3 rockets fired into Israel from Gaza - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
By Falx
#1784150
What causes you to have such disrespect for Jewish lives?


Others disrespecting lives, this coming from you? Who regularly laughs and points at dead and dying "pallys" as the high point of humour?

Or is it just Israeli lives that need to be respected?
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1784208
It's just too easy for Israel to find excuses to torture Palestinians.

All the Israeli government (or the elite) is to pay someone to shoot a few rockets into south Israel.

This must cost a few thousand dollars.

Faking aggression in order to unleash the dogs has never been cheaper. Nor has taking human lives.
User avatar
By War Angel
#1784323
Others disrespecting lives, this coming from you? Who regularly laughs and points at dead and dying "pallys" as the high point of humour?


When did I ever do that? Though, it is kind of my humour... :D

Or is it just Israeli lives that need to be respected?

No, but it should be respected, nevertheless.
User avatar
By danholo
#1784462
sploop! wrote:I explained the parallel I was making. The Nazis staged a secret war against the civilian Jewish population because of their racist agenda. Israel stages a secret war against the civilian Palestinian population because of their racist agenda. The only real difference is that the Nazis did a better job of keeping the secret.


Do you also believe there are monsters in your closet?

If only half of what I am seeing is true, then Israel is one of the most potent of the forces for evil on the planet today. Unfortunately, I suspect what I am seeing is only half of what is there. Things are much, much worse than they seem. I'd like to go to Palestine and see for myself. Unfortunately the IDF storm-troopers don't allow visitors to the ghetto.


I have seen Palestinian, and Palestinian Israeli towns. Frankly, man, Arabs are either dead rich or on the bottom of the food chain, if they live in refugee camps. Honestly, you do not know the truth, and in your paranoia, you'll call Israelis evil, create some sort of "secret war" in your head. You are the one who believes in the Protocols - you are beyond help. You could never understand that there are good people here, you could never understand that people here want peace and continue on with their lives. What you see, is not the truth, I can't stress it more. I have no problems with Arabs myself, and they are citizens of Israel. Maybe that political advertisement I saw in Arabic, on Israeli TV, was just government propaganda?

Again, I have already answered this. They resist Israel's efforts to destroy them and steal their land. It is impossible to build when your country is under blockade and every effort made to improve the situation is only met with more land-theft and bullets and bombs. You don't need to call for the annihilation of the Palestinians, because Israel is already working on it. The best you can call for is a speeding up of the process. The lies of Israel are completely undercut by its actions.


Thanks to Israeli occupation, the Palestinian birth rate shot up, institutions for higher learning were built, and their economy improved considerably, only to crash after the Intifada. Palestinian literacy is among the highest in the Arab world and whatnot. You can always try to say what you think you see, but it's not the truth... I really don't understand how you honestly believe that Palestinians in Gaza cannot improve their lives, as Israel was hindering their every move, as if they were helpless babies who are absolved from any responsibility. They surely can build anything they want in Gaza but all of their resources have been directed towards the resistance. If they wanted to live, as an independent people, they'd stop crying for all that aid from the world and actually use that money for something to improve their lives, not destroy it. If Israel honestly was doing what you describe, there would be no Israel, because Israelis could never live with a reality you are trying to contoct in your head.

Because your version of history is a lie. The Jews came to Palestine with the express intention of creating an ethnically-pure state. That was the whole aim of the zionist project. And the Jews carried it out with a program of ethnic cleansing and massacre, leading to resistance from the people being purged. That's the real history.


The Jews had every right to immigrate to Palestine, create settlements, livelihood and homes. They had the blessing and right to do this by the very owner of the land itself. They worked with the Arabs and their mere existence drew Arabs in prospect of new jobs etc. Only after Israel's existence was threatened did the Jews start the purge, and that is history, yet Arabs still live in this country comprising about 20%, are wealthy and probably more educated then in the rest of the Arab world, and only a few advocate their "transfer". You make it sound like Palestinians live in shit and rubble - yes, some do, because refugee camps are shitholes (but who in their right mind will call a 60 year old town a "camp", anyway?) - but it's only half the story. Your seething hate is a product of painting Jews as pure evil, which says more about yourself then anything else. You must be one of the more hateful people in the world - how much do you hate Israelis and Israel? Honestly? I can honestly say though that you make my blood boil, (and I don't even know you and think you look like Burt Reynolds) especially after meeting some of the most kind people in the world, who are Israeli, only having to listen to a diatribe by a terrified person, who can't leave that Dark Place of his. You probably hate Israelis more then Israelis hate Arabs - and you don't even have a credible reason to do so.

Hey, War Angel, I'll probably come visit Haifa and we can go to the Arab quarter (forget the name, Wadi Nisnas?) and enjoy Arab hospitality and food just to spite this guy...? We can also go to Jaffa, or Abu Gosh. Shtachim are off limits, though. Then we can go visit a friend of a friend of mine, who I never met, who supposedly LOVES Israel and is AN ARAB (Christian).

At the end of the day, sploop!, I love you with all my heart and soul. If you ever decide to visit this part of the world, good luck, hate us more.

War Angel wrote:When did I ever do that? Though, it is kind of my humour...


I guess Jews are the only ones who'll laugh in the face of death...?
By sploop!
#1784489
That is Burt Reynolds...

You've replied by denying that what I see to be true is true. Which is your right, but hardly convincing. I can't decide if you are naive, or brainwashed, desperate to believe in a 'good' Israel, or part of the problem.
By SkyCore
#1784511
[Quote=WarAngel]We ended Cast Lead prematurely. We should renew it, and not stop until we're done. The elections are in 9 days, a right-wing government will be elected, and then we'll initiate in some good ol' arse-kicking.[/quote]


Is that because killing peeps in that region has proven to be a successful tool on conflict resolution?
User avatar
By War Angel
#1784546
Is that because killing peeps in that region has proven to be a successful tool on conflict resolution?

Violence is always effective at solving conflicts. It's just that in most places and with most people, talking and sorting things out peacefully is usually better, since, let's face it, few people actually want to die. In the Middle East, however, the main language is POWER and whomever has power over others and the ability to deal damage, makes the rules. Israel's main interest is to simply be left alone, but it must deal with completely uncompromising elements, which makes things... difficult.

So, yes, essentially - causing havoc and death are usually in Israel's best interests, as sad and terrible as that sounds, since the people it deals with understand only such language.
By SkyCore
#1784594
[Quote=WarAngel]Violence is always effective at solving conflicts. It's just that in most places and with most people, talking and sorting things out peacefully is usually better, since, let's face it, few people actually want to die. In the Middle East, however, the main language is POWER and whomever has power over others and the ability to deal damage, makes the rules. Israel's main interest is to simply be left alone, but it must deal with completely uncompromising elements, which makes things... difficult.So, yes, essentially - causing havoc and death are usually in Israel's best interests, as sad and terrible as that sounds, since the people it deals with understand only such language.[/quote]

Admittedly, I have not fully researched the issue (for the same reason I tend to avoid Global Warming...too damn hard to find a reliable source) but it appears neither side is innocent and from what I know of the issue anytime someone wholly blames Israel or Palestine then chances are they have not taken an unbiased position. I've been at a couple of lectures given by Zinn but again, too much bias.

Bottom line...if violence is such an effective problem solver then why does it seem like WW2 has never ended?
User avatar
By War Angel
#1784667
Admittedly, I have not fully researched the issue (for the same reason I tend to avoid Global Warming...too damn hard to find a reliable source) but it appears neither side is innocent and from what I know of the issue anytime someone wholly blames Israel or Palestine then chances are they have not taken an unbiased position. I've been at a couple of lectures given by Zinn but again, too much bias.

Absolutely. I do not claim to be neutral, though - I cannot be. I'm Israeli. :)

Bottom line...if violence is such an effective problem solver then why does it seem like WW2 has never ended?

I'm alive and fairly well (despite being quite Jewish), we're both speaking in English... I'd say WWII was a pretty clear victory for the Allies. It has ended quite abruptly - ask the Japanese.
By SkyCore
#1784796
[Quote=WarAngel]Absolutely. I do not claim to be neutral, though - I cannot be. I'm Israeli.[/quote]

That's a false dilemma because being an Israeli does not translate into an automatic prison of bias. Those walls are self constructed, brick by brick.


[Quote=WarAngel]I'm alive and fairly well (despite being quite Jewish), we're both speaking in English... I'd say WWII was a pretty clear victory for the Allies. It has ended quite abruptly - ask the Japanese.[/quote]


That first part looks like the anti-Semitic card being played full-tilt. Jews are not the only group on earth that faces cultural persecution and ethnic cleansing.

As for WW2 ending...Japan's surrender is not the same as WW2 ending. Of course on paper we have to play that game for the kiddies who live on mass media but take away the balloon parades and try to see it from the street level. The Cold War began before Japan surrendered, which led directly to the Korean and Vietnam Wars which in turn gave us a steady enemy until Gorbechev threw in the towel. That was just in Asia. In the Middle East the West has been fighting for control since WW1 which gives us a tactical explanation for the UN creating the borders of Israel. (Most peeps don't know how anti-Semitic the West was during the Holocaust). The Christian Right in the US took over the reigns on the Red Scare and fake support for Israel but it's easily the most anti-Semitic group from the States so by logical extension, WW2 has never really ended. We take lunch breaks long enough to have a cheesy parade and let some scholars sell some books but in the bigger picture the same violence being used to justify WW2 is being used today with no real results. We are still killing each other. Not good.

On a side note, that Niet quote almost looks like a self-fulfilled prophecy.
User avatar
By War Angel
#1784823
That's a false dilemma because being an Israeli does not translate into an automatic prison of bias. Those walls are self constructed, brick by brick.

I didn't say automatic, but it's natural. I'm the one getting pounded, I'm the one doing the pounding, I've got loved ones here... it's a personal experience. I cannot stay neutral - to be neutral is inhuman.

That first part looks like the anti-Semitic card being played full-tilt. Jews are not the only group on earth that faces cultural persecution and ethnic cleansing.

Hi, and welcome to Jewmour 101...

[...]...WW2 has never really ended... [...]

Of-course all conflicts are related - mankind has not ONCE ceased to fight. Everything is connected - but World War Two is a separated historic event, spanning 1939 to 1945. Before, after... a lot of shit, but not WWII. No matter though, this is a pointless argument. If you want to call the Vietnam war or the current conflict in the Middle East World War Two, be my guest. Call me Nancy, while yer at it. :D

We are still killing each other. Not good.

The way it's always been. Good or not... I don't know. Seems mostly natural, I'm sad to say.

On a side note, that Niet quote almost looks like a self-fulfilled prophecy.

How astute of you.
By SkyCore
#1785113
[Quote=WarAngel]I didn't say automatic, but it's natural. I'm the one getting pounded, I'm the one doing the pounding, I've got loved ones here... it's a personal experience. I cannot stay neutral - to be neutral is inhuman.[/quote]

Okay, being israeli doesn't translate into a natural prison of bias. Being pounded and doing the pounding are also insufficient reasons for active bias.

To be neutral would be inhuman but to be unbiased in seeking a solution would be a mature human.

[Quote=WarAngel]Of-course all conflicts are related - mankind has not ONCE ceased to fight. Everything is connected - but World War Two is a separated historic event, spanning 1939 to 1945. Before, after... a lot of shit, but not WWII. No matter though, this is a pointless argument. If you want to call the Vietnam war or the current conflict in the Middle East World War Two, be my guest. Call me Nancy, while yer at it.[/quote]

That's a cop-out reply because not all conflicts are related. Sure, the history books give a specific beginning and ending date for WW2 but that is why I suggested trying to look past the ticker tape for a few moments to see beyond the intoxicated and empty celebrations of "Victory."

[Quote=WarAngel]The way it's always been. Good or not... I don't know. Seems mostly natural, I'm sad to say.[/quote]

No, not even close. Taking a dump after eating too much is "natural." Killing each other is a learned behavior. The claim of it being "natural" is an attempt at abdicating both personal and social responsibilities for murder, be it by an active hand or an apathetic mouth. But hey, maybe the next can of whoop arse ya'll open up will somehow be different than the 256,000,745,005 cans that were opened before?
User avatar
By Tailz
#1785146
Hello SkyCore, welcome to the forum. The cold beer is in the fridge, the couch is comfy, make yourself at home.

I see your having trouble with the quote code, you need to put quotation marks around the persons name, like this:

Code: Select all[quote="User Name"]Text of user comment.[/quote]


Danholo wrote:Thanks to Israeli occupation, the Palestinian birth rate shot up, institutions for higher learning were built, and their economy improved considerably, only to crash after the Intifada. Palestinian literacy is among the highest in the Arab world and whatnot. You can always try to say what you think you see, but it's not the truth... I really don't understand how you honestly believe that Palestinians in Gaza cannot improve their lives, as Israel was hindering their every move, as if they were helpless babies who are absolved from any responsibility. They surely can build anything they want in Gaza but all of their resources have been directed towards the resistance. If they wanted to live, as an independent people, they'd stop crying for all that aid from the world and actually use that money for something to improve their lives, not destroy it. If Israel honestly was doing what you describe, there would be no Israel, because Israelis could never live with a reality you are trying to contoct in your head.

Oh come now Danholo, the conflict is a bit more complex than that. A little bit of column A and a little bit of column B – not all from column A as what you’re putting forwards. The reality of the conflict is a little bit between the story you provide and what sploop gives.

As much as we can not absolve the Palestinians from some of the responsibility of their predicament, we can nether deny the Israeli impact upon them ether (or rather the impact of Colonial Zionism, since many Israeli’s have gone to great lengths to help Palestinians). As much as the Palestinian desire to resist can be their own worst enemy, you can not sweep under the proverbial carpet the fact that Colonial Zionist elements covet the land their homes are built upon – and the impact that has in almost every Israeli political sphere.

The reality is that some Israeli’s are willing to live with the reality Sploop is concocting, while others are not – and it is that dichotomy of balance between those who wish to be ethical and moral towards humanity while remaining loyal to Zionism, grinds against those who see violence against Arabs as ethical and moral towards the Jewish people and Zionism.

Danholo wrote: The Jews had every right to immigrate to Palestine, create settlements, livelihood and homes.

Who grants this right?

I think that anyone has the right to immigrate and join any community around the globe. Thus in its basic essence, I see no problem with Jews immigrating to Palestine. But the error was the movement of Zionism coerced Jews to immigrate to Palestine with no intention of integrating into the already existing community – but immigrating with the express purpose of creating a separate racial, religious, and political body to become a separate state – which is what has happened. This would obviously lead towards conflict with the already existing host population.

Danholo wrote:They had the blessing and right to do this by the very owner of the land itself.

And whom was this? The Ottoman Turks, the British, or the Arab land owners themselves?

Or Abraham?

Danholo wrote:They worked with the Arabs and their mere existence drew Arabs in prospect of new jobs etc.

Again this is a very generalised overview of the early life of Jewish immigration. In a good number of circumstances this analysis pans out to be true; in other cases it is incorrect. After the initial waves of Zionist immigration and the founding of the Kibbutzs, which did employ Arab farm workers for a while, but phased out Arab workers in preference for Jewish farm hands who saw working the earth of Palestine as a form of religious cleansing while also helping to provide jobs to immigrant Zionists as a means towards populating a Jewish Palestine.

Danholo wrote:Only after Israel's existence was threatened did the Jews start the purge, and that is history,

This is inaccurate, certainly there was an attempt to clear various areas under Zionist control during/after the war of independence of its non-Jewish inhabitants – while culminated in some places with the destruction of vacated Arab villages (the ruins of which Benny Morris can still point out in interviews today). But was there an aim by the Zionist leadership to purge all of the Jewish controlled territory of its Arab inhabitants – this is debatable because of the Arab towns and inhabitants that were left unharmed and annexed into the new state of Israel.

As to action of this nature taking place only after Israel’s existence was threatened, again this is questionable as Arab and Zionist militias were active years before the Arab army of Liberation marched against Israel in 1948. In fact Jewish and Arab espionage was thriving under the very nose of the British before and during the Second World War. In one incident, the SOE training school “Narkover” situated on Mount Carmel overlooking Haifa – setup to train SOE agents for operations in Crete against the German and Italian occupation forces. Was raided by Jewish youth’s intent on stripping the armoury of weapons in order to outfit Haganah (reference; Crete, by Antony Beevor, page 252).

Danholo wrote: yet Arabs still live in this country comprising about 20%, are wealthy and probably more educated then in the rest of the Arab world, and only a few advocate their "transfer".

Yet those who advocate “transfer” are right wing members of the government, with right wing elements predicted to gain a greater share of seats at the next election.

But certainly, Arabs in Israel do seem to prosper in comparison to other Islamic states – but that is not to say there is no bigotry directed towards them ether.

I’ll not comment on the rest of your text as that just seems to be a mud slinging match with Sploop… and I was only interested in the history aspect of the discussion.
By SkyCore
#1785491
tailz wrote:I see your having trouble with the quote code, you need to put quotation marks around the persons name, like this:


Thanks for the welcome and the info on quoting.
User avatar
By War Angel
#1785559
Okay, being israeli doesn't translate into a natural prison of bias. Being pounded and doing the pounding are also insufficient reasons for active bias.


No, but it makes it extremely likely, especially if you're active. Yes, some Israelis are detached, but most aren't, and most people have an emotional response to violence against them.

To be neutral would be inhuman but to be unbiased in seeking a solution would be a mature human.

Seeking a solution != being unbiased. You can work things out even, or especially if you have an interest in the matter.

That's a cop-out reply because not all conflicts are related.

Chaos theory begs to differ. :D

but that is why I suggested trying to look past the ticker tape for a few moments to see beyond the intoxicated and empty celebrations of "Victory."

So, are you suggesting someone else won?

Killing each other is a learned behavior.

Is it? Animals kill. We kill - have been for millions of years. Conflict is in our very nature - it is inherent to us.

But hey, maybe the next can of whoop arse ya'll open up will somehow be different than the 256,000,745,005 cans that were opened before?

We're usually the ones handing out the cans. :)
By SkyCore
#1785685
WarAngel wrote:No, but it makes it extremely likely, especially if you're active. Yes, some Israelis are detached, but most aren't, and most people have an emotional response to violence against them.


Thank you. So now we see that bias is not natural it means people choose to be biased.

WarAngel wrote:Seeking a solution != being unbiased. You can work things out even, or especially if you have an interest in the matter.


At best that would be accidental and most likely not happen at all. If you have the equation "2+5+8+4+2+5+6+9+5+4+5+8+5+1+6+7+4+5+8 = ?" and are biased against "2" then you will not come up with the best solution because your bias would prevent the inclusion of a necessary component.

WarAngel wrote:Chaos theory begs to differ.


The bias against free will makes another appearance.

WarAngel wrote:So, are you suggesting someone else won?


Nobody won. Especially any of the dead men, womyn, and children. But more specifically I am saying since the war is still going on there can be no victory. War itself is an institution void of victors anyways. Once the bombs start falling everyone has lost.

WarAngel wrote:Conflict is in our very nature - it is inherent to us.


Whoa. That belongs in "Analogies-R-Not-Us." Conflict is natural but murdering due to conflict is a learned behavior. If murder is a natural response to conflict then how has the human species grown to 6 billion? Are most people unnaturally human?

WarAngel wrote:We're usually the ones handing out the cans.


Doesn't that kind of negate the victimology posited earlier?

WarAngel wrote:No, but it makes it extremely likely, especially if you're active. Yes, some Israelis are detached, but most aren't, and most people have an emotional response to violence against them.


That's a false dilemma because one doesn't need to be detached to removed as much bias as possible and I would argue it works the other way around. Imao, the bias reveals an underlying motivation at avoiding the best possible solution because the need for vengence and vindication overrides the desire for the conflict to end. Someone who truly wants the bloodshed to cease will understand bias delays the solution and creates an exponentially elusive path towards peace. An unbiased person will respect the lives lost thus far to the point of trying to prevent any more loss of life. A biased person does not respect the tragedy of murder which is what affords them the soap box position of claiming their support for murder is a solution. Some may mistake that for cognitive dissonance but it's more akin to pride, fear, anger, and pain working in harmony to keep the bias-prison guards on duty 24/7.
User avatar
By War Angel
#1785899
Thank you. So now we see that bias is not natural it means people choose to be biased.

It's a NATURAL choice. :D

At best that would be accidental and most likely not happen at all. If you have the equation "2+5+8+4+2+5+6+9+5+4+5+8+5+1+6+7+4+5+8 = ?" and are biased against "2" then you will not come up with the best solution because your bias would prevent the inclusion of a necessary component.

This is not math - there's more than one solution. Ideally, I'd want whatever solution to be closest to my interests as possible.

The bias against free will makes another appearance.

Is my humour really lost on you? :*(

Nobody won.

A Total War, like WWII was, is a zero-sum game. If my enemy did not win\lost, I have won. The Nazis and the Japanese did not win - they did not fully achieve their objectives. The Allies had few goals, but self-preservation, so they won, since we're all still here.

Once the bombs start falling everyone has lost.

Don't tell me you're a pacifist... :roll:

Conflict is natural but murdering due to conflict is a learned behavior.

Then how must conflict end, if both sides are unwilling to talk? In a lawful environment, there are systems and regulations.. but countries do not usually follow any law, but their own. If they are threatened, they act, and acting often leads to killing. It is natural - I would also kill in many situations, were I not bound by law. I cannot legally kill someone who has, for example, threatened or harmed a family member. Ideally, that person would die.

If murder is a natural response to conflict then how has the human species grown to 6 billion? Are most people unnaturally human?

We reproduce faster than we kill. Also, we often live in close-knit, loving environments, where most people are more inclined to protect each other, than kill each other.

Doesn't that kind of negate the victimology posited earlier?

What are you talking about? :eh:

Imao, the bias reveals an underlying motivation at avoiding the best possible solution

'Best possible solution' for whom? I have MY solution, and you would not like it, but it is the BEST for me. This is a subjective matter.

Someone who truly wants the bloodshed to cease will understand bias delays the solution and creates an exponentially elusive path towards peace.

That would show clear bias for the weaker side.

Some may mistake that for cognitive dissonance but it's more akin to pride, fear, anger, and pain working in harmony to keep the bias-prison guards on duty 24/7.

Aye, as it should be. Detaching one's self is, in my opinion, folly.
By SkyCore
#1786318
WarAngel wrote:It's a NATURAL choice.



That's a contradiction because if something is natural it is not a choice. But let's go with your usage because it still concludes an active choice and that was my point.


WarAngel wrote:This is not math - there's more than one solution. Ideally, I'd want whatever solution to be closest to my interests as possible.


Math often has more than one solution so I don't see how the analogy fails. However, I can respect the honesty of outspoken selfishness even if I don't condone such a philosophy.


WarAngel wrote:A Total War, like WWII was, is a zero-sum game. If my enemy did not win\lost, I have won. The Nazis and the Japanese did not win - they did not fully achieve their objectives. The Allies had few goals, but self-preservation, so they won, since we're all still here.


Again, that's looking at it through rigid paperwork. It misses important nuances such as addressing Russia was never an Ally and that Pearl Harbor wasn't a surprise attack. The West was not some innocent bystander who swooped in to save the day. It helped create the German and Japanese Empires, profited nicely from both before, during, and after the official end.


WarAngel wrote:Don't tell me you're a pacifist.


Okay, I won't tell you I am a pacifist.



WarAngel wrote:Then how must conflict end, if both sides are unwilling to talk? In a lawful environment, there are systems and regulations.. but countries do not usually follow any law, but their own. If they are threatened, they act, and acting often leads to killing. It is natural - I would also kill in many situations, were I not bound by law. I cannot legally kill someone who has, for example, threatened or harmed a family member. Ideally, that person would die.


Doesn't matter how the conflict would end. You claimed murder is a "natural" institution so please explain how humans have grown to a population of over 6 billion? If murder is "natural" how could we be so prolific as a species?


WarAngel wrote:We reproduce faster than we kill. Also, we often live in close-knit, loving environments, where most people are more inclined to protect each other, than kill each other.


It takes approximately 12 years to create a human capable of murder...out of 6 billion how many will have committed murder? (Answer doesn't matter)

You claimed murder is a natural phenemenon for humans so how is it environments are more inclined to be loving? Wouldn't that negate your claim murder is natural? Doesn't it look like it's more natural to protect versus murder?


WarAngel wrote:'Best possible solution' for whom? I have MY solution, and you would not like it, but it is the BEST for me. This is a subjective matter.



For all parties involved. Doesn't the "my solution for me" philosophy promulgate conflict?


WarAngel wrote:That would show clear bias for the weaker side.


I totally disagree. It's easy to be selfish and doesn't require any strength at all. Real courage and strength are not measure by what can be done for self, but for all involved. Sacrifice is strength and avoiding sacrifice is weak.

WarAngel wrote:Aye, as it should be. Detaching one's self is, in my opinion, folly.



I never suggested detachment and was arguing for the opposite. One doesn't need detachment to be selfless.
User avatar
By Bosnjak
#1786384
Israel denies Its Prison-Camp (Gaza) Trade, it allows only UN-Goods to enter Gaza, like a guard give its prisoners only water and bread, this means an economizid against the Population.

The Population of Gaza says that the Hamas should continue to fire until the borders are open.
User avatar
By Tailz
#1786415
War Angel wrote:Is it? Animals kill. We kill - have been for millions of years. Conflict is in our very nature - it is inherent to us.

Murder verses a survival instinct to feed. We are one of the only species on the planet that kills outside of the necessity of survival or hunting instincts.

Even then, such does not admonish a thinking being of the act of murder.

The case was only "fabricated" in the[…]

European countries have a criminal code provision[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Biden, look at Sweden's bravery. They make decisio[…]

That would likely make Estonia a specific target […]