A genocidal state.
Calling this genocide is like crying wolf, it merely provides cover for actual genocides by diluting the term until it’s meaningless. Israel could certainly suffer fewer casualties if they were to fire bomb or nuke Gaza, but they won’t because they’re not fucking genocidal.
It IS a Genocide.
People who study genocides call it a genocide. Please stop being retarded.
Yeah and some scientists deny that climate change is a thing, that doesn’t mean all points of view are equally valid. What you are pretending is a mainstream point of view is actually quite contentious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation#Discourse
Overwhelmingly scientists agree climate change is a thing. Overwhelmingly genocide experts agree the Israel-Palestine conflict is a genocide.
I am begging you to stop being retarded.
Your claim: “Overwhelmingly genocide experts agree the Israel-Palestine conflict is a genocide.”
Your Evidence: A quote by one historian. Not even a link, mind you, a screenshot. It was from the same source I provided, so if it was a normal link that same article would show other experts who disagree with him below his quote.Do I need to explain to you why you are being intellectually dishonest here?
Here’s yet another source that shows there isn’t a consensus among experts:
https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/A screenshot to the wikipedia article you linked me. You did read it, didn’t you? You didn’t just link something and hoped to god it supported your claim, did you? Boy howdy that’d be embarrassing.
Uh oh, a second person who agrees it’s genocidal.
Also, your link is over a month old. Let’s find something more up to date.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/29/middleeast/south-africa-icj-israel-genocide-intl/index.html
Oops, looks like the South African government agrees too.
Two whole people! Wow I guess that means that the entirety of experts must be <4. Also, that second person says they are “moving towards a ‘genocidal campaign.’” Not that they have committed one.
And South Africa, too! lol. I bet you can find some Muslim states who agree as well.
I’m done here, you’re clearly not willing to discuss this in good faith.
It’s Michael Keaton for me
Can’t beat that Burton Batmobile and Elfman theme
I mean, Patterson was good but bail is iconic. The dark knight trilogy were so big, it made most movies gritty.
Unpopular opinion: Bale happened to be the Batman of the best Batman movie, his Batman is kinda meh. And I wish Afflect was in better Batman movies.
Now that you call it out, I agree! Bale gets a lot of praise for his ability to morph his body for different roles, but is otherwise only alright as an actor. But he happens to be in many great movies with other iconic figures which really elevates his cachet.
Affleck is pretty good. I also really liked Pattenson’s emo sad-Bruce version quite a bit more than I expected to. For me, nothing will ever be as nostalgic and iconic as the Tim/Conroy animated portrayal.
I was a fan of the dark Knight trilogy and thought no one is topping this, but Pattenson nailed it. I honestly like his Batman better now, and hope they continue with it.
Batfleck definitely has the look and is more comic “accurate”. I’m sure he would’ve killed it in a better film and not directed by Snyder.
Shame they aren’t still using him. He makes a good, grizzled Batman that just doesn’t play around anymore.
Petterson is iconic but he would be nothing without Findus.
Ahaha! I see what you did there.
^(It’s just unfortunate that his name is actually Pettson.)
I only know the German translation where the name is Petterson.
Jimmy Patterson!
Kevin Conroy was the best Batman
/thread
Adam West was the best! And it even rhymes.
And he was also the best mayor.
deleted by creator
Hi, I see in the modlog that dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com 's post was removed for “violating rule 1,” which is, “be civil and nice.”
Israel is discriminating non-citizens like every other state while e. g. Arabic citizens have full civil rights. As much as you might hate Israel, this is not Apartheit.
What isn’t nice or civil about this post? They shared their opinion, one I consider reasonable, in a way that was inoffensive. Can the mods please elaborate on your mod policy here, are only anti-Israel opinions allowed?
(original comments still visible on kbin, though site is unstable atm)
@dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com
WTH?! Israel is by all metrics an apartheid state. Whether you accept it or not.
Have you ever been there?
I’ve never been to America but I know the Empire State Building is pretty tall.
Until I was 14 y/o
That comment is so idiotic and/or bad faith that I totally get removing it. Better to remove it than clog up the comments with a dozen people trying to explain why they’re wrong and the OP likely sea lioning them all.
Israel was born in Nazism, molded by it. Palestinians merely adopted being oppressed.
The end line was so unexpected that I had a good laugh. That a truth was snuck in unexpectedly was excellent.
Michael Keaton will always be my Batman
Ben’s version of batman was best batman. Not much who was playing him, but how batman acted and handled himself.
Horrible script but great acting. If Affleck was younger I’d want to see him take the mantle properly
Compromise time: he’s a (mostly) retired Batman, and we can have a younger actor as Batman Beyond?
Then we get into who would make the perfect combination and that’s a whole other argument.
i side mostly with mental outlaw
For me it’s Alfredo Casero, and i will die on that hill
How have I never heard of the first one.
Disregarding acting ability, I don’t think Pattinson had the physicality for it; he didn’t look big enough to me to be believable. You could really tell the Batman costume had a lot of padding when you saw him as Bruce Wayne. I think he’s just too lithe, for the lack of a better descriptor, for the character, you know?
I’ve heard that the Batman was supposed to show a younger, less-experienced Batman. So maybe he’ll bulk up more for the next one, idk
Let’s make one thing clear: This “country” that proclaims itself as Israel is not the same Israel as described in Bible but a Zionist State where its ideological pillars were forged, in a Europe still at the time submerged in colonialist ideology. This is just to say the basics
What is your point?
Like why I care about whether or not it is the one in the bible?
What are you trying to get at?
It seems a bit “fun fact that is kinda related to the post but not really at the same time”. I mean obviously Israel is a Zionist state. It is literally the movement that made the state. How does it relate to apartheid? Now colonistic idealogy has a link to apartheid. But then again, Jews didn’t had the best experience with colonism within Europe which is what Hilter did. So you could easily argue against the sentiment, while I personally won’t argue either way as I don’t believe that I know or understand enough.
In short, I might agree with you if I would understand what you want to tell us. But I don’t, care to help me?
Deep down we know that doing terrorism will not solve any problems.
And yet the Israelis keep at it.
Why stop when there’s no consequences
You think they will still be at it if they are given every hamas member?
Fun History Fact:
The Black Hands terrorist organization, the ones that killed Archduke Ferdinand, hoped that by doing so they would start a civil war that would result in a victory for Serbia, specifically creating a “Greater Serbia” from the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire where they had dominance over their regional neighbors.
Obviously, that didn’t happen.
Instead WW1 happened.
Which ended in the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the creation of Yugoslavia, a constitutional monarchy with a Serbian royal family, capital in Serbia.
(And then they made everyone hate them because they were assholes both as a monarchy and a communist state)
Second, Bonus Fun History Fact:
Terroristic tactics have left Afghanistan as the only nation to have defeated occupations by the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and America, the three most powerful states since the collapse of the Mongol Empire.
What you propose:
“Terrorists might’ve done something good actually. In some foreseeable future we might see changes in the world that would actually benefit them in the result, making their terrorism not useless”
What I propose:
“No human can see the future. But hamas could perfectly see what would happen if they launched such a violent attack - invasion with the purpose of removing hamas as an entity. If I can’t blame them for not surrendering by now, I will blame them for not making anything to defend their citizens.”
Viet Cong’s success in reuniting Vietnam says otherwise.
Attacking villages, taking hostages, and using guerilla tactics (like both Viet Cong did and Hamas are doing) are just the most effective ways of driving out an occupying force, and they wouldn’t be necessary if the oppressors weren’t there in the first place.
So you’re telling that hamas didn’t do anything wrong and they will succeed?
It’s interesting how some people blame Israel for being oppressors while others blame it for establishing hamas.
It’s also interesting how some people say terrorism is not useless because there is “some” history, but others are upset by how Israel is doing it too, apparently.
None of these are mutually exclusive statements. You can understand that Israel propped up Hamas to label their aggressive tactics as “terrorism” and use that against all Palestinians, while understanding that those “terrorist” tactics can indeed be effective.
The US propped up the Taliban and other right-wing terrorist groups in Afganistan in the 80s to oppose their then secular Socialist gov and the supporting USSR, and we all know how that came back to bite them later. Just because a country props a group up doesn’t mean it’ll always keep doing things beneficial to them.
are upset by how Israel is doing it too
“Terrorist” tactics (or anything really) used for the sake of driving out a settler colonial ethnostate (a good thing) - like Hamas are doing and Viet Cong did - is good, while those tactics when used to oppress and commit genocide on a native population (a bad thing) - like Israel is doing - is bad. This isn’t that hard to understand.
Israel propped up Hamas to label their aggressive tactics as “terrorism”
Can’t seem to identify the bad actor here. Would you help out?
The US propped up the Taliban and other right-wing terrorist groups
You mean Taliban good, USA bad?
“Terrorist” tactics (or anything really) used for the sake of driving out a settler colonial ethnostate (a good thing) - like Hamas are doing and Viet Cong did - is good, while those tactics when used to oppress and commit genocide on a native population (a bad thing) - like Israel is doing - is bad. This isn’t that hard to understand.
I understand that you think hamas will succeed in driving Israel out. Since all the current events are the result of hamas’ actions and the expected process of driving Israel out, I don’t see why wouldn’t we just sit and watch it till the end. Since terrorism is excusable, all the casualties are the price of Palestine getting real independence.
What the fuck are you even saying
Are you actually braindead or is this a bit?
What did you not understand in my comments?
Seeing libs both-siding a genocide and colonialism in the present day honestly makes it much easier to understand how slavery was so prevalent for so long.
Decolonization is violent; if you don’t like it, don’t colonize in the first place.
Decolonization is violent
This is like saying nuclear bomb kills a lot of people. I agree. But is it happening in current reality?
Strawman
