Is Sheikh Nasrallah done and buried?

[Hercules56]

Lost in all this is Israel's ability to deliver small-yield battlefield tactical nukes, from subs or even in artillery-shell warheads. The doctrine for Israel has been not to be the nation to introduce these weapons into combat scenarios unless as final resort. That may change --- Gaza literally might require a full removal of all standing & damaged buildings with such a blast, to level it all and then a few months down the road, earthmovers can roll in to remove the (very low radioactivity by then) debris and leave a cleared landscape to work with in establishing a NewState of Palestine, Gaza/N.Sinai.

Egypt is standing in the way of that.
This, too, might change after Israel detonates a couple minor mushroom clouds a few kilometers up the way from the Rafah border~~~~

And the signal conveyed to Tehran, and Beirut, is unmistakable -- DON'T CONTINUE AS YOU ARE...

After you establish the new state of Palestine in Gaza and North Sinai, what happens to the millions of Palestinians that continue to live in the West Bank? Do they continue to have Palestinian autonomous areas (A & B)?

 

[dudalb]

HAMAS wants it to. Unquestionably.
That was their initial goal and it remains so.

Iran at this point is satisifed with the tensions that exist.
And the ayatollahs of Tehran also are holding their collective breaths that Trump is defeated in a few weeks.

Hezbollah is taking whatever potshots they can at this point, as they sue for a withdrawal of IDF and a ceasefire.

If Hamas really wants to escalate, just attack America or US Citiznes directly. Thye cannot pull off a 9/11, but can do an embassy attack or hijacking.

 

[Trausti]

Young Hezbollah Recruit Can’t Believe He's Already Made Regional Manager

 

[lionking]

Young Hezbollah Recruit Can’t Believe He's Already Made Regional Manager

While I’d like to believe this, the article and particularly the photo look clear fakes.

 

[Trausti]

While I’d like to believe this, the article and particularly the photo look clear fakes.

Oh, good catch.

 

[lionking]

Oh, good catch.

Okay fair enough. Without smilies it’s hard to tell if an article has been posted seriously enough.

 

[Chanakya]

Haha, that's the properly kosher, Sabbath-keeping, Jesus-worshiping Onion.

Cool spoof. It does reflect the situation Hezb seem to finding themselves in.

While disagreeing completely with the corrupt Netanyahu that's latched on to this thing to save his corrupt ass from being booted out of power and maybe thrown in jail, and while unequivocally denouncing this utterly evil psychopath, this mass-murdering monster, this present-day Hitler ------- but nevertheless, grudging respect for the sheer efficiency and effectiveness of the Israeli blitzkrieg. They're doing so well, their intelligence and precision hits are so impressive, that you cannot help stand up and applaud.

(Applaud just the execution of it, not what they're out to do, as far as I'm concerned.)

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I'm not going to attempt talking about empathy, and about lack of empathy amounting to psychopathy, and in general terms how that translates into evil as opposed to merely differences (even differences violently expressed), with those apparently so far gone as to have become impervious to human abhorrence at human suffering: but I don't much frequent these war-politics threads, not overly much anyway, and don't remember seeing you or your views are. And, given I've found you usually reasonable, then maybe I can get across to you why I think Netanyahu is nothing less than evil, and under him IDF as well, no less than was the H-man back when and his henchmen. In a word: Daenerys Targaryen.

Another analogy, if I may: If one day I find my neighborhood taken over by a gang of criminals, who're holding women and children hostage. So what I do is grab my bazooka, and boom boom boom, I kill of all of these villains, and half of the women and children hostages as well. And while people do all kinds of things in the heat of the moment, but no, this was done coolly and calculatedly, and I keep on doubling and tripling down on what I did. ...And even though the villains are villains, and certainly my own predicament when up against that kind of thing does merit sympathy, but nevertheless that makes me a psychopath and evil as well, even if not quite black and white but with shades of gray.

The only way this might perhaps be kind-of justified is if I may have 'sacrificed', say, one or two innocents in order to save the imminent destruction of literally thousands ---- I've no precise arithmetic on this, but overwhelmingly smaller numbers sacrificed in order to save overwhelmingly larger numbers of deaths ---- then, maybe, that might offer some kind of justification. ...But here that's not the case. Literally tens of thousands of innocents are being "sacrificed". Literally hundreds of thousands of lives of innocents are being completely utterly destroyed. (And no, their political views don't stop making them innocents.)_ And yet people remain perfectly unmoved. ...I submit that the only way this is even possible is if women and children (and men as well, of course) of other religions and other ethnicities and other affiliations are considered as somehow 'less' than are our kinds of folks, or at least the kinds of folks that we're supporting.

Doesn't matter if they've got those tunnel things. Doesn't matter if it'll take much more time, and cost more lives of soldiers, to root them out of there. Doesn't matter if even so it can't be done perfectly. This mass bombing was and is still not justified. It's evil.

I think the Game of Thrones argument sums this up.



eta: Oh, just saw Stout's comment, describing your post as sarcastic. I mean, obviously it's sarcastic, but Stout's post about yours indicates it's sarcastic in the opposite sense than I read it. My bad, if that's the case: like I said, I wasn't aware of your position on this, and just responded to that single post of yours. It looks like I was maybe trying to do the preaching to the choir thing, if that's the case.

To make the analogy even more accurate, imagine that up until six months before the hostage taking, you were actively funding the criminal gang, giving them the money to make themselves more powerful and well armed, all while knowing they would eventually turn on you.

 

[lionking]

To make the analogy even more accurate, imagine that up until six months before the hostage taking, you were actively funding the criminal gang, giving them the money to make themselves more powerful and well armed, all while knowing they would eventually turn on you.

Where is the evidence for this ********?

Oh, sorry, you don’t understand the concept……

 

[jt512]

While I’d like to believe this, the article and particularly the photo look clear fakes.

It's the from the Babylon Bee, a satirical magazine.

 

[jt512]

Haha, that's the properly kosher, Sabbath-keeping, Jesus-worshiping Onion.

Do the publishers have hooked noses and eat babies, too?

 

[webfusion]

Hezbollah has cynically exploited the 'Green Without Borders' (GWB) environmental NGO as a front for its military activities in southern Lebanon.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/397375

IDF 36th Division in action.
The 36th Division is advancing in what's called Zone C, along with the 91st Division adjacent in Zone B. That terrain is somewhat easier, but it hosts more anti-armour weapons. (Kornets are being captured as they move along). The 146th Division in Zone F and the 98th Division are advancing in rough terrain and will be responsible for securing the pincer tactical maneuver by taking over on the coast and inwards along the east-west line.
The operation will soon be completed successfully and it will cut Lebanon in half.

 

[Chanakya]

Do the publishers have hooked noses and eat babies, too?

What?!

Shame on you, jt512, for leveling that despicable insinuation for no good reason.

Without a shadow of doubt, what you say speaks not to what I'd said, and nor to my person, but to you, to the kind of person your comment clearly marks you as.

 

[Hercules56]

Do the publishers have hooked noses and eat babies, too?

Is that what you think of ALL Jews or just the ones you disagree with?

 

[jt512]

Haha, that's the properly kosher, Sabbath-keeping, Jesus-worshiping Onion.

Do the publishers have hooked noses and eat babies, too?

What?!

Shame on you, jt512, for leveling that despicable insinuation for no good reason.

Without a shadow of doubt, what you say speaks not to what I'd said, and nor to my person, but to you, to the kind of person your comment clearly marks you as.

Perhaps, then you could explain whaat you meant by the above highlighted terms.

 

[Chanakya]

Perhaps, then you could explain whaat you meant by the above highlighted terms.

Why leave out the Jesus-worshiping part?

Read that short sentence as it is, not as you mutilated it with highlights to suit your agenda, your bias.

If despite reading that short sentence as I wrote it, my sense of it still is honestly unclear to you, and you honestly desire clarification: then clearly spell out to me how you parse that full sentence, clearly and not via hints and innuendo; and if your interpretation is different than I'd meant it as, then sure, I'll be happy to clarify fully and to your satisfaction.

 

[jt512]

Why leave out the Jesus-worshiping part?

Because it is a self-described Christian website.

Read that short sentence as it is, not as you mutilated it with highlights to suit your agenda, your bias.

If despite reading that short sentence as I wrote it, my sense of it still is honestly unclear to you, and you honestly desire clarification: then clearly spell out to me how you parse that full sentence, clearly and not via hints and innuendo; and if your interpretation is different than I'd meant it as, then sure, I'll be happy to clarify fully and to your satisfaction.

It reads to me the same as did the first time: as an antisemitic remark. Now, for the second time, would you care to clarify?

 

[Chanakya]

Because it is a self-described Christian website.


It reads to me the same as did the first time: as an antisemitic remark. Now, for the second time, would you care to clarify?

That’s simply incoherent.

I clearly asked you explain how you parsed my words --- that full short sentence, not just that portion of it you mutilated using highlights and addressed --- and arrived at the conclusion you clearly did.

I’m asking you again to stop with the weasel words and the half-hints, and to honestly explain, clearly, how you interpreted a reference that incorporates Jesus-worshiping as referring specifically to what you charmingly refer to as "hook-nosed baby-eaters". And I’m asking you again to stop with the weasel words, and to honestly answer why you left out the Jesus-worshiping reference to force-fit your interpretation onto my words.

If it was an honest mistake, then please own up to it. Mistakes happen. We do sometimes/often just gloss over posts, and misread on a quick reading what’s clearly been said; and there’s no shame in admitting to such. Instead of doubling down on it like this, if you’d clearly recognize and acknowledge your error, then we’ll shake hands over it and erase it from our minds forever.

 

[jt512]

That’s simply incoherent.

I clearly asked you explain how you parsed my words --- that full short sentence, not just that portion of it you mutilated using highlights and addressed --- and arrived at the conclusion you clearly did.

I’m asking you again to stop with the weasel words and the half-hints, and to honestly explain, clearly, how you interpreted a reference that incorporates Jesus-worshiping as referring specifically to what you charmingly refer to as "hook-nosed baby-eaters". And I’m asking you again to stop with the weasel words, and to honestly answer why you left out the Jesus-worshiping reference to force-fit your interpretation onto my words.

If it was an honest mistake, then please own up to it. Mistakes happen. We do sometimes/often just gloss over posts, and misread on a quick reading what’s clearly been said; and there’s no shame in admitting to such. Instead of doubling down on it like this, if you’d clearly recognize and acknowledge your error, then we’ll shake hands over it and erase it from our minds forever.

I have no idea what error you think I have made. You randomly used references to Jews to describe something that is not in any way Jewish. You know who does that? Antisemites do that (and only antisemites, in my experience). So, guess what? I took your statement to be antisemitic. You can explain what you were getting at when you used oblique Jewish references to describe a Christian satirical newspaper or you can not. I don't really care. You do you.

BTW, here is what Wikipedia has to say about the Babylon Beaver:

"It has been referred to as a Christian or conservative version of The Onion."

And here is what you said:

"[T]hat's the properly kosher, Sabbath-keeping, Jesus-worshiping Onion."

Comapre and contrast.

 

[Chanakya]

I have no idea what error you think I have made. You randomly used references to Jews to describe something that is not in any way Jewish. You know who does that? Antisemites do that (and only antisemites, in my experience). So, guess what? I took your statement to be antisemitic. You can explain what you were getting at by using oblique Jewish references to describe a Christian satirical newspaper or you can not. I don't really care. You do you.

So you're not going to stop doubling down, you're not going to leave out the weasel words, you're not going to honestly and clearly explain how you parsed a reference that incorporates Jesus-worshiping as referring to Jews specifically.

Pity. Like I said, this reflects not on what I said, and most certainly not on my person, but on you and you alone.

I'm done with you.

(Although, even now, if you would clearly explain to me how you could possibly read a reference to general theistic nonsense that specifically includes Jesus-worshiping, and explain why you went out of your way to leave out that specific reference, and then with what remained of that short sentence why you immediately arrived at a hateful conclusion about someone whom you've never ever seen make racist comments; well then, like I said I'm happy to explain to you then what I meant if you continued at that point to be honestly confused about my meaning. But you seem bent on keeping on doubling down on your simple error in reading comprehension (which is perfectly understandable, and no big deal, if only you'd own up to it now), and your absurd and perfectly hateful virtue-signaling, or whatever the hell this is: in which case I most certainly am forever done with you.)


-----

Responding to your edit:

This is a satirical publication that is aimed largely at theists, and therefore given to generally airing views favorable to such. As you say, Jesus-worshipers certainly. But in specifically this context, Yahweh-worshipers as well; and, in context, not Allah-worshipers. That's their angle, that lionking was not aware of, so I thought I'd tell him.

You keep on using weasel words to avoid spelling out how you managed to parse a reference that incorporates Jesus-worshiping as referring to the hook-nosed. I myself interpret it as an honest mistake on your part, and if only you'd acknowledge that then I'm happy to forget the fact that you went out of your way to mutilate my words to arrive at a hateful conclusion about it, even though you cannot possibly have ever seen me resort to anything like this kind of nonsense. And then happily threw that vile slur at me, and keep on doubling down on it. ...This is exactly what is textbook internet asshattery.

For the last time: Own up to your mistake, we'll shake hands over it. Else, ...well, don't, there's nothing I can do about it really, is there, other than making sure never ever to engage with you again. But, and like I said, this speaks to you and you alone.