@ReallyLowELO said in #9:
If u read carefully he said : Israel must respond to this.
It isn't only a question about possibility of a war
If u read carefully he said : Israel must respond to this.
It isn't only a question about possibility of a war
There will never be peace in the Middle East.
@Al-Ghoul Speaking in basic everyday English, the statement is not encouraging Israel to respond, but instead asserting that a response will take place, albeit it is worded badly. Please don’t criticise my understanding of reading the English language, because it is not that bad.
@Al-Ghoul said in #20:
>Threat ≠ actually attacking
Please read again. I wrote "cold war" I didn't say "attack"
>Providing weapons to ally military parties js different then attacking urself
>Us provides weapons to many countries
I will ignore the terrible inadequacy of the example and just say that you are indeed considered supporters of the countries you give weapons to and moreover, it is indeed the right of the country against the country you give weapons to call you "enemy". ". It is indeed so.
And again, the example is unrelated. There is a difference between selling weapons and helping the enemy as a goal...
>Cyber attacks ≠ bombing an embassy and killing people
And here again, for those who missed it, you took a sentence out of context and then attacked it. Fans of the genre, where's the popcorn?!
>Calling a dead man a dog isn't helping your point, and if u justify killing someone by "his time has come" well any murder can >be justified the same way
I didn't call him a dog to justify killing him. I called him a dog because he is a dog. And it is his time to die for the same reason he is a dog: because he is a terrorist!
>Most of the missiles were aiming at military bases or airports, and the huge number of missiles is because Iran knew most of >them would be intercepted
It's already extremely funny! You say that we need to understand Iran, which sends hundreds of missiles to Israel, this is not a serious attack, they just want to hurt, poor people!
(By the way, do you know that the defense against these missiles cost Israel about 4,500,000,000 NIS? That is about 1,200,000,000 dollars)
>There's a difference between aiming at someone and a missile hitting a wrong destination, that's war and mistakes happen
>But some people do kill hundreds and claim it is a mistake aka iof
Looool it's not even worth a comment!
>Eliminate the war-criminals at the head of the zionist government and u have better chances at peace
>Return the stolen land to Palestinians if you want peace
>Release the Palestinian hostages and u got peace
>:)
I'll wrap this up with something that sums up your entire post:
Is there a version with a director of the movie you live in?
>Threat ≠ actually attacking
Please read again. I wrote "cold war" I didn't say "attack"
>Providing weapons to ally military parties js different then attacking urself
>Us provides weapons to many countries
I will ignore the terrible inadequacy of the example and just say that you are indeed considered supporters of the countries you give weapons to and moreover, it is indeed the right of the country against the country you give weapons to call you "enemy". ". It is indeed so.
And again, the example is unrelated. There is a difference between selling weapons and helping the enemy as a goal...
>Cyber attacks ≠ bombing an embassy and killing people
And here again, for those who missed it, you took a sentence out of context and then attacked it. Fans of the genre, where's the popcorn?!
>Calling a dead man a dog isn't helping your point, and if u justify killing someone by "his time has come" well any murder can >be justified the same way
I didn't call him a dog to justify killing him. I called him a dog because he is a dog. And it is his time to die for the same reason he is a dog: because he is a terrorist!
>Most of the missiles were aiming at military bases or airports, and the huge number of missiles is because Iran knew most of >them would be intercepted
It's already extremely funny! You say that we need to understand Iran, which sends hundreds of missiles to Israel, this is not a serious attack, they just want to hurt, poor people!
(By the way, do you know that the defense against these missiles cost Israel about 4,500,000,000 NIS? That is about 1,200,000,000 dollars)
>There's a difference between aiming at someone and a missile hitting a wrong destination, that's war and mistakes happen
>But some people do kill hundreds and claim it is a mistake aka iof
Looool it's not even worth a comment!
>Eliminate the war-criminals at the head of the zionist government and u have better chances at peace
>Return the stolen land to Palestinians if you want peace
>Release the Palestinian hostages and u got peace
>:)
I'll wrap this up with something that sums up your entire post:
Is there a version with a director of the movie you live in?
@devastatingly-hot said in #24:
www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/04/israel-and-iran-must-de-escalate-conflict-protect-human-rights-warn-un
I won't say much
This article says that both attack aren't considered self defense according to article 51
> By the way, do you know that the defense against these missiles cost Israel about 4,500,000,000 NIS? That is about 1,200,000,000 dollars
And? That's the goal of an attack lol, damage the enemy. The Iranian missiles also cost money
www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/04/israel-and-iran-must-de-escalate-conflict-protect-human-rights-warn-un
I won't say much
This article says that both attack aren't considered self defense according to article 51
> By the way, do you know that the defense against these missiles cost Israel about 4,500,000,000 NIS? That is about 1,200,000,000 dollars
And? That's the goal of an attack lol, damage the enemy. The Iranian missiles also cost money
@ReallyLowELO said in #23:
I'm not a native speaker so I assume that you know "better then me" but if I wanted to say that Israel would respond to this I would have said "Israel will probably respond or Israel will respond back" or just simply saying "what if Israel attacks back, will this escalate?"
Saying "must" means it is a necessity and in this case the sentence isn't expressing expectation as you claim
I'm not a native speaker so I assume that you know "better then me" but if I wanted to say that Israel would respond to this I would have said "Israel will probably respond or Israel will respond back" or just simply saying "what if Israel attacks back, will this escalate?"
Saying "must" means it is a necessity and in this case the sentence isn't expressing expectation as you claim
@mortmann said in #5:
> iran did it just right. after the retaliation they can tell their people they did answer the attack on the embassy properly so their people are happy. and they did it in a way, that israel can tell they defended properly against it, so their people are happy to see they are safe even from 100s of missiles. 2 winners. everyone happy, no escalation.
Pretty much eh
or no winners rather
> iran did it just right. after the retaliation they can tell their people they did answer the attack on the embassy properly so their people are happy. and they did it in a way, that israel can tell they defended properly against it, so their people are happy to see they are safe even from 100s of missiles. 2 winners. everyone happy, no escalation.
Pretty much eh
or no winners rather
Take your partners for WW3.
How bout yall just leave it to the people and play chess on a chess website, or u go post smth on twitter (X) about this. This just aint the place to bring it up, have some common sense.
No fun in that.