Putin Unleashes Record Bombing in Ukraine as the World Watches Gaza
thedailybeast.com
Almost 90 bombs were dropped in one region in just 24 hours.
Russia unleashed an unprecedented bombardment in southern Ukraine overnight in what local officials described as a “massive attack” in the conflict which has continued to rage even as the international community’s attention has moved to the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
The Ukrainian Internal Affairs Ministry on Monday morning said Russia dropped at least “87 aerial bombs on populated areas of the Kherson region - the largest number for all time.” At least eight people were also injured in other Russian strikes carried out in the Odessa region further to the west on Sunday night.
You are viewing a single comment
Ukraine needs all the air defense they can get. Russia has been signaling they will try again to freeze the civilian population this winter.
If we'd shift funds from Israel (who are committing genocide) to Ukraine (who are defending themselves) it helps Palestine and hurts Russia too.
Is a win/win.
Imagine if Ukraine had the iron dome America bought Israel.
I know your heart is in the right place but ID barely covers a city and operating costs are extremely high. Right now the missiles that the ID system uses cost something around $1,000,000 each so defending just this latest bombing run would have been $90,000,000 USD.
No one could afford to operate the system even if it could be built.
ID interceptor missiles are more like $50k-150k a piece, but multiple are fired during each interception to increase chances of a successful hit. The amount fired already since the 7th is still probably in the $1-2 billion range if you estimate conservatively.
Iron Knife and Iron Beam are much cheaper per shot (~$4 and $2500 respectively) but are developed by Israel itself in collaboration with US military industrial contractors. The Gaza war is a giant live fire test for them and countries including the US and India are lining up to buy them.
Iron Dome as a whole thing array also includes David's Sling and the Arrows which cover different type of attacks. I. E. Cruise and ballistic missiles amongst other things.
You are correct I just didn't want to get into the details of how the system works. I think my main points still stand; the technical challenges of expanding a system like that to cover a a whole country would be massive and actually running it would be far too expensive.
Oh yea for sure it's not feasible for anyone except maybe the US and in specific areas and along dangerous borders.
Israel doesn't actually need American money, unfortunately. Sure, it helps them, but they can continue this campaign for a long time without a dollar from the U.S. Ukraine, on the other hand, is a much more desperate situation. I'm not saying that means we shouldn't shift funds from Israel to Ukraine, because I agree we should do that, but it will likely not help Palestinians much.
So you want Israel to be bombed even more and everyone there killed? Because that's the plan of Palestine and Lebanon (which is genocide btw). And would happen if they didn't have the iron dome.
Those bombings only happen because of retaliation to turning their country into a concentration camp.
Terrorism can not be justified, but I doubt many (including you) would act differently if you were in the situation Palestine is in.
Palestine did plenty much on their own to turn Gaza and West Bank into places not good to live in. Decisions I would definitely not share since I am not an Islamic non-democratic women-and-LGBTQ-hating anti-Semite.
They are not concentration camps. Perhaps you should look at how concentration camps worked if you try to compare the two.
Israel, just like Russia, can simply stop occupying territories which don't belong to them and stop a genocide. And no one will be killed. Stop apologizing the genocide, ok?
Hamas attacked an area that did not belong to Palestine. And the areas they are constantly shooting rockets at are also not the areas that Israel took unrightfully. The idea that Palestine is only defending and not attacking doesn't fit their agenda or their behaviour in the past and now.
Wut? Are you high?
Israel is defending itself as well. They just have a better counter attack success rate. Or did we forget that Ukraine also wants to bomb Moscow etc. (and has launched drones etc).
The key difference is one is a gov one is a terror org who represents their gov.
No expert seriously believes that Ukraine has the ability to bomb Moscow. The few small-scale drone attacks attributed to it --Ukraine officially denied responsibility-- are thought to have been meant as psy ops, kind of a wake up call to Moscow, a city that Putin has gone out of his way to insulate from the war --none of his conscripts come from Moscow, for example.
Imagine all the dead Jews that would cause too.
Palestine isn’t a nation of saints.
Israel assassinates journalists and sells weapons grade hacking technology to oppressive regimes.
Also, until Israel started their ground assault Jews hadn't really been dying since 7 October. Almost all deaths since then have been Palestinian.
Which is a "nation of saints"?
Western Samoa seems pretty chill.
There is a lot of misinformation in your comment.
The United States didn't fund Israel's iron dome system.
There isn't a genocide (race / tribe killing) in Gaza. That's a population transfer or eviction of lands.
Ukraine and the United States are working together to implement a air defense system. A likely defense treaty and a 100 year lease on military bases in exchange for infrastructure rebuilding is on the table.
Genocide isn't just killing...
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
And even if that was just indiscriminate killing based on race/ethnicity, the UN is already saying what Israel is doing amounts to that
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-running-out-time-un-experts-warn-demanding-ceasefire-prevent-genocide
Your opinion is your opinion.
But what is/isn't a genocide is clearly defined in the Geneva convention. And even if you're definition was correct, the UN disagrees with you about Israel meeting that definition.
The UN's humans rights body is heavily biased against Israel. And in general not a neutral party as you seem to think.
Of the 193 countries which make up the UN, the majority (133) are non-democratic states. 48 are countries belonging to the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation).
Of the 280 human rights condemnations the UN has found world wide between 2006 and 2023, 103 where in Israel. They found none in, for example, China, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. They also didn't cry genocide during the genocide in Rwanda.
I 100 % believe Israel commits war crimes against Palestine. But I do not believe that Israel alone is responsible for almost 40 % of all human rights violations world wide since 2006.
So all war is genocide by that definition.
Some wars are about who gets control over some resources, or who will be collecting the taxes, without trying to wipe out the other side.
Geno: Race or Tribe
Cide: Killing
If you're going to use a Latin word, use it right.
If you're going to argue the international definition of genocide...
You might want to go talk to the UN and all the signatories of the Geneva Convention.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
The United Nations use of the word was translated incorrectly to English and is wrong.
If that was true, then I'm sure there's lots of statements from human rights organizations world wide clarifying how it's wrong.
Do you mind linking one?
Quick edit:
Also, that doesn't mean Israel isn't breaking the Geneva Convention...
In fact, it seems to be admission that they are...
It will take a bit to pull it from the 1948 archive but Raphael Lemkin used it because it was a loaded word to mean killing millions of people.
The actual UN definition added any transfer of children from one ethnic group to another in the last week of negotiations in 1948. Even by that definition it doesn't meet the UN term with what is happening in Gaza.
So to clarify, you agree that Israel is violating the Geneva Convention?
Your issue is just that the Genocide section is called that?
If all this is really that pedantic and you understand that human rights abuses are bad, and Israel is committing human rights abuses, I guess I'll take what I can get.
But it seems like you're defending the acts Israel are committing on the basis that the section of the genocide section of the Geneva Convention is more in depth than just saying "don't exterminate every single person in a group".
Because by that logic, there wasn't a genocide in North America for over a century against the indigenous people...
Your still ignoring the majority of what the Geneva Convention says...
I've linked it multiple times, and even quoted it once so you don't have to click the link...
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Specifically
And
But the link really goes into specifics that you should know, just read the link.
I don't agree there was a genocide against the waring tribes of the Southeastern United States. The results of the Indian Removal Act wasn't a genocide but a forced migration after the War of 1812 due to to the local tribes joining the British and slaughtering civilians. If you read the Act you will see it was a direct response to the actions the tribes took against civilians.
The Souix Nation on the otherhand saw their children taken from them and placed in religious boarding schools, that would qualify.
Dude.... Ummm no. Just stop. There are less than 1% of the Native Americans left. We genocided those people. We killed them and took their land repeatedly. We forced them onto "worthless" land, and destroyed and outlawed their cultures. WE HANDED THEM POLIO AND CHOLERA INFECTED BLANKETS. Stop trying to whitewash fucking everything.
Also I don't give a fuck what a language that is DEAD has to say about a modern definition of an English word. You don't understand how language works.
There are 9.7 million Native Americans making up 2.9% of the total American population today. That is up from 313,000 prior to the Indian Wars. (105,000 lived east of the Mississippi, 128,000 west of the Mississippi to the Rockies, and 80,000 on the west coast.)
The Indian Removal Act migrated about 50,000 of the 105,000 to lands west of the Mississippi. The problem was this occurred during a yellow fever outbreak from 1822 to 1880 along the Mississippi and the South leading to a quarter of migrants to die along the route (150,000 white Americans in the same area also died).
I know it is big with progressive types to expose all the injustice in the world, but actually look at the context. Things are not as black and white as you want them to be.
That was a single incident by the British in the French and Indian War and resulted in zero cases of smallpox.
https://www.history.com/news/colonists-native-americans-smallpox-blankets
Wow...
Can you give a single example of a genocide you acknowledged happened?
Not as a "gotcha" I'm legitimately still trying to help you understand this, you mod some serious subs and unfortunately genocide is something you should understand in 2023.
Current events in Rohingya I'd classify as genocide. Uyghur falls within the definition of genocide as does Darfur in 2003, Congo in 2002, Zaire in 96 and absolutely Rwanda in 94.
In the modern day United States the largest genocide is never talked about, the California Genocide against the Chumash. The population of 4,500 was completely enslaved and killed. By 1900 only 200 Chumash were alive (today the population has increased to 5,000).
I don't see anything Israel is doing that is a crime at this time. Governments get a lot of leeway when dealing with terrorism and Israel is dealing with the aftermath of a wide scale terrorist attack against civilians.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/israeloccupied-palestinian-territory-un-experts-deplore-attacks-civilians
The UN disagrees with you on that too...
To avoid any confusion:
Is this another point you disagree with the UN on?
This is a good example of bias. Thanks for the example. A good rule we used in the military is that the first report is always wrong.
and literally literally means literally but now we use it to mean figuratively
turns out language is about use, not origin
If you're going to use a Latin word, you might want to use it correctly.
Geno comes from ancient Greek.
Genos is the Greek word. Geno is the Latin.
Jesus christ.
That is what Israel has stated is their plan, relocation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
Yes, stupid people (United Nations for example) use the wrong word, all the time, especially when it's translated from another language. Genocide is the wrong word to use. Israel is not wiping out nor trying to wipe out the Palestinians.
Since you're the top mod, can I just remind you that you broke rule 5?
Or do I need to report your comment?
You're still not understanding though, and it's very important as a mod you understand this issue. Otherwise I'd have stopped replying already.
Correcting someone who is using misinformation or loaded words doesn't violate our community rules.
I assumed that was an insult directed at me.
Were you calling the UN and everyone that signed the Geneva Convention stupid instead?
Even the "misinformation" claim, clearly the UN and Geneva Convention have a definition that's different than yours, are you saying the Geneva Convention is misinformation?
You're free to disagree as a personal opinion, but that's like me insisting an apple is a yellow fruit from South America that you need to peel before eating...
It doesn't change the definition everyone has agreed on.
No, that was directed at the United Nations poor use of words.
Then if what you're saying is true, then I'm sure you can link an article from the past 74 years where some internationally respected human rights organization (or really anyone) has pointed it out by now...
Like, seriously.
The Geneva convention has been a thing for 74 years, I'm sure someone else would have noticed by now.
Did you read this somewhere? Or is this something you've "discovered" on your own?
And even if that is true, you understand that doesn't make it ok, and still means Israel is flagrantly breaking the Geneva Convention?
Israel is within it's rights to defend itself from a violent attack against it's civilian population. The Palestinian government is the only one who I've seen committing crimes through it's support of Hamas.
This ain't an etymology thing. Definitions are clarified for legal purposes. I think you have to ask yourself why you're trying to dig your heels in against a literal definition. They didn't define it wrong, it's literally defined in excruciating and exacting detail for legal purposes.
Where are the examples of Israel taking Palestinian child to convert them to Judaism? That is the line you're trying to imply. Forced relocation is not genocide. It's a population transfer.
It's Ethnic Cleansing, is that better?
What is being cleansed, which means wiping out the entire race or tribe? Relocation isn't killing, it's inconvenient and will create more problems, but the population is being kept together.
Don't get me wrong, I totally understand your hatred of Israel, but I haven't seen an attempt at diplomacy this century by the Palestinian government. They wanted violence and they got violence.
Hopefully we can get a ceasefire, put a third party military in Gaza to secure the peace, remove all military weapons, arrest all the terrorists, and the Palestinian people can live their lives peacefully for awhile.
Where the hell did I say that?
Ethnic Cleansing:
noun
The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.
(Since you like the 'English definition' for terms.)
So genocide
Incorrect word.
The use of a loaded latin word like genocide is used to invoke mass killing and wiping out a population completely. If you see it used you know the source is extremely biased and should not be taken as fact.
Use the correct language so you don't look like a fool.
You keep repeating this like you believe it. Find an English dictionary you'll realise it's an English word and it has a precise meaning that is not what you think it is. The fact you don't agree with that meaning is your problem only, you don't get to decide
Genocide is an English word with English definitions.
You can argue about its roots and such, but that's a different discussion.
It's like "decimate". Decimate is an English word with a different definition to the Latin word its based on. It used to mean "kill one in every ten", now it means "to kill/destroy almost, but not completely". (Almost the opposite meaning)