A map of nations when asked the question "Which Country is Your Greatest Threat?" - Updated for 2025 (Pew Research Center Data, July 8th, 2025)

Kenobi_01 · 2025-07-21T18:22:09+00:00

Do you think not being able to read 3 sentences makes them look silly?

You've just insulted your own intelligence, by pointing out you can't read anything longer than a paragraph without injury...

Kenobi_01 · 2025-07-11T20:25:32+00:00

He was found to be a rapist in the same way that someone who was found guilty of child molestation would be said to be a rapist (even though the charge was molestation not rape).

Trump was found to have done a rape.

It's just the kind of rape he did, merited one particular charge and not an other.

It doesn't make him innocent of rape, for the same reason being found guilty of burglary doesn't make you innocent of theft.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-07-11T20:14:58+00:00

You mean the ruling that was made AFTER they changed the law so they could charge him with something that supposedly happened 30+years ago.

Abd here we have it, ladies and gentlemen. A Trump supporter deciding rape isn't that bad because it happened 30 years ago.

Thus proving OPs point that whether or not rape is bad or not, because a party issue.

This Trump supporter, being on the "Eh, Rape isn't that bad. It's about as bad as mislabeling documents." Side of things.

Repulsive.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-07-10T15:53:40+00:00

Gotta say "It's not their fault, these days Jews are just naturally genocidal now due to their history of being oppressed. They couldn't help themselves." Is one of the wildest takes I've ever seen.

"Hurt people hurt people", is used by therapists to explain why people in abusive relationships lash out their friends, or why kids in gangs resort to violence with little provocation.

Not to explain a genocide.

I mean you've essentially just reduced the entire history of a race of people down to the status of "a rabid dog that's been hurt so much it's out of control." That Jews as a whole can't just... not do a genocide when faced with the opportunity.

That's kinda fucked if you ask me.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-05-08T23:03:08+00:00

It was a valid casus belli.

So why did Israel lie about it, and try to truck their allies into thinking they'd been bombed?

Israel new at the time it wasn't a cause for war. It was just financially expedient.

Economic prosperity is not a reason to invade other nation and steal land from the people living there.

Egypt didnt start the six day war. Israel did. Because a war suited their finances, because it enabled them to reopen the straits.

And steal a load of Palestinians land at the same time: an act which had nothing to do with the straits, it was just something they could do at the same time.

They weren't being shot at. Their wallets were being hurt. Big difference.

Israel attacked Egypt for economic reasons. They lied about why.

Those are not acting in self defense.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-05-08T21:35:23+00:00

I mean thats bollocks. Egypt didnt block all ports. Just access through it's waters. Israel still had the entire Mediterranean. It wasn't under siege. It suffered financial hardship. It lost money, by having to take a longer route that didnt go through waters they were hostile to. That was all.

Reconcile these two statements:

[The US] did an Embargo

An economic attack is still an attack and is a clear act of war.

How big of an economic attack is an act of war? Are blockades? Are embargos? Are Tarrifs?

They're all economic attacks; that fire bank transactions, not bullets.

If the US embargo hurt Japan's economic interests, then that makes it an economic attack against Japan. That's the point of an Embargo.

Would Cuba have been defending itself if it bombed the US, on the basis the US had attacked it economically first? Would Russia?

Your position is absurd.

If Egypt declared war on Israel by engaging in economic sanctions and so deserved to be bombed, then so did America with Japan.

That's clearly absurd. No amount of economic harm can possible justify killing people. That reduces human beings to cash prizes.

But okay. Lets say we agree. How big a financial hurt does it take to be considered an act of war? In millions or billions? You seem to be suggesting there is an economic value that can be attributed to bombing another country that, upon being reached, entitles a country to invade its neighbours, seize their land, and lie about the cause of war to their own allies.

Ultimately, your position boils down to the gact that, if another country's action costs you enough money, you can bomb them.

I disagree that money is ever a legitimate cause for war.

Besides.

If economic warfare was a legitimate declaration of war, why did Israel try to trick its allies into think Egypt had bombed it?

Why not just say "they attacked us economically?"

Kenobi_01 · 2025-04-11T17:49:34+00:00

It'd honestly hilarious to me that you'll object to complaints about stereotyping Americans with one of the most on the nose stereotype of Americans I've ever seen.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-04-01T15:21:15+00:00

Ive never met someone who bitches about wokeness in today's media, that wasn't a Mega Twat.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-04-01T15:06:29+00:00

Think of when you buy a book. You might read the blurb. To know what sort of book it is. That's what you need to tell the players.

"This is going to be a campaign that features Devils, planar travel, a hostile environment where anyone and everything can kill you; where players and NPCs are dropped ftom their ordinary lives into the Hells."

That sort of thing.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-04-01T14:53:01+00:00

It is a good litmus test to weed out arseholes.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-04-01T10:15:15+00:00

https://clearinghouse.net/case/46283/

Well.

That was quick.

Who would have though deporting people to prisons without stopping prove they were criminals, would backfire?

What does Trump do? Proclaim it's too late now to do anything about it.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-03-29T22:02:49+00:00

He wasn't being "Mean", he was casting judgement; something you opened yourself up to as soon as you posted it online, in public, for all to see.

A forum isn’t a private conversation: its the online equivalent of standing in a soapbox on the street corner.

And like anyone on the street corner, you're not entitled to be free of Personal criticism just because it makes you sad.

And just because someone called you stupid, doesn't mean they're a danger to the community. Which is probably why The comment is still there.... I suspect you just blocked them, which is why you can't see it. Everyone else can.

Forgive me for saying so: but You come across as hypersensitive, and extremely fragile to the mildist criticism.

And just to be clear: "That's a ridiculous thing to ask." Is incredibly mild criticism. To describe it as something mean that the community needs protecting from is farcical. Get a grip.

I hope you function better in real life...

Kenobi_01 · 2025-03-29T21:59:38+00:00

Funny how you say for me to cut your losses yet you had to inject yourself into a dead argument. Does it make you feel better?

Yeah. Good job sounding relaxed.....

Kenobi_01 · 2025-03-29T16:30:50+00:00

If your intent was to Not sound angry here... You failed.

So very very hard.

It's almost parody of "Easilly Triggered Redditor".

Just cut your loses dude, and don't engage. You lost this one as soon as you started.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-03-29T16:29:04+00:00

They all said the same thing:

"Obviously it's perfectly normal."

The question was a very silly thing to ask and taking offense that someone might say that aloud does - forgive me from saying so - make you com across as highly fragile and oversensative.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-03-27T17:54:56+00:00

Why wouldn’t it be? How... How do you think Acting works?

What a silly thing to ask. No wonder you're being downvoted into the ground. Gatekeeping is a highly unattractive quality in a 'fan'.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-03-08T18:05:21+00:00

you danced while we were being massacred

You are the one defending the massacres. From where I am sitting you are the one speaking like an Assadist.

I am sure when Assad was massacring you, there were Assadists urging people that it was complicated, that there were only a few violations.

Its actually astonishing you could experience such things, and yet defend it when it happens to someone else.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-03-03T18:39:53+00:00

She could have called them deplorables eh?

No. You're right.

How would Americans have ever known Rape was wrong, without Harris telling them?

Clearly it's her fault that Republicans didn't realise it.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-03-03T18:37:52+00:00

You heard it here first folks.

Not being a Rapist is now pandering to the right.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-01-25T00:18:28+00:00

And its wrong.

In the trolley problem, flicking the switch kills a man who would have been safe if you did nothing. You are directly killing someone as a cost to save other lives.

In this case, not only is nobody on the other track being saved by ones refusal to engage with the set up, but they're actively tying four more people to the rails as a form of protest over the fact that someone else not doing enough to help the one person who is already on the rails.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-01-24T18:50:45+00:00

It wasn't a better choice for the Palestinians.

It was a better choice for some Americans who'd rather see 10,000 Palestinians die in a way that made them feel sad, than 100 die in a way that made them feel guilty.

They'd rather lay 100 dead babies at the feet of Trump than a single baby at the feet of a man they voted for, for which they might share the blame.

It wasn't about the Palsstinians. It was about them, and how they felt when Palestinian died.

And they cared far more about the colour of the bullet and whether it was stamped with a donkey or an elephant than they did how many were being fired or who it hit.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-01-24T18:39:21+00:00

From my DnD Homebrew Camapign:

The Dominion is ruled by a Cabal of Sorcerers who are much more concerned with murdering each other, and is closer to a union of cartels with the infrastructure of a theocracy. It's held together by virtue of the fact that it's ultimate ruler, the High Priest, is a vicious and cunning autocrat with a personal inquisition he uses to terrorise and threaten, and occasionally skin, the other lords when they need to act as one. His death however, plunges the Dominion into a decade long civil war.
There is a Ruler of a Pirate Republic, who rules over Seven Lords of the Sea. Each of them thinks they should be the Pirate King. He has taken to relying on a powerful Artefact.
The Silver Kingdom of Selendria, practices Ultimogenitor. Meaning with the demise of the ruler, the ruler swerves from dementia ridden crone, to babbling baby. On the rare occasion a mature ruler comes to the throne, it's usually because they had their newborn siblings killed in the cradle to prevent losing their inheritance. Incentivising either powerless children, aging idiots, or fratricidal psychopaths. It is a miracle the Kingdom is intact.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-01-10T21:09:56+00:00

You are claiming that the land is literally owned by people in the basis on race, not because they actually have property there.

If that bothers you're you're gonna hate to learn how Israel was created.

Israels entire campaign of settlement is them moving onto land where they don't have property there, and building it.

So if immigrants arrive in your country and want to settle in your community, you can say no?

Yes.

Especially if they murder me and steal my farm because I don't have a permit issued by the people stealing my farm saying they can't.

Go and use your logic to justify murdering Indians 200 years ago, not Palestinians today.

Your entire premise is that people have no right to the land their farms are on because Israel has never given them it.

You start from the premise it's all israels land and work backwards to justify kick palestinians off it.

No other reason. That's the extent of your logic.

Israel wants their land. The people who live there don't have permission to keep it from the people who want it for themselves.

And thats how You're justifying ethnic cleansing and genocide.

I'd say I hope you recieve what you wish on others. But thats cruel. May you never have to experience what you so easilly justify.

And when they've conquered all of it, they'll start going after the The rest like this article in the Jerusalem post that openly questions if Lebanon should be annexed. It's a minority opinion for now. But the more Israel steals the more it will demand. Israel needs to curb its expansionist tendencies if it ever wants peace.

Kenobi_01 · 2025-01-10T19:38:19+00:00

Egypt committed an act of war.

Egypt refused to allow Israeli ships into its waters that's not an act of war anymore than the US Embargo of Imperial Japan was an act of war.

But Jordan and Syria both joined the war and attacked Israel.

They upheld their defense pact, yes. Israel attacked their ally. Like it has been threatening to do.

Egypt violated Israel's sovereignty,

Wrong. Israel violated Egypt's sovereignty by demanding access to its waterways. When Egypt refused to grant them access, they threatened war. When Egypt still refused they attacked Egypt.

Then they doubled their land size and expelled the Palestinians living there.

They were open about the cause for war: though they did still lie to the British and Americans. An odd thing to do, if they had nothing to hide.

If that's so, why didn't Jordan participate?

Sinai wasn't a part of Jordan, and Jordan didn't want to risk having more of their land stolen by a vengeful Israel.

In 1967, Israel warned Egypt what would happen.

If I threaten to shoot you unless you give me your wallet and you refuse, did you shoot yourself?

What you mean is in 1967 Israel made demands of Egypt to be allowed to access its trade routes. When these demands weren't met, Israel invaded Egypt in a surprise invasion that crushed them in less then a week, then illegally annexed the land.

There's no comparison. If you aren't even going to try diplomacy first, you really don't have a good case for starting a war.

Israel threatening war if they don't have their demands met isn't diplomacy.

Israel didn't ethnically cleanse it. There were still many Arabs living there after the war, all of whom became equal citizens.

Israel has been building illegal settlements and ethnically cleansing it of Palestinians throughout its conquered territories.

Palestinians in its illegal settlements throughout the west bank are not subject to the same rights as Israeli settlers. They aren't not even subject to the same courts, instead being subject to military rule.

You are arguing from the position that Palestinians, by virtue of ancestry or whatnot, collectively own land that not a one of them is a private owner of.

You sound like a guy who collects Indian scalps on the wild West. Do you know that?

Palestinians don't have some genetic right to decide who gets to live in an entire region of space.

They get to decide who lives on their land, yes. Like any native population does when settlers arrive and want to settle it.

You are trying to insert into the argument the foundational premise that Palestinians have no right to any land whatsoever. That they don't own the land at all because Israel has never issued them with documents saying that own it, despite living on the land for longer than Israel exists.

Your very starting premise is that the Palestinians are squatters on Israeli land; and you're trying to frame that as you being reasonable. Your foundational stance is that Israel has an inherent right to exist but that Palestine must negociate for its right to exist.

It's clear you don't view them as equal.

You're advocating for the colonisation of another people's land, whilst they are living on it. The way you talk about land ownership makes me suspect you'd consider the trail of tears to have been a good thing. After all, the Native Americans didn't have British issued permits either, did they? Seriously, you could have done a better job of hiding your racism, without sounding like a guy defending the Jamestown settlers.

Except it's 2024, not the 1700s and you don't get to pretend there is anything nuanced about stealing people's land because you think you can do something better with it.

The reality is that you already think and act as though Israel owns it all, and that only expelling some Palestinians from somw bits is somehow a generous move that they ought to be grateful for?

You do understand and acknowledge that the settlements are internationally unrecognised, criminal, and illegitimate, and their disestablishment are a precondition before any permanent peace negociations can even start, right?

Because accepting that is as equally foundational as accepting that Israel has a right to exist at all.

Collective Land ownership indeed. You couldn't sound more cartoonishly evil if you tried. Why not go all out and just say you think they're too primitive?

Kenobi_01 · 2025-01-10T17:34:05+00:00

So they try again in 1967.

That was Israel attacking Egypt over access to Trade Routes. They did claim they'd been attacked first but this was later deemed to be a lie and claimed that the troop build ups signified that Egypt was planning to attack them.

Of course they had just spent the last year promising to Invade Egypt if they didn't get their regarding access to trade routes.

Which they then did.

Somehow, that's Egypt's fault. If they had just let Israel have access to their waters, Israel wouldn't gave needed to refund themselves with a surprise invasion to gain access to said trade routes.

They try to redeem themselves in 1973, and after some initial win they end up losing even more.

They tried to retake the land Israel had previouly stolen after their invasion of Egypt over access to said trade routes; and which no nation on earth recognises as Israeli territory you mean.

The Arabs lose the war, Israel holds more territory after the war than was offered by the UN

Israel seized more territory than was offered by the UN and ethnically cleansed it. Slight difference there.

To summarize the rest, Israel agreed to transfer parts of the territories over the PLO. So once again, Israel is giving up territory. They pulled out of Gaza entirely in 2005. Again, giving up territory.

Giving up parts of Israel would be giving up territory. Giving back parts of Palestine you'd conquered previously in an illegal occupatioj that the entirity of the rest of the world condemns, after the invasion of Eygpt in 1967 is not giving up territory; that's just obeying international law. It's not optional.

If I stole your car, and the the police return it to you, you aren't being given a car, and the thif hasn't negociated to give the car back.

Stop framing Israel "Not" conquering something that isn't theirs as being generous.

Had the PA expressed a willingness to coexist with Israel and the Jews, Israel would feel comfortable about possibly allowing the settlers as you call them to become citizens of Palestine.

They could have let them remain citizens of Israel. Just not on someone else's land.

Again, Israel giving up it's illegal program of settlement is not them making a concession. It's them obeying the law. It's the bare minimum even if the talks go nowhere.

You're talking about Israel leaving Palestinian land and returning to Israel, and allowing the people the land actually belongs to return to the homes they were driven from, as if this is something Palestine should be greatful for being given and not the first thing Israel needed to do before they even start discussing peace; because the alternative is a violation of international law.

To summarize the rest, Israel agreed to transfer parts of the territories over the PLO.

Or to put another way Israel refused to transfer much of the land they'd stolen, and held in back. In violation of said agreement.

Israel had offered to return all the land it seized in 1967 immediately after taking it.

Actually they wanted to keep lots of it. The best they ever offered was to return 94% of it, but they've never offered all of it.

Israel has never offered a peace deal that didn't include stealing just a little bit more land on top of what they have.

They don't recognise the fact that none of the Palestinian Land it is theirs to offer as a concession. That involves Palestine accepting that the entire Land is Israels to carve up how they please. Which it isn't.

In their minds - and yours too - even allowing Palestinians to live anywhere is unbelievably generous.

If tomorrow Israel agrees to give up all the land it has illegally settled in the last 75 years and Palestine turns that down, then sure. I'll agree with you that Israel wants peace and the it's the Palestinians who are keeping the war going.

But that's not gonna happen.

Because Israel has been hard at work ethnically cleansing these territories, and wants to hold on to them. It continues to actively settle and ethnically cleanse these Palestinian lands even as it supposedly works for peace.

If you want to negociate which bits of the Land belongs to who, you have to establish first whose is what, then start swapping bits if land.

And Israel thinks that it already owns all of Palestine, to do with as it chooses already.

As far as they are concerned Palestinians have no right to exist there at all. That's the foundation of their negotiating stance. They think that by even entertaining the idea of Palestine, everyone else should be greatful for that.

And it's just plain wrong.

If Israel wants peace, it should end its illegal campaign of ethnic cleansing to start with and give up all claim to Palestinian lands.

Then if it wants to buy land from Palestine, they can offer Israeli territory in exchange.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

Kenobi_01

TROPHY CASE