VIM
3d ago
No it isn't. How long do you think Israel would survive a European trade embargo combined with an American blockade?
VIM
4d ago
I think any other direction has darker implications: to reverse your claim (which, to be fair, is factually accurate to my knowledge), those that would commit mass ethnic cleansing of Jews in the 1940s were stopped by making their cities look like Dresden. Why wouldn't "Never Again" mean turning cities (Rafah) to such in 2026 for the same reason? "Which river? Which sea?". I don't agree with it, but I can at least understand the position.
With the crucial difference that Rafah was demolished, whereas the antizionists are still a decade or so away from possessing the power to demolish Tel Aviv. I'm not inventing a new standard, just taking the existing one and applying it consistently.
Ultimately, the cycle of violence is only broken when one side loses or admits defeat — the West Germans were to some extent lucky the Western Allies were more magnanimous than many other historical examples — or when "hippy-dippy peace-and-love attitudes" prevail. In most cases I can imagine, I'd prefer the latter.
The "hippy-dippy peace-and-love attitudes" only came out after Germany was defeated. If the Wehrmacht had been greeted by a bunch of protesters waving peace signs instead of millions of heavily armed Red Army soldiers then the war would have gone very differently.
I'll grant that there is a range of actions that are more extreme than total pacifism and less extreme than Dresden but basically anyone who isn't a total pacifist is going to say that armed resistance to an ongoing genocide is justified.
VIM
4d ago
these people don't understand that Hamas is still fighting
Hi there, ignorant peon here! Could you explain how "Hamas is still fighting" when there's a ceasefire and there have been precisely zero (0) reported instances of Hamas attacking the Israelis since said ceasefire began?
If you want to side with the weaker side in a military conflict because that is your philosophy, then just say that. But it is, to me, disgusting and evil when people reward the use of human shields and false flags and piracy and the like with sympathy. The crybully tactics of modern Islam need to be punished like they would have been by the Brits and French of the 19th century. And, quite frankly, given the current set of belligerents, the Brits and French should have been mounting up to do it themselves years ago under a sane system.
Ironically Hamas learned their "crybully tactics" from the Zionists who liked to, for example, hide weapons caches inside synagogues.
If the Brits and the French had applied your reasoning consistently Israel wouldn't exist in the first place. They'd have been wiped out after kidnapping and murdering British soldiers instead of being rewarded with international recognition and protection from the consequences of their actions.
VIM
4d ago
Why does opposition to genocide require a "hippy-dippy peace-and-love" attitude?
The Nazis weren't stopped by hippies waving signs but by the Red Army tearing through East Prussia committing enough war crimes to make Hamas look like humanitarian organization.
If you think that Israel is committing a genocide then it logically follows that violent resistance is justified, assuming you aren't a full on pacifist.
VIM
6d ago
Dear Baghdad Bob: if the Strait is more open than ever then why is the price of oil still going up?
VIM
6d ago
I have no idea why you're citing the Jordanian claim when it's been proven that the missiles which hit "unpopulated areas" actually hit A-10 and F-15 jets. How gullible are you? If some tinpot Arab dictatorship announced that they had invented faster than light travel would you believe that too?
So your demonstration of American strength is that when fighter jets are damaged the response is to...blow up Iranian cargo ships?
Putting aside the hilarity of America being so demonstrably incapable of disabling Iranian military assets that it's been reduced to impotently copying the Iranians in cargo cult fashion (see also: the LUCAS drone), what exactly is the benefit of blowing up tankers when Iran is already under blockade? Unless you think those tankers have been running the USN blockade regularly there's no benefit whatsoever to targeting them.
It's pure impotence signaling on Trump's part. The missile cities have proven to be impenetrable from the air so all he can do is throw a temper tantrum.
VIM
6d ago
Is the US and Hamas guilty of terrorism via using human shields when soldiers are stationed in hotels or are Iran and Israel guilty of terrorism when they bomb said hotels for stationing soldiers?
But what does it matter? Look at it like this: when did the Iranians last bomb anything that mattered? They are totally out of juice. In March they were bombing apartment buildings. They can’t do that anymore. The last time they shot anything, a few days ago, they launched 20 missiles (lmao) and hit a few parked military assets. Causing, essentially, no change in the status quo.
At the beginning of the war they fired hundreds of projectiles and sometimes hit apartment buildings! Now they fire twenty and that's enough to penetrate the most well defended airspace in the AO and hit USAF fighter jets at will (what you call "parked military assets", lol)! Soon, the pathetic Iranians will only need a single missile to hit whatever they want and that will signal their imminent defeat! If you blow up your enemy's fighter jets on the tarmac then they win!
More seriously, the Saudi East-West pipeline was knocked out of commission by, depending on you ask, either the Houthis, the Iraqi PMFs, or the Houthi branch office in Iraq. Once AD has been sufficiently drained the Iranians can let their proxies handle the dirty work. Do you unironically believe that Iran's weakest proxies can cripple Saudi oil production single handedly but the Iranians themselves couldn't hit apartments if they really wanted?
Perhaps most embarrassingly, at the beginning of the war US forces would instantly respond to Iranian attacks with airstrikes. Now they sit there like cucks as Iran rails their assets, infrastructure and allies with missiles, their multi-billion dollar AD systems powerless.
Trump is totally impotent. Iran won.
VIM
6d ago
This isn't a game or a sports match, so there's no particular time limit on this. The US and its allies can keep this up for as long as it takes.
literally the next paragraph:
Of course, it's possible that Democrats will sieze power, and then they'll give in. Give the IRGC money, give them terrorist proxies, give them nukes, give them whatever they want. That would be a huge disaster, but it's not the result of this current war, it's just Democrats being idiots.
So actually there is a particular time limit, namely the midterms and presidential elections. The Iranians don't need to destroy the US Navy to achieve victory, they just need to inflict enough pain on the global economy to ratfuck the Republicans. Pretending the political angle isn't the core of the Iranian strategy is just preemptive cope.
Instead we've been... mildly inconvenienced? The price of oil has gone up, but not enough to cause a recession- the economy is still growing. (Edit: 18-20) servicemen have died, and that's a shame, but that's also a very small number in historical terms- every military person knows the risks when they sign up.
Going by current polling the "mild inconvenience" has been enough to set up Republicans for the worst midterm result since 2006. The Senate was supposed to be bulletproof but even typically solid red states like Texas, Nebraska and Kansas are in danger of flipping. Evidently the voters have a different standard of "mild inconvenience" than you do, though perhaps the Biden strategy of "don't believe your lying eyes, this economy is great!" will work this time around
So did the IDF tank that responded to the ongoing hostage situation by opening fire on the hostages
The antizionists who will be destroying Israel aren't Palestinians but Americans and Europeans. I wasn't saying that Palestinians were going to somehow amass the power to obliterate Tel Aviv in a decade but that the political changes in developed Western countries caused by Israel's campaign in Gaza and the subsequent mess the Middle East has devolved into will ultimately lead to Israel's destruction.
At any rate, the original example I gave was of the Red Army in East Prussia where none of these differences apply. The point is that even a bloodthirsty, vengeful horde led by a brutal tyrant committing the worst atrocities imaginable can still be viewed as the lesser evil when they're up against a genocidaire. "Armed resistance" is far, far short of what Stalin's troops did to the German civilians who fell into their clutches.
Was Stalin "the baddie" in WW2? I personally don't think "the baddie" is a meaningful term; in the vast majority of wars you don't have a choice between the "good guy" and the "bad guy", you have a choice between the "bad guy" and the "worse guy". Stalin and FDR were bad guys (obviously FDR less than Stalin) and Hitler was the worse guy. If Israel is guilty of genocide then it follows that armed resistance is justified; that doesn't make Hamas the "good guy", it makes them the "bad" to Israel's "worse".
More options
Context Copy link