magnkarl

Several Iranian missiles got through. I don't see how Israel aren't going to go after the launch sites. Civilian housing hit in particular outside Ramon air base. Iran just launched around 1000 missiles and UAVs at Israel for a strike in another country by 1 missile. 'This is a response to your missile! Here, have 1000!'. Israel has an excuse to go after production facilities for shaheds, launch sites, and anything related to the attack in Iran. Judging by how many of the other neighbours of Iran that tried to shoot their stuff down I'd likely argue that the ME would be better if Iran was put properly in its place.

German and French assets also working hard against Iranian drones. Pakistan? Afghanistan? Feels like Iran is risking a lot here. Death throes of the priesthood? If Iran launches ballistic missiles we’ll likely see the next version of the iron dome in action, as well as what the f35 is capable of. If Israel doesn’t openly side with Ukraine now I don’t know what it’ll take.

This is what it was about since the start. Expect the US to go hard now.

To be fair I don’t think the Disney-type long film is the issue. It’s the horrid excuse for cartoons and games that kids find on YouTube and their tablets. I paid attention to what the 8year old was watching the other day and it’s essentially a weird mix of YouTube shorts by other kids doing makeup and being horrible, and fast paced cartoons with extreme stimuli in them. Let’s just say that it wasn’t exactly Sesame Street.. I understand why kids love the content. It must lead to high levels of dopamine and gratification. I just don’t think it’s healthy.

As I said, I am an old grumpy man, so take it as you will, hehe. When we had two kids that age ourselves we both worked full time. I started at 7am and ended at 3pm, she started at 9 and was finished at 5pm. Sure it was stressful, but people raised kids before tablets and endless TV on back to back zombie-tube. We had help from her parents occasionally but generally our kids were encouraged to play outside and to learn how to play themselves. This day and age it seems like the short cut is often an iPad. I probably would've done that myself, but I feel that my kids would suffer for it. The amount of ADHD and short attention spans these days might be correlated to high screen time and instant gratification? Our kids got to watch Postman Pat, Fireman Sam and Pablo the red fox when it was on for half an hour. That was it. They couldn't watch kids shows all day even if they wanted to. I just don't think kids are meant to be spending 3-4 hours a day on an iPad, it screws up their brain and body. I feel like kids these days need to learn how to be bored. I know that sounds grumpy again..

So, I have two grandchildren ages 2-8. Recently the missus and I have been babysitting a lot as my daughter has to go to work in France twice a week after Brexit made her company move her job to Calais and her husband works shifts. I love the kids, I really do, but it annoys the living heebiejeebies out of me that these two kids are so glued to their pads and TV. I've tried to talk to my daughter about it, but she says it's fine and that everyone is doing it. So, in order to prove a point we did a test the last two days, I took the little one for the day, we went for a walk to the pond, fed the ducks, climbed on trees, were physically active and had all our meals outside in the garden. We then went on to planting vegetables and we made the 2 year old her own little vegetable plot where she could sow anything she wanted. The day before this we let her do what she does at home which is essentially to come home from nursery, watch her iPad, get overstimulated, have a melt-down, struggle through some physical play and then bedtime. The day where the kid didn't have her iPad, she fell asleep in half a minute, while in the other it took us 1 hour between us. How do I bring it up to my daughter that the iPad is rotting my grandchildren's brains? What do parents do these days if they want to be 'different' and not have their kids be so exposed to screens, hyperstimuli and the mental issues this brings? Edit: I don't want to sound like a grumpy old man (I am) but what the hell happened to actually spending time with your kids and not have some screen full of short edited cartoons be their babysitter? I might do a rule that the only shows the kids are allowed to watch in this house is stuff from the 90's - before everything was turned into an acid trip full of short clips, sounds, bright lights and stuff like lululemon..

There's a video of this tank's assault squad doing the rounds on reddit, it's trying to turn a sharp left at some point and has to go back and forth like it's got epilepsy to get the angle right, all the while Ukraine takes out 3 of the 5 vehicles waiting behind it to get through. At least that one tank survived - which for Russian armoured assault standards is a 100% improvement.

I guess they're keeping the hostages for this very reason. Without them Hamas has zero capital left, except for firing rockets and going on raids from within refugee camps and the odd statement from the leadership pretending to be angry from their golden high-rise apartments in Qatar and UAE.. UN should've been in Rafah weeks ago, clearing up the mess we're now in. My guess is that Russia would veto that every day of the week to keep the focus on Palestine rather then the extensive glide bombing Russia is currently putting the population of Kharkiv through.

Here's an article about it from Reuters: I don't even know why Hamas are part of these negotiations anymore. They've clearly got no regard for human life, just like the IDF.

Another night, another airport hit. Ukraine is going after Russia's glide bomb fleet. Ukraine also claiming to have sunk a ship in Kaliningrad by setting a fire in the engine room. Could be fake news, but if it's true the war is moving to Russia's other fleets too.

With enough pressure from the US, maybe. It wouldn't be the first time Israel charges high ranking politicians internally, compared to how we treat our own politicians Israeli politicians can be sentenced to 'breach of trust' where they serve time for going against their oath of office. It's why Netanyahu has worked tirelessly to remove power from the courts as he's lined up to take the hit for corruption. Famously Prime Minister Elhud Olmert was sentenced to 6 years in prison for breaching trust in 2015. There's also a wide range of people, from President to knesset members who have or are serving time for the same thing. The Israeli courts are far from favourable to politicians who misuse their office. Ben-Gvir, in example, has already been convicted of inciting racism and supporting a terrorist group. If he's ever tried again he'll have no chance of a reduced sentence.

You'd be surprised of how many people are just like this on both sides right across the internet and society as a whole. Villatalk is an oasis of quite intelligent people in a desert of dumb.

Just got off the phone with the two people I know in Israel. The mood has changed. Even the far-right news are now saying it’s inevitable that the government will have to leave office shortly. It’s been exasperated by the above incident of a far right idiot driving into protestors against the government. Hopefully we’ll have someone in office who can put the people in charge of this slaughter on trial.

It's interesting how you consider deaths in Ukraine a byproduct of a country invading another without provocation, yet when it's done by a country against another of which the elected government in said territory has committed heinous terrorism, it is not? Even when the group in question is known and proven to use civilians as shields, dig tunnels under civilian infrastructure and generally not abide by a single rule of war. Ukraine does, yet you think their civilians aren't being intentionally killed in a genocide. I'm not saying that Israel isn't committing genocide, I'm pointing at the glaring hole in people's definition of genocide when it comes to Palestine while at the same time arguing for other examples (like you just did with Ukraine) not being genocide. All the while the other examples hitting every single point of UN's definition of a genocide, in many cases (like 80k+ children being kidnapped from Ukraine) far worse than Gaza. It reeks of differing standards. Ergo summarum I just think the popularity of the conflict and its champions shouting by far the loudest on both sides make people assume things based on feelings. The UN is doing the same thing, all the while arguing that Russia isn't committing genocide even though the conflict they're embroiled in is pretty much worse in every facet of their definition of genocide. From a legal perspective genocide won't stick. Milosevic bombed Sarajevo for a year straight, caused 100.000 civilian casualties, yet was only sentenced to 33 years on war crimes and crimes against humanity. Whoever ends up being Benny’s lawyer if there’s ever a trial will use Benny’s oldest trick. ‘I’m being held to a different standard because I’m a Jew, yadayada’. In order to stop that argument there needs to be some serious soul searching for a lot of the people shouting genocide.

So genocide doesn’t come from war between states? Is this your argument? Hamas was/is the government of Gaza, their military is the military arm of the government of Gaza. If one state invades and occupies, gathers up people of a certain group (see Bucha, Krakow) and kills them, it’s just atrocities if it happens in a war between two states? Parts of both world wars were most definitely genocide if you apply the standard you are now holding Israel to here, in example Russias pogroms in now Ukraine when they defeated Austria-Hungary.

I don’t agree for one second that Russia isn’t committing genocide. Just today the Russian orthodox leader announced that ‘Ukraine must be wiped out’ in his conference with all the other priests in the Russian Orthodox Church. It appears like you put more goodwill to the actions of Russia, than you do to Israel’s, all the while many more people have died in Ukraine from a war with no attack from Ukraine on Russia to begin with. Imagine if Israel said that Arabs had no culture of their own, and that whoever says that they do needs to be killed. Aren’t the actions of Russia in Bucha and Kupyansk actions rather than intent?

China really doesn’t match NATO and the US though, and they’ve got several demographic crises on their hands. They’re also extremely dependent on trade with US/Western allies. Compared to Russia, China’s economy is extremely brittle.

All fair points, but let’s just go back to the points about what the UN considers genocide and go through what’s happening in Ukraine. As far as I gather Russia hits all points with 100% accuracy, yet the UN isn’t calling it a genocide. 80k kids kidnapped, civilians backbound, shot and dumped in mass graves, targeting of women with sexual violence, open admittance to wanting to wipe out Ukrainian culture and nationality. If Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine doesn’t constitute genocide, Israel’s off kilter reaction to Hamas’ invasion into Israel won’t be considered genocide, no matter how many people feverishly argue for it.

Here's to the tan man not winning. If Ukraine can hold out until November and Biden wins, Ukraine might be able to make life so bitter for Putin that he has to withdraw, Chechnya\Afghanistan have both shown that Russia can be cut so many times that it has to cut its losses.

I'm not against it being a genocide if that is proven. I just see a lot of conjecture about this, when the reality for other conflicts is worse and people won't call those genocides. Other than hinting at a vague definition and saying there's intent I don't really see the proof of genocide. War crimes and horrible death, sure. Genocide? I don't think we're quite there. My biggest fear around the 'opinion' being that this is genocide is that it won't be provable and the barbarians who have committed the crimes here won't be prosecuted. What constitutes a 'large number'? 1% in a full on conflict is really not considered anything out of the ordinary, and a lot less than the civilian casualties we inflicted in Germany during WW2, attacking an enemy who attacked us first. Comparatively I think we're looking at a similar sentence (if we ever go to trial) for the culprits as Milosevic got. Crimes against humanity and breaking the rules of war. Milosevic was the head of an operation that killed 100.000 civilians.

So 1% is the threshold? To play devil's advocate here, to show people how a likely genocide trial would go, is 300.000 civilians dead in Iraq when UK\US led forces bombed the hell out of that country also genocide? It constitutes roughly the same percentage. Historically the numbers are: Armenian Genocide: 65-70% of the Armenian population. Assyrian Genocide: 70-80% of the Assyrian population Holocaust - 62% of the Jewish population, 90% of all Jews in occupied areas. Rwanda: 77% of all Tutsi. Holodomor: 10% of all Ukrainians in Ukraine dead, 80% in Kuban, 35% in Kazakhstan. Darfur: 15% of all Fur, Masalit and Zanghawa tribespeoples killed. Cambodia: 99% Viets, 50% of Cham, 40% of Thai, 15-25% of the Khmer. Timor: 30-40% of the East-Timorians killed. Burundi: 10-15% of all Hutus killed. Guatemala: 40% of the Maya population killed. Most of the above genocides doesn't have the part being killed attacking the others first either, which is a card Israel will use for whatever it's worth. They've gone way overboard with their reaction, but they'll argue that we did the same when we lied about Saddam's WMD's, bombed the country to hell and caused 250-300k deaths.

My point wasn't that though, my point was that the term genocide is being thrown around for a conflict with 30.000 dead over 7 months, when the reality is that it isn't even unique in the last year. Does the UN call the war in Ukraine genocide? Do we need to re-write what we consider a genocide based on what's trending to support? Myanmar, Ukraine and Sudan have worse figures than Gaza. I don't see the same effort to paint other conflicts with this very serious word, even if all the conditions of the charter are met. I'm sure there's intent to commit genocide within Israel's rabid government, I just don't see how a nation with as much firepower as Israel is doing such a bad job of the allegation when out of 2.4 million people that they've 'only' killed 30.000 people (and I'm in no way saying that killing 30.000 people is in any way shape or form okay), those 30.000 are also likely to include some Hamas-fighters - in 7 months. It just doesn't sit right with the other genocides of the past where 30.000 is almost a daily figure. To me it just seems like hyperbole to call it genocide, when more people likely died in one city in Ukraine (Mariupol, over a shorter period) and the same organ (UN) refuse to call that a genocide. It feels and sounds political. Perspective has gone out of the window for both sets in this conflict. The perspective for me, at least, is that 30.000 people out of a group of 2.4 million people doesn't constitute genocide. In that case we'll need to apply the same badge to many our own wars in the last 60 years. It's a lot easier to get Benny tried for war crimes than it is genocide. Genocide won't stick. Intent is much harder to prove.

All I'm interested in is what you think constitutes genocide, where does it start? You keep referring to a loose set of principles set by the Holocaust memorial as some sort of gage, when in reality that gage is achieved by a large proportion of wars since the Holocaust. The UN has shown that its incapable of adding the label 'genocide' equally, even if the same conditions are met in many other conflicts than the horrible #¤% going on in Gaza right now, partially due to veto powers, partially due to voting blocks.

Since you won't respond to the question, let's do it another way then. ‘any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group - Ukraine, Myanmar, Yemen, Bosnia, Croatia, Sudan, Darfur, Georgia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Israel, Gaza, Syria, China, Armenia, Israel, Palestine causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group - Ukraine, Myanmar, Yemen, Bosnia, Croatia, Sudan, Darfur, Georgia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Israel, Gaza, Syria, China, Armenia, Israel, Palestine deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part - Ukraine, Myanmar, Yemen, Bosnia, Croatia, Sudan, Darfur, Georgia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Israel, Gaza, Syria, China, Armenia, Palestine imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group - Ukraine, Myanmar, Yemen, Bosnia, Croatia, Sudan, Darfur, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Israel, Gaza, Syria, China, Armenia forcibly transferring children of the group to another group - Ukraine, Yemen, Darfur, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, China, Armenia Do you not think there is a sense of scale for the definition, or should we just apply the word genocide to most wars? The list above is by no means exhaustive, but for many conflicts recently you find the same, if not worse, conditions we now see in Gaza. The Gaza\Palestinian focus means that a whole bunch of people are calling what's going on in Gaza a genocide, while, if you look at the death counts and grim things going on in most other conflicts around the globe it constitutes much graver cases of what you call 'genocide'. There are more kids kidnapped from Ukraine than people dead and injured in Gaza, yet the UN doesn't call that a genocide.

Where does it say in the Holocaust Memorial Trust's sources that they think what's happening in Gaza is genocide? In my humble opionion, what is happening in Gaza is horrible war crimes, but to compare it to actual genocides cheapens the word for the millions of people killed in the other instances and lowers that bar for other conflicts too. It means that we've essentially got genocides going on in all active wars going on in the world at the moment (Sudan, Myanmar, Gaza, Yemen, Ukraine), and that essentially all wars going back many years were genocide too. Was Georgia in 2008 a genocide? The genocides of this world have from 2-30 million civilian deaths, many of them over a shorter period than 7 months. Do you think 30.000 deaths should be placed in the same league? In the worst days of Khmer Rouge's genocide more people died in a day than what has died in 7 months in Gaza.