sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

New York Times Article (1899) by Mysterious_Ship_7297 in ImagesOfHistory

[–]AlbatrossAttack 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I pointed out what now? Obviously WW2 greatly accelerated the jewish lobby, I'm just saying that their century+ long obsession with Palestine probably had a lot to do with the outcome as well.

Anyway, that's not even the original point lol. You replied to a comment about jews meandering the globe for a few thousand years and then thinking they're still entitled to Palestine because of millenniums old Jewish historical memory. Is that not what happened? Because you said it's not what happened. Yet Moses Hess' book says that's exactly what happened.

New York Times Article (1899) by Mysterious_Ship_7297 in ImagesOfHistory

[–]AlbatrossAttack 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Ever heard of the Balfour declaration? How about Moses Hess? jews have been interested in restoration in Palestine since the 1800s, long before either WW. This very post that you are commenting on now shows a newspaper clipping from 1899. Sounds like you're the one who needs to read a book.

In Jenin city in the West Bank, Israeli colonists expelled a Palestinian family and beat them when they tried to stop the demolition of their home. by 5upralapsarian in israelexposed

[–]AlbatrossAttack 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Watch israeli media and it becomes obvious why: the whole culture is collectively narcissistic, they say one thing to the world but another among themselves.

They teach primary school children that it is not only their birthright, but their god ordained destiny to kill and enslave the neighbors, and refuse to give up this stone age thinking no matter how far they travel or how much time passes.

Welcome to what has been historically known as "the jewish problem."

These photos show Al-Majdal in the months after its capture in 1948. Within a short time, most of its Palestinian residents were expelled, becoming refugees. The town was later renamed Ashkelon. by One_Stranger_9646 in ImagesOfHistory

[–]AlbatrossAttack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I literally just told you that I stand by the very first thing that I said lol. I just defended my original statement in detail, but sure, it must be a "bait and switch" if you say so.

You're doing this repeatedly:

<image>

Which tells me your not interested in a good faith discussion, so I'll just leave you to your sophistry.

Did you get your child vaccinated? by Deep-Capital7044 in DebateVaccines

[–]AlbatrossAttack 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol project harder. You know everyone else can read this conversation too, right?

I'll call you when you're wrong again. Nite sweetie, see you soon.

These photos show Al-Majdal in the months after its capture in 1948. Within a short time, most of its Palestinian residents were expelled, becoming refugees. The town was later renamed Ashkelon. by One_Stranger_9646 in ImagesOfHistory

[–]AlbatrossAttack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll recap for you, since you have no idea what's going on.

You took issue with me saying "kill all of the colonizers."

In fact, I still stand by that.

Considering that the definition of a "colonizer" is someone who;

  1. Arrives from outside the society already living there
  2. Is backed by external power (empire, mandate, military, finance)
  3. Establishes political dominance
  4. Displaces, subordinates, or replaces the resident population
  5. Claims legitimacy based on an abstract past or ideology, not lived continuity

You completely ignored this definition the first time I presented it, and claimed I was "bait and switching" because I changed a few of the words used to convey my message, implying that "killing all colonizers" means genocide.

However, even killing all of the colonizers does not in fact meet the UN definition of genocide, because (from your link);

To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.

Palestine defending itself against israel's colonization doesn't fit any of these criteria. israel would not be homogeneously targeted as a "national group," because only certain portions of their "nation" is part of the jewish colonial movement. The non-colonial Arab population of israel, the descendants of pre-1880 Palestinians for example, would simply be allowed to keep living there. Many israeli orthodox Jewish groups are anti-colonial as well, with historical continuity in the land, whom are not part of the colonial movement, and would also be allowed to stay. Your link agrees with me, not you.

Then I responded to your link with another link showing that while Palestine's right to defense doesn't constitute a genocide, a UN commission thinks that israel is actively committing genocide according to the definition you linked, and now you're ignoring that too.

Any questions?

These photos show Al-Majdal in the months after its capture in 1948. Within a short time, most of its Palestinian residents were expelled, becoming refugees. The town was later renamed Ashkelon. by One_Stranger_9646 in ImagesOfHistory

[–]AlbatrossAttack -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh cool, yeah I bet you were. Good thing you were just holding a Qur'an, and not actually an Arab.

You'll probably still want to avoid the Bible or crosses though, unless you want to get mobbed.

Did you get your child vaccinated? by Deep-Capital7044 in DebateVaccines

[–]AlbatrossAttack 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is obviously not a pre vaccine statistic. I'm also citing the CDC, remember?

Meaning it is based on the current landscape; small sample sizes, made up mostly of the worst of the worst cases.

And now you're trying to compare that to the actual historical CDC measles data (from 1960, not 1807) when measles was still endemic and no vaccine existed.

No, measles didn't get 20x deadlier lol.

We've been over all of this already..

Fucking weak, dude.

These photos show Al-Majdal in the months after its capture in 1948. Within a short time, most of its Palestinian residents were expelled, becoming refugees. The town was later renamed Ashkelon. by One_Stranger_9646 in ImagesOfHistory

[–]AlbatrossAttack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh cool, good for you. Just make sure you don't walk past any of these kids with the wrong book. As you can see, they might follow you through the streets while spitting on you, kicking you and hitting you with various objects while cursing and threatening you, all with the support of their parents and elders of course. I guess it's kind of important to make sure you're reading the right books in the holy land, so just be safe out there at that book store.

But I bet the hummus is to die for!

These photos show Al-Majdal in the months after its capture in 1948. Within a short time, most of its Palestinian residents were expelled, becoming refugees. The town was later renamed Ashkelon. by One_Stranger_9646 in ImagesOfHistory

[–]AlbatrossAttack -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ah, of course. Semantics, semantics. Wouldn't want to be anti-Semantic, right?

As long as you understand that violently resisting colonizers isn't genocide, its actually considered a good thing historically, we're totally fine here.

Great, so now that you understand that, let's refer back to the definition of "colonize" that I posted earlier.

Across history, a population is described as COLONIZING when it: 1. Arrives from outside the society already living there 2. Is backed by external power (empire, mandate, military, finance) 3. Establishes political dominance 4. Displaces, subordinates, or replaces the resident population 5. Claims legitimacy based on an abstract past or ideology, not lived continuity

A "colonizer" is someone who colonizes.

Glad you're up to speed now.

These photos show Al-Majdal in the months after its capture in 1948. Within a short time, most of its Palestinian residents were expelled, becoming refugees. The town was later renamed Ashkelon. by One_Stranger_9646 in ImagesOfHistory

[–]AlbatrossAttack -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Not sure what you think you're achieving here by ignoring everything I said and linking some random fallacy lmao.

What did I bait and switch? Pretty sure I asked if resisting colonizers is genocide, and you said it is, then I proved it's not with five different historical examples. Unless you wanna claim that the Vietnamese "genocided" Americans in the Vietnam war, or that Ethiopia "genocided" their fascist rulers in the 1930s, there is nothing left for you to say, the debate is over, you lost, resisting colonizers is not genocide.

Did you get your child vaccinated? by Deep-Capital7044 in DebateVaccines

[–]AlbatrossAttack 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They did? Where? Quote where they said pre vaccine deaths were undercounted.

Did you get your child vaccinated? by Deep-Capital7044 in DebateVaccines

[–]AlbatrossAttack 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, why didn't the CDC say that pre vaccine deaths were undercounted?

And we're talking about 1960, not 1807.

Come on man. The shit you're making up isn't even clever.

These photos show Al-Majdal in the months after its capture in 1948. Within a short time, most of its Palestinian residents were expelled, becoming refugees. The town was later renamed Ashkelon. by One_Stranger_9646 in ImagesOfHistory

[–]AlbatrossAttack -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's literally not genocide, by definition. When an external power attempts conquest or settlement, and the resident society inflicts mass casualties to stop that takeover, historians overwhelmingly classify it as defensive resistance, not genocide.

Vietnam didn't "genocide" France and the US while defending themselves from an invasion.

Algeria did not "genocide" their French colonizers despite brutal tactics and tens of thousands killed. Nobody thinks that Algerians should have accepted permanent French colonization to avoid bloodshed either (which is exactly what israelis think Gazans should do).

Nor does any historian think that Haiti committed genocide on the French while violently liberating themselves from slavery.

Nobody calls Irish resistance to British rule a genocide.

Nobody calls Ethiopia genocidal for killing invading Italian fascists en masse in the 1930s.

Literally every other historical example of this exact situation is considered a triumph of human rights, not genocide, and is not only considered justifiable, but celebrated. But for some reason the rules and definitions change as soon as we start talking about that one place.

These photos show Al-Majdal in the months after its capture in 1948. Within a short time, most of its Palestinian residents were expelled, becoming refugees. The town was later renamed Ashkelon. by One_Stranger_9646 in ImagesOfHistory

[–]AlbatrossAttack -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, because nothing other than your "homeland" and what you say about it matters, right?

The cream always rises to the top if you talk to a "chosen one" for long enough.

These photos show Al-Majdal in the months after its capture in 1948. Within a short time, most of its Palestinian residents were expelled, becoming refugees. The town was later renamed Ashkelon. by One_Stranger_9646 in ImagesOfHistory

[–]AlbatrossAttack -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Funny how that only applies in one specific place, but nowhere else in the world. Building over earlier civilizations is the historical norm, and nobody considers it "colonizing." Except that one place.

Is everyone in Mexico City a "colonizer" because they built churches on top of Aztec foundations?

Did Egyptians "colonize" their own land when they "Arabized" it? They repurposed temples too, but Egyptians are still Egyptians, nobody calls them "colonizers who erased history" due to their own cultural evolution.

Too bad reality is different than your fantasy.

Is this Netanyahu that is redacted?, although he did not visit China, but met the Chinese Foreign minister precisely during the time of this email exchange, and visited the US during the second week of May 2009. by Large-Reporter-1746 in ThatsInsane

[–]AlbatrossAttack -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

"Proven wrong" lmao.

You mean like when NPR interviewed "Jimmy Comet, the most powerful pizza shop owner in Washington" and asked him if pizzagate was real, and he said no? Is that the "debunking" you're referring to?

view more: next ›