The extraverts had the tables turned on them in 2020 and have been itchy for a captive audience ever since. It’s a drug fix for these people, nothing more. I’ve skipped every cross country in-person team building gibberish since 2020 and will continue to do so.

1. it landed upright and tipped over
2. transporting water to orbit, the moon, or beyond, is expensive. Mining it may be cheaper.
3. not everything needs to be a critique of capitalism

Key seems valid. I’ll check all the integers for you to see how accurate it is.

She’s always struck me as more just stupid than antisemitic. Hanlon’s razor and all.

The nytimes reported on a woman found half naked, dead, and partially burned, near where multiple witnesses reported rapes, and during an event where 1000+ people were brutally murdered. They reported her as “likely raped”. If anything they undersold the odds.

If your political worldview feels more coherent if this woman was merely murdered and burned and not also raped, then you do you.

Yes I’m sure. This isn’t the dunk you think it is. If you’ll reread your own bolded section, you’ll see that the police provided video evidence (a dead, partially burned body with clothes to ripped off) to the nytimes, who verified its authenticity. That means geolocated, checked against past photos of the girl, etc. They didn’t verify that she was raped, which is why the very next sentence says “believed raped”.

Seriously this is basic reading comprehension.

Just went and checked the original nytimes article because this is a weird thing to assert now. This girl was found with her clothes torn off in an area where a bunch of rapes were reported, and the police said she was “likely raped”. The nytimes at no point definitively says she was, they just quote the police.

It’s also not true that the article “hinged on the story of Gal Abdush”. Its a long article that goes through several really gruesome rape/mutilation reports. I don’t recommend reading it.

Oh I just meant logistically. There must be thousands of manhole covers and only so many planes. Also at no point in this thread did I defend any of Israel’s actions just so we’re clear.

The last time Iran damaged a US warship we destroyed their entire Navy in one day, with resources that happened to be nearby. I don’t like their chances here.

“damaged” doesn’t actually equate to being unfit for habitation. It spans a wide range from broken windows to barely standing.

The article is deliberately overplaying the human impact to get clicks and make money. I find that gross since the destruction should not need hyperbolizing. All I did was cite the actual quote, and I did so while explicitly emphasizing how bad the true situation is.

Not contesting any of that, although personally I doubt they aimed a 2000 pound bomb at every visible manhole cover. Source, which was the first result for “how many 2000 pound bombs has Israel dropped on Gaza”, is here. Could be an undercount of course.

Literally just a fact-check, unless you’re disputing the original quote?

A quick Google search seems to indicate 500-600 were dropped. This is inline with 2% of the 25-30k total bombs. It also lends credence to the idea that these were mostly dropped on already destroyed buildings, since only then would “tunnels” be visible.

That’s cool and all but I don’t think justifying terrorism by pointing back to events in the 1300s is particularly convincing. Literally every country and ethnic group has past grievances, but we can’t just constantly re-open them by killing the great-grandchildren of oppressors, and we shouldn’t excuse those that do.

Agreed, dropping a bomb that large in an urban environment is frankly insane. My understanding is that only 2% of bombs dropped are 2000 pounders, and presumably they are mostly used against large, hardened targets, so we should keep in mind that they are at least a rarity. That being said they probably account for an outsized number of destroyed buildings and civilian deaths.

In that Iran is trying to widen the conflict, sure. Practically speaking it’s a separatist group in an unrelated country terrorizing a shipping lane.

I don’t know, but we can do some back-of-the-envelope math. Start with 2 million people total, averaging maybe 10 people per building, gives 200,000 residential buildings. Some of these are 100+ person highrises, but others are single family homes. If each bomb, on average, destroys a building, we get 25-30k destroyed using recent bomb estimates. Obviously some bombs destroy more, but others hit already destroyed buildings.

If we then take the 70% number as gospel, that is 140k buildings “damaged or destroyed”, so that would give us something like 30k destroyed, 110k damaged. This ratio is why the article in question is being disingenuous.

Of those 110k, you ask how many just have broken windows. As I said I don’t know, but just based on what I have seen, bombs can break windows a quarter mile away, especially when the overpressure is channelled down a city street. This is much farther than you’d see actual structural damage. If I had to guess, most of these damaged buildings will fall in the “broken windows” category.

The Houthi’s are the ones launching missiles at passing ships as well as assaulting them and taking hostages. That would be a declaration of war anywhere else. This really isn’t a case of the west “just starting another war”

The actual figure is “70% damaged or destroyed”. Not a whole lot better, but there is a huge difference between a house with some broken windows and a pile of rubble. The article shouldn’t be hyperbolizing - the situation is bad enough as it is without lying to us.

To be fair to you though all of these boundaries are kind of arbitrary. Most bombing is in Gaza city, western Ukraine has been largely unaffected, etc. A better metric if we’re looking at “callous indifference to collateral damage” might be simply civilian deaths per bomb dropped, although the use of human shields in Gaza may throw that off as well.