Hezbollah’s Exploding Electronics

[TomC]

I don't agree with full isolation. I just don't see any good guys in the Gaza/Hesbo/Israel situation.

There is no perfect good in the real world.
But Israel is many orders of magnitude more good than the evils of Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and the theocracy in power in Tehran.
There is no question that we should wholeheartedly support Israel. Not only because of Israel, but also because their enemies are the enemies of the western civilization in general.

How do you feel about the Kingdom of Jordan?

What does your question refer to?

The Kingdom of Jordan violently assaulted Israel back in the 40s. And refuse to allow Palestinian Muslims to be Jordanian citizens.
Because you know what those Palestinians are like.

Jordan's monarchy has played a big role in screwing the future of the Muslims in Palestine. And they don't plan to change.

Israel is extremely convenient for Islamic authoritarians, especially the violent ones. If it weren't for Israel, they'd have to explain to their people why life in Islamic tyrannies is so awful (without a scapegoat.)
Tom

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't agree with full isolation. I just don't see any good guys in the Gaza/Hesbo/Israel situation.

There is no perfect good in the real world.
But Israel is many orders of magnitude more good than the evils of Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and the theocracy in power in Tehran.
There is no question that we should wholeheartedly support Israel. Not only because of Israel, but also because their enemies are the enemies of the western civilization in general.

How do you feel about the Kingdom of Jordan?

What does your question refer to?

The Kingdom of Jordan violently assaulted Israel back in the 40s. And refuse to allow Palestinian Muslims to be Jordanian citizens.
Because you know what those Palestinians are like.

Jordan's monarchy has played a big role in screwing the future of the Muslims in Palestine. And they don't plan to change.

Israel is extremely convenient for Islamic authoritarians, especially the violent ones. If it weren't for Israel, they'd have to explain to their people why life in Islamic tyrannies is so awful (without a scapegoat.)
Tom

Well Jordan did allow Palestians into Jordan after the six day war. Then, the pals tried to overthrow the Jordanian government. So yea, they haven’t been welcome since.

 

[laughing dog]

You know that for certain because any reference to 10/7 is missing?

We know because we do not have to have everything spelled out for us.

True, because even when it is spelked out, you still manage to get it wrong.

 

[Derec]

True, because even when it is spelked out, you still manage to get it wrong.

Nope. You are the one refusing to see it just because they use thinly veiled euphemisms like "Resistance" when they mean "Hamas".
Btw, you even misspelled "spelled". Weak.

 

[Tigers!]

True, because even when it is spelked out, you still manage to get it wrong.

Nope. You are the one refusing to see it just because they use thinly veiled euphemisms like "Resistance" when they mean "Hamas".
Btw, you even misspelled "spelled". Weak.

Derec, he is having a lend of you. Don't fall for it.

 

[ZiprHead]

At least you are honest about your antisemitism.

 

[Elixir]

I’m with Derec:

There is no question that we should wholeheartedly support Israel.

I wish I could support their leader too. It would make a lot of things easier on a lot of people. Pretty much everyone but Bibi.

Islamists and other religious types will always wreak havoc. Jews don’t have a religious “kill the infidels” type of model, so I think it’s alright to hold them to a slightly higher standard than the bloodthirsty violent Islamist extremists. That’s why it vexes me to see them act equally bad and worse, statistically speaking.

 

[Arctish]

How do you feel about the Kingdom of Jordan?

They are moving in the wrong direction since 10/7.
Why?

If Israel seizes all of the West Bank and declares it to be part of Israel, then the Kingdom of Jordan will be on Israel's eastern border.

If the Two State solution is implemented, the Israel's eastern border will be with the State of Palestine governed by the Palestinian Authority, at least in the short term. And the PA has been modeling itself along the lines of the government of the Kingdom of Jordan, just without a royal family.

So how do you feel about that country? Is it a good model for a future State of Palestine to follow, or do you think some other country in the region would be a better one?

 

[Arctish]

I don't agree with full isolation. I just don't see any good guys in the Gaza/Hesbo/Israel situation.

There is no perfect good in the real world.
But Israel is many orders of magnitude more good than the evils of Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and the theocracy in power in Tehran.
There is no question that we should wholeheartedly support Israel. Not only because of Israel, but also because their enemies are the enemies of the western civilization in general.

How do you feel about the Kingdom of Jordan?

What does your question refer to?

The Kingdom of Jordan violently assaulted Israel back in the 40s.

Zionists violently assaulted Palestinians in the 1930s-1940s, murdering thousands and stealing their homes, businesses, farms, etc., and driving hundreds of thousands out at gunpoint, many of whom wound up in refugee camps in Jordan. They didn't stop driving Palestinians out at gunpoint and occasionally massacring them until the mid 1950s.

Why can't you admit that terrorists overrunning a territory and declaring that it's a new State doesn't mean every other State has to recognize it as legitimate. The Jordanians would have been fools to consider Israel a peaceful neighbor while the terrorists running it continued to seize land and murder civilians.

No one wants a State created via terrorism and run by dyed-in-the-wool, real live terrorists, on their borders.

And refuse to allow Palestinian Muslims to be Jordanian citizens.

That is incorrect. Most Palestinians in Jordan are naturalized citizens. The reason why some of them aren't is a very interesting bit of history if you're interested in taking a closer look.

Because you know what those Palestinians are like.

Jordan's monarchy has played a big role in screwing the future of the Muslims in Palestine. And they don't plan to change.

How so?

The Kingdom of Jordan has been a staunch supporter of the Palestinian efforts to be recognized as the indigenous people of Palestine, of the Right of Return for refugees, and has done more than any other nation to help establish a State of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza.

Israel is extremely convenient for Islamic authoritarians, especially the violent ones. If it weren't for Israel, they'd have to explain to their people why life in Islamic tyrannies is so awful (without a scapegoat.)
Tom

Is life in Jordan awful? Or are you painting with the broadest brush you could find?

 

[Axulus]

An isolationist US would result in much less wars, not more.

BULLSHIT.

He is saying the US and the West should just unconditionally surrender to any invader. Technically this would prevent wars, if the defender always surrendered to an aggressor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don't have to have good guys. We need to try and stop the killing.

There may not be perfectly good guys but that does not mean the two sides are in any way equivalent.
One side (Israel) is defending itself against aggression from the other side (Hamas, Hezbos, Iran).
We need to stop the killing, I agree, but not at any price.

Any deal brokered would need to have the Palestinian interests at equal with the Israelis.

Hamas certainly should not be rewarded for starting this war.

Who said they should? I certainly didn't. The reality is that Hamas can not be demoted by anyone but the Arab powers. Israeli military force has failed to do the impossible.

something that would make the Iranian theocracy isolated (more so) globally in rejecting it.

Israel-haters will always look up to the Tehran theocracy. And allies like Russia do not care.

I'm talking about Saudi Arabia and the Arab world. They are the key to peace in that area.

Of course, the other issue is that the hard liners that control more policy in Israel than the percentage of the vote they receive should allow, also don't care about the Palestinians and have their own agenda.

That's the nature of coalition governments.

Well, that is a hand wave.

Which leads to what makes this a difficult peace plan, current leadership on both sides do not want peace. The people are much more likely to want stability, but they aren't in charge.

The peace plan will be challenging, and will not be possible until Hamas is taken out in Gaza anyway and Hezbollah is substantially weakened.

Hamas can not be taken out in Gaza. They must be dismantled by the Arab nations. This insistence that just a few more bombs and bullets will take care of Hamas is deluded.

A ceasefire with Hamas will only kick the can down the road. And how can you rebuild Gaza if another war is right around the corner. After all, Hamas has vowed to repeat 10/7 over and over again until Israel is defeated.

What I don't understand is how you seem utterly incapable of separating Palestine from Hamas.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He could have used different wording, but he didn't use the wrong word. His context was pretty clear if you read the post in whole instead of dissecting it.

No, he did use a wrong word, hence my confusion over what he meant.

Your confusion was understandable because the English language sucks. However, if you read Harry Bosch's post within the context of his posts for the decade plus you've posted here, clearly he wasn't condoning the Hamas attack! There is no possible way you could have reasonably thought Harry Bosch would support such a thing, if you took their posting history into context.

Because you didn't read the words in my post. I'll all cap it this time. CONTEXT.

Yes, the sketch provided intentionally ambiguous statements to throw off the contestants.
Not really the same as Harry's wrong word choice alas.

It is the exact same thing. You took one statement and couldn't derive the accurate meaning of said statement. Ambiguity and inconsistency are the blood of the English Language.

 

[laughing dog]

He could have used different wording, but he didn't use the wrong word. His context was pretty clear if you read the post in whole instead of dissecting it.

No, he did use a wrong word, hence my confusion over what he meant.

Your confusion was understandable because the English language sucks. However, if you read Harry Bosch's post within the context of his posts for the decade plus you've posted here, clearly he wasn't condoning the Hamas attack! There is no possible way you could have reasonably thought Harry Bosch would support such a thing, if you took their posting history into context.

Because you didn't read the words in my post. I'll all cap it this time. CONTEXT.

Yes, the sketch provided intentionally ambiguous statements to throw off the contestants.
Not really the same as Harry's wrong word choice alas.

It is the exact same thing. You took one statement and couldn't derive the accurate meaning of said statement. Ambiguity and inconsistency are the blood of the English Language.

You are beating the carrion of a dead horse. No one in any thread here justifies the actions of Hamas or wants more dead Israelis. But that does not stop the usual suspects from their slanderous "conclusions".

 

[Derec]

Hassan Nasrallah targeted in Beirut.

Very big if he is actually hit.

 

[TomC]

You are beating the carrion of a dead horse. No one in any thread here justifies the actions of Hamas or wants more dead Israelis. But that does not stop the usual suspects from their slanderous "conclusions".

But people keep minimizing the effects of Islamic terrorists and authoritarians, like Hamas and Hezbollah and Jordan and Iran.

Like blaming Israel for the massive deaths of Gazans who were used brutally for human shields.

Israel made a successful, targeted, attack on a violent and implacable enemy force of Islamic terrorists. Near zero civilians hurt much less killed. Almost 3000 terrorists in a big hurt. Somehow, that's still Israeli misbehavior.
Fuck that noise.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

You are beating the carrion of a dead horse. No one in any thread here justifies the actions of Hamas or wants more dead Israelis. But that does not stop the usual suspects from their slanderous "conclusions".

But people keep minimizing the effects of Islamic terrorists and authoritarians, like Hamas and Hezbollah and Jordan and Iran.

Like blaming Israel for the massive deaths of Gazans who were used brutally for human shields.

Israel made a successful, targeted, attack on a violent and implacable enemy force of Islamic terrorists. Near zero civilians hurt much less killed. Almost 3000 terrorists in a big hurt. Somehow, that's still Israeli misbehavior.
Fuck that noise.
Tom

To quote someone - Fuck that noise.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are beating the carrion of a dead horse. No one in any thread here justifies the actions of Hamas or wants more dead Israelis. But that does not stop the usual suspects from their slanderous "conclusions".

But people keep minimizing the effects of Islamic terrorists and authoritarians, like Hamas and Hezbollah and Jordan and Iran.

Like blaming Israel for the massive deaths of Gazans who were used brutally for human shields.

Israel made a successful, targeted, attack on a violent and implacable enemy force of Islamic terrorists. Near zero civilians hurt much less killed. Almost 3000 terrorists in a big hurt. Somehow, that's still Israeli misbehavior.
Fuck that noise.
Tom

Has that been confirmed that almost all the targets were terrorists?

 

[Derec]

Question: what could be the source of the red smoke from the Nasrallah strike?

Nitrogen dioxide?

 

[bilby]

Question: what could be the source of the red smoke from the Nasrallah strike?

Nitrogen dioxide?

Probably.

Most bulk explosives contain plenty of nitrogen, so it's common to see red smoke from large blasts.

Ammonium Nitrate is used in a lot of cheap bombs, usually with an additive such as Aluminium to scavenge the excess oxygen (Amonal). Home made stuff (and mining explosives) sometimes use diesel fuel for this purpose (Anfo).

Other Nitrates and even more exotic nitrogen containing species are also common oxidants for stuff that goes bang.

For shells and bombs, it's usually not important to avoid smoke. Propellants typically need to be smokeless as far as possible, so as to avoid giving away the location of the shooter (whether artillery, or small-arms, or even rockets). When they don't, it's generally cheaper and easier to use explosives that generate smoke.

Smoke can also appear red if backlit, just due to scattering. But that pic looks to me like NO₂ is the colouring agent - compare the 2020 Beirut Ammonium Nitrate silo explosion, which also produced a very red smoke cloud.

 

[Swammerdami]

Jimmy Carter who brokered the Camp David Accords wrote that the settlements are the major impediment too peace.

Yes they are. Israel has to stop increases in the settlements.

Yes. This simple fact seems to be ignored by so many MANY supporters of Netanyahu's war crimes.

There are One Million illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank. That's One MILLION with an M. Some of these are religious fanatics, proud that The One True God gave this land to their ancestor Jacob some 3500 years ago. But most are just happy to have cheap real estate. And Netanyahu's government even gives subsidies to these settlers.

In some cases the settlers have built their own houses. But in other cases existing houses have simply been stolen from Palestinian families who are still alive.

Some at this Board act as amateur lawyers and compare the brutal treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank to the herding of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps prior to the surrender of Japan. But at least those Japanese eventually got their homes back. Will the Palestinians get their land back when they "surrender"?

And those who defend the Million illegal settlements by some hare-brained legalistic argument should discuss the fact that Netanyahu and his Defense Minister have been charged with war crimes. Or do we only accept the "law" when it agrees with our own obscene positions?

If Mexico had nuclear weapons, took over Texas, and doled out Texans' homes to Mexicans, do the Ilk and their fellow travelers not think Texans and their American friends might be exasperated enough to resort to violence?