Eiuol

This is unsubstantiated. Since this is a disagreement, you'd need to go a step further and cite a source. I can't find evidence to say you are wrong unless I know how you got information that's different than mine. I don't think there is any evidence that assimilation is as pervasive an issue as you suggest.
But then there is a racist claim as part of your reasoning. You say Third World culture is based on reason. That's fair. But how does that mean the immigrants who leave are a cause of that. They're -leaving- that country. The only way I see to suggest that immigrants from those countries worsen the US due to being from there. In other words, this reasoning is tribalistic (and such tribalism isn't tolerated for long 'round these parts). Your line on the Chinese is probably most racist of all.
Ok, pamphlets. This is a far cry from an attempt to invade.
Jurisdiction. It's a practical extent to which rights-protection is feasible. As long as the people in the jurisidiction respect rights (invading armies and rights-violating criminals aren't those) their rights out to be protected and defended. But my issue is that here you are saying Mexico is a narco-terrorist state based on apparently fears of how those Mexicans, will -of course- be parasites, criminals, or savages.
 

His "principle" is popularity. His position is always what is going to make him look "big".
 

Well, no. There is no evidence that there is any invasion of by criminals, thugs, or welfare parasites. That's just a Trump belief, not a fact. Invasion applies to warfare or coordinated attack. That some illegal immigrants commit crimes is not good evidence of an invasion. Besides, the proper role of government is to protect the rights of individuals. If invasion occurs, there needs to be evidence that those invaders are violating rights. It's not really defense without a plan to improve identifying threats.
This is what most of us would say here I suspect.

His Twitter account suggests otherwise.

How come you're talking in terms of the law? The question is framed to ask about ethics.

6 million is perfect. Not just an ideal solution, but a final solution.

Israel has been in a constant state of war with gaps of maybe only a few years. I can't think of examples of countries that are unable to defeat their enemies for such a long period of time. What more do you want me to say? You could try to blame Islamic fundamentalism as the only reason, but so many countries have even stopped that within their own borders (like in the Balkans) or stopped any further escalation of direct attacks (the US after 9/11). It's still an issue, but it's not a constant threat. 

1-4 is ad hoc without any particular organization besides a general attitude or culture of behavior. 5-10 are all by nature systematic things. If you want to get specific, your link talks about a cultural climate that genocide arises out of. 
My Lai massacre. This is as much a genocide as anything based on what you're saying. Killing anything that moves. And not just a few soldiers that did it. I mean, clearly we are distinguishing forms of barbarism, but I'm saying the word genocide has to be something direct and pervasive. To an extent all war is about 'us' versus 'them' since the vast majority of wars are unjustified. All unjustified wars are in some way racist. Of wars that are only partially justified, you will still find people who support the war for racist reasons. 
There seems to be a difference between starting a war with racist overtones, as opposed to merely exterminating. I mean, the founding charter of Hamas called for the extermination of Jews, not just the end of the Israeli state. If it was just the end of the Israeli state, that wouldn't be genocidal even though it would be still grounded in racism because of what Hamas thought about Jews. The extermination of Jews is genocidal, because that's not just seeking what they see as justice, or what they see as self-defense, but seeking out extermination in and of itself. 
 

But by that standard, there needs to be evidence that they are going through with the rest of the steps. There is a good case for all the way up to and including 3, but the rest of the steps indicate a systematic plan of action. Genocide still sounds like hyperbole; an improperly waged war may have racist overtones depending on who is defending it, but that doesn't then make the war a genocide. Vietnam was not a genocide for example, as bad as it was. In this case, there is justification for the war even if not justification for the way the war has been waged, which is different than genocides where literally the only violation was existing. 
Now you might argue that Israel manufactured the kidnappings, a sort of social engineering project, but then we are getting into territory like "did the CIA kill Kennedy?" If there is an equivalent to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, then you have a case to make. Otherwise, I think you are reaching. Give me documents, testimony, something stating intent. 
But I have to say, Israel killing three of its own is a catastrophic error, it indicates that Israel lacks competency. Lack of competency is different than genocidal intent, though.
Don't be like the people who say that since they found a few Nazis in the Ukrainian military, the Ukrainian military must be infested by Nazis. 

The more I think about it, the more evident it is that Israel has consistently failed at fighting it. Strictly on the pragmatic side, Israel sucks at fighting totalitarian Islam. Ideological failure if you ask me. I prefer Israel over Hamas, but I'd much rather something over both of them. An unequivocal defender of liberty, not someone just barely good enough. 
 

Nice deflection. I didn't say I didn't care, I only expressed the basic idea that just because somebody does something bad to you doesn't mean that everything you have ever done is therefore good. You seem to be reacting as if I said that Hamas and Israel are morally equivalent. Earlier I even said that I am more on the side of Israel morally speaking. Grames seems to portray Hamas and Israel as morally equivalent, in which case "not caring" makes sense, but I don't have a reason to think that the actions of Israel are equally as premised on religion as Hamas. 
You could call "Islamism" the Muslim form of Zionism. Judaism is a religion like any other. Some religions may be more totalitarian than others, but nationalism premised on a religion is still irrational and tends toward totalitarianism anyway. 
"Don't mind me, I'm going to forcibly place myself in the region where you live, then act like I've been here for 5000 years because it is my ancestral homeland." 
An important way to end the conflict is adopting principles of liberty explicitly, and addressing errors of the past that are still relevant today (70 years since the founding of Israel, it's not like I'm talking about something that happened 5000 years ago). 

Whatever Hamas does doesn't mean that Israel was retroactively justified in being founded on principles of Zionism. 
Got anything to back that up? I genuinely want to know what the estimates are. Any link would be enough.

I mean, am I wrong to say that Israel effectively occupies Gaza, albeit more like a siege than a direct military occupation like the West Bank? Even if there is an ostensive "government", Gaza doesn't have political autonomy anyway. That's my point, the only enemy is Hamas, not Gaza, and not Palestine because as you said, Palestine is not really even a thing. 
That makes sense, my concern is that Israel will just continue with military occupations as part of the methods for "total defeat". Occupations like that don't work, and it makes me doubt that the Israeli government cares much about liberty, even a little bit. 

Presumably, Dogland would launch a nuclear missile at SK in self-defense, killing millions of innocent Catlandians as collateral damage. The blood is on SK'S hands! If Dogland should not send a nuke, why are you saying that Dogland shouldn't defend itself!?

This is incorrect though, you shouldn't cease to respect their rights. You responded as if respecting their rights would mean you would have to forgo self-defense. I can see why you would think that SK meant some kind of self sacrificial action. So I posted to clarify. And then SK liked my post, suggesting that my added clarification was the correct interpretation. If you want to talk about what Rand thought, she has never spoken about anyone losing rights, not even people who have violated rights. 
A person may try to harm me in some way, but the fact that they want to harm does not itself mean they lose all rights whatsoever. You still can't initiate force against them. In the context of this discussion, Palestinians are not categorically without rights, and if any Palestinians want harm in some vague way doesn't give Israel free reign. Against Hamas, sure, since they explicitly call for the initiation of force for the sake of Islamic fundamentalism. 
It's a pretty good question actually. Since the claim is stated that any act of retaliation is justified, it makes sense to go to the extreme. Nuclear strike on one person, with millions of casualties of people who did nothing at all. That's absurd, so you would have to modify the original claim to be that there is some rational limit to what kind of collateral damage is justified.
It's pretty common that the reaction to reductio ad absurdum is "that conclusion is ridiculous, you're taking me out of context, that's not what I meant, your question is invalid because of how ridiculous it is!"   

You forgot to finish the sentence, where I say that it isn't a violation of their rights if you respond with self-defense. They aren't losing anything since you are not initiating force. It's not okay to respond with force because they lost their rights, what makes it okay is that you have the right to self-defense when somebody initiates force against you. 

Or more specifically, they still maintain their rights, but because they initiated force, it isn't a violation of their rights to respond with self-defense. For whatever reason, people supportive of individual rights like to argue that people "lose" their rights if they initiate force. But that's not true. And anyway, it's not as if Palestinians are equivalent to Hamas! 
 

Or more specifically, they still maintain their rights, but because they initiated force, it isn't a violation of their rights to respond with self-defense. For whatever reason, people supportive of individual rights like to argue that people "lose" their rights if they initiate force. But that's not true. And anyway, it's not as if Palestinians are equivalent to Hamas! 
 

Or more specifically, they still maintain their rights, but because they initiated force, it isn't a violation of their rights to respond with self-defense. For whatever reason, people supportive of individual rights like to argue that people "lose" their rights if they initiate force. But that's not true. And anyway, it's not as if Palestinians are equivalent to Hamas! 
 

There is a bit of a border with Egypt, but it is largely Israeli control But what you're saying here is even worse, because this is after the destruction of Hamas. I'm saying those kind of responses in the aftermath are bad, they produce more problems, and they are methods that stand against liberty. You should understand that my point is that Israel does not take consistent principled stands in favor of liberty, all it seems have ever done is respond to direct attacks but then completely fail to do anything to stop that from happening again. 
I guess he feels bad that he didn't rise up against the South African government back during apartheid. 

Because of this link at the bottom, I'm quite confident that this is AI generated content. The response is wildly generic.

No, it wasn't even a search for hints. It was pretty much so clear to me that it was as if they smacked me in the face. But, I decided to point out anyway exactly how to be skeptical of new sources, which you recommended that we do. I pointed out how quote splitting is a form of taking a quote out of context. People don't take quotes out of context for no reason. 
I mean, regardless of how brief it is, it is never appropriate to split quotes. Here's an example:
Speaking about the "Kremlin's brutal invasion" and why it is not  "included in an RT article", Tony considers how the "propaganda in this story" is written with "heavily edited and paraphrased" information.
I didn't edit your words, I didn't invent anything. I didn't even edit the verb tense. Notice that I didn't even use your scare quotes inappropriately - it's exactly as you wrote it. But with careful placement of words and where to split the quote, it makes it seem like you are suggesting something you never intended. 

It's like people forget that we have to extend analysis back 20 years if we want to talk about provocation. 
If NATO provoked Russia, Russia should attack NATO. But they attacked Ukraine with its own issues. If they refused a direct attack on NATO because it would be certain suicide, they would be acting as if the Ukraine was independent of NATO. If NATO provoked, the justified target is NATO. Of course, if the Ukraine is de facto a member of NATO, Ukraine would be a justified target as well. But that would be suicidal, because if the Ukraine were a de facto member, NATO would retaliate. Except, NATO didn't retaliate. So I would conclude that Russia didn't think it was suicidal, and did not consider the Ukraine a de facto member of NATO. 
In other words, if NATO provoked, Russia attacked the wrong country. 
But then you might say "they knew that NATO would try to remain noncommittal to give the illusion of innocence!" The simple explanation: NATO doesn't consider Ukraine a member in the first place, so why would it commit? 

This would be equivalent to saying all people living in Gaza are terrorists. I even mentioned terrorists in Gaza, as opposed to non-terrorists in Gaza. Curtailing the liberties of people who have not violated rights in order to stop the people who have violated rights is not a proper response. 
Restricting movements because of terrorism implies I'm talking about the people who are not terrorists. This might be more like restricting movement on the Mexico US border because of cartels in Mexico. It wouldn't be proper to limit the movement of all Mexicans across the US border as if presuming that they are all guilty until proven innocent. But the extent of Israeli control over their border with Gaza is far more expansive than that even. 
Take it as a given that I already agree that terrorists deserve to be annihilated - I'm disagreeing about specific methods. 

It's weird when people take "Israel should be able to defend itself" to mean that "Israel is justified in doing anything it wants in retaliation, and is justified in doing everything it has ever done". Palestine is not a nation. Palestine has no singular government. Palestine has no unified message. Indeed, Hamas is evil, and it should be obliterated by any means necessary, but it doesn't follow that therefore anyone near Hamas geographically needs to be under police control without even an apparent pathway to be allowed to be left alone. In other words, those means are not necessary. 
It's funny that he brought up "returning people to their ancestral homeland" to suggest that would be absurd, collectivistic, or stupid to argue in favor of, when the founding of Israel was about returning people to their ancestral homeland. Part of the whole issue surrounding the conflict is that this still needs to be resolved, it's not as if Israel was founded 1000 years ago.