Is there moral high ground? And if so, what is it?

[promethean75]

"That's fine."

So you'll go with me? To Russia I mean. Hot damn this is gonna be awesome, Gary! We'll be like Lenin and Trotsky, bro. The Russian people will love us. But we won't get any help from the Chinese becuz Jinping don't roll like Mao and will prolly be in cahoots with Putin and his counter offensive.

[Gary Childress]

"That's fine."

So you'll go with me? To Russia I mean. Hot damn this is gonna be awesome, Gary! We'll be like Lenin and Trotsky, bro. The Russian people will love us. But we won't get any help from the Chinese becuz Jinping don't roll like Mao and will prolly be in cahoots with Putin and his counter offensive.

[Age]

From my perspective, it appears that both Putin and Hamas started hostilities where there previously were none. Putin invaded Ukraine without himself being attacked. Hamas attacked Israel without Israel having attacked them. Indeed, the Israeli government even gave them aid in the form of funding to help keep the peace and as the authority over Gazans, Hamas used virtually all their aid money to buy weapons while their own people thirsted and starved and now use them as shields. Is that Israel's fault? How can we condemn Israel and Ukraine as equally wrong when they are defending themselves? If someone attacked you and I, Age, would you and I not feel betrayed if everyone else around us sat idly by and watched and even condemned us for fighting back?

What I have written above is what I'm seeing after reading that article. I am unable to condemn Israel and Ukraine for defending themselves. And that is what I feel that those of us who disapprove of their conduct are doing--just sitting back and criticizing from our armchairs. Putin and Hamas have left them no choice. Hamas keeps breaking cease-fires to attack Israel and will not stop doing so.

Am I wrong to see things this way?

'you', a human being, are not wrong for seeing anything in any way.

However, in saying that, what you are seeing could be ultimately absolutely Wrong, or anywhere between being absolutely Wrong to being absolutely Right.

Where you, and even why you, are seeing things here only from a very, very narrowed perspective, and thus not seeing things in the Right way, partly explains why you are not recognising and seeing the whole and True full picture here,

The way you are 'looking at', and thus 'seeing', things here is not in 'the way' that paints and illustrates the Truest and biggest Picture, for you.

Well, I'm tired of all the nuclear saber-rattling and talk of World War III that I'm seeing in the news.

Adult human beings have been tired of all the so-called 'nuclear saber-rattling and talk' since some 'dim-wit' invented nuclear bombs/weapons.

And, the 'scare factor' might have been far more prevalent half a century ago, before you wrote these words here, then it is 'now'.

you are just looking at and seeing things from a very, very narrowed and small field of view here.

It's freaking me out and I wish all the people talking about such things would just shut the hell up.

Are you even aware that probably, relatively, no one here in this forum is talking about 'world war 3' nor 'nuclear' here, besides you?

If you did not bring these things up here, and chose not to watch and listen to so-called 'news stories' about those things, then you would rarely, if ever, hear about these things. And, then you would not bring these things up here, in this forum, as topic of discussions, literally, inviting others to start talking about them?

We're not on our way to World War III or Nuclear War if journalists would just shut their fat mouths about it.

Well you are not helping by continually bringing these exact same things up here, like "journalists" do, correct?

[Gary Childress]

'you', a human being, are not wrong for seeing anything in any way.

However, in saying that, what you are seeing could be ultimately absolutely Wrong, or anywhere between being absolutely Wrong to being absolutely Right.

Where you, and even why you, are seeing things here only from a very, very narrowed perspective, and thus not seeing things in the Right way, partly explains why you are not recognising and seeing the whole and True full picture here,

The way you are 'looking at', and thus 'seeing', things here is not in 'the way' that paints and illustrates the Truest and biggest Picture, for you.

Well, I'm tired of all the nuclear saber-rattling and talk of World War III that I'm seeing in the news.

Adult human beings have been tired of all the so-called 'nuclear saber-rattling and talk' since some 'dim-wit' invented nuclear bombs/weapons.

And, the 'scare factor' might have been far more prevalent half a century ago, before you wrote these words here, then it is 'now'.

you are just looking at and seeing things from a very, very narrowed and small field of view here.

It's freaking me out and I wish all the people talking about such things would just shut the hell up.

Are you even aware that probably, relatively, no one here in this forum is talking about 'world war 3' nor 'nuclear' here, besides you?

If you did not bring these things up here, and chose not to watch and listen to so-called 'news stories' about those things, then you would rarely, if ever, hear about these things. And, then you would not bring these things up here, in this forum, as topic of discussions, literally, inviting others to start talking about them?

We're not on our way to World War III or Nuclear War if journalists would just shut their fat mouths about it.

Well you are not helping by continually bringing these exact same things up here, like "journalists" do, correct?

Fair enough. I'll try to tone it down. It's not easy, though, when every other story I see regarding World news seems to mention such things.

[phyllo]

What makes you think the article is wrong? Is Hamas not inflating civilian casualties?

IDF has claimed 9000 Hamas killed. IDF has several times acknowledged a 2 to 1 civilian kill ratio.

That means 18,000 civilians and a total death count of 27,000. So where is the inflation? The article itself agrees with this and praises a 2:1 ratio as admirable (Sure, is says "less then 2:1". What is that 1.9 to 1? They don't say.)
Here:

But the figure is not a fact: it is terrorist propaganda.

As the renowned military historian Lord Andrew Roberts noted in the House of Lords earlier this month, we would not believe Vladimir Putin or ISIS on casualties inflicted by their enemies: there is no reason to treat the rapists, torturers and murderers of Hamas any differently.

Roberts went on to point out that it’s estimated that more than 9,000 of the dead were not innocent civilians but active Hamas fighters – and even Hamas admits that its dead fighters are included in the total. If one then accepts the Hamas-concocted death toll for the sake of argument and makes allowance for the fact that Hamas and its allies are also killing Gazans, the IDF are killing less than two civilians for every Hamas fighter they take out.

“War is hell,” said Roberts. “Every individual civilian death is a tragedy, but – I speak as a military historian – less than 2:1 is an astonishingly low ratio for modern urban warfare where the terrorists routinely use civilians as human shields. It is a testament to the professionalism, ethics and values of the Israel Defense Forces.”

Once you get past the headline "We’ve got to stop believing Hamas’ lies about civilian deaths in Gaza", the article doesn't even dispute the reported death toll.

Is the IDF not discriminating well enough between military and civilian targets?

The level of destruction is on higher level than any recent conflict. Reported here:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/israel ... -1.7068647

It seems like Hamas shouldn't have started all this. It doesn't seem as though they've left Israel any choice. They should have been using all the funding they were receiving to supply their people with things they needed like food and water instead of blowing it on things to kill other human beings with.

Ignoring all the grievances that the Palestinians have. And absolving Israel of any responsibility. Placing no limit on the death and destruction that Israel is 'allowed' to inflict.

Perhaps much of what we're hearing in the news these days from Al Jazeera and other sources is little more than propaganda against Israel.

At the beginning of the conflict, the media would simply parrot Israeli talking points. But as the conflict dragged on, as the death and destruction mounted, journalists started questioning that narrative. This article is the push back on that trend.

There appears to be no end in sight. There appears to be no plan for after the war other than that Israel will control Gaza completely.

And people are dying daily from direct attacks and from famine, disease, and lack of medical care.

[Age]

Well, I'm tired of all the nuclear saber-rattling and talk of World War III that I'm seeing in the news.

Adult human beings have been tired of all the so-called 'nuclear saber-rattling and talk' since some 'dim-wit' invented nuclear bombs/weapons.

And, the 'scare factor' might have been far more prevalent half a century ago, before you wrote these words here, then it is 'now'.

you are just looking at and seeing things from a very, very narrowed and small field of view here.

It's freaking me out and I wish all the people talking about such things would just shut the hell up.

Are you even aware that probably, relatively, no one here in this forum is talking about 'world war 3' nor 'nuclear' here, besides you?

If you did not bring these things up here, and chose not to watch and listen to so-called 'news stories' about those things, then you would rarely, if ever, hear about these things. And, then you would not bring these things up here, in this forum, as topic of discussions, literally, inviting others to start talking about them?

We're not on our way to World War III or Nuclear War if journalists would just shut their fat mouths about it.

Well you are not helping by continually bringing these exact same things up here, like "journalists" do, correct?

Fair enough. I'll try to tone it down. It's not easy, though, when every other story I see regarding World news seems to mention such things.

Have you ever thought of just not 'looking at' 'that', which you do not want to see?

And, remember a 'news story' is something that one has to 'stay looking at'.

Also, if you 'tell' "yourself" that it is 'not easy' for you to not do something, then this, literally, 'means', (but to 'you' only), then it is 'not easy' for you to not do that thing.

But, conversely, and obviously, if you 'tell' "yourself" 'the opposite', then, to you, the opposite would and will become 'true'.

[Janoah]

Putin invaded Ukraine without himself being attacked.

In the conflict in Ukraine, not everything is so simple; before attacking, Putin warned verbally and in writing that he would not tolerate NATO in Kyiv, which was the capital of the Russian state a thousand years before the concept of “Ukraine” appeared. But the West did not even agree to discuss this, and used Ukrainian nationalists for its proxy war against Russia.
In Russia, for more than a thousand years, Kyiv has been called “the mother of Russian cities.” Modern Russia has recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, but a hostile NATO in Kyiv is a spit in the soul. Much more can be added that modern Ukraine received Western Ukraine, the Carpathians, Transcarpathia, Northern Bukovina from Stalin, and the Ukrainian nationalist Petliura abandoned claims to Western Ukraine for the sake of a war against Russia together with Poland.
But this is so, by the way, I said.

it is not up to Putin to dictate what Ukraine can and cannot do or what they can be members of and what they cannot.

To understand, you can remember the Cuban missile crisis, when the same United States decided to attack sovereign Cuba and introduced a naval blockade of sovereign Cuba. This was in response to Soviet missiles in sovereign Cuba, and the missiles in Cuba were in response to American nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey.
I have no interest in being Putin's lawyer, but it is in the interests of the United States and Ukraine, and everyone who wants peace, - to really want peace.
And the US strategy developed by Brzezinski was,
"Various plans for expanding US influence at Russia’s expense, including the dismemberment of Russia itself (Zbigniew Brzeziński, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, George Friedman) cannot be treated in Moscow as anything other than warning signals to which the Russians naturally react defensively."
https://wuw.pl/data/include/cms/Turbule ... u4mXnW2P2M
And this is what is happening now.
By the way, Brzezinski’s strategy echoes Polish “Prometheism”.
While Trump was there, Putin behaved calmly, because he saw that Trump was not in the mood for confrontation, but, on the contrary, for interaction on truly important aspects in the world.
Under Biden, the frenzied development of Ukraine by NATO began.
In general, those who speak most for peace usually lead to disastrous wars.

[Gary Childress]

In the conflict in Ukraine, not everything is so simple; before attacking, Putin warned verbally and in writing that he would not tolerate NATO in Kyiv, which was the capital of the Russian state a thousand years before the concept of “Ukraine” appeared. But the West did not even agree to discuss this, and used Ukrainian nationalists for its proxy war against Russia.
In Russia, for more than a thousand years, Kyiv has been called “the mother of Russian cities.” Modern Russia has recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, but a hostile NATO in Kyiv is a spit in the soul. Much more can be added that modern Ukraine received Western Ukraine, the Carpathians, Transcarpathia, Northern Bukovina from Stalin, and the Ukrainian nationalist Petliura abandoned claims to Western Ukraine for the sake of a war against Russia together with Poland.
But this is so, by the way, I said.

it is not up to Putin to dictate what Ukraine can and cannot do or what they can be members of and what they cannot.

To understand, you can remember the Cuban missile crisis, when the same United States decided to attack sovereign Cuba and introduced a naval blockade of sovereign Cuba. This was in response to Soviet missiles in sovereign Cuba, and the missiles in Cuba were in response to American nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey.
I have no interest in being Putin's lawyer, but it is in the interests of the United States and Ukraine, and everyone who wants peace, - to really want peace.
And the US strategy developed by Brzezinski was,
"Various plans for expanding US influence at Russia’s expense, including the dismemberment of Russia itself (Zbigniew Brzeziński, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, George Friedman) cannot be treated in Moscow as anything other than warning signals to which the Russians naturally react defensively."
https://wuw.pl/data/include/cms/Turbule ... u4mXnW2P2M
And this is what is happening now.
By the way, Brzezinski’s strategy echoes Polish “Prometheism”.
While Trump was there, Putin behaved calmly, because he saw that Trump was not in the mood for confrontation, but, on the contrary, for interaction on truly important aspects in the world.
Under Biden, the frenzied development of Ukraine by NATO began.
In general, those who speak most for peace usually lead to disastrous wars.

Yes, it's complicated. However, I wonder what will happen if Putin wins in Ukraine? Will his next move be against Finland or the Latvian and Estonian states. He seems to have a habit of invading his neighbors.

[Gary Childress]

In the conflict in Ukraine, not everything is so simple; before attacking, Putin warned verbally and in writing that he would not tolerate NATO in Kyiv, which was the capital of the Russian state a thousand years before the concept of “Ukraine” appeared. But the West did not even agree to discuss this, and used Ukrainian nationalists for its proxy war against Russia.
In Russia, for more than a thousand years, Kyiv has been called “the mother of Russian cities.” Modern Russia has recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, but a hostile NATO in Kyiv is a spit in the soul. Much more can be added that modern Ukraine received Western Ukraine, the Carpathians, Transcarpathia, Northern Bukovina from Stalin, and the Ukrainian nationalist Petliura abandoned claims to Western Ukraine for the sake of a war against Russia together with Poland.
But this is so, by the way, I said.

it is not up to Putin to dictate what Ukraine can and cannot do or what they can be members of and what they cannot.

To understand, you can remember the Cuban missile crisis, when the same United States decided to attack sovereign Cuba and introduced a naval blockade of sovereign Cuba. This was in response to Soviet missiles in sovereign Cuba, and the missiles in Cuba were in response to American nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey.
I have no interest in being Putin's lawyer, but it is in the interests of the United States and Ukraine, and everyone who wants peace, - to really want peace.
And the US strategy developed by Brzezinski was,
"Various plans for expanding US influence at Russia’s expense, including the dismemberment of Russia itself (Zbigniew Brzeziński, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, George Friedman) cannot be treated in Moscow as anything other than warning signals to which the Russians naturally react defensively."
https://wuw.pl/data/include/cms/Turbule ... u4mXnW2P2M
And this is what is happening now.
By the way, Brzezinski’s strategy echoes Polish “Prometheism”.
While Trump was there, Putin behaved calmly, because he saw that Trump was not in the mood for confrontation, but, on the contrary, for interaction on truly important aspects in the world.
Under Biden, the frenzied development of Ukraine by NATO began.
In general, those who speak most for peace usually lead to disastrous wars.

Do you believe Israel should cease its counterattack against Hamas? If they do, will Hamas try the same thing again?

[promethean75]

"Will his next move be against Finland or the Latvian and Estonian states."

Nah his beef with Ukraine is becuz he doesn't believe Ukraine's sovereignty is legitimate. I explained it all somewhere around here. Couple years ago when the shit first started. U can read up on what happened tho. Much like the jew/gaza thing, the history of russia's conflict with ukraine is just more jackassery of a different sort. The jews and the Russians are the jackasses. The Ukrainians and palestinians are the good guys.

But no, Putin's not gonna fuck with any of those countries becuz they weren't once part of the mother land.

[Gary Childress]

"Will his next move be against Finland or the Latvian and Estonian states."

Nah his beef with Ukraine is becuz he doesn't believe Ukraine's sovereignty is legitimate. I explained it all somewhere around here. Couple years ago when the shit first started. U can read up on what happened tho. Much like the jew/gaza thing, the history of russia's conflict with ukraine is just more jackassery of a different sort. The jews and the Russians are the jackasses. The Ukrainians and palestinians are the good guys.

But no, Putin's not gonna fuck with any of those countries becuz they weren't once part of the mother land.

Well, If Putin wins in Ukraine, then I hope the sovereignties of countries neighboring Ukraine are "legitimate". If they aren't, then it seems like it would suck for all the people who would probably die in the process of making it "legitimate".

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Janoah]

Do you believe Israel should cease its counterattack against Hamas? If they do, will Hamas try the same thing again?

After the atrocities that Hamas committed, Israel has an obligation to neutralize it.
We are not talking about Hamas attacking “again”, it is not stopping.
The fact that he keeps a million of his co-religionists as a human shield suggests that he continues his atrocities, and he does not care about the life of the population in Gaza.

[Janoah]

it is not up to Putin to dictate what Ukraine can and cannot do or what they can be members of and what they cannot.

To understand, you can remember the Cuban missile crisis, when the same United States decided to attack sovereign Cuba and introduced a naval blockade of sovereign Cuba. This was in response to Soviet missiles in sovereign Cuba, and the missiles in Cuba were in response to American nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey.
I have no interest in being Putin's lawyer, but it is in the interests of the United States and Ukraine, and everyone who wants peace, - to really want peace.
And the US strategy developed by Brzezinski was,
"Various plans for expanding US influence at Russia’s expense, including the dismemberment of Russia itself (Zbigniew Brzeziński, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, George Friedman) cannot be treated in Moscow as anything other than warning signals to which the Russians naturally react defensively."
https://wuw.pl/data/include/cms/Turbule ... u4mXnW2P2M
And this is what is happening now.
By the way, Brzezinski’s strategy echoes Polish “Prometheism”.
While Trump was there, Putin behaved calmly, because he saw that Trump was not in the mood for confrontation, but, on the contrary, for interaction on truly important aspects in the world.
Under Biden, the frenzied development of Ukraine by NATO began.
In general, those who speak most for peace usually lead to disastrous wars.

Yes, it's complicated. However, I wonder what will happen if Putin wins in Ukraine? Will his next move be against Finland or the Latvian and Estonian states. He seems to have a habit of invading his neighbors.

Finland had no reason to fear Putin until it joined NATO.
It seems that she joined NATO in the hope of tearing off a piece of Russia that she considers hers.
Apparently, in Finland they believe that the collective West is about to crush Russia, and they need to quickly get the right to a piece of the spoils.
Relations between the Baltic states and Russia depend on how much the Baltic states will escalate confrontation with Russia.
Russia does not need the land of the Baltic states; it has enough land of its own.
But if NATO pumps the Baltics with missiles that threaten Russia, then Russia will have no choice to take measures to neutralize the threats.
But in any case, there is a fundamental difference between the Baltic states and Kiev.
Kyiv is “the mother of Russian cities,” and the attitude towards it is appropriate.
Russia cannot afford NATO in Kyiv; for Russia it is a question of its existence as a state.
By the way, a couple of centuries ago, when there was still folklore, a Russian man sang legends of Kievan Rus and on the shores of the northern sea, and among the Ukrainians, the Slavs, who came to Kiev after its destruction by hordes from the East, their folklore begins from times centuries later than Kievan Rus.

Therefore, Ukrainian nationalists have cognitive dissonance: on the one hand, they subconsciously and consciously understand that Kyiv is the original Russian land, on the other hand, they invent a history for themselves to which they have no relation.
By the way, to some extent this is similar to the Arabs in Israel, the Arabs subconsciously and consciously understand that this is the original Land of Israel, they were informed about this in the Koran, but they use all sorts of demagoguery to erase the historical and religious truth in themselves and others.

But, I only mentioned political squabbles in passing, but your topic is not about political squabbles, but about more fundamental things.

[Gary Childress]

Do you believe Israel should cease its counterattack against Hamas? If they do, will Hamas try the same thing again?

After the atrocities that Hamas committed, Israel has an obligation to neutralize it.
We are not talking about Hamas attacking “again”, it is not stopping.
The fact that he keeps a million of his co-religionists as a human shield suggests that he continues his atrocities, and he does not care about the life of the population in Gaza.

I saw an article this afternoon concerning the IDF shooting on civilians swarming aid trucks. I realize the safety of the aid workers driving the trucks was probably in peril, however, that wasn't mentioned in the article, only that the IDF fired on civilians rushing aid trucks.

"Neutralizing" Hamas is coming at a terrible price for Israel (let alone Gazans). Every Developing country in the world is watching and probably every one of them is siding with desperately starving people rushing aid trucks. Netanyahu's government is insane. How much is it worth to Israel to "neutralize" Hamas? Is it worth aligning almost every nation on Earth against you? Is it worth toppling just about every government that has pledged its support to you? Mind you, the US is mostly standing by you but you're destroying our reputation and credibility also. I don't know if we ought to continue supporting Israel.

I don't see how you have the audacity to believe that Israel is more justified in the current destruction going on in Gaza than Ukraine is in defending itself from invasion.

[Janoah]

Do you believe Israel should cease its counterattack against Hamas? If they do, will Hamas try the same thing again?

After the atrocities that Hamas committed, Israel has an obligation to neutralize it.
We are not talking about Hamas attacking “again”, it is not stopping.
The fact that he keeps a million of his co-religionists as a human shield suggests that he continues his atrocities, and he does not care about the life of the population in Gaza.

How much is it worth to Israel to "neutralize" Hamas?

Israel pays a terrible price, guys, instead of doing science, art, production, they go to defend the Land of Israel, die, and remain crippled.
Terrorists are firing rockets at the entire Country and killing civilians.

But to make it clear clearly, Hamas’s goal is not a “Palestinian state", but global jihad, and they do not hide it. Their goal is to establish the power of Islam wherever there are people.
Israel for them is a tactical goal, which in their minds they can achieve with greater ease, and the strategic goal is the whole world.
From their fundamental, theological point of view, “polytheistic Christians”, atheists, are for them an even greater “evil” than the Jews.
And they will get to you too, local lovers of jihadists, they will get there and kill you with pleasure, just help them get to you.

But I won’t engage in any more political analysis here; the topic here is philosophical, not political actualities.