Never fried one in bacon grease, but they are good with bacon and cheese. I have had more than one restaurant point out that their bacon wasn't vegetarian when ordering, though.
I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Exposure and discovery aren’t that tightly correlated. Maybe there’s a small effect, but I think it is outweighed by the fact that blast radius and spread is reduced while buying time for discovery.
Somehow with all the thingamajigs that the Israeli apparatus has, from spy networks to informants at the upper levels of the IRGC, and a heavily militarized population, and a heavily fortified border along both the West Bank and Gaza (even more than the Jordanian or Egyptian borders), somehow they still couldn't detect and stop a breach of their barricades.... Hmm.....
And let's not forget, all of this happened right when protests in the streets against Netanyahu were at their highest levels.
> If I found a group of terrorist sympathizers invading my property and dancing on it I wouldn't be very empathetic to them
But it would be your choice to commit terrorism back at them. Plenty of people across history have chosen both ways. It tends to go much better for one group over the other.
I don't think that's "terrorism" as much as it is self defense. The Haitian Slave Revolt and Indigenous American Pueblo Revolts come to mind as analogous military actions that produced positive results.
> don't think that's "terrorism" as much as it is self defense
Everyone says this. If October 7 had limited itself to military targets, this would have been different. If current polling showed Gazans pushing for only military retaliation, I think things would be different.
Everyone has the right to self defense. But everyone also gets judged by how they do it.
> Haitian Slave Revolt
Claimed territory with a plan for maneouvre. Not particularly comparable outside minor tactical elements.
> Indigenous American Pueblo Revolts come to mind
This is a good analogy. I’ll have to read up on it more. To wit, however, they eventually accepted the new—awful, unfair and racist, I may add, but survivable and superior to the alternative of endless war—status quo.
> This is a good analogy. I’ll have to read up on it more. To wit, however, they eventually accepted the new—awful, unfair and racist, I may add, but survivable and superior to the alternative of endless war—status quo.
Well the Spanish returned and ultimately subjugated them but it's considered the reason that the South West was able to retain its indigenous culture and language to a degree not seen elsewhere.
Mind you this was 1680, which kind of brings into perspective how barbaric the Zionists have been to essentially recreate one of the greatest crimes in human history hundreds of years later, with a supposed framework of human rights that had developed since then.
Its pretty easy. You can register a number with a phone company. Then you decide on the cost (eg. 5 bucks / minute). I recall he told me got like 100-150 usd/month from this. The longer he talked, the more they paid. He used to hang up after 10 or 15 minutes, but his "record" was close to one hour.
damn the whole operation is all-or-nothing... US just shouldn't have started this if it couldn't finish off the regime cleanly
this is going to become a worldwide economic disaster:
iran learnt it can
1. bully nearby gulf-nations
2. block hormuz
without much retaliation, and US can't do much due to internal politics (well a lot of people don't like Trump...)
so what cards do each nations have left?
can US "talk" with / use threats against iran and "make it a good guy"?
just talking threats can't force current regime to 'become good' -- bombing's not scary anymore
even economic gifts won't work: economically, iran is not vietnam: it has huge oil reserves, and it can hold hormuz hostage -- so time and effort can't make current regime 'a friend of US'
so... diplomatic chance is LONG GONE...
even if biden or obama becomes the president, they can't solve this: the 'benefit of doubt' is gone
so... unfortunately... the only card left for US and its allies... is ground troops...
or some alternative to hormuz...
> can US "talk" with / use threats against iran and "make it a good guy"?
Problem is Iran leadership especially would need to retarded to trust any good guy promisses from USA.
I mean, USA breaks promisses to literally anyone, but it specifically bombed Iran already twice during negotiations. And its history involves usa turning hostile each time relationships seems to get better.
How can you play good guy with history like that? And with present of attacking literal own allies?
This is not religious fanaticism, it’s just a hated state apparatus trying to survive. If I was in the Iranian government making decisions I would squeeze the strait of Hormuz until Trump cries uncle because that’s the best way to survive.
A bad deal will just give a short break before Israel and US strike a third time.
> it’s just a hated state apparatus trying to survive.
well unfortunately its survival would mean tighter control of iranian populace: it now has an excuse to do so ("are you an american spy? why do you disobey higher command?")
iran will become more like north korea more than before...
as for the iranian people? well those guys could have been driving porsche like qataris people...
They could've been driving Porsches, except for the D'Arcy Concession which only left Iran with 16% of the profit from oil business in their country for a few decades... followed by Britain using their military might when Iran decided that a few decades of that was enough... followed by the US supporting regime overthrows after that... and so on and so on...
Iran is the way it is because the West has been ruthlessly exploiting their resources, undermining their government, and attacking them militarily for the last 100 years.
> US can't do much due to internal politics (well a lot of people don't like Trump...)
I don't know why you're throwing this out casually, like the difficulty is merely due to political dissent? People "don't like" Trump precisely because all of his policies are exactly like this idiotic attack on Iran - poorly thought out, and inevitably end up doing the exact opposite as what he claims they will do. Trump's whole modus operandi has always been aggressive escalation against other parties, then making negative-sum "deals" to extract wealth. This half-works in business but absolutely fails in international relations (why all of our traditional allies are sitting this one out, at best).
You keep attributing these actions to the "US", but the truth of the matter is that the competent people at the top who was coming up with options like "here is a plan but it requires hundreds of thousands of US troops for years" would have been sidelined and replaced with a Party loyalist sycophant who said it would be easy. For further reading, see this HN thread on the Military Failures of Fascism https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47523207
You're saying that you personally wouldn't complain if it were Biden sending 100,000 troops, or Obama sending 500,000 troops?
I certainly would.
But the fact that the US doom industry has been beating the drum at Iran for years, while the US military intelligence community has still held back on actually attacking speaks volumes about what a poor idea this was.
Dig in? Was already aware of his book, and he's made many more weird books. Trump's cabinet are all weird little goblins, some more Nazi than others, like Miller.
Why do you assume I did any digging at all? I just said we might find out some fun stuff in his emails about his weird book, which I already was aware of. Presumably the SAT includes properly written words and sentences, not whatever you spew out.
hmm gotta try that