Andy

$41M per missile? And 300 of them?

Sheeet. That’s over ten billion dollars?

Am I mathing right? That’s a lotta dough.

Ah today’s batch of fresh horrors has arrived.

Fucking hell. The courage of this person. That poem at the end nearly broke me.

Yeah: a failure to get away with it.

Last year the army arrested guards who raped Palestinian prisoners and protesters that included members of the Keneset rioted and stormed the prison (Sde Tieman).

There is no way anyone is getting held criminally accountable for this.

There is so much about the reporting on this story that is driving me bananas.

If we take the IDF narrative at face value, they’re asserting that they caught half a dozen militants who were unarmed and embedded with 9 medics. They then ambushed and killed some number and detained all the remaining unarmed personnel. They identified 6 as captured prisoners of war and 9 as non combatants and summarily executed all survivors and defiled their bodies.

And the coverage is like… ‘Israel was caught lying about how many medics they executed. Chat are we cooked 🤪?’

The framing of the coverage should be that as Israel’s genocide in Gaza moves into a new era in which the US president is no longer subtle in their embrace of extermination of innocent civilians, the army begins to experiment with open defiance of internationally recognized laws against war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

That’s the story. This is like Elon’s sieg heil. The mainstream news is trained to find bullet casings and hold the poor accountable. But they have no idea how to react when the most powerful people in the world start spree-shooting in Times Square cackling.

There’s no mystery to solve! The story you’re covering is how other people with power are reacting and responding to naked attrocities, but the NYTimes is staffed by fucking Westworld robots! It’s maddening!

Ulgh it hurts so much to read this shit. Wtf.

I didn’t really understand the premise of the article. What concrete actions should Hamas have taken according to this author?

I’m sorry, but that seems like BS.

I recall very clearly that Biden and Blinken maintained that they were refusing to open any negotiations with Russia. Maybe Russia would’ve refused. But I distinctly recall Biden taking a hard line stance, and anyone who suggested that he, Blinken, and Zelinsky accepting that they weren’t likely to recover full territorial control being basically tarred and feathered as MAGA puppets.

I just don’t see the point. So many lives were spent to defend the country. Will it mean anything? We’ll see.

This is really sad.

Yet again, I can’t help but look back towards Biden, who overall seems to have employed a practice of making no plans to safeguard any of his work against an election loss.

I wish he would’ve negotiated an end to this while Ukraine still had some leverage. I feel like that’s been treated as a shocking proposal for the last three years. But it always seemed obvious to me: if Trump wins, you could lose any and everything. He could simply withhold weapons and invite Russia to complete full conquest. He could issue Zelinsky an ultimatum to surrender and live in exile or face a firing squad in St. Petersburg.

Ukraine will be lucky to simply survive these peace talks. Why they didn’t negotiate this before the election seems to be another in an endless catalog of hubristic decisions.

I feel like it’s the other way around.

Dracula can at least fit into polite society.

No, you’re very mistaken. Let me explain.

In the past, the US has stationed supporting troops off of Israel, in battleships far away. It’s meant to provide support while keeping things calm.

The reason that putting any soldiers IN Israel is significant is that it means that if Iran tries to kill any Israeli soldiers, they can’t do it without risking killing Americans. And if they kill an American, it is understood that we will retaliate and they will be at war with the United States of America.

That’s the point of sending 100 troops to offer “tech support”. It’s to deliberately create conditions that could start a war. If you ask a general, they’ll claim that it’s just shrewd tactics, because letting Iran know all this means that good judgment will prevent them from attacking Israel. But every war in history is preceded by people making those claims (even when they don’t believe them) before going to war.

This is foreplay. This is how you flirt when you’re a NatSec pervert thinking of going to war against someone.

have espoused divisive rhetoric and advanced policies to expand Israel’s hold on the territory

It’s funny how obviously you can see the authors drawing on the NYTimes style guide when trying to find an acceptable way to say that Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are violent ultranationalists who support the use of terrorism to ethnically cleanse and annex occupied territory.

“Expand Israel’s hold”? Come. On. They have said over and over that they already believe this territory is theirs by law of might and divine right, and have called over and over for a specific favored ethnic group to drive out the undesirable indigenous population by making them choose between surrendering their land or dying for it.

It’s just maddening to see them talk about genocide and apartheid the way a parent might spell out words when trying not to let their kid know that they ate the last slice of birthday cake.