Timeless Rythmnz

This was Bunyoro Kitara Kingdom in Western Uganda. The effect of slavery is that when they colonised Africa, the people they took as slaves were the talented ones, the strong, the skilled ones, the leaders, and the fighters. Most of these died in the ocean.

In Bunyoro and Western Uganda, those that weren't enslaved had their hands amputated.

My grandfather narrated to me explaining in detail how the Hoes that were brought by colonialists looked like and how the hoes that were produced by African smiths looked like. And for the Colonial products to become relevant, blacksmiths were amputated.

Truth be told, you fear an organized Africa, that's why you constantly empower dictators and the worst leaders while you stage assassinations of the capable leaders.

The biggest problem we have in Africa is the presence of collaborators. Weak selfish elements who like to be gifted.

South Korean senior minister Park Hong-keun responded sharply to Israel, telling them to stop portraying themselves as victims.

The comments follow remarks by South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, who compared events in the Middle East to the Holocaust, a statement that prompted a strong reaction from Israel, which demanded an apology.

Israel’s victim‑centered framing has evolved since 1948 from a narrative of existential survival to a broader justification for repeated military campaigns across the Middle East. In the state’s early years, leaders like David Ben‑Gurion described the nation as “fighting for our very lives,” establishing a foundation of perpetual vulnerability. By 1967 and 1973, this framing deepened as officials such as Levi Eshkol warned that Israel’s “existence hung by a thread,” reinforcing the idea that preemptive or large‑scale responses were necessary acts of defense. As conflicts shifted to Lebanon and Gaza, the rhetoric adapted: Menachem Begin insisted that “no nation can tolerate attacks on its citizens,” and Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly argued that “no country would tolerate rockets on its cities.” Across decades, this narrative has consistently positioned Israel as reacting to danger rather than initiating conflict, using historical trauma and the language of self‑defense to legitimize military action.

The approach has helped secure international sympathy and Western support, especially from the U.S., by emphasizing existential danger over political ambition.

In the comments is an outline how this framing evolved across major conflicts—from the Six‑Day War to the current Gaza War

WHAT STARTED AS LOCAL CONFLICTS IN GAZA AND LEBANON BECAME REGIONAL POWER GAMES.

Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements initially emerged from displacement and survival. But after 1979, Iran’s support transformed these local struggles into regional instruments. Training, funding, and ideology turned small groups into formidable opponents of Israel, capable of striking far beyond their homes.

Israel’s response — military campaigns, blockades, and intelligence operations — intensified the cycle. What began as disputes over land and homes evolved into decades-long proxy conflicts, with civilians repeatedly caught in the crossfire.

When local suffering becomes a tool for regional agendas, can peace ever be negotiated, or is history destined to repeat its tragedies?

TODAY: Lebanon began a period of national mourning on Thursday, a day after Israeli forces unleashed airstrikes across the country in the deadliest day of the war with the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah. At least 203 people were killed and 1,000 others wounded. [New York Times Report]