Outing yourself as a Windows abstainer isn’t the worst thing, I guess.

They don’t really have a way to produce drones, or radioactive materials. The shitty Hamas rockets are about as much as they can do with the resources and institutions available.

Some kind of chemical warfare might be an option, but salt isn’t really strong enough to do much in any reasonable quantity. And there’s the whole moral issue about if it’s justified, and the PR issue - they’re obviously the net victims, making that more ambiguous while still not winning outright would not be in their interest.

Optionally, if you can find a way to arc the shrapnel down you could go for a type of cluster munition or shrapnel bomb that is designed to still be deployable after taking a ballistic missile.

Per the article that’s what Iran has been doing. It seems like they could add submunitions to a Hamas rocket, although it would take effort and there might be other considerations I don’t know enough to speak to.

Honestly the Palestinian’s main asset is just that the US is turning isolationist and everybody else in the West is running out of ability to ignore Israeli bastardry. If they keep surviving opportunities for change will probably arrive. And then we’ll have to worry about genocide running the other way.

There seems to be a real tendency to want to narrow the band of what a functioning adult is, centered right around whatever age the poster happens to be at.

I mean, he’s a pro-war blogger. I feel like that would fall squarely into the “leopards ate his face” category.

Just like in the old days.

I mean, it still works, it’s just non undefeatable. For the kind of remote attacks Palestinians might launch it’s quite effective.

Of course. You should only believe things white people on Lemmy who already agree with you post. Like the article in OP. /s

I mean, that’s what they were thinking.

Not zero-indexing people’s attractiveness SMH. /s

I’d have a lot of studying to do if I was Italian. Judges and prosecutors being overly cozy sounds bad, but fascists messing with the judicial system also sounds likely to go wrong.

So then this would mean a 1 in binary is a decimal 5?

Does blowing up Iran’s supreme leader seem better or worse, then? I dunno, it’s all just war by international laws and norms. (Although Trump has to avoid calling it that for domestic legal reasons)

Colonialism was a whole other thing, though, it wasn’t just a lack of sovereignty. There was forceful extraction of wealth going on, which is why India went from one of the richest places on Earth to a very poor nation over the period of British rule. There’s “neocolonialism” where rich nations get an unfair deal in more indirect ways, but the scale is just dramatically smaller, and at the Western end amounts to shaving off cents.

The thing with Chinese investments is they are happy to front the money sometimes, but eventually they call in their debt. Places in Africa are finding out about this the hard way right now. I also question if powering all of Cuba is really something even they could do in a span of weeks.

I think there’s a degree of ego there. If the “leader of the free world” can be an obvious moron and non-subtly evil, what does that say about whether they got whatever fancy job they have on merit?

If they had said “arrested” or something maybe you’d have a point, but “whisked” isn’t far off.

I mean, they have trouble paying for basic stuff. I’m sure they’re setting up solar as fast as I can but it’s not going to solve the current crisis.

I’m surprised they still maintain an embassy.

Hmm. You know, if it’s something like an MBT it may remained sealed in some way, for all I know. A bunch of aluminum at mach 1.5 is going to have significantly less cutting power than a rod of depleted uranium at mach 3. A whole plane might have a crushing effect that no normal-sized munition would, though. And then there’s the fire raging over top of whatever is left.

Except you definitely win over the long term instead of definitely losing, because Meta is a real company that gets real money off of it’s customers.

Basically, it’s based on the value of a bunch of big, publicly traded companies. The whole “when the markets go up it means more economy” thing is an oversimplification, but it kinda works in that when things break profits go down, and so does the value of shares in ownership of them.