this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
229 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19080 readers
4910 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

As I wrote 8n another string...

Those assessments, if true, were certainty shared with the Israelis. Problem is that there is no actionable intelligence, but certainly Israel could have moved up its security posture. The same thing happened on 9/11 when Rice was advised and did nothing to upgrade security as she was NSA.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For some governments they view the break out of violence as an opportunity.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There is no justification for terrorism. There is no justification for a government wishing violence on its citizens. Both of these concepts should be easy to agree with.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 2 points 1 year ago

You forgot about money and racism, which is all the justification that Netanyahu and his ghouls need.

[–] mo_ztt@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Wait, I'm confused. Can you tell me though which of the sides is "my people?" Then I'll know whether it's justified.

/s :-(

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The same thing happened on 9/11 when Rice was advised and did nothing to upgrade security as she was NSA.

Yeah but even if the US had decided to increase security, I doubt it would have really prevented highjackers from seizing the planes.

The biggest difference is that netanyahus failed to move security forces back to the border, keeping them preoccupied with protecting the illegal settlements. More than likely this wouldn't have been possible, or at least nearly as bad if the current administration wasn't so fixated on the settlements.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Arguably, preventing violence against illegal settlers is a higher priority for the Netanyahu regime than preventing violence against innocent civilians, because illegal settlers are reliable Netanyahu supporters and innocent civilians are not.

It's standard neofascist strategy. Trump, Modi, Orban, Putin, etc. would do the same.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

That's kinda my theory as well, his regime and Hamas are codependent on each other being willing to escalate violence to maintain their hold on power.

I believe that bibi probably thought there would eventually be some escalation that he could utilize to consolidate power, I just don't think it was going to be quite as large or effective.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Used to travel quite a lot. Before 9/11 when you landed in say Germany you would get eyes on you from the time you left the plane. There was always security with machine guns. Don't know if that would have given al Queida pause, but it would have been something instead of nothing.

As for Bibi, he'll be gone as soon as the war is over. It's happened before in Israel.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Used to travel quite a lot. Before 9/11 when you landed in say Germany you would get eyes on you from the time you left the plane. There was always security with machine guns. Don't know if that would have given al Queida pause, but it would have been something instead of nothing.

Really? I'm an old fart as well, and I don't ever recall ever seeing security armed with machine guns pre 9/11, especially in Europe.

Though I guess it depends on how far back you're talking. If it's early 90's or late 80s it might make more sense, there were more than a couple odd terrorist groups active in the western part of Germany back then that may have juiced up security.

[–] bufordt@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Lived in Germany in the 80s, flew in and out of the Frankfurt airport every year. There was a bombing there in 85, and for years after that there were people with automatic weapons in the airport.

We flew out of Frankfurt a couple days after the bombing. It was a bit tense.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think things changed after the 72 Munich Olympics. The subtle part was the cleaning crew that always seemed to be cleaning your gate and giving you the once over. The not so subtle part was fully strapped security officers. I suppose things might of changed with the travel databases.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Ahh, yea the 70s to about mid 80s was the golden age of plane highjacking. Your visit may have been after the Lufthansa highjacking in 77' by the PLO. Germany had a massive increase in security after that lasted until the early 90s.

The last time I was in Germany pre 9/11 was around 97 I think? They had relaxed on the security by then, at least for transatlantic flights. Sometimes I forget how crazy the late 80s and early 90a were in Europe.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Worse, they actually lowered security because their soldiers were too busy evicting and killing civilians in the West Bank.