Theres also the Russian option: level the entire urban area to rubble with artillary.

You seem very insistent on interpreting millenia of history through the lense of an early 20th century political movement.

Yes there has likely always been an element of theatre and leaders exagerating their role in battles, but to claim that nobility/monarchs never came from warrior castes that were active in fighting flies in the face of huge amounts of scholarship. It hasnt been true in industrialised societies since the 18th century at least but that doesnt mean it never was.

There are, the authors estimate, 150 Russian remote nuclear launch sites and 70 in China, approximately 2,500km (1,550 miles) from the nearest border, all of which could be reached by US air-launched JASSM and Tomahawk cruise missiles in a little more than two hours in an initial attack designed to prevent nuclear weapons being launched.

Emphasis mine, I’m pretty sure even Russia can notice hundreds of cruise missiles are heading directly at their silos and figure out that this looks like an attack on their strategic nuclear arsenal in two whole hours, given that ICBMs take around a quarter of that from launch to impact.

You didnt address my point at all. I was saying that the outcome of Dave’s credibility method does not match up with the stated inputs to his method, showing that the whole thing is far more subjective than he wants to appear. Whether or not that subjective interpretation is reasonable in this case or not doesnt really interest me.

In a lot of cases I would agree with you, but laying fiber optic cable through the Amazon in order to connect remote settlements is not feasible, starlink really does have a good use case there.

Even taking all of this screed as true with no qualifications, does that in itself not show that the whole idea of pulling together a few sources about “credibility” and using an objective method to come up with an answer on how trustworthy something is as impossible? By the inputs MBFC list it should be a reasonable if not stellar source, yet they give it the lowest possible rating. Maybe that rating is justified maybe it isnt (I’ve never read anything of theirs) but given the inputs they have it is clear that the majority of the rating is based on the owner’s opinion not on the inputs they have.

Edit, on actually reading through what you wrote, it seems that the negatives are entirely about being critical of Isreal, is this by itself enough to make something not credible?

This is a perfect example of why MBFC is so bad. Mondoweiss has the same factual reporting status as presumably fine sources (the guardian is also mixed factual) it has transparent funding (far better than plenty of others) and comes from a country with mostly free press freedom (USA) and has medium traffic. Yet some how that comes out of the black box as low credibility, the only reason I can see for that is that Dave Van Zandt considers it too left wing.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Israel is buying the weapons with the money marked “for buying american weapons” that the US donates to them.

You dont have to be a tankie to understand that the neverending capitalist search for growth leads to exploitation and eventually backlash.

Withdrawing would just mean they get missiles fired at them by Russia on a daily basis on the other side of the border, and Russia does not have infinite resources, a missile fired in the north is one not fired in the east or south.

TBH I think this is why Ukraine has dont this. It makes all the “freeze the conflict in its current state” calls mean that Russia would have to give up territory too, which would infuriate the ultra-nationalists in Russia and possibly destabalise Putin’s rule.

and I congratulated you on your pedantry, and now you have your answer as to why it wasnt considered in the context of the RECENT (note that bit) attacks on Gaza, as that would have been using something that happened in the future as the context for what was said.

Long covid is generally definied as having any symptoms persisiting greater than 6 (?IIRC) months after first detection, so having a niggling cough that hung around that long would count as long covid. Some form of permenant brain damage is incredibly vague and sounds like it would apply to a night of heavy drinking.

Yes very good, but you asked why it wasnt evaluated in the context of "the biggest massacre of Palestinians since the Nakba?”, and I gave you the answer, because that hadnt happened at that point.

Because in this case it was said on the 11th of October, before Isreal began its genocidal attacks on Gaza but after Hamas murdered over 1000 Isrealis.

It is actually how it works in terms of official punishments(in the US at least):

Amdt5.2.1.2.4 Imposition of Multiple Punishments for the Same Offense

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against imposition of multiple punishment for the same offense.1 The application of the principle leads, however, to a number of complexities. In a simple case, it was held that where a court inadvertently imposed both a fine and imprisonment for a crime for which the law authorized one or the other but not both, it could not, after the fine had been paid and the defendant had entered his short term of confinement, recall the defendant and change its judgment by sentencing him to imprisonment only.2 But the Court has held that the imposition of a sentence does not from the moment of imposition have the finality that a judgment of acquittal has. Thus, it has long been recognized that in the same term of court and before the defendant has begun serving the sentence the court may recall him and increase his sentence.

Obviously not being picked for an olympic team isnt an official punishment, but the principle of not punishing someone for the same crime after they complete their given sentence is true.

Thankfully there are plenty of other voices calling this out including most latin American countries (Including those with left wing governments) and European countries.

And he’s very likely going to jail once he leaves office, so he has even more reason than most to cling on.