Hatfort

They've destroyed all the infrastructure of Gaza and heavily decimated the Palestinian population, but it's true they haven't won. I don't know how things will unfold from this, but I don't see peace even in the short term. Israel has lost support worldwide, but is still backed by the US. We'll see, all eyes on Gaza.

Back to the recent events, more on topic. The ceasefire is good because the ongoing slaughter should reduce significantly, hard to believe it will stop though. There should be a hostage exchange, good for them. But the conflict continues, I'm afraid. Zionists still want the whole land, and Palestinians don't want to leave it. Hamas has gained support for resisting, and the new generations of Israel are as moderate as Ben Gvir. They want to settle in Gaza as much as in the West Bank. This is not over.

Then again Palestinians paid the price for something they didn't do. Nope, Zionists needed to increase the Jewish numbers, and promoted the migration of all Arab Jews they could. If Zionists want a land for Jews, that's not the Palestinian people's fault. Palestinians have the right to live in peace in their land, which has been broken. What has happened in Gaza last year is a shame for humanity, we have all seen it.

It was another place being decolonized from the British empire, as many more during that time. Unfortunatelly for them, instead of the native inhabitants receiving the land, it was decided by foreigners that it would be a Jewish ethnostate, in reparation of the wrongs done to them by the Nazis. Palestinians didn't displace Arab Jews, it was the other way around. In an attempt to increase Jewish numbers, Zionists promoted the displacement of Arab Jews to Palestine too, as much as European Jews. Jews were living relatively well in Muslim areas, not everything would be perfect, but quite harmonious in general. Tensions arised when Zionists started killing Palestinians and stealing their land, which is not a surprise. If Muslims did that in any country of Europe, I'm sure hostility towards them would increase too. Which wouldn't make it okay, but the complete frame would have to be acknouwledged at least.

But this self-determination was practiced in an inhabited land, without their consent. Based on the Jewish ethnicity, but pure colonialism of foreigners and ethnic cleansing of the locals, that's what has been happening for the last 75 years and last year in particular was another crude episode of it. So people acknowledge the rights of these Palestinians, of course. Buying territory in foreign countries is accepted, it happens in the frame of business or people just to live somewhere else, but that doesn't give the right to claim a new state there, you have to abide by the laws of the countries you move into. There was the British decolonization going on then, that was replaced by the Jewish colonization, which was even worse, because not only they were aiming to control the land and the resources, but blatantly replace the inhabitants of there, who have the right to resist these attacks.

Palestine was inhabited, Palestinians are the indigenous people of that land. They don't have to pay for the wrongs done to Jewish people by Europeans. If you hit me, I don't have the right to hit a third person, that's insane.

Yes I did.

I told you that their right still stands, and it hasn't been exercised before because they haven't been allowed to. We are still talking about an 80-year timeframe, many closer, it's a person's lifetime, still easily trackable. Of course I don't equate this to a 2000-year-old claim of a land that was inhabited. It was pure violent colonialism, the Palestinians were living there minding their businesses, getting out of the British empire, and the Zionists decided unilaterally to claim their land and get all Jews they could from the world to live in there, so they built their ethnostate. It was a slaughter and many Palestinians left as refugees. 2000-year-old episodes are not reasonable to ask for a land, directly responding to your question. Now relativize this all you want, why this yes, and why that no. I would call it common sense. So much shit has happened in the whole world in two millenniums, a lot was wrong, that's not an excuse to do the same wrongs now. But the irony is, those who pretend that a 2000-year-old claim has value, still don't accept the right to return of people displaced last century, whose track we still have. They knew who their parents and grandparents were in person, nobody knows who their 2000 year ancestors are. Even I could have ancestors of that called holy land or any other land. Civilizations weren't still for 2000 years, there has been a huge amount of war, trade, and all kind of human exchange, if you know what I mean.

Where do you want to put the boundary? For now their right stands, these displacements are about 80 years old, it's not that far away in time and they have not returned before because they haven't been allowed, it has been and is an ongoing situation. Don't you agree? You wouldn't allow them?

From what I've heard, many have double nationality passports already. In that scenario, they could stay or they could go to the country from which they, their parents, or their grandparents came from, it would be their choice, it wouldn't be a greater power relocating them, maybe except in cases of proven home theft or very recent settlements like the ones in the West Bank, that would have to be reconsidered at least. There is quite recent footage of an American Jewish man telling a Palestinian girl that if he wouldn't take her home, someone else would. Cases like these are not acceptable, it's pure theft. Palestinian refugees and their descendants have the right to return as well. This is not different in most countries, when you prove you are a descendant of someone of another country, you are granted the nationality. The Jews choosing to stay in Palestine, they just can live in democracy, and equal rights, that's fine.

After more than a year of destruction, slaughter, and depravation of basic needs and aid, it's good news. Israel will keep killing until the last minute, not that I say it, but reports of entire families and people in general being killed have kept coming since we heard about these ceasefire conversations days ago. When will it be done? Probably when Trump starts his second term, I think it's in the 20th. Since Trump is taking credit for this, it would be a bad look for him if it continued much longer. I think factors like the IDF getting more casualties in Gaza, and the temporary ceasefire with Hezbollah coming to an end have had their weight in this. But seems the main one has been Trump, there was a deal since last year that Biden presented, but Israel just wasn't willing to go with it. Now it seems Trump is not interested in helping Netanyahu, I don't believe he gives a fuck about Palestinians, but he must have thought this continuing is not in his interest either, which I agree, so there it is. It's an awful look for Biden, he permitted the slaughter until the last minute of his term, which he could have ended in a phone call, just by threatening to cut the fund and weapon supplies. He'll be remembered for this, among other things. I was one of those saying Trump would be worse than Biden for the Palestinians, I know it's early, but this is a point for Trump for now. I don't care about being wrong about that as long as the slaughter ends, but on the other hand, why the Hell did Biden let it happen? Not even ultraconservatives like Reagan let it go that far. News and images coming from Gaza during all these months were speaking for themselves, and we probably haven't seen the worst things, as journalists were a main target too. Trump is a wild card, indeed. I think it's very possible the war in Ukraine ends with him too. Putin put some terms last year, claiming the East which has mostly conquered already, and neutrality for Ukraine mostly. What's the alternative? Keep funding Zelensky and keep losing more land. The US military industry is probably quite satisfied, the Ukrainian cow is mostly milked now. Then Trump is hinting to put his aims on the American continent. I don't think Greenland stuff is a joke, from Trump's point of view, why does a tiny country like Denmark get to have this huge island that is closer to us, and has strategic and natural resources value? Denmark won't even bark, but it can be a big crisis for NATO. If they annex it, the Greenlanders will lose their universal healthcare, and get the awesome insurance-based one of the USA. Congrats! The Panama Canal I'm afraid is a very tasty treat too, but that would be more difficult.

Merry Christmas!

No, I'm not pro Russia, but I'm not anti it either. I think the neutrality they were asking for Ukraine was a reasonable demand, which was agreed upon when the Soviet Union collapsed. But Ukraine was already NATO in practice, which is something Russia could not agree to, and seeing the precedents and this direction, it was matter of time it was going to be made official in front of Russian noses. So Russia made its move. If NATO has such a technological superiority, what are they waiting for to use it in the Donbas? They can give all they have to Ukraine so no Ukrainian soldiers need to fight but instead the machines will do it for them. Nope, the drone technology is quite even right now. Face the facts.

No, Crimea was separated from Russia, and the Azov Sea was half Ukranian until two years ago. Now it's Russian. Yeah, Russia didn't win in one week, we saw that three years ago, you guys are stuck in that frame of time, because you don't want to address what has happened since then, Ukraine failed a counteroffensive that was supposed to be magnificent, but it wasn't, it was a total failure. Russia has been getting more and more land in a consistent basis since then, and this consistency is getting it to victory. Everyone is using drones, Ukraine is, Russia is, times have changed yes, and we'll see where it goes, but if you think Russia or China are not investing in military technology like the West is, you guys live in wonderland. I just address the multipolar nature of the world we are living now, which is a pill that the previous unilateral one will have to swallow, because a real war between big powers like this would be a total disaster. A big problem is that the US has since WWII a war-based economy, not totally, but in a big part, that's why it steps from one war to another, Vietnam, Afganistan, Irak, and the proxy ones like this one. The world is tired of this shit, mostly the East, because it suffers bigly from it.

After the week you mention passed, projections were that Russia would inevitably get a humiliating loss, Putin would be overridden and every country around including Ukraine would join NATO, now for good reasons. But no, Russia is winning, it got the Azov Sea and Crimea secured, and quite more than the Donbas integrated. Paid the price and won, Ukraine paid the price and lost, the US military industry made good business, and Europe is now more its bitch than it was before, although not a strong one. So NATO is stronger than ever... but it's not winning this war. The only thing NATO can do is carpet bomb poor countries. Against developed opponents, that's another game that no way can win. The technology race is already happening and these big ones are not behind, and they also have nukes like NATO has. This win is for Russia, it wasn't free, but it was, and quite big. It gets out of this war stronger than it was before, it has the capacity to recover demografically, and less dependency to what are their let's say rivals. I don't buy the 500.000 number either, but even if that was true, and not propaganda, it doesn't change all the rest.

Russia is totally winning the war, Ukraine got the best NATO could provide, but the size and number of men was unbeatable from the begining. Maybe if the simultaneous economic war had worked, then it could have collapsed Russia or at least Putin's government, but not even close, their economy adapted well to new partners in their East and South, and Putin has more popular support than ever, and I'm not surprised. Russia is not incompetent at war, maybe at the beginning yes, and had to deal with these war-oligarchs like the Wagner group which were indeed composed by a lot of ex-convicts, but they were nationalized and integrated into the army at the point where their leader almost revolted. Another point for Putin and Russia. The war isn't over, but Russia keeps gaining the land it wants nonstop, and will continue to doing so as far as the other side doesn't sit, which is what matters in an attrition war that one side can maintain longer than the other. Negotiations for a peaceful resolution were done and almost achieved, but we know now the US and NATO said no, before the war, and almost after it started. Clearly after the failed counteroffensive, it has just been sending the Ukranian youth to die for nothing. Of course Russia has paid a high price of their own men too, they haven't bomb-carpeted the country like Israel does, they've mostly fought the old-fashioned army against army war, which does minimize the civilian casualties, but increases your military ones. Russia having nukes doesn't give it the victory, it deters others from using them on their soil, and it works both ways. Yeah, if it didn't have them, NATO would have gone much harder on them with long-range artillery at least, or even nuking two cities like in Japan so they surrender inconditionally. But obviously it has them, so it doesn't get that far. Russia is not weak, NATO can't really fight a war like Russia has, no way a Western country including the US can morally and socially afford to put in line the proportionate number of men that Russia has in this war without collapsing. Their only option is to fight proxy wars, but Ukraine was the best card for that, and they've lost. A small country like Georgia wouldn't work, which was in the plans as next, but it's obviously much smaller and with worse connections with the West. Russia is not interested in getting more land though, but it won't allow more the facto NATO countries in their border. The only thing remaining for Ukraine was to make it official in a few years, it was already NATO in every way, so in a sense Russia's best option was to do what it did before that happened, because then it wouldn't be a proxy war, but Russia VS. NATO war all in, with probably disastrous consequences worldwide.

As I said, I know he is just one sample, but there are thousands of more average ones as well. He does prove he can achieve those peak physical levels and achievements in a totally plant-based diet, he lacks nothing. The thing is, the more it's studied scientifically and seriously, the better results vegans get short and long-term compared to any other diet groups. It's the opposite of what you said.

Okay, sarcasm off. This man has been repeatedly the world champion in this brutal fighting variant. When the point being made is that a vegan diet is not good, sufficient, or healthy, and vegans are painted as weak or worse, but then you got this guy kicking ass like that, well, I'm gonna bring him up to the conversation, because he very well debunks those erroneous claims and accusations pointed at vegans. Of course, there are thousands of more average vegans that prove the point as well, like maybe you, but this one is something else, man.

Vegans are weak, their diet is insufficient, and can't be healthy. For example, there's this vegan soyboy called Dave Leduc who gets his ass kicked every time he gets on a ring in what's considered one of the most violent martial art types in the world.

Wow, that was fast. It appears that the Assad regime was militarily very weak, too dependent on foreign forces that did not react fast, probably because they couldn't. The dictator and his family evacuated, probably never to return. This is a colossal NATO victory and a game-changer in the region. What happens next is a good question. The participants will ask for their piece of the pie. Israel will be getting the Golan Heights, as a Western actor, it's gonna ask for it, and get it. The line between Iran and Lebanon is closed. Hezbollah is strong right now, but without this line, its capability in the long run may be compromised. Turkey will ask for control in the North, or the North itself. The Northeast is Kurdish, and Turks hate Kurds, and Kurds hate Turks, so I don't anticipate much peace in the region. The USA will get the oil and steal all the money in Syria and put it in New York, as they did with Iraq. Iran and Russia will be mad, but there's nothing they can do now. The Jihadists are heavily armed now, can NATO have them under control? I don't know. It's gonna be ugly if not. Before a democracy is installed, if it is, with the Western-approved options-puppets given to the people, a lot of heads may be chopped off. I'm just making some predictions, so time will tell.

The first that comes to mind, someone who lost a loved one for lack of insurance did this. Could be, people are not sad about this, if you're gonna be the head of these kind of corporate practices that end up causing so many avoidable deaths, people are going to hate you. That's an understandable human reaction. Another investigation course could be that a rival of his on the corporate ladder ordered this, and diverted the investigation by writing those words in the bullet. I'm gonna be honest, my condolences are for those who have lost loved ones for the lack of insurance or the insurance not covering treatments even after having paid religiously for years. It's out of hand, this doesn't need to be this way. This guy can rot in Hell.

I think they overdid it a bit by writing the pronouns. Anyway, all this is not really a joke. The NATO alliance is scoring a goal, they found a weak spot, and they took it. I'm not gonna blame the Syrians who oppose a dictator, but I'll say that these Jihadists look even worse. It reminds a bit of Afghanistan, with many differences, but didn't go well in the long run. Not all Syrians are happy about these events, but they don't have much choice. Whoever wins, you gotta abide, because they point guns at you. If you are lucky, the side you prefer wins. I link a Syrian journalist. Edit: Okay, I see the pronouns were fake... Good one!

DNA tests are strictly regulated in Israel, the only way you can get them is through court orders. So you cannot get a private test kit to research your own DNA. Although, that's not the point. But claiming that so many Europeans had an ancestral claim to this land, knowing so many things can have happened in between, including people converting to Judaism, cheating parents at any point in your lineage, or whatever, is very flawed. Claiming it over the Indigenous people of that land, who were indeed Semites, most of them converted to Islam at some point in the past, but they are much more likely to have an ancestral relation to the people living in that piece of land 2000 years ago than so many Europeans and Russians coming in the last decades. They are being genocided by these colonizers, it's crazy.

The next target: Homs. Capturing is one thing, and not a minor one, but maintaining it is another, which is tougher. I think things will get messy, with many foreign actors. This is more than a civil war, indeed, which partly it is, but it's also part of a more global clash we are living in, most unfortunately for the ones suffering it firsthand. Combined with other currently ongoing conflicts in the region. Syria is in the way between Iran and Lebanon, so Israel is very interested in cutting this and changing the regime that permits it. Turkey has its feuds, claims, and interests on its border and beyond, has unequivocally shown where it stands and with whom. These gains couldn't have happened without Turkey's push. Russia is minding its own problems in Ukraine, successfully, but has quite on its plate yet. But I don't see them staying totally in the margins. Iran is probably going to aid Assad's regime too, as an ally, and for its own interest. The USA is behind too, couldn't be other way, as a support for Israel, and opposition to Iran and Russia, and the smell of oil, of course. All big players, a fucking mess.