Jace, Extat

More than acceptance, it demands capitulation. What happened to you tuesday stands out as a prime example: It was not enough for you to have said nothing wrong. Then, explaining you certainly meant no wrong merely added to the conflagration and admonishions that perhaps you should not speak so freely or so often. The pure sense of righteousness involved makes one want to gag.

I have some uncanny and accursed timing. Brought up the AP livestream thirty seconds before the orange bastard stepped up to speak.

Scott, you didn't say a damn thing wrong. Stop backpedaling, man.

You're right. I was sniggering too hard to type it properly

Chris Collinsworth: ... and now you got a 300 pound star going down on a quarterback! [That is all]

So I was like 12 when the Depp one came out, and I actually enjoyed it because I could do a really good Depp Wonka impression that slayed in middle school. At least Depp was being weird and memorable, even if the movie was crap. I like to be entertained in the theater. Wonka was just baaaaaad. The first song was ok. Not good, it was ok. And that's the last good thing I have to say about the film. It looked and sounded like it was generated by AI. Absolutely hideous CGI visual noise, none of the wit or charm of the original; to the point that I wondered if the ChatGPT program that wrote the thing had even studied Wilder's movie. I think I saw the love of acting leave Chalemet's eyes as the movie progressed. There were blatant continuity errors that I noticed and by the end it seemed like I could see the director just off screen shrieking "wrap this shit up!"

Took my mom and niece to see Wonka- What a piece of chocolate shit. My god, it might've been one of the worst movies I've ever seen... and I've seen Batman v Superman! It was terrible. Just terrible. Mom and niece seemed to like it though, so

Jesus, Ty. Is he okay? Lacerations? What made him fall into the table? Also, congrats Spocky. That's some cool shit you got going on. Live the high life baby.

Not a prank, but perhaps an overindulgence in defensive aggression. And I'll admit to using rhetoric I wouldn't normally deploy out of a desire to function as -from my perspective- a necessary antagonist to the one-sided perspective of Israel that we've had in these threads. But as a very wise lurker may or may not have informed me, it's possible that I've let my passions get the better of me.

Whoa!

Well I didn't think it was pragmatism vs naivete until just now - I mean, did you really think anything else was possible? Serious question, before I return serve on the rest of your post. What did you think was gonna happen? Because my heart broke on the 7th. For Palestinians and Israelis both. I knew what was going to happen and I spent like five days trying to wrap my heart back together. I couldn't bear to watch the news any more than to see if there was any update on the hostages. I view this all as a horrid inevitability, and have since the first bomb dropped. I'm salted to it now because I didn't expect anything else. (Palestinians in Israel are Israeli, as far as I understand. Citizens of Israel.) Yes! Yes! More! Gimme more, baby! This is the best shit I read in a year. I've never denied being a Red in Blue clothing. It's in my name. But I chose Blue. I didn't get raised into my beliefs in some idyllic chateau or braindead peer pressure incubator. I paid a lot to be a Democrat, and I don't think I'll join the Reds anytime soon at all thank you very much. Man, I like you. Eta: I wrote "title" when I meant "name".

Then maybe they should have spent the billions of U.N. dollars they took on something other than tunnels and rockets to facilitate the killing of Jews. This outcome is entirely logical. I don't think those organizations fired missiles out of hospitals, but you make a fair point. As far as it goes, though, it doesn't change the realities of fighting them out of Gaza.

They got them back by raining hell on the organization that took them. Then they got as many back as negotiations would allow.

Palestinians aren't Israel's people. I mean I could as well tell you water is wet. The Iraqi and coalition came as genuine liberators. Yeah, they already have determined which weapons they have to use that are appropriate to this conflict... I do not want Israel to change that for the sake of PR. If you have a weapon in the arsenal that is approved for use you use it. Yes, as an infantry support vehicle in areas they've already hit with artillery and missile fire, at least as far as I've seen. I thought you were suggesting armored spearheads into the city in lieu of indirect fire methods, which is a no-go. It increases their fighting capacity. More supplies = more will to fight.

Hostages. They got half of 'em back by their actions. Then you need to move your feet. Israel got as many back as possible as fast as possible.

All pretty true as far as it goes. When "nation-building" everything you said is important to consider. But IDF is not in Gaza to liberate (ostensibly or otherwise) the Palestinians. They aren't there to conquer the Palestinians either. They're there to make war on Hamas. Defensive war- which is why none of what you've said applies right now. Just on a practical, tactical, level. It doesn't matter. And that's how I'm still viewing the conflict. There just wasn't time. Hamas made sure of that. You're not wrong, the way you frame the picture. But I think you're looking at it from a place of supreme advantage, and I don't think Israel has that luxury. The situation is fucked up in the present. Hamas got by for years and years by hiding behind human shields and international law. They have to be destroyed and nobody else was going to do it. I know exactly what I'm supporting. I've known what was gonna happen since Oct. 7th. I'll burn in hell before I sandbag an ally that's defending itself.

What is dead can never die... Now excuse me, I gotta go fight Kal and the allies in Gen Chat.

Nukes are a strategic asset. Gaza is a tactical quagmire. IDF isn't dropping 2,000 pound bombs just because, they're using them to take out the tunnels and bunkers underneath buildings. And that's fair. But U.S.A. and allies had years to plan that out. Israel had hours. When the forwarded position is that the IDF fight in ways that help Hamas, then I disagree with it. I didn't equate all Palestinians with Hamas, I pointed out the absurdity of fighting an enemy with less conventional weapons than you have available when in an active combat zone. Tanks are no good in city fighting, besides the fact that they make such sweet sweet targets for RPGs it's too easy to break treads in those environments. Too many firing angles. And Israel needs its armor for Hezbollah. See, I see it completely different. I would never sacrifice a single citizen for political gain. Soldiers are citizens. Israel's first duty, as a state, is to do everything possible to preserve the life and wellbeing of its citizens. Including when sending them into combat. It's what marks the difference between western and non-western militaries. We care what happens to our people. It bolsters Hamas. They'll steal it. I've already stated my opposition to the bolded. As for the italicized: I agree completely. But what did von Moltke (the elder) say about how to make war more humane?

Fire him and hire Belichick, I say. Can you imagine what BB and Josh McDaniels could do with that roster!!??!!

I think that the enemy has deliberately embedded itself in an urban center in such a way that defeating them makes civilian casualties inevitable. They did this on purpose, they did this with stolen international aid money, and dared Israel to do what it takes to beat them. And its horrible. Fucking horrible. What it's not is a genocide or a crime against humanity. It's a war.

No. I'm sorry, but no. Air power and missiles and mortars and heavy guns exist to degrade the fighting capacity of the enemy. No other purpose for them exists. Didn't the Iraqi president say that 40,000 people died in Mosul? And there were a million people driven out of the city. The problem in Gaza is that the civilians have no place to go that Hamas cannot embed themselves in. Yeah, of course they do. Israel has their rules of engagement and I'm sure most of their soldiers do their best to abide by them. What I am shocked by is Ripp's suggestion that Israel do more to cap their offensive abilities and, presumably, meet Hamas on some kind of equal footing. That's a "no" from me, Dawg. You have asymmetrical capabilities for a reason - to preserve combat strength and save lives. Opting against using them to fight Hamas at a similar capacity is tantamount to murdering your own soldiers for the sake of public relations. As I said to Kal, my concern was you advocating for further moderation. That's my bad, I should have been more careful in my response. Yeah, and they're all bloodbaths. I mean, have you seen Black Hawk Down? ... Yes. The airforce and combined arms soften targets (blows them up) then infantry takes the ground. Rinse, repeat.

Kal, dollface, he's talking about Israel moderating its rules of engagement at point of contact in order to spare Palestinian lives... That's... nuts. It's just nuts. The entire point of things like air superiority and indirect fire is to avoid putting your infantry into situations like fighting block-to-block or house-to-house.

Ripp, baby. Are you saying you expected Israel, because of democracy, to parity themselves to Hamas in an active combat zone? Baby... no...

Well, I think you're right. Folks feel there's been a hollowing-out of opportunities to get high paying jobs or own a house, especially for those without college degrees. I know you'll say this is a consequence of capitalism - I only say that it's real, this feeling.

Tell it again!