286 karma · joined October 5, 2025
There are protests against the war/against the US/against Israel in major capitals, the Lego videos go viral, news regularly mention EU heads of state talking to Iranian ministers. After weeks of the strait being shut, no EU country has joined US and Israel. Every EU opposition party is including the end of the war in their manifesto. Does any of that look like no support?
For most of the world, Iran is the victim of two dangerous countries. I bet you a tenner that when the US and Israel give up and the end of the war is officially announced, there'll be dancing in your streets.
My interpretation of the parent comment is: Americans should stop aggressing other countries, slaughtering the population, and then publishing scientific breakthroughs on treating ptsd among the killers.
I'd say the comment says nothing about wars of survival, which is not what veterans have ptsd for. No one is 'doing war' at America.
TLDR: only minor/unsubstantial changes to the New Testament across the first ~1-1.5k years of copying.
TFA would have benefitted from including sources for its many claims, as otherwise the conclusion, made by a vocal Christian, could be described as very motivated. As it stands, I can't give it any weight.
No, you got it wrong. They acted like people should act during a genocide.
>90% of Gaza's infrastructure is destroyed, >90% of the population is displaced, no universities left, only one hospital with no equipment. These numbers are from several months ago, so you'll excuse me if I'm not keeping up with Israel's killing frenzy.
That Gazans still can make art, enjoy a coffee, and do a 5k to raise awareness in a world that doesn't care is seen as victory over darkness by those who are caring about this catastrophe.
Those who don't know anything about anything and use the smile of a child to screech "not a genocide!" should be ashamed of themselves.
There were many reasons for the Arab League, which Lebanon was part of, to attack a country taking over Palestine.
It's not international waters.
> if Iran is allowed to do this
They have sovereignty and they only ever mentioned doing this to pay for reparations after being attacked by two countries that have been allowed to routinely attack/exploit the Middle East and, in the case of one, carry out genocide.
As an aside, the war is largely seen as being waged for the sake of Israel, against US/world interests.
> Indonesia will tax the Malacca strait... a lot of countries... attacking each other
Pure fearmongering, in no way different from "think of the children and of the terrorists".
Torture, so casually mentioned. For what, I wonder.
Edit: I thought you had adapted this to what's described in the TFA, but seems like it's an actual excerpt.
You can hold the view that other issues (including the NBA) are more important, but pretending that criticism of Israel has any chance of being recognised by a Pulizer prize would be lying to yourself.
Would be interested to hear what makes you say that. I don't see anyone being conscious of ethical concerns more than they were before. I can see slightly more BDS people, for example, but outside of that not much.
The moral posture you're criticising is not actually a thing, I personally don't know of any Western intellectual who criticises the West but is fine with FGM for example. But it seems that the fault you find in them is that when they criticise the West, for example, they don't also add a list of grievances against all the other countries (but surely they'd have to speak for 10 hours every time they open their mouths?).
It's also funny how you take the 30,000 Iranian civilians killed at face value, but don't talk about the wrongs of the British empire. And you didn't even mention North Korea once. You see the issue with your reqs?
Most states (talking about decision-makers, not populations) don't want to take in large groups of refugees, not because of their genes or politics, but because it has a cost and risks (in terms of integration, gov perception, fuelling far right parties, etc.). Nothing to do with Middle-Eastern/Palestinian.
Even though there are examples of massive refugee intakes by states, everywhere, including in the Middle-East, including of Palestinians, including voluntary.
I do wonder if you all can hear yourself: a lot of subtle implications of genetic defects in Palestinians' character and selective understanding of geopolitics in the region, or just basic societal dynamics.
I invited another commenter to transpose their reasoning to groups it's less popular to openly discriminate, I'd suggest you do the same.
Could you imagine me making the same argument with other historically 'unwanted' groups, like for example Black people or Jews? If these populations keeep getting kicked out and marginalised through millennia, surely you have to start wondering why.
Before diving into your link, I'll start by saying that anyone who spends time around Muslims will know they're people like everyone else and not the evil caricatures you're attempting to portray.
Your comment sounds like Muslims the world over want to kill infidels. The link says that Muslims in majority Muslim theocratic countries support Sharia being the law for Muslims. There is a lot less support in secular, majority-Muslim countries.
The survey doesn't cover Western countries, and in the countries closest to the West (Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania), support for Sharia among Muslims is 18%, and the majority of those 18% believe it should only apply to Muslims.
Some Muslims think apostasy deserves capital punishment: this is about Muslims abandoning their faith, not infidels.
Some other headings from your survey:
Extremism widely rejected Few see tensions over religions differences Widespread support for democracy, religious freedom
> than Jewish or Christian followers
Israel is an apartheid state, where ethno-religious supremacy of part of the population is law, where dehumanisation and killing of Palestinians enjoy widespread support 2.5 years into the genocide. A few weeks ago, a law was passed that allows hanging and applies, in practice, only to Palestinians.
Christian theocracies do not exist anymore, or for now, but it'd be fair to say they'll be equally as bad as any other theocracy.
Do you think the flood of sympathy will then be unleashed, unhindered as it is by the disgusting view of the subjects of the sympathy? No, what will happen is that an issue that almost no one cares about (except, like you, in terms of it being a bother) is further removed from public view.
The chance of people being sympathetic and wanting to help those who suffer is much higher if the homeless people aren't removed from their view.
A backdoor to the world's largest messaging app would be extremely valuable: while it can exist, it's unlikely that it'd be so widely available the UAE police can use it for such insignificant cases. And because of its value, no one with access to it (the US, the UAE, Meta) would want it to become public knowledge through such an insignificant case, because everyone they really want to spy on would switch to Signal in a second.
The claim is that the makeup of the prison population would be different if the law was as expeditive and indiscriminate with the well-to-do as it is with the poor: the entirety of Enron in prison, of VW, of Uber, etc.
Your correlation is by and large about criminality among the poor. It would still probably hold in the above scenario, but you can't claim it looks at "criminality" full stop.
Massacres have been happening for the last 80 years. The large majority of the Israelis believe that the government isn't going far enough in Gaza, and the large majority reject any ceasefure with Iran or Lebanon. The dehumanisation of the entire Middle East is complete.
What is controversial here? Where do you see any, any evidence to the contrary?
Exactly. I always struggled with this (which is the desired effect) until I heard Francesca Albanese give this exact answer.
There is no right to exist for a country under international law, but there is a right to live for people.
I'll have a look at that book however: what were the other books?