Nonsense take. What if I told you alcoholics 1000% never buy glass bottles? That top 10% is cheap aluminum cans and plastic liquor bottles.
Or that glass bottles can be used for things besides beer and soda (iced tea and water for example).
You’re making unfounded generalizations about people’s health concerns.
When did I say that? All I want is for all belligerents to be held to the same standard. Show me the evidence that these missiles are falling on targets with strategic importance; show me that they’re making efforts to not waste human lives. It’s clear that Israel’s attacks are not and they’re rightly called out for it. Why is Iran above the same scrutiny?
US was the invader during the Vietnam War so that’s a bad example all around
Why is it a bad example? Does being the defender in a war make you immune to war crimes? It’s indiscriminate killing of non combatants either way.
You’re just wildly incorrect on all fronts here.
since you were the one talking about nations’ flags
A nation is not a nation state, and a population doesn’t have to be a sovereign state to have a flag.
No, they did it in order to hit their targets, which were often cities.
Exactly, to limit collateral damage. Germany (and the RAF’s night bombing, to be fair) also targeted cities with strategic war industries, they just cared more about their pilots’ safety than civilian lives.
You’re putting words in my mouth.
I’m not at all, I’m pointing out the lack of criticism for clips like the one above. There’s not even reserved judgment until we know what got hit and who died, just full throated support based only on the name of the city being bombed. I’m the only one here wanting evidence that these attacks are targeting anything of value and limiting non combatant deaths.
Remember when Israel was criticized for half-hearted pamphlet dropping to warn of barrages? All the scorn at Israel’s reports of the use of human shields? The outrage over bombing population centers and refugee camps allegedly hiding rockets? Zionists saying Palestinians deserved bombing because they elected Hamas and had parties celebrating Oct 7 and X% of Palestines supported Y?
I’m seeing the exact same comments in reverse. Just read the comments on this post. But this time nobody bats an eye because the “right” people are dying.
I don’t see how that makes a difference? Israel bombing civilians with precision doesn’t make imprecise bombing of civilians more acceptable. Everyone ends up just as dead. It just makes it more palatable for people who value retribution above civilian lives.
To put it another way: if you want to hit a military target but can’t do so without outsized collateral damage, you don’t have ethical grounds to make the attack. You don’t see people defending the USA’s use of Agent Orange in Vietnam just because it was the only feasible way to clear foliage.
Holy fuck you don’t even know what a nation is lmfao
If there’s anything to be learned from WWII, it’s that no one is more antifascist than communists.
If you knew anything about WW2, you’d know that strategic bombing of population centers was a futile effort that wasted lives. Allies and Axis both admitted it, and the Allies even stuck to day bombing to limit collateral damage.
I’ve been asking up and down this thread for any context on what these bombs hit, any evidence at all, and all I get is equivocation like yours.
Your “critical support” isn’t very critical at all, it’s pretty one dimensional. Isreal bombs a population center: bad. Iran bombs an Isreal population center: good. I’ve seen no depth beyond that.
These aren’t people being tried for their crimes, not even people being picked out and put in front of a firing squad. This is an explosion in a city. You have no clue who might have been in that area any more than I do.
How many residents have fired a weapon against a Palestinian? 30% if you’re being generous? That’s about the same as the population of children.
You’re OK with those odds? Or does your form of communism always cheer at indiscriminate death so long as some of the right people get caught in it? If X% of the population drinks the apartheid propoganda kool-aid it’s open season? What’s your number?
Nobody expects the state to relinquish power without violence, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK to cheer clips of massive explosions within lethal range of civilian houses.
I have yet to see anyone share hard evidence that these are targeted at military areas, let alone actually hitting them. Just a bunch of equivocation about military reserves and public opinion polls. Isreal rightfully caught shit for their pager attack being too indiscriminate but an explosion clearing half a city block isn’t?
Total population of Israel: 9.2 million Total IDF personnel (including reservists): 500k Total settler population: 700k Total Isreal police force: <30k
But sure, let’s glass them all. Especially the 86% that have no active involvement with what’s going on. You sound like a goddamn fool.
Edit: let me cut off the horseshit collective punishment argument before you make it: you’re still cheering for your own class to be slaughtered
Here’s a fun fact, did you know that 65 other countries also have mandatory military service, including Iran? Being a class traitor by the law of the state doesn’t make you not proletariat.
Abandoning massive chunks of workers based only on their place of birth or the bubble of propoganda they live in is the opposite of every reputable leftist ideology. If your empathy for the people crushed under the rubble of an apartment complex depends on the flag out front then just admit you’re a frothing nationalist and stop pretending.
For an instance nominally based on worker solidarity and elevating the proletariat, everyone sure is pretty quick to throw that out the window for tribalism and nationalism
Where is that evidence? I’m not denying it, I’m asking for it and nobody provides it.
Edit: from what I can tell that F35 rumor started in 2024 as a meme mocking Israel’s claims of apartments hiding Hezbollah weapons. Why would you stack up $100m planes in a place extremely hard to scramble them and perform maintenance?
How? Nobody dies and the neighborhood ends up destroyed? It’s the exact same thing.
By all means, I’ll take evidence that they’ve been hitting military targets. My issue is with people cheering videos like this lacking any of that evidence at all.
And no, having a bunker doesn’t make a civilian population fair game. It’s the same thing as crowding people into internment camps while you level their neighborhood.
Comment sections have been absolutely fucked since this started. I’ve seen some reports that these are hitting military targets but apparently I should be cheering about rockets landing a few dozen meters from this apartment?
I remember a video of an Israeli rocket hitting just outside a shop window in Yemen/Iran at a similar distance and people were balking that it could be hitting anything of strategic importance. Suddenly pictures of collapsed apartments and hospitals are fine because it’s the guys you don’t like?
Apparently it’s a bad take for me to think civilians shouldn’t be bombed regardless of how much Zionist brainwashing they have. People talking about “they deserve it” and pointing to Isreal opinion polls showing 60% support X awful thing. Last time I checked, a rocket doesn’t take a survey before it explodes. So 4/10 people in that explosion deserve to die by association?
You all make me sick, down vote away.
Counterpoint, I know lots of people that do/have done lots of those things who also aren’t complete psychopaths
Must be a reading comprehension issue, I specifically pointed to genetic [biological] fitness in that context. The definition is right there, I’m not wrong. I can reword it if you want: “my argument is explicitly not supporting eugenics”
And still, no actual counter argument. Just responses that might as well be “I don’t like what you’re saying” followed by a short philosophical essay. What humans morally should or shouldn’t do is completely orthogonal to what humans are as biological creatures.
If I’m misunderstanding the dozens of hours of conversations I’ve had with personal friends who professionally research animal+human evolution and behavioral neuroscience, please enlighten me. To summarize my understanding:
All of this points to a very reasonable statement: humans are designed for a non-zero amount sex and large deviations from that can negatively impact social behavior.
People in this thread hallucinate that as an endorsement of regressive public policy or toxic ideology. It’s possible (if you reeeeally really stretch your mind) to want more healthy sexual behavior in society without also supporting sexual enslavement.
One of us is misunderstanding for sure.
Fitness is a quantitative representation of individual reproductive success.
You’re conflating metaphysical goals with the literal biological goals of propogation. It has nothing to do with survival, plenty of animals sacrifice themselves after reproducing, either as a food source or lack of evolutionary pressure to stay alive. The human exceptionalism that our awareness puts us above these natural processes is part of the problem.
In this case the logic is sound. Evolution doesn’t often occur, it always occurs. And we’re not talking about secondary or tertiary reproductive fitness (ie: humans are efficient at running so they must run, men are physically strong so they must defend), we’re talking about actual reproductive encounters.
Its the entire goal of the of all life on earth. There’s a carrot for anything getting you closer to reproducing and sticks for anything that moves you the wrong direction. Despair and discomfort can be caused by plenty of things, but you don’t have to disentangle the entire human experience to draw the line from a lack of healthy sexual experience to an ideology based on extreme sexual frustration.
Edit: again, down votes with no counter argument. For some reason people agree that abstinence in sex ed is a bad policy but turn around and say sex isn’t part of normal human function. Which is it?
None of my argument is about regressive bioessentialism. There’s no inherent violent masculinity or genetic fitness or any stance about what relationships are “supposed” to look like. Men are just having less sex than women.
24% of men aged 22-34 did not had sex in 2022-2023 vs 13% of women. That’s a much larger cohort to propagate that frustration. You can argue that there are other social factors that make it manifest in this specific toxic ideology (as opposed depression, anxiety and body image issues) but the root cause is the same.
More sex means less frustration about lack of sex, less sex means more. Why jump through hoops to make it about personal failing or some other indirect cause?
What is the core of the issue? “Society bad”? There are a lot of comorbid social ills but you can’t reduce everything to your favorites.
Economic frustration will likely manifest as anti immigrant sentiment. Extremist groups provide inclusion as a cure for social isolation. Degrading healthcare systems are fertile ground for anti-vax and pseudo-medicine. Digital echo chambers give a space to amplify every toxic narrative.
Occam’s razor says the guys preaching the fatalistic misogyny gospel are probably experiencing some strong sexual frustration. If they didn’t have that problem they could find something else to be mad about.
No toxic ideology precludes the others, but a racist with a stable marriage isn’t going to be blackpilled. He already knows minorities are the real problem.
Keep incorrectly stereotyping people for …checks notes… what container they drink from? Very weird hill to die on.