In exchange for the resettling of Palestinians, the administration would potentially release to Libya billions of dollars of funds that the U.S. froze more than a decade ago, those three people said.
In exchange for the resettling of Palestinians, the administration would potentially release to Libya billions of dollars of funds that the U.S. froze more than a decade ago, those three people said.
I responded to what you actually wrote:
You described intent, i.e., “thinking”.
🙄
PS. Genocide is not a single event in time, it’s a process. An easy way to educate yourself on the matter is by searching YouTube for interviews of Omer Bartov, world renowned Israeli scholar on Genocide and the Holocaust, prof at Brown.
I mean, they were doing it and would have finished doing it if it wasn’t for a world war, so definitely not just thinking
This is also false. The mass killings started in the middle of 1941 after the invasion of the Soviet Union. The systematic policy of extermination was decided in January 1942 in the Wannsee Conference.
There was quite a lot of thinking before doing. And there was quite a lot of doing smaller steps before doing bigger steps. Just like there was quite a lot of thinking smaller steps before thinking bigger steps.
Give it a rest buddy, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Says I’m false
Proceeds to tell me I’m true.
Look buddy who knows it all, when Israel actually decides to kill those million Palestinians instead of moving them, get back to me abd I’ll apologize for my ignorant statements, but as of things stand now, I cannot take you seriously when you push for extreme comparisons while nit-picking how it all started.
Your argument somewhat reminded me of the “weed is a getaway drug to stronger drugs” argument. No, that’s not always the case.
You’re not engaging with what I’m actually saying, so this is the last you hear from me.
You said: “Nazis wanted to kill them all, not move them further away.” I pointed out that’s historically inaccurate. They started by trying to move them. They ended by killing them. That evolution of intent matters. Genocide isn’t a light switch, it’s a dimmer. And it always starts with the “just move them away” stage.
This isn’t about scoring points. It’s about understanding how atrocities actually unfold.
You keep insisting I’m making “extreme” comparisons. But all I’ve done is point to a well-documented historical pattern: the Nazis didn’t begin with gas chambers. They started with deportation plans, ghettos, and forced removals. That’s not hyperbole: it’s basic historiography.
You’re also still conflating intent with outcome. You said the Nazis “wanted to kill them all,” as if that was the plan from the outset. It wasn’t. The policy evolved over time. That’s the entire point — and it’s exactly why early-stage actions do matter.
When people defend or downplay proposals to forcibly remove an entire population (not in the chaos of war, but as formal policy) the comparison isn’t extreme. It’s cautionary.
You can roll your eyes if you want. But history doesn’t start at Wannsee. And it doesn’t repeat itself with a neon sign saying “genocide incoming.” It creeps.
And that “weed is a gateway drug” analogy? It’s off. A better one would be: “Heroin addiction doesn’t start with heroin — it starts with normalized misuse of something seemingly minor.” That’s the progression I’m talking about.
Anyway. I’ve said my piece. History’s just not on your side here, buddy.
Historically inaccurate in early years when barely anyone paid attention to nazi germany.
Historically accurate in relevant years.
But do you not see how this argument is flawed? Evolution is not a one way street. It takes different routes. Just because something starts with x does not 100% mean it will always end with y, especially in vastly different timeline where I highly doubt this can happen with masses in a country that got all eyes on them. They’d be done and they know it.
Your historical documentations about what happened in country X is NOT a prophecy about country Y. Politics is not a mathematics that follows a formula.
Also, please stop using ChatGPT to refine your answers.
I am not making prophecies. I am not predicting the future. I am specifically writing:
Do you understand what that phrase means? Do you understand what the word “cautionary” means?
I understand, but what I’m saying from my perspective is that I do not see that happening in any way possible, even if the beginning phase looks like startup nazi ideology. One can be cautious about new nuclear reactor in France exploding because one exploded in Chornobyl, while others, like me, will try to assure you it’s quite impossible under new designs (new world order).
Like I said before, if Israel actually goes ahead and kills those millions Palestinians instead of displacing them, get back to me and I will write an apology letter for my ignorance and short-sightness, but as of things stand now, I simply don’t see how is it possible for Israel to do this without causing their own destruction.
If you look at our discussion you might notice that at no point have I singled out Israel as the only possible perpetrator. We are literally discussing this in the thread below an article about the American government making genocidal plans. Between Trumpist USA and the far right current Israeli government, an escalation is not inconceivable. It is true however that thankfully there are multiple actors, from the Europeans to the Egyptians and Jordanians for example, who would not easily allow something like this to happen. But then again, if the world order is blown up in WW3, anything is possible and these kinds of plans would become much less unworkable… Which is why calling them out and not letting them be normalized now is very important.