whYNOT

It's complete ignorance or evasion of the full destructive capacity of the modern (conventional) weapons and methods of warfare, by which the 'genocide of Palestinian' alarmists observe the battlegrounds.
They show ignorance of the huge distinction between "collateral damage" and deliberate civilian attacks.
Civilians en masse being the easiest of targets to locate and hit.
IF it is/was "genocide" being intended, the Israelis are terrible at it.
You have to do better, IDF !! Too few civilians killed ! There are millions living yet.
Those many pretend ~humanitarians- (who are anti-human-value) demand it.
Because, AS IT IS APPARENT, many screeching against Gazan 'genocide' desire nothing less than Jewish/Israeli genocide.
"See, we pick and choose whom we'd like annihilated"...
These are cowardly accomplices to mass-murderers.

Yes. The 'right' of (national) self-defense entails a Gvt. which must and will protect its citizens to any extent they see fit to end the danger, no arbitrary options about it.
It is after all, "delegated" to do so - by every citizen's individual right of self defense.
"A nation doesn't have rights"- (if I quoted Rand correctly)
I often suspect that the foreign politicians, etc., who concur "Israel has the right to defend itself" are vague about how a nation came by that "right" and might not know defense-retaliation is unquestionable and obligatory by Gvts. And pols may rescind that country's 'right' whenever it suits them personally or politically.

"Relations were... being normalized. Not with the kind of killing... in Gaza".
But what do you think was ~one~  motive of the Hamas attack on Israel?
This: To disrupt Israel's and Saudi Arabia's talks for an accord.
Some value was growing out of the Abraham Accords. Who do you think feared that?
Gaza attacks Israel; and not any doubt - Israel attacks Gaza; there is intensive conflict against underground terrorists - and so on.
I don't know how anyone can miss it, this was not just some crazy, brutal attack without motive on Israel.
E.g. Because the poor Gazans were "under siege" - bla bla, (from the Hamas apologists and propagandists)
I have constantly stressed that Hamas KNEW what would happen-- many Gazans (terrrorists and civilians) would be killed by Israel...etc.etc., the fallout would be an outpouring of support for poor Gazans, Israel gets vilified as "the genocider" ... AND -  talks would end, and relations be strained with Israel's moderate Accords partners. The threat to Iran's regional dominance is nullified.
Come on. You people should be too intelligent and cognizant of the causal sequence to be fooled by these shrewd ploys. You underestimate the enemy's cleverness and falsity.
How the US  was taken in by Iran's glib assurances, last time round by Obama/Kerry.
 
Jerusalem Post
"Intelligence reports show that Hamas’s assault on Israel on October 7 was prepared over several years, with active support and guidance from Iran. The timing of the attack was motivated, to some extent, by the rapid advances in the US-led normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia in the weeks preceding the attack. Such a normalization could undermine the goals of both Hamas and the Iranian regime, who realized that a normalization pact would stymie their efforts to delegitimize and ultimately destroy Israel. For now, it seems their plot has partially succeeded; the normalization process came to a screeching halt and there are growing signs of tension and irritation among the Arab signatories of the Abraham Accords (the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco) that may lead to the collapse of these agreements or their deterioration to the “cold peace” that describes relations between Israel and two of its other peace partners – Egypt and Jordan".

And so it goes on, SillyKitty making a moral equivalence (even - the moral supremacy of Hamas).
Obviously she missed out on Rand's "hierarchy of values". Israel to Hamas, is comparing apples to ... cyanide pills.
Ask the Arab Israelis living there who would not be anywhere else.
The definition of "sacrifice"? Sacrificing a greater value to a lesser/non-value... Exactly what Israel must do to itself, to satisfy the false 'humanitarians'.
Never expect kindness or humanity from altruists, they are directly opposed.
Maybe SK didn't hear that Hamas's idea of "legal defense" trial and due process is tossing people (suspected informers, gays, Fatah members and others) off of buildings?
UNWRA doesn't report those.
 

Once again, you need "to identify". What is its "character"?
Is this fictional "Israel" a terror state, with an ideology and active history of anti-Western and anti-American belligerence?
Was it a lone wolf "Israeli" attacker, an anomaly? 
Hamas blatantly published its mission statement to eradicate Israel - and has substantiated this with aggressive and murderous acts for over a decade.
Everyone treats the matter as if it began Oct 7. Thar was the culmination. It was not the beginning.
All is a rush to judgment lacking or evading the context and evidence. 

See, this mode exposes the wrongful thinking and altruist doctrine of Israel's critics;
This operation in Gaza is not about vindictive punishment and payback. This is how - they - think.
No, its major purpose is ending an ongoing and future menace.
(besides the point, a Hamas leader swore weeks back, their Oct attack was the beginning of more).
What the critics ~say~ they want:
a "proportionate" response from Israel, and no further. Hamas killed xyz Israelis, lsrael should have stopped there also.
These excess casualty numbers signify genocide! *
An eye for an eye has penetrated even the secular leftists. Who believe war is like a football match with set rules.
What many of the critics ~actually~ want:
Hamas to survive to be able to keep assaulting Israel .
*Noted by observers and me, crowds were massing around the world yelling about Israel committing genocide, in that short lull ~ a few days before~ Israel even attacked. No Gazan casuaties at that point. The timing of the global propaganda campaign vilifying "Zionists", i.e. Jews, designed in advance and orchestrated by Islamists was a little premature. 

And who must uphold and protect those "rights"? Which are founded upon man's nature, one's "right to life", therefore the right to the freedom of action to pursue one's life as one sees fit.
Another government?
One's own lawful government - right?
An unlawful terrorist 'Govt' - a self contradicton - which abuses its own people's rights and the rights of another nation's people is criminal, contra reason and human value. Like a common criminal, it automatically loses its rights.
I have no obligation to regard "the rights" ("freedom of action") of someone who comes to harm me, and my government/police/army has the single imperative to defend its citizens' rights.
In the case of Israel, not to only end the immediate threat, but preempt all possible future threats.
The terrorist/terror group has a *prerogative* to defend himself--a cornered rat will usually fight back--but that is not his "right".
In combating them, a Gvt. and Army might select to be as humane as possible towards non-combatants, by rational choice (with little self-sacrifice) not by their rights.

Thank you, but way off. My first consideration was for Ukrainians and what I anticipated could only be great bloodshed, however the war turned out. I could never have predicted its present scale. If only those "defenders of Ukraine" had had their best interests at heart. It apparently has not occurred to many. Ukraine was set up to be the convenient "punch bag" on which Russia would eventually ~have to~ expend itself, so "Weakening Russia" was always the motive. The largest propaganda coup in history, convincing everyone that an insane Putin could not be reasoned and negotiated with and his invasion was unpreventable, even 'fated', with Russia's aims on wider invasions and occupations.
Russia and Putin were/are not a terror gang, to which there is only one response and zero diaogue.

That poison was the product of people being treated with a few 1000 years of racial-religious contempt, repression and murderous cleansing. Jews obviously felt "set apart", for all that they had been (in recent centuries), the most assimilated and loyal French, German, Polish, British, etc., subjects.
Right, "based on blood", born into by (maternal) ancestry and not simple for outsiders to convert into. That most (Leftist) Jews politically and socially, are or purport to be non/anti-racist is a contradiction in convictions.
Earlier Christians of course condemned the Jewish faith's perceived 'selfish arrogance'. Like the Fundamentalist Muslims now, as we know, they were aggressively proselytic, explaining why race was unimportant to them: They want ~everyone~ converted eventually, by preference or force
Anyway, if one is to observe individual rights, a person's "freedom of action" and choices is not one's concern and business. One can and will blast religion, as religion, and equally respect a person's right to practice one.
Rationally, the Zionists wanted their invaluable freedom to act within their self-determining nation, it seems to me: For the religious Jews - and atheist/agnostic Jews - and any other types. Who were ALL without distinction - as now - treated with bigotry or in danger for their lives In Europe -- merely "by virtue of blood".
First, they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew and did not speak up, then they came for the Christians, but I was not.., then they came for the collectivist non-believers, but ..., then they came for the individualist non-believers ... and there was no one left to speak out.

"Religious wars" - not quite. Religion wasn't the primary element of early Israel, a safe sanctuary and self-determination was. It's a common mistake to reify the Jews into a single category. They are about as disparate as all individuals in all groups outside of Judaism. 
Judaism is "ethno-religious". Part ethnicity, part faith. One may choose to drop the convictions entirely and still identify "Jewish" in one's own eyes, or not, especially in others'.
When Jews came under social/legal/religious repression in the European early 20 C, some, who happened to be Socialists and irreligious, began to realize they all, collectively, needed a secure homeland; so some early settlements in part of that large Ottoman territory - known later as Palestine- bought from the Turkish owners - were encouraged, financed and farmed.
The Zionists' prescience of the increasing dangers to all Jews was completely vindicated in hindsight. A flood of Jewish refugees from post-War Europe and many Arab lands where they, the original Spanish Jews, had been barely tolerated under "dhimmi" status for 500 years found a place they could make their own.
Internationally - *legally* - granted/partitioned for Jews - before anyone forgets.
The attacking Arab countries in '48, onwards ~were~ motivated by religious fanaticism, and the "Zionists" or Israelis, now an ethno-religious-nationalist entity, responded in their common defence.
So not then -or presently - are they considered by Israelis as "religious" wars. This now is a proper nation, equal citizens of several 'groups' (including 2 million Muslim-Israelis) and individuals threatened by a terrorist group posing as 'a government' with the goal of eliminating them all.
Terrorists make no such fine distinctions. Leftist and secular Jews who usually sympathized with Palestinians are finding out to their horror that they are as loathed by their fellow Leftists, and Islamists, for " being Jewish" as the religious ones, and as likely to be picked upon and isolated in western nations or be murdered and abducted in Israel, as many were.

Take your identity politics elsewhere. You know less than nothing about me.
But - but - its says "South Africa"! And he has a whitey name!
"We know the type..."
That is the most blatant anti-individualism I've seen on an Oist forum. .

Not to be victims -- again. i.e. the survivors. Got it?
The Palestinians could - and I know a couple who have - turn from nihilism to self-value.
Now get lost. I don't answer to fascist Jew-haters.

There'd not have been a war without close collusion of Western Gvts./Nato with their flunky western media. The immense sacrifices demanded requires sanction from unthinking, misinformed majorities, driven by emotions whipped up by the media.
Ukraine in some regional wrangle with Russia? Were there solutions on hand? Yes. Simply slap temporary sanctions on both; tell them both to behave, stand down and begin negotiations--instantly - before conflict escalates.
Why is it our business? - stay out. 
If just in retrospect, one can now see that was too simple or rational;  an unsuitable resolution contrary to the ultimate goals of the 'powers that be. Therefore, they intended war.
 

All conjecture and propaganda-fuelled "revanchist" nonsense. Regard the Russian actions - foremost. Politicians' rhetoric and accusations of misdeeds count little. Make your own deductions from facts.
It is "a given":  invading Poland etc.etc., would result in nuclear catastrophe - everybody loses. Does anyone think the Kremlin didn't/does not know this, or would welcome annihilation? First order of the western propaganda we saw was to get around that minor detail, to promote an "insane Putin" who'd immolate his country along with everybody else.
Turns out he is quite rational.
And supposing for a moment there was no NATO Art. 5 - and no nukes - what was Putin going to do with an enemy nation he invaded and at great cost, defeated? Occupy it indefinitely, despite recurring insurrections by the populace?
Then move onto the next country?
All to spread and force the ideology of Orthodox Christianity? And maybe install the Czarist Empire in every nation?
All the above too ridiculous to entertain for a second.
Quite explicitly, the Kremlin has dismissed even conquering and occupying Western Ukraine, where they'd be heavily opposed by extremist anti-Russians. What does that make of the "Russian Empire" project? Nonsense; made up by rationalistic academics.
If you read your media with a critical eye, you'd see that Putin often responded to arms escalations and to rhetorical threats of foreign intervention (the "Coalition of the Willing") with a reminder to the West that Russia, beyond its effective conventional forces, has a nuclear capacity as its final line of defense; in other words, "don't push us too far". Like, launching serious attacks on our cities and land, a red line. Presented by the alarmist media and taken by gullible readers to be a direct threat he at any time would - initiate- nuclear use. The subtlety of a caution vs. an intentional threat escapes many. E.g. Putin wants to nuke us!
Quite irrelevant, the interference in foreign elections, either insignificant or unfounded - or refuted, like "Russiagate" in the US - and not a sign of Russian hostility. 
The trouble is that the West cannot accept that most Russians sincerely believe there was/is an existential threat by NATO/Kyiv looming for Russia. Things would escalate out of hand, sooner or later. Large forces amassed near the border, increasing assaults on the Donbas last year-- and then-- NATO membership giving Ukraine great military and nuclear might. So a first strike was logical and justifiable, while a terrible pity, most Russians apparently think. On principle, for any nation in that difficult position, I agree.
Therefore the West can never accept that
1. Putin's act were (mainly) defensive, in the interests of national survival and neutrality avoiding more conflicts with Nato/Ukraine in the forseeable future.
2. Nato's acts in Ukraine and the potential and future actions were and are now, mainly malign and offensive, in the supposed "interests" of the West.
Proof: Item A. You can see it and heard it. There has been every explicit intention to allow, continue and prolong the war (to Ukraine's cost) and every evasion of a quick negotiated settlement, as Putin offered. . 
The "defense of Ukraine and western values", etc., etc., is mendacious. Ukraine clearly has been made to be the sacrificial martyr to others' ends. Losing (or winning) against Russia, could have no other outcome but a grave self-sacrifice.
Conclusion: Not about "Ukraine". The prime objective was and is, undermining and overthrowing the RF.

The above is what I wrote. "As long as they are not pacifists against self-defense..."
I have no interest if Agnes is a peace activist pro- or against self-defense. Anyhow, they are not mutually exclusive, she might be for world peace while also for the right of defense.
I do not need to know either.
She and her host made a compelling case for Sweden and Swedes being fear-mongered to join NATO.
That corresponds to what I read and surmised.
My interest in Agnes ends there.
 

Indeed, An active and receptive (not "open") mind is recommended. It's an impossibility to trace back, validate and communicate your entire conceptual store to another, given that it began inductively from a multitude of 'facts in reality'.
True OR false - OR unproven, as yet - while, (im)probable/(im)possible/(un)likely - constitute the triple poles, to my mind
(I'm not fond of "the arbitrary assertion" theory, whose importance escapes me: E.g., the onus is solely with the claimant to verify his/her assertion.
Cognitive rigidity will follow from this.
The utterly ridiculous assertion speaks for itself - it's false, not "arbitrary".
If one is interested and enjoys expanding one's knowledge, one would surely set about proving/disproving someone's claim for oneself.
A so-called "charity read", would begin with accepting a debater's veracity: why would this person set out to lie and to deceive? Therefore, until seen to be a regular character flaw, I listen in good faith while suspending judgment of its truth content (they could be innocently wrong too).
(The constant and unjust accusations of lying puts me on guard, I find they are very often a projection of the accuser's own untruthfulness).

e
A prequel to Ukraine, with very similar elements in place; The Soviets break up, a Color revolution, a war by West-leaning Georgians against the conservative loyalists in South Ossetia, a (short) military intervention by Russia - however = Georgia remains a sovereign nation to the present. Russia did not try to conquer/annex/ "Empire build" Georgia by justifying and capitalizing upon the tensions. Further, it did not do so despite Georgian wishes to join NATO and their close operational affinity.
A state situated totally within Russia - a NATO member!? and all the militarization and probable nuclear bases that entails? Really smart - and cynical. Unpopular with Moscow. This would be a security danger (for Georgia as well), into the far future. Nor would any other country consider tolerating a clearly inimical entity entering its heartland.
I could theorize that the game-plan by NATO et al utilized the Georgian episode knowing it could also entice Russia into Ukraine to defend loyalists - and the RF - against a massive, Nato-ized army, and to block NATO's intentions in the Russian "near abroad".
Besides, the fault lay largely with Georgia for the conflict, in this independent study. Only the RF's "legality' is faulted.
https://www.dw.com/en/independent-report-blames-georgia-for-south-ossetia-war/a-4746802
 

When you imply that someone is a conspiracy theorist, that is a statement about the person rather than the argument they are making.
Saying that someone "must be irrational if they support X, Y, or Z" can be an argument from intimidation, like "Oh, you can't claim to be an Objectivist if you believe X, Y, or Z, because then you'd be irrational, and Objectivists have to be rational." It's an appeal to Objectivist peer pressure, especially trying to say that "this is supposed to be an Objectivist board so only Objectivist points of view should be able to be posted here," etc.
And both are a form of psychologizing -- attacking a statement by going into the mental state of the person making it, instead of attacking it by comparing it to reality.
If you want to show that some statement X is mistaken, then you have to show why without reference to the person making the statement.
If you want to show that a statement is arbitrary then you need to show that no evidence, of any kind, could establish its truth or falsehood -- that it is "detached from reality" in the specific sense that reality wouldn't make any difference to it.
(It's possible for something to be arbitrary "in practice" and to prove this by using other facts about the world to establish that it is arbitrary; it is valid, for example, to say that a statement is arbitrary because the current state of technology is such that nobody could know today whether it is true or false -- even if in principle it might become known someday. This is how you deal with the claim of the teapot orbiting Venus.)
Finally, it's not always possible to prove something definitively on any sort of forum. This is why civilization as such sometimes requires people to agree to disagree. It is also one of the reasons why freedom is important. There can be a difference between what you know and what you can prove to others.

The demand for "facts" conceals an evasion of the most significant facts.
Disconnected, non-hierarchical "facts" signify an avoidance of conceptual thinking.
It's not "facts" you need, would you know what to do with them?

Nah, in this thread, this is a follow-the-government-line "fan-forum".
One can't go wrong faithfully obliging the Establishment.

All conjecture and propaganda-fuelled "revanchist" nonsense. Regard the Russian actions - foremost. Politicians' rhetoric and accusations of misdeeds count little. Make your own deductions from facts.
It is "a given":  invading Poland etc.etc., would result in nuclear catastrophe - everybody loses. Does anyone think the Kremlin didn't/does not know this, or would welcome annihilation? First order of the western propaganda we saw was to get around that minor detail, to promote an "insane Putin" who'd immolate his country along with everybody else.
Turns out he is quite rational.
And supposing for a moment there was no NATO Art. 5 - and no nukes - what was Putin going to do with an enemy nation he invaded and at great cost, defeated? Occupy it indefinitely, despite recurring insurrections by the populace?
Then move onto the next country?
All to spread and force the ideology of Orthodox Christianity? And maybe install the Czarist Empire in every nation?
All the above too ridiculous to entertain for a second.
Quite explicitly, the Kremlin has dismissed even conquering and occupying Western Ukraine, where they'd be heavily opposed by extremist anti-Russians. What does that make of the "Russian Empire" project? Nonsense; made up by rationalistic academics.
If you read your media with a critical eye, you'd see that Putin often responded to arms escalations and to rhetorical threats of foreign intervention (the "Coalition of the Willing") with a reminder to the West that Russia, beyond its effective conventional forces, has a nuclear capacity as its final line of defense; in other words, "don't push us too far". Like, launching serious attacks on our cities and land, a red line. Presented by the alarmist media and taken by gullible readers to be a direct threat he at any time would - initiate- nuclear use. The subtlety of a caution vs. an intentional threat escapes many. E.g. Putin wants to nuke us!
Quite irrelevant, the interference in foreign elections, either insignificant or unfounded - or refuted, like "Russiagate" in the US - and not a sign of Russian hostility. 
The trouble is that the West cannot accept that most Russians sincerely believe there was/is an existential threat by NATO/Kyiv looming for Russia. Things would escalate out of hand, sooner or later. Large forces amassed near the border, increasing assaults on the Donbas last year-- and then-- NATO membership giving Ukraine great military and nuclear might. So a first strike was logical and justifiable, while a terrible pity, most Russians apparently think. On principle, for any nation in that difficult position, I agree.
Therefore the West can never accept that
1. Putin's act were (mainly) defensive, in the interests of national survival and neutrality avoiding more conflicts with Nato/Ukraine in the forseeable future.
2. Nato's acts in Ukraine and the potential and future actions were and are now, mainly malign and offensive, in the supposed "interests" of the West.
Proof: Item A. You can see it and heard it. There has been every explicit intention to allow, continue and prolong the war (to Ukraine's cost) and every evasion of a quick negotiated settlement, as Putin offered. . 
The "defense of Ukraine and western values", etc., etc., is mendacious. Ukraine clearly has been made to be the sacrificial martyr to others' ends. Losing (or winning) against Russia, could have no other outcome but a grave self-sacrifice.
Conclusion: Not about "Ukraine". The prime objective was and is, undermining and overthrowing the RF.

A (presumed) Muslim-Israeli lets rip on BBC Arab.
 

I did not write "massively". But a change there has been. Anyhow, it seems I must stress the obvious: this is no longer a Communist-atheist dictatorship. Its ideology is predominantly Orthodox Christianity, and therefore Russia poses little threat now to other nations, as it did when the state and intellectuals had a mass ideology to export, one that convinced and coerced many other people.
The change is more fundamental than mere political, (i.e. simply, "authoritarian v. democratic").
Fundamentally, the Russian people's/culture's convictions have flipped from (Communist) subjectivism/skepticism - to - mystical-intrinsicism.
During roughly the same period the West has been moving the opposite way - into subjectivism-skepticism (neo- Marxism: to post-modernism, to Wokeism/etc.).
Both positions are the clearest example of "different sides of the same counterfeit coin", in Rand's brilliant formulation. In essential terms, they equally represent primacy of consciousness.
With newfound subjectivity and skepticism, anti-reason and anti-individualism, the West is in the process of losing some liberty and freedoms at the same time the Russians are gaining somewhat more than they had.

They meant it - "To the last Ukrainian!" What made for rousing headline copy at the time is closer. The refugees, now 'draft dodgers', are to be forced by Kyiv to go home and fight(some EU countries have refused, to their credit).
In war, when you've run out of your available resources, you've lost the war and must sue for an armistice. All that one heard until lately was about the endless supply of weaponry - lethal aid - to Ukraine. As though the weapons and armor, each type a proposed "game changer", would do the job alone. How much was heard about the steady losses to Ukraine's human resources - except to massively underrepresent them? (as deception to keep up morale for their troops' losing battle, keep cash and supplies coming in and sustain public belief by far away onlookers, so more would die). Ruled by western skepticism/determinism and sacrificial sentimentality, depressingly predictable
 

https://youtu.be/MKMxMUG4cKA?si=AoNmqP92YIagEoOn
Sachs still at it, tirelessly pointing out the emperor's nakedness.