From professional golfer Phil Mickelson, 09/10/2025 on X:
"I never met Charlie Kirk but I am gutted by this atrocity. Open debate is healthy and essential. Free speech is a constitutional right. Violence for disagreeing with someone is sick, deranged, and creates a greater division that becomes harder to overcome."
OMG, what a terrible mistake, I'm ever so sorry, how could I have done such an act on a fellow human being, my god, I don't think I can ever get over what I've done to your feelings, I'm so ashamed of my mistake, please forgive me and offer your great wisdom Oh Yoda.
Questioning the October 7 Narrative: Examining Inconsistencies in the Official Account
The events of October 7, 2023, have been presented as a surprise attack by Hamas militants that caught Israeli security forces off guard, leading to casualties at a music festival and the taking of hostages. However, a closer examination of the official narrative reveals numerous inconsistencies that raise serious questions about what actually occurred that day.
Technological Contradictions
One of the most glaring inconsistencies involves Israel's Iron Dome defence system. The official explanation for how para-gliders penetrated Israeli airspace was, claims that the Iron Dome is designed to intercept rockets and missiles, not slow-moving aircraft like par-agliders. Yet this same system supposedly failed to prevent Iranian missiles from reaching targets in Tel Aviv during subsequent attacks ;o) This presents a logical contradiction: if the system is sophisticated enough to handle high-speed missiles, why would it be unable to detect slower-moving threats? And if it can be overwhelmed by missile attacks, how effective is it really?
The technical explanations shift depending on what needs to be justified, suggesting either fundamental flaws in the defence system or inconsistencies in the official accounts.
The Response Time Problem
Perhaps the most inexplicable aspect of the official story is the reported five-hour delay in Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) response. This timeline makes little sense given several factors:
Israel's small geographic size means airborne military units can reach any point in the country within minutes. The Gaza border represents one of the world's most heavily monitored and fortified boundaries, with multiple military installations nearby. Israel's military is renowned for rapid response capabilities, yet somehow failed to react for hours during an active attack.
The official explanations—holiday timing, personnel being off duty, initial confusion—fail to account for such an extensive delay. Even accounting for some initial disorder, backup protocols and command structures should have activated much faster.
Communication and Military Culture
The response delay becomes even more problematic when considering Israel's militarized society. All Israelis over 18 serve in the military, many citizens carry weapons, and virtually everyone has mobile phones. At a music festival with thousands of attendees, numerous current and former military personnel would have been present.
The idea that it took hours for military command to learn of the attack strains credibility. Festival-goers would have had direct contacts within the military, people were posting on social media in real-time, and Israel maintains extensive surveillance systems. In such a security-conscious environment, any unusual activity typically triggers immediate alerts through multiple channels.
Witness Testimonies and Visual Evidence
Some of the most compelling challenges to the official narrative come from those who were allegedly taken hostage. According to available testimonies, some individuals reported that Palestinians were actually protecting them from what they described as "Hannibal Directive fire"—referring to Israel's controversial military protocol that authorises using force to prevent captures, even at risk to those Israelis supposedly being captured.
Even more striking is video footage that reportedly circulated widely on the internet in the immediate aftermath, showing supposed hostages hugging Palestinians, laughing with them, and waving goodbye in friendly farewell gestures. Such behaviour is virtually impossible to reconcile with the standard hostage-captor dynamic described in official accounts. People don't typically display warm affection toward those who have allegedly terrorised and kidnapped them.
This visual evidence suggests relationships that were protective rather than hostile, fundamentally contradicting the narrative used to justify subsequent military actions.
Information Control and Media Coverage
The pattern of information flow around these events raises additional questions. Early internet circulation of contradictory footage and testimonies was followed by mainstream media silence on these materials. The killing of over 200 journalists during the subsequent conflict—reportedly more than in all 20th-century wars combined—has limited independent reporting and investigation.
This information management aligns with broader questions about narrative control, particularly given the significant influence of pro-Israel voices in major media outlets.
The Broader Context
These inconsistencies must be viewed within the context of documented territorial expansion goals. The concept of "Greater Israel" has been openly discussed by various Israeli officials over the years, referring to ambitions extending beyond current borders. The military operations following October 7 have indeed resulted in significant territorial control and population displacement.
If the initial attack didn't occur as officially described, then the justifications built upon it become highly problematic. The unprecedented civilian casualties and destruction in Gaza, along with expanded Israeli territorial control, would represent exactly the kind of outcomes that proponents of Greater Israel have long sought.
Conclusion
The accumulation of timeline inconsistencies, technological contradictions, implausible response delays, and contradictory witness testimony creates a picture that diverges significantly from official accounts. The friendly interactions captured on video between supposed hostages and their alleged captors, combined with testimonies about being protected from Israeli fire, suggest a fundamentally different dynamic than what has been portrayed.
While these observations don't definitively prove any particular alternative explanation, they demonstrate that the official narrative contains serious flaws that warrant much more scrutiny than they have received. The suppression of contradictory evidence and the unprecedented targeting of journalists only adds to concerns about information control around these events.
Given the massive consequences that have followed—including thousands of civilian deaths and significant geopolitical changes—these inconsistencies demand honest examination rather than reflexive acceptance of official accounts.
WTF are you talking about, Charlie Kirk supported Netanyahu and his slaying and butchering of babies and children all through the genocide, get real man.
The world is fed up with sheeple/hypocrites who support Netanyahu, they will all become pariahs.
I don't condone the killing of Charlie, but I won't be a hypocrite and say I'm shedding tears over the death of someone who supported the current-day, Hitler.
Phuck everyone who supports this shit. We'reMadAsHEllAndWe'reNotGoingToTakeThisAnymore.
People are at a crossroads, and they'd better be on the right side of history because they have to live with their conscience for eternity.
Think very hard about shedding tears for someone who supported mass murderers of innocent babies and children, and are so delusional they actually believe they are God's Chosen Ones, what a sick joke that is. and if you can find some sick way to condone those murders, you are as much a sick-phuck as the people doing the butchering.
Amen and may Jesus bless real Christians, not fake Christians who support Zionists.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I would like to encourage you to explore more deeply why you state that “I don't condone the killing of Charlie.” This mindset, I think, is the way toward peace, for it is a more rational and less angry response. It would also be instructive and beneficial if you articulated and let others around you know why you personally don’t condone Charlie Kirk’s murder.
In your post you mentioned that “Charlie Kirk supported Netanyahu and his slaying and butchering of babies and children all through the genocide.” It seems that you feel a lot of sympathy for the young victims of an ongoing war with Israel, but I wonder why your empathy doesn’t include the Israeli children who have been killed by anti-Zionist forces? Likewise, I wonder if you have sympathy for the babies, thousands of them, whose lives are ended by abortion procedures that pull fetuses, developing babies, from this source of nourishment in order to kill them. Religious people like Charlie Kirk have a lot of sympathy for those babies.
My point is that most everyone feels that what they believe is morally right. Most people come to their beliefs earnestly, and are basically good people trying to do good. And yet, the beliefs differ because the focus of their sympathies differs. But I think we should try to coexist peacefully by having respectful conversations with those with whom we disagree. My understanding is that this is what Charlie Kirk was trying to do.
I’ll post it again, surely a follower of Charlie Kirk wouldn’t censor someone’s reply.
Questioning the October 7 Narrative: Examining Inconsistencies in the Official Account
The events of October 7, 2023, have been presented as a surprise attack by Hamas militants that caught Israeli security forces off guard, leading to casualties at a music festival and the taking of hostages. However, a closer examination of the official narrative reveals numerous inconsistencies that raise serious questions about what actually occurred that day.
Technological Contradictions
One of the most glaring inconsistencies involves Israel's Iron Dome defence system. The official explanation for how para-gliders penetrated Israeli airspace was, claims that the Iron Dome is designed to intercept rockets and missiles, not slow-moving aircraft like par-agliders. Yet this same system supposedly failed to prevent Iranian missiles from reaching targets in Tel Aviv during subsequent attacks ;o) This presents a logical contradiction: if the system is sophisticated enough to handle high-speed missiles, why would it be unable to detect slower-moving threats? And if it can be overwhelmed by missile attacks, how effective is it really?
The technical explanations shift depending on what needs to be justified, suggesting either fundamental flaws in the defence system or inconsistencies in the official accounts.
The Response Time Problem
Perhaps the most inexplicable aspect of the official story is the reported five-hour delay in Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) response. This timeline makes little sense given several factors:
Israel's small geographic size means airborne military units can reach any point in the country within minutes. The Gaza border represents one of the world's most heavily monitored and fortified boundaries, with multiple military installations nearby. Israel's military is renowned for rapid response capabilities, yet somehow failed to react for hours during an active attack.
The official explanations—holiday timing, personnel being off duty, initial confusion—fail to account for such an extensive delay. Even accounting for some initial disorder, backup protocols and command structures should have activated much faster.
Communication and Military Culture
The response delay becomes even more problematic when considering Israel's militarized society. All Israelis over 18 serve in the military, many citizens carry weapons, and virtually everyone has mobile phones. At a music festival with thousands of attendees, numerous current and former military personnel would have been present.
The idea that it took hours for military command to learn of the attack strains credibility. Festival-goers would have had direct contacts within the military, people were posting on social media in real-time, and Israel maintains extensive surveillance systems. In such a security-conscious environment, any unusual activity typically triggers immediate alerts through multiple channels.
Witness Testimonies and Visual Evidence
Some of the most compelling challenges to the official narrative come from those who were allegedly taken hostage. According to available testimonies, some individuals reported that Palestinians were actually protecting them from what they described as "Hannibal Directive fire"—referring to Israel's controversial military protocol that authorises using force to prevent captures, even at risk to those Israelis supposedly being captured.
Even more striking is video footage that reportedly circulated widely on the internet in the immediate aftermath, showing supposed hostages hugging Palestinians, laughing with them, and waving goodbye in friendly farewell gestures. Such behaviour is virtually impossible to reconcile with the standard hostage-captor dynamic described in official accounts. People don't typically display warm affection toward those who have allegedly terrorised and kidnapped them.
This visual evidence suggests relationships that were protective rather than hostile, fundamentally contradicting the narrative used to justify subsequent military actions.
Information Control and Media Coverage
The pattern of information flow around these events raises additional questions. Early internet circulation of contradictory footage and testimonies was followed by mainstream media silence on these materials. The killing of over 200 journalists during the subsequent conflict—reportedly more than in all 20th-century wars combined—has limited independent reporting and investigation.
This information management aligns with broader questions about narrative control, particularly given the significant influence of pro-Israel voices in major media outlets.
The Broader Context
These inconsistencies must be viewed within the context of documented territorial expansion goals. The concept of "Greater Israel" has been openly discussed by various Israeli officials over the years, referring to ambitions extending beyond current borders. The military operations following October 7 have indeed resulted in significant territorial control and population displacement.
If the initial attack didn't occur as officially described, then the justifications built upon it become highly problematic. The unprecedented civilian casualties and destruction in Gaza, along with expanded Israeli territorial control, would represent exactly the kind of outcomes that proponents of Greater Israel have long sought.
Conclusion
The accumulation of timeline inconsistencies, technological contradictions, implausible response delays, and contradictory witness testimony creates a picture that diverges significantly from official accounts. The friendly interactions captured on video between supposed hostages and their alleged captors, combined with testimonies about being protected from Israeli fire, suggest a fundamentally different dynamic than what has been portrayed.
While these observations don't definitively prove any particular alternative explanation, they demonstrate that the official narrative contains serious flaws that warrant much more scrutiny than they have received. The suppression of contradictory evidence and the unprecedented targeting of journalists only adds to concerns about information control around these events.
Given the massive consequences that have followed—including thousands of civilian deaths and significant geopolitical changes—these inconsistencies demand honest examination rather than reflexive acceptance of official accounts.
Hey! If you look at the comments section for the original post, you'll notice that you left your original reply on the top thread, and this one above is your actual reply to my reply. Please see:
If you are willing to acknowledge that you made a mistake and that you inappropriately accused me of censoring your original reply, then I will reply to your post.
However, if you are not able to get past your anger to understand this unfortunate Substack UI issue, then there is not much point in continuing to debate about longstanding wars, the use of misinformation to foment division, and the malignment of conservative voices in the media. But I'll leave you with Yoda's words of wisdom, "Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
From Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, 09/15/2025 on X:
"Americans should debate policy without smearing opponents as “Nazis” or “fascists.”
A free society derives upon vigorous debate without personal hatred. Charlie [Kirk] modeled that, and his example should be followed."
From engineer and novelist Frank J. Fleming, 09/11/2025 on X:
"The point of the left labeling speech as violence was always to justify violence against speech."
From professional golfer Phil Mickelson, 09/10/2025 on X:
"I never met Charlie Kirk but I am gutted by this atrocity. Open debate is healthy and essential. Free speech is a constitutional right. Violence for disagreeing with someone is sick, deranged, and creates a greater division that becomes harder to overcome."
OMG, what a terrible mistake, I'm ever so sorry, how could I have done such an act on a fellow human being, my god, I don't think I can ever get over what I've done to your feelings, I'm so ashamed of my mistake, please forgive me and offer your great wisdom Oh Yoda.
Questioning the October 7 Narrative: Examining Inconsistencies in the Official Account
The events of October 7, 2023, have been presented as a surprise attack by Hamas militants that caught Israeli security forces off guard, leading to casualties at a music festival and the taking of hostages. However, a closer examination of the official narrative reveals numerous inconsistencies that raise serious questions about what actually occurred that day.
Technological Contradictions
One of the most glaring inconsistencies involves Israel's Iron Dome defence system. The official explanation for how para-gliders penetrated Israeli airspace was, claims that the Iron Dome is designed to intercept rockets and missiles, not slow-moving aircraft like par-agliders. Yet this same system supposedly failed to prevent Iranian missiles from reaching targets in Tel Aviv during subsequent attacks ;o) This presents a logical contradiction: if the system is sophisticated enough to handle high-speed missiles, why would it be unable to detect slower-moving threats? And if it can be overwhelmed by missile attacks, how effective is it really?
The technical explanations shift depending on what needs to be justified, suggesting either fundamental flaws in the defence system or inconsistencies in the official accounts.
The Response Time Problem
Perhaps the most inexplicable aspect of the official story is the reported five-hour delay in Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) response. This timeline makes little sense given several factors:
Israel's small geographic size means airborne military units can reach any point in the country within minutes. The Gaza border represents one of the world's most heavily monitored and fortified boundaries, with multiple military installations nearby. Israel's military is renowned for rapid response capabilities, yet somehow failed to react for hours during an active attack.
The official explanations—holiday timing, personnel being off duty, initial confusion—fail to account for such an extensive delay. Even accounting for some initial disorder, backup protocols and command structures should have activated much faster.
Communication and Military Culture
The response delay becomes even more problematic when considering Israel's militarized society. All Israelis over 18 serve in the military, many citizens carry weapons, and virtually everyone has mobile phones. At a music festival with thousands of attendees, numerous current and former military personnel would have been present.
The idea that it took hours for military command to learn of the attack strains credibility. Festival-goers would have had direct contacts within the military, people were posting on social media in real-time, and Israel maintains extensive surveillance systems. In such a security-conscious environment, any unusual activity typically triggers immediate alerts through multiple channels.
Witness Testimonies and Visual Evidence
Some of the most compelling challenges to the official narrative come from those who were allegedly taken hostage. According to available testimonies, some individuals reported that Palestinians were actually protecting them from what they described as "Hannibal Directive fire"—referring to Israel's controversial military protocol that authorises using force to prevent captures, even at risk to those Israelis supposedly being captured.
Even more striking is video footage that reportedly circulated widely on the internet in the immediate aftermath, showing supposed hostages hugging Palestinians, laughing with them, and waving goodbye in friendly farewell gestures. Such behaviour is virtually impossible to reconcile with the standard hostage-captor dynamic described in official accounts. People don't typically display warm affection toward those who have allegedly terrorised and kidnapped them.
This visual evidence suggests relationships that were protective rather than hostile, fundamentally contradicting the narrative used to justify subsequent military actions.
Information Control and Media Coverage
The pattern of information flow around these events raises additional questions. Early internet circulation of contradictory footage and testimonies was followed by mainstream media silence on these materials. The killing of over 200 journalists during the subsequent conflict—reportedly more than in all 20th-century wars combined—has limited independent reporting and investigation.
This information management aligns with broader questions about narrative control, particularly given the significant influence of pro-Israel voices in major media outlets.
The Broader Context
These inconsistencies must be viewed within the context of documented territorial expansion goals. The concept of "Greater Israel" has been openly discussed by various Israeli officials over the years, referring to ambitions extending beyond current borders. The military operations following October 7 have indeed resulted in significant territorial control and population displacement.
If the initial attack didn't occur as officially described, then the justifications built upon it become highly problematic. The unprecedented civilian casualties and destruction in Gaza, along with expanded Israeli territorial control, would represent exactly the kind of outcomes that proponents of Greater Israel have long sought.
Conclusion
The accumulation of timeline inconsistencies, technological contradictions, implausible response delays, and contradictory witness testimony creates a picture that diverges significantly from official accounts. The friendly interactions captured on video between supposed hostages and their alleged captors, combined with testimonies about being protected from Israeli fire, suggest a fundamentally different dynamic than what has been portrayed.
While these observations don't definitively prove any particular alternative explanation, they demonstrate that the official narrative contains serious flaws that warrant much more scrutiny than they have received. The suppression of contradictory evidence and the unprecedented targeting of journalists only adds to concerns about information control around these events.
Given the massive consequences that have followed—including thousands of civilian deaths and significant geopolitical changes—these inconsistencies demand honest examination rather than reflexive acceptance of official accounts.
WTF are you talking about, Charlie Kirk supported Netanyahu and his slaying and butchering of babies and children all through the genocide, get real man.
The world is fed up with sheeple/hypocrites who support Netanyahu, they will all become pariahs.
I don't condone the killing of Charlie, but I won't be a hypocrite and say I'm shedding tears over the death of someone who supported the current-day, Hitler.
Phuck everyone who supports this shit. We'reMadAsHEllAndWe'reNotGoingToTakeThisAnymore.
People are at a crossroads, and they'd better be on the right side of history because they have to live with their conscience for eternity.
Think very hard about shedding tears for someone who supported mass murderers of innocent babies and children, and are so delusional they actually believe they are God's Chosen Ones, what a sick joke that is. and if you can find some sick way to condone those murders, you are as much a sick-phuck as the people doing the butchering.
Amen and may Jesus bless real Christians, not fake Christians who support Zionists.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I would like to encourage you to explore more deeply why you state that “I don't condone the killing of Charlie.” This mindset, I think, is the way toward peace, for it is a more rational and less angry response. It would also be instructive and beneficial if you articulated and let others around you know why you personally don’t condone Charlie Kirk’s murder.
In your post you mentioned that “Charlie Kirk supported Netanyahu and his slaying and butchering of babies and children all through the genocide.” It seems that you feel a lot of sympathy for the young victims of an ongoing war with Israel, but I wonder why your empathy doesn’t include the Israeli children who have been killed by anti-Zionist forces? Likewise, I wonder if you have sympathy for the babies, thousands of them, whose lives are ended by abortion procedures that pull fetuses, developing babies, from this source of nourishment in order to kill them. Religious people like Charlie Kirk have a lot of sympathy for those babies.
My point is that most everyone feels that what they believe is morally right. Most people come to their beliefs earnestly, and are basically good people trying to do good. And yet, the beliefs differ because the focus of their sympathies differs. But I think we should try to coexist peacefully by having respectful conversations with those with whom we disagree. My understanding is that this is what Charlie Kirk was trying to do.
Hold on, where’s my reply to your reply?
I’ll post it again, surely a follower of Charlie Kirk wouldn’t censor someone’s reply.
Questioning the October 7 Narrative: Examining Inconsistencies in the Official Account
The events of October 7, 2023, have been presented as a surprise attack by Hamas militants that caught Israeli security forces off guard, leading to casualties at a music festival and the taking of hostages. However, a closer examination of the official narrative reveals numerous inconsistencies that raise serious questions about what actually occurred that day.
Technological Contradictions
One of the most glaring inconsistencies involves Israel's Iron Dome defence system. The official explanation for how para-gliders penetrated Israeli airspace was, claims that the Iron Dome is designed to intercept rockets and missiles, not slow-moving aircraft like par-agliders. Yet this same system supposedly failed to prevent Iranian missiles from reaching targets in Tel Aviv during subsequent attacks ;o) This presents a logical contradiction: if the system is sophisticated enough to handle high-speed missiles, why would it be unable to detect slower-moving threats? And if it can be overwhelmed by missile attacks, how effective is it really?
The technical explanations shift depending on what needs to be justified, suggesting either fundamental flaws in the defence system or inconsistencies in the official accounts.
The Response Time Problem
Perhaps the most inexplicable aspect of the official story is the reported five-hour delay in Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) response. This timeline makes little sense given several factors:
Israel's small geographic size means airborne military units can reach any point in the country within minutes. The Gaza border represents one of the world's most heavily monitored and fortified boundaries, with multiple military installations nearby. Israel's military is renowned for rapid response capabilities, yet somehow failed to react for hours during an active attack.
The official explanations—holiday timing, personnel being off duty, initial confusion—fail to account for such an extensive delay. Even accounting for some initial disorder, backup protocols and command structures should have activated much faster.
Communication and Military Culture
The response delay becomes even more problematic when considering Israel's militarized society. All Israelis over 18 serve in the military, many citizens carry weapons, and virtually everyone has mobile phones. At a music festival with thousands of attendees, numerous current and former military personnel would have been present.
The idea that it took hours for military command to learn of the attack strains credibility. Festival-goers would have had direct contacts within the military, people were posting on social media in real-time, and Israel maintains extensive surveillance systems. In such a security-conscious environment, any unusual activity typically triggers immediate alerts through multiple channels.
Witness Testimonies and Visual Evidence
Some of the most compelling challenges to the official narrative come from those who were allegedly taken hostage. According to available testimonies, some individuals reported that Palestinians were actually protecting them from what they described as "Hannibal Directive fire"—referring to Israel's controversial military protocol that authorises using force to prevent captures, even at risk to those Israelis supposedly being captured.
Even more striking is video footage that reportedly circulated widely on the internet in the immediate aftermath, showing supposed hostages hugging Palestinians, laughing with them, and waving goodbye in friendly farewell gestures. Such behaviour is virtually impossible to reconcile with the standard hostage-captor dynamic described in official accounts. People don't typically display warm affection toward those who have allegedly terrorised and kidnapped them.
This visual evidence suggests relationships that were protective rather than hostile, fundamentally contradicting the narrative used to justify subsequent military actions.
Information Control and Media Coverage
The pattern of information flow around these events raises additional questions. Early internet circulation of contradictory footage and testimonies was followed by mainstream media silence on these materials. The killing of over 200 journalists during the subsequent conflict—reportedly more than in all 20th-century wars combined—has limited independent reporting and investigation.
This information management aligns with broader questions about narrative control, particularly given the significant influence of pro-Israel voices in major media outlets.
The Broader Context
These inconsistencies must be viewed within the context of documented territorial expansion goals. The concept of "Greater Israel" has been openly discussed by various Israeli officials over the years, referring to ambitions extending beyond current borders. The military operations following October 7 have indeed resulted in significant territorial control and population displacement.
If the initial attack didn't occur as officially described, then the justifications built upon it become highly problematic. The unprecedented civilian casualties and destruction in Gaza, along with expanded Israeli territorial control, would represent exactly the kind of outcomes that proponents of Greater Israel have long sought.
Conclusion
The accumulation of timeline inconsistencies, technological contradictions, implausible response delays, and contradictory witness testimony creates a picture that diverges significantly from official accounts. The friendly interactions captured on video between supposed hostages and their alleged captors, combined with testimonies about being protected from Israeli fire, suggest a fundamentally different dynamic than what has been portrayed.
While these observations don't definitively prove any particular alternative explanation, they demonstrate that the official narrative contains serious flaws that warrant much more scrutiny than they have received. The suppression of contradictory evidence and the unprecedented targeting of journalists only adds to concerns about information control around these events.
Given the massive consequences that have followed—including thousands of civilian deaths and significant geopolitical changes—these inconsistencies demand honest examination rather than reflexive acceptance of official accounts.
Hey! If you look at the comments section for the original post, you'll notice that you left your original reply on the top thread, and this one above is your actual reply to my reply. Please see:
https://moviewise.substack.com/p/free-to-speak-not-free-to-harm-endorsing/comments
If you are willing to acknowledge that you made a mistake and that you inappropriately accused me of censoring your original reply, then I will reply to your post.
However, if you are not able to get past your anger to understand this unfortunate Substack UI issue, then there is not much point in continuing to debate about longstanding wars, the use of misinformation to foment division, and the malignment of conservative voices in the media. But I'll leave you with Yoda's words of wisdom, "Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
If the young knew . . .
If the old could . . .
--French proverb