Tumblerseven

Genocidal intent - Wikipedia You can keep screaming for hundreds of pages its genocide its genocide its just your feelings and narrative spinning nothing else just words who hold no weight.. To everyone who actually cares should go and read what south africa provided to support their accusations and prove dolus specialis. I think after that you might be very sceptical of the outcome of that case

So didint i retracted my hypocrisy comment to you like two weeks ago? I cant believe that a grown man cries for two weeks about the statement i retracted two weeks ago its unbelievable. You say i dont answer questions? but you cant name one? or what the problem name the question you want me so much to answer. Few days ago i asked you do you want to ask me a question? [mod edit personal stuff removed] I love how no person in here who i talked to will not step up and say no this guy is clearly trying to answer question or answering questions. You cant even do this but you will watch how people just blatantly lying about me. Actual no moral compas grown people acting like they are school bulies.

So thank you for confirming that this is a bad faith discussion and you people actually just bad faith. You've suggested it as a solution to the conflict, the least undesireable one. no i actually didint. My solution to the conflict is to free gaza which i told mutiple times. but you just ignore this because you bad faith. We talking here about hypothetical scenario i gave you! are you like serious right now?

I never said i want or it needs to be ethnic cleansing first of all. I am actually shocked by some of the people's English language comprehension in here. This is insane either this is completely bad faith and you guys running with group thinking because you want to fit in or you actually like have some mental disabilities. People in here cant even differentiate between description explanation and advocation. jesus christ.

Right to Exist: This means that a country is recognized and respected by the international community, and it has the legal and diplomatic standing to exist as a sovereign state. Other countries acknowledge its existence and sovereignty, and it is typically a member of the United Nations or has diplomatic relations with other nations. Inherent Right to Exist: This concept goes a step further and suggests that the country's existence is seen as a fundamental and natural aspect, similar to the way we recognize the basic rights of individuals. In this context, the country's right to exist is considered an intrinsic and fundamental principle, and its territorial integrity is protected not only because it is acknowledged by others but because it is a basic and natural state of affairs. So, when we say a country has the "right to exist" but doesn't have the "inherent right to exist," we mean that the country is recognized and respected by the international community, but its existence may not be viewed as an inherent and fundamental principle in the same way that, for example, the inherent rights of individuals are recognized. The distinction may imply that the country's existence relies on external recognition and acceptance rather than being seen as a fundamental and natural aspect of the international order. So to say that countries doesnt have an inherent right to exist is not an evil statement. I dont appreciate that in this forum we are pretending that its an evil statement and demonize people. So i dont cry and im not against the soviet union collapsing. If you think that countries have inherent right to exist that should mean that you are against the soviet union collapsing. And by this logic its territorial integrity is protected not only because it is acknowledged by others but because it is a basic and natural state of affairs. Your thinking should be that israel got its lands in 1948 illegally and if it got its land illegally what follows..

Please stop fantasizing about my "war crimes" in your sleep ok? That person who talked about nukes is crazy its insanity. He should be fired from position of power. Oh and they did already but no one mentions it because they are pushing the narrative. Israel minister suspended after calling nuking Gaza an option – POLITICO

@VILLAMARV so you clearly have no idea room temperature iq engagement. So lets ask an AI a higher intelligence creature than VILLAMARV Question: If i say that population cleansing is not inherently a bad thing. With that first statement do i say that its a good thing? Explanation for slow people: No, saying that "population cleansing is not inherently a bad thing" does not mean that you are saying it is a good thing. It is crucial to understand the context and the nuances of the statement. By saying that it is "not inherently a bad thing," you are acknowledging that there might be varying perspectives or contexts in which people may discuss the topic. However, it's essential to emphasize that population cleansing, in its common understanding, involves the forced removal or elimination of people from a particular ethnic or racial group, often involving violence and human rights abuses. It is widely considered a grave violation of human rights and international law, and it is generally viewed negatively in the international community. If you wish to express a positive opinion about something, you would need to use more explicit and affirmative language to convey that viewpoint.

Wait you dont know? Then why attack me and then make fun of me? I asked you what you understood what is the message?

@VILLAMARV can you tell my what you understood from my statement. What message did i communicate to you when i said this?

Didint you agree that countries dont have inherent right to exist? i think you did. Do you understand that cleansing population is natural process of creation of the country? You take similar population and you kick out unsimilar population and you create a country. That process was done for thousands of years. Its natural country creation process. its not inherently bad. And sometimes its necessary. I could explain that but you refused to engage with hypotheticals because it looks bad. I wrote that failed countries dont deserve to exist. Oh man im such a bad guy that i believe that country who cant govern itself and cant protect its borders and people and cant take care of its people should not exist. "Very VERY controversial" I think letting people endlessly suffer in a failed state is more cruel than just changing a name of country electing different government implementing better systems and trying again so people can prosper and live normally.

In that comment im describing the reality of how external pressures work i think i can do that without being accused of advocating for it. If i describe you breathing it doesnt mean im advocating for it. right? This is my second language and im shocked that you people actually cant see the difference between describing(explaining) and advocating.

My statement: So what happenes to a country or a system who cant fight off external pressures? they vanish that is the harsh reality. Your delusion: You are advocating survival of the fittest but for countries. Just stop ok

This is some crazy stuff happening where people like @Mr_Dogg and @Chindie and others purposefully trying to misunderstand me and ignore what i am actually saying and just trying to demonize me and paint me like an evil person. I dont think thats acceptable. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. :)

So what happenes to a country or a system who cant fight off external pressures? they vanish that is the harsh reality. What happens to a worker who cant compete or keep up with the job he gets fired! What happens to the restaurant that cant compete or keep up with the market it get shut down. Does world owe that worker a job and that restaurant a business? NO I dont understand why some people think that world owes Palestinians a Palestine. If they cant build it if they cant fight off external world pressures its their problem. World doesnt owe them a country.

They had the right to exist in the 1948 because they came into a free land with some Palestinian villagers and decided to build a country over there. I dont believe in inherent right or ownership to the land so if you will try to argue that Palestinian villagers had a land in there and they lived in there. I dont care they should have built a country.

I cant explain or teach what implications are or that language and words have actual meaning. Im not playing that game and im not wasting my time with that. my question: 2023 does israel have the right to exist in those lands?Not including west bank gazas. no why/yes why? your answer: no I don't believe Israel has the right to exist in those lands because the bulk of that land was unfairly/illegally taken from the indigenous population, who were then forcibly displaced. This is very clear answer this implicates one state solution of Palestine and you cant disassociate from the outcomes of it.

I think people would call your stance evil because when you say that Israel has no right to exist you are implying bad stuff. You can have a stance but you dont get to choose the effects or outcomes of that stance. example: If i say i want to eat pork but i am against pig being killed its nonsensical. I am literally the reason why pig gets killed. I dont get to choose to eat pork and then disassociate from the outcome pig being killed. So by saying that Israel has no right to exist you implying one state solution aka from the river to the sea Palestine. Any person with two braincells understands what would follow in one state solution with Palestinians controlling their lands and country. Holocaust of jews. So that is the outcome of your position you dont get to choose to disassociate from the outcome.

So first of all if i would write this kind of statement i would get 5 people jumping on me with their performative outrage trying to tell me how evil i am. I will see what reactions you will get Do you then believe that Palestinians have the right to fight illegal occupation from Israelis by any means necessary? yes/no what kind of means actions are justified. Would you call october 7 attack trying to fight the occupation? yes/no why? Would you call Hamas freedom fighters? yes/no why? Do you think october 7 attacks are justified because there is illegal ocupation of israel? yes/no why?

But realistically there is no other option you have to acknowledge that. You must agree that there are certain situations where humane and peaceful options doesn't exist. Like in self defense. You not expected to talk to your attacker who wants to kill you like a humane person. You are expected to defend yourself by any means necessary.

I absolutely disagree i think systems can fail like capitalism or socialism or authoritarianism or democracy and countries who implement those bad systems can fail to. Failing=means you cease to exist as a country or system by influence of the outside world. Would you agree that if Palestine can do nothing more than just democratically elect terrorist elements into their government they are failing as a country and population? So i think i can give you a scenario where you would say population cleansing might be reasonable. You live in a democracy i Thanos snap 30% of your countries population into radicalism racism authoritarianism. They dont believe in democracy or your state and they terorising the 70% of liberal population. What do you think your country should do? options: 1. cleanse the hostile population cleansing trying to deport them from your home is better than killing them 2. kill them. killing them is worse than cleansing. 3.Give up democracy it would be just sad. so can you engage with this?

So maybe we both think that there is not inherent right for a country to exist but you clearly can get the vibe that people in this forum disagree. When i said in previous comments that if US came and force the deal with a condition that if Palestine after free elections after removing of settlements goes back to terrorism Arab countries takes the Palestinians to themselves. Do you see how much of the performative outrage i got after that comment?? They clearly think that Palestinians have inherent right into that land and Palestine have inherent right to exist. If you remove Palestines right to fail as a country then you are saying that Palestine have the inherent right to exist no matter what. Terroristic or genocidal they cant fail and they cant fail on any level that they would cease to exist. Thats what people are saying in this forum.

Do you see the difference between these concepts? 1.inherent right to exist 2. right to exist. I do believe that israel and palestine have the right to exist. I dont believe they have the inherent right to exist. I think they have the right to fail.

Yup Germans in WW2 had this drinkable chemical substance colorless tasteless they called it Wasser. You cant drink Wasser ever its not acceptable... ever. Thats the level of engagement im getting amazing.

Yup thats what happens when you hear population cleansing and your brains shuts off completely and you cant even engage with anything.