War

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 07, 2025, 09:29:46 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheLobster on October 07, 2025, 08:57:52 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 07, 2025, 06:39:36 AM

The culprits are what the media considers a protected class.  They weasel around calling a wolf a wolf because doing so would take away from their supposed victimhood and the narrative that they are trying to push.

Nothing in that article makes the man out to be a victim, what a ridiculous thing to say.

Clearly they are respecting the wishes of the woman who "declined to give details of the nature of their interaction" and doesn't want to call it what it is.  Whilst leaving us in no doubt of what went on.

If you think this is come "protected class" bullshit, then why have they even researched, written and published this article in the first place? The whole piece is about how local Palestinian men are using the dire situation to sexually exploit and rape women.

Quote

As Gaza’s humanitarian crisis grows, women say they have been exploited by local men — some associated with aid groups — promising food, money, water, supplies or work in exchange for sexual interactions

Quote

She said she’d met the man in Muwasi, a strip of land Israel designated a humanitarian zone. She described standing in line to get assistance and giving her phone number to an aid worker — a Palestinian in a uniform labeled UNRWA, or the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

Shortly after he took her number, the late-night calls began. He would ask sexual questions, she said, and she’d stay silent. She said that at one point, he asked to come to her, for sex. She refused, and after nearly a dozen calls but no aid, she blocked his number, she added.

Quote

Four of the women who spoke to AP said the men who solicited them identified themselves as aid workers, and, in one case, a community leader promising aid.

So, the entire thing is about Palestinian men exploiting women and yet in your head this is some kind liberal cover up of Palestinian bad behaviour.   Stuff you wouldn't even know about if it wasn't for the journalists researching and writing articles like this.  Absolutely bizarre.

If he was a rapist, then they should have called him that.  But they didn't because they would have to call a Palestinian a rapist, which is contrary to Palestinians being victims of a genocide.

This is an odd thing to say.
Are you saying bad people can't be victims of genocide?

No, but the news media rarely does.  Don't like that example, try George Floyd, or any number of people or groups of people that have been classed as victims.  They rarely ever shine a light that portrays them in the contrary.  The media will obfuscate to keep a narrative.

No, but the news media rarely does.  Don't like that example, try George Floyd, or any number of people or groups of people that have been classed as victims.  They rarely ever shine a light that portrays them in the contrary.  The media will obfuscate to keep a narrative.

George Floyd pointed a gun at the belly of a pregnant woman during a home invasion.

And by the merit of that crime is why the police officer used excessive force?

Are you saying that chauvin used the future fake 20$ opportunity to exact divine justice?

And by that one example allows extropolation to exonerste and hustify the 1st 4th 8th 14th ammendemnt rights of all dark skinned "suspects"?

And by the merit of that crime is why the police officer used excessive force?

Are you saying that chauvin used the future fake 20$ opportunity to exact divine justice?

And by that one example allows extropolation to exonerste and hustify the 1st 4th 8th 14th ammendemnt rights of all dark skinned "suspects"?

The circumstances of Floyd's death doesn't negate his extensive criminal behavior and activity, and that he swallowed a lethal dose of fent to hide it from the police.

Just like a Palestinian Aid worker who forced women to have sex is a rapist. 

The media's failure to call what it actually is because it breaks from their preferred narrative is what the problem is.

Nah guy
The "see he was bad!" is the justification to lump all indiscriminantly.

THEY us such reasoning that "Blm was bad and voids itself" because SOME people are criminals, regardless that the system treats ALL as criminals.
Systemic.
Its in the name.

So by saying Palestine voted for hamas and hamas did the bad thing then all palestine is justifiable to be punished.
Thats how the thinking goes.

An isolated incident of bad does not negate thst IDF is also doing bad.
Two things can simultaneously exist.
But only one is used to mutually include the other.

I saw a Rabbi say that he wanted every Palestinian dead to the last child, he said they were all future terrorists.

In a way, hes right, but he never stopped and considered that watching your parents get murdered might make you violent and seek revenge, he never considered that they might be turning people into terrorists.

There's a scene in Dragon Ball Z abridged (its a great show) where Freiza is talking about why he always kills the children of his enemies as well as his enemies, Freiza says that if he doesn't kill them they just grow up and try to take revenge.

Its pretty obvious it will happen. That's why Jesus spoke about breaking the cycle of violence, how it can end with you, how you dont have to retaliate just because someone hurts you. Its not an easy thing to do, nothing He asked us to do is easy but it's the only way forward.

The Jews have to forgive the Palestinians, and Hamas and show mercy, just as how their Messiah asked them to. An act of forgiveness and mercy can change peoples hearts.

Nah guy
The "see he was bad!" is the justification to lump all indiscriminantly.

Isn't it sort of the point that Floyd carried all the sins of the world on his shoulders?

Nah guy
The "see he was bad!" is the justification to lump all indiscriminantly.

THEY us such reasoning that "Blm was bad and voids itself" because SOME people are criminals, regardless that the system treats ALL as criminals.
Systemic.
Its in the name.

So by saying Palestine voted for hamas and hamas did the bad thing then all palestine is justifiable to be punished.
Thats how the thinking goes.

An isolated incident of bad does not negate thst IDF is also doing bad.
Two things can simultaneously exist.
But only one is used to mutually include the other.

Yes two things can exist simultaneously.  The point I'm making is that the media doesn't portray that, they only portray what maintains their narrative.  Which is why the media failed to call the Rape committed by the Palestinian Aid Worker as a Rape, but instead just called it a sexual encounter.

oh well that is blatant bias spin and is ridiculous.
i won't disagree with you on that.

i'm was more going along the lines that torvo is a POS.
because in another post he said ice had the right to reasonably detain people.
and that reasonable was "they fit a description".
and then roll that into floyd and justiticationyayadayada....

oh well that is blatant bias spin and is ridiculous.
i won't disagree with you on that.

i'm was more going along the lines that torvo is a POS.
because in another post he said ice had the right to reasonably detain people.
and that reasonable was "they fit a description".
and then roll that into floyd and justiticationyayadayada....

I won't say that there aren't circumstances where "fitting the description" does apply, simply because there are an infinite number of scenarios that could occur where it could apply; however, in the general sense I don't see ICE using "fit the description" as illegals come in all shapes, sizes, and colors.

I would likely question the reliability of such a claim. 

i agree - given enough sample size yes, anecdotally yes.
and it's easier when they don't have a voice
not all cops are bad.
but policy and quotas are policy and quotas.



https://abcnews.go.com/US/lawyer-us-born-citizen-detained-ice-disputes-interfering/story?id=126162608





point is
torvo is a fucktard and narative is narative.

There's a scene in Dragon Ball Z abridged (its a great show) where Freiza is talking about why he always kills the children of his enemies as well as his enemies, Freiza says that if he doesn't kill them they just grow up and try to take revenge.

The big difference there is Freiza was going around conquering innocent people.
Children who's parents are terrorists who are killed because they are terrorists have the option of recognising their parents are terrorists and disavowing them instead of becoming terrorists themselves to attack the people who rightly killed their parents.

The Jews have to forgive the Palestinians, and Hamas and show mercy, just as how their Messiah asked them to.

You mean the one who makes far more sense to be Satan asked them to? Certainly not their messiah.
And that would likely achieve nothing.
Islamic terrorism didn't arise because of people being mean to Muslims. It arose because of Islam being a terrorist religion with commands to conquer.

Showing mercy will just cause more harm to themselves. Especially as it would require basically every living Palestinian to grow old and die before they got peace.
It is like saying the allies should have just been nice and shown mercy to Hitler and let him conquer the world.

Quote from: disputeone on October 07, 2025, 04:00:32 PM

There's a scene in Dragon Ball Z abridged (its a great show) where Freiza is talking about why he always kills the children of his enemies as well as his enemies, Freiza says that if he doesn't kill them they just grow up and try to take revenge.

The big difference there is Freiza was going around conquering innocent people.
Children who's parents are terrorists who are killed because they are terrorists have the option of recognising their parents are terrorists and disavowing them instead of becoming terrorists themselves to attack the people who rightly killed their parents.

Quote from: disputeone on October 07, 2025, 04:00:32 PM

The Jews have to forgive the Palestinians, and Hamas and show mercy, just as how their Messiah asked them to.

You mean the one who makes far more sense to be Satan asked them to? Certainly not their messiah.
And that would likely achieve nothing.
Islamic terrorism didn't arise because of people being mean to Muslims. It arose because of Islam being a terrorist religion with commands to conquer.

Showing mercy will just cause more harm to themselves. Especially as it would require basically every living Palestinian to grow old and die before they got peace.
It is like saying the allies should have just been nice and shown mercy to Hitler and let him conquer the world.

No, it's "the allies should have showed mercy and not wiped out all Germans and Japanese"
Oh hey, that's exactly what happened. >_>

And must I remind you how Christianity also commands everyone to be converted or die?
See the literal fucking crusades (all of them) and the conquistadors.

And the current issue arose when a bunch of European leaders and America decided to take the ottoman empire, carve out a new country, and give it to Jews.  That's the entire source of the conflict: WW2 ended and we took a loser country and told people it now belongs to other people. 

Now, if I came to your town and said "I now own it and it's now the country of Dave" are you gonna be pissed and try to kill me or just sit back and take it?

No, it's "the allies should have showed mercy and not wiped out all Germans and Japanese"

No, it's really not.
As a reminder, they said this:
"That's why Jesus spoke about breaking the cycle of violence, how it can end with you, how you dont have to retaliate just because someone hurts you."

Unless you are suggesting all Germans and Japanese where committing violence and hurting the allies, it is nothing like what they suggested.
Especially not with the appeal to Jesus, which would implicitly include the classic phrase of turn the other cheek.

This would be showing mercy to the Hamas operatives that committed the acts of terror that kicked this latest fight.

And must I remind you how Christianity also commands everyone to be converted or die?

If your best argument is something else is complete and utter shit, then you have no real defence for what you are defending.
If you want to say Christianity is just as bad, go ahead, but that doesn't make it good.

But I also disagree. Where does Christianity actually command that?

And the current issue arose when a bunch of European leaders and America decided to take the ottoman empire, carve out a new country, and give it to Jews.

You mean a tiny fraction of the issue, which is ignoring the bigger picture.
That also includes ignoring how they contributed to the world wars.
Just look at how utterly ridiculous your claim is.
You want to focus on them losing the war, while ignoring that war, as if they were not aggressors in that war. A war that resulted in a large number of Jewish people being displaced.

You are quite literally ignoring a large part of what led to this, while falsely claiming that is the source.

And if you do really want to go back, what about before that? Even before the Islamic conquering. Even before Cyrus the Great. Even before the Neo-Assyrian Empire. How far back do you want to go?

Now, if I came to your town and said "I now own it and it's now the country of Dave" are you gonna be pissed and try to kill me or just sit back and take it?

Now try it more honestly, if I was actively participating in a war, picking the side that was trying to eradicate your race, and trying to conquer other countries; and you then beat me in that war and took my country.

That would be a more valid comparison.

Don't just ignore the parts you don't like that came before to start off with you pretending they started as victims.

If you want to do that, I will ignore everything that came before, and start with the attack on Israel from the Hamas operatives that kicked off the latest round of hostilities.
Where these terrorists kidnapped innocent people and held them hostage and did and are currently doing who knows what.
With the people of Gaza electing these terrorists.
And you are telling me I should feel sympathy for them? Why?

Quote from: Lorddave on October 08, 2025, 02:02:44 AM

No, it's "the allies should have showed mercy and not wiped out all Germans and Japanese"

No, it's really not.
As a reminder, they said this:
"That's why Jesus spoke about breaking the cycle of violence, how it can end with you, how you dont have to retaliate just because someone hurts you."

Unless you are suggesting all Germans and Japanese where committing violence and hurting the allies, it is nothing like what they suggested.
Especially not with the appeal to Jesus, which would implicitly include the classic phrase of turn the other cheek.

This would be showing mercy to the Hamas operatives that committed the acts of terror that kicked this latest fight.

And yet further down you say that everyone in the old Empire was guilty of supporting the war and thus deserved to lose land.  You also claim that everyone who votes in Hammad is guilty.  Yet you don't consider all Germans and Japanese, both of which supported their governments, to be guilty?  Why?

And must I remind you how Christianity also commands everyone to be converted or die?

If your best argument is something else is complete and utter shit, then you have no real defence for what you are defending.
If you want to say Christianity is just as bad, go ahead, but that doesn't make it good.

But I also disagree. Where does Christianity actually command that?
[/Quote]
It's the entire faith.
Praise Jesus or go to Hell.

The Bible is full of "repent your sins or die.".  The context is typically 'you won't have eternal life's but it's open to interpretation. 

The Quaran is more direct.

https://quran.com/al-baqarah/191-193

Kill them wherever you come upon them1 and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out. For persecution2 is far worse than killing. And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there. If they do so, then fight them—that is the reward of the disbelievers.
But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Fight against them ˹if they persecute you˺ until there is no more persecution, and ˹your˺ devotion will be to Allah ˹alone˺. If they stop ˹persecuting you˺, let there be no hostility except against the aggressors.

Literally told to fight if you're being persecuted but stop when they stop.

Of course, in case it's not clear, religious leaders don't have to follow the book and often tell their followers what they want.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 08, 2025, 02:02:44 AM

And the current issue arose when a bunch of European leaders and America decided to take the ottoman empire, carve out a new country, and give it to Jews.

You mean a tiny fraction of the issue, which is ignoring the bigger picture.
That also includes ignoring how they contributed to the world wars.
Just look at how utterly ridiculous your claim is.
You want to focus on them losing the war, while ignoring that war, as if they were not aggressors in that war. A war that resulted in a large number of Jewish people being displaced.

You are quite literally ignoring a large part of what led to this, while falsely claiming that is the source.

And if you do really want to go back, what about before that? Even before the Islamic conquering. Even before Cyrus the Great. Even before the Neo-Assyrian Empire. How far back do you want to go?

So why didn't they take Germany, which was the main agresser, and carve Israel out of that?  Hell, no one but the ones involved even knew what was happening to the Jews.  Not the German People.  Not the Allies.  No one.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 08, 2025, 02:02:44 AM

Now, if I came to your town and said "I now own it and it's now the country of Dave" are you gonna be pissed and try to kill me or just sit back and take it?

Now try it more honestly, if I was actively participating in a war, picking the side that was trying to eradicate your race, and trying to conquer other countries; and you then beat me in that war and took my country.

That would be a more valid comparison.

Don't just ignore the parts you don't like that came before to start off with you pretending they started as victims.

If you want to do that, I will ignore everything that came before, and start with the attack on Israel from the Hamas operatives that kicked off the latest round of hostilities.
Where these terrorists kidnapped innocent people and held them hostage and did and are currently doing who knows what.
With the people of Gaza electing these terrorists.
And you are telling me I should feel sympathy for them? Why?

As I said above:
You seem ok with not punishing the Germans and Japanese but ok with the ottoman empire?

I'm not justifying the terrorists, just understanding why people support them. 

The serenity of TFES has been upset.

And yet further down you say that everyone in the old Empire was guilty of supporting the war and thus deserved to lose land.  You also claim that everyone who votes in Hammad is guilty.  Yet you don't consider all Germans and Japanese, both of which supported their governments, to be guilty?  Why?

Firstly, not all Germans did. Plenty formed a resistance and fought against the Germans.

But these are really 2 separate issues.

One is the idea that Israel needs to show Mercy to those harming them.
The other is how much sympathy people should feel for those in the land supporting them.

It's the entire faith.
Praise Jesus or go to Hell.

So Christianity doesn't command that and instead has people suffer in the afterlife?
 

Literally told to fight if you're being persecuted but stop when they stop.

Did you even bother reading that?
It literally says to kill them wherever you come upon them.
It even makes it clear that they are not attacking to cause this reaction with the comparison to the mosque where you can only fight them if they fight you first.

You also have other more direct examples of calling for fighting people who aren't fighting you.
https://quran.com/at-tawbah/29
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor comply with what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth from among those who were given the Scripture,1 until they pay the tax,2 willingly submitting, fully humbled."
i.e. fight those who aren't Muslim until they submit.

So why didn't they take Germany, which was the main aggressor, and carve Israel out of that?

They did take Germany, and split it up between the east and west.
But that doesn't mean Israel had to be formed there.
You are now just trying to push the issue around, and could easily ask something similar for any other location "why here and not there"?

They lost the war, where they were on the side of the aggressors.
That's on them.

I also realised I got the war wrong, it was WWI, not WWII.

You seem ok with not punishing the Germans and Japanese but ok with the ottoman empire?

Again, they were punished.
The nation of Germany fell.
It was then split into East and West Germany. This includes losing the ability to self govern and instead being controlled by other powers until an eventual reunification.

Something similar can happen here, with the removal of any remnants of a Palestinian pseudo state, with the entire region becoming Israel and former Palestinians being allowed to live in Israel.

A 2 state solution almost certainly will not work, and instead just lead to more support of terrorists trying to wipe out the other state.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 08, 2025, 04:29:06 AM

And yet further down you say that everyone in the old Empire was guilty of supporting the war and thus deserved to lose land.  You also claim that everyone who votes in Hammad is guilty.  Yet you don't consider all Germans and Japanese, both of which supported their governments, to be guilty?  Why?

Firstly, not all Germans did. Plenty formed a resistance and fought against the Germans.

But these are really 2 separate issues.

One is the idea that Israel needs to show Mercy to those harming them.
The other is how much sympathy people should feel for those in the land supporting them.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 08, 2025, 04:29:06 AM

It's the entire faith.
Praise Jesus or go to Hell.

So Christianity doesn't command that and instead has people suffer in the afterlife?
 

Quote from: Lorddave on October 08, 2025, 04:29:06 AM

Literally told to fight if you're being persecuted but stop when they stop.

Did you even bother reading that?
It literally says to kill them wherever you come upon them.
It even makes it clear that they are not attacking to cause this reaction with the comparison to the mosque where you can only fight them if they fight you first.

You also have other more direct examples of calling for fighting people who aren't fighting you.
https://quran.com/at-tawbah/29
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor comply with what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth from among those who were given the Scripture,1 until they pay the tax,2 willingly submitting, fully humbled."
i.e. fight those who aren't Muslim until they submit.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 08, 2025, 04:29:06 AM

So why didn't they take Germany, which was the main aggressor, and carve Israel out of that?

They did take Germany, and split it up between the east and west.
But that doesn't mean Israel had to be formed there.
You are now just trying to push the issue around, and could easily ask something similar for any other location "why here and not there"?

They lost the war, where they were on the side of the aggressors.
That's on them.

I also realised I got the war wrong, it was WWI, not WWII.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 08, 2025, 04:29:06 AM

You seem ok with not punishing the Germans and Japanese but ok with the ottoman empire?

Again, they were punished.
The nation of Germany fell.
It was then split into East and West Germany. This includes losing the ability to self govern and instead being controlled by other powers until an eventual reunification.

Something similar can happen here, with the removal of any remnants of a Palestinian pseudo state, with the entire region becoming Israel and former Palestinians being allowed to live in Israel.

A 2 state solution almost certainly will not work, and instead just lead to more support of terrorists trying to wipe out the other state.

So basically Germany, which got all their land and self governance back, is punished enough but fuck those Arab guys who barely did anything in the war. Right?

How about a 0 state solution?  We just nuke the whole area and make it uninhabitable.  Can't fight over land you can't occupy. You know if the only solution that'll work is either genocide or total submission by everyone in the area to Israel.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 07, 2025, 12:41:20 PM

No, but the news media rarely does.  Don't like that example, try George Floyd, or any number of people or groups of people that have been classed as victims.  They rarely ever shine a light that portrays them in the contrary.  The media will obfuscate to keep a narrative.

George Floyd pointed a gun at the belly of a pregnant woman during a home invasion.

https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/george-floyd-criminal-past-4d71fd
Inaccurate, the woman wasn't pregnant when that invasion occured in 2007

Peace?

Still too early to celebrate, but seems to be a credible glimmer of hope now.

So basically Germany, which got all their land and self governance back, is punished enough but fuck those Arab guys who barely did anything in the war. Right?

While Germany was occupied, how many acts of terrorism did they commit?
While Palestine has been occupied, how many acts of terrorism have they committed?

How about a 0 state solution?  We just nuke the whole area and make it uninhabitable.

If you are happy with wiping out everyone, why not be happy with wiping out less?

Something similar can happen here, with the removal of any remnants of a Palestinian pseudo state, with the entire region becoming Israel and former Palestinians being allowed to live in Israel.

A 2 state solution almost certainly will not work, and instead just lead to more support of terrorists trying to wipe out the other state.

Hmmm.  So your solution to stopping two sides trying to wipe out the other state is to wipe out one of the states?

Quote from: Lorddave on October 08, 2025, 02:52:33 PM

So basically Germany, which got all their land and self governance back, is punished enough but fuck those Arab guys who barely did anything in the war. Right?

While Germany was occupied, how many acts of terrorism did they commit?

Alot.  Both East and West Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Germany

While Palestine has been occupied, how many acts of terrorism have they committed?

Also alot.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 08, 2025, 02:52:33 PM

How about a 0 state solution?  We just nuke the whole area and make it uninhabitable.

If you are happy with wiping out everyone, why not be happy with wiping out less?

Who says I'd kill anyone?
Forced evacuation, then dirty bomb the area so it's covered in radiation for 50 years.

Alot.  Both East and West Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Germany

If you have to list cases where a single individual stabs another single individual, I wouldn't say it is a lot of terrorist attacks.

Going through the entire table, there is a total of 139 deaths and 882 injuries, for a simple total of 1021

As a comparison, in the attack on the music festival, Palestinian terrorists murdered 378 people, and took 44 people hostage.
Just focusing on the murders, that one incident is already well above the total deaths for the list for Germany, and is more than 1/3 of the total number of deaths + injuries for Germany.

See how they pretty much aren't even remotely comparable?

Germany, after WWII, was relatively peaceful. It was mostly civilised. Yes, there was the cold war, but no significant outright aggression.
Conversely, Israel and Palestine have pretty much been fighting the entire time. Some times with buddies of Palestine helping out, like Egypt.

Who says I'd kill anyone?
Forced evacuation, then dirty bomb the area so it's covered in radiation for 50 years.

Same principle.
If you are fine with forcing them all out, why not just forcing out some? And why make the place uninhabitable?

Hmmm.  So your solution to stopping two sides trying to wipe out the other state is to wipe out one of the states?

Yes. Wipe out the state, not the people.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 09, 2025, 12:19:51 AM

Hmmm.  So your solution to stopping two sides trying to wipe out the other state is to wipe out one of the states?

Yes. Wipe out the state, not the people.

Same as the extremists on both sides of the conflict then.  Brilliant.

You know that even Hamas’ objective was to establish an Islamic state throughout the old Mandate Palestine?  And they gave up on that aim in the 2017 charter, in favour of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, presumably because of how hopeless the original plan was.

Wiping out the Israeli population was never the idea.

Wiping out the Israeli population was never the idea.

Riiiiiiiiggggghttttttttt...And their chants of "from the River to the Sea" only referred to what exactly?   The areas within the 1967 borders?

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 09, 2025, 04:20:26 AM

Wiping out the Israeli population was never the idea.

Riiiiiiiiggggghttttttttt...And their chants of "from the River to the Sea" only referred to what exactly?   The areas within the 1967 borders?

How does the rest of it go? 

I'll put what I'll say at the end up front: the Gaza problem cannot be solved without representatives of Israel, Egypt, Turkey and Palestine. The information we have is that these four gathered in Egypt and reached an agreement. In an hour or two this agreement will be voted on in the Knesset and, if approved, peace will be achieved.

One of the main reasons the problem hasn't been solved until now was Erdoğan categorically defining himself as anti‑Israel and refusing to hold talks with Israel. But in recent years, especially through contacts at the technocratic and military levels and also because of reciprocal promises made during his meeting with Trump, he now knows he must resolve this issue.

The truth is that the rules in Jerusalem and Gaza are still those set by the Turks. However, those rules have been manipulated and most are unusable. If they need to be updated, only the Turks can do it. Yes, this will sound strange to you, but the Turks are the only country in the region that both Israelis and Arabs can trust. Arabs do not even trust one another, but they trust the Turks more. The reason is that the Turks governed this geography with justice for more than 300 years. If the First World War hadn't happened, the territory from Syria to Morocco would probably still be under Turkish control. But the British needed oil. The single reason for all this blood and tears was that the British needed oil.

Anyway. Somehow this will be resolved.

I also want to talk about Jews committing massacres or killing children. Killing children, even infants, is a tradition in wars. Look, I'm not saying it's right, nor am I saying it's wrong, but it is a tradition. This is something all Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Iranians have done. There is no nation that hasn't done this. The logic is that children whose parents have been killed will later seek revenge. This situation perpetuates the generational war we call a blood feud. Killing children whose parents were killed eliminates that risk. The real genocide is the killing of the parents. Killing the children of parents who have been killed is, alongside the killing of the parents, either of the same magnitude or secondary. What I mean is, it is not more important than that.

Anyway. According to analyses, if Gaza and the West Bank were emptied, filling them again according to Israel's population growth would take more than 20 years. Therefore I personally do not believe in Israel's expansionist policies. There may be people who believe in that ideologically (Arzu Mevud, or Zion) — I mean, they exist, we know them, we already know who they are — but this is not a realistic project; it is entirely utopian or madness. There is no chance of it happening.

So, in short, there will be peace. If the Knesset approves this plan (in a few hours), it will very likely open the door to larger agreements and much broader cooperation, for both Israel and for Turkey and Egypt.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 09, 2025, 01:29:09 AM

Alot.  Both East and West Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Germany

If you have to list cases where a single individual stabs another single individual, I wouldn't say it is a lot of terrorist attacks.

Going through the entire table, there is a total of 139 deaths and 882 injuries, for a simple total of 1021

As a comparison, in the attack on the music festival, Palestinian terrorists murdered 378 people, and took 44 people hostage.
Just focusing on the murders, that one incident is already well above the total deaths for the list for Germany, and is more than 1/3 of the total number of deaths + injuries for Germany.

See how they pretty much aren't even remotely comparable?

Germany, after WWII, was relatively peaceful. It was mostly civilised. Yes, there was the cold war, but no significant outright aggression.
Conversely, Israel and Palestine have pretty much been fighting the entire time. Some times with buddies of Palestine helping out, like Egypt.

Also, East and West weren't trying to wipe eachother out but merge again. 
Also, the US has more deaths fromass shootings than that.  What's your point?  Is it ok if only a few dozen die but not if it's a few hundred?

Quote from: Lorddave on October 09, 2025, 01:29:09 AM

Who says I'd kill anyone?
Forced evacuation, then dirty bomb the area so it's covered in radiation for 50 years.

Same principle.
If you are fine with forcing them all out, why not just forcing out some? And why make the place uninhabitable?

Because then they'll still hate eachother.  It's like with children.  Two kids fight over the same toy and won't share: you take the toy.