Cigarette Burns, Beatings, Attempted Sexual Assault: Settlers and Soldiers Abused Palestinians
Cigarette Burns, Beatings, Attempted Sexual Assault: Settlers and Soldiers Abused Palestinians
You're viewing part of a thread.
Yup, investigating atrocities makes them totally fine. Indeed.
(Also: imagine being so ignorant that you need to Google your own country's history, lol)
imagine being so ignorant that you need to Google your own country’s history, lol)
I know it is hard when you are seething, but maybe try reading slower. The person you are replying to is not even suggesting googling the history of one's own country, but that of the person you are attacking. This is an attempt to make a point, but you are so full of self-righteousness that you can't bring yourself to engage in a good faith discussion.
The person you are replying to is not even suggesting googling the history of one’s own country, but that of the person you are attacking
Maybe you should read slower, since what they said was:
What’s your country? Google up some atrocities made by someone of the same citizenship
I would be willing to engage in a good faith discussion if one was occurring.
Maybe you should read slower, since what they said was:
Let us look at the entire thing that was said, without removing context, shall we? What was said was:
What’s your country? Google up some atrocities made by someone of the same citizenship and suddenly we can tell the world “look this country sucks, and if terrorists attack it, we should blame it for any response, because they are terrorists themselves”.
I do not wish to insult your intelligence, but here we are. The rhetorical question above very clearly is: What is your country? Because anyone can google for atrocities on any country, and whatever your country is they will find it, because every country has skeletons in the closet, and then use this to accuse you of being a terrible person. Ok. Anyone with an ounce of good faith understands that this is what is being said here, not: "I have to google historical facts about my own country". Which, by the way, would be fine. I don't know everything about the history of my country. it is a perfectly normal thing, unless you are childishly trying to throw feces in the face of someone you disagree with.
I would be willing to engage in a good faith discussion if one was occurring.
No you would not. You keep misinterpreting your interlocutor on purpose. You say obnoxious shit like: "ohhhh, I guess investigating atrocities makes everything ok then". As if anyone suggested this. You already decided who the good guys and bad guys are, and you will only care about the facts that confirm your cozy beliefs and your mind is absolutely closed to any debate on this topic and you know it.
You happen to be in an echo chamber where most people agree with your a priori position, that is all.
Indeed! Please do go on, you're so correct and insightful, you've clearly read through the entire conversation and all the PMs that have gone on between us, despite your lack of access to them, so you absolutely have a critical and valuable insight into the entire context.
Oh don't be so childish.
Have you finished your little misinformed superiority trip yet, kid? Now go shoo and let the adults continue talking. There's a dear.
If you can keep in memory all the deeds of millions of people I'm happy for you.
Yup, investigating atrocities makes them totally fine. Indeed.
No, it makes it more likely to be handled properly. Can't expect such a thing with terrorists, can you?
Actually, what exactly are you going to do about what Israel is doing now? Is there also anything you will do about what Palestinians did? Or what exactly makes what they did okay in your book?
How does investigating atrocities make "them more likely to be handled properly"? Is there a correct way of perpetuating atrocity?
Perpetuating? I don't think I follow.
How does investigating atrocities make "them more likely to be handled properly"?
Directly. The same way as when hamas' terrorism is not getting investigated by Palestinians, but contrariwise.
That made absolutely zero sense and I'm concerned you've had a stroke.
(Or maybe I've had a stroke...)