Sure why not. we need more states ...

And of course their suffering will end now, right?

nostr:nevent1qqsdgyx235rsslgv2gvftvs24znu8dqcjyeyf99wqdry75wnaqutrygprdmhxue69uhhw6r9v96zu6rpwpc8jarpwejhym3wvdhj7q3qceckypw0g9u5cx47gcvmukpwscnl8dmd72z2g996p8jvmmxe97yqxpqqqqqqzlv90dt

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

We need less terrorists...

you mean politicians, right?

(terrorist is a meaningless word. remember how nazis called czech resistance movement and guerillas, how brits called IRA and countless of other)

Yes and no. I do agree that state equals tyranny, whether it's North Korea, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, the United States, or Finland. The only difference is the order of magnitude of the tyranny. My comment was about the suffering, without Hamás, in this case, there would be much less of it.

Perhaps. My point was that having their state won't magically solve, well anything.

We are in an agreement on that.