First, the whole matter of some country being able to affect political groups in another country being normal, as you’re saying about it, is more than lousy to say the least. Israel did not create hamas. Israel could not know how it will act over the years. Israel could not know who will win the elections.
Second, proposing the idea that a modern non-jihad government would put their own population at risk of terrorist attacks in order to have a chance to do genocide of other population is ridiculous.
Third, if the “second” thing above is incorrect, they would instead fiddle with the iron dome. More specifically, there would be no iron dome in the first place - they would take all the rocket hits they could in order to show the world how aggressive terrorists are and invade Gaza asap.
you use Nazi-tier logic to defend Nazi-tier actions.
I don’t know what to say here. What nazi-tier even means is beyond me. But you here basically operate with extremes like every actor does exactly what they are programmed to do. It seems to me that even if some investigation will conclude that Israel, in fact, did not intent to fund any specific group, you’ll still find new twists in order to make Israel guilty of what hamas did.
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.
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.
it’s with them funding a terrorist group to put them in power
And I thought it was Palestinians who chose hamas during elections. The other candidate was also a terrorist group if I’m not mistaken though, so really don’t see how complicated the plan of Israel should’ve been for everything to play out exactly as it had.
so they could justify the genocide they’ve been loudly telegraphing they want to commit.
So basically the plan was “Kill us, so we could kill you” all along, huh? This is some flat earth level conspiracy.
“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.”
I’d say it’s not loaded framing on my side, but convoluted assumptions (and possibly clairvoyance) on the other.
I may not have the explanation of why “Israel funded hamas”, but I know that half the world funded Palestine for years, and that most of that help naturally must’ve went through hamas.
Simply put, it doesn’t seem like Israel could avoid funding Palestine. Hamas could’ve put that money in improving lives of citizens.
Funding might be true. But do we have real evidence that it was done precisely for what you described? Did someone specific decided “let’s give them money, so they would build rockets to bomb us, then invade to kill our citizens in an attack we’ll be unprepared for and then have all the right to obliterate them and nobody would stop us”?
I smell the same and can’t help but to mention just a few off the top of my head.
rgba / elevated
Conspiracy / Chaos Theory
Bran Control / Memories from the MCP
Andromeda Software Development / Lifeforce
Farbrausch / fr-041
mfx / 1995
pouet.net - go there, download and watch it yourself. Youtube is cool but real stuff is so much better, especially when you check the file size. Though be aware, some of these old ones don’t play well at non-96 dpi display settings.
This is art and I’m not even joking. This shit should have replaced wars.
I’ve been using Telegram enough to understand that such allegations are useless. The first link is literally not about Telegram but about its 3rd party fork that original developers can’t do anything about. The second link is about piracy, and any app owner would handle any data they could in similar situations.
Telegram is not just a messaging app but a public platform with channels and public chats. Any app with these properties will eventually have the same issues. If you don’t want to risk, you just use it as a personal messaging app and that’s it - in this way it’s not much different from other “secure” messaging apps.
The way for apps like Signal to remain “truly secure” in “careful” users’ eyes is avoiding the introduction of the public communication part, which could lead to all the same problems some people don’t like Telegram for.
That said, Telegram actually has a history of being a “bad actor” if you want to call it so. Namely:
At first it was possible to steal someone’s account by faking a SIM card (any government can do this). Later Telegram introduced cloud password that helped to prevent such cases.
At various points Telegram wrongfully banned and marked as “fake” various channels and bots used by opposition in Russia.
But I can’t agree that either of that makes Telegram an insecure messaging platform. It’s either about bad management decisions in specific situations (e.g. Durov being worried about Telegram getting banned) or technical aspects of how user reports are handled (basically any channel can get marked “fake” if enough user reports are received).