The average German in Nazi Germany probably didnt think the Nazis were too bad either (of course the average citizen wasn't Jewish, gay, communist or other undesirables). That the average Chinese think things are “just fine” doesn’t mean they are.
Unlike Nazis, I don't see that Chinese communists have expansionist goals to seize territory. Nazis wanted all of Europe. Do Chinese communists want all of say southeast Asia?
To be clear I don't think the government of China is as bad as the Nazis were. I'm just saying "the average Chinese in China thinks it's fine" doesn't mean it's fine.
There is no good imperialist power, there is no capitalism with a human face, there will never be. The UK murdered millions in India, Ireland and all around the world in their time. The US did the same. The only reason China isn't openly doing the same right now is because they are still the underdog and they still need cordiality to get through the door, just like the UK and the US did in their time. The solution is to rid the world of imperialism and capitalism as a whole. As long as there is a profit motive running through everything, international relations will be in the form of wars (military or economic). Only under socialism can the people of the world truly pool their resources together to build up instead of destroying each other.
You would have to eradicate the desire to command other people. The wish for power which is different from the wish to be praised, as forcing somebody to do something is different from convincing somebody to do something.
There are no good imperialists but it's a spectrum where western capitalist colonies fare much better than eastern communist colonies because capitalism and democracy is the engine for economic growth and western colonies fared much better than eastern ones. What's a better system than capitalism for imperialism? Socialism? Weren't they also pretty brutal imperialists? Japanese imperialists alone make western ones look like amateurs.
> western colonies fared much better than eastern ones.
Sure, Iraq and Afghanistan definitely benefited a lot from being bombed, occupied, and then handed over to even worse tyrants when the West got bored.
No, sorry, but "capitalism and democracy" is not the right answer everywhere, and when they're not, pushing them by force is no better than forcing communism. In general, forcing an incompatible ideology on people historically and culturally opposed to it will end in tragedy, no matter how great that ideology may be.
As tho they weren't shitholes before the intervention and those are the only examples when they themselves treat their citizens like trash by oppressing themselves and they got bombed because they're bored? Lol Idk if this is a parody of left wing thought or not.. surely you can make better arguments than boredom arguments and call them bogus..
How are you not racist towards Arabs to think that they're not capable of liberalism? There needs to be some people at the right time and a place like al shaara seems to be doing incremental changes to reform syria.. pushing them by force is okay when they oppress their own citizens and threaten other nations with their own form of imperialism on sorrounding countries/allies.. are we supposed to fold and not help ukraine for example even though Ukrainians never got exposed to liberalism? It's to help and condition them to open to liberalism.. same is needed for iran but retard in chief can't do it properly..
I would really like to know where you found that number and that idea...
Gaza is depending on the source 4.5 to 5.8% less populous currently and >10% less populous than had been projected.
And no Hamas didn't declare final solution. They were actively surprised how long they could kill people, makes sense given that the distance to the nearest military base was less than 50km...
However the Israeli leadership, some of who call them untermensch¹, have shrunk their living space by more than 10% making the largest, current times, concentrationcamp² even worse than it was before.
Whether Israel's conduct in Gaza constitutes genocide is one of the most contested legal and political questions of the moment. Let me lay out where things stand rather than give a verdict.
The core dispute is legal. Genocide has a specific definition under the 1948 Convention: acts (killing, causing serious harm, inflicting destructive conditions) committed with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. The "intent" requirement is the hardest element to establish and where most of the disagreement lies.
Positions people hold:
- *South Africa's case at the ICJ* argues Israel's conduct meets the threshold, citing the death toll, destruction, restrictions on aid, and statements by Israeli officials as evidence of intent. In January 2024 the court found the claim "plausible" enough to order provisional measures, but that is not a ruling that genocide occurred—the full case is unresolved.
- *Many genocide scholars, UN experts, and human rights organizations* (including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) have concluded the conduct amounts to genocide or point to acts consistent with it.
- *Israel and its defenders* reject the charge, arguing it is conducting a war against Hamas following the October 7, 2023 attacks, that civilian deaths result from Hamas embedding in civilian areas, and that the specific intent to destroy Palestinians as a group is absent.
- *Some analysts* hold that grave crimes may have occurred—war crimes or crimes against humanity—without the specific intent that genocide requires, treating these as distinct legal categories.
This has moved quickly and there may be significant developments—ICJ proceedings, ICC actions, new investigations—since my knowledge cutoff. I can search for the current state if that would help.
My honest position: I don't think it's my place to hand you a definitive yes or no on a question that courts, legal scholars, and governments are actively fighting over and that turns on contested facts and a demanding legal standard. What I can do is help you understand the specific arguments, the legal definition, the evidence being cited on each side, or the status of the cases. Would any of that be useful?
We shot thousands of tiny cubes into a heights people thought heaven would reside. Then we communicate with them at the speeds of "The whole data storage of 2000's computer" per second. They survive radiation, accelerations and flying through electromagnetic field at thousands of km/h. We can predict their movement, steer them and provide consumer priced service for tens of thousands of people. It's astronomy, mechanical, material, electrical and computer engineering at it's peak.
This is a civilization level defining achievement.
If it were up-to these silicon valley tech bros, they'd find a way to meter and charge for the air we breathe.