Iran blowing up Nevatim airbase (where US shipments of bombs mostly came in) is a moral victory regardless of their reasons. Better use of their power than helping Assad treat his own citizens in a slightly-less monstrous way than what's been done to Gaza. Reminds me a bit of when Trump struck Syrian airbases actually.

Also a show-y, escalatory move from a morally dubious power but nevertheless was appreciated by us who actually live in this region and know people slaughtered in merciless airstrikes.

The time? When it counts least. The place? Abstract thought.

It's funny how America voted for Obama and now has Bush' foreign policy anyways.

I don't get why you guys view it this way. They, as Russians, are being utilized by the state and expended in a war of conquest that was initiated by an autocratic leader. The nation has paid a steep economic cost for it. That's hard fact.

But it's also hard fact that their Russian nation is gaining territory. It is true that their country doesn't control its strategic environment, their historic rivals in America and Western Europe. It is true that the last time they let these rivals lead them somewhere, it was to national decline and humilation.

So yes, it is a tragedy, but the same one that characterizes the history of nations, and there is a rational element to the ideology that so many Russians now follow. The danger is the irrational element which turns this nationalist war into a racial or religious crusade, which are present but in my view not dominant.

How many? Because at this point Israel has proven that less than ten were "Hamas terrorists", and only one of those was proven to be an actual combatant and not just a desk jockey.

Yes, what shocks me most is that there was a small window of time in which media organizations covered Israel's troll farms on there, but when Russiagate happened they essentially mentioned it only in passing from then on. To me, the subtext of that was Israel gets a pass as it's not belligerent social engineering.

Isn't that Greece? Spain just pays non-black North Africans to beat and herd them away.

Having friends that donated money to the Christchurch mass killer and that really wanted to "meet him and drink a coffee if he visits Vienna one day".

Can you link me to an article about tbis? My contention is that Anders Breivik was just ahead of his time. Europe's turning ugly.

"Limited operation."

"Well they have to stay to prevent threats from reconstituting."

"The settlers are just unfortunate extremists."

"Today, I recognize the Litani as sovereign Israeli territory..."

"Learn your lesson: if you attack Israel it will get bigger. FAFO."

"Lebanon is attacking innocent defenseless Jews in Israel's Litani region! What revanchism! They're stuck in the past! We must prevent the Holocaust!"

"Limited operation."

Reddit is one of the most infiltrated and astroturfed site. I have absolutely no confidence that the leadership are interested in addressing that. When there were suspicions it was anti-US actors, they had to take action because the government would get involved. But we all know that such pressure doesn't exist for other astroturfing actors, state and private.

Hezbollah is hostile because Israel keeps massacring, jailing, blockading and depriving of rights their ally. Actually now they're committing a genocide against it.

Actually (and inconveniently), both the violence and the settlements most resemble the French in Algeria. One of the least discussed

The thread really is amazing. The average American (and Westerner's) understanding of and utilization if the term "terrorist" is probably the greatest feats of social engineering, legal warfare and propaganda in the 21st century. It's an essential rhetorical tool to legitimize monstrous violence against civilians by one side, and delegitimize all "violence" (decontextualized of course) by the other.

Commit a genocide in Gaza? Counter-terrorism.

Attack Israel with the demand that it stops the genocide? Terrorism.

It's gotten to the point where Americans refer to the Beirut barracks bombings as "terrorism." Here's a logical exercise: who gets stationed in barracks, civilians or on-duty soldiers?

"Terrorist" is the worst defined, most expansive and arbitrary applied legal term. It essentially means "non-state actor hostile to us or our friends."

I'm a fan of AI but I love tech-skepticism forums because they're a great antidote to delusional hype.

Notice that the US didn't enter WW2 until it was attacked at Pearl Harbor.

That should he a point of shame, not pride. And it rings rather hollow to refer to a "Chechen genocide" when you're someone who thinks Gaza isn't one.

We can't call out people for an accusation you can't really prove. Unless you're arguing that all militaries and militias should have all of their combatant and non-combatant agencies away from the population centers they have to defend.

Not a single rocket fired into Israel has been from Beirut.

"What does it have to do with America?" - you in 1939

Liberal delusions from boom times are giving way to the cultural, political and economic contradictions of globalization in a world of nation-states.

I've come to believe with strong conviction (rare for me as a skeptical person) that there is no redemption to be found in Washington, and that the American Congress would gladly see Beirut, Damascus, Amman, Tehran, Baghdad and countless other cities wiped off the map if it means continued Judeo-Christian self-glorification and strategic stranglehold over the region. The solution now and forever is for the region to make that too costly, and that can only happen if there is a viable alternative to American power in the region or self-reliance by the Arab states. Neither of which appear to be forthcoming in the next decade. Maybe after.