The Katyusha rockets favored by Hamas and Hezbollah typically cost about $300 a round, while the Iron Dome’s Tamir missiles cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000 each, depending on whose numbers are being quoted. (The Israeli government will not officially disclose this information.) Also, some sources suggest that two Tamirs are fired at each incoming projectile to ensure success, which, if true, would double the cost of each interception.

source

They are obsessed with comparing shit to TV shows.

The Pahlavi family being the Starks of course.

Fucking libs.

I remember reading months ago that they use AI to automatically shoot at people at checkpoints in the West Bank. I don't know what criteria one would use to train an AI model to shoot people.

What the hell is this thread?

Almost like Israel is doing specific things for a reason and aren't being wanton genociders. [+196]

So much this. If Israel really genuinely wanted to murder women and children, they would be dropping cluster bombs, chemical weapons, nerve gas, white phosphorus. Etc. [+143]

You do know that they have been using white phosphorus right? [-69]

Using white phosphorous to illuminate the sky is the intended use. [+50]

They used an incendiary smokescreen to illuminate the sky in the day. 🧠🧠🧠

Once, over the harbor. An allowed use. [+48]

I know that but I'm sure you too can comprehend the mental impact that would have on the civilian populace. That's entirely the goal. To scare the innocent civilians. What would stop them from doing it again in different places when they've done war crimes over and over again for decades and the world is allowing them to do so? [-53]

It's a bright light in the sky. [+20]

I love how it started with Oh My!! They're using white phosphorus don't you know how bad that is?!! To well even though it was just the harbour and had no physical harm, won't you think of their mental health?!!! Those bright lights! I think nearly two decades living under oppressive leadership like Hamas would have a much worse effect on mental health. The mental gymnastics and constant moving of goal posts is astounding with some people. Can't they just say they approve of Hamas and move on.

The post has now been removed for having a misleading title.

I'm pretty sure they've already bombed Syrian airports at least twice since the start of the conflict.

I keep trying to bring attention to this although it is uncertain if it is true. The Middle East Eye reported that Israel, with the help of the US Delta Force, has planned to flood the Hamas tunnels with a nerve agent - a chemical weapon.

There were recent rumours circulating on X that Palestinians have spotted Delta Force near the coast.

I think Muammar Gaddafi said it best. Forgive me for spamming massive passages of text.

The Preamble of the Charter states that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest. That is the Preamble that we agreed to and signed, and we joined the United Nations because we wanted the Charter to reflect that. It says that armed force shall only be used in the common interest of all nations, but what has happened since then? Sixty-five wars have broken out since the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council — 65 since their creation, with millions more victims than in the Second World War. Are those wars, and the aggression and force that were used in those 65 wars, in the common interest of us all? No, they were in the interest of one or three or four countries, but not of all nations.

We will talk about whether those wars were in the interest of one country or of all nations. That flagrantly contradicts the Charter of the United Nations that we signed, and unless we act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to which we agreed, we will reject it and not be afraid not to speak diplomatically to anyone. Now we are talking about the future of the United Nations. There should be no hypocrisy or diplomacy because it concerns the important and vital issue of the future of the world. It was hypocrisy that brought about the 65 wars since the establishment of the United Nations.

The Preamble also states that if armed force is used, it must be a United Nations force — thus, military intervention by the United Nations, with the joint agreement of the United Nations, not one or two or three countries using armed force. The entire United Nations will decide to go to war to maintain international peace and security. Since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, if there is an act of aggression by one country against another, the entire United Nations should deter and stop that act.

If a country, Libya for instance, were to exhibit aggression against France, then the entire Organization would respond because France is a sovereign State Member of the United Nations and we all share the collective responsibility to protect the sovereignty of all nations. However, 65 aggressive wars have taken place without any United Nations action to prevent them. Eight other massive, fierce wars, whose victims number some 2 million, have been waged by Member States that enjoy veto powers. Those countries that would have us believe they seek to maintain the sovereignty and independence of peoples actually use aggressive force against peoples. While we would like to believe that these countries want to work for peace and security in the world and protect peoples, they have instead resorted to aggressive wars and hostile behaviour. Enjoying the veto they granted themselves as permanent members of the Security Council, they have initiated wars that have claimed millions of victims."

They always have been a joke.

let’s focus on reducing suffering and how to work towards a situation where international agreements are upheld.

It seems very weird to bring that up now. The entire history of the state of Israel is disregard for international agreements.

This post seems ridiculous to me. If you would like to know why your employees are unhappy then why would you ask random strangers on the internet why they are leaving your company? If your (or anyone's) workplace culture discourages employees to air grievances then you aren't entitled to know why they would like to switch companies. Most likely, I think that young people don't wish to be percieved or talked about as whiny (or any other words you can use), in the event that they raise issues which management or colleagues view as unimportant or inconsequential for the company. I'm also curious as to how you know that your Millennial team members are happy, as opposed to working just because they need the money and don't see better opportunities elsewhere.

Wow, I sure am glad that the kerb is there to protect those blades of grass!