Israel

[jusplay4fun]

Ralph keeps ignoring the MAIN points, that Hamas exists only to destroy Israel and to kill Jews.

Jews try to kill Hamas as they hide behind civilians. Keep on ignoring those basic facts, Ralph. Pathetic.

[saxitoxin]

Ralph keeps ignoring the MAIN points, that Hamas exists only to destroy Israel and to kill Jews.

Jews try to kill Hamas as they hide behind civilians. Keep on ignoring those basic facts, Ralph. Pathetic.

Four months before October 7 -



- you can only shoot so many 2 year-olds before their parents decide to shoot back.

[ConfederateSS]

Ralph keeps ignoring the MAIN points, that Hamas exists only to destroy Israel and to kill Jews.

Jews try to kill Hamas as they hide behind civilians. Keep on ignoring those basic facts, Ralph. Pathetic.

Four months before October 7 -



- you can only shoot so many 2 year-olds before their parents decide to shoot back.

------Now put up all the 2 year olds...Mothers pushing stollers, kids across The United States, shot by violence, caused by Drugs, Open Borders... Cartels... America has it's own killing fields...To worry about... Let's send more money to, Russia,Iran, Ukraine, Israel... ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[Pack Rat]

Ralph keeps ignoring the MAIN points, that Hamas exists only to destroy Israel and to kill Jews.

Jews try to kill Hamas as they hide behind civilians. Keep on ignoring those basic facts, Ralph. Pathetic.

Four months before October 7 -



- you can only shoot so many 2 year-olds before their parents decide to shoot back.

------Now put up all the 2 year olds...Mothers pushing stollers, kids across The United States, shot by violence, caused by Drugs, Open Borders... Cartels... America has it's own killing fields...To worry about... Let's send more money to, Russia,Iran, Ukraine, Israel... ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

Where do you get your hallucinating drugs from?

[saxitoxin]

Zionist Police raided an Old Yishuv neighborhood in Jerusalem and brutalized a 12 year-old Jewish boy for spitting on the flag of the Abaddonian monstrosity that is masquerading as the "Israel" of the Bible. Video of the thugs in action:

https://twitter.com/SZA_Now/status/1736819301259030765

The Old Yishuv are the original, real Jews of the Holy Land, as opposed to the ones from Brooklyn and Fort Lauderdale (descended from a group of Russians who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages) who arrived for the first time in the last 60 years to steal Palestinian land.

[Votanic]

Zionist Police raided an Old Yishuv neighborhood in Jerusalem and brutalized a 12 year-old Jewish boy for spitting on the flag of the Abaddonian monstrosity that is masquerading as the "Israel" of the Bible. Video of the thugs in action:

https://twitter.com/SZA_Now/status/1736819301259030765

The Old Yishuv are the original, real Jews of the Holy Land, as opposed to the ones from Brooklyn and Fort Lauderdale (descended from a group of Russians who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages) who arrived for the first time in the last 60 years to steal Palestinian land.

That video is so complex and ...peculiar. So Abaddonian the term the Yishuv use for secular Israel?
...and the Zionist/'false' Israel flag is the blue and white one with the star on it, right?

William Blake's illustration of Apollyon/Abaddon.

Apollyon is it's Greek name. In Hebrew, it is Abaddon.

[Dukasaur]

You keep talking 'round and 'round in circles.

Because every time I ask the same yes/no question you don't give a straight answer.

When the police engage in shootouts with criminals in the streets of any city, innocent people do sometimes get shot. Are you suggesting that the police everywhere should just throw up their hands and let criminal gangs rule the world?

What a bizarre analogy.

In the space of 2 months the IDF has killed 20,000 civilians including through bombing refugee camps, mosques, churches, hospitals and schools, as well as half of Gaza's civilian housing. Is that your idea of how security forces should go about their business?

Okay, smartass.

It's easy to criticize when you don't have to do the job.

Knowing you have limited time and limited resources, how would you go about destroying Hamas, knowing it's heavily entrenched in a densely-populated area, without harming any civilians?

[saxitoxin]

You keep talking 'round and 'round in circles.

Because every time I ask the same yes/no question you don't give a straight answer.

When the police engage in shootouts with criminals in the streets of any city, innocent people do sometimes get shot. Are you suggesting that the police everywhere should just throw up their hands and let criminal gangs rule the world?

What a bizarre analogy.

In the space of 2 months the IDF has killed 20,000 civilians including through bombing refugee camps, mosques, churches, hospitals and schools, as well as half of Gaza's civilian housing. Is that your idea of how security forces should go about their business?

Okay, smartass.

It's easy to criticize when you don't have to do the job.

Knowing you have limited time and limited resources, how would you go about destroying Hamas, knowing it's heavily entrenched in a densely-populated area, without harming any civilians?

Here's my plan:

• Step 1: Don't create Hamas in the first place.

Done.

[bigtoughralf]

Okay, smartass.

It's easy to criticize when you don't have to do the job.

Knowing you have limited time and limited resources, how would you go about destroying Hamas, knowing it's heavily entrenched in a densely-populated area, without harming any civilians?

Russia drops bombs on a handful of Ukrainian houses, killing one person. Duk: 'these are terror attacks'

Israel drops bombs on 45% of Gazan houses, killing 20,000 civilians. Duk: 'Israel's army are doing the best job they can with limited resources'.

[Dukasaur]

Okay, smartass.

It's easy to criticize when you don't have to do the job.

Knowing you have limited time and limited resources, how would you go about destroying Hamas, knowing it's heavily entrenched in a densely-populated area, without harming any civilians?

Russia drops bombs on a handful of Ukrainian houses, killing one person. Duk: 'these are terror attacks'

Israel drops bombs on 45% of Gazan houses, killing 20,000 civilians. Duk: 'Israel's army are doing the best job they can with limited resources'.

So, no real plan?

[Dukasaur]

Knowing you have limited time and limited resources, how would you go about destroying Hamas, knowing it's heavily entrenched in a densely-populated area, without harming any civilians?

Here's my plan:

• Step 1: Don't in the first place.

Done.

Agreed. Can I borrow your time machine? Just for the weekend...

[mookiemcgee]

Don't do it Saxi, he's going to kill your mom before you are born. I've already seen this movie

[Votanic]

Duk, you seem to pride yourself on being a 'realist'.

"Israel is there and nothing that can be done about it now".
...but of course, there are always 'things that can be done.
So if reality could/does/will change. Would you support that new reality equally?

Or conversely, are you a pseudo-realist?
One who really does have an ideological bias, and is just exploiting any favorable circumstances to extend his agenda?

The former must always be ready to flip his slice of bread, whenever the butter lands on the other side...
A task that is easy or exhausting depending on one's frame of mind.

The latter is just garden-variety smug and deceitful.
Gloat or cry. Play victor or victim. The dice/cards/wheel will decide.
'No telling who that it's naming...'

Considering species and the website, I suspect the latter.

[bigtoughralf]

Okay, smartass.

It's easy to criticize when you don't have to do the job.

Knowing you have limited time and limited resources, how would you go about destroying Hamas, knowing it's heavily entrenched in a densely-populated area, without harming any civilians?

Russia drops bombs on a handful of Ukrainian houses, killing one person. Duk: 'these are terror attacks'

Israel drops bombs on 45% of Gazan houses, killing 20,000 civilians. Duk: 'Israel's army are doing the best job they can with limited resources'.

So, no real plan?

So, no real answer?

Israel's ongoing invasion has caused Palestinian support for Hamas to triple compared to September of this year. Instead of bombing 2 million Gazan civilians into pulp maybe the Israeli government could try ending the ongoing illegal military occupation that provokes Hamas into attacking it in the first place, and just generally behaving like it doesn't want to exterminate every last Palestinian man, woman and child.

The Troubles in NI, anarachism in early 20th century Europe etc. Terrorism has never been addressed by trying to slaughter all the terrorists.

Your proposed master plan of 'Gazan toddlers are unavoidable collateral' is straight out of the US retard school of starting wars that last 20 years, make everyone hate the US, and end in US defeat.

[saxitoxin]

Knowing you have limited time and limited resources, how would you go about destroying Hamas, knowing it's heavily entrenched in a densely-populated area, without harming any civilians?

Here's my plan:

• Step 1: Don't create Hamas in the first place.

Done.

Agreed. Can I borrow your time machine? Just for the weekend...

If Israel made the mess, Israel bears responsibility for it, not the people of Gaza.

That means they need to conduct normalized policing operations; they identify a person who has broken a law over which Israeli courts have jurisdiction, they secure an arrest warrant, they send an IBP ground convoy into Gaza and attempt to arrest him using nothing more than small arms, batons, and capsicum spray. And the next of kin of any civilian killed in such an arrest operation will have to be paid reasonable monetary damages. If that's too expensive, or is insufficient to deter Hamas, or if Israel incurs massive, huge IBP casualties conducting these arrest operations, then too bad. Those are costs they'll just have to bear.

Their mess. Their problem. They don't get the luxury of the solution that's most comfortable or ideal for them.

[Votanic]

So, no real plan?

So, no real answer?

...but I'm sure another 1000 posts going around in self-serving circles will solve everything.

[mookiemcgee]

So, no real plan?

So, no real answer?

...but I'm sure another 1000 posts going around in self-serving circles will solve everything.

So, no circle jerk?

[Votanic]

So, no real plan?

So, no real answer?

...but I'm sure another 1000 posts going around in self-serving circles will solve everything.

So, no circle jerk?

More like a massive, but futile, all-encompassing one, imo.

[Dukasaur]

Duk, you seem to pride yourself on being a 'realist'.

"Israel is there and nothing that can be done about it now".
...but of course, there are always 'things that can be done.
So if reality could/does/will change. Would you support that new reality equally?

Or conversely, are you a pseudo-realist?
One who really does have an ideological bias, and is just exploiting any favorable circumstances to extend his agenda?

The former must always be ready to flip his slice of bread, whenever the butter lands on the other side...
A task that is easy or exhausting depending on one's frame of mind.

The latter is just garden-variety smug and deceitful.
Gloat or cry. Play victor or victim. The dice/cards/wheel will decide.
'No telling who that it's naming...'

Considering species and the website, I suspect the latter.

I find that interesting.

I think the traditional dichotomy of realism versus idealism is ultimately a false dichotomy.

There's no real conflict between having a clear view of what is and at the same time a vision of what should be. In fact, I think one should have both, and keep them relatively balanced. It's having one without the other that makes for a bad existence.

I think we all know what is the result of being too far to the idealist side -- what Murray Rothbard used to call 'Luftmensch', people's who's thoughts are so far in the clouds that they can't see the earth.

What is harder to see is the damage by those who are too obsessed with realism and unable to entertain any abstract ideals at all. So-called "natural law" conservatives, people who say things like "There will always be poverty, it's a fact of life," and use that as a justification to simply turn their back on the poor without any remorse.

[mookiemcgee]

So, no real plan?

So, no real answer?

...but I'm sure another 1000 posts going around in self-serving circles will solve everything.

So, no circle jerk?

More like a massive, but futile, all-encompassing one, imo.

This is the type of peace plan i can get behind! This or human centipede peace plan both seem promising

[Votanic]

So, no real plan?

So, no real answer?

...but I'm sure another 1000 posts going around in self-serving circles will solve everything.

So, no circle jerk?

More like a massive, but futile, all-encompassing one, imo.

This is the type of peace plan i can get behind! This or human centipede peace plan both seem promising

This sounds something along the lines of what Antonioni was thinking at Zabriskie Point.

The terrorists used to call it a 'Love-in'. Scary, huh?

[HitRed]

https://www.conservativescorner.com/natural-law/

Natural law conservatives won’t feed people?

“The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.”

[HitRed]

So, what is Natural Law? Natural Law is a philosophy that has its roots in antiquity, but achieved its zenith during the Middle Ages through the Dominican friar Thomas Aquinas. The American Founding Fathers based much of their political ideas on Natural Law, as reflected by their reverence for natural rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As the name implies Natural Law claims there is a natural order to the universe, specifically to human existence.

[Votanic]

So, what is Natural Law? Natural Law is a philosophy that has its roots in antiquity, but achieved its zenith during the Middle Ages through the Dominican friar Thomas Aquinas. The American Founding Fathers based much of their political ideas on Natural Law, as reflected by their reverence for natural rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As the name implies Natural Law claims there is a natural order to the universe, specifically to human existence.

There are many, many Natural Laws in theory... but only one, de facto.
Everyone has their own opinion on the former... and few or none so stoic as to not wish to evade the full enforcement of the latter.
Indeed, that is the true test between the two! If you fight Natural Law and win, it was only a fancy, ...but if you must submit, then you are facing the 'real deal'.

[jusplay4fun]

Duk, you seem to pride yourself on being a 'realist'.

"Israel is there and nothing that can be done about it now".
...but of course, there are always 'things that can be done.
So if reality could/does/will change. Would you support that new reality equally?

Or conversely, are you a pseudo-realist?
One who really does have an ideological bias, and is just exploiting any favorable circumstances to extend his agenda?

The former must always be ready to flip his slice of bread, whenever the butter lands on the other side...
A task that is easy or exhausting depending on one's frame of mind.

The latter is just garden-variety smug and deceitful.
Gloat or cry. Play victor or victim. The dice/cards/wheel will decide.
'No telling who that it's naming...'

Considering species and the website, I suspect the latter.

I find that interesting.

I think the traditional dichotomy of realism versus idealism is ultimately a false dichotomy.

There's no real conflict between having a clear view of what is and at the same time a vision of what should be. In fact, I think one should have both, and keep them relatively balanced. It's having one without the other that makes for a bad existence.

I think we all know what is the result of being too far to the idealist side -- what Murray Rothbard used to call 'Luftmensch', people's who's thoughts are so far in the clouds that they can't see the earth.

What is harder to see is the damage by those who are too obsessed with realism and unable to entertain any abstract ideals at all. So-called "natural law" conservatives, people who say things like "There will always be poverty, it's a fact of life," and use that as a justification to simply turn their back on the poor without any remorse.

We seems to be going off-topic, but I will continue venturing down this rabbit hole:

Natural law[1] (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a system of law based on a close observation of human nature, and based on values intrinsic to human nature that can be deduced and applied independently of positive law (the express enacted laws of a state or society).[2] According to the theory of law called jusnaturalism, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason."[3] Natural law theory can also refer to "theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality."[4]

In Western tradition, it was anticipated by the pre-Socratics, for example in their search for principles that governed the cosmos and human beings. The concept of natural law was documented in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle,[5] and was referred to in ancient Roman philosophy by Cicero. References to it are also to be found in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and were later expounded upon in the Middle Ages by Christian philosophers such as Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas. The School of Salamanca made notable contributions during the Renaissance.

Although the central ideas of natural law had been part of Christian thought since the Roman Empire, the foundation for natural law as a consistent system was laid by Aquinas, as he synthesised ideas from his predecessors and condensed them into his "Lex Naturalis" (lit. 'Natural law').[6] Aquinas argues that because human beings have reason, and because reason is a spark of the divine (see: image of God), all human lives are sacred and of infinite value compared to any other created object, meaning all humans are fundamentally equal and bestowed with an intrinsic basic set of rights that no human can remove.

Modern natural law theories took shape in the Age of Enlightenment, combining inspiration from Roman law, Christian scholastic philosophy, and contemporary concepts such as social contract theory. It was used in challenging the theory of the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government—and thus legal rights—in the form of classical republicanism. In the early decades of the 21st century, the concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights. Indeed, many philosophers, jurists and scholars use natural law synonymously with natural rights (Latin: ius naturale), or natural justice,[7] though others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[8]

Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, natural law has been claimed or attributed as a key component in the Act of Abjuration (1581) of the Netherlands, the Declaration of Independence (1776) of the United States, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) of France, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) of the United Nations, and the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) of the Council of Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law