Israel is being attacked

[Nivsch]

@Karmadhi If you were honest you would not say "murdering" but rather a neutral word like killing because the chance is high that this was a mistake.

Edited April 18 by Nivsch

[Karmadhi]

22 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

If you were honest you would not say "murdering" but rather a neutral word like killing because the chance is high that this was a mistake.

English is not my native language but bombing someone 3 times seems like murder to me. You can say intentionally killing sure. I am open to correct the term.

Saying that is a mistake is as delusional as the Arabs saying Hamas did not target civilians.

You can clearly see both sides denial when you have no skin in the game.

Edited April 18 by Karmadhi

[Merkabah Star]

16 hours ago, Vrubel said:

My first loyalty is standing against all the lies and demonization. If you're an intelligent and reasonable person critical of Israel. That can be fair, I have no beef with you. But you see, this issue often goes hand in hand with lies, twisting and stretching, blatant hypocrisy and all kinds of ugliness for which I will not stand.

 

Any criticism of Israel is deemed lies by you. You are delusional. 

[Ramanujan]

jews have no business being there. look at all the genocide that happens because of this.  85% of jews migrated from poland and ukrain . they are settler colonialist. just like how europeans colonised native americans and killed them all and took their land , jews wanna take the land

 

torah forbid jews from forming a state in palestine .

what has a begining has an end

throught history no jewish civilisation could exist beyond 80 years. all jewish civilisations collapsed within 80 years in history .

isreale's time is near

the muslims living in middle east has turned super tough coz  of jewish genocide and war crimes while jews turned soft cause of good times in isreal

[Ramanujan]

fu$ck jewish war machine , which killed all those civilians and turned middle east into war land. muslims are more relegious than jews . palestine belong to them. jews should go back to poland and ukrain , the places from which they orginally come from

[Vrubel]

1 hour ago, Karmadhi said:

Starting from them murdering 7 Western aid workers that were giving food to starving kids and then shamelessly saying it was an accident  although it is proved they were hit 3 times.

Obviously still an accident, Israel took responsibility for it. Saying it was intentional is a lie on your part. 

1 hour ago, Karmadhi said:

If you stand with Truth, you stand against Israel's bullshit.

Israel doesn't have to lie as much as you think. Israel routinely takes responsibility for mistakes. Israelis explaining their perspective is legitimate and not lying. 

Your bias distorts your view. You can be biased but still be more truthful and less dogmatic. That's what I am trying to be. I have my worldview and opinions but I try to look at "facts" or "raw Information" as they are and not to mush them into a pre-made narrative. My worldview is strong and wise enough to handle integrating "raw information" scrutinizing Israel. Still, I have unapologetic support for Israel in this war. I truly feel sorry for the innocent people caught up in this war. And ultimately there are no winners in war. But there is also an ugly hardcore survival element to this all. The bottom line is that Hamas must be removed.

 

1 hour ago, Karmadhi said:

But when Leo, alongisde every non Israeli on this forum has called that out, then it speaks a lot.

It is time you reflect.

 

Mass appeal is no measurement for truth, especially considering this topic attracts a very specific loud minority. Having said that you're free to have any opinions and worldview you want but know I'll be able to look through any perversions and lies with absolute ease. 

Edited April 18 by Vrubel

[Vrubel]

17 minutes ago, Merkabah Star said:

Any criticism of Israel is deemed lies by you. You are delusional. 

I literally said the exact opposite. But you guys are beyond reasonable in the way you twist and squirm. 

[Raze]

53 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

@Karmadhi If you were honest you would not say "murdering" but rather a neutral word like killing because the chance is high that this was a mistake.

They said they thought a militant was with them, that was the mistake.

but it was not a mistake to fire on aid workers, the aid workers were coordinating their movements with the IDF and they fired on them three times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/03/opinion/jose-andres-let-people-eat.html

IDF have leaked the rules of engagement are if they think there is a militant there, they are allowed to kill up to 20 civilians with them, if they think it is a commander, up to 100

https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

Given that they’ve killed over 200 aid workers,  150 UN workers, and 100 journalists, no other explanation makes sense than purposefully firing at them, this ratio is the worst in recent history 

[Karmadhi]

35 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

Obviously still an accident, Israel took responsibility for it. Saying it was intentional is a lie on your part

So a convoy that was coordinated with the IDF and was hit not 1 but 3 times is an accident. I cannot believe you are so naive. 

Again, trusting proven liars is a red flag. You should put everything they say through very heavy doubt and only trust it when biased objective sources say otherwise. In this case it is Interntional organizations. 

35 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

Israel routinely takes responsibility for mistakes

Hahahahahhahahaha

35 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

The bottom line is that Hamas must be removed.

Sure, but at what cost?

 

Edited April 18 by Karmadhi

[zurew]

15 minutes ago, Raze said:

IDF have leaked the rules of engagement are if they think there is a militant there, they are allowed to kill up to 20 civilians with them, if they think it is a commander, up to 100

Is that rule of engagment is unique to the IDF or that rule of engagement is standard when it comes to wars in general?

[Karmadhi]

Just now, zurew said:

Is that rule of engagment is unique to the IDF or that rule of engagement is standard when it comes to wars in general?

US had a ratio of 1 to 10 at worst. So IDF is 10 times more careless

[zurew]

7 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

US had a ratio of 1 to 10 at worst. So IDF is 10 times more careless

I see. Do we know how rules of engagement is conducted in general ( Im specifically asking in terms of what kind of and how international law(s) restrict rules of engagment)

edit: It seems that it is self-imposed generally speaking. 

Edited April 18 by zurew

[Nivsch]

30 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

US had a ratio of 1 to 10 at worst.

Who is the 1 and who is the 10?

[Karmadhi]

48 minutes ago, zurew said:

I see. Do we know how rules of engagement is conducted in general ( Im specifically asking in terms of what kind of and how international law(s) restrict rules of engagment)

edit: It seems that it is self-imposed generally speaking. 

 

21 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Who is the 1 and who is the 10?

Basically US when it came to taking out very high profile people was willing to kill 10 civilians at most. That was their threashhold.

Meanwhile Israel was willing to kill 20 civilians for low profile and up to 100 for high profile.

10 times more than the US.

That is what I meant.

So by this I mean bombings.

[Nivsch]

@Karmadhi What is low and high profile in this regard?

[Karmadhi]

@Nivsch The ratios Israel had before this attack. So no civilians allowed to die for low end and 10 for high end.

Also no fucking bombing low end Hamas when they are home. I do not get the logic of this rather than just trying to mass murder people.

Waiting for someone to be home to bomb them is insane.

Yet their AI did this

[Nivsch]

I don't understand what you mean.

I saw now that the conservative assesments give Gaza war a ratio of roughly 1:2. 66% of the killed are civilians and 33% hamas terrorists.

Even 1.5-1.7 civilians to every terrorist according to Israeli assesments from January-February.

Edited April 18 by Nivsch

[tvaeli]

2 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

Ironic considering Israel has been caught lying countless times and is one of the least credible countries out there among rich ones.

I think you are right in this - there are no poor jews, but only jews, who don't have money at the moment. As they represent the material element. If muslims are going to "take back" the Israel, there will be probably another thousand years of silent war and they get back this; from my viewpoint it's somewhat hard to see, why muslims so surely want this little piece of land, whose ownership is at best questionable and which will be fought back anyway, so they cannot grow strong roots there. It's absolutely questionable if you want to take "back" the sacred piece of land of another, if they are so sure in this and for you it's rather one of the many lands in your area.

I think in material world the urge for "completeness" is completely unhealthy. For example you have a company of building and you want *every* market, which is related to building - the material thing you have is always a little bit incomplete or broken. For Muslims in Arabia, the Israel is a little yin in yang, the "false", which is part of the true - when they take it all, the muslims, they would have complete yang and complete yang will always break ..they will have israely spys for rest of their life and they cannot kill all of them because of human rights; by achieving completeness they cannot have it really.

It's the monopoly game, where you have 90% of something of your ideal, and then you try harder and harder to have 100% ..but this 100% is killing you. Rather you should stay with some "flaws" and accept that the material world will like this a lot more ..because this "endgame" is just collecting meaningless score.

Looking the history of this land, jews are coming and going, and they always have annoying aliens there like romans or englandia (king Arthur); they never have it complete, but they never give up; and they might be quite a small nation themselves, but christians never forget that Jesus was a jew, and that their old testament is basically Torah, or some restricted edition of it. So they always find it very important part of their own mythology that jews live in Israel - and Christianity, in all countries there will be always many Christians.

Also the muslims can not make their claims about Israel never quite complete from the viewpoint of any nation or religion; the jews always have a word to say. Everybody has to agree that Arabia is the land of muslims, and ancient and important home land, but it has this little exception forever in the holy books of the world.

It's very stupid to try to take this piece of "useless land" (from the reasoned viewpoint of arabs, for who it's only a land) from jews, as useless it is to keep another nation constantly angry and depressed. You have to make a sacrifice to win a war, and for arabs, Israel is The Sacrifice.

Jews and Arabs have very long relationship thoughout different times and empires, and there has been a constant struggle in Israel, so this is a debate with very long and angry history, I think it's a matter of land ownership the world knows the best of all. Muslim religion is kind of outgrown from jewish religion - their more ancient prophets and kings are jewish, and Muhammad was thus quite inspired by jewish religion. Positive relationships between Jews, Christians and Muslims have occured times to times, so really there have to be religious roots to talk about. Moreover, it's logical that if Muhammad honoured past jewish prophets, the new work of jews in science and religion has to be to muslims of similar interest, as it's not logical that jewish lineage would somehow end because of prophet muhammad, rather it got some additional credit 

The reasons, why Israel is sacred place for Muslims, are related to Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus, and none of those can be respected without respecting jews living in this area - this would just make up some nonsense. So it's not logical, if muslims themselves are not protecting jewish rights and some superiority in this area, despite that then they cannot say they have complete control over Arabia. I think they have much bigger chances of cooperation, which is rather good from viewpoints of both religions, if they think that this particular matter is really already solved by jews and their history - I agree that it's a matter of constant conflict, how the jews handle money in the world, as they are born for the money, and thus it's a normal interaction between poor and the rich that the poor really cannot understand, why they do not have this money, and the rich inevitably mess it up, as every nation tends to have some families messing up their holy thing. So I don't want to stop muslims fighting with jews about the money in the world, and about the bankrupcies the jews are creating here and there - if you blow up the finances of one country, you must be really stupid if you think the legal process would not follow. This "war" is completely agreeable, as if you don't have it going on, finally there will be the great war, when jews really overlooked something; and jewish history tells that with this talent for the money or the material world, the weakness is equivalent "worship of the golden calf". It's natural that every now and then, some jews start to "wordship the golden galf" and others become angry - even the story of Hitler started with such claims; it's unhealthy to go as far as Hitler, but obviously in the Jewish religion, this activity is somewhat illegal. It has to do with too agressive business, so if the business is central to jewish blood, this tendency of extreme is bound to follow; it's similar to aristocrat blood sometimes starting to worship the power, like Louis XIV, and this is illegal to aristocrats (today they should be democrats) and relevant to other nations. I really believe that jews are the God's selected nation of money or material, and Aristocrats are the God's selected bloodlines of law or the ideal world; I tend to believe anything But now, when you have this "family fight" with jews about the money, constantly, which is similar to the thing any rich member of a village or a family must tolerate, this is fine, but when you start to fight for the Israel, this is not very fine.

I vaguely remember it was probably Russia, who gave one land to jews in some part of history ..I could not google this fact so I'm not very certain But otherwise it's hard to believe the jews would care about any other land.

For muslims and jews, I think they should also consider, what's their *ideal* state after the war, which follows both the religions - I think it really is, by both those religions and christianism as well, that the Jews control the Israel. I think the opposing views are rather part of the current-state-of-the-things, a shadow thinking coming from the long war and the fact that Arabs somehow lived in Israel for quite a while, so some of them must feel some connection. But their families, in longer time, lived in different places. If they want to be so "historic", maybe the jews would fight for freedom in some part of egipt, where they used to be slaves  This is not more easy or nice solution for arabs, if jews would go to their historic land in egipt and fight some part of it free.

It's somewhat discussable, what it God and his promise of the land of Israel to jews. I think both science and religion matter and in science, the God is not such a prerequisite, but the qualities of God, like goodness, truth or unity of nations and civilizations, still follow - scientifically, God is born if people follow God, if they follow these high principles, God exists in their lives anyway, and the principles themselves can be proven by game theory or something. They are enlightened principles of unity and synchronicity, which must appear somehow in human life. Even in religion, you would accept that people, who must take responsibility for themselves, are not so directly helped by God and they are not far wrong if they state that God does not exist; I think in any way, the existence of God or the existence of rather all the good qualities of God as the direction of our evolution and wisdom, those are debatable. So we can ask what means, that God gave this land to Jews - I think it's rather enough if they simply want it so much, and convince others so much that it's somehow ethically important, that Israel belongs to jews. If I would be an atheist, I would simply accept that; if somebody wants a little piece of my complete thing or ideal so much, like one coin of my complete coin collection, I would rather give it away. It's not so important ideal that you have complete coin collection - rather this is the greed, and this is not good by religious or an atheist God of well-developed ethical values in action. So if I would be an atheist, I would still rather believe that God gave this land to Jews, if I have to believe in this. I believe that strong will for something somehow reasons itself, especially if it's a small thing for others - you cannot have a very strong will, and you cannot make it so powerful, if there isn't something very deep in it. If jews manage to constantly select themselves by God, then if God is Truth and the Law of Nature, then even by science, they must be selected nation of God In this diversity, to be "equal", others have to find out what they are and why this is important.. For example with some aristocrat blood, I can be happy that kings are often selected by God, or in modern era of enlightened governance, they must have some journeys of fighting countries into higher states of the law or ideal; in this, when they keep their ideals, they are bound to success, and if they are bound to success, they can be said to be selected by God, because God is Truth and Wisdom and by being Wise, or having this tendency in your blood, you can thus "make" yourself being selected by "God". As a Buddhist it's lately very important for me that I'm not believing in God or non-believing in God, because I really start to understand, what Buddha meant if he said that the belief of existence or non-existence of God is too much for a beginner, and makes them sometimes fight blindly for a conception. So for aristocrat philosophy it's very easy for me to see, why God selects one aristocrat or a "king" (in modern era it's only a symbol or archetype, not a "real thing") and when I go with this logic a long, long way further, it's somewhat easy to see, why God would select the jews as a nation and give them Israel, and this is not very relevant in this, whether God exists or not.

[tvaeli]

Additionally, I have to say I like what's going on here around the topics of being delusional, having one-sided viewpoint, or not having it; I think all sides of this argument develop something for this complex. You can meditate on these "contradictionary" arguments - in war, the two sides are "contradictionary" in a sense, but the logic must somehow follow for both sides. So there is a point in seeing this contradiction, thus in taking both sides, and the logic in overcoming this or seeing the inevitability of some battles. So there are actually four different viepoints - both sides can be True or False in your logic:

• True, False: One side is correct.
• False, True: Other side is correct.
• True, True: They should somehow cooperate.
• False, False: They inevitably attack each other and both have deep reasons for this.

All these four "archetypes" have a certain sense of meaning and the truth in two sides fighting is not completely positive in this sense that you reach reasoned arguments, which seem to contradict something said about the other side. So in addition to those four values, the battle between them should be seen a value itself - a game of archetypes in mind, which can become somewhat enlightened, more intelligent, and overcome it's wounds. I can understand that for some arabs in Gaza, who have lived a good life, Israel simply attacked innocent people, if they don't look around, and for Israel, the murder is too much to start considering the ethical guidelines in this, for example an arab might think the American music played in the party is from Satan. It's the same archetype by which the older generations often say that the music, sayings and style of the youth is really from Satan this time, but then the youth does not listen this very much and finally develops something to stay. The older generations of Muslims have not seen such change very much and they are very painful about the music and styles of younger generations, or of Israel, which has been modernized very much and thus seem absolutely evil for some younger tradition or for the older people of their tradition. You always need to continue the evil archetype as well, as you develop higher with goodness - the paradox of peace and war, or the paradox of police (fighting with weapon), it never goes away; even in Paradise the God suddenly starts story of Noah and then, many people would say Christian morales must be a bad thing to have if they protect such thing  

[Heaven]

Human being are in a search of a purpose.

Israel developed the iron dome. 

Palestinians developing rockets.

Can’t you see the difference ?