You cannot be providing money and weapons for people who have killed

[0rganism]

163. Then Netanyahu is playing right into their hands through journaled atrocities and negligible PR

Perhaps the primary difference in our positions is a disagreement over what we might call "solved" as in "naked violence has solved more issues". This may save you some time rounding up receipts, as you might call them. Just remember as you do that every war which has ended has done so through some measure of diplomacy. One might argue that a particular physical conflict led to circumstances where a solution was possible which arguably didn't exist before, that's a matter for evaluation in its own context.

Specifically, I think we are looking for a type of solution that involves agreements between people with severe differences that might otherwise lead them to commit acts of violence.

To me, a peaceful solution indicates a circumstance in which disputes are less likely to arise than before, and when a dispute or ambiguity does arise, a fact-based reference to said solution can be agreed upon by the parties involved that enables some continuity of endeavor without resort to physical conflict.

Do you concur? Feel free to elaborate on mine or state a better one if you have it handy.

> I'll type it slowly, so it's very clear; You are wrong
Got it. We disagree, your opinions and analysis differ from mine. Now can we resolve this relatively minor dispute without hurling explosives at each other? I'm fairly confident we can, prove me right.