to sexually assault women and get away with it, there really isn't any need to go through a long and arduous process of transitioning to do it on the sly.

As for cis women being refused entry to toilets because of some nut accusing them of being trans, or looking a bit butch, trans activists have been constantly saying that exact thing will happen, making life more difficult for a notable section of women so you can practice cruelty to trans people doesn't really help women I think.

There are many governments across Europe but yeah social democracies would be the general political vibe of Europe in comparison to the US. Social democracies work to reform capitalism so still pro-capitalism while democratic socialists work to replace capitalism with socialism. Differences can seem slight when they aren't in power as they are both pro strong social safety nets.

"and that by encouraging illegal migration (that's a crime, by the way) they were increasing the rates of these things happening.  They did so because they felt it was a worthwhile tradeoff."

I think they were encouraging treating immigrants with respect, many illegal immigrants were still forcibly deported so its not like the aim was pro illegal immigration - yes I'm aware the both Biden and Trump admins put them in cages pre-deportation which isnt exactly respectful, politicians actions often diverge from voters wants and politician words. The assumption most likely was that these people were fleeing serious hardship or political persecution- you can't from one side of your mouth said that countries like Venezuela are filled with human rights violations and then from the other side say that people in the us looking for their rights to be protected while they flee to accept that their rights will be violated

Regarding the 300K lost children figure, I've read this: https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/biden-administration-300000-children-claim-debunked-a3d834

I don't think any voters or left leaning citizen supports a bad bureaucracy or a failing of a system like this - which it did clearly and inarguably fail. This seems more an underfunding and incompetence issue rather than malice or a desire to just fling immigrant children wherever. Like you said the average American probably isnt aware of it, didn't vote for it and obviously wouldn't support it. I'd have no argument on your criticism of the government in charge but putting it on voters is a stretch, no one votes for or supports a poorly implemented policy, the intention/assumption is that it's properly done, possibly a discussion about naivety but that's a separate thread.

Seeing a cry for attention is always sad

Most of Europe isnt democratic socialists either lol, it's a continent with a larger population than the US which you are summarising to mostly some Nordic countries which are are pretty sparsely populated, like assuming Minnesota represents the US.

Not surprised you're unable to address the other parts, just some fox news style substanceless claims. 

If we are in the business of trying to figure out which political leaning supports **** of migrants or such, I'd probably question any groups who voted for one of Epsteins closest companions for one, I'd probably also cast a wary eye over anyone who's defended or supported ice, given how many serious accusations of **** they have against them while detaining migrants.

This is all going by your logic not mine of course, but the right has got a history of being unconcerned with sexual violence if we are being charitable about it.

Someone acting like a wee anime character lol

Good for you being Athiest, you are still wanking yourself silly over Christianity so kinda irrelevant. Wild that you are part of the just recently largest religious belief group in Britain, a historically Christian country which many claim has  lost its identity to non-believers and you are pointing out a tiny minority as the problem and the invaders because there is a preference for a particular name lol, hypocrisy.

As for Lebanon, very blatant attempt at moving the goalposts there, ask for a Muslim dominated country with a Christian leader and you got one were it's actually a legal requirement. Why stop at 1975?

A 50/50 split as you say but Christians were favoured in law even 80 years ago. I don't think there are any Christian countries where the leader has to be Muslim

The pictures were newly released but they were taken in 2024, it's possible their images were released back then after they were murdered or while they were taken hostage maybe

Quotes about  Muhammed being the most popular name always shows a lack of intelligence I find, it's a very common name for Muslims, who make up only 6% of the British population, 46% of the population is no religion and 37% of the population is Christian, if you want to talk about a group taking over the country while Christians become a minority it'd be Atheists not Muslims. This all stems from a lack of understanding that the a vast % of Muslims have the name of Muhammad, rather than there being a vast % of the population called Muhammad, basically you have a lack of understanding to critically analyse information

Also regarding your attempt at the gotcha question above:

"Can you name a single muslim country that would willingly elect a christian called 'John Smith' in a position of leadership?"

With how you talk about Islam, I get why you didn't capitalise Muslim, but not capitalising Christian is being a bit disrespectful of the religion you apparently love. Regarding Muslim countries with Christian leaders - Lebanon is a country that is 60-70% Muslim and their president is required to be a Christian (specifically a Maronite if you care). I never hear a complaint from your type about a Christian minority holding such sway over a Muslim majority country, current leader is called Joseph Aoun, wee Joey the leader of a Muslim country like.