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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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)
Looks like it's all going according to Putin's plan.
I'm the last guy to put on a tinfoil hat, but the whole situation seems like it was engineered by Russia to take pressure off their war with the Ukraine.
I'd say it's simpler than that. Russia keeps funding regions it wants destabilized so something bad is always happening at a time good for Russia.
No tinfoil hat, but total Scumbag Putin.
Guy must have a copy of 7 Effective Habits.
Yes, you prefer your James Bond chessmater plan than facts.
Literally no idea what your trying to argue for here. I told the person above me that it doesn't have to be some crazy conspiracy.
Were you trying to respond to him? Or are you one of those people who thinks Putin is a saint? In both cases, I'm the wrong person to reply that way to. I'm the voice of reason here.
More likely an opportune moment for Putin. The Gaza conflict seems to have been primarily stoked by Iran over concerns of growing positive Israel and Saudi Arabia relations
And Russia has been purchasing large amounts of Iranian munitions. It's not that far fetched for Russia to simply throw some money at Iran to throw a bit less money at Hamas to start some shit
Iran does not now and never has needed Russian money to finance Hamas. This is a much older pre-existing relationship that its had with Hamas for decades. Furthermore, Iran and Hamas, as well as the other Iranian proxies, have a much greater interest than Russia in ensuring that Israel doesn't normalize relations with the KSA and other Arab nations. Accordingly, while Russia is happy to see this all go down, there's very little chance that they played any active role in it at all.
There was no real indication for the scope and intensity of the hamas attacks. Based on US and Israeli Intel. There were some kind of warning signs, but nothing pointing to this ferocity. I think fighters got far further than they could dream of, and the severity of the response is a direct reaction to the failure of the isreali army to see and stop the attack. It's difficult to believe that the kremlin had more and better information to know that an attack would lead to war on the scale we see today. And I'm willing to believe that Russia sees benefits in arming hamas through the lens of geopolitics, they aren't controlling the actions of hamas in any meaningful way, I certainly don't believe that.
Putin is just taking advantage and is absolutely never harmed by being seen as some kind of geopolitical mastermind. He isn't.
Take the pressure off to help optics but also to squeeze any western support
They said that the Hamas attack took at least one year to plan, maybe 18 months. Putin thought he would win the war on Ukraine quickly.
So I have my doubts that this was perfectly orchestrated to take attention away at the right time.
Russia and Iran's strategy is more likely loosely aligned.
Putin would have steamrolled Ukraine quickly if Trump had been reelected. There's a reason Russian troops massed on the Ukraine border right at the election. Putin couldn't back down when Trump lost, and lose face.
He probably could have, haha dumb westerners thought we were going to invade. They've trolled before.
They could just have said their special military training exercise was just that, an exercise.
But imagine that, a Russia that isn't lying.
Presumably he knew there was more than an outside chance the war took over a year. And it could easily have been assisted by Russia while already in the works.
Given how much Putin spent on Israilian DPI and their other... systems, I don't see it impossible.
Why not the opposite in that case? Why can't the Ukraine thing be a distraction, if one of these events is a distraction for the other?
It was a great plan, if so. Russia obviously knew Israel wanted to start completing the genocide, and it wouldnt be beyond belief that Russia got extra rocket supplies into Gaza. It's not even, like, deceitful, it's just good planning. The best way to get away with something is to get someone else to do something way worse. And genocide is clearly way worse than Russia reclaiming a historically Russian area.
Fuck Putin, the warmongering cunt. I hope Ukraine continues to get Western support and can kick Russia out of their country, however slim the chances might be looking right now. Russia extending its influence and things gradually going back to business as usual, only for them to do it again in another 10 years won't be good for any Western democracies.
Haven't really been following the Israel/Palestine thing much to be honest, but it would be nice if people would stop killing one another. Also really sucks that it benefits Putin.
I truly feel like if we let Russia get anything that might count as a positive for them from this war, there will definitely be a new war of at least similar scale, but probably significantly worse and significantly less contained.
We let Hitler take shit and it didn't end well, the repurcussions of that are at war today.
it still blows me away on how similar this is to the taking of australia and the Sudetenlands.
Lmao did you mean Austria?
I did but I will not edit it for the amusement of others.
Now that would be an interesting alternate history
At this level, I think you are just dumb.
Russia wants to keep unobstructed access to the Black Sea, for its freight and military ships.
The EU and China want to keep a railroad from China to the EU, through Kazakhstan and Ukraine or Belarus, to cut in half the time freight ships take.
Both need control over the same piece(s) of land.
For reference:
Russia already has access to the Black Sea even without any Ukrainian land.
Russia has access to the Black Sea through the Sea of Azov, which is controlled by whoever controls Crimea... and to maintain control over Crimea, Russia needs supply lines over a land access at least across the Donbass, not just through a bridge that can be bombed at any time, as it has been already.
Both the Donbass and Crimea, Ukraine considers to be Ukrainian land, even though the history of both areas is plagued by forced resettlements during the USSR times.
Additionally, there are natural resources, some ports, and a nuclear plant in the Donbass area, which Russia would happily take over.
Russia has a long stretch of Black Sea coast outside of the Sea of Azov. They don't need any more land to use that.
Please look again at the map for the Unified Deep Water System.
This isn't about having a port on the Black Sea, it's about having ships from ports in inland Russia getting unobstructed waterway access to the Black Sea, from where they can go to the Mediterranean and beyond.
Then it looks like they need to change their strategy.
At this point, they don't have many options, since their economy is based around using the waterways as main transport routes.
Keep in mind Russia can have a container ship delivered from China right to Moscow, and viceversa.
Russia's best bet (around 2000-2010), was to befriend the EU, while getting rid of all their internal corruption, and start treating ex-USSR republics as proper states instead of relying on forcing puppet governments in them. Especially in Ukraine, they shouldn't have burned their puppet government in 2014 by making it accept a worse deal than what the EU was offering, definitely not before at least having the country split in half and Crimea+Donbass secured as separate puppet countries.
By uniting Ukraine, then making an enemy out of the EU, while still allowing a ton of internal corruption, Putin has screwed Russia royally.
Russia's only options right now are to either:
Speculatively:
But it's kind of impossible for Ukraine to willingly agree to that, highly unlikely for the EU to lift its sanctions just because, and NATO would still rather have Russia disappear as a threat completely.
The EU might agree if it included guaranteeing a safe tax-free railway corridor to China, which would on one hand still hurt Russia, but on the other they could also benefit from a railway connection to China, even if it isn't that much better than having container ships go from China right to Moscow.
The chances aren't as slim as many people seem to imagine. Putin is basically in a holding pattern for now. He's holding out on the chance that Trump might win a second term, thus changing everything about the current dynamic. If Trump doesn't win, Putin is probably in pretty big trouble since he almost certainly won't survive a defeat in Ukraine and will be hard-pressed to find a good exit that doesn't look like one.
How is trump remotely relevant to Putin?
It is sad to see Putin's oligarchs "honorable buisnessmen", while everyone else should cross border naked and without phones or laptops. If they were lucky enough to get visa in the first place.
Another 10 years of Putin won't be good for any democracy. Fuck Putin.
Putin the war monger? Bro, Biden is literally funding genocide. The west calling Putin a warmonger is insanely hypocritical. It's not Russia that is responsible for most of the violence in the middle east in the 21st century, America is.
is this 'the west' in the room with us
does he have a blog perhaps, id love to read his takes
"The West" means America's zone of influence. Otherwise known as Europe, NA, and parts of other continents. Why are you questioning the definition of a word? It's just what the term means.
i figured you mustve meant an actual specific person, since disagreeing with something doesnt suddenly make you a hypocrite if some guy you have nothing to do with in the same ~1 billion people group you were born into also does it
is it actually hypocrisy that youre using a wrong definition for, then?
Every American that gives a shit about Russias actions and is not very loudly against American imperialism, even though their own country regularly does far worse wars in the middle east, and is currently funding a genocide, is a hypocrite. Even if Russia were somehow worse than America, despite committing far fewer war crimes and crimes against humanity, Americans who care about Russia need to STFU. When you have a problem in your own home, you fix it, you don't go around criticizing others. Americans need to fix our imperialism problem.
Makes sense, UN can only produce a finite amount of concern, not enough to express it on 2 major conflicts.
UN doing absolutely diddly in two major theaters of conflict rather than just the one.
The UN's role is to prevent conflict between major powers, not stop all war period. It has done an exemplary job at that, better than any organization in history. There have been no wars between major world powers in the past 75 years. Prior to that, all empires were constantly at each other's throats.
idk how much of that really is the UN and how much can just be attributed to mutually assured destruction
Good point, but we can understand it as a parallel solution. People deride the UN as a debate society, but that's the point. Countries yell at each other and get domestic points that way instead of attacking each other.
You don't understand what the UN is. It's a common misconception.
The purpose of the UN is to have a diplomatic environment where all can be heard in front of all others. It's to encourage diplomatic solutions to problems and to defuse conflicts.
The UN doesn't have any way to do anything, it's merely a fancy forum. Its members could meet at the UN and decide to do something (although it can be legally complicated) but that's not on the UN.
A dialogue that fails to yield productive policy is mere busy work.
Right now we're having a debate over whether a ceasefire would be antisemitic. That's not a conversation that behooves diplomatic solutions or defuses conflicts. It just serves to distract public attention while folks in Gaza are exterminated.
We all hope that you'll graduate into the diplomatic corps of whatever place you're in and single-handedly solve the world's problems. Best luck to you.
There's certain openings. Since the war started, even Biden's designated state department armies dealer can no longer stomach the job.
At this point, pouring on the bombs (shortly after gloating that the new speaker in congress suits Russia) seems likely to be as much about shifting morale (getting Ukraine to worry that its support from the west will dry up with Kremlin toadies in control of Washington's purse strings) as it is about on-the-ground strategy or tactics.
It's not like new Israeli atrocities detracts significantly from the world's ability to pay attention to the atrocities in Ukraine, but anything that gives Moscow something else to gesture at gives it something to whatabout over, and getting the rest of the world (including nato members and US politicians) to fight amongst themselves (over whether it's better to back a genocidal ethnostate or the terrorists resisting it) is always a win when the alternative might be for them to unify against your invasion of Ukraine.
And still getting his ass kicked by civilian volunteers with drones.
Why don't the Russian people get rid of this asshole?
It's a little harder than you imagine Source: I'm Russian
Ye, me too brother. People think 🤔 Russia is like easily changeable or something... I think people forget just how many Russians and other people Russians have killed and imprisoned since Russia began so to say. I think people don't understand that Russia never had a democracy... Ever. I don't think people get that it's not easy to live and survive in Russia no matter when and where...
Also it's as if people pretend not to know that if You protest 🪧 anything in Russia; you're fucked.
People also don't know that the policemen rape people / men in prison. They torture You and rape you. At anytime You can be put in an MMA style fight against an opponent who will brutalize You before You die of the physical injuries.
I don't think people understand that if the world doesn't help to establish a democracy in Russia that Russia will always ; always go back to its corrupt ways.
I don't think people understand that there are also Russians who've been totally brainwashed just the same way that people got / get brainwashed in states like China, north Korea and Nazi Germany ( in the passed ) , imperial Japan etc.
I don't think people get that its not easy to be the hero a martar or organize a rebellion when you're under a violent regime and when all you have is your small family or none at all
Seems pretty simple, get tank, stand on tank with paper, scream loudly and voila we are done. Also, radiation salad works well.
Comparing to this, getting into Russia is even simpler, so you can do all of those things, that are simple to you to type yourself. Go for it, we root for you!
Look I got these U-239 croutons off Wish and I could certainly use them.
Wish scammed you and it's now Pu-239.
Gosh.... Why didn't the Germans kill Hitler? Why didn't Japanese kill their "emperor" during world war 2? Why didn't soviets kill Stalin or lenin ? What's up with the dictators in China, why didn't the Chinese kill them ? Why don't the north Koreans kill their "leader"? Why didn't Iraqi people kill Saddam Husain? Why didn't Syria kill their Bashar al Assad? Why didn't the Cubans kill Fidel Castro? Why didn't the French kill Napoleon Bonaparte?
Maybe 🤔😏 people just LOVE living under dictatorial regimes?
Who knows?... We'll probably never know...
/S
We were all wondering how Trump made it out alive tbh
The French managed it. The Haitians. Even the Libyans. I know it's easier said than done, but quitters never win, do they?
Commented their way to revolution. Got it.
Why don't the israelis get rid of Netanyahu?
Why don't the Americans get rid of Genocide Joe?
Be the change you want to see in the world.
Genocide Joe? 🙄
And who should voters replace him with, Mr Answers?
People are really working to rob that word of all meaning
"We are all domestic terrorists"
That's what they do.
Edit: They even called the congressman who pulled the fire alarm to delay voting so people could read the bill, an insurrectionist.
Are they? Or do you just not consider Arab people humans? Maybe specifically Palestinians are the bad ones we can exterminate, in your mind?
Which Arab nations have Joe Biden exterminated, exactly?
So if it's not a genocide until you finish the job, you think the Nazis are innocent, I take it?
Which Arab nations are Joe Biden currently exterminating, then?
Its been standing US policy to dehumanize Arab people since at least 2001.
Since the shores of Tripoli
I reject the premise of your comment.
neener neener poo poo to you as well
I see downvotes but I see no interaction with the two true assertions that make for this argument. Biden has the immediate power to stop this. And the this is a genocide of Palestinians.
And how exactly would he do that? I wasn't aware he was The King of Israel. Should he threaten to nuke them?
Maybe
Stop sending billions in bombs to them knowing they're gonna blow up Palestinian kids with them.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/05/24/ronald-reagan-wasnt-afraid-to-use-leverage-to-hold-israel-to-task/
In addition to not vetoing UN resolutions, Reagan took several actions that many in Israel and the United States perceived as anti-Israel. For example, on June 7, 1981, less than six months after Reagan took office, Israel launched a surprise bombing raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, and, in so doing, violated the airspace of Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Reagan not only supported UNSC Resolution 487, which condemned the attack, but he also criticized the raid publicly and suspended the delivery of advanced F-16 fighter jets to Israel. Moreover, over the strident objections of Israel and the pro-Israel U.S. lobby groups, Reagan approved the sale of advanced reconnaissance aircraft (AWACS ) to Saudi Arabia, which Israel then viewed as a hostile state.
A year later, in August 1982, when Israeli forces advanced beyond southern Lebanon and began shelling the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in Beirut, Reagan responded with an angry call to Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, demanding a halt to the operation.
In addition, during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Reagan intervened directly when Israel threatened to blow up the Commodore Hotel in downtown Beirut, which housed more than 100 western reporters. As David Ottaway, who was then the Washington Post Middle East correspondent and was in the building, pointed out, the Israeli defense minister did not like the media coverage the invasion was getting and wanted to close down the media center.
Biden, on the other hand, even though he had an hour’s notice, failed to intervene to stop Netanyahu from bombing and collapsing the 12-story building that housed the offices of Al Jazeera and the Associated Press in Gaza during the recent bombing campaign. He also failed to publicly condemn the attack, let alone challenge Israel’s contention that the building sheltered Hamas military intelligence assets, despite AP’s insistence that its staff had no evidence that such assets were or ever had been present.
In addition to allowing the UN resolutions to pass and suspending the F-16 delivery, Reagan also restricted aid and military assistance to Israel to help force its withdrawal of troops from Beirut and central Lebanon.
Therefore, if in the future some members of the Biden administration or Congress want to join the international community in condemning Israel’s behavior, or in conditioning U.S. assistance or arms transfers and face resistance from Republicans, they need only point to the precedents established by President Reagan in the first instance.
First of all, fuck Ronald Reagan.
Second, BIDEN IS NOT THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF ISRAEL.
Neither was Reagan. What does it say that Biden's worse on Israel foreign policy than Hollywood's biggest ghoul?
Repeating the same meaningless thought terminator like a fucking child
Israel is a client state of the US. Biden could simply threaten to revoke aid and they would immediately stop the bombing. Their defense minister said so outright not long ago.
Liberals tell you they're powerless so they can pretend to be good people who simply have no means to stop the status quo. Don't believe them on either part.
You're delusional.
Also, fuck Putin.
What does Putin have to do with this, non delusional person?
Its just a thing we're expected to say.
Fuck Putin. Fuck Hamas. Fuck Trump.
Its the sound you make when you want to draw a sharp line between Our Glorious Patriots and Their Villainous Terrorists.
The Dot World Unlemmy Activities Committee
Top UN officials have called this a a textbook case of genocide in all aspects. Even BEFORE Oct 7.
You are a modern holocaust denier. A special thing to observe.
Asserting that Joe Biden hasn't committed any genocides is not denying the holocaust. You know this very well, I think.
If you have to choose between Hitler and Stalin consider voting for a third party or not voting.
Voting for any person means you approve of their actions and you are complicit and responsible for them.
I don't think it means that necessarily. It's just as valid to vote strategically against an even worse party if they have a chance of winning. It's not morally contentious to vote for the lesser of two evils.
If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils there will never an incentive for a good one to show up because you won't vote for them anyways.
You're too busy voting for Genocide Joe.
Well I Iive in Canada but point taken. I'm still not sure I agree that it's on the voter to let the worse party win just to support a burgeoning better one. I'd say the responsibility is on that better party to secure their base and show a reasonable chance to win before asking voters to risk the worse party winning.
I can agree that concessions need to be made but any party that supports literal should never ever receive a vote.
In that case it's time to pull out the classic
https://media.tenor.com/2-5XPoT_7esAAAAC/are-we-the-baddies-bad.gif
The moral option is then a third party that doesn't support genocide to show that any party supporting it will never win your vote.
Israel managed to get rid of Netenyahu for a year or two but then he regained power.
Its different because America and Israel are democracies. Therefore, they can kill as many people as they want and its okay actually.
Putin is an evil dictator leading a rogue state (That's on the verge of collapse! Any day now!) And suggesting he is in any way like an Israeli or an American flags you as a Chinese Robot Antifa Fifth Columnist Hamas Affiliated Trump Supporter.
Rogue state?
Anything that is not Western enough is rogue to this guy.
Hey now. Don't discount all of our client states.
That's a false dichotomy.... Joe Biden is a genocidal Zionist and Putin is an ethno-national imperialist, there is no inherent conflict with those statements.
They are both the heads of militaristic, expansionist, capitalist governments. I never saw why people on the left are cheering for Putin. Is he in opposition to the western hegemony? Yes, but only because it stands in competition to his own western hegemony.
It's like you guys are embodying the Godzilla "let them fight meme", but forgetting that they are murdering thousands of people in the process.
The meme was something of a joke in the movie, in large part because all anyone could do was kick back and let them go at one another. At best, a distraction would involve one or the other flattening you and getting back to the business at hand.
The Ukraine War is very much a Clash of the Titans, in so far as there's nothing a domestic Russian or American do to oppose these colossal military forces. To actively oppose the old Cold War powers is an exercise in futility. All you can really hope for is that they exhaust themselves - possibly even kill each other off - and leave you alone.
It is amazing how the news cycle dropped Ukraine so fast. Not good for getting US support, but I think Ukraine can still get support from Europe.
dropped?
we never drop our money makers just because you don't hear about it. Double the wars, double the profits. what are you even talking about? All I see is money money money. now we get to ask for even more money as there is more demand and limited supply.
Mr. Krabs? What are you doing on Lemmy?
Money money money. Almost like money makes the world go 'round.
Can we please give the armed forces of Ukraine finally airplanes? The offensive is going nowhere if they are not supplied with an edge in combat gear.
Unfortunately it’s not that easy.
They have already got a large sum of F16’s, but it takes training of Ukrainian pilots before they can be used in combat.
From what I understand they should be ready to fly in early 2024. That still a long time to go - but you don’t want to lose pilots or planes because of inexperience with that type of airplane.
3-4 months until planned delivery of F16s
The planes aren't what's taking time. The F-16s are either being used for training, which is totally unnecessary as that training takes place in the US, and we have a few hundred of the things pretty much just sitting around, or are on standby to be deployed. The training of the pilots is what's taking time. I suspect Putin knows he's about to lose air superiority, and this attack is a demonstration of that. He's using what little weapons he has left, while he still can.
Nothing the West is willing to provide is going to change the course of the war alone. That ship has sailed, this is back to an attritional war with positional fighting.
The only thing the West can do now is provide LONG term commitments, written in law e.g. locked in funding for 5+ years of arms transfers.
Unfortunately, I don't know how good the odds are that will happen. I hope it does, but we'll just have to wait and see.
The ONLY other way for either Russia, or Ukraine, to win, is a new technological development that enables a significant change to the current battlefield dynamics.
This is a fairly simplified analysis, but it does align with the most current assessments provided by both the Ukrainian and Russian military leadership.
Haven't you seen the pattern:
Let some time pass.
Rinse and repeat.
The world watching has never stopped him before.
What a totally unforeseeable situation.
So he's... not dead?
Saying goes it is a doppler
Buy 2 TVs, so you can watch both human miseries unfold at the same time! Better than anything Hollywood or Bollywood or Nollywood could ever produce! And when you get bored, just vote in another war fueling and genocide financing psychopathic "lesser evil" moron into the office, so you never get bored of human despair and pain.
honestly? America only had as much to do with the Ukraine war as it was giving them the ability to defend themselves.
I think he doesn't want Laos to be the most bombed country in the world anymore.
90 bombs is more what was dropped per second there, not per day
Yeah calling 90 bombs 'record' is a deep, almost orange hue of piss yellow journalism
Might be record in the context of the Ukraine war not in all human history
Oh and between, Russia has been cut off from SWIFT, assets frozen if not stolen, etc etc... Israel? freepass
You can't make more cynical, and binary treatment, you can't
its true, they should both be getting the same, punitive treatment
I don’t support Israel, but the Russians attacked unprovoked. They’re not 1:1.
Russia: fighting to expand their territory because they want a new world order led by them Israel: responding to their most terrifying act of terror ever happened on their land.
Reason matters, and a lot. Russia has no good reason to invade Ukraine, Israel has a very good reason to invade Gaza.
Theyre both violating the Geneva Convention...
There's no valid reason to violate that, that's the whole point of it.
Actually Israel isn't technically violating the Geneva Convention. When you co-locate civilian and military targets, the civilian infrastructure loses it's protections under the Convention.
The occupation of the West Bank is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49. This has been established by the International Court of Justice in a ruling from 2004. Israel's defense was indeed that the territory is disputed instead of occupied, but it's the only country that holds this position. Literally the only country in the world.
Sources: Fourth Geneva Convention, ruling of the International Court of Justice (relevant are paragraphs 90-101)
The West Bank isn't at war. The Gaza Strip is. That's the area Israel pulled out of and evicted (some at gunpoint) every Jewish settler; even those who had been there since before the 1948 partition plan. They've respected the 1967 borders there with no settlements as a way to prove that pulling back to those borders would lead to peace and not constant terrorism and warfare.
Ok, how does that support your argument that Israel does not violate the Geneva Convention tho?
It doesn't, he just talked about how the west bank is not relevant to the geneva convention, and his point still stands in Gaza. Civilian and terror infrastructure is intertwined in Gaza, and that's his argument.
The withdrawal of settlers and forces from Gaza was not initiated until 2005, which is almost 40 years of illegal occupation. In 2007, the occupation was officially lifted and replaced with a blockade. And they did not pull out their forces and settlers to "prove" that "pulling back to those borders would lead to peace", it was to finally fulfill the duties they agreed on in the Egypt-Israel peace treaty from 1979. The Oslo Accords that resulted from that treaty only exist because Israel did not fulfill their promises after several decades, so there were talks again.
So how about he doesn't contort the narrative so hard that it makes my head spin?
Israeli left wing parties absolutely did pull out in the belief it would lead to peace. Their political coalition didn't have the support to do the same thing in the West Bank. They believed that if peace reigned on the strip, and violence continued in the West Bank it would justify a similar settlement eviction in the WB.
The current right wing coalition would have never approved the 2004 disengagement plan. And the violence that followed it is what brought them to power.
Lemmy is just weirdly pro-Hamas and anti-Israel.
Don't get me wrong, I think what Israel is doing sucks, but what Hamas is doing is equally bad. This is really a both-sides situation.
Hamas isn't Palestine. Israeli gov isn't Israel.
When you make simple distinctions like this, things get less complicated.
The impulse in westerners who want to support the Palestinian people against genocide trying to separate them from Hamas comes off to me as deeply condescending and obtuse. The majority of Palestinians support Hamas. And they have every reason to. Not that most of them were alive and old enough to vote for it the last time the Zionists granted them the privilege, but the vote between the PLO and Hamas when it occurred was between a group of collaborators who negotiated away any hope of returning to their homes and a group that -actually fights back against the people who killed your entire extended family-. Of course they support Hamas. Who else do they have to put their hopes into? You? At your keyboard? What's your suggestion to them?
Pro-Palestinians <> pro-Hamas
I'm sorry what is that symbol supposed to mean besides 'back and forth forever'?
Not equal
I've never seen that before. Where is that convention used?
This is a symbol for "not equal" in computer programming languages. It is used in some languages, such as BASIC and SQL
https://notequalsign.com/
"not equals". It's a matter of taste. Some people prefer != instead. But you get the point. Sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians does not equate to support for Hamas.
Israel is killing many, many more Palestinians than Hamas is killing Israelis and it has been this way for decades.
Also, doing wrong when done "in retaliation" is still doing wrong.
So... We agree that Israel killing civilians in response to Hamas's attack is wrong, just as Hamas killing civilians in response to persecution by Israel is wrong?
Yep.
Weird how you misconstrue criticizing Israel's genocide with support for Hamas tho. Very concerning.
You left out the part where Israel has been murdering Palestinians and stealing their land for decades, and turned Gaza into an open air prison. That kind of thing pisses people off.
That still doesn't make any of this right.
You missed the part about Israel fighting Arabs and Palestinians for their very existence since 1948. It's not a simple situation. Whereas Ukraine is simply a megalomaniac trying to expand his power at all cost.
You missed the part where Arabs had been on that land for over a thousand years before the European Allies decided to sent their Jews back "home."
Also, fuck Putin.
Palestine isn’t a country so it’s not their land
Also it was stolen from Israel a thousand years ago so they are just taking it back
Focus on the murdering part it’s bad enough that you don’t need to make up reasons
There is a difference between invading and turning Gaza into a concentration camp.
You'd think the Jews would know better.
Oh right, Gaza the concentration camp where children are forced to work with no pay, women are raped then killed and trains are used to carry people for 3 days without water/food to a gas chamber killing everyone.
Oh oops that was the Holocaust. Silly me, it's just that the media told me Gazans are experiencing the holocaust so I mixed the two up.
Israel brought the terror on themselves. They are literally committing genocide.
Also, Russia is fighting to maintain it's black sea port, which NATO interfered with. That territory has always been Russian, and only US propaganda claims otherwise. Want proof? Go look at the board games Diplomacy and Axis and Allies, based on WW1/2 respectively. Both show Crimea as Russia. Or just look at Wikipedia, for this and other easily verifiable facts.
Board games as proof? Crimea was part of the USSR sure ,but it was transferred to Ukraine so it's no longer part of Russia, nothing to do with Nato, Russia wants to expand and they should get fucked.
Did Russia agree to the transfer to Ukraine? And regardless, that's clearly not expansion, it's reclaiming lost territory.
Russia never owned those territories.
That was the USSR, which does not exist anymore.
Russia has no claim to Ukraine, no matter what their propaganda says.
Otherwise Italy should own most of Europe and Africa, since the Roman empire did.
And by your logic, Russia should be confined to the territories of Khanate of Kazan as conquered by Ivan the Terrible.
Russia is the same country as the USSR, minus the parts that left. They are a global superpower, like it or not they get a say in what happens globally. And the idea that a critically important part of a superpower can just be convinced to leave it is insane. What did America do when a large portion of our country (one which also contained all of our access to our southern waters, btw) tried to secede? We went to war with them. Russia is doing the same. Why is it wrong when they do it?
No because it was the USSR and they initiated the transfer, it absolutely is expansion since its not their territory. Reclaiming lost territory is such a terrible way to try and rationalize what Russia is doing. Unreal.....
If you go back further you had the Kyiv Rus there and it was Ukrainian plus parts of Russia were too.
Kievan Rus was Ukrainian?
The main part of it was on the part that is Ukrainian today, which is why the name is derived from Kyiv.
It was a multi ethnic state though. Russians of course wouldn't agree, but they are not exactly a reasonable voice on such things.
Yeah, I mean there's a reason the region became the USSR for a while, it's all very interwoven histories. There were times Ukraine was part of Russia, there were times Ukraine wasnt Russia but Crimea was, etc. The important thing is that Russia is clearly entitled to the area that has always been Russian, in some form or another.
The reason the region became the USSR was Russian imperialism and military power.
That's not at all it. If anything Ukraine has not only the better claim to Crimea but also to some of the western parts of Russia than Russia itself.
Historically speaking.
Well, yes, but nobody is arguing America needs to surrender Hawaii or Alaska (or all of the other 48 states, tbh), even though they were both acquired via imperialism, and more recently than Crimea was. The fact is that Russia, just like America with Alaska/Hawaii, is capable of enforcing it's ownership claim of the region, and it's really not that unreasonable a demand to be making that the rest of the world consent to their ownership of it. It's just the price of peace. America is simply trying to stifle their trade potential by proclaiming that Ukraine, who is not remotely close to a threat to American power, is the legit owner of a highly powerful port.
Lol to the comments saying it is engineered by Iran and Russia.
WHILE ISRAELIS MINISTER ASK THE GOVERNMENT TO NUKE GAZA
AND THE OTHER TO STOP PEOPLE FROM HARVESTING OLIVES IN THE WEST BANK. WHICH SHOULD NOT BE UNDER THERE RULE ANYWAY..
If you allow and support Isreal attack on Gaza Without any form of accountability of War Crimes Based on UN definitions of War Crimes, Russia will do the same...
Russia has already been doing the same for a year and a half now, you absolute fucking nozzle. WTF is wrong with you people? Have you no fucking decency? Your selective outrage is telling.
and at least, they do that against a sovereign and military state - and West providing ammunition and weapons.
Israeli is really a piece of shit!
Oh boy. Anyways, that's just how the right wingers make themselves look more moderate by incorporating extremist into the mix to act as a lightning rod with their idiotic and completely ultraviolent positions.
Just as planned
Well, given that at the same time as Russia dropped 100 bombs, once, Israel dropped 400+ (and in a much more heavilly populated area, so killing about 10s or maybe even 100 times more civilians), every night, it's hardly surprising that at least the people who were against the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a question of principle (the strong attacking the weak, the murdering of innocent civilians for merelly having been born were they were born, the calous disregard for people's lives and so on) are focused were a far more extreme case of it is happenning.
That in Palestine, the US and some of the largest European nations, unlike in Ukraine, actually support the strong who are murdering innocent civilians in massive numbers, just makes those who are natural supporters of victims to be even more focused on Palestine since the "great" powers in that case have not sided with the main victims but instead are giving cover and even monetary and military support to the side commiting a genocide, making such people feel their support is even more needed in the face of such "coalition of the strong".
Meanwhile the crowd who are driven to take sides for reasons other than principle or morality are also being guided to focus on Palestine, the nationalists in nations which support one of the sides because their nation's leader or favored politician is supporting that side, whilst the ones who mindlessly follow the baiting of the more propagandistic news and social media because the propaganda in most of those newspapers, TV channels and social networks is now entirelly focused on Palestine.
In summary, the crowd driven by morals and principles are focused where the greatest underdogs are being victimized the most and, worse, that is supported by the powerful, and the rest are either looking at the same because that's were their national or political leaders point them to or because pretty much the entirety of the propaganda in the most manipulated newsmedia or social media is about that.
It's almost paradoxical that Ukraine's success at stopping Russia (thus avoiding the kind of mass civilian casualties there would be in something like a siege of Kiyv) thanks to the help of nations that are now supporting a side doing the invasion an mass killings, means that their plight is merelly a fraction of that of the Palestinians hence they eyes of the World are turned to the latter.
Writing essays on lemmy 🤮
Nobody forces you to read those.
It's absolutelly fine to stick to simple bite-sized ideas that simplify everything to black and white for those for whom complex views are too much to digest as is absolutelly fine for others to prepare full meals for those who can and want to feed their brains with more than just fizzy drinks and candy.
However if scrolling down a little bit to go over that text causes you movement sickness as you illustrated, I do apologize and promise to give the appropriate level of consideration for people suffering from such a disability.
OK nerd please tldr your essay
LOL!
What else should Putin have done that servers the interests of Russia and russians the best?
Get out of Ukraine sounds good for a start.
Yeah but you see, he can't, because NATO made him do it. NATO is weak and decadent by the way, but simultaneously strong enough to force Nice Guy Putin into doing things he wouldn't have done otherwise.
What I really mean to say is, the West is responsible for these bombings (I am very intelligent).
US and Eu neglect the interests of Russia, but they don't like it when Russia does the same towards them. Magic?
Russia hasn't even started.
Wat
But why have the US and West not been able to kick him out? Isn't Russia a gas-station? Isn't Putin weak? Isn't the Russian army weak? Isn't "the whole world" agaist Putin? Isn't UA winning all the time, at any given time?
How would then Putin defeat US and EU?
Putin sees there's no consequences for butchering thousands of civilians. Proceeds to do the same.
What makes you think this is his first time? Have you been paying attention at all? Are you somehow oblivious to the thousands of Ukrainian civilians who've already been killed by Putin? This selective outrage blows me away. Have you been asleep for the last year and a half? This is the madness of crowds.
The difference between Putin and Israel is... that Putin "rescued", relocated, and gave a bunch of children to surrogate families, before bombing their parents.
I mean... that's "technically" less inhumane, or something?
Putin has killed fewer civilians in Ukraine in 2.5 years than Netanyahu has in Gaza in 30 days. Israel has shown that there are no costs for him to escalate dramatically as it's clear the world won't do anything.
One day US and EU propaganda claim that Putin and Russia are on a brick of collapse, that the russian army is unable of anything and UA is winning. The next day they'll cry that the same russian army is 1st or 2nd strongest in the world, that it overpowers UA in all ways possible despite that US and EU help the latter.
And so on back and forth. Yet they claim that they don't engage in propaganda and misinformation.
Never seen a single western article claiming that.
Putin is a master of your mind - he makes you think of him all the time.
Israel dropped 6000 bombs in one week, on an area much smaller... More children have died in the first 25 days of the current Israeli conflict than in a year of the war on Ukraine.
I did not know this was a competition where only one could "win".
It's more like a competition where the bystanders lose