If surrendering officers/forces fire while doing so it is literally allowed by war crime law to kill them at will.

Does it matter that a land invasion would have killed more?

"camps" will always be the enemy

"sides" will always be the enemy

its all of us going forward or they will keep winning

I feel pretty good about my analysis the weekend of the Wikileaks DNC dump.

newrepublic.com/article/1354...

Malcolm X was murdered by his own people after his Haj led to him moderating his beliefs because of a new, more international perspective.

its the "HAHA LOOK AT ME I GOT HIM TO REACT" shit for me, this is literally the same thing as channer lolcow shit

My way of dealing with these fears and uncertainties is to try to focus on fixing what is disproven or discredited, rather than concern myself too much with where a single notion comes from. I find that easier to process and make use of. If that helps at all.

As such, I would generally accept that as a question I need not examine further. As to the fundamental question of how I decide which side to argue from at origin, I try to be open to my own preference as irrational inherently, and only rational once examined and reformulated.

My reasoning is that the importance of the answer to that question is tied to the significance of the distinction inherent to the preference. "Where to leave the bike" is a relatively low significance/value/meaning question.

I have had similar thoughts. As I see it, the only way out is to accept some degree of social modification as error correction. I don't know that there's a clear line of distinction to be identified. Sometimes we simply can't know.