Opinion of Laki

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Someone who supports such monstrous attacks on civilians is a literal HP…actually, that sounds very understated. He’s worse.

The fact that he cheered on the October 7 massacre as it happened tells me everything I need to know about him.

Did he indeed? That would actually change my opinion.

I wasn't aware of the extent of the attack yet (or that a party was attacked).

But the entire forum is cheering on Israels attacks or incoming ground invasion. And my fears of genocide were very much justified.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I pity him more than I dislike him.

You and pitying.

What do you do when you pity someone?

Go tell them to kill theirselves?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Lean FF

Has some REALLY bad takes, rambles on and on and on on Discord, and is occasionally unhinged.

Otherwise, big FF, but those 3 things affect overall rating.

Didn't vote HP because of this thread

In reality, there's basically only one issue i majorly "diverge" from the forum (and given some polls i have seen Israel vs Palestine), diverge from half of the forum given to my surprise that was basically a tie. It's just that most people are more quiet on it on the forum, understandable if you see how some are going hard after me.

The only reason i've started to be controversial is because of that conflict. Before that, there wasn't any issue, i think it's more proof of the forum's intolerance towards certain views.

I've had more reported posts in 1 month, than in the six years prior combined. And i don't think my posting behavior has changed, it's just intolerance from certain forum users, including some very prominent ones that seem to have a lot of influence on the forum and have been behaving toxic (BRTD and John Dule in particular).

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The only reason i've started to be controversial is because of that conflict. Before that, there wasn't any issue, i think it's more proof of the forum's intolerance towards certain views.

The forum itself aside, you were controversial on Atlas-adjacent Lokcord and people were intolerant of your views when it came to you saying that CoVID pandemic lockdowns in 2020 were totally unacceptable due to how it affected people's mental health, and that it was more important to have no lockdowns than it was to save lives during a global pandemic.

Ow, ow, ow.

First, i was not controversial of that. You seem to not realize that the majority of lokcord are rightwingers and probably more did support my take to some extent than yours. That's a first.

Secondly, just like that regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican would be president had no influence (or almost none) on the pandemic - I don't blame both Biden and Trump for covid deaths - the measures almost had no effect either. One big reason why lockdowns were deemed necessary was because of hospital capacity that was underfunded, due to austerity measures by right wingers on something vital as healthcare. That's the only reason why they were even introduce (to flatten the curve). But at the end of the day, everyone was gonna get ill and that is simply not something anyone could have prevented, unless China did more preventive action at the very start of the pandemic. At this point, basically everyone has had it, some might not even know.

I did support some measures, and have been very highly supportive of vaccinations. But "young people" have never been a vulnerable age demographic. Like I said, most of us did have at this point and most of us are still alive. Measures were necessary in places where vulnerable people gather, such as masks in hospitals, rest homes and perhaps parties. And some sort of travel ban (given mid lockdown people still travelled to other countries...) would have been a good thing too.

The problem is... you don't seem to realize that mental health is a health issue as well, and can often lead to death as well. And that mental health is more of a risk for the majority of people aged below 50 than covid ever was. Suicide, eating disorders and so on can all be deadly. And social isolation, including (what some people sometimes blame other people for on the forum) being chronically online is not healthy at all. That's true. And lockdowns encouraged that behaviour, by telling people to stay inside. It's what anxiety wants you to do, it's what depression wants you to do and it's how an eating disorder can flourish. We see that in actual numbers and papers. Mental ilnesses loved these measures.

And you fail to realize all of that. And it's as much of a health issue that needs adequate and proper treatment too, and something that policymakers did not take in mind. Something we still face the consequences even today.

I staunchly disagree with your take, and i'll defend mine strongly. I still stand by everything i've said. People should be free to walk wherever they please generally, and should not be forced to stay within four walls. Besides, we all still need food, social contact, outside air - this is important for humans and life in general. And if you are mentally well, you're more likely to feel physically well as well. I'm strongly against authoritarian measures with mandates that one should be locked up inside.

If you disagree, just go live in China. People often tell me i'm a communist but I do not support of China's domestic policies. I'm too libertarian-minded for that. My foreign policy views are also generally libertarian-leaning given they focus on peace, non-intervention and diplomacy. And that's what i'll stand for till the end of my times.

And most importantly, stop MINIMIZING mental ilness. They are illnesses and they can be fatal.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The big reasons for why I said what i've said on october 7th

1. I wasn't fully aware of what happened. And civilian casualties often are a side-effect of war. That's just inevitable at war, the most important thing is to prevent war. I had a hard time believing that civilians were deliberately targetted (and still am). However regardless of whether it was deliberate or not, it is of course still wrong. But the mood of the thread was the assumption that it was deliberate. The party for instance I believe was just something of the "wrong place at the wrong moment".

2. What Hamas, Palestinians and others are fighting for, is independence. I have a hard time seeing them as a terrorist group for some reasons. Their tactics and methods might be, but let's compare it to something else. If tomorrow, the Russians occupy Belgium and there would be a resistance group that would demand the end of Russian occupation by making the Russians life here in Belgium pain as hell, targetting Russians, bombing specific targets with the goal of ending Russian occupating and getting our freedom back.

The Russians would see this as "terrorism", but to me it would be "actions that would demand the immediate end of the occupation" and it's how you fight back. There is no other way to get your freedom back. When we were occupied by the nazis, we had to move to counterresistance attempts to attempt to subvert nazi mobilisation and end nazi occupation. Was the assassination attempt on Hitler a terrorist attack? I don't think so.

And here's the big difference to me, i don't consider Hamas a terrorist group. I consider it a resistance group against Israeli occupation. You don't believe me, than ask yourself how many nations do recognise Palestina as an independent entity. The answer is almost zero, none in the west. They're not recognised, the only way to get recognised is to fight back and demand your recognition. It's what all nations in the past had to some day. ALl of them, including the USA when they fought for freedom against Great Britain.

But because it counters our interest and they happen to be muslims, we consider it "terrorism". When China tries to justify what they do to Xinjiang, they also use "terrorism". Palestina and Xinjiang are actually much more similar than one possibly think. Even Russia has their own territories with Chechnya for instance, that have some things in common. But for Palestina it has been like this for about 80 years, with almost no change. People in Gaza basically live in an open air prison while Israeli settlers but surely making sure that nothing will be left of what used to be Palestina.

3. What already worried me at 7 october, and while I was indeed wrong about some things what i've done, i wasn't wrong with this assumption is that this would be the perfect casus belli to do what they're doing now in Palestinian territories. Invading it, and killing as many people (intentionally or not...) while diplomacy, humanitarian assistance and a ceasefire are all again denied, even if the US is softly privately pressuring for it. Israel continues to deny it. There's no reason to do what they're doing now. If you want the Hamas leaders, they're not in Gaza, they're all in safe houses in Qatar & Iran. The only thing they're now doing is now simply revenge & avenge, and the majority of casualties will always be Palestinian civilians.

Every nationality, every ethnicity, every sort of people deserve self-determination. And that's something you have to consistently support. Palestinians are an ethnicity too, they deserve their own nation. They deserve the land that used to be theirs. If this happened in your country, you would have exactly the same opinion because there's no possible defense for it.

___

In an ideal world, this wouldve never happened if both sides were more willing to sit on the table and discuss peace & diplomacy and if both sides are pressured to find a compromise. US pressuring Israel, other nations pressuring Palestine. It is to end the conflict. For once and for all.

And invading Gaza and getting rid of Hamas, even if succesful, will only have 2 possible consequences

1. direct annexation and the purge/expulsion/migration of Palestinians to elsewhere or integration the same way China promotes sinofication.

2. the creation of a new power vacuum where another resistance group will take over.

This really is no solution. And at the end of the day you'll have had a war that will have caused tens of thousands of civilians, mostly kids and people of our age, given Gaza is an urban area (1) and the average age of Gaza is younger than the forum (2).

A big reason of why people aren't calling out Israel too, is political money and interest groups. Pro-Israeli PACs have too much power in the country, and Democratic politicians are afraid of backlash. In that regard, it's not different from proposing to invade Venezuela to make Florida blue. It's maybe what strategically makes most sense for Americans or for political purposes, but it is not the just thing to do or the morally better thing to do. And it's how the west is losing credibility in other regions faster than ever.

__

If 95% of the forum calls me evil for that, for pointing this out. Than call me evil. Someone said, why are communists so often on the right side of the debate decades before it becomes political concensus in the political debate, and this is another example of where the future will prove me right. I suppose i would have been in the minority with regards to Iraq as well twenty years ago, but most people/Democrats today agree it was a disaster and the naysayers turned out to be right.

This is a forum where many different opinions should be heard, stated and opinionated, if told respectfully (which i always try to do). I've never been banned so far. For me it is important to state your opinion respectfully, and both respectfully and stating my opinion is important. Even if half of the forum will call me evil for it.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The big reasons for why I said what i've said on october 7th

1. I wasn't fully aware of what happened. And civilian casualties often are a side-effect of war. That's just inevitable at war, the most important thing is to prevent war. I had a hard time believing that civilians were deliberately targetted (and still am). However regardless of whether it was deliberate or not, it is of course still wrong. But the mood of the thread was the assumption that it was deliberate. The party for instance I believe was just something of the "wrong place at the wrong moment".

Perfect example of why I voted HP right here. It's been over a month and you still can't admit that the blatant attack on civilians was an attack on civilians. It was overwhelmingly obvious from the moment the attack started. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is a believable explanation for somebody getting hit in the head with a frisbee, not for hundreds of people being massacred at a concert.

It was an attack on Israël. It wasn't an attack on civilians.

Sure attacking Israël doesn't make it 'better'. I already apologized for it. But it wasn't an attack on civilians. War was declared on the state of Israël.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The big reasons for why I said what i've said on october 7th

1. I wasn't fully aware of what happened. And civilian casualties often are a side-effect of war. That's just inevitable at war, the most important thing is to prevent war. I had a hard time believing that civilians were deliberately targetted (and still am). However regardless of whether it was deliberate or not, it is of course still wrong. But the mood of the thread was the assumption that it was deliberate. The party for instance I believe was just something of the "wrong place at the wrong moment".

Perfect example of why I voted HP right here. It's been over a month and you still can't admit that the blatant attack on civilians was an attack on civilians. It was overwhelmingly obvious from the moment the attack started. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is a believable explanation for somebody getting hit in the head with a frisbee, not for hundreds of people being massacred at a concert.

It was an attack on Israël. It wasn't an attack on civilians.

Sure attacking Israël doesn't make it 'better'. I already apologized for it. But it wasn't an attack on civilians. War was declared on the state of Israël.

How is attacking a concert not an attack on civilians you lunatic??

Because that was not the war goal. I doubt they were even aware of the fact that there was a concert ongoing. It took place literally on the border with Gaza. Some analysts said repeatedly that even Hamas was surprised by the initial success they had and that they were able to push into Israël. Everyone with some brains know that this wasn't going to cause any gains for them.

The wrongdoing is that they didn't leave them alone (and try to ignore them), but I have an incredible hard time believing it was a deliberate target of the operation. I hope you understand that.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The big reasons for why I said what i've said on october 7th

1. I wasn't fully aware of what happened. And civilian casualties often are a side-effect of war. That's just inevitable at war, the most important thing is to prevent war. I had a hard time believing that civilians were deliberately targetted (and still am). However regardless of whether it was deliberate or not, it is of course still wrong. But the mood of the thread was the assumption that it was deliberate. The party for instance I believe was just something of the "wrong place at the wrong moment".

Perfect example of why I voted HP right here. It's been over a month and you still can't admit that the blatant attack on civilians was an attack on civilians. It was overwhelmingly obvious from the moment the attack started. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is a believable explanation for somebody getting hit in the head with a frisbee, not for hundreds of people being massacred at a concert.

It was an attack on Israël. It wasn't an attack on civilians.

Sure attacking Israël doesn't make it 'better'. I already apologized for it. But it wasn't an attack on civilians. War was declared on the state of Israël.

How is attacking a concert not an attack on civilians you lunatic??

Because that was not the war goal. I doubt they were even aware of the fact that there was a concert ongoing. It took place literally on the border with Gaza. Some analysts said repeatedly that even Hamas was surprised by the initial success they had and that they were able to push into Israël. Everyone with some brains know that this wasn't going to cause any gains for them.

The wrongdoing is that they didn't leave them alone (and try to ignore them), but I have an incredible hard time believing it was a deliberate target of the operation. I hope you understand that.

I don't understand that, because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Whether the militants planned to attack the concert a year before it happened or decided to do so ten minutes before when they realized it was happening is irrelevant. They could have simply not massacred hundreds of civilians at a concert. Are you alleging that Hamas is too stupid to know what a concert is, or the difference between an unarmed crowd and an IDF battalion?

Even setting the concert itself aside, there were massacres in several Israeli towns, even in places without substantial IDF presence. How in the world is that not an attack on civilians?

Do you consider the Israeli air strikes in Gaza an attack on civilians?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The big reasons for why I said what i've said on october 7th

1. I wasn't fully aware of what happened. And civilian casualties often are a side-effect of war. That's just inevitable at war, the most important thing is to prevent war. I had a hard time believing that civilians were deliberately targetted (and still am). However regardless of whether it was deliberate or not, it is of course still wrong. But the mood of the thread was the assumption that it was deliberate. The party for instance I believe was just something of the "wrong place at the wrong moment".

Perfect example of why I voted HP right here. It's been over a month and you still can't admit that the blatant attack on civilians was an attack on civilians. It was overwhelmingly obvious from the moment the attack started. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is a believable explanation for somebody getting hit in the head with a frisbee, not for hundreds of people being massacred at a concert.

It was an attack on Israël. It wasn't an attack on civilians.

Sure attacking Israël doesn't make it 'better'. I already apologized for it. But it wasn't an attack on civilians. War was declared on the state of Israël.

How is attacking a concert not an attack on civilians you lunatic??

Because that was not the war goal. I doubt they were even aware of the fact that there was a concert ongoing. It took place literally on the border with Gaza. Some analysts said repeatedly that even Hamas was surprised by the initial success they had and that they were able to push into Israël. Everyone with some brains know that this wasn't going to cause any gains for them.

The wrongdoing is that they didn't leave them alone (and try to ignore them), but I have an incredible hard time believing it was a deliberate target of the operation. I hope you understand that.

I don't understand that, because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Whether the militants planned to attack the concert a year before it happened or decided to do so ten minutes before when they realized it was happening is irrelevant. They could have simply not massacred hundreds of civilians at a concert. Are you alleging that Hamas is too stupid to know what a concert is, or the difference between an unarmed crowd and an IDF battalion?

Even setting the concert itself aside, there were massacres in several Israeli towns, even in places without substantial IDF presence. How in the world is that not an attack on civilians?

Do you consider the Israeli air strikes in Gaza an attack on civilians?

If you can find an example of an Israeli strike in Gaza which intentionally hit a purely civilian target, killing civilians, then yes, I would call such a strike an attack on civilians.

I fail to see how this is relevant in any way to your refusal to admit that Hamas committed attacks on civilians. Whether or not other armed groups have attacked civilians at other times has no bearing whatsoever on whether Hamas' actions on October 7 constitute an attack on civilians. No amount of back and forth is going to change the fact that the Hamas committed an unjustifiable terrorist attack against hundreds of Israeli and foreign civilians on October 7, and refusal to admit it as such is frankly a damning indictment of your character.

How is an ambulance not a civilian target? How is a hospital not a civilian target? How is an orthodox church not a civilian target?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The big reasons for why I said what i've said on october 7th

1. I wasn't fully aware of what happened. And civilian casualties often are a side-effect of war. That's just inevitable at war, the most important thing is to prevent war. I had a hard time believing that civilians were deliberately targetted (and still am). However regardless of whether it was deliberate or not, it is of course still wrong. But the mood of the thread was the assumption that it was deliberate. The party for instance I believe was just something of the "wrong place at the wrong moment".

Perfect example of why I voted HP right here. It's been over a month and you still can't admit that the blatant attack on civilians was an attack on civilians. It was overwhelmingly obvious from the moment the attack started. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is a believable explanation for somebody getting hit in the head with a frisbee, not for hundreds of people being massacred at a concert.

It was an attack on Israël. It wasn't an attack on civilians.

Sure attacking Israël doesn't make it 'better'. I already apologized for it. But it wasn't an attack on civilians. War was declared on the state of Israël.

How is attacking a concert not an attack on civilians you lunatic??

Because that was not the war goal. I doubt they were even aware of the fact that there was a concert ongoing. It took place literally on the border with Gaza. Some analysts said repeatedly that even Hamas was surprised by the initial success they had and that they were able to push into Israël. Everyone with some brains know that this wasn't going to cause any gains for them.

The wrongdoing is that they didn't leave them alone (and try to ignore them), but I have an incredible hard time believing it was a deliberate target of the operation. I hope you understand that.

I don't understand that, because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Whether the militants planned to attack the concert a year before it happened or decided to do so ten minutes before when they realized it was happening is irrelevant. They could have simply not massacred hundreds of civilians at a concert. Are you alleging that Hamas is too stupid to know what a concert is, or the difference between an unarmed crowd and an IDF battalion?

Even setting the concert itself aside, there were massacres in several Israeli towns, even in places without substantial IDF presence. How in the world is that not an attack on civilians?

Do you consider the Israeli air strikes in Gaza an attack on civilians?

If you can find an example of an Israeli strike in Gaza which intentionally hit a purely civilian target, killing civilians, then yes, I would call such a strike an attack on civilians.

I fail to see how this is relevant in any way to your refusal to admit that Hamas committed attacks on civilians. Whether or not other armed groups have attacked civilians at other times has no bearing whatsoever on whether Hamas' actions on October 7 constitute an attack on civilians. No amount of back and forth is going to change the fact that the Hamas committed an unjustifiable terrorist attack against hundreds of Israeli and foreign civilians on October 7, and refusal to admit it as such is frankly a damning indictment of your character.

How is an ambulance not a civilian target? How is a hospital not a civilian target?

When did I say that they weren't? What are you even talking about?

Are you even aware of the strikes Israel has done?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/20/destruction-chased-them-funeral-held-for-those-killed-in-gaza-church-airstrike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_ambulance_airstrike

[LAKISYLVANIA]

You don't believe me, than ask yourself how many nations do recognise Palestina as an independent entity. The answer is almost zero, none in the west. They're not recognised

Wikipedia tells me that 138 nations recognize the state of Palestine

And none that matter (honestly)

[LAKISYLVANIA]

As long the USA and Western Europe doesn't recognise them, nothing changes.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1723400563763597478

Might be the only one on the forum...

but clearly not the only one in the world.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I like Laki! And while I am with the Palestinians (very shallowly though), I do believe he takes it too far.

Another example the common headscrather I have: why  the left is so invested in Palestine and Islam.

Islam is not my idea of progressive!

Thank you.

But honestly, islam has nothing to do with my views on the conflict and Palestine.

I'm not very fond of religion in general, in particular Abrahamic religions, but that's a personal opinion. And I do not like where islam stands for, but that stands for christianity as well. And to be fair, there isn't that much difference between those religions.

The reason why people perceived it as so different is because of the cultures associated with it, and the fact that they overall / generally (as being far away from another for quite some time) evolved separately, and where the religions bordered there usually was some kind of conflict. Islam didn't use to be "the more conservative religion" of the three, in fact it arguably was for the longest part in history the most progressive one, with catholicism being the most conservative one.

The reason why Islam today stands for more conservativeness is basically re-interpretation of the religion, and some kind of revanchism/revival that occured at the end of the collapse of the big Islam empires. I don't know the full story here as well, but also submission to westernized empires didn't really help here. And around the same time, communism started to pop up everywhere, radical islam did as well in the Middle East, and it only has gotten popular over the ages, as the westernized world has increasingly became more progressive and has increasingly antagonized the muslim world (and vice versa as both reinforce each other). The situation in Palestine definitely does contribute to that overall sentiment (or the fact that most of the borders aren't even natural, but still leftovers from colonial holdings, acc to Sykes-Picot treaty, deliberately designed so that it would be more easy to control & exploit areas, such as for the oil, and not drawn based on linguistic, cultural, religious and ethnic borders -> also an aspect that was ignored during the creation of the state of Israel and by zionists).

Overall though, this is to be honest quite irrelevant. Killing children is killing children. Crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity. The fact that they are mostly muslim doesn't make it a "lesser crime". And honestly that's part of the dehumanization process that occurs during or prior to a genocide.

Humans are humans, period.

And make no mistake, i'm a progressive.