Same bullshit logic that helped many support the genocide of those "barbaric" Native Americans because some actually had the gall to attack the colonial invaders.
I wonder how few will draw some of the parallels of the colonial expansion in Australia and the West in general.
I love the types that say others should go back to where they come from ignoring their parents and grandparents were not that far removed from the boat that brought them here.
Then they don't want to acknowledge that these groups were probably not that thrilled at being slaughtered and their kids taken away from them to make way for their colonial ancestors.
It's a amazing trait to me that humans can hold such diabolically opposed ideas as the same truths for them.
Eurasian empires have been shaped by this for millenia. Nomadic horse tribes harass existing empire until it starts to crumble. Tribes annex land and establish new empire/ruling class and give up the nomadic lifestyle. New nomadic horse tribes show up and start harassing. Rulers who are only 1 or 2 generations removed from living a nomadic lifestyle and conquering call new group "barbarians" and "uncivilized" for their brutality. New horse tribes topple empire, rinse and repeat.
To list a few: Mongols, Turks, Huns, Scythians... It was like a revolving door until gunpowder showed up.
Each generation completely ignoring the atrocities of their forebears while also framing their successors as monsters. Tale as old as time.
I wonder how few will draw some of the parallels of the colonial expansion in Australia and the West in general.
I wouldn't be surprised if the western countries defending Israel start using that excuse themselves, once all the others fall apart
Oh and just checking, did you mean diabolically (evilly) or diametrically (opposite) opposed? Either works just wondering
People also over-emphasize the importance of being born here.
"We demand the return of our hostages, which is why we're going to bomb where our hostages are to fucking rubble"
I get what you're going for but if you want to be realistic, the hostage taker wouldn't be surprised/upset in the third panel. Israel is undoubtedly committing war crimes but Hamas has made it pretty clear they don't give a shit if Palestinian civilians die.
Like this?
Yea, except there should be like 50 hostages and one guy with a knife, and then the pink shirt guy blows them all to bits
Yes very good
Yeah, panel 5 should be pink/green high-fiving.
Nah. In 4 they should be shooting both of them through the hostage.
I love the analogy if your loved one was being held at gun point, would you support the police firing through your loved one to kill the criminal? Yeah criminal is dead but like wtf.
Hey someone is robbing a bank, better blow it up. The customers and workers will die but at least we got the bank robber.
Also: bringing up “Deliberately killing hostages”
Hamas is like “yeah we do that, too, and we will do it again.”
Israel: we don't give a shit about the lives of Palestinians
Hamas: We don't either LOL
You can't just perfectly sum up a very complex geo-politocal issue in 1 meme like this, but you did anyway
First panel is straight up nazi propaganda. Completely buying into the 'human shields' narrative the zionists use as an excuse to deliberately murder civilians
Yep, they said the same thing when they would bomb neighborhoods in Iraq and kill dozens of civilians, that they were being used by insurgents or whatever. It is decades old propaganda always used against any non-state militant group.
And thats the true,
Nah
Admitting Hamas is holding civilians hostage isn't the win you think it is.
What makes you think OP is pro-Hamas?
No one with half a brain is pro hamas. This conflict isn’t a binary.
It’s possible to think killing civilians is wrong, no matter who is doing it.
They're sure not trying to criticise them, are they?
No one is winning in this situation.
