Someone has to stop killing people first. Of all we do is say “sure we killed some people, but now their sons want to kill us, so what can we do but kill their sons too?” Then this never ends. Literally.
The question is, who is going to have the courage to stop being a total fucking horrible human being?
I totally agree. The question is, if one side stops, does the other suddenly forget all that has been done, or do the generational wrongs motivate further action?
We need to remember here I think, we are not talking about an argument in a bar. We are talking about ideology, bolstered by 80yrs of hatred.
If somebody tells you their entire reason for living is to eradicate a people and a country, it might be a good idea to recognise that for what it is.
I don't have the answer here. I wouldn't pretend to. My bone of contention is with people who think one step, then project their world view on a self proclaimed enemy that shows no signs of sharing said world view.
I love you Guy - no homo - but the complexity here goes way beyond 'please stop' IMO
In no way whatsoever have I suggested that the solution is to say “please stop” and that this would work. This is a massive assumption. I’ve literally said nothing more than that the solution is NOT, “kill their sons too.”
Fair enough, that was a bit of a stretch, but it is based on what I hear ( if not from you directly. )
What I would say is when you say "who would have the courage to stop being a disgusting human being" my premise is that we know if one side stops, the other re-arms until such time they can try again, right?
And furthermore, we should not imagine a regime that openly works toward the destruction of a country and our people share the moral view that they are 'disgusting'
They think they are morally justified. They think they already have the moral high ground, surely?
The Israeli soldiers pose with the toys of the children they have killed. Both sides have the same lack of respect for the other. Neither is civilized & neither sees the other as human. One side has to start acting human in order for things to change.
What if one side 'acting human' is what enables the other to achieve their ultimate goal?
I keep hearing morality arguments, as if we all share the same moral compass. You can't shame someone into doing 'the right thing' if they think they already are. Ideology....
Everyone is for the non-aggression principle until it’s Israel striking first, and then they do mental gymnastics to rationalize it.
Once we help them do regime change in Iran, they will have total control of the Middle East and won’t need us anymore.
If you think that’s a good thing, think again. They already spy on us, kill our Presidents, and orchestrate false flag attacks like 9/11. What do you think will happen when they no longer rely on us for military support?
Brother, I said nothing of 'NAP'
You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to think I said anything about Israel striking first.
I have said the history is complex, to talk about who did what first is nonsensical. We are here, now, and we can only go forward.
So the question is - what does forward look like, if it isn't repeating the last 80yrs?
My comment was more to the thread in general.
Not true. It absolutely matters who started violence in this case. This is not Israel vs Hamas.
Forward looks like letting Iran and Israel fight their war and not back Israel in a war they started that only serves them and not a America. The idea that Iran could nuke us is laughable.
So it doesn't matter that one side is openly hostile to the other, and doesn't hide the fact that they work toward the day when they can destroy a country?
You think the thing we should be focusing on is who fired the first missile 'this time?'
Yes, it matters that Israel is openly hostile to their neighbors and has been plotting to destroy America for decades. That’s the whole point of the JQ and the America First movement.
The thing we should be focusing on is our country and our people not jews in Israel trying to dominate the region so they can rebuild the temple and carry on their satanic religion
"America first" is a populist meme.
It was a simplistic term that people bought into emotionally to garner a vote. Nothing more. Now people are realising that the term means different things to different people....
I'm pretty sure over the coming years, there will be a lot of disappointed people who start to realise that "America first" might not mean what they thought it meant.
Sure, you can assign meaning to it, but it doesn't change the fact millions are also assigning their own meaning. Some of you are going to be butt hurt.
Now, back to the topic - both sides are openly hostile to each other. That's the entire point of my discussion here.
My entire point is that if you find yourself championing one, and demonising the other, you might want to have a good re-think.
Both sides are the opposite side of the same coin. Pretending otherwise is what keeps us here in perpetual cycles.
Not it doesn’t. It’s pretty clear what it means, and I’m not assigning a meaning to it. America First is about putting American people’s interests first. People changing definitions doesn’t all of a sudden end the movement.
Neither of them is America, so we shouldn’t back either.
You keep telling yourself that, brother.
Lol I know we are controlled by Israel but we are not them.
Sometimes there is an inevitability about outcomes once a path has been started.
It doesn't have to be because of control. Quite often the more bleak outlook is to recognise the control has been lost in a situation.
The question is how do you get control back?
It isn't to pretend a ceasefire and a repeat of the previous 80yrs restores us to 'normality' because the 'normality' is what keeps bringing us back here.
Both sides use every ceasefire to further their own cause. They do it because of the history. We cannot change the history. So what next?
What’s often overlooked is that there is a giant cultural / ingrained difference between the western and the Middle Eastern man.
For centuries, the civilizations in/from Europe had to plan, think and strategize in advance to prepare for coming winters. This led to fixed settlements close, and people remained in one place for most of their lives. Through this development, we ended up with a rule of law and authority in the form of judges.
In the Middle East, this was much less the case. There was a much bigger nomadic aspect to the people, which meant no fixed homes, and down the line: no judge to call on in case of dispute.
So essentially, when people tend to disagree, in Europe, they would call upon an authority to settle the dispute. The Middle Eastern man, however, would take matters into his own hands and settle it himself. I believe the term “an eye for an eye” also finds its origin there.
This way of thinking trickles down into basically every aspect of how life works and results in giant differences in morals and values between the people nowadays, and this is completely overlooked when the Western man judges the current events in the Middle East or vice versa.
At least, that’s my 2 sats deduced from my history books..
