Conflict is the point. You want someone to attack you, then what better way than bombing an orphanage, school, childrens hospital etc
Conflict is the point. You want someone to attack you, then what better way than bombing an orphanage, school, childrens hospital etc
It’s both infuriating and embarrassing
So god damned stupid/malicious. Both him and the majority of Europe it seems said something to the like off: Israel are allowed to defend themselves. Defend themselves on Palestinian land. With weapons sold by us. And now we “encourage” restraint, like Israel has ever done that when it comes to civilians. They are more than happy to bomb the women and children being used as shields by Hamad.
So here’s what I (think I) know. Proper historians please correct me.
Modern history saw Palestine mainly populated by Christians and Muslims till late 1800s, when a rise in Zionism led to increased migration into Palestine. This kept increasing and really accelerated from Germany in mid 1930s (strange huh.)
When Israel officially got its title as a nation given to them by the UN in 1947, the Arab nations all voted against as they felt the share of Palestine left to be called Palestine was not enough.
Conflict has been escalating since. But I feel this is the basis for the conflict as it is today.
It is. To the detriment of everyone
Further adding to the outrage, Elisha Yered, an ultranationalist settler leader and former adviser to a lawmaker in Netanyahu’s governing coalition, defended the spitters, arguing that spitting at Christian clergy and at churches was an “ancient Jewish custom”.
So, even if that was not absolute bullshit, then that would have been a shit custom. How do you get this vile? Yea, well, we’ve been spitting on “the others” since ancient times isn’t a good argument. Just means you’ve had a fucking awful custom. What a cunt
Eli5 on Joe Manchin please? Never heard of him
Wait, no joke? Ræl is not a very nice thing to call someone in Norwegian
I don’t know why it’s uncomfortable for women here, but I assume they would feel that way whether they revealed their gender or not
Oh I absolutely agree. I have no idea how to give women more autonomy when they are stuck in these repressive households.
What you’re speaking of is how it should be, how to get there is not easy.
“A protracted legal dispute is not in the interests of any party, least of all the complainants who we recognise have already experienced significant distress as a result of this incident,”
This was their apology? Or did I miss something?
Hope you’re right. Nice chat :)
I agree in most cases. However it is an issue when it’s no longer a choice.
Anecdotal, but a church/cult where I grew up and went to school, forbid women and girls to wear anything but skirts. Now a lot of them maybe preferred skirts over pants, but it was never their choice.
Gotta say I’m on the fence on this one. Women should be allowed to wear whatever the hell they want, but it is a problem when a garment is occasionally forced on only them. I have no good solution
Devils advocate here: isn’t the reasoning behind the hijab bans that it’s sexist, not a safety issue?
I remember way back, I got into an argument with an antivaccer on formula1 of all places. He was so detached from reality it’s kinda scary. Of course he posted frequently on conspiracy. It’s like nothing matters, nothing can be true outside of that echo chamber.
They really don’t believe their eyes, it’s kinda scary.
I never said you were in favour of it, another assumption you’re making. You asked why the downvotes and the answer is your strawman argument(s), and being against geoblocking and pro privacy isn’t mutually exclusive.
Poor strawman mate. You don’t have to be “a geoblocking fan,” you can despise it, while also not enabling privacy invasive firms.
Unrelated, but has anyone noticed that almost all posts and comments have at least one downvote?
There can’t be any abusive behaviour going on because the most important person in the world, me, didn’t see anything