Zoraptor

If it was Australia it would have been more like 20 years ago I suspect. We have a bilateral trophy (Bledisloe Cup) with Aus that we haven't lost in ~20 years now but which they regularly won in the ten years prior to that, usually very narrowly and in the last minute or so. They also knocked us out of the 2003 World Cup- not narrowly- triggering one of the greatest sporting sledges of all time (of all time!) from George Gregan: "Four more years". Some people still carry the psychological scars from that. Anyway, South Africa won yesterday so it's RSA- England and NZ- Arg in the semis. The meme final would be England vs Argentina in a Las Malvinas On a Pole match- and Argentina to win, obviously- but that's least likely to happen. Doubt either of the semis will be anywhere near as good as NZ- Ireland or RSA- France were either.

Well, I did say we'd likely make the semis, and we've done that. We ought to make the finals now, I can't see even this team losing to an Argentina that has been as erratic as us but from a lower base point. Would be a laugh if it happened though. We played pretty close to our practical potential. Ireland didn't play badly at all, but were nowhere near their potential. Never winning a quarter final and coming up against the ABs --> bit of a choke, sadly, especially since they were a man up for 20 minutes plus a penalty try. Real shame for Ireland that the draw was complete crap, they'd have beaten Fiji/ England/ Argentina/ Wales pretty handily most likely and then the quarter final bogey would have been gone when they met better opponents. As it stands, the best four teams at the tournament are playing each other in the quarters which pretty much sums up the competence of international rugby management.

The main problem with that reasoning is that you can always apply it in reverse. If you're going to blame Gazan civilians and make it all their fault then you can also blame Israeli civilians and make it all their fault too- even more so since the Israelis voted in their religious whackjobs, repeatedly. Half of Gaza's population wasn't even alive last time they got a vote. And of course it's completely irrelevant as a defence against war crimes. You can't remove protected status from civilians because they won't fight your war for you.

Gaza City is still 600k which would be a city most places. Roughly Homs sized, if we're talking places that have been bombed fairly recently.

At the risk of taking a HoonDing post seriously, they aren't going to be wanting superannuated F16s or prehistoric M113s or Leo1s back at all, let alone for Israel. Best thing for them is to catch a lancet or kornet since it spares the scrapping costs. OTOH, Israel has supposedly burned through a year of war in Afghanistan's worth of munitions (specifically air launched munitions) inside a week. You'd suspect them and 255mm ammo will be in even shorter supply. Gaza Strip is 2.2 million people, that's Mosul or a Lepo sized so definitely not a town, and it took the US a year and Syria 4 years to 'level' them.

The use in Lebanon may well be legit. Use as a smoke screen etc is fine, and the Lebanese border isn't built up. In Gaza though, not so much. The still photo AP had up is pretty damning since WP's dual use that makes it 'legal' is smoke, and there really isn't a legit argument for a smokescreen in the middle of Gaza city. The Russian 'WP' isn't White Phosphorus but is actually thermite. As always, since they don't actually have WP munitions. Its legitimate secondary use is that thermite will burn through metal and is therefore effective against armoured vehicles, cf if you want to 'spike' artillery nowadays to make it unusable thermite is often used to burn out the breech. While you wouldn't want to get hit by any its chemical effects on humans are considerably less than WP's. Funny thing seeing people insist Israel isn't using WP because "it doesn't look the Russian WP". Yeah guys, there's a reason for that. Easy way to tell the difference: thermite burns incredibly brightly and is extremely hot but does not smoke much (until it hits the ground). WP doesn't burn as bright but always smokes extensively since the phosphorus oxides are all extremely hygroscopic (water absorbing) and it and they react aggressively with that water- hence its use as a smokescreen. That hygroscopic property is also why it's banned in many military applications since it sticks to anything damp like, well, a person, and will eat its way straight through to the bone while releasing a lot of energy.

That all kind of depends on how often there are threats/ warnings but no follow through. If Egypt reports imminent attacks multiple times a year without them happening then complacency creeps in. Indeed, I'd expect any reasonable strategy from Hamas to include a lot of deliberate false alarms. eg send a lot of mass nonsense texts like 'the dog needs walking on the boulevarde on Mars' or 'the seagull follows the trawler because it thinks: sardines' to operatives multiple times so 'climb Mount Niitaka' looks like just another false alarm. Not really a very sophisticated strategy, but very effective due to human nature and people acclimating to threats when they repeatedly don't eventuate. The issue is more that there didn't seem to be any substantive back up to the fence more than anything, and that's a result of hubris. You should always plan for people to get complacent and Israel certainly seems to have decided that they'd 'solved' the problem with the barrier and didn't need extensive back ups. So it was complacency all the way down. Very much doubt there was any 'collusion' at work. Closest analogy is probably Yom Kippur 1973, and Golda Meir resigned after that. Of course she had more integrity in her fingernail clippings than Bibi has in his entire body (no great compliment to Golda's excess keratin though, anything is greater than zero) but still, last thing Bibi wants is more calls to resign and indeed you'd suspect such situations are #1 on his Not To Do List. He's probably got carte blanche (despite some rumblings from Lapid) until the immediate crisis is over, but then all bets are off.

There may be some similarities to French thinking prior to WW2 but for Maginot specifically there's only one peripheral similarity, that a few Hamas went around it via the sea. The vast majority went straight through the Gaza barrier. The Maginot Line broadly did its job, as designed, and was not penetrated until after the war was lost in Flanders and Paris captured; its job was just irrelevant to the war Germany fought. The Gazan barrier was relevant, and it didn't do its job at all. There's literally nothing in that article that shows any particular sophistication beyond what might reasonably be expected. Even the coordination, given that the surge in Hamas comms was specifically noted as being detected but just not acted on. Shooting out cameras and attacking observation posts plus using drones is not exactly rocket surgery. A lack of planning for that is far more symptomatic of colossal hubris/ lack of imagination on the Israeli side rather than any particular tactical brilliance (or outside help) for Hamas.

Depends on whether the rumour that Paradox laid off most of HBS' staff a couple of months ago is true or not. If it's true they may have been planning to write the game off for a while and just get what they could out of it. Doesn't really fit their attitude with VTMB2, but maybe Fred Wester is channeling his inner Zaslavsson. There are certainly a few of the older Paradox games that should have been written off/ cancelled- Ship Simulator Extreme, Stalin vs Martians and others. Seems the Lamplighters was nowhere near as bad a state as them though.

That's what [tab] was for.

Yeah, I don't think anyone actually expects to see Bibi in the dock in The Hague any more than BushW or Blair (or Putin). Not like I have a high opinion of the ICC, after all. (The issue is that the siege threat was so explicit that it would be almost impossible to use any of the usual arguments that it isn't a war crime. Can't say that water was cut off accidentally when you've said you're doing it deliberately, and a siege of that sort is inherently a war crime. That starts to shift the balance towards the ICC having to do something, because its own credibility is on the line. And they also can't say it isn't their jurisdiction either)

They could achieve the same ends by just turning it off though, if they wanted to be annoying. Indeed, if they wanted to just mess around in general they could have blown up the Ukrainian transit system instead and cut Ukraine off from the transit fees, killing two birds with one stone. As it is they'd have landed themselves with a big bill for repairs when turning a valve would have worked and would still be (and are) paying their enemy for gas transit.

Yeah, but they didn't think it would be moronic at the time, that's the difference. Basically the difference between dying when you set your house on fire because you're short on cash and want the house insurance money vs setting yourself on fire to get your life insurance money because you're short on cash. One is obviously stupid in all circumstances the other was only stupid when something went wrong, from the arsonist's perspective. I don't necessarily agree they did it, just that they'd be the obvious candidate in this case. They don't really need to achieve anything except annoying their enemies and giving them a chilly- or expensive- winter.

The last bit is incorrect. The situation is the same as for Russia/ Ukraine. Neither party there is a member of the ICC either, but one party has requested an investigation and the ICC has accepted jurisdiction. Palestine requested an investigation, the ICC accepted. (Relevant history/ ruling/ etc from the ICC is here for anyone interested)

Submarine, almost certainly, not special forces. Don't think anyone disputed that Russia could have hit Nordstream, just that it would have been completely moronic and counterproductive for them to have done so. This one makes far more sense for Russia to have done since (1) it benefits them (2) there was no response to the Nordstream attack so it's open slather on infrastructure and (3) the time of year means no gas over Winter. Better hope they're keeping a close eye on that pipeline from Norway. If that goes up Europe is in for Interesting Times.

All the important stuff at Dimona is underground. Same as all the important Iranian nuclear stuff is underground. I was thinking a bit more towards the legal end of things. ICC set itself a precedent and yardstick with Putin, now to see if they'll live up to the rhetoric. Declaring that everything is someone else's fault works (somewhat*) publicly/ politically but is specifically precluded from being a defence against war crimes. An indictment against Israels' Defence Minister or Bibi would be... interesting and not just to see how quickly Biden(/ Kirby et al) remembers he voted for the Hague Invasion Act once it's someone he likes in trouble with the ICC. Not going to be holding my breath for the ICC to do anything though, even with that explicit confirmation from the Israeli Defence Minister. Kind of surprised that waste of space Borrell actually said something similar, minus the sledge at Biden, I certainly expected the sort of mealy mouthed 'but Hamas is bad!' responses Kirby gave. *somewhat because the kind of person who'd actually accept that argument is fundamentally not going to accept anything other than Israel being in the right. It's not really about actual justification since they'd accept no justification at all, it's about allowing people to still feel morally superior. Meh, that depends on whether they're trying to justify atrocities by stealth or just explain one side's POV. You can understand both the Palestinian and Israel view and explain them without agreeing with or advocating for either.

Golan Heights --> occupied Syria, not Israel. Bit odd for Al-J not to make the distinction, since they did for Hezbollah shelling the GH and (also occupied) Shebaa Farms previously, and just regurgitating an Israeli press release. In any case, so far it's the military equivalent of #StopBibi2023 for both Syria and Hezbollah; a meaningless expression of solidarity without actually doing anything more than firing at empty fields. Which happens a few times a year, usually without much reporting. Going to be very interesting seeing how the Rules Based Order copes with a state party to their Order literally declaring they're going to commit war crimes- and you don't get much more war crimey than Israel's declaration.

Really guys, lay off on the special pleading. Pick Russia stronk! so everyone frightened of them or Russia weak! so no threat and stick to one or the other. Swapping between the two post to post is pretty silly. Yeah, nah. If it would have been a close run thing in the 70s or 80s when it was USSR/ WP vs NATO it wouldn't have been close at all once the WP and part of the USSR had swapped sides- and the start point had shifted back, what, 2500+km in places? End of the day it's, what, 750mn people vs 150mn now, and the 150mn don't really have any advantages at all. Not even nukes, since both sides have them. In any case, it's clear 'the west' would use nukes in exactly the same circumstances Russia would, ie if an invasion looks like it would be successful.

Or for a quotier response: Lord Farquaad "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". We're well past the stage where it's all willing volunteers fighting because dulce et decorum est pro Ucrainsca mori. Easy to say Zelensky is doing it all for the freedoms, you might not get the same response saying it to someone dragged off the street in Odessa or Poltava by conscription officers and being ordered to bum rush Russian lines in a 70s M113.

Tokmak was always the sensible option on the principle of 'under promise, over deliver'. Though in this case it looks like it'd still have been 'under promise, under deliver' it was still more sensible than talking about Melitopol, let alone Mariupol or Crimea. All that talk has resulted in is making the offensive look like a worse failure. Of course, talking too much about the offensive and its aims publicly was also a big part of the problem, albeit probably inevitable given media interest.

The issue is probably with using 'sympathy' instead of a more neutral term. There's a bunch of things at work that is keeping them from calling it off and guilt tripping- as implied by using sympathy- Scholtz, Macron etc would be pretty low on the list. The manpower and equipment losses far outstrip gains and that is unlikely to change for sure, but the reason for keeping going is very likely to be the general political/ morale damage admitting to failure would cause. Which is a very real concern and could be lessened by taking [somewhere significant] after which they could declare victory and stop (and is also likely the reason for the number of attempted 'spectaculars' of dubious military utility). Personally, I find that approach stupid when the only targets available are Tokmak and Bakhmut which would take over a year to capture at current rates and when your manpower is bad enough you're using near Germany 1945 levels of conscription already. The 'funny' thing is how statements have ended up just about perfectly mirroring what was said about Bakhmut 6 months ago just with the people saying them reversed. That was a political decision from Russia, a Pyrrhic victory with ludicrous losses for territory gained and the last gasp of an exhausted army from one side; necessary and would make progress easier and actually losses were fine from the other. Neither of which exactly played out as stated. End of the day though at least Bakhmut and Soledar were decently large towns and you didn't have media describing Sakko/ Vansetti as a 'city' to big up the gains.

Fun (?) fact: the highest point in Australia is ~2200m, the highest point in Haiti is... ~2700m.

Eh... I wouldn't quite give it that label since he doesn't say that the holocaust didn't happen. He didn't actually say that the SS didn't contribute to it either, just that it wasn't their primary role. Which is... arguably true, though it's splitting hairs and a specious argument that relies on the SS'- the armed wing of the Nazi Party- primary role being combat, in the service of a genocidal entity, rather than genocide itself. Not an argument I'd care to defend as anything other than an example of sophistry though. Strangest thing about that article is not that Mr Giles decided to write it- people write stupid crap all the time thinking they're pearls of wisdom- but that Politico decided to publish it.

Extremely obvious case of Russia Derangement Syndrome there from Mr Giles. To say that 1st/ 14th was not specifically accused of war crimes at Nuremberg is extremely misleading at best and can probably best be described as utter sophistry- ie overt misinformation. All SS units were collectively found guilty of war crimes, there was no need to find them specifically guilty. The author obviously knows that due to the wording, and further because of the mention that foreigners got drafted into SS units. Draftees were specifically excluded from the 'intrinsic' nature of the SS war crimes, hence he can argue that Hunka, as a draftee, was innocent whereas if he volunteered for the SS he was not. He was by his own admission a volunteer, not a draftee. Of course, one suspects Mr Giles would not extend the same... generous interpretation on a draftees immunity from collective war crimes to even genuine Russian draftees, in the current conflict. Indeed, I'd put every cent I have in the bank against a bent penny that he wouldn't. The most stupid thing about it was not giving Russia ammunition for misinformation because unfortunately they don't need misinformation for this, the truth is more than enough. No, the most stupid thing was it happening while Ukraine and Poland were already having a very public spat. Because, of course, the two countries that have found 1st/ 14th to have committed war crimes are Poland and Ukraine (funnily enough, not mentioned by the author) and this was always going to be an extremely obvious wedge issue. Writing a "I'm not trying to justify the Nazis but..." type article just prolongs things too.

Given how poor both sides have been with 'x is dead' type predictions about high profile targets default has to be he's alive and Russia just doesn't really care about debunking it. (None of the debunkings of the conference call video are compelling. The 'hospital bed propped up with pillows' one for example is clearly incorrect (and even if true: not dead) since he's provably used the same chair multiple times before. The only one that works is asserting it's an old/ faked video; which is the same assertion made about Kadyrov's stroll in Grozny a week or so ago... The only high profile claim that may- may- have been accurate was Zaluzhny as I don't think anyone official on the Russian side claimed him as dead, just injured. Even then the evidence is scant- disappeared for a month with multiple provably faked pictures released in that time yes, and never regained the level or style of appearances prior, yes; but that's entirely circumstantial and there are multiple other explanations beyond him being injured)