But aren't Aboriginal people citizens of Australia and so already part of the Constitution thus having legal rights like everyone else?
What are the extra rights and representation needed?
Ohhhh, we're discussing hypotheticals, sorry I thought you were serious.
Because then for sure you would have taken in consideration that religious affiliation, nationality and branding are pretty different things. The level of psychological involvement and the way these elements interact and define ones individual structure is quite incomparable. Usually for religious people (especially fundamenlists) religion does define their personal values, morality an so on. This IS the purpose of religion after all.
And then of course you would have taken in consideration that this is a conflict with mainly a religious conflict. Although you can say palestinians fight mainly for their land the other Muslim countries that support them have also religious motives.
And of course it's a fact that they didn't choose to take another religious affiliation or as you say a different brand.
Actually I think it translates in: because of what brown people are doing thousands of miles away, brown people in Australia - which support and simpatise - are going to have to deal with this shit.
No, my questions are not rethorical. Any such movement cannot live separated from the local population. They cannot organise in secret if nobody is keeping that secret. They cannot train if the others don't keep the secret. They cannot manufacture, hide and launch thousands of small range rockets if other don't keep a secret.
I'm not arguing about justifications or who did what and why. It's not relevant for this discussion.
I think you're referring to generalisations in the sense of cognitive distortions, but this is not the case. The saying merely calls for one to be completely dedicated to whatever task he undertakes in order to maximize his chances of success.
Having doubts and starting to hatch a plan B actually takes resources (mental or emotional) from realisation of the actual task.
When you say: I'll try to ... you're actually stating your doubts about you capability to successfully do whatever task from the beginning. So you've already defined what failure is and what to do in that case. But you haven't even begin the task and the journey that comes with the realisation of it. You haven't even reach the first difficulties, the first hurdles.
I hope you know that The Sith is a fictional construct :)
Questions:
Who is fighting for Hamas?
From where the "boots on the ground" come from?
How can they organise amidst civilian population to take any coordinated actions?
No, it's not about caring or not about the consequences.
The ideea is to do something, anything with full commitment, do it as you know you're going to be successful. This way you give 100% and you have the best chances to succeed.
If you just try something then from the start your mentally taking in consideration the possibility of failure and you're preparing for that scenario and searching for the signs of it, which means you're not 100% invested in the success of the task itself so the chances of success are smaller.
Exactly, imagine how much water can you gather in a hot climate that doesn't evaporate untilyou get it or grow algae/fungi/protozoa/things that aren good for you.
Well good for you. What you're trying to do is an argumentum ab auctoritate. Even if it was true it would give you a heavily biased and schewed information about the real life in comunism because you would have been in the circle of the privileged. The Party "aristocracy" so life probably would have been good and dandy.
On the internet you can find any kind of information, there are methods to verify the sources and compile coherent streams of information about anything. But this means work and time and it's easier to find an ecochamber in a "dedicated" forum and feel good about yourself.
L.E. my arguments are neither strong nor weak. I've mentioned their source so you know why I'm stating them. Like I already said your or someone else validation of them is not required.
But aren't Aboriginal people citizens of Australia and so already part of the Constitution thus having legal rights like everyone else? What are the extra rights and representation needed?