Karmadhi

Arent Palestinian Arabs? I thought they lived there for centuries which is why they claim that land.

Do you think it justifies the massacres they did afterwards? I saw some disturbing clips of Israeli old soldiers talking about putting kids in ovens and depleting their machine gun ammo on civilians in villages. They were also laughing about it which made it downright horrible to me. That is a good point but keep in mind the Jews had more reason to accept it. Palestinians lived there for centuries so for them it felt like they had to give up land to European refugees and they did not want to. Jews meanwhile were getting a free state out of nowhere so they were more willing to do so. If you get something out of nowhere for free you will be more willing to negotiate. Palestinians and Arabs in general felt like they were getting screwed over. There were Arab Jews there too but I saw it was like 5% of the population? Feel free to correct me here. And "Jews used to live there 2000 years ago" is not a valid argument to be honest. Nobody will accept it. Also Israel had more than 50% of the land from the partition but I do not know how useful the land was per say.

I have positioned myself on this forum as a super pro Palestinian guy but when it comes to the Nakba I feel like it is a bit overblown. I am not saying that it was not awful or unfair but it happened 80 years ago or so, and at those times we had much worse things happening in the world which now are mostly healed. For example Poland after loosing 6 million citizens during WW2, and having its capital razed to the ground (85% of all structures destroyed), it lost a ton of historical territory to USSR and caused mass migrations. Today Poland is in OK terms with Russia and in decent terms with Germany (which killed close to 17% of its population). That would be the equivalent of Israel killing in Gaza close to 375.000 civilians (12 times what it has so far). So still being so hung over about the Nakba is counter intuitive to peace to me. What I find totally unacceptable by Israel though is the fact that a mini Nakba has been happening for decades now. That is the true issue that is counter intuitive to peace. It is this constant occupation and shit treatment which causes so much hatred. This has to stop. No justification for it. ESPECIALLY in the west bank. I love how Pro Israelis immediately disregard it because it does not suit their deeply biased views.

I do not like any of the republicans but he seemed better to me than Niki Hailey. She gave me warmonger vibes. The world does not need more wars, it needs to end the current ones.

Their population is 4x less than Russia. All the war is being done on Ukranian territory, destroying the country gradually. I saw on 2023 they did a major counter offensive in summer which did not do anything. And back then they still had decent supply of NATO weapons. It will just go down from here considering Ukraine cannot replace its troops as much as Russia. And going on offensives is always more costly for the attacker since the defender can build defenses. Considering now Russia has a shit lot of defenses on eastern Ukranian territory it holds, Ukraine lacks the manpower for a major breakthrough. They did try it, all it did is kill people and no results. And Ukraine again in a long war of attrition cannot defeat Russia. If they make peace now they can keep most of their country intact. Russia only occupies Russian majority areas. Most ethnic Ukranians are not in those territories. Hence dying for them is foolish to me.

I am very torn about this. From one hand I see the war continuing as totally pointless from the Ukranian POV and just killing people in Ukraine and destroying the country further for no reason (Russia wont be kicked out). They tried last year with tons of support and still failed. And Russia now is stronger than then. On the other side I feel like Ukraine should be backed up considering USA told them "We will back you up for as long as it takes", hence they need to keep their word. What do you think about this?

Trash vs garbage. All of them. Only reasonable one is Bernie Sanders but USA is too under developed to elect him. I am wondering about Vivek. He seems interesting but I am not very familiar with him. What do you guys think of him? Especially those familiar with him.

I mean I do not know. But this is the status quo which kept peace until now. Also during the cold war which was super tense at some moments, this is what kept war from breaking out. The only reason USSR did not storming in and taking Western Europe during cold war was the fear of MAD. So I assume it is the same situation now. If there is a difference you can tell me. Also, even in a conventional war, I doubt Russia can take on all of NATO. They are struggling with Ukraine. Afterwards they will need rest. Also NATO has far more troops and budget than Ukraine does. So it is not a war Russia can win regardless. Whole reason Putin attacked Ukraine is because Ukraine was not in NATO and it is next to Russia. Also Ukraine is far more important to Russia than Poland is. Basically they see Ukraine as part of Russia. Poland they do not.

We did not have nuclear weapons in the past. Now we do. Like 12.000 of them. That is why I say big scale war will not happen. It did not happen during the Cold War and it will not happen now. We all die if it happens. NATO has like 7000 nuclear weapons. Because Baltics are in NATO. Too risky of a move. It is like taking on someone with a shotgun in his hand. If Baltics were not in NATO then It would likely happen. Outside of being in NATO, Poland has a powerful military. Much stronger than Ukraine. Also they are super nationalists so they will fight hard. Not to mention Russia will be very tired after the Ukraine war. They cannot take on another strong opponent anytime soon. Moldova is a different story because not only they have pro Russian parts but the whole country is small, weak, and not in NATO. I think he wants Russia to be a respected superpower more than rebuilding the USSR. USSR entails annexing 15 countries. And Poland was never in USSR. I doubt that is his goal. He wants for Russia to be feared and respected like the USA is rather than be circle jerked by the West like it did in the 1990s. Also he wants every ex USSR country to have a pro Russian government. How come Kazakstan is not at risk at being invaded but Moldova is? Georgia was attacked in 2008 and Ukraine too. Because these countries have or had a pro Western government. That is equated to "please invade me". If they are smart, they will keep a friendly Pro Russian foreign policy. Ukraine learned it the hardest way. So did Cuba when it decided to become anti USA while being near the USA. It got both invaded and had an embargo. So its not a Russian only thing. It is the nature of big powers. Smaller weaker countries next to them need to accommodate them otherwise they will suffer either by sanctions, embargo, economic pressure, invasions etc. I dont know why it is so hard to understand.

These fear mongering that "Russia will invade Poland if they take Ukraine" is absolutely ridiculous. They first cannot take on NATO head on. Secondly, why would they even take Poland? No Russians there like in Ukraine. Also Poland does not have the same relationship with Russia that Ukraine has. Russians and Ukranians are super close historically. You can make the case for the Baltics but even there I doubt they would go through the trouble. There is a very slim chance but not worth worrying about imo. Moldova is way more likely since they are so small and not in NATO.

I think there should be a peace deal where Russia keeps the 20% they have taken and Crimea and Ukraine keeps the rest of the land. Also, Russian is made an official language for Ukraine just like it was before 2014 and Ukraine cuts all military ties with the West and becomes a neutral state. Also, they can be allowed to join the EU as long as their foreign policy is somewhat catering to Russia. Lastly, they should treat the Russian minority that will remain with equal rights to Ukrainians. On Russia side, they should prosecute some of their military people for war crimes and give some sort of financial compensation to the destroyed parts of Ukraine that will not be annexed by Russia. Now whether this is a fair deal, who knows. But to me it would be the most realistic in terms of pleasing both sides. It is the West job to ensure this happens. At the moment Russia will want to take half the country, pay no reparations and trial nobody for war crimes (of course not top generals or Putin but perhaps some of the people responsible for Mariupol or Bucha where most of the war crimes happened). . Neither will it allow the rest of Ukraine to join the EU. The West job is to ensure this does not happen. I was thinking perhaps funding Ukraine militarily to the point where Russia is forced to negotiate rather than face off against a buffed up Ukraine could be an option. So to use the 60 billion as a tool of deterrence against further fighting rather than using it to actually fight. What do you guys think about that? I have not heard this anywhere, would be curious to hear your thoughts. However I am very against this retarted nationalism by Zelensky and some Ukranians to "fight until total victory and we get back Crimea". It is totally not grounded in reality and is destroying Ukraine. They accepted loosing Crimea over 10 years ago already, get over it. It is not worth loosing half the country just for that...

I see that he is anti the war in Ukraine and says Russia is doing bad things there while ignoring the 10x worse things Israel does. This makes me think he is either lowkey racist or white supremacist or anti Muslim. There is no way you can support Ukraine and not support Gaza unless you see Ukranians as more worthy of living. Especially considering people in Gaza are suffering far more. Hence racist.

Where I live people link wokeness with lgbt, trans people, hardcore feminism, gender neutrality, identifying as animals, choosing not to have childreen, white shaming etc. So with the excesses of stage green. I consider myself mostly green but people I notice tend to associate wokeness with those hardcore green people, not moderate greens like people on this forum. So even though wokeness would be considered in principle stage green, people associate wokeness with TOXIC green rather than green in itself. Especially those that love to demonize it. I wonder how we can stop allocating all green with only toxic green.

Amaizing video. I would not have ever expected to see him in a Piers Morgan show. Very civilized and mature conversation. What do you guys think of what he said? Curious.

I have seen some debates of Destiny and he is quite cold to me regarding this whole situation. Also he trusts IDF way too much. I would not call him objective here. In an interview he called 11 year old throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers "military people". Sick individual.

I have a friend who is very spiritual, also fan of Leo. He has this thing he calls presence or awarness where if you lock eyes with him you basically "get lost in them", time freezes and you feel this weird sensation which I do not know how to properly describe in words. I had the same sensation but 100x stronger under magic truffles. I am a straight guy but even still that charms me. I can only imagine being a girl what it must be like. And he is normal looking guy. It is pure awareness and spiritual magic he does. I can replicate it to a smaller extent with certain people I have chemistry with (gay guys or girls) but it is not as in command or as strong as he has it. I think it is a trainable skill. Basically being present in the moment and using ur energy. Out of all the people that do daygame he has arguably the highest conversation ratio I have ever seen. It is rare for him to be blown out and usually a conversations ends with a number or at least a good 5-10 minute talk.

I dont think he looks as bad as people make him. Especially on his early days. He looks super normal to me. Neither good nor bad. You have PUAs like Tom Torrero for example which look worse. I dont think people deny good genetics matter. However, also most peope do not want to be this sex god that can fuck 10/10 in large quantities. Most people want a decent looking kind loyal girl. And you can get someone like that with average or even bit below average looks. If you are obese and smell like shit, well that is on you. I doubt most males in this forum are looking to have 250 laycount full of models or a harem with 8 girls. Issue we have with men these days is that they struggle to get girls in general, not struggle to get models in huge quantities. "I cannot get a decent girl because I do not look like a Chad" or "I cannot get a girl more physically attractive than myself" is a far more common belief these days which game can help to fix.

Logically it would be anything related to physical capability. So being tall, wide shoulders etc. Also things related to high testosterone. I think strong jawline is linked with it which is why girls like it. Also it shows you have low body fat which also is related with physical capability. Hard to run and stuff if you are fat.

I dont think most guys would say that looks do not matter. It is quite obvious they do matter and they do help. You have also admitted this in the past, so I do not see you changing your opinion much on this matter. Now, how MUCH they matter is up for debate. But saying they are irrelevant and only game matters is just silly. However I do strongly believe that taking care of yourself helps a lot with it. Also I noticed that for most girls, looks can be quite subjective. I am always baffled by how subjective they are. Also game is more important than looks from what I have observed. The biggest thing with game is that you need to be quite active about it and most guys are lazy and they want girls to do all the work for them.

Yes I would. Especially if Portugal had oppressed and murdered the Spanish for decades beforehand. Even without that background I still would. Genocide on live tv will always get that response. Israelis are not immune to it. I do not think they would act the same way. I have never seen this amount of hatred and desire to make others suffer in my life. Both sides here have hatred which is unseen anywhere else in the world. Armenia and Azerbajan come close but this is far worse. When USA was hit on 9/11 did the public support genocide and starving millions of kids? I don't think so. And that was in 2001. Few days ago one of your lovely ministers made a speech where she felt proud about Gaza being destroyed. I never saw any such speech from a US minister.

3 others just posted here calling out their atrocities. If I stop the criticism will not stop. I will just post this here and stop posting on this thread. You are right, it is a waste of time at this point. This is my last post on this thread. I found this randomly on Tik Tok. https://www.tiktok.com/@rubiy888/video/7337655183574371617?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7338839385223824928 @Nivsch @Heaven @Vrubel This is the type of commentary I would have expected from Israelis on this forum. Being able to put themselves in the other person shoes and empathizing with the other rather than just continuing the violence. Watch it and reflect on yourselves. As long as Israelis do not think like this, the conflict will never end. And to think the Israeli on the clip actually had family members affected by Hamas rockets. Insane maturity from hil.

Yeah well seeing every day dozens of dead/horribly injured kids, footage of civilians being bombed with missiles, snipers killing people trying to get food, ambulances bombed, hospitals without supplies full of people screaming from pain and soldiers proudly taking selfies with hand tied blindfolded people or destroyed buildings does not help much with that. And this has been going on for 4 months now.

In real life they do though (USA dominating people). Especially in the Middle East these days. In the past they were heavily involved in Latin and South America and South east Asia. I have seen they were heavily involved in the Arab spring and I have yet to meet someone from there that says their countries are better now then they were before. I heard of this case in Tunisia where they wanted a military base there and when the old Tunisian leader said no, few months after out of the blue "democracy, repression etc" started appearing and then the regime was overthrown. So it was somewhat provoked by the USA probably. Of course people had also frustrations but I am not sure it would have happened without the US. Also I heard US was encouraging the military there to open fire on protestors to spark a proper revolution but they refused. However there is no concrete proof for this, just rumors. To me all this is devilry. That is why I am critical of them.

Thing is you have 1 democratic superpower which is the USA. Thats it. The EU tends to follow USA for the most part so I cannot call them an independent actor with a different agenda. I know because I live in the EU. For example, the country I reside has openly called out Israel atrocities (but they are too small and weak to matter) yet EU as a whole still supports it financially. And the EU is too divided to have a universal foreign policy and rules. So when it comes to democracies they still fall on the USA monopoly. Can you name me some powerful democracy that has openly went against USA in the past that has also a strong capabe army? Most huge economies with big armies are not democratic if you exclude the US. I would have loved if countries like Germany or the UK had superpower status and created a multipolar world but they tend to be USA lap dogs for the most part. Hence, countries like China or Russia have to fill up the multipolar role. The question that I would like to bring up here is: Will 1 democratic monopoly dominating the world (USA) will lead to less or more devilry than a multipolar world where the other actors are not democracies (China Russia).

Fair point. I was referring more to just tougher questions instead of calling him a war criminal, dictator etc. But yeah even online you have to hold back a bit. Agreed.