Originally Posted by WarmSandDreams

When was the last election, and what percentage of the population of Gaza was of voting age when that election took place?

Even if they did elect Hamas today, how can you hold it against them? Violence is a pretty natural response to apartheid states. Ideally both sides could deescalate the conflict, but both parties obtain their power by ensuring the fighting continues. The citizens on both sides are the losers.

Originally Posted by jerryleber

One would think we might want to learn some lessons from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan where blind following didn't work out so well. What is that definition of insanity again?

Originally Posted by rickair7777

Absolutely a KC as applied to US persons. I have no faith or trust in such things, especially if applied to US persons. Way too many competing motives, agendas, allegiances, corruption, etc.

There is no crime over which ICC claims jurisdiction, that the US doesn't have some similar legal remedy. Or if there is, there's a reason we don't (ex. some nations have robust "hate speech" laws, which basically apply to whatever dissent their regime wants to silent). We can (and should) try our own citizens. No interest in World Government, thanks.



Right place and right time, he lucked out.

They decided they needed him as a unifying figurehead to help get the people behind the new government. This despite very strong sentiment amongst the allies that he be treated as a war criminal.

It helped his case that his support for the war had been anemic all along, and that he was actively trying to negotiate surrender terms before Hiroshima.

Originally Posted by MaxQ

Do you think of the Nuremberg trials as illegitimate?
That the defeated leadership of Germany was put on trial by jurists and judges of the Victor's make it a kangaroo court?

Or was it an attempt to apply some sort of justice and legal framework regarding monstrous crimes committed against Mankind and the very concepts of civilization? An assertion that there should be some basic fundamental way to adjudicate obvious evil, even if it hadn't previously been legally articulated?

We (as in Mankind) are unraveling the lessons of Nuremberg when we assert that the ICC lacks jurisdiction. Or that national chauvanism should triumph over both evil and justice.

Originally Posted by CBreezy

The last legitimate election, Hamas, before becoming just literal terrorists, barely won. But immediately after they did, they jailed all opposition then dismantled their elections. It's intellectually dishonest to claim that Palestinians are out here just voting unanimously for Hamas

Originally Posted by ThumbsUp

They’ve always been literal terrorists, at least for the decade prior to them being voted in by the people.

But there is a whole chicken/egg thing going on there.

Originally Posted by jerryleber

Nice projection. Nobody is defending the horrendous Jihadist regime in Iran or denying that they murdered their citizens. A spark and fire are two different things. We are discussing what is actually happening and how best to handle it. One would think we might want to learn some lessons from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan where blind following didn't work out so well. What is that definition of insanity again?

Originally Posted by AntiCompanyMan

it's reasonable to assume that CIA/mossad also stoked the anti-regime dissent to the greatest extent possible.

Originally Posted by SampsonSimpson

Sorry quoted wrong message…that’s always AAs MO.

Civilians surrounding power plants and stretching across bridges…sounds like it’s Taco Tuesday. I hope it is anyway.