Rewindz [2855264] Level 43 Hospital
From the 2,000 newest archived posts.
Likes as archived at fetch time, adjusted for how long each post had been up. Scored posts only; the full score pass runs after the import.
Be on the right side of history? Israel injures 4,000 Hezbollah members and possibly killed a child.
Hezbollah already fired thousands of rockets displacing 60,000 Israelis, and Hezbollah killed 12 Druze children.
By Pro-Palestine logic which is worse?
I picked out passages in your OP, and had Gemini compare them to passages of Mein Kampf:
In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler uses similar strategies of demonization and inflammatory language to dehumanize Jews and justify his worldview. While the contexts and targets differ, both the statement you've presented and passages from Mein Kampf share rhetorical techniques aimed at vilifying an entire group or nation. Here's a comparison of key elements:
1. Absolute Condemnation
Statement: "The Israeli government has shown time and time again that they are immune to consequences for their crimes against humanity."
Mein Kampf: Hitler repeatedly frames Jews as a singular, evil force responsible for Germany's downfall, using language that portrays them as manipulative, parasitic, and destructive: "The Jew has always been a people with definite racial characteristics and never a religion."
Comparison: Both passages cast the subject (Israel/Jews) as inherently and repeatedly engaging in harmful actions, beyond redemption or accountability. There is no room for nuance or consideration of the broader context; they are portrayed as evil by nature.
2. Blaming for Wide Range of Evils
Statement: "They are guilty of not just one of these examples listed above, but almost all of these examples."
Mein Kampf: Hitler accuses Jews of being responsible for a wide range of Germany's problems, including economic hardship, social decay, and even war: "Wherever I went, I now saw Jews, and the more I saw, the more sharply they became distinguished in my eyes from the rest of humanity."
Comparison: Both use a "laundry list" approach to blame the target for a wide array of societal ills. This technique casts the accused as a multifaceted villain, supposedly responsible for nearly every conceivable wrong, which feeds into a narrative of comprehensive evil.
3. Dehumanization through Inflammatory Labels
Statement: "Lunatic unconditional supporters of the current Israeli regime."
Mein Kampf: Hitler frequently uses dehumanizing language to describe Jews as subhuman or conspiratorial: "He [the Jew] is and remains the typical parasite, a sponger who, like a noxious bacillus, keeps spreading as soon as a favorable medium invites him."
Comparison: Both use derogatory terms ("lunatic" vs. "parasite") to strip their targets of dignity and humanity, framing them not just as political or ideological opponents, but as irrational, inherently dangerous forces that corrupt society.
4. Moral Superiority and Call to Action
Statement: "Be on the right side of history and help end this craziness."
Mein Kampf: Hitler frames his cause as a moral duty, positioning himself as the defender of purity and righteousness: "By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Comparison: Both passages frame the speaker's position as morally superior and call others to join their side to combat an allegedly evil force. This moral absolutism paints the conflict in stark terms of good versus evil, making any form of opposition seem not only wrong but morally corrupt.
5. Wishing for Downfall
Statement: "I refuse to praise such an evil regime and hope for their downfall."
Mein Kampf: Hitler frequently advocates for the destruction of the Jewish people, seeing their downfall as essential to Germany's survival and prosperity: "If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the peoples of this world, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity."
Comparison: Both express a desire for the complete downfall of the target, viewing it as a necessary step for achieving a greater moral or political outcome. This language is meant to justify extreme measures or actions, portraying the annihilation of the target as a moral imperative.
---
Conclusion:
Both the statement against Israel and passages from Mein Kampf rely on extreme generalizations, dehumanizing language, and moral absolutism to depict the subject as inherently evil. In both cases, the use of broad accusations without nuance serves to vilify and rally people against a perceived enemy. The crucial danger in such language is its potential to incite further polarization, hatred, and even violence by painting co
mplex political situations in black-and-white terms.
Example Pro-Palestine propaganda is Arabized Nazism.
Children and old ladies wounded in supermarkets! Tee hee! So funny!
It wasn't the intent to kill civilians. Do you think Hezbollah terrorists avoid public places or do their grocery shopping in Hezbollah membership-only stores?
By targeting Hezbollah members, the goal is to prevent future conflicts and casualties. Unfortunately, in these efforts, sometimes innocent people might get caught in the crossfire. But if those 2,800 Hezbollah members are stopped (or significantly slow down), it could prevent an even larger number of civilian deaths and injuries from further escalation of war. Hamas adapted the human shield tactic from Hezbollah.
Hamas acted on behalf of Iran; Israel should've stated that Hamas's actions on Oct. 7 was a declaration of war by Iran. It's not a hidden secret that Iran supports Hamas and other terrorist militias across the middle east.
staff edit - flaming
No, you're right. It has been reported that Israel had advanced knowledge of the October 7th attacks close to one year in advance.
Hamas broke through a military-grade fence, not something a terrorist militia could pull off alone. A military-grade fence requires extensive knowledge and experience to bust through.
Hezbollah has experience probing border fences.
Hamas terrorists attacked like an organized military and had detailed intelligence of buildings.
Only a foreign government could provide military training and detailed intelligence, like Iran.
If you assume Israel's allies' intelligence agencies are completely incompetent, then they couldn't figure it out.
You still defend grown ass men, hamas terrorists, that ****d women AND children.
Which was verified by NGOs.
You forget the part about funding, that's includes weapons.They still favor funding.
It would be different if the majority thought it was a genocide, that would mean no funding, no weapons.
Not really, seeing what actually happens made even over half of the Americans stop supporting Israel.
Actually, majority of Americans don't support the government of Israel, and majority still view the state of Israel as favorable. Majority view Israel as an important ally, that includes funding. Not quiet the raw prejudice you and some here have.
I know most people already ignoring the Pro-Palestine gnats in real life.
You seen Salamander's post.
I just ignored your previous question about Christians, it had nothing to do with Arab states driving out their Jewish populations.
You don't think Israeli women and children were ****d by male Hamas fighters.That's part of the reason why Hamas fighters were captured and imprisoned for murder and **** on Oct. 7.
Besides, you're bringing up a court case that prosecutors dropped because there wasn't sufficient evidence of ****.
Democratic socialists are overtaking Democrats. The chart is accurate.
All the denialism and anti-intellectism going on by pro-Palestine rename the title of thread:
Pro-Palestine wants you to shut the fuck up.
They were forced to flee Egypt. Western countries have Jews that never relocated to Israel whether they're believe in zionism or not. For Egyptian Jews it wasn't a choice.
Nakba isn’t a genocide because Arab League nations simultaneously expelled their Jews. While they tried to fulfill their promise of genociding Jews in Israel.
This is one of the most historically disingenuous things I've seen from you so far. And that is an accomplishment, sir.
Only to someone who is antisemitic. Similar to holocaust deniers who don't believe it ever happened, even if it proof is given. They still don't believe it.
Edit: The Nabka is not a genocide by the way.
No, that's moral inversions to justify antisemitism. Egypt was part of the Arab League that promised to genocide Jews in Israel. And they ethnically cleansed Egyptian Jews in response.
In otherwords, the Egyptian government collectively blamed Jews for Zionism? Isn't that antisemitism??So, all Muslims are responsible for terrorism? Isn't that Islamophobia????
If Palestinians have a right to return to the homes they or their families were displaced from, why shouldn't the same principle apply to Egyptian Jews who were forced out of Egypt?
From 1948 to 1956, thousands of Egyptian Jews were expelled, their property and businesses were seized, Egypt government stripped Egyptian Jews of their nationality.
The Egyptian government always supports Palestinians' right of return, while Jewish families were ethnically cleansed from Egypt due to fears they supported Zionism. By the way, this is why anti-Zionism is antisemitic.
And Jewish families can't return to their homes in Egypt due to complicated laws.
Right, on the flipside, does your argument include or exclude the Palestinian diaspora "Right of Return' and similar cases for other groups? Obviously, the length of time doesn't matter as you implied.