Nostr Web Client

So you think sanity is to kill just roughly the same number of people in response right? And its also not insanity to start wars in the first place, right?

You see, philosophical problem that commenters on internet can’t see is that there is no such thing in laws or moral to answer “is it bad to do bad things in response to bad things?” For now, aggressors all over the world manipulate this drawback to force victims to “behave good” in face of others doing whatever they want

Also, internet commenters fail to see is numbers of deaths and ways of deaths and anything else is completely irrelevant to people who were already killed. Or for people whos relatives were killed

And jfyi calling to calm things down and “negotiate”, “freeze conflicts” etc - always only help aggressors to keep doing aggressors things if you learn history

StackSats.IO 2y ago

It is insanity to start wars in the first place; I’m anti-war in all cases.

There’s not some correct number to kill in response to Hamas’ attack - it is however undoubtedly incorrect to be so indiscriminate that you’ve killed 6X more children in retaliation, and its undoubtedly incorrect to have racked up a 92.15% civilian death toll. This shit is just inexcusable.

See my proposal to relocate Israel. I’m not saying to “freeze conflict” - I’m saying, get them the fuck out of that region entirely.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Viktor Vsk 2y ago

This is what you can’t understand because you are blessed to only hear such news on internet and not even on examples of people you know directly probably. If your child gets murdered by an aggressor you don’t care at all how many aggressor supporters have to be killed to stop the aggressor, to have some sort of “justice” or “revenge” (because justice does not exist, if someone already committed violence and killed a person there is nothing in this world that can back this person to life) and its just an aggressors manipulation in this case to force everyone believe that AFTER aggressor committed a crime, “opponent” has to stick to some moral ground.

Your suggestion of course is just a stupid joke. But lets pretend it has some ground. Ok. Its almost 2 months after Israel started retaliation. And killed a lot of people, thats obviously bad. But 2 months before 7 October, how many people did Israel killed? It seems to me this is closer to zero. So why do you omit your brilliant “suggestions” to HAMAS ? What and more importantly who is gonna do something about them?

StackSats.IO 2y ago

“But 2 months before 7 October, how many people did Israel killed? It seems to me this is closer to zero.”

Why would you stop at 2 months prior?

This graphic is 2008-2020. I can go all the way back to 1948 if you’d prefer to see how one-sided this is since they plumped up with a letter from Lord Balfour and said “this is ours now”.

Viktor Vsk 2y ago

I stopped at 2 months before because its also 2 month into now. I could also use 1 day before if you prefer. Why? Because 1 day before was the last day of some agreements were working, and they were broken solely by one side.

If you want to go in past more than the last checkpoint of an agreement, then you can pick arbitrary date, what for example rusia is doing with Ukraine right now — they chose a date where USSR existed and want it back. They didn’t chose times of Rus with a center in Kyiv, because it is inconvenient for their war. Same goes for any war — either you play by international laws established with UN after WW2 (which are very far from perfect unfortunately) or you can do whatever you want, you are a terrorist short-term and long term you either a past evil (like Nazi Germany) or one who rewrites the history (what rusia aims for for instance, and HAMAS supports

It with)

Anyway, I’m waiting your “suggestions” for HAMAS, do you suggest to let them leave with what they did and encourage to continue? Are you sure they stop if no Israel exist close to them?