So, they were housed and fed while working 18 hour days, thus not being able to leave the house. So that’s their defence, that you have to take shelter into context. When they couldn’t leave… Fucking throw the book at them

“As the Ukraine situation has not changed, we are not inviting Russia or Belarus” either, Suzuki added.

Calling it what it is, an invasion.

Not to take away from a lot of the other despicable shit done by Israel’s defence forces, but you have to be a special kind of awful to murder a child. Doesn’t matter if you believe you’re entitled to the land or whatnot. There’s really no way to justify killing children. Only hope the people who are responsible for actions like these gain some sort of awareness and have to live the rest of their lives with what they’ve done.

Guess they buy into the simplistic views shouted by the far right.

No. The reason you’re being downvoted is because of your ridiculous statements like open borders and free for all and the strange statement that the US is the only place where immigration is controversial. Ask someone from Greece or Italy about boat refugees, ask anyone from any country about immigration, it’s a continuous topic in any country where immigration is a thing. If you want to have an honest discussion that is.

If you actually wanted to have an honest discussion you’d be truthful, but you’re not. Spouting exaggerated claims that are obviously wrong and stuff like democrats can do no wrong. Of course no one takes you seriously, you’re acting like a troll.

Strange how you only reply to the comments echoing your beliefs and not the others calling your shit out. Nice new strawman by the way. Open border and free for all. Fucking moron, no one’s saying that except other trolls

And I think an organisation covering for pedophiles and murdering kids in their schools have no moral high ground and it is definitely unfit to lecture anyone on human dignity.

Eat a bag of dicks Francis

For Truman, news of the successful Trinity test set up a momentous choice: whether or not to deploy the world’s first weapon of mass destruction. But it also came as a relief, as it meant the United States wouldn’t have to rely on the increasingly adversarial Soviet Union to enter World War II against Japan.

From https://www.history.com/news/hiroshima-nagasaki-bombing-wwii-cold-war

By the morning of August 9, 1945, Soviet troops had invaded Manchuria and Sakhalin Island, but there was still no word from the Japanese government regarding surrender.

From https://www.britannica.com/event/atomic-bombings-of-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki/The-bombing-of-Nagasaki

Moreover, regular incendiary bombing raids were destroying huge portions of one city after another, food and fuel were in short supply, and millions of civilians were homeless. General Curtis LeMay, the commander of American air forces in the Pacific, estimated that by the end of September he would have destroyed every target in Japan worth hitting. The argument that Japan would have collapsed by early fall is speculative but powerful.

From https://www.britannica.com/topic/Trumans-decision-to-use-the-bomb-712569

I don’t know what Truman thought, but I do think saving US soldiers and avoiding The Soviet Union must have weighed in on the decision to nuke cities.

I know history.com isn’t that great of a source, but I have to go back to work.

Not trying to downplay what Japan did, but I don’t think that’s why they dropped the bombs. Russia was closing in and the US didn’t seem keen on having to divide up Japan like they did in Europe. I’d say it’s more likely civilian targets were bombed to put social pressure on the emperor and government to accept defeat.

These bombs don’t discriminate, so even put into context like you say, it’s still not a good argument

If I understand it correctly, and please correct me if I’m wrong, Russian interference in Syria has been exceptionally devastating for Isis in the region.

It’s both infuriating and embarrassing

So here’s what I (think I) know. Proper historians please correct me.

Modern history saw Palestine mainly populated by Christians and Muslims till late 1800s, when a rise in Zionism led to increased migration into Palestine. This kept increasing and really accelerated from Germany in mid 1930s (strange huh.)

When Israel officially got its title as a nation given to them by the UN in 1947, the Arab nations all voted against as they felt the share of Palestine left to be called Palestine was not enough.

Conflict has been escalating since. But I feel this is the basis for the conflict as it is today.

It is. To the detriment of everyone

Further adding to the outrage, Elisha Yered, an ultranationalist settler leader and former adviser to a lawmaker in Netanyahu’s governing coalition, defended the spitters, arguing that spitting at Christian clergy and at churches was an “ancient Jewish custom”.

So, even if that was not absolute bullshit, then that would have been a shit custom. How do you get this vile? Yea, well, we’ve been spitting on “the others” since ancient times isn’t a good argument. Just means you’ve had a fucking awful custom. What a cunt

I believe it works so well on those who are in a bad financial situation because whatever little money they make, they want to/need to keep as much of it as possible.

That makes them an easy target of “we’re going to lower taxes.” While of course only doing it for the wealthy and screaming the left wants to give your hard earned money to lazy people, immigrants, sex changes or whatever marginalized group is the flavour of the year to attack.

I don’t know why it’s uncomfortable for women here, but I assume they would feel that way whether they revealed their gender or not

Oh I absolutely agree. I have no idea how to give women more autonomy when they are stuck in these repressive households.

What you’re speaking of is how it should be, how to get there is not easy.

Hope you’re right. Nice chat :)

I agree in most cases. However it is an issue when it’s no longer a choice.

Anecdotal, but a church/cult where I grew up and went to school, forbid women and girls to wear anything but skirts. Now a lot of them maybe preferred skirts over pants, but it was never their choice.

Gotta say I’m on the fence on this one. Women should be allowed to wear whatever the hell they want, but it is a problem when a garment is occasionally forced on only them. I have no good solution

Devils advocate here: isn’t the reasoning behind the hijab bans that it’s sexist, not a safety issue?