fukhueson @ fukhueson @lemmy.world

Posts

268

Comments

485

Joined

2 yr. ago

Can you quote where I said that? And what you mean by "it"?

"The conflict" the article is discussing is very clearly referring to the current war, and distinguishes this from previous shadow wars. The preamble also specifies the context of "the conflict."

The Middle East is in much more volatile situation than it was even a year ago. This conflict has expanded far outside of fighting primarily between Israel and Hamas.

I'm hoping the new Mexican president in conjunction with the next US president (I'm personally rooting for Harris) will be able to put a dent in this. It is certainly on their respective radars.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2024/10/01/claudia-sheinbaum-mexico-first-female-president/75448711007/

At the same time, Mexico has been engaged in a massive effort to prevent migrants from reaching the U.S. border. Sheinbaum will be under immediate pressure to keep it up, even as the rising number of migrants stuck in Mexico risks angers the Mexican public. She will be under pressure from the U.S., as well, to target the dangerous criminal organizations that traffic fentanyl and migrants to the United States.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-visits-us-southern-border-trump-focuses-immigration-2024-09-27/

"We will pursue more severe criminal charges against repeat violators, and if someone does not make an asylum request at a legal point of entry and instead crosses our border unlawfully, they will be barred from receiving asylum," she said.

Harris emphasized her goal of a "humane" immigration program, saying she would with Congress to create a pathway to citizenship for "Dreamers" - hundreds of thousands of people brought into the U.S. illegally as children. They were a priority for Democrats for a decade but were left out of a failed immigration bill that Biden had backed.

"I reject the false choice that suggests we must either choose between securing our border or creating a system of immigration that is safe, orderly and humane," Harris said. "We can and we must do both."

I don't believe I said that. Can you provide a source indicating that they've changed their ways?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/10/05/hezbollah-needs-answer

I think "began" is correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war

The war began when Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel on 7 October, which involved a rocket barrage and a few thousand militants breaching the Gaza–Israel barrier, attacking Israeli civilian communities and military bases.

FTA:

Hezbollah has been sending rockets into northern Israel since the start of the Gaza war, which began after Hamas and other militants invaded Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and killed nearly 1,200 people.

Do you think the article should rephrase this section?

As I recall it was a calculated response to Iran's first direct attack on Israel.

What about...

K, but considering Iran did attack Israel... Yesterday... And the comment was made just moments ago, I myself find the comment to be misplaced.

This already happened, and was true. I don't understand the comment.

I'm certain there's no quantifiable way to address the difference between those phrases, and that this is rather a matter of opinion regarding what one thinks "massive" means in terms of military/political rhetoric. I think my point was made, despite my questions going unanswered.

Thanks for the discussion!

(I'm not continuing this discussion, since the interest here seems to be quibbling over one word of rhetoric.)

Edit:

https://www.dw.com/en/what-comes-next-for-iran-after-strike-on-israel/a-70387376

Tehran is waiting for Israel's response to a massive missile attack as the conflict in the Middle East threatens to escalate.

Sounds commensurate to me :)

I truly don't understand what you think I'm saying. I think that a response to a second direct attack being massive does not preclude it from not escalating (unless there's a less conventional definition specific to military responses I'm not familiar with). Is Iran's second direct attack on Israel not considered an escalation, and do you think that is not massive, despite rhetoric from the Ayatollah?

Or is Israel not supposed to respond to this?

Massive payback can be commensurate with the attack on Israel, while still not escalating. Was Iran escalating when it directly attacked Israel for the second time? Or was that a measured response to the deaths of members of their proxies in other countries?

Their last response to Iran's direct attack on Israel was a calculated move consistent with not escalating.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/assessing-israels-strike-iran

I'm hopeful their (along with the US') move in response to Iran's second direct attack on Israel will yield similar results.

Israel imposing their ring of fire around Iran?

Inb4 historic grievance a b and c...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/israel-hezbollah-live-updates-idf-ground-operation-lebanon-rcna173389

Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Daniel Hagari said that Iran's attack on Israel "will have consequences."

"We are on high alert both defensively and offensively," Hagari said during a news briefing following the attack. "We will defend the citizens of the State of Israel."

Hagari said the military has "plans" and will strike at the time and place of their choosing.

Hagari said the military has not identified any additional aerial threats from Iran, and reiterated that people can leave shelters. The IDF "carried out a large number of interceptions," Hagari said, adding that parts of central and southern Israel were impacted by missiles.

"At this stage, we are still assessing the situation," Hagari said. "We are not aware of any casualties."

Just in case this becomes a problem, the title of the article seems to have changed since I posted this.

https://www.americanmeadows.com/content/perennials/russian-sage/how-to-grow-russian-sage

Though I might be misunderstanding...

The letter calls on Muslims to instead vote for any of the third-party candidates, including the Green Party's Jill Stein whose support has swelled among the Muslim American community in recent weeks.

You don't say...

I do believe she said it too.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/09/28/statement-by-vice-president-harris-on-the-death-of-hassan-nasrallah/

Hassan Nasrallah was a terrorist with American blood on his hands. Across decades, his leadership of Hezbollah destabilized the Middle East and led to the killing of countless innocent people in Lebanon, Israel, Syria, and around the world. Today, Hezbollah’s victims have a measure of justice.

I have an unwavering commitment to the security of Israel. I will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

President Biden and I do not want to see conflict in the Middle East escalate into a broader regional war. We have been working on a diplomatic solution along the Israel-Lebanon border so that people can safely return home on both sides of that border. Diplomacy remains the best path forward to protect civilians and achieve lasting stability in the region.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-condemns-israels-killing-hezbollah-leader-nasrallah-2024-09-28/

Russia strongly condemns Israel's killing of Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in the Lebanese capital Beirut, the foreign ministry said on Saturday, calling it "yet another political assassination".

"This forceful action is fraught with even greater dramatic consequences for Lebanon and the entire Middle East," the ministry said in a statement.

"The Israeli side could not fail to recognise this danger, but took the step of killing Lebanese citizens, which would almost inevitably provoke a new outburst of violence. Thus, it bears full responsibility for the subsequent escalation."