Israel approves plan to seize all of Gaza

[SurferSoul]

And constitutionally, you have it backwards here, the first amendment rights are all DI's. They are the free press. They have a press corp and everything. And all media has a first amendment protection to say, post, and edit any way they want. Even user forums. With caveats for advocating criminality.

With caveats for advocating criminality? 

It’s sort of amusing how the criminals in power throughout the world fear crime. I suppose they have it to cosy in their super yachts and such, to much disorder would spoil their rackets. 

All war is crime. Having war crimes is therefore a joke. Calling it preemptive strikes, or defence is a piss take. Mutually assured distruction literally is mad, fucking mental! 

Is it really so impossible to sort out differences without resorting violence? Isn’t that what we are all taught? Yet when it comes to nations (which is nothing but a concept imagined by those that rule them) mass slaughter is all good and well. What’s it really about? It comes down to greed, the spoils of war. That’s why piss poor countries with little resources to be exploited are just ignored and don’t carpet bombed with democracy or any other ideological BS. 

Of course people will hate each other over their slightly different beliefs or some other small potatoes crap. Like I said in another post, total nutters.

[UltraBudgie]

With caveats for advocating criminality? 

It’s sort of amusing how the criminals in power throughout the world fear crime. I suppose they have it to cosy in their super yachts and such, to much disorder would spoil their rackets. 

All war is crime. Having war crimes is therefore a joke. Calling it preemptive strikes, or defence is a piss take. Mutually assured distruction literally is mad, fucking mental! 

Is it really so impossible to sort out differences without resorting violence? Isn’t that what we are all taught? Yet when it comes to nations (which is nothing but a concept imagined by those that rule them) mass slaughter is all good and well. What’s it really about? It comes down to greed, the spoils of war. That’s why piss poor countries with little resources to be exploited are just ignored and don’t carpet bombed with democracy or any other ideological BS. 

Of course people will hate each other over their slightly different beliefs or some other small potatoes crap. Like I said in another post, total nutters.

Yeah I suppose that's the "realpolitik" of it -- which I always figured to be a wink and nod to the idea of so-called democracy and the rule of law, sort of like "yeah that idealism is great for keeping the masses in line, but out here in the real world..." I mean, look at history. Did we somehow get over that?

Anyway.

So Egypt has a strong authoritarian government, from what my vast knowledge via Wikipedia says. I'm guessing the US has a hand in that. Current president has had his term extended multiple times, can be in power until 2030. Also, it's split into two bits, one in Africa and the other across the Suez, the Sinai Peninsula. That's the bit next to Gaza. Seems like that's going to get a lot of Palestinians. Probably Egypt has been cooperating with Israel because they didn't want that. So that reason is gone now? Will the Peninsula begin acting more, um, "autonomously"? If Israel really is expansionist, is that the next "front line"?

Ha I'm reminded of the adage "War is how Americans learn geography".

[FlyersFan]

All war is crime. 

Self defense is not a crime.
When invaded, a country has a right to fight back.
When threatened with destruction, a country has a right to stop their own obliteration. 
Israel has a right to self defense from the people of Gaza who continually attack it (and attack others).
USA has a right to self defense from Iran which has promised to destroy us.
etc etc
To do nothing and to just 'lay back and enjoy it' as they/we are destroyed is suicide ... and really dumb.

[SurferSoul]

The problem is that it’s so much more complicated than the propaganda being fed by the various news agencies. I knew defence would be brought up as moralistically exceptable,  it’s very hard to argue against that. The trouble is, in a history of violence upon violence it’s hard to say who is truly defending themselves and who is the aggressor. If you could look at humanity as purely an unbiased observer from another world, it would likely look like a tinder keg ready to explode at any moment. 

I might be naive or idealistic, but I tend to believe the majority of ordinary people wherever they are, of whatever culture or beliefs, don’t want violence. It seems to me that in a nut shell wars are only desired by the powerful as a means to further their power. Where as ordinary people, the cannon fodder, only go to fight primarily for their family, friends and their kin. (Their nation) They also believe by means of propaganda the enemy isn’t everyday people like them fighting for the same reasons, but some kind of evil that must be destroyed before it destroys them. 

That’s the problem with the whole bloody mess. If people on just one side refused to fight, sure they would initially be slaughtered, but the people doing the slaughtering would realise their so called enemy wasn’t really bad at all, they would then wonder why they were killing then at all and stop. Yeah if everyone did this the whole world would probably get taken over by some nasty tyrant and their lackeys, but then their would be no need for war, the tyrant would die, the lackeys kill each other in an attempt for power and people would then get on with their lives not living in fear, but acting like grown ups and resolve their disputes rationally. 

I realise that all sounds silly and like wishful thinking, that’s because I wrote it. But seriously if Ireland managed to gain peace again after hundreds of years of killing and violence, I don’t think it’s that far fetched at all. The only thing needed is the will to say no more enough is enough.

[SurferSoul]

To do nothing and to just 'lay back and enjoy it' as they/we are destroyed is suicide ... and really dumb.

It’s either stop fighting, or have it go on in perpetuity. It’s either wipe out every last one of the enemy including all their women and children. Or risk the chance that the enemy will wipe you out but stop fighting and hope they don’t. 

personally I would rather be wiped out than do the wiping out. 

As for suucide the soul/spirit/essence/energy whatever can’t be killed. Not now not ever.

[FlyersFan]

but the people doing the slaughtering would realise their so called enemy wasn’t really bad at all, they would then wonder why they were killing then at all and stop.

Islam says just the opposite .. they say if they could kill you so easily then were were just weak infidels and deserved to die.   The weakness of the dead people doesn't enlighten the killers, it emboldens them.   Same with Communist China.   Weakness and letting yourself be killed doesn't wake them up ... it gets their killer instinct pumping and they go for more.  Easy pickings.

[UltraBudgie]

Islam says just the opposite .. they say if they could kill you so easily then were were just weak infidels and deserved to die.   The weakness of the dead people doesn't enlighten the killers, it emboldens them.   Same with Communist China.   Weakness and letting yourself be killed doesn't wake them up ... it gets their killer instinct pumping and they go for more.  Easy pickings.

Well and it seems the Globalist NWO Silicon Valley Reptilian Leftist Snowflake Elite that programmed Chat GPT don't want you to think that way, hmm?

The statement you provided reflects a very specific and negative interpretation of Islam and its teachings, which does not accurately represent the beliefs of the majority of Muslims or the core tenets of the religion.

Islam, like many religions, teaches principles of compassion, justice, and the sanctity of life. The Quran and Hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) emphasize the importance of peace, mercy, and the protection of innocent life. The vast majority of Muslims around the world advocate for peaceful coexistence and reject violence and extremism.

It's important to recognize that interpretations of religious texts can vary widely, and extremist groups may distort religious teachings to justify their actions. However, these interpretations do not reflect the beliefs or practices of the broader Muslim community.

Discussions about religion and violence are complex and should be approached with care, understanding, and respect for the beliefs of others. Generalizations about any group can lead to misunderstanding and conflict.

Well be that as it may, another point is that both sides have put their secular quarrels on their frameworks of religious ideology, and both of those seem to have struggle and oppression built-in. Thus any "compromise" that is more than tactics is seen as fundamentally undermining self-identity and integrity. It sure is a sticky wicket!

Hey man, can't we all just get along?

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

With caveats for advocating criminality? 

 Meaning the website can't tell you to Jihad or advocate violence/incite terrorism. Threats of violence and even libel is not protected.

All war is crime. Having war crimes is therefore a joke. Calling it preemptive strikes, or defence is a piss take. Mutually assured distruction literally is mad, fucking mental!

But.... but.... The Book of Judges!

The Canaanites, Midianites, Philistines, and Ammonites were righteous Israelite victories, so sayeth the morality of the lord. The crime there was threatening the Israelites over their chosen land. Which was lost, and took until the Persians defeated the Baylonians to return to them.

My favorite book of Judges character sleeps with a Canaanite commander and then rams a tent spike through his skull. 

But she's a righteous heroine and revered character for killing that commander, and all because the kindred of tribe always outweighs the MANY MANY that seek to eliminate you.

And the book of Judges is apt to use for their upcoming offensive, because they are still The circa 980 BCE United Kingdom of Israel and not much has changed in 3000 years. Palestine was called Philista, but everyone around ancient Israel wanted them wiped off the map as much as today. 

Is it really so impossible to sort out differences without resorting violence? Isn’t that what we are all taught? Yet when it comes to nations (which is nothing but a concept imagined by those that rule them) mass slaughter is all good and well. What’s it really about? It comes down to greed, the spoils of war. That’s why piss poor countries with little resources to be exploited are just ignored and don’t carpet bombed with democracy or any other ideological BS.

Well, all societies are fake... We should be in tribes of 100 like the uncontacted people of the rainforest, but then we started farming and settling around water sources. Still, all tribes, no matter the size, go to war.
Even Frankie going to Hollywood couldn't convince people otherwise.

The real problem is we are territorial animals that need to piss the boundaries of our imaginary borders and fight over them.

But the things that change that are too Kumbaya and accepting of heathens and freaks. Diversivity, Equality, and Inclusion backfired spectacularly when it forced an accepting morality.

But the goal of the woke was ultimately to all hold hands and skip down a lane of unity, against war, against hate, and ultimately towards indifference or different things. 

So the bigger question is, in a world of morality judging and virtue signaling, how do you promote true indifference?

[FlyersFan]

Well and it seems the Globalist NWO Silicon Valley Reptilian Leftist Snowflake Elite that programmed Chat GPT don't want you to think that way, hmm?

That's exactly what the AI people are .... globalist demons.   
LIARS ... evil ... programming lemming people.
My statement about Islam is factual.
Rolling over and letting them kill you doesn't somehow 'enlighten' them.
It just emboldens them and makes them want to kill more 'weak infidels'.
That's the whole mission of Islam.

[SurferSoul]

A reply to UltraBudgie

Thus any "compromise" that is more than tactics is seen as fundamentally undermining self-identity and integrity.

You have come up with the solution! What needs to happen is that all sides make peace but for tactical reasons only, then for tactical reasons they begin negotiations release all hostages and look into possible solutions. For further tactical reasons they get rid of their leaders and decommission the weapons. All this of course is just a clever ploy, to trick the enemy.. well so they think, but after a long enough time things are going well and the tactical reasons strategy has brought prosperity and trade, things are starting to look ok again and cheer up. Money has been diverted to rebuilding lives and property. It’s agreed these tactics have worked extremely well, nobody has lost face and so these tactics are kept going indefinitely.