[Pants-of-dog]

Agreed, but it does not amount to genocide.
You restrict yourself to mentioning America invading and attacking but there is a lot more killing and invading going on in many countries.
Try to stay on topic.

Well, the actual risk of genocide to Israel is minimal to non-existent. The actual risk to civilians during an attack by the US is far higher.

[Ter]

But please cite some countries other than Israel where the population is threatened with genocide. As I requested twice earlier already.

Thank you for answering the question by not answering it.

Well, the actual risk of genocide to Israel is minimal to non-existent.

Hezbollah claims to have 150,000 rockets aimed at the whole of Israel.
Iran is developing long-range ballistic missiles.
It is a dangerous neighbourhood.
There is no other country that is threatened with genocide of its population.
If Israel has nukes, they are a good deterrent, with second strike capability.
And if Israel is being overrun, the nukes (in case they exist) can and will probably be used.

[Suntzu]

The intelligence community believes that Israel has around 300 sophisticated nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them.

[Decky]

OK. I believe every country has the right to defend itself.

I know of no other country that is threatened with genocide by not only its neighbours but by a whole bunch of other countries.
So in the case of Israel it is not just a question of regime change but quite possibly genocide.
I therefore believe that Israel has the right to defend itself by all the means at its disposal, including nuclear weapons.

To give another example : North Korea.
Its enemies never threatened to annihilate the population of North Korea, only change its regime. So the use of nuclear weapons by the North Korean regime is debatable.

Does this mean the few surviving native American tribes have the right to use nukes on the USA/ Canada/ Brazil/ Argentina/ wherever?

[Rich]

The physical danger could be minimal, especially if it is merely a regime change operation.

But please cite some countries other than Israel where the population is threatened with genocide. As I requested twice earlier already.

Iran, Iraq, substantial minorities of the Syrian population, the Afghan Shia. All these are threatened with genocide, but of course when we look a bit further into the future the whole of the White western populations are under threat of genocide at the hands of the Muslims. Then of course there's the Tutsis in Rwanda and the Congo. The problem is that our society has been totally idoolgically corrupted by Jewish Supremacists with their never again nonsense.

So what if six million Jews were exterminated (and many claim that figure is an exaggeration.) It wasn't the end of the world. If Hitler had contented himself with genociding the Gypsies and left off the Jews and Slavs, do you think anyone would have said never again? Did anyone say never again after the genociding of the Armenians and the Greeks? Did anyone say never again when the Tutsis got genocided? Of course not we couldn't even spare a few thousand troops willing to fight, because that's all it would have taken to stop that genocide, it wasn't like stopping the German Wehrmacht in 1939. Did anyone say never again after the Khmer Rouge genocide? No of course not it was welcome back into the world community Khmer Rouge, of course you can keep your seat at the UN. Did anyone say never again when Saddam gas attacked the Kurds. No of course not, the Reagan Administration was like, no problem Saddam we'll try and blame it on the Iranians for you.

And what about the genocide of the German Urban working class (the people who had least supported the Nazis in 1932) by the allied bombing campaign in WWII? Its perpetrators Churchil and Rosevelt are feted as great heroes. For once and for all lets stop this drivel about genocide being a terrible crime, an unthinkable barbarity. Genocide is only a terrible crime when we want it to be a terrible crime.

[ArtAllm]

@Suntzu , do you believe Israel did it deliberately?

Must admit before the internet never heard about the issue.

It came from the MSM, because you cannot hide the truth forever.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liber ... story.html

The survivors were intimidated, they were told to keep silent, they even threatened their families.

But this tactics does not work for a long time. After the survivors became older and had nothing to lose any more, they made official statements, like Captain Ward Boston.

Here is what the survivors say about this attack.

Why would we question that explanation more than 30 years later?
The ship’s survivors were afraid to speak out in the early years because of threats of “court martial, prison or worse” if they did not remain silent. However, as time passed, they have stepped forward to say the attack was deliberate.

Recently, high government and military officials have suggested that not only was the attack deliberate, but that the US government covered-up the incident. Today, an Independent Commission of Inquiry has found that Israel committed “an act of war” against the United States (see Findings of Independent Commission).

In addition, the Navy’s chief attorney to the original 1967 military Court of Inquiry has issued a statement that orders to cover-up the incident were issued by President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara [see Statement of Captain Ward Boston, USN, JAG (Ret.)]

http://www.honorlibertyvets.org/

[noir]

Antisemitic conspiracy theory. Tired with the bullshit.

[Suntzu]

Theory my ass.

Only a moron could believe this attack was not intentional.

[Pants-of-dog]

Thank you for answering the question by not answering it.

The question is irrelevant.

Hezbollah claims to have 150,000 rockets aimed at the whole of Israel.
Iran is developing long-range ballistic missiles.
It is a dangerous neighbourhood.
There is no other country that is threatened with genocide of its population.
If Israel has nukes, they are a good deterrent, with second strike capability.
And if Israel is being overrun, the nukes (in case they exist) can and will probably be used.

I doubt Hezbollah has that many rockets, nor do I think they are going to be any more effective than most of the rockets fired at Israel.

I doubt Iran has WMDs. Did you hear that from the same guys who said Iraq had some?

And since Israel has nuclear weapons and the US as an ally, they are not seriously threatened.

But my point was that you seem fine with supporting terrorism. Xz

[Ter]

And since Israel has nuclear weapons and the US as an ally, they are not seriously threatened.

Israel would be wise to have their own nuclear weapons and not rely on anyone else for their deterrent/strike. Let;s hope they have their own nukes.

But my point was that you seem fine with supporting terrorism. Xz

You must be the funniest at home I think.
I saw your misguided conclusion coming a mile ago.
But OK, to further this point we will have to define terrorism and in case it is an acceptable way of defense then the response to it should be free of the Geneva Conventions.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Ter

I should hope you saw my conclusion a while ago. After all, I did state it quite clearly on the previous page.

[noir]

It came from the MSM, because you cannot hide the truth forever.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liber ... story.html

Code: Select allhttps://youtu.be/kjOH1XMAwZA

The survivors were intimidated, they were told to keep silent, they even threatened their families.

But this tactics does not work for a long time. After the survivors became older and had nothing to lose any more, they made official statements, like Captain Ward Boston.

Here is what the survivors say about this attack.

According to Wikipedia

Several books and the BBC documentary USS Liberty: Dead in the Water argued that Liberty was attacked in order to prevent the U.S. from knowing about the forthcoming attack in the Golan Heights, which would violate a cease-fire to which Israel's government had agreed.

The press release for the BBC documentary film Dead in the Water states that new recorded and other evidence suggests the attack was a "daring ploy by Israel to fake an Egyptian attack" to give America a reason to enter the war against Egypt. Convinced that the attack was real, President of the United States Lyndon B. Johnson launched allegedly nuclear-armed aircraft targeted against Cairo from a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. The aircraft were recalled only just in time, when it was clear the Liberty had not sunk and that Israel had carried out the attack.

Total bollocks. Found that the BBC film made by Peter Hounam, an ex-Chief Investigative Journalist on the Sunday Times, and the one who broke the story about Mordechai Vanunu and Israel’s nukes the reporter in 1986, told the BBC in 2003:

“Vanunu told the world that Israel had developed between one hundred and two hundred atomic bombs and had gone on to develop neutron bombs and thermonuclear weapons. Enough to destroy the entire Middle East and nobody has done anything about it since.”

Seems the guy has a vendetta against Israel. We see today, the Arabs don't need Israel to destroy themselves. For decades the MSM got the entire Middle East story wrong. In the end this vendetta has been backlashed. The Middle East is slowly but surely conquering Europe.

[MememyselfandIJK]

Agreed, but it does not amount to genocide.

Genocide
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Seems to fit the definition just fine

[Ter]

I said

Agreed, but it does not amount to genocide.

as an answer to POD

Thosuands of civilians die each year from "accidental" attacks by US and western forces. This is not minimal.

Genocide
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Seems to fit the definition just fine

No, it does not fit the definition.
Which cultural, ethnic or racial group is genocided through accidental attacks?

The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[2][3]

The term genocide was coined in a 1944 book;[4][5] it has been applied to the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide and many other mass killings including the genocide of indigenous peoples in the Americas, the Greek genocide, the Assyrian genocide, the Serbian genocide, the Holodomor, the 1971 Bangladesh genocide, the Cambodian genocide, the Guatemalan genocide, and, more recently, the Bosnian genocide, the Kurdish genocide, and the Rwandan genocide.[a]

According to one estimate, from 1956 to 2016, a total of forty-three genocides have taken place which caused the death of about 50 million people, while an additional 50 million were resettled or displaced by such conflicts.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

[MememyselfandIJK]

Which cultural, ethnic or racial group is genocided through accidental attacks?

First, "accidental attacks?" Really? The US is knowingly attacking civilians. Just ask anyone.

Second, these attacks are targeting Moslems. You don't see the US attacking Arab Cristian civilians, do we?

[Ter]

First, "accidental attacks?" Really?

Yes, I was replying to POD who said:

Thosuands of civilians die each year from "accidental" attacks by US and western forces. This is not minimal.

I maintain my stand that the objective of attacks, bombings and dronings are not innocent civilians.

Second, these attacks are targeting Moslems.

All sides in the conflict are Muslim. The West is attacking one side and protecting the other side and Iran and Hezbolla are attacking the other side and protecting this side. All Muslim. Where is the genocide?
It would be good not to throw around terms like genocide if the situation does not warrant it. Read the Wiki article on genocide to elucidate yourself.

[MememyselfandIJK]

@Ter The ME population isn't 100% Moslem. There is a significant minority of Christians and Sikhs, yet its always moslems who are targeted. Yes the terrorists in question are moslem, but that doesn't give you the right to systematically kill moslem civilians.

[Ter]

@Ter The ME population isn't 100% Moslem. There is a significant minority of Christians and Sikhs, yet its always moslems who are targeted. Yes the terrorists in question are moslem, but that doesn't give you the right to systematically kill moslem civilians.

They are not systematically killed, please see what I wrote.
I admit there are many civilian deaths and wounded in the Syrian civil war, caused by all sides in the conflict.
Note there are no Sikhs anywhere in the Middle East. They live mainly in the Punjaab in India.

[MememyselfandIJK]

@Ter Sorry, not Sikhs, I meant Kurds.

Yes they are systematically killed. It doesn't require gas chambers or prison camps. Drone strikes are sufficient.

[Suntzu]

[Zag Edit: Rule 3]