What I fear if/when Israel retaliates.

[Imallin4Joe]

Of course, innocent casualties. There will be casualties.

But the environmental consequences could become a nightmare.

Theories floating around the media suggest that Israel will bomb energy production facilities in Iran including oil, natural gas, nuclear etc. Israel will try to cripple Iran's energy production and possibly their nuclear facilities.

Most of Iran's nuclear facilities are deep underground. Not sure of the environmental impact of destroying a nuclear reactor deep underground. That's above my pay grade.

The pollution from destroying these facilities can cascade and pollute the entire planet.

This shit is becoming a nightmare with no good answer.

[mucifer]

1. Yup. It's insane the pollution in Ukraine and even parts of Russia.

[Frasier Balzov]

2. What about just targeting the factory which makes Iranian missles?

Israel must be as interested in not polluting the neighborhood as we are.

[bdamomma]

3. Bibi

is as bad as Putin, killing machines, and the felon wants a purge??????

[PCIntern]

4. Yeah... let's all create hypothetical scenarios wherein

Israel is the villain and OMIGOD LOOK WHAT THEY'VE DONE!!!!

And then of course there will be civilian casualties of the “innocents” and OMIGOD LOOK WHAT THEY'VE DONE.

Hey…what about a thread excoriating Iran for sending 200 missiles into Israel? No? Because, right, there are no innocents in Israel. Just for a minute think if this had happened to Detroit or Buffalo. I’m SURE the only thing Americans woukd have on their minds is the innocents on the other side.

Oh and one more thing: we proudly state that the Administration believes that “Israel has the right to defend itself”. What frigging sovereign nation in the world DOESN'T have the right to defend itself? Did anyone ever say in a discussion America has the right to defend itself? Of course not, it’s a given.

[Oopsie Daisy]

6. Perfect response. Very clear. Thanks for calling out the antisemitic bullshit.

Oh and one more thing: we proudly state that the Administration believes that “Israel has the right to defend itself”. What frigging sovereign nation in the world DOESN'T have the right to defend itself? Did anyone ever say in a discussion America has the right to defend itself? Of course not, it’s a given.

Preach!!

[AloeVera]

9. I'm all for defending oneself from an attacker.

As long as it applies to everyone equally.

Does Lebanon have the right to defend itself? Gaza? How about Iran since it's about to be half-obliterated?

What frigging nation doesn't have the right to self-defence? The ones we don't like.

Obviously.

[PCIntern]

10. They have every right to defend themselves

As did Iraq in the Gulf War. Their military was annihilated. Remember what Patton said: the object of war is not to die for one’s country, it’s to make the other poor bastard die for his country.

[Igel]

12. Hizb Allah is based in Lebanon.

It's the attacker.

Do attackers and aggressors have the right to defend themselves?

Sure.

Should they lose that defense?

Sure.

I mean, we can all get behind Russia's right to defend itself against Ukr when it attacks R, right?

[AloeVera]

13. A victim is not entitled to go on a killing spree.

There are laws and rules for individuals and nations.

So if Ukraine started mass slaughtering Russian civilians, cutting off aid and food supplies, committing domicide, scholasticide, medicide, genocide - they'd lose their victim status and become the aggressor. Should they be allowed to continue?

If 33 deaths from rockets give you victim status but 41,689 deaths from bombs do not, I'd say there is a problem with devaluing the life of certain people against others.

I'd add that there is also a problem recognizing when self-defence turns into heinous aggression and mass atrocity. Or perhaps the bigger problem is not caring when it does because it's your side doing it.

[Beastly Boy]

18. It helps to know the rules and laws for individuals and nations before envoking them.

Who is responsible for domicide, scholasticide, or any other other -cide issues (pun intended) you brought up, those who rendered the facilities in question unfit for their intended use and dangerous for humans to inhabit, or those who conduct demolition to eliminate the dangers?

If you were only to look into the applicable rules and laws, you would be surprised at the answers, while learning something new.

But considering how often the gratuitous and fallacious use of the term "genocide" has been discussed on DU, it would appear that learning something new is not in your plans for the conceivable future.

[AloeVera]

47. What fresh hell is this brand-new 1984 double speak?

The IDF making Gaza safe for Gazans? By demolishing their homes, schools, hospitals, no less.

Instead of "unfit" they are now non-existent. But quite safe. Never mind the rubble, toxic waste and danger of collapse of remnants on top of people's heads

So nice of the IDF.

[Beastly Boy]

55. Well , if I wasn't dramatic enough in stressing the importance of rules in international law, let's try this:

Who is responsible for domicide, scholasticide, or any other other -cide issues (pun intended) you brought up? Those who render the intended use of the facilities in question non-existent and dangerous for humans to be subjected to regardless of their structural integrity, or those who eradicate the infestation that made them toxic and off limits in the first place?

If you were only to look into the applicable rules and laws, you would be surprised at the answers, while learning something new.

But considering how often the gratuitous and fallacious use of the term "genocide" has been discussed on DU, it would appear that learning something new is not in your plans for the conceivable future.

Better?

The very reason for international laws to exist is so the people informed by them don't begin and end their every sentence with the inherent bias of unflinching presumption of guilt by one party and an equally unflinching presumption of innocence, expressed or implied by omission, of the other. While some may consider this approach too novel and radical, the existence of rules and laws demands that guilt or innocence are to be established in accordance with these rules rather than presumed from the outset. It is therefore rather strange to see these rules and laws being invoked in narratives full of ignorance of the said rules, wile pretending that the subsequent inherently biased narratives are somehow supported by them.

What kind of hellish Orwellian double-speak (it's actually Newspeak if you intended to refer to 1984, but I don't mind the error) are the rules and laws contained in the Geneva and Rome Conventions made up of? Well, it's about time you found out.

I dare ya!

[Happy Hoosier]

14. Did you conveniently forget...

That Lebanon has been permitting Hezbollah to fire missiles into Israel by the thousands from their territory? Lebanon is not the victim here....

[AloeVera]

15. Perhaps you conveniently forgot Gaza?

Where 41,639 people have been killed or rather vastly more, as we will find out.

If you disagree with the concept of allies coming to the defense of those under attack, I gather you are not in favour of the U.S. supplying bombs and billions to Israel.

Hey, I'm all for that. I think war-mongering mass atrocity-committing Israel should go it alone.

Oh and you also ignore or perhaps were not aware that it is Israel that has committed over 80% of the cross-border strikes, killing 20 times as many people as Hezbollah, since Oct 8th but before the current aggression on Lebanon? Yup, about 8,313 aerial strikes killing 752 Lebanese people.
(Source: ACLED).

So who is the aggressor?

[Happy Hoosier]

16. Nope, I didn't.

1) Lebanon is not Gaza... but nice attempt to change the topic.
2) Although I criticisms of Israel's behavior in Gaza, I think the casual glossing over of Oct 7 is certainly on-brand.

And I'm entirely unintersted in casualty ratios. That has nothing to do with the justification of the strikes. If Lebanon doesn't want the IDF to strike in their territory, maybe make Hezbollah GTFO.

Until then, they have no room to cry victim.

[AloeVera]

17. A few things...

1). You're not a believer in cause-and effect. Unless of course it's Oct 7th.

2). I have noticed the criticism. Pleasantly surprised.
Oct 7th does not justify the barbaric response by Israel. Just as nothing that came before justified the barbarity of Oct 7th.
So why would I bring in Oct 7th when pointing to the cause-and effect of Gaza and Hezbollah?

3). That's why you don't seem to understand proportionality. Or perhaps not care.

Would love to know your solution for Lebanon to get Hezbollah out.

Only Israel can ever cry victim apparently. Actually given it's history, that's highly delusional.

[Beastly Boy]

19. Cite your sources, or forever hold your peace.

Something tells me you will not do either.

[AloeVera]

21. How can I, since I had you on ignore as you well know.

You pose questions and comments you knew I wouldn't see. Totally fair.

I will do you this one last favour as you seem to have a problem with Mr. Google. The source for was in my post. Perhaps the acronym ACLED threw you off.

ACLED is funded in part by the U.S. State Department. It bills itself as "the highest-quality and most widely used near real-time source on political violence and protest data worldwide". If you have the inclination, peruse it at your leisure. Lots to learn, especially about Gaza's destruction.

As for the death toll, you know where it comes from. The one and only source, hobbled immeasurably by the hospitals' destruction. You just want me to say it so you can denigrate it.

It's getting real old.

[Beastly Boy]

22. Citing your sources is customary if you want to be taken seriously.

Having me on ignore doesn't absolve you from responsibility to accurately cite your sources, as you well know. Shutting your eyes and ears to my posts was your choice, so don't blame the messenger. I had no say in evaluating the fairness of your decision, nor do I have any say in when you may change your mind or for how long.

I told you many times that I will challenge you whether you respond or not. Putting me on ignore is your choice, which will not stop me from keeping my promise.

I am probably better aware of what ACLED stands for than you are, the reason being that I actually clicked on the link Al Jazeera provided in their article, which took me to page that has nothing to do with Al Jazeera's claims. Furthermore, I searched the ACLED cite for the information attributed to them, and I could find none. I also consulted with Mr. Google in the search of what you claimed Al Jazeera claimed, and Mr. Google told me that no source other than Al Jazeera and those who cite Al Jazeera ever made any claims resembling Al Jazeera's (I am paraphrasing Mr. Google here, to make my recollection of what Mr. Google related to me suitable for being posted on DU).

Apparently, despite making claims, you did less work (if any at all) to justify these claims than I did to challenge them.

Which, of course, makes any of your claims of casualties suspect, to say the least. Time and again, your sources turn out to be incomplete, inaccurate, unreliable, biased, non-existent or all of the above.

[AloeVera]

24. Yes, I should have cited the original source

Or rather, the source where the analysis came from, which was Al Jazeera. However the data source was ACLED. So I was not wrong about that.

I can admit a mistake.

Something I have NEVER seen you do.

Humility is a virtue, you know. None of us are infallible.

[Beastly Boy]

25. I repeat: THERE WAS NO DATA YOU ATTRUBUTE TO ACLED ON THE ACLED WEB SITE!

Am I under some sort of an obligation to admit to something non-existent?

That's not humility, it's an invitation to be gaslighted. Something you probably already noticed is not that easily accomplished in my case.

[AloeVera]

27. I thought you knew ACLED is a data aggregator that anyone can access

Do you have an account? Al Jazeera does. That's how they were able to generate their analysis, sourcing the data on their chart.

ACLED does some analysis too, in limited scope. You didn't find it because they had not done that particular analysis, but they have the data. That's why you didn't find it.

I'm trying to be nice. It's my nature, believe it or not.

Good night.

[Beastly Boy]

30. You say ACLED has the data.

Before you invoke ACLED, show me that data.

Then, if you want to bring Al jazeera into it, show me the methodology Al Jazeera used to generate their analysis on the data you have lready shown to me.

Al Jazeera showed me nothing of the sort. I hope you have better luck and more credibility than they have shown.

[AloeVera]

31. I'm sure Al Jazeera would welcome your enquiry.

You can quiz them to your heart's content.

Good luck!

[Beastly Boy]

33. I am not so sure they would.

Last edited Sat Oct 5, 2024, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

After all, my inquiry into your post didn't work out to well, did it?

[AloeVera]

36. For me it worked out fine but you have some work to do.

Come on, don't be scared of contacting Al Jazeera. You have a lot of questions to ask in your pursuit of the truth.

If time permits, you can also sign up for an ACLED account, at which time you would actually be qualified to state there is no such data.

[Beastly Boy]

37. If I wanted it to work as fine for me as it did for you,

I wouldn't have clicked on that Al Jazeera link that took me nowhere. I would have just gulped their bullshit without questioning it.

But I did some work instead. I have different standards, thank you.

[AloeVera]

38. Glad to hear you signed up and researched the ACLED portal.

So that you can authoritatively state as you did that there is no such data.

Nothing else would meet your standards, I know.

It took me a while to get past their double password and other security screening and authentication. I'm not good with that stuff. Hope you didn't have the same trouble.

[Beastly Boy]

40. I followed the source you cited to the source they cited.

And I can authoritatively state, as I stated before (the authority in my statement being derived from the content of your post): THERE WAS NO DATA YOU ATTRIBUTED TO ACLED ON THE ACLED WEB SITE!

And it seems weirdly fitting that you are now attempting to attribute to me what I didn't state or do. I can't wait to find out what else you heard about me - I just love surprises!

Good luck looking for the data you cited in your previous post that you now have such great difficulty trying to confirm. As for me, I saved myself this trouble by not posting unverified stats in the first place. Because... standards, you know.

[AloeVera]

44. Perfect.

I am not trying to confirm anything. I am not the one questioning Al Jazeera.

Your circular statements and arguments are giving me whiplash.

You conflate data (sourced to ACLED) with analysis (Al Jazeera graph).

Then without actually accessing the portal where the data is housed (only possible by registering for the site -which you didn't do) you declare that there is no such data.

And you know this because you have "standards".

Perfectly you.

[Beastly Boy]

48. That's the problem, isn't it?

You cannot confirm what you cited earlier. And not trying only makes it even more difficult.

And you are not questioning Al Jazeera (did you ever?). You are quoting them verbatim without question. Nothing to be proud of.

You can call it what you want, but you attributed a certain string of numbers directly to ACLED. You still have no idea where this string of numbers came from except to say it came from analysis of data, without having a clue about what data you are talking about or what methodology was used in its analysis. When you are talking about two unknowns, there is nothing to conflate, and as gifted as I am, I wouldn't presume to possess sufficient talents to conflate two unknowns.

What I did, and I can only repeat it again, is definitively state that THERE WAS NO DATA YOU ATTRIBUTED TO ACLED ON THE ACLED WEB SITE! You've been trying to prove me wrong for hours, and instead of proof, all you end up doing is confirm what I stated: you can't find the data you attributed to ACLED anywhere on their web site.

I appreciate that, but seriously, there is no need for such persistent self-deprecation. I see no further purpose in beating this long dead horse.

[AloeVera]

50. You are very "gifted" indeed.

And modest too.

Register for the portal and then you can prove me wrong. Until then you are just blowing smoke as you are wont to do.

I don't have to prove anything. You are the one who challenged Al Jazeera's analysis. Then falsely claimed there was no data to support it.

But you will never admit that it was a false claim.

It's why I keep you on ignore. You never admit to being wrong; or being in any way remiss, deceptive or just plain bullshitting.

Won't be responding further.

[Beastly Boy]

57. True, I make it a point to shamelessly brag about my modesty every chance I get.

Just like never being wrong, it is but one out of my vast inventory of virtues. You may find it fascinating, but, being so modest, I would rather not focus on endless discussions of my precious self. You don't mind, do you?

So enough about me, who do YOU think is responsible for proof of evidence, someone who pulls data out of their hat insisting it is accurate, or someone who looks into that hat and finds nothing of the sort in it? If, on closer examination long overdue, the proverbial hat turns out to be data aggregator and not data provider, who just made a false claim?

Any guesses? That's right, as much as I regret to concede the fact, it's all about you, not me. In this light, it would be a wise decision indeed to not respond any further.

[Eko]

39. Dang, where did you go? We were having a conversation.

[Beastly Boy]

43. Were we? Oh right, I recall somethig vaguely reminiscent of a conversation. I ended it. Yesterday.

Do you mind?

[Eko]

46. Not at all. Just more running away.

[Eko]

29. You should take your own advice.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1134141691#post23
Something tells me you wont either.

[Beastly Boy]

32. I always take my advice. I usually find it well-informed.

I looked up the source, I found nothing in the source that was cited by Al Jazeera resembling anything claimed by Al Jazeera.

It was their source.

I found it

I searched the sourced site thoroughly.

There was no confirmation in their source, the source they referred to, suggesting that their numbers are accurate.

I found the source which proved Al Jazeera wrong!

...That something that tells you things... I would be wary of what it tells me, whatever that something turns out to be.

[Eko]

34. You must have a short memory when you wouldnt provide any proof for your claim.

If you would have followed the link I posted you would have understood what the conversation was about and not have wasted time with an argument that I am not even talking about. But ya didnt.
Here, Ill post the link again where you don't provide proof for your claim.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1134141691#post23
As I said, You should take your own advice.

[Beastly Boy]

35. If I didn't want to waste my time, I wouldn't have responded to your post.

Come to think of it, that's a pretty good idea.

Good bye.

[Eko]

42. Ah yes.

Run away.

[AloeVera]

49. How sad for you.

Here you thought you "found the source" but it turns out you mistook the website for the data source.

The data source is the portal, accessible only by registering, which you've admitted you didn't do.

Oh well. Better luck next time.

[Beastly Boy]

56. I found the source YOU referred to.

It is the source YOU neglected to inquire about before posting the data YOU presumed to be contained in the source you neglected to inquire about. And it is the source you are still struggling with to extrapolate any data from that remotely resembles what you cited as factual.

This is sad indeed, if not pathetic, but certainly not for me.

[jimfields33]

54. Two words. October 7th!

[Cha]

51. Mahalo, PC!

[EX500rider]

5. During the Iraq War Hussein set alight hundreds of oil wells

And let so much oil into the Persian Gulf it covered it to a foot or two, I don't think we'll see anything that bad.

And Israel will be more likely after Iranian uranium production facilities centrifuges Etc and you are correct they are underground where they won't do much damage if destroyed

[sarisataka]

7. Why doesn't Israel use clean missiles,

like Iran and their terrorist pawns, that cause no environmental damage?

[PufPuf23]

45. There was a post not so long ago that compared IDF missiles

and Iranian missiles and assured the IDF were less harmful to the environment.

[BannonsLiver]

8. I'm more focused on the election, which is the most important thing going on in the world right now.

[Beastly Boy]

11. I envy your bravery. You seem to fear nothing if/when Israel doesn't retaliate.

[roamer65]

20. The Great Middle Eastern War.

Salted with ample potential for WW3.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

23. Trump is telling them to blow up their nuclear facilities.

Something that all the nations avoid except North Korea.

[Clouds Passing]

26. Morons who make war ruin life for everyone

[no_hypocrisy]

28. And what if Israel doesn't have a complete assessment of Iran's nuclear capabilities?

Specifically, what if Iran already has manufactured nuclear bombs and is storing them?

And if Israel detonates any or all of them, there will be a nuclear disaster for the entire Middle East, and consequently, the rest of the world.

[DFW]

52. You don't just set off a nuclear bomb in someone's bunker like a case of Chinese fireworks.

Nuclear bombs have to be set up by a fairly elaborate process in order to detonate. They can‘t be made to explode just by bombing the facility where they are stored. They are far more sophisticated devices than cluster bombs.

[JoseBalow]

53. I learned that from Tom Clancy

[ecstatic]

41. Bibi wants tRump to win and he will do

whatever tRump has advised him to do. It would be really fucked up if they created nuclear fallout conditions in the middle of our election. But I guess we'll have to wait and see because bibi seems to be in control of what happens next. Not us.