MxM111

Don’t judge other people by yourself.

That was never stated as official policy. Nor the actions aligned with it. You confuse Israel with Hamas, who both stated and acted upon it.

That’s what, I think, Russian targets mean in this context.

That’s false. Only half are women and children wiki. Your 10:1 ratio is taken out of your behind, but even that ratio is typical urban warfare ratio. Just Google.

Yes, and with 14,000 militant killed, the civilian number is 35K - 14K = 21K. Civilian to militant casualties is 21:14, or smaller than 2:1. That’s all.

For total number of casualties I take Hamas number. For militant casualties, Hamas does not give any number, so, I have to use Israeli number as the most reliable. By the way, Israeli number for civilian casualties is also not so far from Hamas.

Honestly, shit happens during the war. Yes, the mistakes should be investigated, guilty punished etc., but it is a big picture which is important, not a few incidents that are easy to use for propaganda and internet points.

In my mind there are 3 questions that needs to be answered

1. is war justified?
2. what is civilian to military kill ratio (basically to see if civilians are killed without care)
3. what are the goals of the war, what are post war plans

For the first question, I do not know how anyone with straight face can say that the war is not justified when a neighbor attacks you and purposely and barbarously kills 1300 people and takes about 200 hostages.

For the second quested, it is urban warfare, and if anyone cares to check, the ratio of 10 to 1 (civilian to military) is quite typical. In this war, Israel achieves ratio of better than 2 to 1, which says to me that IDF is really careful not to kill civilians unnecessarily.

It is the question (3) where I have problem with right now. Mostly because it is right wing government in Israel and there is no clear out of war path suggested after Hamas is destroyed. But here we can wait and see. Israel is a democracy and I hope her people will make right decision.

How is that different from anarcho-syndicalism?

… and of trees in general.

Free Markets: Anarcho-individualists support free markets as a means to distribute resources efficiently. They argue that without state interference, markets would naturally adjust to ensure fair competition and opportunity for all.

Elimination of Monopolies: They believe that many forms of economic inequality stem from monopolies and privileges granted by the state. By eliminating these, they argue that individuals would have equal opportunities to succeed based on their talents and efforts​.

Voluntary Mutual Aid: While they reject compulsory welfare systems, anarcho-individualists support voluntary mutual aid societies, where individuals can freely join and contribute to support each other in times of need​.

Education and Empowerment: Anarcho-individualists stress the importance of education and self-improvement as means for individuals to improve their circumstances. They argue that an educated and informed populace is better equipped to challenge and overcome social inequalities.

Personal Responsibility: They emphasize personal responsibility and self-reliance. Each individual is seen as responsible for their own well-being and should not depend on coercive institutions for support.

Non-Aggression Principle: This principle states that individuals should not initiate force or coercion against others. By adhering to this principle, anarcho-individualists believe that a just and equitable society can be achieved where individuals respect each other’s rights and freedoms

Please note, I personally am not an anarchist, even though I find many principles attractive. I just don’t think that they will work because of the voluntary aspects and internal contradictions (e.g. no state, but elimination of the monopolies. How?)

Sure, anarcho-communists and syndicalists would like just essentially abolish private ownership of means of manufacturing, but not anarcho-individualists. I guess I should have been more clear that I meant my answer from anarcho-individualist point of view.

The anarchists will argue against wealth redistribution because it takes (forcefully via taxes) money from the richer, thus committing a larger sin of anti-freedom than giving this economic freedom for the poorer. You can not make forcefully responsible one person for another person freedoms in anarchism.

Yes, I understand that some countries have subpar standards.

I am sorry, but if your city has just one pizza place, it is not deserved to be called a city. A town at best.

Add Homeworld to “game successfully enshitified” ever growing list.

How many miles?

So, more like wining a lottery?

Yes, but where is the robocop?

Well, that depends on what “normal” is.

I don’t think they think, to be honest.