Let’s get to know each other! You can use this simple format: Hey, I’m from ____________. For fun, I like to ______________________. Here’s a pic of my myself or something I like.

How come european leaders allow the muslim invasion to Europe?

A fully independent or confederally united Kurdistan is no longer a distant dream, but its realisation now hinges on two transformative regional shifts: the fall of Iran’s Islamist theocracy and the emergence of Israel as an open, decisive Kurdish ally. Should the Islamic Republic collapse and be replaced by a secular, liberal-democratic, and federally restructured Iran, Tehran would instantly cease being one of the Kurds’ four jailers. Ten to twelve million Iranian Kurds would gain genuine cultural, linguistic, and political rights overnight, along with control over their own security forces and a fair share of local resources. A democratic Iran would also lose all interest in propping up anti-Kurdish governments in Baghdad and Damascus; the Iran-backed militias that terrorise Iraqi Kurdistan and the logistical support that once reached Assad’s regime would dry up. Most importantly, a federal Iran could eventually enter a voluntary confederation with an independent Kurdistan, creating a vast, resource-rich, and democratically governed Kurdish-Iranian economic and security space stretching from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Israel, for its part, is uniquely positioned to turn this possibility into reality. Jerusalem already quietly supplies the Peshmerga and SDF with weapons, training, and intelligence, but a bolder policy is now feasible and necessary. By becoming the first country to grant formal diplomatic recognition to a sovereign Kurdistan (or at least to the KRG as a state), Israel would shatter the international taboo and make military aggression against the Kurds far costlier. Public Israeli air-defence early-warning systems, drone exports, and satellite intelligence could neutralise Turkey’s air superiority over Rojava and the KRG. Reviving and expanding the clandestine Kurdish-oil-to-Israel route would give Kurdistan an economic lifeline independent of hostile neighbours. Most crucially, Israel’s unmatched influence in Washington could push through binding U.S. security guarantees and legislation that finally treat the Kurds as strategic allies rather than disposable partners.

Italy recently introduced femicide (murder of women) as a distinct crime. Most news outlets say that the law makes murdering a woman punishable by life in prison if the victim's female gender was the murderer's motive. The crime of femicide will be punished more harshly than murder in general. Most news outlets say what happens when the victim is a woman. But I haven't seen an article that specifically adresses whether the law protects men and trans people as well. For example, murdering a man due to hatred of men, or murdering a trans person due to hatred of trans people, etc. People online talk about the law assuming it only protects women, so I assume that's what the law says. But I haven't found a definite source that confirms this. If it is true, then the law is exremely illiberal and discriminatory. Violence against woman is exremely serious, but on legal level, we should all have equal protection. If femicide is recognized as a distinct crime, then so should androcide (murder of men) and transicide (murder of trans people). Does anyone know more than me about this law? Source: https://apnews.com/article/italy-femicide-law-crime-gender-violence-women-99e4be4aaba9f6b940d834ed6c7cb4d0

The world screams for a "Free Palestine" yet conveniently ignores the four distinct times “Palestinian” leaders refused to free themselves. In 1937, 1947, 2000, and 2008, the door to statehood was wide open. They slammed it shut. We are told that Israel is the obstacle to peace. We are told the land was stolen. However, the historical ledger shows a different reality. It shows a century of Israeli pragmatism colliding with “Palestinian” ideological purity. In 1937, the Peel Commission offered the Arabs a state on the vast majority of the land. The Jewish leadership accepted a tiny fraction of the territory because they prioritized sovereignty over size. The Arab leadership rejected it entirely. They wanted it all. In 1947, the United Nations proposed a partition. Again, the Jews accepted the compromise. Again, Arab leaders chose war over independence. This pattern repeated in 2000 and 2008. Israeli Prime Ministers offered statehood, including almost all of the West Bank and shared control of Jerusalem. These were not symbolic gestures. They were detailed, viable offers for independence. Each time, the answer was rejection, silence, or violence. As an Iranian, I recognize the architecture of this tragedy better than most. I see the fingerprints of the Islamic Republic in this strategy. The regime in Tehran treats the Palestinian people not as a nation to be built, but as a weapon to be wielded against the West. They need perpetual conflict to justify their own radical existence, so they ensure their proxies choose "resistance" over results every single time. There is a profound difference between being robbed and losing a bet. The tragedy of the “Palestinian” cause is not that they were stripped of their land. It is that their leaders, encouraged by foreign puppet masters, repeatedly gambled their children's future on a game of "all or nothing" and lost. You cannot reject the deed to a house on four separate occasions and then claim you are homeless because the locks were changed. That is not oppression. That is the consequence of a century of saying no.