Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Razgovory]

Dani Marzouca statements are pretty inline with the all the pro-pal organizations in the US.  It's not that "Gee, the Israelis are a little to hard on the Palestinians" it is that Israel must cease to exist.

Yeah, it would be amusing if it wasn't so tragic that you can take pro-Palestinian positions, reverse the words "Israel" and "Palestine" and not be able to distinguish them from the pro-Israel positions.  It seems people love to tacitly support genocide.

Both sides!

[Barrister]

As an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.

I... I would question those sums.

[grumbler]

As an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.

I... I would question those sums.

Feel free.  Keep in mind that Anti-ABM missiles cost in the neighborhood of $3-4 million each.

[Admiral Yi]

People in glass houses....

I think that's Otto's point.  Anyone who makes a public statement opens themselves to judgement.

[Josquius]

People in glass houses....

I think that's Otto's point.  Anyone who makes a public statement opens themselves to judgement.

And mine is he has said far worse.

As said to me it depends on the extent of your shit whether it's justified.
When you hear of cases where someone fucks up and one off makes a joke which gets them jumped on then that's just not cool.

When someone makes a habit of saying really extreme stuff, particularly when targeting others, and despite several warnings persist... Then actions have consequences comes into play.

[Barrister]

As an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.

I... I would question those sums.

Feel free.  Keep in mind that Anti-ABM missiles cost in the neighborhood of $3-4 million each.

The idea that Israel's anti missile system costs more than Iran's missiles?  Sure.

But by 30x as much?

Doesn't sound right to me.  There's lots of ways to inflate the Israeli costs - perhaps by including development costs.

But like I said - I would question it, but I don't know.

[OttoVonBismarck]

As an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.

That isn't quite accurate, most reporting seems to suggest the lion's share of the Iranian attack just fell apart in the sky, so w/e Israel spent (and I don't necessarily believe the reporting for various reasons), would have only been used to defeat a small portion of the attack that didn't fall apart in transit.

[PJL]

As an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.

That isn't quite accurate, most reporting seems to suggest the lion's share of the Iranian attack just fell apart in the sky, so w/e Israel spent (and I don't necessarily believe the reporting for various reasons), would have only been used to defeat a small portion of the attack that didn't fall apart in transit.

That sounds worse if it's implied that the $30 million was the whole lot but only a minority's worth (say $10 million's worth) actually got through to be shot down. In which case it's more like 100 to 1.

[Josquius]

As an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.

I... I would question those sums.

Feel free.  Keep in mind that Anti-ABM missiles cost in the neighborhood of $3-4 million each.

The idea that Israel's anti missile system costs more than Iran's missiles?  Sure.

But by 30x as much?

Doesn't sound right to me.  There's lots of ways to inflate the Israeli costs - perhaps by including development costs.

But like I said - I would question it, but I don't know.

A lot of Irans attack was using super cheap drones. Iirc $20k each or so?
Israel and friends hit them with patriots and the like. Vastly more expensive. Over a million a missile?

Iran also used some ballistic missiles which will cost a lot more. I recall reading this was a first time missiles were intercepted in space.
But I don't think they'd have shifted the dial too much on the massive $ gains of the drones.

Though on the topic it seems some good news is coming out of this with Israel shifting towards aid for Ukraine....

https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-israel-said-to-authorize-sale-of-defensive-military-equipment-to-ukraine/

[grumbler]

It was more than just Israeli missiles, though. In fact, current reports indicate that, in fact, most of the attacking missiles and drones were shot down by US and UK fighters and USN destroyers. 

That said, I have no good way of estimating munitions used and cost, which is why I just quote what the experts say as reported by the press.

[PJL]

As an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.

I... I would question those sums.

Feel free.  Keep in mind that Anti-ABM missiles cost in the neighborhood of $3-4 million each.

The idea that Israel's anti missile system costs more than Iran's missiles?  Sure.

But by 30x as much?

Doesn't sound right to me.  There's lots of ways to inflate the Israeli costs - perhaps by including development costs.

But like I said - I would question it, but I don't know.

A lot of Irans attack was using super cheap drones. Iirc $20k each or so?
Israel and friends hit them with patriots and the like. Vastly more expensive. Over a million a missile?

Iran also used some ballistic missiles which will cost a lot more. I recall reading this was a first time missiles were intercepted in space.
But I don't think they'd have shifted the dial too much on the massive $ gains of the drones.

Though on the topic it seems some good news is coming out of this with Israel shifting towards aid for Ukraine....

https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-israel-said-to-authorize-sale-of-defensive-military-equipment-to-ukraine/

Perhaps if the stand-off re Ukrainian aid continues in Congress, maybe the US military aid to Israel could be re-packaged in such a way that Israel then could send some of it to Ukraine?

[Admiral Yi]

And mine is he has said far worse.

As said to me it depends on the extent of your shit whether it's justified.
When you hear of cases where someone fucks up and one off makes a joke which gets them jumped on then that's just not cool.

When someone makes a habit of saying really extreme stuff, particularly when targeting others, and despite several warnings persist... Then actions have consequences comes into play.

Worse than what?  I haven't caught him trying to peddle any conspiracy theories like that therapist chick.

I don't know what you're talking about with the one off joking stuff.  That doesn't describe anything that's been brought up here.

My position is simple: cancel whomever you want for whatever reason you want, but you don't get to bitch when the other side does the same thing.

[Barrister]

And mine is he has said far worse.

As said to me it depends on the extent of your shit whether it's justified.
When you hear of cases where someone fucks up and one off makes a joke which gets them jumped on then that's just not cool.

When someone makes a habit of saying really extreme stuff, particularly when targeting others, and despite several warnings persist... Then actions have consequences comes into play.

Worse than what?  I haven't caught him trying to peddle any conspiracy theories like that therapist chick.

I don't know what you're talking about with the one off joking stuff.  That doesn't describe anything that's been brought up here.

My position is simple: cancel whomever you want for whatever reason you want, but you don't get to bitch when the other side does the same thing.

Otto has said repeatedly how much he doesn't like Islam as a religion.

Stuff I strongly he wouldn't say publicly, under his real name.

My position is equally simple: people with no public profile shouldn't be fired from their jobs for saying something idiotic on social media.  You can get into a bit of a debate about what does it mean to have a public profile (I mean go after Tucker Carlson or Louis CK all day long, probably your local city councillor, but is some guy with 1000 twitter followers fair game) but I think it's pretty simple.

[Admiral Yi]

My position is equally simple: people with no public profile shouldn't be fired from their jobs for saying something idiotic on social media.  You can get into a bit of a debate about what does it mean to have a public profile (I mean go after Tucker Carlson or Louis CK all day long, probably your local city councillor, but is some guy with 1000 twitter followers fair game) but I think it's pretty simple.

I don't see how public profile makes a difference.  The issue for the employer is whether continued association with that person, public or not, will hurt the bottom line.

Now if you're saying you personally do not withdraw your business in protest from a company which employs a non high profile person who has said things you consider odious, do you think I have a moral obligation to continue business dealings with this guy's law firm?

[Barrister]

My position is equally simple: people with no public profile shouldn't be fired from their jobs for saying something idiotic on social media.  You can get into a bit of a debate about what does it mean to have a public profile (I mean go after Tucker Carlson or Louis CK all day long, probably your local city councillor, but is some guy with 1000 twitter followers fair game) but I think it's pretty simple.

I don't see how public profile makes a difference.  The issue for the employer is whether continued association with that person, public or not, will hurt the bottom line.

Now if you're saying you personally do not withdraw your business in protest from a company which employs a non high profile person who has said things you consider odious, do you think I have a moral obligation to continue business dealings with this guy's law firm?

Because if you choose to put yourself out as a public person and try to influence the wider political debate you should be more willing to accept the consequences.

30 years ago your racist uncle could talk about how much he hates black people.  Such views were odious then, and odious today.  But 30 years ago he'd just get a bunch of dirty looks.  Now, if he says it on social media (or is filmed and the video is put on social media - most of the time again nothing happens.  But one time out of a 100 or a thousand suddenly it goes viral and he's fired.  And the chance of it going viral is very much influenced by certain actors with a very, very specific axe to grind.

And it's one thing with my "racst uncle" example, who is at least older.  When we're talking about college students, or even high school students, it's even worse.  There've been stories about kids getting their university acceptances yanked because of something they said online.