The Katyusha rockets favored by Hamas and Hezbollah typically cost about $300 a round, while the Iron Dome’s Tamir missiles cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000 each, depending on whose numbers are being quoted. (The Israeli government will not officially disclose this information.) Also, some sources suggest that two Tamirs are fired at each incoming projectile to ensure success, which, if true, would double the cost of each interception.
I think it’s much easier to discover new content on Lemmy.
They are obsessed with comparing shit to TV shows.
Pretty sure that anti-anti-fascism is just straight-up a Nazi trope.
The Pahlavi family being the Starks of course.
Fucking libs.
How is it remotely sane to give support to any candidate who backs an ongoing genocide? It’s only sane to do so if you’re apathetic to the said victims of genocide and know that their ghosts won’t affect you after they’ve been murdered by the politicians you’ve elected.
If there are 2 buttons, and both will result in the commission of Genocide, you don’t press either button. This is why this meme wouldn’t work in its usual context if the buttons said that.
Any voter or potential voter who has moral principles and values should withhold support for any candidate who supports or enables the most serious crime known to humanity.
If a political opponent of Adolf Hitler was vying for election in Germany in 1932 or 1933, and that political opponent also had the same views towards Jews and/or other ethnic, racial, religious and national groups as Adolf Hitler, with the same intention to commit and use the power of their office to facilitate genocide against those groups as the NSDAP has, you don’t vote for that other candidate, even if they maintain free elections within a fascist Germany. On principle, every person has a moral responsibility not to support, nor facilitate the crime of Genocide. A true democracy allows for true political expression of the population and doesn’t force its electorate to back a Genocide.
I hope I’m not being OTT or patronizing. When talking about an ongoing Genocide against a group it’s off to reduce the (unfortunately) political issue of Genocide prevention to the less serious language used in US domestic politics. And there ought not to be a reason why Palestine is less important than Ukraine or Russian influence in Europe. I mean Palestine is fucked right now and has been since 1948. Why would European people let Palestine be fucked for decades since it doesn’t affect Europe but care about Ukraine since it does? I dunno such a shit situation.
I think it is both. People are naturally the most revolutionary in times of crisis and struggle. It is the conditions which are created by the capitalist system that make the people feel that the system they live under is untenable, especially with rapid changes in conditions as experienced during financial crises. Many within the bourgeoise study the instability of capitalism in order to protect their capital or to profit from it.
I remember reading months ago that they use AI to automatically shoot at people at checkpoints in the West Bank. I don’t know what criteria one would use to train an AI model to shoot people.
They’ve changed the image away from the atomic nuclear fireball. Apparently, they managed to realise that advocating for a nuclear holocaust is a bad look.
You can buy paprika at Tescos but British food is still shit.
On the testimonials section they have names alongside masked members.
What the hell is this thread?
Almost like Israel is doing specific things for a reason and aren’t being wanton genociders. [+196]
So much this. If Israel really genuinely wanted to murder women and children, they would be dropping cluster bombs, chemical weapons, nerve gas, white phosphorus. Etc. [+143]
You do know that they have been using white phosphorus right? [-69]
Using white phosphorous to illuminate the sky is the intended use. [+50]
They used an incendiary smokescreen to illuminate the sky in the day. 🧠🧠🧠
Once, over the harbor. An allowed use. [+48]
I know that but I’m sure you too can comprehend the mental impact that would have on the civilian populace. That’s entirely the goal. To scare the innocent civilians. What would stop them from doing it again in different places when they’ve done war crimes over and over again for decades and the world is allowing them to do so? [-53]
It’s a bright light in the sky. [+20]
I love how it started with Oh My!! They’re using white phosphorus don’t you know how bad that is?!! To well even though it was just the harbour and had no physical harm, won’t you think of their mental health?!!! Those bright lights! I think nearly two decades living under oppressive leadership like Hamas would have a much worse effect on mental health. The mental gymnastics and constant moving of goal posts is astounding with some people. Can’t they just say they approve of Hamas and move on.
The post has now been removed for having a misleading title.
I think it can also translate to extermination, annihilation, and eradication as well as genocide. I don’t know how context changes the meaning since I don’t speak Arabic.
https://context.reverso.net/translation/arabic-english/الإبادة
He did call it that.
واليوم في غزه نفس الشيء اسمه حجم الجرائم والمجازر والقتل واعمال الاباده التي يمارسها هناك
Which Google Translates to “Today in Gaza the same thing is called the scale of crimes, massacres, killings and acts of genocide being practiced there”
I used an extension to translate the audio from Arabic to an English transcript.
I’m pretty sure they’ve already bombed Syrian airports at least twice since the start of the conflict.
I keep trying to bring attention to this although it is uncertain if it is true. The Middle East Eye reported that Israel, with the help of the US Delta Force, has planned to flood the Hamas tunnels with a nerve agent - a chemical weapon.
There were recent rumours circulating on X that Palestinians have spotted Delta Force near the coast.
I think Muammar Gaddafi said it best. Forgive me for spamming massive passages of text.
The Preamble of the Charter states that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest. That is the Preamble that we agreed to and signed, and we joined the United Nations because we wanted the Charter to reflect that. It says that armed force shall only be used in the common interest of all nations, but what has happened since then? Sixty-five wars have broken out since the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council — 65 since their creation, with millions more victims than in the Second World War. Are those wars, and the aggression and force that were used in those 65 wars, in the common interest of us all? No, they were in the interest of one or three or four countries, but not of all nations.
We will talk about whether those wars were in the interest of one country or of all nations. That flagrantly contradicts the Charter of the United Nations that we signed, and unless we act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to which we agreed, we will reject it and not be afraid not to speak diplomatically to anyone. Now we are talking about the future of the United Nations. There should be no hypocrisy or diplomacy because it concerns the important and vital issue of the future of the world. It was hypocrisy that brought about the 65 wars since the establishment of the United Nations.
The Preamble also states that if armed force is used, it must be a United Nations force — thus, military intervention by the United Nations, with the joint agreement of the United Nations, not one or two or three countries using armed force. The entire United Nations will decide to go to war to maintain international peace and security. Since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, if there is an act of aggression by one country against another, the entire United Nations should deter and stop that act.
If a country, Libya for instance, were to exhibit aggression against France, then the entire Organization would respond because France is a sovereign State Member of the United Nations and we all share the collective responsibility to protect the sovereignty of all nations. However, 65 aggressive wars have taken place without any United Nations action to prevent them. Eight other massive, fierce wars, whose victims number some 2 million, have been waged by Member States that enjoy veto powers. Those countries that would have us believe they seek to maintain the sovereignty and independence of peoples actually use aggressive force against peoples. While we would like to believe that these countries want to work for peace and security in the world and protect peoples, they have instead resorted to aggressive wars and hostile behaviour. Enjoying the veto they granted themselves as permanent members of the Security Council, they have initiated wars that have claimed millions of victims."
They always have been a joke.
I think he ended up in a Lebanese prison?