dlubarov

5 ms·

31.
by dlubarov 4mo ago
> They just want to raise families [...] Most ordinary Iranians, sure; certainly not the Islamic regime. It was their decision to train, fund and supply weapons to terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ and the Houthis since the ea
32.
by dlubarov 5mo ago
> this with an American flag and its hull number in open display Soldiers have uniforms with distinguishing colors/marks in open display, yet millions of soldiers have died by friendly fire. Lots of friendly planes have been shot
33.
by dlubarov 5mo ago
> the U.S. makes excuses for Israel's attack on its own USS Liberty in 1967. It's strange how this 59-year-old incident keeps getting brought up. Friendly fire happens all the time, and Israel apologized and paid reparations ag
34.
by dlubarov 5mo ago
You said "the evidence is there" about Israeli rape dogs, not some other allegation. An incident that has nothing to with rape isn't evidence, nor is an incident that happened in an entirely different country.
35.
by dlubarov 5mo ago
The first link is about a dog attack, but absolutely nothing about dogs being "trained to rape". The second link is nothing specific, just an entire subreddit devoted to anti-Israel propaganda. So where is this evidence that you s
36.
by dlubarov 5mo ago
> Even the NYT recently published an article about how the israelies use dogs to rape Palestinians. They published allegations from a questionable source with no evidence. I think most people would agree that "Israel trains dogs to
37.
by dlubarov 5mo ago
> terror attacks on civilian targets This is a very weird way to frame a highly targeted attack against Hezbollah, which achieved a far better civilian casualty ratio than what's possible with conventional warfare.
38.
by dlubarov 5mo ago
> Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon [...] which Israeli historian Ilan Pappé said was unprovoked "Unprovoked" is wildly inaccurate, and not even the most anti-Israel historians like Pappé claim that. The provocation was ve
39.
by dlubarov 5mo ago
Why is it that when someone points out anti-Israel disinformation, the topic suddenly changes to some other anti-Israel talking point? If Israel and its supporters are super evil, shouldn’t its critics be able to pick a point (such as the h
40.
by dlubarov 5mo ago
If Israel "smears itself" by being super evil, then why do we constantly see its critics resorting to disinformation? Shouldn't there be plenty to criticize while sticking to the facts?
41.
by dlubarov 5mo ago
TRNN is another outlet with an explicit anti-Zionist stance, and they seem to be just summarizing this Jewish Insider article [1] while adding some anti-Israel spin. Considering the extra details in the Jewish Insider article, what he said
42.
by dlubarov 5mo ago
The headline seems pretty dishonest. It seems like what he actually said was along the lines of "if someone isn't aligned with our values, they might decide that working here isn't a good fit." There's no transcript
43.
by dlubarov 5mo ago
It's not like it's designed to be discriminatory. In practice it's Jews that are most affected (if they don't conform to strict Orthodox rules), so if anything it's discriminatory against Jews, which wouldn't m
44.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
They can just get married abroad. There are even online ceremonies now. A decent number of Israeli Jews have to do that as well, since Israel recognizes Jewish marriages only under orthodox rabbis. Some Israeli Jews are not even considered
45.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
You're listing a lot of standard anti-Israel talking points which aren't relevant to the thread. Setting aside all the tangents and returning to the topic at hand - > if you look at 1:1000 civilian or 1:500 child kill ratio and
46.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
> the war wasn't fought in the US, so it's not really a fair comparison What's unfair about it? In both cases, one side suffered less civilian harm because there wasn't much fighting in its own territory. I think the
47.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
What is the alternative that Israelis could support instead? Just ignore Hezbollah's attacks? Give up on returning to their homes and schools in northern Israel?
48.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
Wars aren't supposed to be even. By this logic, the Nazis were the victims of WWII, and the Coalition was extremely evil in the Gulf War. And if Israel wants to be "better", it should just disable its air defenses to let Hezb
49.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
If DCs can be harmful because of subsidized power, wouldn't the natural reaction be to stop subsidizing their power, rather than banning them?
50.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
Instead of banning datacenters, why not just increase electricity rates for industrial customers? If they build datacenters anyway, there should be plenty of extra funding for power infrastructure.
51.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
In other words, negotiations are underway and Israel hasn't agreed to anything yet, but some people went ahead and declared peace in the Middle East anyway. Like any other state, Israel has the ability to enter into its own agreements;
52.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
> Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would comply with the ceasefire. [3] That's not really what the source says. There is no ceasefire agreement in force at all (only a basis for negotiations with Iran), let alone one that co
53.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
> Israel and USA attacked first Only if we ignore all of Iran's proxy warfare. If we correct your argument so it's actually based on international law, it seems to boil down to "we have to ignore proxy warfare, otherwise N
54.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
Okay, let's imagine that Nicaragua has the right to nuke the US, setting aside the fact that their self-defense justification expired decades ago, and that someone else committing war crimes does not create any legal justification for
55.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
Article 51 applies to states, not continents, but sure some states might have a claim against the US. That doesn’t change anything about the Iran regime’s aggression.
56.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
> This is an aggressive misreading of OP. The original claim was that terrorists might stop attacking Israel if it stopped "assaulting and raping Arabs without consequences". So which way are we to read it? - Israel is being he
57.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
You keep saying unprovoked. How is attacking Israel with tens of thousands of rockets and drones (mostly by proxy) not a provocation? How many attacks do you expect Israel to tolerate before finally responding?
58.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
If we're saying that because everyone has broken a few international laws, now they don't matter at all, then why should Iran be the only one extorting international waters or waterways? Should we start our own extortion program?
59.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
Extorting an international waterway is effectively just piracy (we just don't typically use the word for state actors). We could try to end this piracy through negotiations, but letting states use piracy as a bargaining chip doesn&#x27
60.
by dlubarov 6mo ago
The nonsense is the application of impossible standards like "Israel should have zero criminals" or "Israel should have a successful conviction for every suspected crime, never mind evidentiary standards". If someone wan

More ›