Raze

https://www.girlschase.com/content/how-be-resilient-and-bounce-back-rejection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQGBDNdlU3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SdiL9XFKkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIsy_HSHkKo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovS27WQU5-g https://www.girlschase.com/article/flirtation-girl-useless-unless-you-move-things-forward https://www.girlschase.com/content/paradox-flirty-girl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwQcXggR0Jg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az41hkLie6I

I am not downplaying or denying the attack, I am posting sources that many specific claims do not have proof or have been debunked. If I’m wrong you can quote specifically which one is. I’m questioning it because many of the claims that many still take at face value have been disputed or still haven’t had proof presented, this is important because exaggerating war crimes has historically been used to justify greater military action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiRcvRRNPI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Afn0NLgByo

Reported for sourcing claims?

read the easy way to stop smoking cannabis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA_uvTTl208 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_dawQLA-mA https://www.shinzen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/art_urges.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3JLaF_4Tz8

Oct 7 false claims analysis part 1 One IDF commander in Kfar Aza and Be'eri claimed to an i24 News reporter that 40 babies had been killed, out of what one estimate described as at least 100 civilian victims source But, only two babies are known to have died as a result of that attack, one from a bullet, the other shortly after birth in a hospital source Zaka member Landua described finding a pregnant woman in Kibbutz Be’eri in a “big puddle of blood, face down.” “Her stomach was butchered open,” Landau said. “The baby that was connected to the cord was stabbed.” In Be’eri, he said, he also found a family who was tied up, tortured, and executed with a bullet to the back of the head: father, mother, and two small children around 6 or 7 years old. An eye was missing, fingers chopped off. Landau later told CNN, “The terrorists were having a ball,” with Palestinian militants devouring a holiday meal set out by the family. Landau broke down recounting the tale, as a CNN reporter comforted him. source however no proof was given of the butchered mother and fetus and Haaretz reporters conclude it didn’t happen source no one killed in Be’eri matches Landau’s account of the tortured family either, 12 year old twins died when in a house fired on by a idf tank source Landau was also the source of the beheaded children claim repeated by Joe Biden source however there is currently no evidence of it and the idf haven’t confirmed it , Landau now denies claiming he saw beheaded children The NYT reported a investigative report alleging hamas conducted mass rapes, the main example being Gal Abdush who it reported was raped and a video of her identified as “the woman in the black dress” went viral source however no such video exists and her family has stated she wasn’t raped

False, prior to oct 7 it was already the deadliest year for Palestinian children. 40% of Gazans were unemployed, many had malnutrition, and Israel wasn’t removing the blockade. Israel has lost many civilians and soldiers, hurt its economy, and damaged its national standing, this is not a good event for Israel either. You shouldn’t diminish their suffering to tout victory.

Just because something has motive, doesn’t mean it is justified. Hamas kidnapped Israeli’s because they wanted in part to get Israel to release their thousands of Palestinian prisoners, many held without charges. That doesn’t mean oct 7 was justified.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERap8i3qpCw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru4EX40al2A

The problem with theories like this that ascribe one or a few main traits to men or women is you can almost always make an equally good argument for the opposite. For example, here is an argument that women’s main wound is shame and men’s main wound is powerlessness: Enduring cultures throughout time shamed women from various forms of expression especially sexually to have societal control, now women can resent men as they project the feeling of shame coming from them, or they attack their own shamed aspects of themselves Men throughout history were treated like their only value was in how much “power” they have, because if you couldn’t protect and provide you are useless and wouldn’t attract women or be given status in society. So men who feel lacking in power lash out at society and women to try to regain some power to feel worthwhile.

True detective is an anthology series where each season is a stand alone mini series about detectives The first season was considered one of the best tv shows of all time, a extremely dark and gritty but interesting psychological / horror inspired detective mini series in only 8 episodes. the second and third season were more mixed. However the fourth season finished recently is being lauded by critics as potentially even better than the first. But strangely fans have a completely different reaction with many saying it’s actually the worst season. has anyone here watched it? What do you think, how do they compare? What is causing such a split reaction? if you haven’t I recommend watching at least season 1, but caution as it contains themes of sexual violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYp_hBqPbuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERap8i3qpCw

My point is falsifiable, if Russia loses in Ukraine or Russia wins in Ukraine than attacks NATO I will be wrong as I’ve said Russia will win and won’t attack NATO. Ukraine joining NATO would not make Europe safer as Russia would be more likely to now attack a NATO country with Ukraine and European countries would be obligated to declare war on them and attack.

Because it’s already happened dozens of times. Israel refuses to remove the blockade or settlers, Hamas feels their popularity threatened so they attack, Israel bombards them and Hamas recruits the orphans and they negotiate a cease fire to temporarily reduce some restrictions, repeat. Meanwhile we have examples of other extremist groups stopping when their concerns are taken seriously and they are given political solutions like the IRA. Even the PLO gave up violence thanks to the OSLO accords because they at least saw some possibility of a state.

I’m not dismissing it, I’m asking what it would take to falsify the theory. If you say Ukraine will win and Russia will attack NATO if Ukraine is out of the picture, but if Ukraine loses and Russia still doesn’t attack NATO that doesn’t disprove the claim, it’s an unfalsifiable claim and impossible to bring up counter arguments that you’ll entertain

So why weren’t any of these prior conflicts enough to serve that purpose and how do they know this current onslaught will? https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/israeli-palestinian-casualties-by-in-gaza-and-the-west-bank/

How is it necessary? -it is not necessary to save hostages, they’ve killed way more than they’ve saved -it is not necessary for defense, inside Gaza Hamas normally can’t do anything but send rockets which rarely hit the target, Oct 7 happened because they removed border security from Gaza to go to the West Bank and help settlers, also not necessary as settlers don’t need to be there -it is not necessary for future safety, just like with prior wars this just sows seeds for future violence and risks war with other groups like Hezbollah and Houthi’s.

You’re saying Ukraine is winning and the Ukraine war is necessary to stop Russia from attacking NATO. If Ukraine loses and they don’t attack NATO, that indeed means you were wrong as Ukraine wasn’t winning and what you claim was stopping Russia from attacking is gone. By this logic every country could be constantly attacking every other country because they “might one day attack them” and even if they don’t just say they still weren’t wrong because it might have happened. You can’t just start and support wars because on the off chance they might later attack someone else this will stop them. That also assumes the war weakens them, if Russia beats Ukraine they will potentially end up even stronger as it allows the government to consolidate power, have a larger military, and more resource access, meaning the Ukraine war actually made the potential for Russia attacking NATO worse.

If Ukraine loses and Russia does not attack NATO after that, will you admit your analysis was wrong?

Lately many on this forum have been saying looks is all or almost all that matters. But I saw this video, notice how he gets a almost 2x results improvement just from a personality shift

Putin already confirmed he is not planning on attacking NATO. The war is not “where NATO want it”, they thought it’d be over by now and running out of people in Ukraine with no sight of victory this war has made Russia stronger than ever, it now weathered the sanctions, is closer to China and Turkey, and has a massive military with more experience. we already had leaked emails from US gov officials admitting the entire Russian political establishment saw Ukraine joining NATO as a red line, Putin’s replacement will probably agree with his policy or be even more extreme. It could take 20 years for Putin to die, Ukraine won’t last 10 at this rate.

Who has better odds, someone with 5 numbers to call or 10?