People are the product of their environments. Obviously there are dissenters, and such criticism is not an all encompassing blanket. But in terms of cultural relevance, the Zionists who engage in this rhetoric clearly make up the majority of Israelis and are also those with the controls over the levers of Israeli society.

I accept many different cultural practices and beliefs. I think variety makes the world beautiful in most cases. I have little tolerance for acts of barbarism however. The American Jews I have met do not support genocide. Just because you are an Israeli does not give you special considerations. I really don't care about historical persecution either. I care about what is happening now. History is there for us to understand the context of what happens today. It is not a justification for whatever carnage Israel feels it deserves to inflict on others and it isn't justification to shut down conversation of the subject either.

Text book racist? Funny. I consider myself somewhat of an ethno-nationalist with some civic allowances depending on the state. Similar to the nationalist Israeli position. I just draw the line at killing people.

This post was edited by Gilgameshed on Mar 14 2026 03:03pm

While others... do not.




This post was edited by Gilgameshed on Mar 14 2026 06:41pm

the US middle eastern bases are in shambles, forces are pulling out, billion dollar radar and missile defense systems destroyed, missile stocks at all time lows.....the end of Israel is near and so is the collapse of the American military stranglehold

It is being reported that Iran used cluster munitions to attack Tel Aviv, reports suggest two people were killed overnight, bringing the total to ~16 (similar numbers of American troops killed). Meanwhile it is estimated that over 2000 have been killed in Iran since the start of the bombing. We should expect for more disproportionate attrition as time goes by, especially if the Israeli/US numbers reach triple digits. Iran is not waging total war, knowing if they did so Israel or the US would destroy Iran with total war (think current bombing x1000).



all of these attacks, to my mind, are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The US has no problem using and building more bombs and bases.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 18 2026 02:15am

My dad and I were talking about this yesterday. I told him that while we control the air, their reality is falling buildings and the loss of their top leaders. But despite that, I still think they’re showing restraint. They’re terrified of the 'Gaza Scenario' knowing that if they push too hard, the response will be total and absolute


This post was edited by Many_Names on Mar 18 2026 04:23am

yes.

My dad disagreed with my take; he’s convinced they’re already going all-out, pointing to how they’re lashing out at neighboring countries as proof of their desperation.

I think there’s an element of truth in both takes. Iran clearly isn’t fighting at full do-or-die levels—if this were truly existential, we’d likely see far more extreme and unconventional forms of escalation.

Quite frankly, it seems like Iran has adopted a strategy of making the conflict as costly as possible for its adversaries and the wider global system, particularly in financial terms, while hunkering down and trying to weather the storm. Given its ideological framing of the US and the dollar, there’s an internal logic to targeting what it sees as the foundation of its opponents’... "evil" culture - money and oil.

That said, I’m not convinced it’s an especially effective strategy. It feels strategically unfocused—imposing costs in a diffuse way without actually shifting the balance of power or improving Iran’s long-term position. It may create short-term economic disruption, but it’s unlikely to fundamentally alter the trajectory of the conflict or secure a better outcome for Iran. Iran needs allies and nothing it has done enables that. Closing the door on options to my mind is just stupid.

At the same time, the regional strikes and broader responses show they’re not exactly holding back either. It feels more like calibrated escalation: pushing hard enough to impose costs and signal capability, but stopping short of anything that would trigger a truly overwhelming response from the US or Israel (who WOULD respond with overwhelming force if Iran did succeed in a mass casualty event). In a way its quite similar to how the US waged the war in Ukraine against Russia - push as hard as they can, tanks, F16's, long range missiles, deep strikes - without provoking a nuclear response from Russia. When a nuclear response was imminent, (with Russia signalling it was going to Nuke Ukraine) the US pulled back. The fact that Ukraine is not happy that the US pulled back is morbidly humorous.

This conflict began 3 weeks ago. We will know alot more in about 3 weeks time. But Israel should be quiet comfortable that Iran will not do anything drastic - unless something drastic happens to undermine the state of Iran. This is also the fundamental problem - what does Benjamin want, or rather, what will Benjamin do, to Iran. This is his last chance to do something before he retires.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 18 2026 04:47am

"Going all out" is hardly the important metric, also.

Iran could exhaust its entire supply of ballistic missiles, and then replace them in a fraction of the time it takes Israel to replace their interceptors, let alone their smart bombs. So the time it takes to exhaust the first volley is hardly important the iranians have the macro advantage, when you have macro advantage you can afford to exhaust. i agree there's no context in which we can say Iran is holding back though, it just doesnt really matter unless Israel escalates and invades or brings out a LOT bigger bombs (if they have any, never can tell).

LOL

Keep dreaming