this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
494 points (94.6% liked)
People Twitter
5272 readers
557 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When terrorists destroyed two of the largest buildings in America and killed far more people than Hamas did in their attack, we didn't see fit to eradicate every single human being in the middle East. Why is complete genocide acceptable to you guys? Why is this much civilian death justifiable to you?
Should have, that way we avoid future terrorist attacks
Don't you have a Trump rally you're late for?
I said it 22 years ago when the towers fell, and it looks like it's time to say it again. You don't get rid of angry people by killing angry people.
Dont think the war was about getting rid of angry people, it was about getting who was responsable and killing them.
Oh, sorry! I didn't realize it was just one small country that was supplying the world's terrorists. Carry on, I suppose.
Please tell me you don't actually mean this unironically?
So, the problem is if you kill a few angry people, they all have at least 2 friends/family members, and therefore you create twice as many angry people as you destroy. The only way killing angry people actually reduces the number of angry people is in fact genocide. But if you're willing to commit genocide, you have to stop and ask yourself if maybe, you're the angry person.
Yeah, it's almost as if killing people isn't the best way to achieve anything.
Define civilian death.... When all the "civilians" are terrorist well.... Not many civilians left....
Ok, so you unironically want to destroy every single, what, Arab? Including, presumably, children, because they're all "terrorist".
Do you realise what an awful piece of shit that makes you?