Iran Launches Attack Against Israel with Long-range Drones

[Occam's Banana]

Iran Strikes At Israel | Part Of The Problem 1115
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGt9oSTNp5w
{Dave Smith | 16 April 2024}

On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave and Robbie discuss the ramifications of Iran's missile attack on Israel.

[Occam's Banana]

"This Is Where We Draw The Line!" | Iran Attacks Israel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwFmc6ouWQc
{Piers Morgan Uncensored | 16 April 2024}

Piers Morgan Uncensored hosts another debate from our New York studios on the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel with voices from both sides, joined by comedian and commentator Dave Smith, British-Iranian attorney Elica Le Bon, pro-Palestinian activist Nerdeen Kiswani and Jewish conservative commentator Debra Lea.

00:00 - Introduction
01:50 - Iran, Israel and war in the Middle East
09:00 - What should a country do facing 300 missiles?
11:00 - The biggest humanitarian crisis in the world...
20:00 - Death to America protests in America
24:50 - "Do you condemn Hamas?"
30:00 - The future for Gaza
34:00 - "How does this end?"

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status...24435993809060

https://twitter.com/BobMurphyEcon/st...94307789128183


Video @ Twitter/X:

https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status...26615187538385

Video @ Rumble:

WATCH: THE ISRAEL, IRAN & PALESTINE DEBATE
https://rumble.com/v4q1iv2-watch-the...ne-debate.html
{ZeroHedge | 17 April 2024}

[Snowball]

Hal Turner on Jeff Rense yesterday

Russia has given Iran nuclear-tipped warheads.

https://ln5.sync.com/dl/1f82779f0/qa...18573396910010

[jmdrake]

Bastards are trying to start WW 3.

[osan]

//

Well, that didn't seem to settle much of anything. Uygur with his weak virtue signaling, apparently thinking that if he talks against Turks, he will be taken as honest and trustworthy. Oy. Dave Smith is nothing to write home about either. Prager has his moments, but isn't really that good at debate. The woman was mostly on the money, whoever she is.

But there seems to have been some fundamentals missed. For one thing, we have no idea whether what we see in reports regarding either side of this giant bowl of liquid feces is reflective of truth. The Israelis have been up to all manner of chicanery for 75 years. One can debate whether circumstance drove them to it, or if they are just a raft of scummy people of whom perhaps the world would have benefitted had the Final Solution been successfully concluded. I'm unwilling to assume anything on that question. The same may be said of the Arabs of the region, however less clever and artful they may be. I don't trust any of them, taken statistically.

Praeger made a fair point when he stated that the deaths of civilian Arabs lies squarely at Hamas' feet. They started it, operationally speaking, and hid among the people they are supposed to protect. There can be no question of their cowardice. The woman also made an important point about war, that it is and ought to be horrific. It is, after all, war.

It is interesting to observe how few people hold a reasonable grasp of the most fundamental nature of warfare. These dummies, Smith and Uygur, are of that ilk (as are many in the military who should know better) wants warfare to be comparatively sanitary. This is patent idiocy. War should be out and out slaughter. It should be so atrocious, people are unable to wrap their heads around it; so horrifying that even the so-called "hawks" quit their moaning and scheming for it like covetous street whores they are. Much as is the case with freedom, the mean man wants all the benefits of war without those aspect of it that they find unappealing. "OOoooo... don't kill civilians... it's immoral...", as if two armies murdering each other en masse were somehow otherwise. I love how people rationalize the most absurd things, while condemning that which can actually be justified.

This debate was pointless, IMO. The real questions were not treated in a way that addresses the fundamentals of the issue, which is the only way to get to the truth. They kept the discussion up in the haze of comparative irrelevancies and they largely ignored the fact that we're not privy to the whole truth.

All my wind aside, if what we see is sufficient to the relevant truth, then I would not be able to fault Israel were they to kill every last living soul in Gaza. To argue that they may not do so is to imply that the Israelis are obliged to accept some level of destruction by its enemies, which is the key implication of the doctrine of "proportionality". It is the same case in American jurisprudence: mugger shows a knife, says "your money or your life", one stands just in retaliating with the intention of killing the adversary, no questions asked. But the proportionality doctrine would see anyone so acting in prison because the tacit implication there is that we are obliged to assume risks we find unacceptable for the sake of those who seek to bring us grave and possibly terminal harm. This is rank, raving insanity.

This is all routinely ignored because the mistaken view is based on a tacit assumption so deeply embedded in the psyches of most people, they are not even aware of it, much less in a position to question it.

But I certainly do not assume Israel's innocence here. I think both sides are $#@! heads and were they to eliminate each other to the last man, I'd not be put out in the least. The people of the middle east have been asswipes since Sumer, it seems. Nasty, scheming, thieving people who know nothing beyond force of the strong man upon the weaker. The world would not miss them.