▲ 196 ▼ Israel strikes Tehran nuclear sites in operation 'Rising Lion' - bombing expected to last DAYS (www.dailyrecord.co.uk) submitted 1 year ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world 52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 45 points 1 year ago (3 children) Are they running out of people to murder in Gaza? Or do they just need someone to fight back, so they can look oppressed? permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 61 points 1 year ago (1 child) Neither. Internal politics in Israel threatened to break up the government, and starting a war with Iran was the easiest way to stop that. Can't break up the government now, we're in a state of emergency! Bibi would sooner burn down all of Israel than step down from power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 33 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yep, exactly this. He'd rather destroy the entire country than lose power, in part because as soon as he loses power he's likely going to prison for the rest of his life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 10 points 1 year ago Sounds familiar... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grimy@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 child) The moment they stop fighting is the moment they have to collectively come to terms with what they have done as a nation. Netanyahoo has to keep it going. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] torrentialgrain@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago Netanyahoo lmao permalink fedilink source parent [–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago (3 children) The US is obligated by law, to keep sending them weapons in order to maintain a "qualitative military edge" against all potential threats. This unfortunately incentivizes Israel to maintain a high threat level, in order to increase the amount of weapons it receives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children) obligated by law, to keep sending them weapons Can you expand on that? There are agreements but to which extent are they binding? I guess they are not unconditional. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Airowird@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago Welcome to Whose war is it anyway? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago This explains it in better detail than I could. It isn't so much a single law, but rather a lot of different laws that all work together to ensure that Israel is given everything it could possibly need for its own defense...even bypassing normal regulatory measures in the process, as long as certain conditions are maintained. Israel has invested tens of millions of dollars lobbying for, and helping to write, the legislation that guarantees their continuous access to weapons. A lot of it is written directly into defense spending bills that are essential for domestic defense spending as well. So, without a massive shift in policy at the legislative level to disentangle those priorities, that support is legally binding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SaltSong@startrek.website 1 point 1 year ago The US is obligated by law, Yea, that's a law we passed, right? One which we could repeal, too? permalink fedilink source parent [–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) "By law". It's just a convenient excuse for genocidal immorality. It's not like words on paper matter to anyone in power in the West, you'd definitely be blind to think otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* You had me in the first sentence; not gonna lie. The second one, though, just goes off the rails. permalink fedilink source parent [–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) "The West" is a bit too broad don't you think. I think that's blinkered, if not blind. Definitely. And that username... (edit: oh look they just changed it from "ArgumentativeMonotheist" to "YappyMonotheist") permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago But being a horny mouse is a-okay?! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 61 points 1 year ago (1 child) Neither. Internal politics in Israel threatened to break up the government, and starting a war with Iran was the easiest way to stop that. Can't break up the government now, we're in a state of emergency! Bibi would sooner burn down all of Israel than step down from power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 33 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yep, exactly this. He'd rather destroy the entire country than lose power, in part because as soon as he loses power he's likely going to prison for the rest of his life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 10 points 1 year ago Sounds familiar... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 33 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yep, exactly this. He'd rather destroy the entire country than lose power, in part because as soon as he loses power he's likely going to prison for the rest of his life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 10 points 1 year ago Sounds familiar... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 10 points 1 year ago Sounds familiar... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 child) The moment they stop fighting is the moment they have to collectively come to terms with what they have done as a nation. Netanyahoo has to keep it going. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] torrentialgrain@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago Netanyahoo lmao permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago (3 children) The US is obligated by law, to keep sending them weapons in order to maintain a "qualitative military edge" against all potential threats. This unfortunately incentivizes Israel to maintain a high threat level, in order to increase the amount of weapons it receives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children) obligated by law, to keep sending them weapons Can you expand on that? There are agreements but to which extent are they binding? I guess they are not unconditional. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Airowird@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago Welcome to Whose war is it anyway? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago This explains it in better detail than I could. It isn't so much a single law, but rather a lot of different laws that all work together to ensure that Israel is given everything it could possibly need for its own defense...even bypassing normal regulatory measures in the process, as long as certain conditions are maintained. Israel has invested tens of millions of dollars lobbying for, and helping to write, the legislation that guarantees their continuous access to weapons. A lot of it is written directly into defense spending bills that are essential for domestic defense spending as well. So, without a massive shift in policy at the legislative level to disentangle those priorities, that support is legally binding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SaltSong@startrek.website 1 point 1 year ago The US is obligated by law, Yea, that's a law we passed, right? One which we could repeal, too? permalink fedilink source parent [–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) "By law". It's just a convenient excuse for genocidal immorality. It's not like words on paper matter to anyone in power in the West, you'd definitely be blind to think otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* You had me in the first sentence; not gonna lie. The second one, though, just goes off the rails. permalink fedilink source parent [–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) "The West" is a bit too broad don't you think. I think that's blinkered, if not blind. Definitely. And that username... (edit: oh look they just changed it from "ArgumentativeMonotheist" to "YappyMonotheist") permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago But being a horny mouse is a-okay?! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children) obligated by law, to keep sending them weapons Can you expand on that? There are agreements but to which extent are they binding? I guess they are not unconditional. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Airowird@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago Welcome to Whose war is it anyway? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago This explains it in better detail than I could. It isn't so much a single law, but rather a lot of different laws that all work together to ensure that Israel is given everything it could possibly need for its own defense...even bypassing normal regulatory measures in the process, as long as certain conditions are maintained. Israel has invested tens of millions of dollars lobbying for, and helping to write, the legislation that guarantees their continuous access to weapons. A lot of it is written directly into defense spending bills that are essential for domestic defense spending as well. So, without a massive shift in policy at the legislative level to disentangle those priorities, that support is legally binding. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Airowird@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago Welcome to Whose war is it anyway? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Airowird@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago Welcome to Whose war is it anyway? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago This explains it in better detail than I could. It isn't so much a single law, but rather a lot of different laws that all work together to ensure that Israel is given everything it could possibly need for its own defense...even bypassing normal regulatory measures in the process, as long as certain conditions are maintained. Israel has invested tens of millions of dollars lobbying for, and helping to write, the legislation that guarantees their continuous access to weapons. A lot of it is written directly into defense spending bills that are essential for domestic defense spending as well. So, without a massive shift in policy at the legislative level to disentangle those priorities, that support is legally binding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 1 point 1 year ago The US is obligated by law, Yea, that's a law we passed, right? One which we could repeal, too? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) "By law". It's just a convenient excuse for genocidal immorality. It's not like words on paper matter to anyone in power in the West, you'd definitely be blind to think otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* You had me in the first sentence; not gonna lie. The second one, though, just goes off the rails. permalink fedilink source parent [–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) "The West" is a bit too broad don't you think. I think that's blinkered, if not blind. Definitely. And that username... (edit: oh look they just changed it from "ArgumentativeMonotheist" to "YappyMonotheist") permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago But being a horny mouse is a-okay?! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* You had me in the first sentence; not gonna lie. The second one, though, just goes off the rails. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) "The West" is a bit too broad don't you think. I think that's blinkered, if not blind. Definitely. And that username... (edit: oh look they just changed it from "ArgumentativeMonotheist" to "YappyMonotheist") permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago But being a horny mouse is a-okay?! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago But being a horny mouse is a-okay?! permalink fedilink source parent