I'm not sure citing a Qatari propaganda site with a well documented history of employing members of terrorist organizations as "journalists" is helping make your point.
And here I thought aljazeera was a respectable journalistic outfit. They certainly seem to be doing better than most of the corporate US media by my estimate.
> And here I thought aljazeera was a respectable journalistic outfit.
While they may do some legitimate journalism they are well known for highly biased articles especially when it comes to anything relating to the middle east.
> They certainly seem to be doing better than most of the corporate US media by my estimate.
In what way? News organizations in the US like CNN certainly have higher standards than aljazeera.
> Perhaps you should back up your mud slinging?
Journalists who did work for aljazeera even held hostages in Gaza[0].
Let's the the documents you're speaking of (and not those fake IDF spreadsheets which list some of them as being Hamas members when they were 6 or 7 years old).
Bari Weiss's CBS said a journalist who was killed was someone they worked with or some stupid shit when they were clearly a colleague or possibly more. I don't remember enough to be more specific, but that type of minimalism is rampant.
Israel kills journalists and civilians. Oh shit, civilian:
> Good for them. Defending their country from an unprovoked invasion.
It's hardly unprovoked.
> The hypocrisy of the west is astounding.
How is it at all hypocritical for the west to want to stop a regime of terrorists like the one in Iran?
> Israel has become pure evil.
Israel didn't murder over 30,000 of their own citizens in 2 days by firing automatic weapons into crowds of protesters, that was the Islamic regime in Iran. When it comes to western values in the middle east Israel is very obviously doing better that any other country in the region, despite Israels issues.
> Israel has facilitated sufficient aid into Gaza to prevent starvation.
Should I believe the UN, or some random zionist online ?
> Do you share the view of the Islamic Regime in Iran that Israel should not exist?
I certainly believe they are the source of aggression, violence, pain and misery in the region. They are constantly invading and occupying the homeland of other people, as they are doing RIGHT NOW in lebanon and constantly in palestine.
I also believe that what is written in a two thousand year old religious book does NOT give anybody any valid claim to land, and that israel at this point is a planted western colony in a place where people have been living for thousands of years.
Do you believe that israel has a holy mandate to be there and carry its actions ?
When it relates to anything involving Israel the UN clearly has zero credibility[0].
> I certainly believe they are the source of aggression, violence, pain and misery in the region.
Then you clearly have no understanding of the history of the region, there are plenty of conflicts essentially unrelated to Israel in the region that have had far higher casualties.
> They are constantly invading and occupying the homeland of other people, as they are doing RIGHT NOW in lebanon and constantly in palestine.
Jews have continuously lived in that region for thousands of years. Both sides can make arguably legitimate claims to the region being their homeland. Lebanon is essentially a failed state at this point as their government is unable to prevent Iranian militias from attacking Israel, aside from a small number of extremists in Israel there is little desire for any permanent Israeli settlement in Lebanon.
> I also believe that what is written in a two thousand year old religious book does NOT give anybody any valid claim to land, and that israel at this point is a planted western colony in a place where people have been living for thousands of years.
Most Israelis were born in and have lived essentially their entire lives in Israel at this point, no need to involve religious books to see that Israel is their homeland at this point.
> Do you believe that israel has a holy mandate to be there and carry its actions ?
I don't believe in any holy mandates or supernatural claims at all.
> When it relates to anything involving Israel the UN clearly has zero credibility[0].
Or that bias could be entirely explained by the heinous actions of israel.
> Then you clearly have no understanding of the history of the region, there are plenty of conflicts essentially unrelated to Israel in the region that have had far higher casualties.
This is not even an argument. Because conflicts exist, a colony has the right to exist and create more ?
> Lebanon is essentially a failed state at this point as their government is unable to prevent Iranian militias from attacking Israel
Need I remind you that Hezbollah was founded DIRECTLY as a reaction to the 1982 israeli invasion of Lebanon ? No israel = no Hezbollah
> Most Israelis were born in and have lived essentially their entire lives in Israel at this point
So have all the Palestinians that are displaced and cannot even visit the places they were born, because they are occupied by israel. How can you seriously support all this ? Should israel occupy the entire west bank and gaza and keep starving and impoverishing the Palestinians ?
Did israel ever try to live peacefully with its neighbours ? No, it viewed them as the de facto enemy, conducting "preventative" strikes (i.e. attacking them). Israel does not want peace. It is de facto the source of pain and misery for people, including the israelis.
> Or that bias could be entirely explained by the heinous actions of israel.
There are far worse conflicts in the world than the Israel Palestine conflict...so no that would not explain it.
> Because conflicts exist, a colony has the right to exist and create more ?
There are many countries around the world that have colonial origins in some form, should the US not have a right to exist today since in the past it was a colony?
> Need I remind you that Hezbollah was founded DIRECTLY as a reaction to the 1982 israeli invasion of Lebanon ? No israel = no Hezbollah
You seem to forget that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was a reaction to PLO terrorist attacks, if the PLO or any other groups weren't attacking from Lebanon then there wouldn't have been an invasion of Lebanon.
> So have all the Palestinians that are displaced and cannot even visit the places they were born, because they are occupied by israel.
How many Palestinians were born in Israel proper and don't have Israeli citizenship? I don't think it would be many at this point.
> Should israel occupy the entire west bank and gaza and keep starving and impoverishing the Palestinians ?
Clearly unilateral disengagement is not the solution, Israel tried that in 2005 in Gaza and it failed with catastrophic results for both Palestinians and Israelis. What's needed is a peace agreement, but for various reasons Palestinian leadership has not been willing to attempt to negotiate one in good faith.
> Did israel ever try to live peacefully with its neighbours ?
Yes, in fact Israel does have peace agreements with neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan.
> Israel does not want peace.
Israel clearly does want peace and has in fact come to peace agreements with former enemy states. Israel gave the Sinai back to Egypt in exchange for a peace agreement which has held to this day.
At this point I do not know whether you're trolling, or if you're paid by unit 8200. Because nobody can seriously make this leaps in their arguments to legitimise a genocide, and to defend a country that is spreading pain and misery, including to the rest of the west with the economic ramifications of the most recent war.
> At this point I do not know whether you're trolling, or if you're paid by unit 8200.
Or maybe, some of us aren't blindly following the propaganda pushed by terrorist organizations like Hamas and the Islamic Regime in Iran like you seem to be.
> Because nobody can seriously make this leaps in their arguments to legitimise a genocide, and to defend a country that is spreading pain and misery, including to the rest of the west with the economic ramifications of the most recent war.
You're making all sorts of wild claims like there being a genocide, a claim that clearly is not backed up by the actual facts, despite what some highly biased organizations may be claiming. The country instigating most of the conflicts in the region is Iran, not Israel. The country deliberately firing drones and missiles at civilian targets against virtually every country in the entire region is Iran.
> Tired old Zionist talking points to divert from the realities of the "Greater Israel Project".
Claiming the "Greater Israel Project"(which has no well defined goals and tends to only be something fringe extremists support) is somehow relevant to the Iranian nuclear weapons program and their desire to eliminate Israel[0] makes no sense.
> I would encourage anyone reading this thread to expand the greyed-out comments. There's honestly something really sinister going on here which goes way beyond opinion.
There is widespread support in Israel for degrading the Islamic Regime, for rather obvious reasons[0]. I think the evidence tying Bibi's corruption trial to his decision to go to war with Iran is rather weak, especially since Bibi has clearly wanted to go to war against Iran with US support well before the corruption investigation even got started.
> There's also some sort of branching strategy happening to cut off points which criticise the wanted fugitive Bibi Netanyahu.
You seem to be referring here to the ICC investigation(since Bibi is quite obviously not a fugitive from the Israeli police). The ICC's jurisdiction is highly questionable among other issues.
> The genocidal former furniture salesman who will kill anyone and everyone to avoid his corruption charges.
The corruption charges are not brought by the ICC at all, they originate from an Israeli police investigation and have much more legitimacy than the rather dubious ICC investigation.
Exactly. We know that the ICC was basically designed to throw arrest warrants at people who the west does not like. (Mostly Asian, African or more generally brown people).
It's baffling how Netanyahu is, what, likeable somehow? USA, Germany and the UK spring to mind.
I can't imagine him being good company. And I'm really happy that at least one EU country will arrest his ugly ass (Spain) and that his airspace is getting evermore compromised for fear of being arrested. Which he will be, eventually.
> We know that the ICC was basically designed to throw arrest warrants at people who the west does not like.
The ICC is a "court of last resort" which is one of the reasons the ICC going after Netanyahu is going outside their jurisdiction, see principal of complementarity[0] which the ICC is rather blatantly violating. Western countries generally have functional legal systems and Israel has a long history of imprisoning their prime ministers.
> And I'm really happy that at least one EU country will arrest his ugly ass (Spain) and that his airspace is getting evermore compromised for fear of being arrested. Which he will be, eventually.
If Bibi ends up arrested it will be by the Israeli police and not by some international court going way outside its jurisdiction for what are clearly political reasons.
> IMO, the regime is not as much worried about Israel as it is about the US.
The Islamic Regime is not a normal rational actor, their opposition to Israel is driven primarily by their ideology.
> Just compare the number of missiles and drones they shot at Gulf countries vs Israel.
This is probably more just a matter of Iran having more short range weapons than long range weapons, Israel is a long range target that much of their weapons will be unable to reach.
> That would be catastrophic to Israel: they could face Iran from the air and Arab ground forces from multiple directions. In fact there are already signs that Egypt is moving towards that, troops are moving in to the Sinai. There is a real chance that Israel could cease to exist.
Israel is a nuclear power, there is no conceivable scenario in which Israel would cease to exist that doesn't involve nuclear war. Israel also has a long history of defeating coordinated attacks from their neighbors with conventional means alone.
> I rather doubt that whoever comes next will be western friendly and moderate
The Iranian people(not the Islamic Regime which is despised by the vast majority of the people in Iran) tend to be very western friendly and tend to be much more secular than most populations in the region.
> the indscriminate military action of the past few weeks they are probably more likely to get ayatollah'd again.
The Iranian people are well aware that the airstrikes are not at all indiscriminate but are targeting the Regime(there are plenty of videos coming out of Iran of people filming and cheering as airstrikes hit Regime targets), indiscriminate military action would be what the Islamic Regime did when they killed tens of thousands of civilian protesters by firing automatic weapons into crowds of people. The Iranian people understand what is happening.
> What makes you think they will give nuclear weapons to terrorists or use those weapons at all?
The Islamic Regime is effectively a terrorist organization itself, so Iran getting nuclear weapons would be effectively giving a terrorist Jihadist organization a nuclear weapon. The Islamic Regime simply cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and the military costs to stop them will continue to get higher as time goes, this is a problem that we will inevitably have to deal with and dealing with it sooner rather than later is likely always going to be the best option as the costs to deal with the Regime will only continue to increase.
> This does not happen even in the most insane examples like North Korea.
North Korean leaders value self preservation much more than the Islamic Regime leaders do, they also do not use terrorism in same way or to the same degree as Iran does. North Korean leaders also don't generally have ideologies similar to Martyrdom/Jihad like Islamic Regime leaders have(these ideologies specifically make traditional mutually assured destruction deterrence strategies largely ineffective).
> As for a preemptive attack, which I imagine you meant would be nuclear since they're already giving it all they've got with their non-nuclear attacks, it is already clear that Israel and USA don't have a way to stop Iran's faster missiles, and they would have no way to prevent Iran nuking Tel-Aviv and Haifa in return.
Israel generally has fairly solid intelligence in Iran and would almost certainly take whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran from building a Nuke...potentially all the way up to using small tactical nukes in targeted strikes on nuclear facilities if conventional attacks would be insufficient. Any preemptive attack would likely occur before Iran actually were acquire a viable nuclear weapon.
I'm not sure citing a Qatari propaganda site with a well documented history of employing members of terrorist organizations as "journalists" is helping make your point.
reply