Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rikard's avatar

Side A has superior tech and can hit Side B wherever and whenever, with little risk of retaliation.

Side B therefore puts its assets where Side A "may not" strike them.

However, said assets may not be used as shields for military assets, else they too become military assets and may be attacked.

Side A therefore always claim Side B puts its assets in or around disallowed targets, and Side B always claims they don't, and they both lie about most things all of the time, because from the perspective of either, they don't have any choice but to do what they do, and then lie about it.

That's about the sum total of it, before going into issues such as "rules for war" is a modern Western delusion that no other culture group or civilisation respects or adheres to unless it can be used as a weapon itself against Westerners.

As for Jew vs Arab, round infinity plus one, I don't care. Let them murder each other's civilians if they like: our words won't stop them, and we have not the military power to step on them, slap them around and decimate them every time they step out of line.

Pull all funding of either, allow them no travel to Europe, not even tourism, and send every one of them back.

Expand full comment
WJM's avatar

Decrying or condoning?

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts