Tragically it's all more complicated than anyone can really state, right? I mean, if you had a 30 book(10k pages a book) series solely on the conditions in the region of Palestine between 1930 and today you'd still have so much material to cut, you could limit all 30 books to only 1 sides POV.

The closest I see to shortcutting things, is trying view what is likely to happen in the future, and from that maybe what one might try and do.

The trouble being there's so little one can do. The reality is that Israeli military strength compared to Palestine is completely and entirely one sided, and thus Israel can and will do whatever it wishes to militarily. It's all their choice, period. In fairness to Israel, you have to note that Hamas as stated in their own charter, given that same power would've already cleansed the entirety of Israel and have created their own single state 'final' solution.

It's also not actually about Palestine vs. Israel, which should be obvious given the fact of Israel's military dominance. Israel IS really facing existentially threats of it's own, just not directly from Palestine, and instead from ALL of it's neighbours. That state of constantly requiring Israel to be capable of winning an existential war since it's inception has kept things in a perpetual state of near-war, and more often proxy-war with the Palestiniances as the pawns of alternately Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others depending which time and region we choose to look at.

Predictively, that gives us that Isreal can not, under any circumstances, accept conditions to exist where any party(in particular Iran as the main backer) views the "Al Aqsa Flood operation" as a success. That means Israel will do whatever they deem necessary to ensure that happens and Iran in particular views that operation as a mistake. Nothing the UN or any of the rest of us say or do can change that.

sounds like the ultimate answer.
a final solution.


🦜 bob's bunk would inspire this conversation during his arrest...

bk: "what are you doing"
'better' person (bp)*: "arresting you!"
bk: "why - what for?"
bp: "for being a bad person!"
bk: "no i'm not!"
bp: "are you disagreeing w/me?"
bk: "yes! yes! i am!"
bp: "then you're a fool too!"

*strange that 'bp' could stand for bad person also?

could throw in matthew's 'judge lest thee be judged' routine but the plank in the eye gag doesn't bring in the ha-ha like it use to.
(it's a very old joke)

There was an article a few days ago about Trump floating a plan to let Democratically led cities and states languish with zero federal funds or assistance, not only through Covid but as a, let's call it final solution to the problem of Democratic leadership.

Sounds like he is looking to dissolve the union himself.

I, for one, support Wexit. California, Oregon, and Washington would likely have a bigger, definitely more robust economy than those lesser 47 states (or fewer if there's an Eastxit), and our population of insane right wing nutjobs is a manageable size, and would likely shrink fast.

Can we just do a trial run....we can wait until November 4 to decide if it's still necessary, but we could start ignoring DC now....and stop sending them our money. No need for fighting, just an amicable divorce.

A newt can dream

Ah... But Grasshopper. You look at it the wrong way.

Behold!

https://videosift.com/video/Bill-Burr-Final-Solution-To-Overpopulation

From the image you posted:
"The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place"

No, the real cause is a racist fuck head with a gun who decided to murder innocent people.

Also, maybe do a couple of seconds of research before posting. Anning is a well known racist dickbag who has spoken before about a "final solution".

You can ignore it and play semantics all you want, but there's no question of his position.

Also, your ignorance is really showing when you start talking about "lefties" condemning him, when he was condemned by Australian PM Scott fucking Morrison who's about as left-wing as Paul Ryan.

I never had much respect for you transmorpher, but this is a new low even for you.

Your video, Bill Burr - Final Solution To Overpopulation, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 31 Badge!

Keep in mind, top secret military tech is usually around 10 years ahead of civilian tech. That means they are probably more refined, but not as ubiquitous.
This could be step one for Skynet's final solution.
Hey @notarobot, wanna kill all humans?

*promote a nice and scary dystopian "future".

This is great!
So, there's this superior snowflake who complains he can't peacefully protest in favour of the Endlösung and ethnic cleansing of the US. He proclaims how law-abiding he is while hiding from the police and trying to negotiate terms of surrender. Then he tells us he's not a violent person but is armed and ready to use his gun before things begin to get out of hand. All this while he is trying to fight back tears (transbullies are really mean, you guys) and making sure his pants match the color of his ideological shirt.
Totally made my day.
I have a final solution for his problems: just tell the cops you're too supreme to be arrested. After watching this video they'll surely agree and refrain from withholding your personal freedom and our unintended internet comedy.
Quick, superior snowflake, fly away before the Jew melts you to drink your tears!

Oh but MilkmanDan. haven't you heard? There's a new disease in the naughts called Moronism. There are so many people with their heads shoved so far up their own asses with regard to race and gender relative to status or affiliation, region or education, that they can't see that race is being used like crack whore to alienate people from one another to the point of societal chaos so that a "final solution" may be implemented to finally turn EVERYONE into simpering, ineffectual whiners, media-addicted, wage-slaving human husks.

Just lookit how well it's working so far!

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

Kinna....I'm more of the messenger for what I perceive I can see of her core-Her manner, her phrasing, matter-of-fact tells (plenty of them)-I fear the woman was more of a "final solution" type personality, a "Georgia Guidestone" dystopian freak of the ilk you don't give keys to nuclear bomb codes to.