https://youtu.be/RI1TP2gNn6c?si=OOIayS8x3lzJSfCV&t=699
Great segment on the West Bank settlements by John Oliver.
Printable View
https://youtu.be/RI1TP2gNn6c?si=OOIayS8x3lzJSfCV&t=699
Great segment on the West Bank settlements by John Oliver.
This nearsighted single mother nearly ran me over on my walk the other day.
https://imgur.com/a/ZTjZOpg
I've seen a lot of rats in my days, I don't think I've ever seen one carry a baby.
Liv Boeree has a YouTube podcast channel that actually kicks ass.
A video popped up in my YouTube recommendations and I clicked.
Her whole take on Moloch is inspiring, IMO. Yes, it's tainted by being named after some line from the Bible, but I'll let the origin story take a back seat to her original expansion and elaboration on the concept.
Basically, she's got this running theory that Moloch is "bad competition" or "short-sighted competition" or that thing that big corporations do to maximize short-term gains at the cost of long-term brand integrity. E.g. Logitech changing to shitty switches that wear out in about 1 - 2 years to save a few cents per mouse. Yes, you increased earnings with that change, but after a few years, people are wise to the fact that you no longer produce quality products and actually produce trash.
That's Moloch.
And I think it's an excellent paradigm to view an enormous class of struggles facing the current economic models in place around the world.
Link to the YouTube channel I mentioned above.
https://www.youtube.com/@LivBoeree/videos
Despite much stress and setbacks, I had an awesome trip to NYC this week.
There was a massive rainstorm the night before I was supposed to fly in that delayed my vacation's start by a day.
That was stressful.
I missed the show I was going to see, An Evening of Unnecessary Detail, by Matt Parker (of YouTube channel Stand Up Maths).
I missed my friend's presentation at said show.
Sad times.
But I still got to spend a couple days with my friend, and a super bonus was that Matt Parker invited my friend and I to lunch with him and his wife, Lucy.
So I got way better than simply seeing him on stage. I got to have a wonderful "private" lunch with him.
Which was great.
And I got to meet some other cool people, and spend time with my friends.
NYC is a really fun city to explore. Despite the reputation, I never smelled hot piss once. Also never got scammed or mugged.
The pizza lives up to the reputation. Outstanding.
The people watching is top notch. No matter where you look, there's people.
Getting around is slow, but not hard. The subways run constantly. I don't think I ever waited as much as 5 minutes for a train. The streets are gridlocked, so you're not saving time to call a taxi or uber. Might as well save money and just take the subway.
I went to the American Museum of Natural History, too. Great museum. Too big to see it all with the time I had.
Hi everyone. I discussed actual poker strategy quite a bit on this forum today, which feels a little bit in poor taste. Back to shitposting to me, sorry everyone!
Fuck me that's a lot of poker to talk about.
Damn! Matt Parker's a legit celebrity... as much of a celebrity you can be in that space.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The NY Museum of Natural History broke me. I went last year. Went in at opening hour and left at closing time, still didn't see everything, and already skipped insects, rocks and space (who needs them?).
Still not sure what's bigger: That piece of shit, or the MET. Anyway, I had a great time.
Yeah. He's pretty well known in math circles, but outside of that, not so much.
My only regret is that I was just star-struck enough that it didn't even occur to me to get a selfie of the 4 of us until after we'd parted ways.
I think if I was just a smidge more or less star struck, I'd have gotten that. Just hit the perfect level of "be on your best behavior" and "he's just a normal guy, so don't be weird" and spaced the opportunity for a pic.
Oh well.
Next time.
Both Matt and Lucy were delightful people. Thoughtful listeners, gracious speakers. They were kind and in good spirits during the lunch.
It was a treat.
You do you, stick to your tried-and-true approach of giving boilerplate advice you learned in the beginner's circle 10 years ago and you should be able to bang through some responses in short order!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I started watching poker YouTube shows again, just for entertainment, and it got me back to wanting to play some hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by surviva316
After long enough of that, I downloaded PokerStars and sat at some play money tables over the weekend.
First time I spent actually playing hands in like 10 years.
PS has changed a bit. The biggest play money stakes available last time I played was 200/400. The most you could sit with on any table was 40k. Now, they have stakes up to the billions.
My old play money BR was sitting there waiting for me. I pushed that up to 11 million playing 400 NL back in the day.
Now, I'm actually rolled to sit at 2k, but I'm also rolled to take shots at 10k.
So I spent the weekend playing million chip buy-in poker.
EZ game. Still play money. You still get limpers in every pot. Only occasionally do you see any sense of positional awareness or post-flop subtlety. It's pretty easy to put a basic read on everyone and never really need to refine that read.
I was up a buy in after Sat. Had epic runbad on SUN, but still ended up 4 buy-ins. Then yesterday... FFS... this one seat had it on me every time the chips went in. I lost all my gains to 1 person, who could catch any 2-outer on any hand, it seemed. Still, up 100 BB's on the weekend.
If only I didn't have crazy over-stimulation anxiety in casinos. Now that I am at a point in my life to actually afford to go and play some live hands... I'm also well aware of the psychological toll it has on me to be in such an environment for more than about an hour.
I'm not 100% sure it's a healthy outlet for me, anyway. The adrenaline from playing a big pot is real, and I worry that I'm just seeking that emotion in a dearth of "pure" emotions in my life.
I certainly felt all the pings of addiction over the weekend. Not wanting to miss a hand in order to use the restroom or eat lunch, etc. Not taking any breaks and playing for like 8+ hours in a single sitting.
If I'm going to enjoy poker again, I can't be doing it like this. Need to find balance, and only play for entertainment or as a goal to enjoy the analytical side of it. I care too much about winning, and it's only play money, anyway.
I don't think you're missing out. Every casino I've been to has been miserable. I think chess would be a great social game to get into. There's also plenty of adrenaline to be had, if you're playing it wrong.
Nonsense. Losing at chess is miserable. Being intellectually dominated by someone and being able to do nothing about it can be quite soul destroying.
Although, at least there's no money involved. Losing at poker is worse, for two reasons. Money, and luck. Losing to bad luck when you're in a bad mood is much worse than being outplayed by someone more skilful.
Agree that losing at chess is miserable.
Disagree that the luck factor makes losing at poker worse. That creates incredible plausible deniability that keep my delusions of grandeur entirely intact.
Yeah, this.Quote:
Originally Posted by surviva316
Oof, I made a bad call... I mean... but... that dude does the same shit with 3rd pair on a connected board, so I'm prob ahead to keep making that call.
Oof. That guy plays way tighter against "me" OTR, and I should prob. be folding TPTK to river bets, now.
Yeah... I def. made the right fold, there. I'm so smort.
Me: playing A2 from the BTN. Turns a wheel, and gets open jammed on. Calls to see 7-high straight. FFS! That's why wheel draws suck!! fuck A2!!!
Later: Ooooh an A on my BTN!
I mean... I'm crushing the play money well beyond any reasonable expectation of BB/100.
Here's a tip if you want to go outside: Just put on two layers of raincoats, two layers of waterproof pants and a pair of rubber boots, and it's no problem at all!
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Spoke too soon.
2 days of runbad reset most of that. So, so many sigh-calls w/ 2-pair+ OTR that were bad.
Thankfully pulled back a bit last night. Only down 1 BI over the past 3 days, now.
I sat down last night and was up 4 BI in like 20 hands. Just kept flopping the nuts and getting jammed on. Held on to that for another 150 hands, only down from my peak by ~7 BB.
I can't tell if its in my head / statistical noise seeming relevant when it's not, but I feel like I run bad during the day and run good in the evenings.
Which can only make sense based on time zones, and the EU players playing differently than US players.
When it gets late enough in the day, the EU goes to sleep, which changes the player pool significantly.
IDK. Do they just bluff insanely much more in the EU?
Or did I just hit a few days of runbad that happened to coincide with the time of day?
Maybe I drop down to lower stakes and try just calling down with any pair to see what's up without the danger to my BR..?
All competitive games I've played get significantly softer in the evenings and on weekends. In poker: around payday and holiday bonuses is a really good time to play. Christmas is literally and figuratively Christmas.
EU player pool used to be more aggressive and significantly softer, but I haven't touched the game in many years.
Your weather is making the news here. Nysa in Poland is evacuating. And the forecast is dreadful for large swathes of Austria, Czech Republic and Bavaria. I would probably recommend not going outside at all unless your house isn't safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yjjqyv84eo
Vienna is in kind of a unique situation because we have a bunch of major relief channels, so we are surprisingly ok compared to what's going on around us.
We're two weeks away from our general election and the best polling parties are complete climate denialists - on a Trump level. So it will be interesting to see if this changes anything. Rightoids usually only learn when it something affects them directly. Let's see if they can put two and two together on this one.
Wild animals are fucked. I found a pile of dead swifts under a bridge. People are collecting the alive ones, and the ones I've seen flying are having a hard time. Drove past a major nature preserve today that was completely under water. A deer growled at me from behind the bushes the other day. Crows are hardcore. They don't give a fuck, they'll fly through anything.
Holy crap. That's some old testament shit, there.
Who pissed off God this time?
Seriously though, that's catastrophic. Keep safe, friend.
I vividly remember some people here claiming some years ago how electric airplanes, outside some gliders with solar panels, are not feasible.
https://heartaerospace.com/
Seems like they only have a design right now. If this turns out to be not just a subsidy/investment - scam, it would be interesting how much better this is in terms of per-person emissions than your typical large Airbus. Even the pre-production claims seem quite modest.
It's probably where airline travel will be going though. Kind of looks like the Tesla in early 2000 - stage.
0 operational emissions from the plane is cool and all, but it's scandalous to call it a 0 emission plane.
Every step of the chain from mining and refining the metal ores to smelting it into usable shapes and transporting the raw materials has a carbon footprint. The energy the plane uses is still coming from the grid, and causing whatever carbon emissions that grid creates to produce the energy. The plane itself has consumable fluids that need replacing and disposal of the waste oils and lubricants, which will leak to some extent. The services on the flight are not created carbon neutral and the trash they produce isn't carbon neutral to dispose of.
The entire lifetime of the vehicle in service isn't carbon neutral, nor is it even close to carbon neutral.
While it's cool to have a plane that isn't itself burning fossil fuels, and I do think this is a good step, calling that a solution to the greater issue is overstating it by a scandalous amount.
John Oliver did a good segment on Carbon Neutrality/Carbon offsets. It's mostly greenwashing. Crude oil production is up every year, natural gas is up, and surprising to no-one, CO2 emissions are steadily going up as a result. You can put up all the solar panels you want, if you still dig up and burn the same amount of fossil fuels, nothing is going to change, no matter how much you shuffle numbers around.
Is it just my echo chamber, or is the second assassination attempt on Trump in 2 months a complete non-story? I don't think it's right, but it is very funny.
I also like how Mossad does an all-out terror attack - Basically mass mail bombs with no clear strategy, and the international press is like: Masterful gambit, sir! Wow tech, geniuses! Is there anything they can't do?
The 2nd assassination attempt fed comedians more than it endangered anyone but the attempted shooter.
Secret Service found him before Trump was close. Apparently the SS just started shooting at the bush with a gun barrel pointing out as though it was the foliage pointing a gun, and the shooter ran away. He was later apprehended.
There's no video, but I was able to find an audio clip of the escape:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te2klTPtILs
It's not clear what their strategy was because we haven't been told, but I wish they weren't forced to shoot their load early. They had a plan but were forced to abort it. That plan, if it came to fruition, might have actually wiped out Hezbollah, and if it did that it could have been the greatest act of war in human history. Imagine taking out a terrorist enemy armed liked a nation in two days using exploding communication devices. Imagine ending a war between Israel and Hezbollah before it gets going. Unfortunately it might have made war more inevitable, but that depends on how much damage Israel have done to Hezbollah, because they might have been significantly weakened as a result of this attack. And given this kind of attack is potentially more targeted and has a greater chance of actually wiping out the enemy than air strikes, I'd say it's more humane than air strikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I very much doubt Israel have played their trump card here. There's more of this to come.
That's an interesting way to spin this. Sure, that would have been cool, importantly though: this is not what happened. I have absolutely no sympathy for Hezbollah, or any of Khomeini's proxies, but this booby trap campaign does something enormously counterproductive: it legitimizes Hezbollah's existence, according to their own claims.
This was not a surgical strike. This injured and possibly killed many civilians. It killed a 9yo and an 11yo. Apparently another bomb went off at one of the children's funeral processions as well. I'm not sure this has been confirmed, but it sounds right up their ally.
And why is it that the logic of: members/parts of this group did-this/said-that/are affiliated with... is a justification used almost exclusively to commit acts of terror against Arabs. Nobody in the west justified the 90's car bombings in Jerusalem by invoking Sabra and Shatila. I don't see this attack as being massively more sophisticated. This archives nothing. You can dream up any number of scenarios where this could have been the precursor for a land invasion, or eliminating military targets, but it wasn't. On it's own, this was a strategically useless act of terror.
It's not intended as spin, it's my uniformed take on this event.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Yeah. War sucks. Hezbollah's missiles kill civilians too. And it seems to me that had Israel enacted their plan properly, at their preferred time, then civilian risk would have been minimised. I don't think it was Israel's plan to blow these up in a random place, although a random aspect to it is entirely inevitable and predictable so I'm not suggesting Israel's hands are clean here. But, war sucks. If Israel legitimately think this will cost fewer lives than more conventional means of war, then I don't see the reason for outrage. And the children who died, from what I can tell, are the children of Hezbollah members. I'm not saying that these children are fair targets, but the blame for them being a collateral target is at least shared by the man who chooses to join an organisation hellbent on the destruction of a state. He puts his child in the line of fire.Quote:
This injured and possibly killed many civilians. It killed a 9yo and an 11yo.
You make it sound like Jews are targeting Arabs because they hate them, and not because it tends to be exclusively Arabs who actively want the destruction of Israel.Quote:
...is a justification used almost exclusively to commit acts of terror against Arabs.
This is absolutely not true. Even if this was botched, Israel have severely hampered Hezbollah's ability to communicate in the short term, and in the long term are forcing them to divert economic resources into sourcing trusted devices in future. The death toll might not be huge but the number of injured is, and the majority of the injured are Hezbollah fighters. That's a loss of fighting manpower.Quote:
This archives nothing.
There's no doubt this has hurt Hezbollah. How much is anyone's guess, and whether Israel take advantage remains to be seen.
The Israeli magazine 972 published an article describing the targeting system of Hamas targets in Gaza. The attacks are specifically carried out when the target comes to their family.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
If this line of reasoning is valid, then it legitimizes Hezbollah. Israel has committed horrific war crimes in Lebanon in the 80's while backing lunatics, including Hamas, to defeat the moderate PLO. Most prominently when the IDF worked together with the Christian Phalange militia to slaughter thousands of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. If your reasoning is valid, then Hezbollah would have every right to do the same. I'm going with the currently controversial take that slaughtering children is wrong in any context.Quote:
And the children who died, from what I can tell, are the children of Hezbollah members. I'm not saying that these children are fair targets, but the blame for them being a collateral target is at least shared by the man who chooses to join an organisation hellbent on the destruction of a state. He puts his child in the line of fire.
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/edit...cc873804f057a1Quote:
You make it sound like Jews are targeting Arabs because they hate them, and not because it tends to be exclusively Arabs who actively want the destruction of Israel.
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/edit...c739ff7a84262b
What does this even mean? They operate with impunity in a country that can't do anything about it. Any talk of "legitimacy" is purely subjective, and will differ depending on if you use that term in a legal sense or a moral sense. Legally, they're not "legitimate" by Israeli, British, American or European standards because they are proscribed as a terrorist organisation by all those parties. Morally, well that's for you to decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Well I share this controversial view, it's just I also recognise that all sides in any war are guilty of this. If the slaughter of children "in any context" is your red line, then you should oppose every army that ever engaged in warfare, regardless of whether they are acting in self defence or not.Quote:
I'm going with the extremely controversial take that slaughtering children is wrong in any context.
Something very unique about Palestinian child casualties is the sheer number of children that are killed or maimed by direct shots to the body or head. That is something extremely rare in other warzones. Children usually die in wars through collapsing buildings, ricochet, shrapnel... but there is no shortage of interviews with pediatric surgeons who say they have never removed bullets from children's bodies in any other war zone, but it's a regular occurrence in Gaza.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...idf-israel-war
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_OJ8AzyOKU
Nearly twice as many children have been killed in Gaza in the past year than the entirety of the Iraq war. In the first three weeks after Oct 7th, more children have been killed in Gaza than in all warzones combined since 2019 https://www.savethechildren.net/news...conflict-zones
We are up to multiples of that. The numbers are unique. The rhetoric is unique: you don't usually have the most prominent politicians on one side of the conflict going: These are human animals/if we kill 2 million, it would be justice/we must eliminate the seed of Amalek from under heaven - all real quotes. They are expressing clear genocidal intent. Civilians are clearly being targeted. They shot their own hostages who walked towards them with their hands raised in their underpants, waving a white flag. There is nothing unclear about what is going on here. If you reversed victim/perpetrator identity, nobody would have any difficulty seeing this for what it is.
UN report on children being deliberately targeted during the March for Return protests. This has been going on for a long time:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/h...report2018-opt
It justifies their existence in the eyes of their supporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You know what‘s incredible about Austria: We used to have so many Nazis. Nazis anywhere you looked, it was a whole thing. Then the war ends, and all of the sudden: Almost no Nazis! Anyway, just a random thought. The world could learn a thing or two!
In unrelated news, the Domestic Socialist party is leading the polls in Sunday‘s general election. Exciting times.
Supporters of a group already consider it "legitimate".Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It appears to me that Israel have dismantled Hezbollah in a fortnight. The people of Lebanon appear to be celebrating the demise of Hezbollah's leader.
Any talk of Hezbollah's legitimacy might well be redundant.
I keep checking the Hezbollah Wikipedia page to see if it's changed from "is" to "was".
Nazi party won in a landslide.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
So do I learn all the verses in the Horst Wessel Lied, or should I get the fuck out early? I'm already browsing job openings in Ireland. Also seems like a smart move climate-wise. UK is more of a hassle with work visa and whatnot, but a lot more entertaining politically. I'm partial to Dover. How are Dover girls with bald middle aged men who sound like Werner Herzog? Is Kent the new Argentina?
I haven't really followed the news closely the last couple of days, but Hezbollah is huge. Just killing a couple of commanders is not going to do much. If anything, Hassan Nasrallah was considered one of the more moderate ones. Anyone moving up in command now is most likely a bigger pain in the ass, and I have no idea what Israel has done to damage their military capability. They have, once again, killed a lot of children, to kill the one guy they could have negotiated with. 5D chess moves as always.Quote:
It appears to me that Israel have dismantled Hezbollah in a fortnight. The people of Lebanon appear to be celebrating the demise of Hezbollah's leader.
Any talk of Hezbollah's legitimacy might well be redundant.
He ordered the capture of Israel border security, sparking a war. If he's moderate then it's pretty clear that they need to be wiped out.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
He also fought on the side of the Syrian army against "Islamist extremists" so I appreciate Hezbollah under his command are not quite chop-your-head-off jihadists but they are far from moderate by any standard by which I'd use that word. Maybe compared to Islamic State they're moderate.
The Houthis are having it now. Israel are not fucking about. Looks to me like they are attempting to take out Iran's proxies one by one, while Iran sits there holding its dick.
The biggest blow to Hezbollah isn't even the loss of their command or headquarters. The real fatal blow is the Lebanese people celebrating their demise.
I'm not quite sure how accurate your sources are on this one. Hezbollah successfully successfully pushed Israel out of Lebanon in the 80's. They're the reason Lebanon is no longer occupied territory. Without them Lebanon will very likely lose territory to Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The JP just deleted this article: https://web.archive.org/web/20240925...article-821680
This is pretty transparent stuff. Gallant is openly saying he wants to settle Gaza, and they're preparing to resettle Lebanon and Yemen. This is not a victory, they are speedrunning total war in the middle east, and everyone will lose.
Which is the lesser of two evils? Being occupied by a foreign state actor? Or being occupied by a domestic terrorist group which is a proxy of a foreign state actor?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The Lebanese people might well have been delighted when Israel retreated, they might well have seen Hezbollah as heroes. But things have changed a lot since then. Hezbollah has grown into the largest non-state military in the world. It's at the point where their presence is a security threat.
Meanwhile, in Tel Aviv...
I'm going to bed soon, when I get up I'm kinda half expecting there to be a large gap on the map where Iran used to be.
This could be the best thing that the Iranian regime has done yet for the Iranian people... committed suicide.
When you put the IDF headquarters in a populated area, using citizens as human shields, that justifies literally everything /sQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't think Tel Aviv has been hit, but I'm not reading live feeds or anything, I'm waiting until there's somewhat trustworthy reporting.
I don't have much confidence that this "we bomb them until they love us" strategy will be in any way beneficial for Israel. It will be increasingly difficult for other countries to defend their funding of Israel, and I don't think Israel is equipped to fight a ground war on three fronts with a tiktok army with an average age of 20.
I'm not going to defend any individual player here, but if nobody reacts to the annexation of the West Bank, they will keep moving the borders, now possibly into Lebanon - they are already officially denying that Lebanon is a real country. The article that I linked is such transparent Hasbara that I don't think there's much to add. Likut ran on the promise of creating a Greater Israel - from the River to the Sea. They think this is the time to realize that goal. I don't see them stopping, and I don't see them succeeding. I think this will run out the exact same way every single ethnonationalist project has run it's course in the last hundred years.
They have seats in the parliament. It's not that black and white. Lebanon is not Afghanistan. It's a relatively liberal country with gay nightclubs, beach resorts and a foreign funded non-state military. That's a bit yikes, but many things are. It's like if blackwater was really into religion and had political ambitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There are insane things going on in most countries from the outside looking in. I'm not super into being governed by a 35% Nazi plurality in coalition with neocon christian conservative, but I would still prefer not to get bombed by Italy.
Do you think Lebanon and its people would be more prosperous if they were not host to an Iranian proxy? I do. I also think the same of the Iranians. They would be much better off if they were democratic and civilised.
It's a really weird public debate this one is. People are trying to choose which horrible bastard they prefer to win. The land grabbing child murderers? Or the chop-your-head-off rapists? It's like a bunch of genocide sympathisers vs another bunch of genocide sympathisers, calling one another genocide sympathisers.
I guess I like the Jews more because they don't throw people off buildings for being gay, or stone slag women to death, best I'm aware. And the Jews let their women wear miniskirts and dance to electronic music. They're far less oppressive as a society compared to Iran.
As for which leader is more evil, which is the biggest Hitler, take your pick. I think the Iranian arseholes are the bigger Hitlers, but not by much.
Sure, maybe, idk, what's the point? I think the UK would be better off without the Tories, but I still wouldn't condone Tamagotchi-bombing every single Torie member, because I don't think terrorism leads to desirable outcomes.Quote:
Do you think Lebanon and its people would be more prosperous if they were not host to an Iranian proxy? I do. I also think the same of the Iranians. They would be much better off if they were democratic and civilised.
I don't agree with conflating Jews with Israel. But at least you're also conflating Hezbollah with Isis, so it's all even. :thumbsup:
I don't have to like a group of people to support their right to live free of terror. I think Hezbollah has shown a lot more restraint than Israel in the past year. Every pundit loves to point out how Hezbollah bombed Israel, and therefore Israel is defending itself. Hezbollah bombed a military outpost in the Golan Heights, an area that is considered Israeli occupied Lebanese territory to just about every country except the US and Israel. I'm pretty sure I brought it up in the Magaposting thread when Trump went on to both recognize the Golan Heights as Israeli territory for the first time, and moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. I wish that would make him the worst US president on Middle East policy in the last 8 years, but no such luck.
Again, one does not have to, under any circumstances, hand it to Iran, but they're doing what Israel claims it's doing. They only target military targets, they announce their strikes, and then they conclude their strikes. I think it's very hard to argue that that Israel somehow has the moral high ground in the context of this military conflict.Quote:
As for which leader is more evil, which is the biggest Hitler, take your pick. I think the Iranian arseholes are the bigger Hitlers, but not by much.
Possibly, but they have also demonstrated a great deal more stupidity.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
That attack from Hamas should have finished them off as a respectable political force in the eyes of anyone who wished to themself remain respectable. Hezbollah's response to Hamas' incursion, murder, rape and kidnapping of civilians was solidarity. They then decided to engage in pointless trade of fire at the border that serves no purpose other than to force the retreat of a million or so civilians on both sides of the border, and irritate an already enraged Israel. I don't call that restraint.
Iran are being stupid too. They have practically declared war on Israel. They will lose and it will be the end of that regime. That is an outcome I certainly hope for.Quote:
I think it's very hard to argue that that Israel somehow has the moral high ground in the context of this military conflict.
I don't think Iran didn't have the right to attack Israel as they did. I just think it's very, very stupid.
Don't get me wrong. I'd quite like to see an end to the Israeli regime too. It's just that there's no military force that opposes them that are capable of defeating them. And I don't particularly want to see a state of constant war. But that is inevitable when Israel are surrounded by people who want to destroy them.
If these people had no been opposing Jewish presence in the Levant for the last century, then Israel wouldn't be so fucking oppressive to the Arabs around them. The Jews are not naturally oppressive people, they allow their own folk to live a free and liberal life. They don't oppress Arabs for no reason. They do it because in their eyes, if they don't, then Arabs will continue to get stronger until eventually they swarm into Israel and do unspeakable things. What Hamas did justifies Israel oppression of Arabs, in their eyes.
It's a never ending cycle. There are only two ways it ends... with both sides winding their necks in (not happening), or the stronger side obliterating the other. Until one of those outcomes, it perpetual conflict.
It's not like the neighboring nations have no reason to be upset. Israel has never really behaved in a neighborly way to them.Quote:
I don't particularly want to see a state of constant war. But that is inevitable when Israel are surrounded by people who want to destroy them.
Israel exists on land that was their land until outside forces used violence to create Israel. Then Israel has systematically used more violence to take more land.
Israel's response seems to be to genocide their haters, rather than to engage in diplomacy.
It's an ugly situation, but acting like the opposition to Israel by its neighbors is simply blind aggression or ethnocentrism is totally missing the history, here.
How far back to we go? Semites were living there long before Israel was a country, long before Islam and even Christianity was a thing, way back to the days when pyramids were being built.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
The creation of Israel was certainly problematic and probably should not have happened. However, it did. It exists. And it has a right to do so, at least now. Maybe not in 1948, but here in 2024, it has a right to exist, just like every other nation made up predominantly of a demographic that is not indigenous, such as USA to throw one example out there.
Arabs need to accept this. Only then might Israel accept that Palestine also has a right to exist. Maybe Israel should do the big boy thing and acknowledge Palestine first, and respect their borders, but that doesn't appear to be forthcoming. If Arabs won't take the initiative and try very hard to de-escalate, then they will continue to be oppressed by a stronger force.
I mean I say Arabs but the real driving force here isn't even Arabs... it's Persians. Without Iranian funding and weapons, Hezbollah wouldn't be anywhere near strong enough to pose a real threat to Israel.
What's Iran's beef with Israel? There are actual Arab countries that have recognised Israel and have good relations with them. The Arabs had their land taken, not Persians. The Persians are motivated purely by religion, by a hatred of Judaism. Yet normal people in civilised countries are hailing their actions here as heroic.
The origin of this conflict goes back to the end of WWII.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The false notion that the middle east has been a land of constant fighting since time immemorial is not true.
Yes, people have lived there for thousands of years, and the ruling peoples have been displaced by invaders and conquerors many times over. But the origin of *this* conflict goes back to WWII.
Why that decision was made goes back further, but it's not truly, deeply relevant to this story. The reasons the land of Israel was chosen is significant, but not relevant to the current violence.
Ahh... does it, and by whose claims, and what are its borders, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What is the Israel that is rightful to exist, and what is the blatant and political land grab that has nothing to do with recompense for WWII or anything aside from political dick waving?
As in... what is the right border of Israel?
And does the rightful existence of Israel necessarily imply the rightful genocide of other peoples?
And why don't those people's have the right to exist?
I remind you that Israel has responded to terrorism with elevated terrorism. Israel has responded to accusations of genocide by bombing non-military targets with a repetition that tears at any sensible human's heart.
I remind you that Israel's current policy is "deescalation through escalation."
I'm not saying Israel doesn't have a right to exist, but I am saying Israel doesn't have the right to be a terrorist state.
I'll let Arabs decide what Arabs need to accept.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I do not think *anyone* needs to accept a genocidal neighbor that aggressively expands its borders and specifically uses rhetoric of genocide which is clearly born out through their military actions.
I said Arabs need to accept Israel's right to exist. That's different to what you describe here. I did not say anyone has to accept Israel's right to steal land or destroy Gaza.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
If Arabs will not accept Israel's right to exist, then Israel are not going to listen to them or anyone else, and will continue to pursue a policy of de-escalation through escalation.
That's why they need to accept it. Not because I'm telling them to. Because until they do, nothing will change for the better.
Their enemies are saying this though.Quote:
I'm not saying Israel doesn't have a right to exist...
No country does. But Israel seem to have determined that they need to fight terrorism with their own brand of terrorism. They seem to believe that if they don't respond with greater force every time they are provoked, they will appear weak, and the enemy's resolve is reinforced, and that eventually that will lead to the total destruction of the Israeli state. They believe this. And frankly, I do too. I believe that if Hamas and Hezbollah were capable, they would wipe Israel from the face of the Earth, driving the Jewish population into the Mediterranean in the process. I'm glad they're not capable and would rather see them stopped than supported.Quote:
...I am saying Israel doesn't have the right to be a terrorist state.
I think the international consensus is the pre 1968 borders. Of course, there is no peace so long as their is armed Arab resistance to Jewish presence within these borders, and there is also no peace so long as Israel continues a policy of occupying territory beyond these borders.Quote:
As in... what is the right border of Israel?
Can I claim the land of my ancestors? Forget 3500 years ago, I want Trieste back. If nothing else, so I could tie a big rock around my neck and walk into the sea instead of entertaining this stupid notion.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's really difficult to frame Iran as the first aggressor here. Yes, Iran funds Hezbollah and Hamas. You know how they were able to sneak hundreds of millions of dollars past Israeli authorities? The answer might surprise you!
If you want the standard to be that a state becomes a legitimate target if they prop up a terror group as a proxy against a foreign enemy, then I would kindly point you to the giant glass dome above your head.
It's like when Germans say: "Yes, what Israel is doing is bad, but do you know what Hamas did to the Jews?" I don't know if you're a scholar of history or not, but I can assure you that that is not a maxim you want to have universally applied.
The tail wagging the dog, FFS.
I used to think that the Biden administration was inept or stuck in the past, or ideologically in the hole, and this might still be true, but... with all that is going on right now, to say they are fully and unconditionally supporting Israel, I think I've been naive in thinking this was Netanyahu playing the US, and not Netanyahu acting in accordance with US policy. This may sound conspiratorial, but what other explanation is there? Biden has the big stick that is military funding. He could, at any point, stop payments, stop weapons shipments. Why wouldn't he? Even Reagan could do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
IDK
The irrational support bible belt 'Murica has for Israel is insane.
They don't follow any of these stories you're sharing, here.
Their vision of Israel is "Ermagherd! Bible land under attack by brown-man/terrorists!"
FFS, the Rep candidates for POTUS and VP have literally said it's not within their purview to fact check things before saying them. They've mocked reporters for insinuating that political candidates should be doing the reporter's job.
And they're close enough to 50/50 to win this shindig in November.
Their policies are largely: increase wealth inequality, insulate the powerful from legal consequences, oppose everything the Dem's suggest.
FFS, JD Vance claimed Trump was a hero for making Obamacare functional, when what actually happened is Trump sunk every ounce of political will he had into killing the ACA, and failed to get it done.
Imagine what they'd spew if someone challenged to cut off support to bible-land.
I mean all of this is just... like... my opinion, man.
But I find it a difficult political sell under the current conditions in the US political scene.
The Iranian regime took power in 1979 and immediately rescinded their recognition of Israel and severed all ties. Since then they have funded, armed and trained terrorist groups that oppose Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It's pretty hard to frame Israel as the first aggressor in their relations with Iran.
You give the impression as if you never look for consistency in your arguments. Do you ever ask yourself if this would be applicable to any other two parties? Would you condone an all-out attack by Cambodia on the US, tomorrow? You clearly make your arguments conditioned on the identity of the parties involved. In raw numbers it is absurd how one-sided this conflict is:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ollah-attacks/
https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...ves-since-1987
https://www.statista.com/chart/16516...the-west-bank/
Quick etiquette question about job interviews in the UK: do I call everyone a cunt, or just the women?
Like I say, it's a weird public debate where people seem to find themselves hardcore supporting one bunch of genocidal maniacs or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I'm presuming you don't condone what Hamas did. Please don't presume I condone what Israel are doing.
I'm just not surprised, and feel this was absolutely 100% predictable when Hamas did what they did, and Hezbollah responded with solidarity. They declared war on Israel. Israel have responded by deciding to eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah at all costs. It sucks for everyone in Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and soon Iran. I blame Hamas for this escalation, so that means I blame Iran by proxy.
I also presume we share common ground. I would hope we all agree that both Palestine and Israel have the right to exist in peace. I feel the debate about whether Israel should have been created is a pretty redundant argument at this stage. Lots of countries around the world are the result of colonialism, and most with far weaker historical claims to their land than the Jews have over Israel. I don't consider it a moderate view to believe that Israel needs to cease existing and Israeli people need to move to Europe or North America. That's not a solution.
The moderate position in a 2-state solution with Israel retreating to pre-1968 borders. Anything either side of that means conflict.
The only way they're defeating Hamas is by respecting the internationally recognized borders, which means decolonializing the West Bank. That's never happening. Not with the unconditional support they're getting from the US. It's very much the opposite.
Pretty remarkable for the NYT to print this, even though it's old news at this point: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e=articleShare
Should be an investigative piece. Turns up in the opinion section. It is something.
Also Florida: holy shit. At least everyone can agree it was man-made: https://x.com/mtgreenee/status/1842039774359462324
This woman is incredible. She must be a world class troll. Nobody can really be this stupid.
On hurricanes - "Yes they can control the weather. It’s ridiculous for anyone to lie and say it can’t be done."
On climate change - "maybe perhaps we live on a ball that rotates around the sun, that flies through the universe, and maybe our climate just changes."
It's quite possible this woman thinks the same people who are too incompetent to hire a skilled sniper are more than adept at cyclogenesis.
Honestly, if they can just fart out two major hurricanes in a fortnight, the planet is in safe hands. Humans are fucking awesome if we really have reached this point. I'd just be a bit surprised that we achieved this God-level while still burning fossil fuels. I'd have expected a much more advanced global energy regime well before we can generate hurricanes.
Marjorie Taylor Green is batshit crazy. Her opinions are like an angry teenager only ever watched FOX news their whole life and thought to themself, "This is OK, but they care way too much about facts."
She's the Congressman who stood up to boo the president during a State of the Union address.
She's the one who blamed a jewish space laser for ... IDK anymore.
Her existence isn't that shocking. She's just your typical Karen.
The fact that she's been elected and re-elected to Congress is what's shocking, IMO.
If Jewish space lasers are a thing then Iran must be really fucking stupid taking on such a power. Maybe that's what the wait is for Israel's retaliation... they're preparing the space laser, which presumably means getting into position and supercharging it.
I've just read her rant about Jewish laser beams, a term she sadly doesn't use herself.
She starts off suggesting that the wildfires were deliberate to boost stock prices and to clear land for a potential railway project that was meeting resistance. Without being bothered to actually research this, I can buy this kind of corruption, this can definitely happen.
But then the silly mare starts banging on about blue beams of light starting the fires. She thinks we're already collecting solar energy in space and beaming it back to Earth. Maybe we are, I doubt it but it's awesome if we are. Regardless, it seems like an expensive way to start a fire. I can think of many far cheaper methods, discreet ones that don't involve potential witnesses from miles around observing blue beams of light coming from space. I mean, I can fathom some corrupt fuckhead, Jewish or not, paying someone to light fires so they can make money, but using valuable space energy that costs more than antimatter [citation needed], it's going to cut into those margins somewhat. Can't see it.
The very fact that Iran fired ICBMs at Israel is direct proof that Israel does not have a space laser programme, if you needed any. You could argue that Iran weren't aware of Israel's incredible capabilities, but it seems difficult to hide blue fucking beams of light from space, especially from a state actor who presumably have telescopes and satellites and things like that.
The idea that Jews want to replace white people with Muslims is an absurd theory, too. Jews are white, and I would imagine that the last thing these supposed Jewish overlords want it more Islam.
Let's just say that if there is some conspiracy to eliminate white people, it's not a Jewish conspiracy.
I'm all for a good conspiracy, but let's keep it real. Scientifically possible, and somewhat logical please. So no flat earth, and no space lasers starting wildfires.
Not like I'd be in-the-know on this, but it strikes me as a conspiracy theory akin to "the moon landings were faked."Quote:
Originally Posted by ongie
It's not that the moon landings couldn't have been faked. It's that all of 'Murica's political enemies had every reason to call BS if it had been faked. That didn't happen, so the odds of the moon landings being faked is essentially 0.
Same for solar space laser. It'd be visible to all nations who have the wherewithal to look up. Well, I imagine you'd want a setup like that to be in geostationary orbit, so maybe only those nations on the half of the world that could see it. Point being... you can't hide something in orbit.
Amateur astronomers see stuff they can't identify all the time. Streaks across their long exposure pics of the night sky that aren't listed on any satellite tracking tables. Those are mostly tiny bits of debris from a destroyed something that are in a decaying orbit and wont persist for long.
My point is that seeing what's in orbit isn't difficult. Identifying it can be, though. Something as large and persistent as a permanent solar space laser wouldn't go unnoticed even by amateurs, let alone nations.
You'd think, but geostationary orbits are a long way out. That inverse square law is going to be a right bastard at such a distance. In the technology's infancy, we'll be doing well to just get a few seconds of energy every time a low-orbit solar beam thingy passes overhead.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
Geostationary orbits only exist above the equator, too. That means that if you're beaming to a location that isn't on the equator, then it will inherently need to be done at an angle. The greater the latitude, the greater the angle, and a larger spread of energy. If we're going to beam light from space from geostationary solar generators, the only logical location for energy collectors is somewhere along the equator.
A light beam in geostationary orbit would need to be around 50000 times more concentrated a beam compared to one in very low orbit in order to have the same footprint on earth.
Inverse square law for the win.
That's based on one being in the most extremely low orbit we can have. Might be a bit too dangerous having a solar light beam generator in an orbit with relatively large friction.
Let's be more reasonable. Let's have one on the ISS and one in geostationary orbit. Now the GS one only needs to be around 20000 more concentrated than the ISS one.