I don't think it is a matter of a religion (speaking of some action being anathema for someone), if we don't likewise view ownership to (3) land through the same lens.

Can it be that nomadic-lifestyle is anathema to land-owning... what, land-owning natives? ... believers? ... intruders?

Just because someone does not want to negotiate or was not there when someone asked for negotiation, doesn't mean we forget about (1) body and (2) family when it comes to aggression (a.k.a. missunderstandings), do we?

That's the momentum when property usually is "protected" by disposing someone else's property. Giving or even taking a reason to do so. I hope you see the conflict of interest here.

I don't want to say there's an easy answer here, but from our conversation I get the idea that (1) body and (2) family are different from (3) land.

!invest_vote