The message is again, man's inhumanity to man, in this we have Hamas (Terrorists/Jihadists) Why must you read this? God help us. Israel Submits Report to UN Detailing Torture of Hostages by Hamas 64 Israel's President Isaac Herzog speaks during his meeting with U.S. Secretary of StatMark Schiefelbein / Associated Press Joel B. Pollak29 Dec 2024155 3:35 Israel is preparing to submit a report to the United Nations later this week that describes the torture suffered by Israeli hostages abducted by Hamas to Gaza last October 7, including sexual assault and the “branding” of children. The report was compiled based on medical evidence and testimony gathered after a year of treating hostages that were released or rescued. It will be submitted to Alice Edwards, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The report says, in part: Women, men, and children who returned from captivity reported that they endured severe physical and sexual abuse, such as beatings, isolation, deprivation of food and water, branding, hair-pulling, and sexual assault. Additionally, some of them reported that the captors sexually assaulted them or forced them to undress. … The hostages were denied medical treatment for acute injuries caused during October 7 and subsequently, in addition to for untreated chronic conditions. Fractures, shrapnel wounds, and burns were treated inadequately, leading to complications which required additional surgeries, that could have been prevented with proper care. Upon arrival in Israel, intensive treatment was given to the returned hostages. The captors also tortured those injured by performing painful procedures without anesthesia. … About half of the returned hostages described being deliberately starved during their captivity. They were given a poor diet, which often led to hunger that worsened over time. … In captivity, the hostages were often subjected to solitary confinement, poor sanitation, severe medical neglect, lack of sleep, starvation, sexual abuse, violence, threats, and brainwashing through media designed to break their spirit and make them submissive. … Two of the children that were held together during captivity reported that they were held bound and were beaten throughout their captivity. Signs of binding, scars, and marks consistent with trauma were found. Additionally, two young children had burn marks on their lower limbs. One child stated that the burns were the result of a deliberate branding with a heated object. Both the child and adults who were with him in captivity described the incident as a purposeful branding event, not an accident. It was described as an extremely traumatic experience. The Times of Israel reported Sunday that a Hebrew-language version of the report includes evidence that terrorists forced two teenage hostages “to perform sexual acts on one another.” President Isaac Herzog reacted to the report: “The UN has the facts. It is morally obliged to do everything in its power to bring the hostages home now.” There are 100 hostages still in Gaza, including seven Americans, and up to two-thirds of them are believed to still be alive.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment