NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 21 2025 04:54 KwarK wrote: Aside from details like every country in the world refusing to participate in such a scheme. But yeah, aside from those it’s basically a done deal.
We'll see. If that's the case then it would truly solidify that nobody actually cares about the Palestinians - even the "pro-Palestine" countries. The only alternative I can see to some kind of international administration at this point is Israeli military occupation and nobody wants that.
I mean, the international community can’t just rock up and do this without Israel consenting to it as well. I mean theoretically they could but it would be rather atypical to say the least.
It’s not like Israel’s actions and rhetoric in this era is pointing to much desire to move towards something like this.
Israel would fucking love someone else to take responsibility for Gaza off of their hands. They've been begging Egypt, SA, Jordan, Lebanon, a council of tribal leaders, the PA, and anyone else they can think of to do it. But nobody is stupid enough to take on the job.
I mean hell, they offered the place to Trump as a territory earlier this year. You walk into a room with Netanyahu and he asks you if you want Gaza before he says hello.
An example of Israel trying to create a rival Palestinian gang to control Gaza is here. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/05/israel-accused-of-arming-palestinian-gang-who-allegedly-looted-aid-in-gaza They really, really don't want Gaza. If you offer to rule Gaza and fight Hamas then they'll give you guns and money and anything else you want. But for two decades Hamas have publicly tortured and killed any rival source of authority and so the number of volunteers is pretty low.
I went clicked the link and holy shit that was a stupid argument by MP. He kept posting a link to a video of Russians being punished for not following orders as evidence that Russians are incapable of not following orders. And then I kept explaining that a video showing Russians being punished for not following orders is evidence that Russians have the capacity to choose whether to follow orders, albeit not without negative consequences if the commanders don’t like it. Then he would say that they didn’t have a choice because they were getting beaten for making a bad choice. And I would say that if they didn’t have any choice but to follow orders then surely they must have followed orders and so what was he beating them for. And round and round we went for page after page.
My argument was that if you can refuse to follow orders because the Ukrainians you’re being ordered to attack have guns and you’re scared they might shoot you then logically you can refuse to follow orders at other times. Therefore following orders when told to shoot children is a choice, you’d do that while also refusing to storm a defended Ukrainian position. That demonstrates that an alternative exists but was not taken.
His argument was that nobody can refuse to follow orders because check out this video of people who refuse to follow orders.
The comparison to Nazis wasn't really my fault either. He voluntarily decided that the argument he would like to use was that the army currently engaged in a genocidal war in Eastern Europe could not possibly be held accountable for their massacres of civilians because they were just following orders. I didn't lead him there, he opened with the Nuremberg defence as his chosen apologism, that's not really my fault. It was only after I pointed out that this was the Nuremberg defence that he explained that yes, it was, and it was a valid defence because the other guys who used it were also innocent.
I didn't lead him there either, my expectation was that he would change approach when it was pointed out that this was the same excuse the Nazis used. When you say "that's the same excuse the Nazis used" a normal person will go "okay yeah I guess it's not a valid excuse" and I assumed he would too. I was somewhat caught off guard when he opted to double down and go "well I guess they're innocent too then".
I didn't really put words in his mouth there, the Nuremberg defence was his chosen strategy and the Wehrmacht was his chosen example of a group that wasn't really complicit in anything bad. I didn't want that for him, it's just where he decided to go.
On July 20 2025 04:45 Sermokala wrote: MP you're the one who invented Kwark calling them rabbits out of thin air. You're the one who chose to call them animals instead of human beings. The idea that you can invent what someone else said and then give them responsibility for that is silly.
I invented nothing. His comment is racist, and I don't care how much you defend him. I didn't call them animals, you made that up. If you don't know the phrase, that's your problem. Your defense of KwarK's racist comment speaks pretty loudly, too.
You called them rabbits MP, you can't "its just a phrase" away the choice of words you made. Trying to gaslight people and refusing to acknowledge your mistake would work a lot better if it wasn't through text.
Constantly trying to make Kwarks comment racist doesn't make it racist. People in an open air mixed sex prison with nothing to do reproduce a lot. Thats got nothing to do with their race it would happen with any group of mixed sex people with nothing to do with their time and can't go anywhere.
On July 20 2025 06:40 Uldridge wrote: What happens when the Ouroboros gets to its own head?
It doesn't, It would be a form of mercy for the torture the ouroboros is in for it to end. Part of the horror of the ouroboros is the inherent, inescapable torment that it finds itself in. The consumption of itself fuels its growth, causing more consumption to occur.
Its a greater philosophical statement on the cycles that humanity could break to better itself and the deceptivly simple answers to them. "Just stop eating your own tail" to a beast that Is cursed to eat itself constantly.
Sermokola, you're embarrassing yourself. My words are the interpretation of KwarK's words. He said they reproduce like rabbits, not me.
This is also not the first time KwarK has been openly racist. He's also openly in favor of mass deportation of illegal non-citizens in the US.
On June 10 2025 07:59 KwarK wrote:
On June 10 2025 07:56 WombaT wrote: I have a bad history with polls, they usually actively disprove my intuition, but hey nout wrong with data.
Also for this hypothetical poll, we’re assuming some relatively benign detection and enforcement mechanisms
Poll: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation?
Yes (18)
67%
No (9)
33%
27 total votes
Your vote: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation?
Yes, they should be deported. But they should be deported humanely, lawfully, to their home countries, and subject to appeal. So if the person is a citizen then they get a chance to tell that to a judge, even if ICE have them mixed up with a non citizen.
A process whereby someone the state identifies as a non citizen is seized in secret and sent to a foreign prison in secret without the knowledge of their family and without access to any legal recourse is just disappearing people. We have rules that govern the state monopoly on violence, there are legal limits to what they can do. If the police arrest you then you have to go with them and plead your innocence to a court. If secret police try to disappear you then they’re acting outside of the scope of the social contract and you don’t have to do shit.
The foreign prison part is bananas because of their insistence on a loophole that the foreign part exempts it from the judicial system because foreign = executive. Indefinite imprisonment without trial is not the same thing as border control.
Your interpretation of his post was that they reproduce like rabbits, you said the word not him. You're trying to gaslight people into thinking that he called them animals when it was literally you. You can hide behind all the different excuses but I'm not attacking your reasoning for useing them I'm literaly just stateing that you said they were rabbits.
You can't just state your opinion about someone else as fact and then use that opinion as your factual evidence of something happening. Thats not how any of this works. The fact is that he didn't call them animals, he didn't say anything about their race or any unique trait of palestinians. You thought what he said was racist, then potrayed what he said in a racist way, then started claiming what your interpretation of what he said was the truth. Thats gaslighting people into believing not reality, but what you want them to believe. Again this is text, its very easy to go back to see who said rabbit and who didn't.
You can't say you're a "free speech advocate" and then act surprised when people act like you support incitements to violence. At that point you're not a free speech advocate your an advocate to protect the speech you agree with and not the speech you don't agree with.
Buddy, I'll tell you this one last time. I am not making the statement. KwarK is making the statement. I'm interpreting his statement. An interpretation is, by its very nature, not a statement. End of discussion. If you don't understand how language works, then don't argue with me.
On July 21 2025 06:58 maybenexttime wrote: It was very close to that. Which thread was it in? This one? The Ukraine war one?
Either the Ukraine war thread or US politics, I don't remember which one. Feel free to quote my posts.
Found it. As far as I'm concerned, you were clearly suggesting that the lack of convictions was evidence for the soldiers' lack of complicity in war crimes. In reality, regular Wehrmacht troops committed hundreds of massacres in occupied Poland during the first months of the war. Worse, ordinary ethnic German citizens of Poland were forming so-called "self-defense units" and massacring Poles and Jews on their own.
I said nowhere that the Wehrmacht was innocent. KwarK thought that, because I pointed to a number of innocent verdicts in individual cases, that therefore I was defending the Wehrmacht's crimes. This is a very deliberate misinterpretation of my words (unless he doesn't understand how language works, which wouldn't surprise me).
Individual soldiers of the Wehrmacht can be found innocent while the Wehrmacht at large can be found guilty. This is because in a court there is no such thing as "guilt by association". You're not guilty just because you're part of a group. You're guilty if it can be proven that you committed a crime.
Two things can be possible at the same time: 1) You're part of the Wehrmacht. 2) You didn't commit a war crime.
KwarK objects to my reasoning because he thinks every single Wehrmacht soldier is guilty. I proved him wrong by showing that courts themselves found many Wehrmacht soldiers not guilty.
Now, do you want to suggest that KwarK is above a court?
On July 21 2025 06:58 maybenexttime wrote: It was very close to that. Which thread was it in? This one? The Ukraine war one?
Either the Ukraine war thread or US politics, I don't remember which one. Feel free to quote my posts.
Found it. As far as I'm concerned, you were clearly suggesting that the lack of convictions was evidence for the soldiers' lack of complicity in war crimes. In reality, regular Wehrmacht troops committed hundreds of massacres in occupied Poland during the first months of the war. Worse, ordinary ethnic German citizens of Poland were forming so-called "self-defense units" and massacring Poles and Jews on their own.
I said nowhere that the Wehrmacht was innocent. KwarK thought that, because I pointed to a number of innocent verdicts in individual cases, that therefore I was defending the Wehrmacht's crimes. This is a very deliberate misinterpretation of my words (unless he doesn't understand how language works, which wouldn't surprise me).
Individual soldiers of the Wehrmacht can be found innocent while the Wehrmacht at large can be found guilty. This is because in a court there is no such thing as "guilt by association". You're not guilty just because you're part of a group. You're guilty if it can be proven that you committed a crime.
Two things can be possible at the same time: 1) You're part of the Wehrmacht. 2) You didn't commit a war crime.
KwarK objects to my reasoning because he thinks every single Wehrmacht soldier is guilty. I proved him wrong by showing that courts themselves found many Wehrmacht soldiers not guilty.
Now, do you want to suggest that KwarK is above a court?
This is what you said:
On June 05 2023 07:01 Magic Powers wrote: The following is a list of post-WW2 trials for war crimes committed by Axis personnel. Does anyone notice the significant number of people not found guilty? How come, if they were all active participants in genocide? Did the courts not have a moral backbone or was there perhaps a different reason?
You were going for an OJ Simpson defense of Nazi war criminals. The court did not find them guilty therefore they should be presumed innocent. Then you asked a rhetorical question if the courts lacked a moral backbone to sentence grunt war criminals, implying that the answer was negative when in fact it was very much positive. They only went after the top brass, while leaving alone the grunt soldiers committing war crimes. We know for a fact that the denazification was a shitshow. Prominent Nazis assumed prominent roles in the German/Austrian societies. They worked as doctors, lawyers, military officers, what have you. Germany didn't actively go after the concentration camp guards until most of them were dead.
But it wasn't only about having a moral backbone. The Allies found the idea of going after the non-prominent Nazi war criminals highly impractical. They'd have to prosecute and imprison/execute hundreds of thousands of people at the very least. Like I said earlier, the German army committed some 400-500 massacres across the whole country in the first months of the invasion. The German army killed 150-200k civilians in Warsaw after the uprising failed, mostly through mass executions. It wasn't some one or two SS units running around the country and killing innocent people. Countless German/Austrian businesses used slaves from the conquered countries. Countless families raised kidnapped children.
We're not talking about guilt by association. We're talking about the fact that the vast, vast majority of Nazi war criminals got off completely scot-free. You're saying that they didn't, that there was accountability and that most people were found not guilty. You are, in fact, peddling the clean Wehrmacht lie and you are a Nazi apologist.
On July 21 2025 17:37 maybenexttime wrote: But it wasn't only about having a moral backbone. The Allies found the idea of going after the non-prominent Nazi war criminals highly impractical.
I agree with everything you wrote but I'll add that the threat of the USSR was a key motivating factor. It wasn't just that ridding German society of Nazis was impractical, they literally didn't want to do it. They wanted a strong West German army ready to face the Soviets in 1946 if need be. Denazification could come later, they wanted the Wehrmacht intact and foaming at the mouth to fight slavs/Bolsheviks. If salvaging the Wehrmacht meant covering up war crimes then they were more than happy to oblige. It's a stain on western history. Millions of war crimes that were somehow committed by only a handful of people, most of whom were conveniently already dead, while the rest saw nothing.
On July 21 2025 06:58 maybenexttime wrote: It was very close to that. Which thread was it in? This one? The Ukraine war one?
Either the Ukraine war thread or US politics, I don't remember which one. Feel free to quote my posts.
Found it. As far as I'm concerned, you were clearly suggesting that the lack of convictions was evidence for the soldiers' lack of complicity in war crimes. In reality, regular Wehrmacht troops committed hundreds of massacres in occupied Poland during the first months of the war. Worse, ordinary ethnic German citizens of Poland were forming so-called "self-defense units" and massacring Poles and Jews on their own.
I said nowhere that the Wehrmacht was innocent. KwarK thought that, because I pointed to a number of innocent verdicts in individual cases, that therefore I was defending the Wehrmacht's crimes. This is a very deliberate misinterpretation of my words (unless he doesn't understand how language works, which wouldn't surprise me).
Individual soldiers of the Wehrmacht can be found innocent while the Wehrmacht at large can be found guilty. This is because in a court there is no such thing as "guilt by association". You're not guilty just because you're part of a group. You're guilty if it can be proven that you committed a crime.
Two things can be possible at the same time: 1) You're part of the Wehrmacht. 2) You didn't commit a war crime.
KwarK objects to my reasoning because he thinks every single Wehrmacht soldier is guilty. I proved him wrong by showing that courts themselves found many Wehrmacht soldiers not guilty.
Now, do you want to suggest that KwarK is above a court?
On June 05 2023 07:01 Magic Powers wrote: The following is a list of post-WW2 trials for war crimes committed by Axis personnel. Does anyone notice the significant number of people not found guilty? How come, if they were all active participants in genocide? Did the courts not have a moral backbone or was there perhaps a different reason?
You were going for an OJ Simpson defense of Nazi war criminals. The court did not find them guilty therefore they should be presumed innocent. Then you asked a rhetorical question if the courts lacked a moral backbone to sentence grunt war criminals, implying that the answer was negative when in fact it was very much positive. They only went after the top brass, while leaving alone the grunt soldiers committing war crimes. We know for a fact that the denazification was a shitshow. Prominent Nazis assumed prominent roles in the German/Austrian societies. They worked as doctors, lawyers, military officers, what have you. Germany didn't actively go after the concentration camp guards until most of them were dead.
But it wasn't only about having a moral backbone. The Allies found the idea of going after the non-prominent Nazi war criminals highly impractical. They'd have to prosecute and imprison/execute hundreds of thousands of people at the very least. Like I said earlier, the German army committed some 400-500 massacres across the whole country in the first months of the invasion. The German army killed 150-200k civilians in Warsaw after the uprising failed, mostly through mass executions. It wasn't some one or two SS units running around the country and killing innocent people. Countless German/Austrian businesses used slaves from the conquered countries. Countless families raised kidnapped children.
We're not talking about guilt by association. We're talking about the fact that the vast, vast majority of Nazi war criminals got off completely scot-free. You're saying that they didn't, that there was accountability and that most people were found not guilty. You are, in fact, peddling the clean Wehrmacht lie and you are a Nazi apologist.
Your argument is 100% disingenuous and bad faith. Since you're just doubling down on it there's no point in responding to you anymore. Feel free to be wrong, it's up to you.
Although I'll offer you one last chance to retract your accusation.
Can these two statements both be true at the same time, yes or no?
1) You're part of the Wehrmacht. 2) You didn't commit a war crime.
On July 21 2025 17:43 Jockmcplop wrote: People are starting to die of hunger in gaza now. This is going to be a stain on Israel that doesn't wash off for a very, very long time.
Starting? It's been happening since at least early 2025. That's the reason why a declaration of famine has been in consideration since early 2025. Gaza has been on the brink of an official famine for a long time because many people have already starved.
Currently upwards of 86 deaths, of which 76 were children.
On July 20 2025 04:45 Sermokala wrote: MP you're the one who invented Kwark calling them rabbits out of thin air. You're the one who chose to call them animals instead of human beings. The idea that you can invent what someone else said and then give them responsibility for that is silly.
I invented nothing. His comment is racist, and I don't care how much you defend him. I didn't call them animals, you made that up. If you don't know the phrase, that's your problem. Your defense of KwarK's racist comment speaks pretty loudly, too.
You called them rabbits MP, you can't "its just a phrase" away the choice of words you made. Trying to gaslight people and refusing to acknowledge your mistake would work a lot better if it wasn't through text.
Constantly trying to make Kwarks comment racist doesn't make it racist. People in an open air mixed sex prison with nothing to do reproduce a lot. Thats got nothing to do with their race it would happen with any group of mixed sex people with nothing to do with their time and can't go anywhere.
On July 20 2025 06:40 Uldridge wrote: What happens when the Ouroboros gets to its own head?
It doesn't, It would be a form of mercy for the torture the ouroboros is in for it to end. Part of the horror of the ouroboros is the inherent, inescapable torment that it finds itself in. The consumption of itself fuels its growth, causing more consumption to occur.
Its a greater philosophical statement on the cycles that humanity could break to better itself and the deceptivly simple answers to them. "Just stop eating your own tail" to a beast that Is cursed to eat itself constantly.
Sermokola, you're embarrassing yourself. My words are the interpretation of KwarK's words. He said they reproduce like rabbits, not me.
This is also not the first time KwarK has been openly racist. He's also openly in favor of mass deportation of illegal non-citizens in the US.
On June 10 2025 07:59 KwarK wrote:
On June 10 2025 07:56 WombaT wrote: I have a bad history with polls, they usually actively disprove my intuition, but hey nout wrong with data.
Also for this hypothetical poll, we’re assuming some relatively benign detection and enforcement mechanisms
Poll: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation?
Yes (18)
67%
No (9)
33%
27 total votes
Your vote: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation?
Yes, they should be deported. But they should be deported humanely, lawfully, to their home countries, and subject to appeal. So if the person is a citizen then they get a chance to tell that to a judge, even if ICE have them mixed up with a non citizen.
A process whereby someone the state identifies as a non citizen is seized in secret and sent to a foreign prison in secret without the knowledge of their family and without access to any legal recourse is just disappearing people. We have rules that govern the state monopoly on violence, there are legal limits to what they can do. If the police arrest you then you have to go with them and plead your innocence to a court. If secret police try to disappear you then they’re acting outside of the scope of the social contract and you don’t have to do shit.
The foreign prison part is bananas because of their insistence on a loophole that the foreign part exempts it from the judicial system because foreign = executive. Indefinite imprisonment without trial is not the same thing as border control.
Your interpretation of his post was that they reproduce like rabbits, you said the word not him. You're trying to gaslight people into thinking that he called them animals when it was literally you. You can hide behind all the different excuses but I'm not attacking your reasoning for useing them I'm literaly just stateing that you said they were rabbits.
You can't just state your opinion about someone else as fact and then use that opinion as your factual evidence of something happening. Thats not how any of this works. The fact is that he didn't call them animals, he didn't say anything about their race or any unique trait of palestinians. You thought what he said was racist, then potrayed what he said in a racist way, then started claiming what your interpretation of what he said was the truth. Thats gaslighting people into believing not reality, but what you want them to believe. Again this is text, its very easy to go back to see who said rabbit and who didn't.
You can't say you're a "free speech advocate" and then act surprised when people act like you support incitements to violence. At that point you're not a free speech advocate your an advocate to protect the speech you agree with and not the speech you don't agree with.
Buddy, I'll tell you this one last time. I am not making the statement. KwarK is making the statement. I'm interpreting his statement. An interpretation is, by its very nature, not a statement. End of discussion. If you don't understand how language works, then don't argue with me.
But Kwark literally did not make the statement, you interpreted his statement and then decided to take your interpretation as fact of what he said. You don't get to decide what other people said when we have clear as day evidence of what they said. If you don't understand how reality works don't argue with anyone please.
Trying to gaslight people into reinterpretation of their arguments is shady to begin with but the fact you're trying to do it with text is silly man.
If you're in the German army during ww2 you're responsible for war crimes by association. The fact you've been duped by the post ww2 propaganda to turn western Germans into plausible allies in a ww3 senerio is sad. They know what they did and so do you. They did a lot of them, not in the US soldiers in Iraq "oops we did war crime on accident again" or the isreali "its not a war crime if you're not in a war" but in the "it's a part of how we wage war" kind. If it makes you feel better the soviets wernt any better on it and would go onto becoming worse than the nazis over time.
On July 20 2025 04:45 Sermokala wrote: MP you're the one who invented Kwark calling them rabbits out of thin air. You're the one who chose to call them animals instead of human beings. The idea that you can invent what someone else said and then give them responsibility for that is silly.
I invented nothing. His comment is racist, and I don't care how much you defend him. I didn't call them animals, you made that up. If you don't know the phrase, that's your problem. Your defense of KwarK's racist comment speaks pretty loudly, too.
You called them rabbits MP, you can't "its just a phrase" away the choice of words you made. Trying to gaslight people and refusing to acknowledge your mistake would work a lot better if it wasn't through text.
Constantly trying to make Kwarks comment racist doesn't make it racist. People in an open air mixed sex prison with nothing to do reproduce a lot. Thats got nothing to do with their race it would happen with any group of mixed sex people with nothing to do with their time and can't go anywhere.
On July 20 2025 06:40 Uldridge wrote: What happens when the Ouroboros gets to its own head?
It doesn't, It would be a form of mercy for the torture the ouroboros is in for it to end. Part of the horror of the ouroboros is the inherent, inescapable torment that it finds itself in. The consumption of itself fuels its growth, causing more consumption to occur.
Its a greater philosophical statement on the cycles that humanity could break to better itself and the deceptivly simple answers to them. "Just stop eating your own tail" to a beast that Is cursed to eat itself constantly.
Sermokola, you're embarrassing yourself. My words are the interpretation of KwarK's words. He said they reproduce like rabbits, not me.
This is also not the first time KwarK has been openly racist. He's also openly in favor of mass deportation of illegal non-citizens in the US.
On June 10 2025 07:59 KwarK wrote:
On June 10 2025 07:56 WombaT wrote: I have a bad history with polls, they usually actively disprove my intuition, but hey nout wrong with data.
Also for this hypothetical poll, we’re assuming some relatively benign detection and enforcement mechanisms
Poll: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation?
Yes (18)
67%
No (9)
33%
27 total votes
Your vote: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation?
Yes, they should be deported. But they should be deported humanely, lawfully, to their home countries, and subject to appeal. So if the person is a citizen then they get a chance to tell that to a judge, even if ICE have them mixed up with a non citizen.
A process whereby someone the state identifies as a non citizen is seized in secret and sent to a foreign prison in secret without the knowledge of their family and without access to any legal recourse is just disappearing people. We have rules that govern the state monopoly on violence, there are legal limits to what they can do. If the police arrest you then you have to go with them and plead your innocence to a court. If secret police try to disappear you then they’re acting outside of the scope of the social contract and you don’t have to do shit.
The foreign prison part is bananas because of their insistence on a loophole that the foreign part exempts it from the judicial system because foreign = executive. Indefinite imprisonment without trial is not the same thing as border control.
Your interpretation of his post was that they reproduce like rabbits, you said the word not him. You're trying to gaslight people into thinking that he called them animals when it was literally you. You can hide behind all the different excuses but I'm not attacking your reasoning for useing them I'm literaly just stateing that you said they were rabbits.
You can't just state your opinion about someone else as fact and then use that opinion as your factual evidence of something happening. Thats not how any of this works. The fact is that he didn't call them animals, he didn't say anything about their race or any unique trait of palestinians. You thought what he said was racist, then potrayed what he said in a racist way, then started claiming what your interpretation of what he said was the truth. Thats gaslighting people into believing not reality, but what you want them to believe. Again this is text, its very easy to go back to see who said rabbit and who didn't.
You can't say you're a "free speech advocate" and then act surprised when people act like you support incitements to violence. At that point you're not a free speech advocate your an advocate to protect the speech you agree with and not the speech you don't agree with.
Buddy, I'll tell you this one last time. I am not making the statement. KwarK is making the statement. I'm interpreting his statement. An interpretation is, by its very nature, not a statement. End of discussion. If you don't understand how language works, then don't argue with me.
But Kwark literally did not make the statement, you interpreted his statement and then decided to take your interpretation as fact of what he said. You don't get to decide what other people said when we have clear as day evidence of what they said. If you don't understand how reality works don't argue with anyone please.
Trying to gaslight people into reinterpretation of their arguments is shady to begin with but the fact you're trying to do it with text is silly man.
If you're in the German army during ww2 you're responsible for war crimes by association. The fact you've been duped by the post ww2 propaganda to turn western Germans into plausible allies in a ww3 senerio is sad. They know what they did and so do you. They did a lot of them, not in the US soldiers in Iraq "oops we did war crime on accident again" or the isreali "its not a war crime if you're not in a war" but in the "it's a part of how we wage war" kind. If it makes you feel better the soviets wernt any better on it and would go onto becoming worse than the nazis over time.
You didn't argue that I misinterpreted KwarK, you argued that I equated Gazans to rabbits. If you want to argue that I misinterpreted KwarK, then take back your accusation, because you're wrong. And then we can argue about the validity of my interpretation of KwarK's statement.
On July 21 2025 07:44 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Seems like al-Hirij broke the deal again, for I think the 3rd time (attacking security forces, not doing the planned prisoner/hostage transfers). Also turned away aid for the second time because it's from the government.
This is insane. There were literally tribal forces around and inside the city before they pulled back and probably the only reason they didn't take it outright at that point was a combination of diplomacy and syrian government forces blocking the roads into the province to stop tribal supplies and reinforcements from arriving.
Israel needs to take this idiot out on one of their helicopters or if he refuses to go they seriously need to consider an airstrike to take him out so someone else can take command.
It's so insane that these kind of news, or any serious discussion of who is leading these Druze, to what end and what exactly they are doing is just completely ignored and not mentioned.
This motherfucker is, by all appearances someone who got immensely empowered by Israel's actions on his behalf and he now thinks he can do whatever he wants and suffer no consequences, because, well, Israel does that, they have his back so why shouldn't he do that.
This leading to deaths, instability and suffering of other people living in the Syria is completely inconsequential to Nethyanahu who likes this outcome and people who spend their time defending this kind of behavior simply ignore whenever de-escalation attempts are being scuttled, but the next time a reprisal from the Beduins or government forces gets people killed they will be here to explain how Israel doesn't have a choice but bomb government buildings 100s of miles away as a response.
On July 21 2025 20:15 Magic Powers wrote:Your argument is 100% disingenuous and bad faith. Since you're just doubling down on it there's no point in responding to you anymore. Feel free to be wrong, it's up to you.
How exactly is my argument disingenuous and bad faith? You are shockingly ignorant of the scale of the Nazi war crimes, the extent of the complicity among the German/Austrian population, and the extent to which the Nazi war criminals were punished after the war. Please, educate yourself:
Hundreds of massacres across the country committed by regular Wehrmacht troops, with hundreds of thousands of people executed (200k in Warsaw alone). Hundreds of thousands of civilians/refugees killed/wounded by Luftwaffe in indiscriminate bombings. Millions of people displaced, hundreds of thousands killed and replaced by German colonizers. 200 thousand Polish children kidnapped to be raised by German families. Tens of thousands of sex slaves held by regular troops. And that's just Poland. Estimated 12 million people from Central and Eastern Europe were used by the Third Reich as slaves/forced labor.
Who do you think did all this, a handful of SS units? Because according to historians, the majority of the Nazi troops were involved in war crimes: murder, rape, torture, kidnapping children, slavery, deportations, and so on.
Your line of defense was pointing out that a number of people were, in fact, acquitted during the post-war trials. Let's have a look at those acquittals. Here are top 10 people from your Wiki article (those with Wiki articles of their own):
1. Hans Fritzsche: acquitted, but later convicted in a subsequent trial once sufficient evidence was gathered.
Nuremberg prosecutor Alexander Hardy later said that evidence not available to the prosecution at the time proved Fritzsche not only knew of the extermination of European Jews but also "played an important part in bringing [Nazi crimes] about," and would have resulted in his conviction and execution.
(...)
According to British intelligence, Fritzsche was part of the Naumann Circle in the early 1950s, a group of ex-Nazis who aimed to infiltrate the Free Democratic Party and eventually restore the Nazi state.
2. Franz von Papen: one of Hitler's biggest enablers, however, not involved in war crimes per se - acquitted.
4. Kurt Blome: committed war crimes (human experimentation in concentration camps) - acquitted.
5. Adolf Pokorny: indirectly involved in war crimes - acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
During World War II, Pokorny worked as a medical officer of the German Armed Forces. Despite not being a member of the SS or the Nazi Party, Pokorny wrote to Heinrich Himmler to suggest sterilization of Russian prisoners of war utilizing the sap of the caladium plant, which, according to an article in a medical journal, was thought to cause sterilization in mice.[3][4] Pokorny suggests the forced, covert sterilization of millions of prisoners, and wrote that he was "led by the idea that the enemy must not only be conquered but destroyed" (emphasis in original) and the immense importance of this drug "in the present fight of our people."
6. Paul Rostock: committed war crimes (human experimentation in concentration camps) - acquitted.
7. Siegfried Ruff: committed war crimes (human experimentation) - acquitted. He alleged that everything was done "according to the law and denied it had resulted in any deaths".
8. Konrad Schäfer: committed war crimes (human experimentation in concentration camps) - acquitted. Later employed as a researcher by the Americans.
9. Fritz Gajewski: no evidence of war crimes, acquitted.
10. Heinrich Hörlein: committed war crimes (Zyklon B) - acquitted.
Did you notice anything?
This is what you had to say about those acquittals:
Does anyone notice the significant number of people not found guilty? How come, if they were all active participants in genocide? Did the courts not have a moral backbone or was there perhaps a different reason?
Although I'll offer you one last chance to retract your accusation.
Why would I do that? You're a Nazi apologist. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you doubled, tripled and then quadrupled down.
Can these two statements both be true at the same time, yes or no?
1) You're part of the Wehrmacht. 2) You didn't commit a war crime.
Of course they can both be true. This is a straw man. We were not talking about guilt by association, but how widespread involvement in war crimes was, as well as the fact that willingly participating in an openly genocidal war makes you complicit in war crimes. While many Wehrmacht soldiers were conscripts, the vast majority of Russian troops in Ukraine are contract soldiers who chose to kill innocent people for money. Your arguments were at odds with reality.
@magic powers if you really want to know about the involvement of the wehrmacht in warcrimes in ww 2nd and how the german speaking public is struggling to accept this, please go ahead and read this for starters, then this and continue with some of the sources or read about the public discussion of the (first) "wehrmachtsausstellung".
I totally get your statement, of course not every wehrmachtssoldat is a war criminal. But it is not as simple as this. It is historic fact that many wehrmachtssoldaten actively and willingly participated killing civilians on a regular basis in the occupied areas but also more importantly the wehrmacht was an integral part of the whole "vernichtungskrieg" which could not have happend the way it did without it. This is historic fact. "Arbeitsteiligkeit" is an important term in this context.
U mentioned your granddads. If they served in the eastern occupied areas 1941 to 1944 it is actually quite reasonable to assume they were complicit to warcrimes in some ways.
edit: sorry for the off topic post, but when it comes to this topic I really get mad when germans/austrians mention the wehrmacht in a way like magic powers did.
Magic Powers, I think its important to remember some of the worst people in history also had families. Many times they had real, deep, fulfilling relationships with their family. Humans are complicated creatures, and I encourage you to not feel like your memory of your grandparents would be tarnished if it turned out they were indeed a part of some unsavory behavior.
People wear many hats and do many things. The hat your grandparents wore with you can still be a real, genuine hat despite having other hats. Whether we focus purely on the good or purely on the bad, we are doing harm. It is totally possible both of your grandfathers were stellar dudes and did their best to prevent genocide. But that also may not have been the case. They would still be the same people whichever case is true.
On July 20 2025 04:45 Sermokala wrote: MP you're the one who invented Kwark calling them rabbits out of thin air. You're the one who chose to call them animals instead of human beings. The idea that you can invent what someone else said and then give them responsibility for that is silly.
I invented nothing. His comment is racist, and I don't care how much you defend him. I didn't call them animals, you made that up. If you don't know the phrase, that's your problem. Your defense of KwarK's racist comment speaks pretty loudly, too.
You called them rabbits MP, you can't "its just a phrase" away the choice of words you made. Trying to gaslight people and refusing to acknowledge your mistake would work a lot better if it wasn't through text.
Constantly trying to make Kwarks comment racist doesn't make it racist. People in an open air mixed sex prison with nothing to do reproduce a lot. Thats got nothing to do with their race it would happen with any group of mixed sex people with nothing to do with their time and can't go anywhere.
On July 20 2025 06:40 Uldridge wrote: What happens when the Ouroboros gets to its own head?
It doesn't, It would be a form of mercy for the torture the ouroboros is in for it to end. Part of the horror of the ouroboros is the inherent, inescapable torment that it finds itself in. The consumption of itself fuels its growth, causing more consumption to occur.
Its a greater philosophical statement on the cycles that humanity could break to better itself and the deceptivly simple answers to them. "Just stop eating your own tail" to a beast that Is cursed to eat itself constantly.
Sermokola, you're embarrassing yourself. My words are the interpretation of KwarK's words. He said they reproduce like rabbits, not me.
This is also not the first time KwarK has been openly racist. He's also openly in favor of mass deportation of illegal non-citizens in the US.
On June 10 2025 07:59 KwarK wrote:
On June 10 2025 07:56 WombaT wrote: I have a bad history with polls, they usually actively disprove my intuition, but hey nout wrong with data.
Also for this hypothetical poll, we’re assuming some relatively benign detection and enforcement mechanisms
Poll: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation?
Yes (18)
67%
No (9)
33%
27 total votes
Your vote: Should non-criminal illegal migrants face deportation?
Yes, they should be deported. But they should be deported humanely, lawfully, to their home countries, and subject to appeal. So if the person is a citizen then they get a chance to tell that to a judge, even if ICE have them mixed up with a non citizen.
A process whereby someone the state identifies as a non citizen is seized in secret and sent to a foreign prison in secret without the knowledge of their family and without access to any legal recourse is just disappearing people. We have rules that govern the state monopoly on violence, there are legal limits to what they can do. If the police arrest you then you have to go with them and plead your innocence to a court. If secret police try to disappear you then they’re acting outside of the scope of the social contract and you don’t have to do shit.
The foreign prison part is bananas because of their insistence on a loophole that the foreign part exempts it from the judicial system because foreign = executive. Indefinite imprisonment without trial is not the same thing as border control.
Your interpretation of his post was that they reproduce like rabbits, you said the word not him. You're trying to gaslight people into thinking that he called them animals when it was literally you. You can hide behind all the different excuses but I'm not attacking your reasoning for useing them I'm literaly just stateing that you said they were rabbits.
You can't just state your opinion about someone else as fact and then use that opinion as your factual evidence of something happening. Thats not how any of this works. The fact is that he didn't call them animals, he didn't say anything about their race or any unique trait of palestinians. You thought what he said was racist, then potrayed what he said in a racist way, then started claiming what your interpretation of what he said was the truth. Thats gaslighting people into believing not reality, but what you want them to believe. Again this is text, its very easy to go back to see who said rabbit and who didn't.
You can't say you're a "free speech advocate" and then act surprised when people act like you support incitements to violence. At that point you're not a free speech advocate your an advocate to protect the speech you agree with and not the speech you don't agree with.
Buddy, I'll tell you this one last time. I am not making the statement. KwarK is making the statement. I'm interpreting his statement. An interpretation is, by its very nature, not a statement. End of discussion. If you don't understand how language works, then don't argue with me.
But Kwark literally did not make the statement, you interpreted his statement and then decided to take your interpretation as fact of what he said. You don't get to decide what other people said when we have clear as day evidence of what they said. If you don't understand how reality works don't argue with anyone please.
Trying to gaslight people into reinterpretation of their arguments is shady to begin with but the fact you're trying to do it with text is silly man.
If you're in the German army during ww2 you're responsible for war crimes by association. The fact you've been duped by the post ww2 propaganda to turn western Germans into plausible allies in a ww3 senerio is sad. They know what they did and so do you. They did a lot of them, not in the US soldiers in Iraq "oops we did war crime on accident again" or the isreali "its not a war crime if you're not in a war" but in the "it's a part of how we wage war" kind. If it makes you feel better the soviets wernt any better on it and would go onto becoming worse than the nazis over time.
You didn't argue that I misinterpreted KwarK, you argued that I equated Gazans to rabbits. If you want to argue that I misinterpreted KwarK, then take back your accusation, because you're wrong. And then we can argue about the validity of my interpretation of KwarK's statement.
Again you're trying you use your opinion about what Kwark said, which was that he called gazans rabbits, as fact, which again is not true and is something you invented. I'm arguing that you misinterpreted Kwark, that what he said about the Gazan population would be no different than any other population. I'm arguing that your characterization that Kwark called them animals is wrong because you were the one who brought the language of animals into the conversation.
I don't know how you think any of this works but I'm not going to admit that I'm wrong about something before I discuss the thing we're already discussing. You can't hide behind "its just a phrase to explain what was said" when you're the one arguing that they are the one who said the phrase.
EPT
