Comments by "David Aspinall" (@yt.personal.identification) on "U.S. Inches CLOSER To War As Israel Carries Out Preemptive Bombings" video.

  1. Tell Blinkin. As where his priorities lie.
    6
  2. Settlers - a polite term for common thieves
    4
  3. Pre-emptive strike That's the gentrified term for unprovoked attacks. Just like "settlers" is a gentrified term for common land thieves. Marketing
    3
  4. According to the UN, you are spreading misinformation.
    3
  5. Cheering for being the immoral aggressors. Classy
    2
  6. "Acts consistent with genocide." History will record the truth. The stain will last generations. Immorality is rife.
    2
  7. Why did the USSR invade Afghanistan?
    2
  8. It is the modern version of that regime.
    2
  9. Who poked? Pre-emptive means that ISRAEL started it. How did you get so confused?
    1
  10. They are criticising the terrorists. That's the video. You are just confused about who the terrorists are.
    1
  11.  @allanbrown3065  I disagree. I believe it was arrogance personified.
    1
  12. They are criticising Israel. Are you new here?
    1
  13. Pre-emptive. Find a dictionary and look it up. It will save future public embarrassment
    1
  14. Your script is bad. Ask for a different one.
    1
  15.  @jasonsaenz8959    Yes. Israel sends rockets regularly. We know this. I know you wish we didn't, but we do know. That is why the UN is investigating war crimes and crimes against humanity.
    1
  16.  @jasonsaenz8959    Yes. Israel sends rockets regularly. We know this. I know you wish we didn't, but we do know. That is why the UN is investigating war crimes and crimes against humanity.
    1
  17.  @NeilDSouza-l9k  Pre-emptive is just a gentrified way to say they were the aggressor who attacked first
    1
  18.  @jasonsaenz8959  Yes. Israel sends rockets regularly. We know. Both sides do. Why are you pretending it is all one-sided?
    1
  19.  @NeilDSouza-l9k  You say everything is fair when your side does it, but whine like the victim when they respond Predictable
    1
  20.  @NeilDSouza-l9k    If that is the case, what is the original comment complaining about? Seems hypocritical to anyone who can think critically.
    1
  21.  @jasonsaenz8959  That is a long-winded and weak attempt to make an excuse for being the aggressor again. Israel chose the term "preemptive," not me. I am just highlighting the true definition of that term.
    1
  22.  @jasonsaenz8959  Words have definitions. I didn't choose the words to describe the aggressive acts.
    1
  23.  @jasonsaenz8959  If someone bombed Israel based on a claim Israel might do something and called it a pre-emptive strike, would you find the same excuse just as accept and defend the actions? Moral relativism is obvious. Hypocrisy.
    1
  24.  @jasonsaenz8959  Then why did Israel call it pre-emptive?
    1
  25.  @jasonsaenz8959  A clear pattern of violence, you say. Let's explore that line of thinking. Would it include something like decades of apartheid? .. just hypothetically speaking, of course. Would that justify a pre-emptive attack?
    1
  26.  @jasonsaenz8959  Let's speak about patterns of behaviour. The ICJ and ICC have recognised patterns of behaviour
    1
  27.  @jasonsaenz8959  That is being investigated. It is suspected that it has been operating as one, according to the UN. I am sure you have heard. That said, my hypothetical question stands. Would apartheid style oppression be justification for a pre-emptive strike?
    1
  28.  @jasonsaenz8959  Civil war doesn't preclude pre-emptive strikes. That is a bizarre thing to say. It's almost as if you are twisting yourself up trying to avoid answering. Why could that possibly be?
    1
  29.  @jasonsaenz8959  Flailing. So delicious
    1
  30.  @jasonsaenz8959  Oh, you know it makes sense. That is why you are avoiding it by failing. I will ask again, very plainly, so you don't need to ask what I mean... again. Would a hypothetical apartheid justify a pre-emptive strike against oppressors who show consistent violent aggression and repeat violent acts regularly?
    1
  31.  @jasonsaenz8959  Example? That isn't how hypothetical works. That's just transparent avoidance, again.
    1
  32.  @jasonsaenz8959  The internationally accepted definition of apartheid is described by the UN. It is publicly available and is considered basic common knowledge. It is the definition used by South Africa in their complaint raised at the UN against Israel. That definition.
    1
  33. Do you know what hypothetical means? You seem to be struggling with definitions. First, it was the definition of pre-emptive that you seemed to not fully grasp. Then, it was genocide that you needed defining. Now, you seem to not understand what the word hypothetical means, even as a basic concept.
    1
  34.  @jasonsaenz8959  If someone bombed Israel based on a claim Israel might do something and called it a pre-emptive strike, would you find the excuse acceptable and defend the actions?
    1
  35.  @jasonsaenz8959    If Jimmy beat me up on a few occasions during disagreements, it wouldn't be acceptable to jump them in an alley at a random point and call it pre-emptive. That is just boring old assault by an aggressor. I wouldn't be able to claim to be the victim. Claiming he beat me for no reason every week like clockwork would make me a liar.
    1