Could you please explain what exactly the deals were that were rejected by the Palestinians?

And which “the Palestinians” rejected these deals? Which Palestinian organization could accept or reject deals? After all, Israel and its allies have never negotiated with Hamas. “You don’t negotiate with terrorists!” right?

Even if it was you who supported and promoted this terrorist organization in order to deprive the competing organization of the legitimacy to speak for all of Palestine.

And finally, I would be happy if you could say a little more about why “the Palestinians” found these deals unacceptable.

Or did they really justify it by saying that destroying Israel wasn’t part of the deal?

You know, I recently discovered the statements of “Breaking the silence”. They taught me how to extract a never-ending stream of terrorists from a population.

Emotional it’s a totally proportional response according to what the pranksters did to him. Humiliating people can easily provoke them to act aggressively. Especially people of low status who can’t afford a lawsuit. Every police officer knows that.

But of course a human society should have laws to prevent its members from this kind of situations.

It should be illegal to provoke, assault, harass, disrespect , threaten, or humiliate anybody in the way those pranksters did.

And it should be illegal for any random guy to carry a loaded and unlocked gun around in his pocket.

But because neither is illegal in the United States, the number of gun victims there is more similar to that in war zones.

And obviously none of the Americans in this thread give a shit about the social problematics of the case and rather fight irreconcilably over defending or blaming the shooter.

Just another reminder how stupid American laws on weapons are. In every normal country this couldn’t happen because that guy wouldn’t have a gun in the first place. It would have ended in a fight or in the shooter suing the prankster and getting a lot of money while the prankster would be told by court to stop this stupid pranks.

How about names. Do you call Muhammad Ali still Cassius Clay? Just because that’s the name he was given at birth. Should people not have the right to change their name? Like it is here in Germany. And what exactly do you consider stupid about the pronouns them or they? I think they (!) are just normal pronouns, aren’t they? And for quite some time they are regularly used to replace single persons, if the gender of that person isn‘t known. I know that because when that started I was totally confused because I had learned different at school in the 70s.

And what about language flow would you call “natural”? You’re aware of the fact that there are many other languages besides English, aren’t you? In most of them neither he or she or they are even words! Nothing natural at all. It’s just habitual.

Would you call Muhammad Ali Cassius Clay? Would you claim doing so would not not be offensive?

„The climate crisis is here already.“

No. A crisis is a temporary event that you enter and exit, strengthened by many lessons learned and challenges overcome, if you’re lucky.

The climate catastrophe, on the other hand, will inexorably and irreversibly turn our world upside down forever, will kill a vast amount of people and destroy trillions of material value.

The only question is whether we will manage to contain it to an extent that our civilization is not being destroyed to the ground. Every day we go on ignoring this fact is rising the risk of fucking this up completely.

Well, it sounds as if your ideology is definitely one of hate, just like the ideology of some (!) Christians. Are you American?

So in your view a person, identifying as Hindu, who feels that their religious duty is to spread love and understanding instead of hate and division has no chance, right? They are accountable for this pogroms and there’s no way out of that because you have already made your mind up that Hinduism is a brutally inhuman ideology.

Are you aware that that’s true for every religion?

How would you refer to a Hindu (or a Christian) who sees it as their religious duty to help their Christian (or Jewish) neighbor against Hindus (or Christians) committing a pogrom?

Well, let’s assume the ancestors of these Christians had been forced into Christianity like it happened in Spain after the Reconquista. They were threatened by death in case they continued practicing their original religion. Their children were indoctrinated with Christian beliefs. Tens of thousands who weren’t able to let go off their own beliefs were killed publicly. Many have been falsely accused of secretly performing their old rites only to rob their fortunes. So eventually the kids of their had forgotten about their old religion and were Christians from the heart. Which according to you makes them a perfect victim for revenge loving people like you.

But of course, that was never the case in India. There lower cast Hindus made an informed decision to become Christians in order to get rid of the oppression by high cast Hindus. Which again, according to you, makes them a perfect victim for revenge loving people like you.

You really must be a wise human being with a deep sense of justice.

It’s the people vs the shooter. And let’s be honest, eventually the people of the USA is at least as guilty of this and all the other crimes like this as the actual shooter.

This is a very fine comment.

At least that’s what the current hegemon says to the world.

You need less space when you can park backwards. Considering parking in a lane parallel to the traffic.

How about Sean Connery?

We don’t even know if she had an abortion. May she had a miscarriage and was just trying to avoid what’s happening now, being accused of having had an abortion.

Now that sounds a lot like theocratic hellscape…