zazen

Baffles me too: https://x.com/ireallyhateyou/status/1978579570333757891?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ

A good way to think of it at a systems level is that the US is like a landlord of an entire town with blocks of apartments (our global system). Most tenants are grateful for the infrastructure, institutions, laws and policing provided. But this landlord also abuses his position: raising rent on tenants he dislikes (sanctions), entering their apartments without permission (interventions), and sometimes taking their belongings (resources or regime change). Because he’s the only landlord in town, his power becomes monopolistic - if he evicts you, you’re homeless (locked out the global system). Meanwhile, Russia is one of the tenants. It’s frustrated by how the landlord treats certain tenants better than others and fears that the landlord’s agents (NATO) are moving closer to them - who they have a bad history with. Russia’s neighbour apartment is their cousin Ukraine who is offering to split rent and room share with NATO. On one level - Russia feels insecure for having a hostile neighbour, but on another level feels betrayed by family - adding vodka to the wound. What was a cold calculated security issue now becomes a personalised one only heightening the tensions. Russia decides to pre-emptively turn this familial neighbours place uninhabitable for NATO and make their cousin Ukraine think twice about hosting them. Russia even goes as far as to extend their apartment into Ukraine and claim they used to be one penthouse but only split recently with a wall partition. Obviously this is wrong - because if every tenant started smashing walls for “security” or making historical claims over other apartments for having lived in them before - the whole bloc and town would fall into chaos. Russia can be understood, yet not excused. The landlord’s arrogance, selective enforcement of rules and total monopoly created the very insecurity that made the tenant act out - however unjustly and brutally. The lesson is: The landlord (US) maintains order but abuses its position within it - corroding trust through hypocrisy. The tenant (Russia) violates rules out of fear and a sense of betrayal adding insult to injury. The rest of the tenants (Global South) - just want a building / town where security and monopoly power isn’t abused. One of the wealthier tenants (China) starts building a town next door alongside other irritated tenants (BRICS) who’d like to attain some bargaining power and hedge against the current landlord. The current landlord (US), his agents (NATO) and most of his loyalist tenants who had preferential rates (Western bloc) oppose and feel threatened by this new development - as if enough residents left their town for the new one, their assets would depreciate in value, and their power along with it. Check out John Mearsheimer speak on the changing order in the first 13min of this talk to make sense of it even more:

Found this interesting: Chat GPT ''1. Russia’s campaign in Ukraine is militarily brutal, but not indiscriminately exterminatory For the scale of ordnance dropped, the civilian-to-combatant ratio in Ukraine is unusually low by modern-war standards. The UN’s verified toll (~14k civilian deaths in 2½ years) is tragic, but tiny compared with Iraq (hundreds of thousands) or Gaza (tens of thousands in one year). That suggests targeting discipline and geographic concentration: Russia mostly strikes power grids, transport nodes, and front-line towns, not mass city centers. There have been war crimes and cluster munitions, but not a strategy of annihilating the civilian base. In short: strategic terror is not the doctrine—coercion through attrition is. 2. The West’s recent wars (Iraq, Libya, Gaza through its ally Israel) show a pattern of systemic civilian entanglement The U.S. and Israel rely heavily on aerial dominance and shock-and-awe destruction meant to paralyze governance structures. These are designed to quickly degrade the enemy’s capacity by collapsing its civil infrastructure—electric grids, ministries, hospitals—on the theory that it forces surrender. That doctrine maximizes short-term control but produces staggering collateral damage. It’s less about battlefield victory and more about “break the system to remake it.” So in Iraq and Gaza you see industrial-scale civilian harm because the target is the entire ecosystem that sustains resistance, not just the military formations. 3. Ukraine’s war looks like industrial positional warfare, not counter-insurgency or urban pacification It resembles World War-style fighting between organized armies with clear front lines. Civilians are mostly casualties of proximity, not deliberate policy. That’s why the toll, while horrifying, is orders of magnitude lower per month of combat. 4. What it tells us about military ethics and doctrine today Russia fights conventionally, trying to compel through exhaustion and infrastructure pressure rather than extermination. It shows a Cold-War-era “strategic warfare” mindset. The U.S./Israel model treats wars as social-engineering exercises—obliterate the opponent’s civil order, then reconstruct on your terms. It’s a neoliberal form of total war, fought through airstrikes, blockades, and sanctions rather than front lines. The result: Ukraine’s civilian death ratio looks like a 20th-century war, while Iraq and Gaza look like 21st-century imperial policing, where civilians are the battlespace. 5. The moral inversion this exposes It’s darkly ironic that the side most accused of barbarism (Russia) shows more restraint toward civilian populations than the powers that justify their wars as humanitarian. It suggests that Western warfare has evolved toward maximum precision in rhetoric, maximum destruction in effect—a kind of technocratic savagery that hides behind the language of democracy and defense. In essence: Russia wages war against armies. The West and Israel wage war against systems—and systems are made of people. That difference in doctrine explains why the body counts look the way they do, and why modern moral narratives about “civilized warfare” ring increasingly hollow.'' _________ I pushed back saying that the lower civilian death toll can be attributed to the successful evacuations done early and bunker systems from the soviet era that prevented a higher number - and that it can't all be pinned on Russia showing restraint via their operations. This was the response: ''1. Evacuation and sheltering clearly saved many lives Without evacuation corridors, bunkers, and early-warning systems, Ukraine’s civilian deaths would easily have been several times higher. Missiles and artillery have hit apartment blocks, markets, and infrastructure — if those targets were fully populated, the toll could have reached hundreds of thousands, not tens of thousands. So yes, civil defense infrastructure and mass displacement explain much of the gap. 2. But that alone doesn’t explain the entire difference Even accounting for evacuations, the pattern and intensity of Russian strikes are far less indiscriminate than in Iraq or Gaza. Russia has not flattened entire cities for symbolic punishment, like the U.S. did in Fallujah or Israel did in Gaza City. Russian bombardment typically follows front-line movement, not the total leveling of civilian centers behind enemy lines. The ratio of civilian to military casualties remains relatively low — a hallmark of targeted, positional warfare, not total warfare. If Russia were aiming to maximize civilian terror, it has the capacity — it simply hasn’t chosen to do so on that scale. 3. Compare the doctrinal mindset Iraq 2003: “Shock and awe” sought psychological collapse by destroying command, power, and urban infrastructure all at once — civilians were structurally baked into the target set. Gaza: Israel’s “mow the lawn” logic treats the entire territory as a combat zone. Ukraine: Russia aims to degrade capacity and exhaust the state, not erase the population or seize cities through firestorming. So even if Ukraine had been more trapped — no shelters, no evacuation — the likely death toll would have been far higher, but still below Iraq’s million-scale catastrophe, because Russia’s campaign isn’t built around mass annihilation of civilians. 4. A fair conclusion Evacuation and bunkers dramatically reduced deaths. Russian targeting doctrine (for all its brutality) still shows a preference for infrastructure and military nodes, not terror-level carpet bombing. Combine the two, and you get Ukraine’s relatively low civilian toll compared to Iraq or Gaza. So, yes — had those protective measures not existed, civilian deaths might have been closer to Iraq’s verified range (hundreds of thousands), but probably not approaching its total collapse scale. The evidence suggests both strategic restraint and defensive preparedness played crucial, complementary roles.''

Second hand embarrassment lol Arnaud is awesome. Here’s another recent tweet about the Dutch company seizing Chinese assets: https://x.com/rnaudbertrand/status/1978085002584662448?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ “This is an extraordinarily dumb thing for Europe to do: the Dutch government is quite literally stealing a leading Chinese semiconductors company, at least its international operations. They're probably acting in coordination with Washington since it was simultaneous to Trump's new "50% rule" that added all subsidiaries of companies on the U.S. "Entity List" to the list (which is the case of Wingtech Technology, Nexperia's Chinese parent company). I'm not even exaggerating on the "stealing" bit: they suspended the Chinese CEO from his position, appointed a non-Chinese director on the board with decisive voting rights and expropriated the company's shares by placing them under management by a third-party trustee. All under a law called the "Goods Availability Act" (government.nl/latest/news/20…), which is an emergency wartime legislation designed for things like the requisition of bread or fuel during a foreign invasion. It makes absolutely zero sense in this case: last I checked Holland wasn't being invaded, and Nexperia is operating normally, with chips flowing to European customers exactly as they always have. It's so dumb in so many respects. First of all this obviously kills the investment climate in Europe: go convince any non-Western country to invest in Europe now, when they know their investment can be seized from one day to the next on the flimsiest of pretexts. It invites retaliation from China, which is almost systematic. I wouldn't want to be a Dutch company with Chinese operations right now... It undermines Europe's own semiconductor strategy. Nexperia is one of the all-too-rare successful EU semiconductor companies, headquartered in Holland with 14,000 employees worldwide. Destabilizing it isn't exactly smart... Last but not least, it sends yet again the message of a EU with zero strategic autonomy since, again, this was simultaneous with new US rules that affected Nexperia.” Tweet 2: “Interestingly, now that we have more information, the best angle to understand what happened with Nexperia is as an economic proxy war between the U.S. and China, with Europe - as is often the case these days - as the battleground (and therefore the main victim). As per confirmation from court filings (x.com/FT/status/1978…), it's now clear that the Dutch moved to seize Nexperia because they were told by the U.S. that if they didn't do so the company would end up on the Entity List and would therefore be basically killed by extraterritorial U.S. sanctions. Which would have been a heavy blow for the Dutch economy because, despite being owned by a Chinese company, Nexperia is headquartered in Holland and employs over 10,000 people in Europe. And now China's response to the Dutch seizing Nexperia (x.com/Sino_Market/st…) is to deploy their own economic weapon against the company: the company has been banned from Chinese supply chains, which is also pretty much a death warrant for such a business. So in effect it was a "tails I lose, heads... I lose too" situation for Europe: no matter the response - be it from US financial weaponry or Chinese supply chain weapons - Nexperia would basically be on death row. Which again illustrates the tragic strategic situation European leaders have put the continent in through decades of terrible choices. There's that saying: "if you're not at the table, you're on the menu"... well in Europe and Nexperia's case it's even worse than this, Nexperia is not being eaten by either side: it's being destroyed to prevent the other from having it. Europe doesn't even get the consolation of getting eaten: they're simply simply collateral damage, crushed like a powerless bug without a second thought about it.”

As I was saying: They will get hostages back and continue it seems, under any pre-text or reason. Jared Kushner's Art of the Deal logic is: Get to a yes first, and hash out the details later. Well, those details include Bibi and his far right coalition he depends on flopping the entire peace process and handling Trumps temper tantrum at making him look bad as a minor inconvenience in fulfilling their true aims.

@BlueOak Too many comments that our discussion just gets lost. I'm acknowledging nature exists, but adding in that context shapes how that nature / power manifests itself. For example as you've said - smaller powers don't war as much when larger powers keep them in check - that's acknowledgment that the context / structure they exist within is affecting how they behave, how their nature is being expressed. Nature is the base or starting point, not the end point which is shaped by the context. Power imbalances affect behavior - but why do some power imbalances produce stability (US-Canada, EU internally) while others produce war (NATO-Russia, Israel-Palestine)? The answer isn't simply because humans are humans or nature is nature (all the same). It's because of how power is structured and whether security concerns are addressed. We nurture nature towards better ends to live in a civil-ised world. NATO members don't war with each other despite massive militaries because they're inside a cooperative security framework. NATO vs Russia wars because there's NO framework that addresses Russian security concerns. Russia / Putin called for that after the fall of the USSR but it wasn't taken seriously despite Western analysts themselves blaring about the consequences of crossing red lines and provocation. Rejecting Putin's calls and warnings was due to the arrogance of being atop of the current world order which gives no incentive of considering others in. Your Cold War point shows how structure shaped outcomes. Mutually assured destruction, arms control treaties, hotlines / back channels, institutional frameworks - made war irrational despite massive militarization and ideological hatred. The system channeled behavior toward managed competition instead of annihilation. Militarism without sound security architecture creates issues. It's not inevitable that having or increasing military leads to war. China has one of the largest and hasn't yet used it to the degree the US has. If militarism lead to war then we'd see war all over the world as every country has a military. By that logic London should break away from other areas of England because it has a disproportionate economic and political power compared to the rest. This naturally occures in countries because capital cities concentrate power and money. Looks like UK will breakup (with Scotland) before Russia: https://youtu.be/0u9owvUbY_Y?si=-mewvHBAoloLkrbf&t=2 Israel got its hostages in the past via negotiations with Hamas. Hamas also came to the current negotiated peace deal with Trump and co. Peace is possible if we don't view nature or the psychology of actors as inevitable. It's fine to have stage green values and think about the planet, but it needs to be prioritized correctly. Security and geopolitics needs to be accounted for before those - because without security their won't be future generations to begin with, or they will be left in a economically weaker position due to less competitiveness against Chinese industry who places sovereignty and power at the forefront whilst simultaneously aiming towards sustainability in the long run. We can't complain about others (BRICS) rising and outcompeting the West otherwise. A quote from a youtube analyst regarding the recent rare earth situation: ''This is how we find ourselves in the predicament that we have created. It's easy to blame the Chinese. But our own system chased profit margins. It then supports profit margins and celebrates profit margins and that you'll only ever get it if you can deliver the cheapest product. While enforcing emission standards and reductions that are optical only because the emissions haven't reduced. It's just getting made elsewhere instead of right here. So we can bang on a drum and wear a bloody hippie outfit. But the excessive red tape has meant that these businesses can't do anything in a lot of these states.'' I didn't mean dismantling influence, but increasing it via a equitable approach that beats what Russia/China have to offer. The spectrum is influence, intervention then imperialism. The current relationship between the West and ''the rest'' is tilted towards intervention/imperial (especially the CFA Franc system).

Looks like Boris Johnson pocketed some cash for the Ukraine war to keep going: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/10/the-1m-man-why-did-boris-johnson-take-his-donor-to-ukraine Quite a bit of Western taxpayer money is going to private hands instead of to the war: https://unn.ua/en/news/woman-tried-to-smuggle-almost-a-million-dollars-in-cash-out-of-ukraine-under-the-hood-of-a-car Massive increase in the amount of Ukrainian plated luxury cars and Yatchs on the Mediterranean. My friend who's based in South of France has also noted the influx of Ukrainians flashing cash in places like Monaco etc. Not only is Europe paying for a pathetic war (that could have been avoided or settled through negotiations) killing 100's of thousands but is simultaneously being siphoned lol. Europe suffers greatly - higher energy costs, de-industrialization or non-competitive industry on the global market, and extra burden of cost burdening a already struggling social welfare system with warfare spending the US has forced the EU to spend on.

His The Prophet is also in English and is amazing - https://www.kahlilgibran.com/images/The Prophet Ebook by Kahlil Gibran.pdf ''You shall not fold your wings that you may pass through doors, nor bend your heads that they strike not against a ceiling, nor fear to breathe lest walls should crack and fall down. You shall not dwell in tombs made by the dead for the living. And though of magnificence and splendour, your house shall not hold your secret nor shelter your longing. For that which is boundless in you abides in the mansion of the sky, whose door is the morning mist, and whose windows are the songs and the silences of night.''

Vibe killer no lol A welcome end to the killing but not sure if latter phases will be implemented or things will fall through - many logistical issues which can easily be used as a excuse to continue operations ie Hamas not yet fully dis-armed. Just takes one spoiler of a rocket or shot fired / false flagged to kick things off. Also - nothing fixed at the root cause ie occupation / Palestinian statehood. Even if they acknowledge this path as leading to Palestinian statehood - I don’t see one being established in West Bank due to settlers who are armed and hard line + the security risk a “armed” Palestinian state poses from that vantage point overlooking Tel Aviv. Would they even agree to a disarmed state? If so, how is it even implemented? Third party peace keepers. But settlers are still there requiring IDF protection ie de facto occupation. So we’re simply left with Gaza to be a state if it ever comes to it. Also - Defense Minister Israel Katz tweeted: https://x.com/israel_katz/status/1977253298580160601?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ “Israel’s great challenge after the phase of returning the hostages will be the destruction of all of Hamas’s terror tunnels in Gaza, directly by the IDF and through the international mechanism to be established under the leadership and supervision of the United States. This is the primary significance of implementing the agreed-upon principle of demilitarizing Gaza and neutralizing Hamas of its weapons. I have instructed the IDF to prepare for carrying out the mission.” Ie back to business after hostages retrieved and a temporary break to ease global pressure / anger.

But you didn’t answer why, what’s the common denominator in the places you mentioned? We went over the conditions that gave rise to radical Islam in Nigeria in the form of Boko Haram, who originate from the less developed North of Nigeria. Why do some Muslims get extreme and others don’t? Because of their environmental conditions making them distort the religion in such a way for their own social, political or ideological ends. Poverty, grievances, lack of education or hope, foreign interventions, occupation in Palestines case etc. You can take the most lovey dovey sounding book by some hippie guru and twist it to extremist ends if the correct environmental conditions are in place. You could have stage green eco terrorists burning down capitalist cities to save Gaia and bring a stage green revolution. The point is to fight extremism and terrorism you have to tackle it at the level of environmental conditions - conditions like occupying a people and keeping them starless. Bombing campaigns don’t and haven’t worked as seen from the “war on terror”.

It all kicked off from this earlier in the week: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/eleven-pakistan-paramilitary-troops-killed-ambush-by-islamist-militants-sources-2025-10-08/ At the same time Afghanistans Taliban visited India to bolster ties which isn’t the best of optics: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8exzzz5dp5o.amp That’s not to say there’s coordination - just that India’s hostility towards Pakistan may sway Taliban to act differently, sandwiching Pakistan from the other end by getting involved in covert ops. India army chief was just sabre rattling last week against Pakistan questioning its existence on the map : https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/will-erase-from-map-wont-exercise-restraint-army-chief-warns-pakistan-9389206/amp/1 The group who did the initial attack are distinct form Taliban but are a Pakistani that are offshoot ideaologically similar called TTP (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan). They operate cross border between Afg-Pk which is porous and go into hiding on the other side when the military clamps down to find them in hideouts etc. Not easy to handle as this becomes guerrilla territory. There’s more fighting tonight across the border line but hard to tell who’s involved as the Taliban Gov are now responding to Pakistans strikes within their territory, which was supposedly aimed at TTP leaders/members in theirs. What a mess.

@Breakingthewall Don't forget to answer the question. Maybe you've been busy enjoying the nude beaches of Spain thanking god for not living under Hamas Islamists who'd never allow it on the beaches of Gaza - where Israeli bombs shred kids instead. Or maybe you can't admit your positions are incoherent lol

Technically correct as it hasn't been designated as genocide as yet - only a plausible one. But according to the ICJ's rulings all countries are obligated to put a end to and not be complicit in any way as to turn what is a plausible genocide into a actual one..when its too late. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-18/debates/C5900243-EC83-4C59-BABA-F3EDEE9D8E60/MilitaryCo-OperationWithIsrael ''Our military co-operation extends beyond arms sales; it is operational, especially when it comes to using our airbase in Akrotiri, Cyprus. In one year alone, from December 2023 to November 2024, the UK conducted 645 surveillance and recon missions, which amounts to almost two flights a day. Interestingly, during the same period, the US moved heavy transport aircraft carrying military equipment to Akrotiri, and the RAF subsequently conducted daily cargo flights from Akrotiri to Tel Aviv. We have been told that those flights were for surveillance and hostage rescue, but if that is the case, we must ask why we used RAF Atlas C1 aircraft, which are large enough to transport military vehicles and helicopters.'' https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/07/uks-surveillance-flights-over-gaza-raise-questions-on-help-for-israeli-military

@Karmadhi We all know the double standard is downstream from power. Question becomes how to manage power. Laws mean nothing if they can’t be enforced. Power, or the perception and threat of it is the ultimate back stop. The abstractness of laws and principles need the realness of power and the material world to be enforced. If the force of larger nations stops smaller nations from constantly fighting, the issue is then how to stop those larger nations themselves fighting each other? Only diplomacy and proper security architecture. We must nurture (govern, manage) nature (survival pressures, power dynamics) towards better ends : “civil-isation”. Ukraine and Israel are the macro and micro example of a security dilemma playing out horribly wrong due to a mismanagement of power dynamics (Ukraine) or abuse of power itself (Israel). Ukraine is a proxy between larger nations (macro) - Russia and the Western bloc, particularly the US, Trojan horsing itself through NATO. Israel is a smaller nation (micro) fighting not even a nation but a people (natives) who are denied one. In both cases - we haven’t nurtured conditions for nature to exist peacefully - within a security architecture. In Israels case, we haven’t even got to the stage of having another state to negotiate a security architecture with. And in both cases - the underlying issue is Western arrogance getting in the way of diplomacy. Because exceptionalism and arrogance don’t recognise the others concerns as legitimate, or even their existence in the case of Palestine. The wider structural reason for this arrogance is due to the current ''rules-based order'' and their dominant place in it - which bakes in arrogance and impunity as a byproduct of that position. Can ants ever keep an elephant in check? The problem with a single hegemon is it can abuse its power without consequence. With two elephants at least they can keep the other in check from crushing the ants - unless their diplomacy breaks down and the ants get crushed amidst their fighting anyway. This is the current systemic and structural problem we have. The lone and all mighty elephant (US) became arrogant and abused its power (giving impunity to Israel - one example among many) and didn’t take any other elephants security concerns seriously (Russia). Now they’re fighting crushing the ants (Ukraine). You can’t and will never erase power dynamics or survival pressures - only manage them. That requires humility and not arrogance - which unfortunately being a unipolar hegemon provides plenty of by sitting atop the system. *** As for setting dangerous precendents which both Russia and the US have done, I asked AI about it: Russia’s precedent: Localized and acute. One regional power invading a neighbor over security concerns with civilizational-nationalist rhetoric. Dangerous for that region. Sets a precedent others might follow. U.S. precedent: Global and chronic. The hegemon operating with total impunity, dismissing everyone’s security concerns, proving international law means nothing. Dangerous for the entire system. Makes all future conflicts more likely. Russia broke a specific rule (don’t invade and annex neighbors) in a specific place. The U.S. broke the meta-rule (that powerful states should be constrained by law) everywhere and at all times. One threatens Ukraine, Georgia, maybe Moldova. The other threatens the entire framework that’s supposed to prevent great power conflict. It’s one thing to set a dangerous precedent that’s localised and acute (Russia invading its proximate neighbour Ukraine). It’s another to hold no others red lines or security concerns as legitimate at a global level - which is global and chaotic (US hegemony).

Even so, why did they rebel, what were they rebelling against - colonialism correct? Are they stupid for rebelling against colonialism, according to your own logic? You don't seem to understand that no one willingly wants to be colonized, but when they are and become extreme in their ways - you then gaslight and use that as a excuse to keep colonizing them. I pin you down to the floor, you scratch my eye, I point at your aggression as evidence for why I must continue to pin you down. That’s the circular logic your using, rather than the logic of perhaps I shouldn’t pin you down in the first place. Why don't other Muslims elsewhere teach their kids those extremist views? You shared a video praising the Indonesian president for his moderate stance - and they take Islam very very seriously over there. Even more than some other Muslim countries which are much more liberal like Turkey or Lebanon. So why are they moderate compared to Hamas - why is it that Hamas are extreme? It must be because of the environmental conditions they are in that started due to settler colonialism and persist till today as occupation. Duhhhhhhh. Oh look, another Muslim country's ex-prime minister speaking on peace and not being a extremist Muslims - again, I wonder why? What causes some Muslims to become extreme Islamists and not others - perhaps because of conditions they are placed in by larger powers more powerful than them which impose such conditions. Conditions that you keep trying to justify rather than facing your wrong about - you still haven't eaten your humble pie.

Most people aren't justifying extremism or terrorism - their understanding the root cause and conditions that give rise to it to prevent it in the first place. That root cause is something you overlook or justify yourself as ''benevolent colonialism''. You keep moving the goalposts after your arguments get shutdown. - First it was that Muslims are stupid and violent in general. We de-bunked that by bringing you information of past relations in the region which have largely been peaceful and that got ruptured with the introduction of Zionism to the region. - Then, you said Muslim countries should be open to recognizing Israel like the Indonesian president said in the video you shared - which was conditional on Palestinian recognition and statehood. Information was provided to you that the ''OIC, or Organisation of Islamic Cooperation - a intergovernmental organization of 57 member states that serves as the collective voice of the Muslim world'' hold this exact view. - You've now moved the goalpost to Palestinians in particular (rather than Muslims in general) who have built their identity solely around hatred and exist for it. That's like saying the Jews built their entire identity around hatred for their persecution - but that's not their entire identity. If your environmental conditions oppress you are you supposed to simply not react to that? I could say the entire South American continent built their identity on hatred when they wanted to de-colonize from Spanish and Portuguese colonization. They don't exist to hate, they hate the conditions their in and the ones who place them in those conditions. Your trying to essentialize their identity as being one of hate which is just bigoted and disregarding of their conditions which you are doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify. - You then got presented information from prominent Zionists themselves who have pointed to them colonizing the Palestinians and that any people (civilized or not, developed or not) would resists this. This isn't indicative of some internal defect of those people (Palestinians) which is your bigoted worldview. - I've used Spain as a parallel analogy so that you may empathize or at lease understand the Palestinian situation as a Spaniard yourself - but you just deflect, evade, justify the injustice, or miss the forest for the tree's entirely. You can't teach arrogance - what you need is a humble pie to admit your framing of the situation and your worldview about Muslims isn't true. Extremism and Islamists do exist - but you conflate and universalize that then base your analysis on it. Their are make shift schools teaching kids extreme views in Gaza - but you exaggerate that to say the entirety of Gaza is like that - then use that to justify Israel's actions.

China has ended the uni-polar world order of Pax-Americana. As I said - the US don't hold the cards.

Out of all the people in the world she got it lol. A country the US wants to regime change and is flirting with invading off the pretext of “don’t take drugs kids”. Yup, lines up perfectly.

@Breakingthewall In the very words of a prominent Zionist, who understands something so basic that you don’t - which is that any native people resist colonisation instead of bending the knees, or in your case getting on your knees lool I boldened the end bit: “Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today.'' Meaning - they are not neutral about the demographics of Arabs existing within their Jewish state but wish to re-balance and socially engineer the state to be majority Jewish and economically and strategically ruled in favour of them. And you say Zionism has been the best thing to happen to the Middle East. Wisen up your bigoted self for your own sake. @Twentyfirst He seems to be advocating for colonialism with liberal-progressive characteristics. Quite profound and paradigm shifting. He’s a progressive colonialist.

Looks innocent on the surface but can have major implications “A Tomahawk missile is dual-use capable — meaning that while the U.S. versions being sent are conventionally armed, Russia can’t easily tell that from radar alone. From their perspective, when a Tomahawk is inbound, they have no way to distinguish whether it carries a nuclear or conventional warhead. That uncertainty matters because: Flight profiles look similar. Tomahawks fly low, slow, and stealthy, and can approach targets from unpredictable directions — the same as a nuclear-armed variant. Radar warning times are minimal. By the time Russian systems detect a launch, there may be only minutes to decide if it’s a nuclear strike. That compresses decision time and increases the risk of miscalculation or panic escalation. Command nerves. Russia’s nuclear doctrine allows nuclear use if it perceives a “decapitating” attack on leadership or command-and-control infrastructure. A deep-strike cruise missile attack could easily look like that. Historical precedent. This mirrors Cold War fears during the Pershing II deployments in the 1980s — short warning times + nuclear ambiguity nearly triggered preemptive doctrines. So yes — even a single conventional Tomahawk fired into Russian territory could trigger worst-case assumptions inside Moscow. That’s why many strategists call this a “stability-destroying” weapon in this theater: not because of its power per se, but because of the ambiguity it creates. In essence, the danger isn’t the weapon itself — it’s how it’s perceived under pressure.“

Their was actually a defensive logic to it which makes it totally understandable. This is where a proper threat assessment has to be made. Usually the threat is entirely exaggerated (Iraqs case was fabricated) which is where the devilry comes. Nothing is as black and white or absolute. The abstractness of ''laws'' will never negate the reality of survival - that will be acted upon regardless of those laws making those actions ''illegal''.

Because the US is the global hegemon and holds a dominant position in the current system. Digging a little deeper: both invasions are bad, but one is based on fabricated lies of a threat (Iraq), the other is based on at least some level of perceived threat (Ukraine) - the severity of which is obviously debated. One is lies to justify imperial domination for gain, the other actually has some tangible facts on the ground indicating a threat - allowing us to understand the act was preemptively done for preservation (national security) rather than purely for gain. One has a empire logic to it, the other has as least some survival logic to it. The argument of whether Ukraine is a threat or not is debated, but no serious person can say no threat at all existed. When we say Urkaine we don't mean Ukraine itself but a global superpower trojan horsing its aims through Ukraine. This is a country that neighbors you, that is used by a rival power bloc (US-West) you have had a historic Cold war with, who have think tank pieces talking of containing and overextending you, that have a track record of naughty behaviour their entire existence, that's ignored your red lines and security concerns or calls for a security architecture to be established post soviet era, that's increasing its military interoperability in a region that has been a historic invasion corridor, that Western strategists themselves have warned against - all this is apparently no threat at all. This threat was explicitly talked about, warned about, and eventually responded to in the final straw that broke the camel's back. The non-Western world didn’t endorse Russia’s invasion, but it understood it - because it followed a logic familiar to any nation that’s ever had to navigate security, encirclement, or survival. By contrast, the US invasion of Iraq was built on outright fabrication and had no logical foundation to understand it. Both were condemned and escalatory - but only one could at least be understood on some basis of security. Iraq poses no security threat to a superpower entire oceans away on a different continent - compared to Russia's proximate threat on its border, however illegal, brutal and morally wrong it was for them to invade. Russia annexing land is secondary and incidental to their primary aim of neutralizing the threat. US obviously can't annex land it doesn't border - that doesn't mean it can't annex its resources and plunder it imperially. The key word here is lies - and an actual threat assessment being made rather than fabricated upon those lies. It's just as bad as Israel exaggerating its threat assessment of Hamas posing a existential threat to them - when they simply put their guard down, or as some have speculated stood down to allow the attack to continue and use it for their ethnic cleansing aims. The most militarized and surveilled place on earth (Gaza), by a regional power backed by a global superpower - against a non-military stateless group of people besieged - is somehow a ''existential'' threat. Get the fuck out lol

@Breakingthewall But then how do you explain the entire anti-colonial struggle? Were they stupid to do that? Your basically a imperial boot licker and pro-colonialism. Let's say people don't care for sovereignty and would trade some for development and glory - ok fine. But if I accept that false premise - what development were the Jews bringing at THAT time? It's not like it was the British Empire saying we're going to build a state so you can enjoy our glory - it was a persecuted, powerless and stateless people. The only lesson Western Europeans taught in fact was that these same people were trouble makers which is the reason for their persecution. It's like me saying your stupid for not investing in Bitcoin in its early days. Your hindsight logic to justify something unjust falls flat on its face. According to you - Palestinians should have accepted partition because of development that didn't exist yet, based on evidence they didn't have, from refugees of a people Europe had just tried to exterminate for causing trouble in their own lands (anti-Semitic nonsense) but that they somehow wouldn't in Palestinians? You need a siesta to gain some clarity and think through your arguments - maybe this afternoon. Thick taco you are lol I still love you though.

@Breakingthewall So people are mentally ill and retarded for resisting displacement or loss of control? You’re using wordplay to deflect from the main issue - by saying they’d still be on the land even if it’s just within a Jewish state. Well, any remaining Ukrainians will still be in the Donbass after Russia has annexed it from Ukraine - so it’s cool? It’s like me saying you no longer own your house and are now a tenant who rents it - but technically your still in the house so its fine? Note - you’re IN the house, it’s not YOUR house anymore. But don’t worry - I’m a great landlord and won’t hike your rent too much papi. You said you’d blow a superior people to benefit from their development. Would you whore yourself out to be under Alien rule with their superior development? Humans have a soul and certain dignity to themselves not tied simply to the material world. Majority of humans have fought for self-determination regardless of the “other” who may determine the outcome of their lives better - hence the entire anti-colonial struggle. Your framework just sells your soul to the highest bidder. When the Chinese are ahead of the West in the next decades invite them to rule you and suck them off too as you’ve said you’ll do.

And your telling me not to humiliate myself? Haha.