What I fear if/when Israel retaliates.

[Imallin4Joe]

Of course, innocent casualties. There will be casualties.

But the environmental consequences could become a nightmare.

Theories floating around the media suggest that Israel will bomb energy production facilities in Iran including oil, natural gas, nuclear etc. Israel will try to cripple Iran's energy production and possibly their nuclear facilities.

Most of Iran's nuclear facilities are deep underground. Not sure of the environmental impact of destroying a nuclear reactor deep underground. That's above my pay grade.

The pollution from destroying these facilities can cascade and pollute the entire planet.

This shit is becoming a nightmare with no good answer.

[mucifer]

1. Yup. It's insane the pollution in Ukraine and even parts of Russia.

[Frasier Balzov]

2. What about just targeting the factory which makes Iranian missles?

Israel must be as interested in not polluting the neighborhood as we are.

[bdamomma]

3. Bibi

is as bad as Putin, killing machines, and the felon wants a purge??????

[PCIntern]

4. Yeah... let's all create hypothetical scenarios wherein

Israel is the villain and OMIGOD LOOK WHAT THEY'VE DONE!!!!

And then of course there will be civilian casualties of the “innocents” and OMIGOD LOOK WHAT THEY'VE DONE.

Hey…what about a thread excoriating Iran for sending 200 missiles into Israel? No? Because, right, there are no innocents in Israel. Just for a minute think if this had happened to Detroit or Buffalo. I’m SURE the only thing Americans woukd have on their minds is the innocents on the other side.

Oh and one more thing: we proudly state that the Administration believes that “Israel has the right to defend itself”. What frigging sovereign nation in the world DOESN'T have the right to defend itself? Did anyone ever say in a discussion America has the right to defend itself? Of course not, it’s a given.

[Oopsie Daisy]

6. Perfect response. Very clear. Thanks for calling out the antisemitic bullshit.

Oh and one more thing: we proudly state that the Administration believes that “Israel has the right to defend itself”. What frigging sovereign nation in the world DOESN'T have the right to defend itself? Did anyone ever say in a discussion America has the right to defend itself? Of course not, it’s a given.

Preach!!

[AloeVera]

9. I'm all for defending oneself from an attacker.

As long as it applies to everyone equally.

Does Lebanon have the right to defend itself? Gaza? How about Iran since it's about to be half-obliterated?

What frigging nation doesn't have the right to self-defence? The ones we don't like.

Obviously.

[PCIntern]

10. They have every right to defend themselves

As did Iraq in the Gulf War. Their military was annihilated. Remember what Patton said: the object of war is not to die for one’s country, it’s to make the other poor bastard die for his country.

[Igel]

12. Hizb Allah is based in Lebanon.

It's the attacker.

Do attackers and aggressors have the right to defend themselves?

Sure.

Should they lose that defense?

Sure.

I mean, we can all get behind Russia's right to defend itself against Ukr when it attacks R, right?

[AloeVera]

13. A victim is not entitled to go on a killing spree.

There are laws and rules for individuals and nations.

So if Ukraine started mass slaughtering Russian civilians, cutting off aid and food supplies, committing domicide, scholasticide, medicide, genocide - they'd lose their victim status and become the aggressor. Should they be allowed to continue?

If 33 deaths from rockets give you victim status but 41,689 deaths from bombs do not, I'd say there is a problem with devaluing the life of certain people against others.

I'd add that there is also a problem recognizing when self-defence turns into heinous aggression and mass atrocity. Or perhaps the bigger problem is not caring when it does because it's your side doing it.

[Beastly Boy]

18. It helps to know the rules and laws for individuals and nations before envoking them.

Who is responsible for domicide, scholasticide, or any other other -cide issues (pun intended) you brought up, those who rendered the facilities in question unfit for their intended use and dangerous for humans to inhabit, or those who conduct demolition to eliminate the dangers?

If you were only to look into the applicable rules and laws, you would be surprised at the answers, while learning something new.

But considering how often the gratuitous and fallacious use of the term "genocide" has been discussed on DU, it would appear that learning something new is not in your plans for the conceivable future.

[Happy Hoosier]

14. Did you conveniently forget...

That Lebanon has been permitting Hezbollah to fire missiles into Israel by the thousands from their territory? Lebanon is not the victim here....

[AloeVera]

15. Perhaps you conveniently forgot Gaza?

Where 41,639 people have been killed or rather vastly more, as we will find out.

If you disagree with the concept of allies coming to the defense of those under attack, I gather you are not in favour of the U.S. supplying bombs and billions to Israel.

Hey, I'm all for that. I think war-mongering mass atrocity-committing Israel should go it alone.

Oh and you also ignore or perhaps were not aware that it is Israel that has committed over 80% of the cross-border strikes, killing 20 times as many people as Hezbollah, since Oct 8th but before the current aggression on Lebanon? Yup, about 8,313 aerial strikes killing 752 Lebanese people.
(Source: ACLED).

So who is the aggressor?

[Happy Hoosier]

16. Nope, I didn't.

1) Lebanon is not Gaza... but nice attempt to change the topic.
2) Although I criticisms of Israel's behavior in Gaza, I think the casual glossing over of Oct 7 is certainly on-brand.

And I'm entirely unintersted in casualty ratios. That has nothing to do with the justification of the strikes. If Lebanon doesn't want the IDF to strike in their territory, maybe make Hezbollah GTFO.

Until then, they have no room to cry victim.

[AloeVera]

17. A few things...

1). You're not a believer in cause-and effect. Unless of course it's Oct 7th.

2). I have noticed the criticism. Pleasantly surprised.
Oct 7th does not justify the barbaric response by Israel. Just as nothing that came before justified the barbarity of Oct 7th.
So why would I bring in Oct 7th when pointing to the cause-and effect of Gaza and Hezbollah?

3). That's why you don't seem to understand proportionality. Or perhaps not care.

Would love to know your solution for Lebanon to get Hezbollah out.

Only Israel can ever cry victim apparently. Actually given it's history, that's highly delusional.

[Beastly Boy]

19. Cite your sources, or forever hold your peace.

Something tells me you will not do either.

[AloeVera]

21. How can I, since I had you on ignore as you well know.

You pose questions and comments you knew I wouldn't see. Totally fair.

I will do you this one last favour as you seem to have a problem with Mr. Google. The source for was in my post. Perhaps the acronym ACLED threw you off.

ACLED is funded in part by the U.S. State Department. It bills itself as "the highest-quality and most widely used near real-time source on political violence and protest data worldwide". If you have the inclination, peruse it at your leisure. Lots to learn, especially about Gaza's destruction.

As for the death toll, you know where it comes from. The one and only source, hobbled immeasurably by the hospitals' destruction. You just want me to say it so you can denigrate it.

It's getting real old.

[Beastly Boy]

22. Citing your sources is customary if you want to be taken seriously.

Having me on ignore doesn't absolve you from responsibility to accurately cite your sources, as you well know. Shutting your eyes and ears to my posts was your choice, so don't blame the messenger. I had no say in evaluating the fairness of your decision, nor do I have any say in when you may change your mind or for how long.

I told you many times that I will challenge you whether you respond or not. Putting me on ignore is your choice, which will not stop me from keeping my promise.

I am probably better aware of what ACLED stands for than you are, the reason being that I actually clicked on the link Al Jazeera provided in their article, which took me to page that has nothing to do with Al Jazeera's claims. Furthermore, I searched the ACLED cite for the information attributed to them, and I could find none. I also consulted with Mr. Google in the search of what you claimed Al Jazeera claimed, and Mr. Google told me that no source other than Al Jazeera and those who cite Al Jazeera ever made any claims resembling Al Jazeera's (I am paraphrasing Mr. Google here, to make my recollection of what Mr. Google related to me suitable for being posted on DU).

Apparently, despite making claims, you did less work (if any at all) to justify these claims than I did to challenge them.

Which, of course, makes any of your claims of casualties suspect, to say the least. Time and again, your sources turn out to be incomplete, inaccurate, unreliable, biased, non-existent or all of the above.

[AloeVera]

24. Yes, I should have cited the original source

Or rather, the source where the analysis came from, which was Al Jazeera. However the data source was ACLED. So I was not wrong about that.

I can admit a mistake.

Something I have NEVER seen you do.

Humility is a virtue, you know. None of us are infallible.

[Beastly Boy]

25. I repeat: THERE WAS NO DATA YOU ATTRUBUTE TO ACLED ON THE ACLED WEB SITE!

Am I under some sort of an obligation to admit to something non-existent?

That's not humility, it's an invitation to be gaslighted. Something you probably already noticed is not that easily accomplished in my case.

[AloeVera]

27. I thought you knew ACLED is a data aggregator that anyone can access

Do you have an account? Al Jazeera does. That's how they were able to generate their analysis, sourcing the data on their chart.

ACLED does some analysis too, in limited scope. You didn't find it because they had not done that particular analysis, but they have the data. That's why you didn't find it.

I'm trying to be nice. It's my nature, believe it or not.

Good night.

[Beastly Boy]

30. You say ACLED has the data.

Before you invoke ACLED, show me that data.

Then, if you want to bring Al jazeera into it, show me the methodology Al Jazeera used to generate their analysis on the data you have lready shown to me.

Al Jazeera showed me nothing of the sort. I hope you have better luck and more credibility than they have shown.

[Eko]

29. You should take your own advice.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1134141691#post23
Something tells me you wont either.

[EX500rider]

5. During the Iraq War Hussein set alight hundreds of oil wells

And let so much oil into the Persian Gulf it covered it to a foot or two, I don't think we'll see anything that bad.

And Israel will be more likely after Iranian uranium production facilities centrifuges Etc and you are correct they are underground where they won't do much damage if destroyed

[sarisataka]

7. Why doesn't Israel use clean missiles,

like Iran and their terrorist pawns, that cause no environmental damage?

[BannonsLiver]

8. I'm more focused on the election, which is the most important thing going on in the world right now.

[Beastly Boy]

11. I envy your bravery. You seem to fear nothing if/when Israel doesn't retaliate.

[roamer65]

20. The Great Middle Eastern War.

Salted with ample potential for WW3.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

23. Trump is telling them to blow up their nuclear facilities.

Something that all the nations avoid except North Korea.

[Clouds Passing]

26. Morons who make war ruin life for everyone

[no_hypocrisy]

28. And what if Israel doesn't have a complete assessment of Iran's nuclear capabilities?

Specifically, what if Iran already has manufactured nuclear bombs and is storing them?

And if Israel detonates any or all of them, there will be a nuclear disaster for the entire Middle East, and consequently, the rest of the world.