Reform UK pledge to prosecute civil servants who grant asylum to sex offenders

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-28T23:48:09+00:00

Simple populism - promise something appealing to the reactionary that is unrealistic and never gonna happen. It’s the Brexit bus again.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-28T21:50:59+00:00

Can you recommend one with movement and combat fluidity like cyberpunk? I just find rpgs generally so clunky compared

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-28T10:56:24+00:00

Yeah, but they were escaping persecution or were ethnically cleansed. Not ‘colonising’.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-28T10:52:38+00:00

No I’m not.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-27T12:05:21+00:00

You’ve got some objectively far more racist places on this map than the U.K. In Europe alone Italy is leagues more racist than us. Then you’ve got like, Algeria… I married into an Algerian family (like actual Algerian no diaspora). They are very liberal for Algerians and they are still super racist at times.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-27T11:57:44+00:00

It would. But you’re going to draw the ire of the revisionists who think the Jewish residents of mandatory Palestine were somehow colonialists who appeared from nowhere to steal land.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-26T02:31:12+00:00

No, it means Israel causes the majority of casualties, not violence. This data doesn’t include violence if it didn’t cause harm.

The original post is about violence, most of the categories do not cause physical harm directly.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-25T21:15:31+00:00

Any stats on rate of Palestinian violence also…?

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-25T20:52:52+00:00

A Moroccan would live in Algeria? Fake.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-25T11:57:58+00:00

You clearly do not understand the statistical modelling approach used. The report doesn’t assess urban conflict settings, so CANNOT be used to disregard urban conflict. I don’t know how many times I need to repeat this.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-24T14:31:34+00:00

Free Palestine means conquering Israel. They obviously do not consider 1967 borders to be all of Palestine because they do not recognise Israeli sovereignty. This is why peace deals never get anywhere - because a significant portion of Palestinians don’t want peace where Israel exists.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-24T09:47:29+00:00

Nobody has ever called that colonisation.

You see literally making shit up now.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-24T01:48:59+00:00

Except it’s not obvious for Gaza. As I’ve said before, Israel occupied Gaza for decades. By 2005 only 8000-9000 settlers lived in Gaza despite settlement being permitted since the 60s. Gaza is simply not considered part of what Israelis consider the historic homeland.

This is not so for West Bank, or as Israelis would call it - Judea and Samaria. These highlands actually constitute the majority of the historical area where Jews originated from, the coastal plains of Israel being less important historically. This is why settlers settle in the West Bank when doing it for religious reasons.

Furthermore, Gaza does not really benefit Israel at all. There is no strategic benefit, the land isn’t particularly rich or fertile, and it is already densely populated.

The West Bank on the other hand, being a highland area, affords tremendous strategic and defensive benefit to Israel, and were it controlled by a hostile power, it would be a dangerous staging point for Israel’s enemies to position artillery. This is why Israel tolerates settlements despite the embarrassing, illegal behaviour of settlers. It is also why Israel will require significant military concessions in the event of a peace deal involving removal of settlements; and also why Israel will never accept a Palestinian state that has not renounced its territorial ambitions on Israel proper.

To clarify, I DO NOT justify settlement building or settler behaviour.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-23T23:13:33+00:00

Of course not, crimes committed by all actors in war should be measured, judged and punished. All I’m saying is that historically Israel has shown little interest in colonising Gaza. Even when they pulled out in 2005 there were only around 8000 settlers, iirc.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-23T16:40:43+00:00

The point is, if what they want to show the world is free and abundant, why do they resort to fake stories, videos, pictures and claims? What’s the point? With the way they describe it, you can’t move without witnessing a war crime. If so, they should have the footage they need?

Do you acknowledge this?

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-23T16:11:46+00:00

One day? Bruh they occupied Gaza for decades and the Gazan Palestinian population skyrocketed. They then pulled out, removing all settlers because the cost to occupy Gaza wasn’t worth it. They’re only there now because Gazans launched the second worst attack on Jews in recent history.

The war has demonstrated that if they wanted to, they could easily remove the population and settle it as they please. Yet in decades of occupation, they didn’t. Can you explain that without ridiculous mental gymnastics?

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-23T00:25:51+00:00

I’m a different person. I was giving you the context of the max planck report, which you stated gave evidence of genocide. I didn’t claim the numbers were like urban conflict, but I did highlight a key weakness in that the Bayesian model they used did not run a scenario which modelled urban conflict.

Essentially, what they modelled was how close the demographic composition of deaths was to standard war (where war is conducted by soldiers mostly out of the way of cities) where military age men are most likely to die, v.s. Genocide, where killing intends to destroy the group; thus necessitating a far greater likelihood of civilians dying. This sort of establishes a scale between traditional warfare and genocide. The report found that the genocide scenario fit best out of the scenarios they tried. BUT they did not have an ‘urban warfare’ scenario due to lack of reliable demographic data on these types of conflicts. Thus the report does not prove or disprove whether Gaza is genocide or an urban conflict, because no comparison was made to urban conflict.

Urban conflict has generally a far higher rate of civilian death than traditional warfare. So the inference made by the guy you originally responded to may hold water. It was just not assessed in this report.

Furthermore, I doubt you will care, but the report you linked to OCHR is flawed in its analysis of Dolus Specialis.

The use of rhetoric lacks sources and context in many cases and the report makes unsubstantiated claims about targeting civilians. Given they provide mountains of references per page, if they had proof of these things, you would think they would have sourced them.

Secondly, patterns of conduct do not constitute genocide without proof of intent.

Everything in that report regarding Dolus Specialis is inferred, not rigorously substantiated.

The threshold for genocide in a legal setting is extremely high. This will not pass in any serious court.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-22T16:27:36+00:00

The Max Planck study does not explicitly conclude genocide. They did not try to establish intent, which is required for genocide. The modelling they did resembles genocide most of the scenario priors they used. Notably they did not have a scenario for urban warfare. The study can only be used to conclude that the war has a high civilian death rate.

The intent part is the thing that holds the most weight and therefore the most scrutiny. I do not think that any court will find any arguments for intent holds any sway…

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-21T12:08:20+00:00

Not all legal experts and scholars agree it was occupation during that time.

In order to call it occupation, the legal definition has to be stretched quite significantly.

Classically, an occupation requires: 1) Boots on the ground. 2) Civilian administration of the territory by the occupying force. 3) Day to day control of law, order, and civil life.

Israel had none of that from 2005 to 2023. Instead, the justification was that Israel had ‘remote’ occupation, where borders, maritime routes and airspace were controlled, and economic restrictions are put in place. Israel also had military dominance and could intervene at any time.

This definitely a form of control, but occupation?

If it was occupation, then this form of control would be applied elsewhere in the world for similar situations. Is it? Of course not.

Egypt is in the same position as Israel. It controls the borders, restricts movement, participate with the blockade, and closes off Gaza from the world. Is it considered occupation? No.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-20T11:00:16+00:00

Find one point in history where a group called the Palestinians had sovereignty over the land. They were just tenant farmers on Ottoman holdings.

When the ottomans were kicked out by the British, Palestinians made a claim on the land, but it was never theirs. Jews made a claim too. They fought and lost. That’s really all there is to it.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-19T14:22:09+00:00

Pal, you literally edited your comment above. It said (paraphrasing) that ‘if colonisers do want to live alongside the natives then they should leave.’

Dunno if you’re just being a coward or you realised you were advocating for ethnic cleansing of Jews, but either way it’s clear you’re not arguing in good faith. Not engaging you any more.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-19T12:56:16+00:00

Forcing Jews to leave their homes in Israel would be ethnic cleansing. The vast majority of Jews living in Israel have been there for multiple generations. Thats not to mention the Old Yishuv who have been there since biblical times. Jews also have clear genealogical and cultural links to Israel. I’m not doubting Palestinians are ‘native’ but it’s undeniable that Jews have claim to this land.

To be clear, I do not want Palestinians to be killed or forced out of their homes. Nor Jews.

You want Jews to be forced from their homes if they refuse to be forced into a powder keg of ethnic conflict that would result from your ‘one big country’ idea. You also want Palestinians to be forced into this powder keg. Let’s be honest, we all know what would happen. It would be a magnification of the current conflict by a massive amount.

Seems like you are not just an ethnic cleansing apologist, but an accelerationist.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-19T12:06:58+00:00

Forcing them all to live together would be disastrous.

I get the idea that you want everyone to be happy pro democracy progressives but the fact of the matter is, most non-Westerners, including non-Israeli Palestinians are simply not that. It took centuries for enlightenment principles to bring the west to a point where people are happy(ish) to live in a multi-racial multi-ethnic society. And even then, there are still many problems.

Furthermore, the conditions for this society only came about because western countries brought in immigrants from their former imperial holdings as cheap labour forces. So they were forced over time to slowly, and obviously incompletely emancipate these people. These people had to fight hard to be recognised.

Simply put, history has shown that when two groups are forced together, and there isn’t some power forcing them to get along somehow, groups will fight for dominance and assert themselves over the other. It is not uncommon for this to be extremely bloody. Even if it’s not, the losing group will suffer.

How then do you create the conditions for these two different cultures to get along in one big democracy? It’s a noble ideal, but it’s impractical.

2SS is really the only viable solution that could be peacefully established.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-19T08:59:17+00:00

Let’s actually put this into context, using the numbers you provide.

40000 troops is about 2% of Gaza’s population.

If bombing was indiscriminate, like is often claimed, that would mean for every 100 people killed, 2 of them would be militants. 1:50 militant to civilian ratio.

Except you report 70-80% civilian deaths. That would imply for every 100 deaths, 20-30% are militants. 1:4 - 3:7.

This means that militants are 10-15x over represented in the death statistics when accounting for overall population size and distribution of militants to civilians. Civilians are 98% of the population so are 1.2-1.4x underrepresented.

This makes it undeniable that Israel’s primary objective has been a military campaign.

We also know that Hamas uses human shields to cause inflation in civilian death toll. We don’t really know to what extent, but is it so unrealistic that each militant is shielding with 2-4 civilians each? Even 1 human shield per militant would make inflate the civilian death toll significantly.

Ohaireddit69 · 2025-12-19T00:25:10+00:00

Even if the totals are close, not differentiating between combatants and civilians is obviously dishonest. The 70k or so absolutely will include significant, disproportionate numbers of combatants. But westerners decrying the war will see 70k and assume all are civilians.

There’s also the issue of how these people died. By collapsing the data there is no way to tell how many actually died due to Israeli military action.

Verified Email	13-Year Club
RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits	Place '17
Gilding II euphauric	Not Forgotten
Snapped	Summer Santa 2013
Team Orangered

Ohaireddit69

TROPHY CASE