If Hamas was hiding in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank, would Israelis be so flippant with those civilian lives?
Zionists have been justifying the mass killing of Palestinian civilians (at least so long as they're Muslim/Christian) for nearly a century now, since back before Israel was even a state. Is this latest bout of killings somehow going to achieve something all the others didn't? You can't be that naive.
You claimed America would be overran if we weren't extremely violent in war, which is the exact bullshyt the right promotes to justify our insane military spending. Now you let out that you're a part of that military complex yourself, which means that you were subject to even more intense propaganda of that sort than the rest of us. I'm not going to pretend I can convince you, but at least I'll let people see how far your narratives are fro reality.
Nine million people died in World War 1 and tens of millions more were injured, but you claim that's not enough. Not only did the Allies need to totally defeat Germany, you're saying they needed to keep their foot on their necks a good 20 years after the war ended. How...invade again? If you have to keep doing the same thing, it sounds like your "solution" doesn't work.
Of COURSE there was war fatigue after a terror like that. Trying to say, "Man up soldiers, no war fatigue, we have to keep this war going indefinitely!" doesn't sound like a workable strategy.
Not by "total war" though. They kept Germany and Japan from rising up again largely by the strength of their rebuilding program, that made it far more advantageous for those nations to support America due to their American support, not because of the number of people they killed. If Germany or Japan had wanted to start another war after WW2, they could have kicked US forces out of their country, began a buildup again, and eventually went to work. They didn't do it because they were better off developing with US help, not because they couldn't build the capacity.
The two nations that took by far the most casualties in WW2 weren't Germany and Japan, they were USSR and China. Both nations lost around 20 million people, triple the German losses and nearly 10x the Japanese losses. Did that stop anything? Nah, they were both back at it almost immediately. There is no amount of civilian death that can stop a nation's ability to wage war unless you're talking actual genocide. The only things that work are total, permanent control, or giving them a carrot instead of the stick.
LOL at this bullshyt, the Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese wars had ~5 million casualties each with MASSIVE displacement of people and refugees, and you want to call them "small skirmishes"? WTF are you talking about?
LOL at this weak ass criteria. Iraq was back at war invading Kuwait just TWO YEARS after the Iran-Iraq War ended and then got caught in an existential war with the USA a decade after that, while Iran has been fighting proxy wars with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the USA as well as being heavily involved in the Syrian Civil War and Yemen War.
Like I said before, y'all use the most ridiculous criteria to support the "success" of violence, so that literally anything fits.
I'm interested to know what your moral framework is where "completely decimate your enemy" is the only possible goal of war. If you even have a moral framework.
Yeah, one would think maybe that would lead you to not supporting that bullshyt, but propaganda is a hell of drug.
This is sociopath-level shyt. I guess the Rwandan genocide was okay then, since the Hutus and Tutsis were already at war and anything goes in war. Hell, that's another strike against you, Hutus committed genocide against the Tutsis and STILL lost the war. I guess total war isn't all its cracked up to be?
I've talked about oppression in China a ton including Muslims specifically, dumbass. If you have to lie to support your viewpoint, it's probably a bad point.
