Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Agreeing not to take part in Arab boycotts of Israel is in no way the same thing as not being able to criticize Israel's government.

Calling BS on this claim.

---

Lots of Americans want to boycott doing business with Israel bcs its an evil country... and it is absolutely our right to do so.

---

Fine, do so without state or federal money.

Your choice.

---

Do I still have to pay taxes?

---

Of course you do. But paying taxes does not mean you get to decide what laws you will obey or not.

---

If this were 1776, you would be wearing a red coat for sure.

---

Your .000 batting average in guesses continues, barBearian.

I'm not into hating Jews or ignoring History the way you do.

---

see where the brain rot goes? You start hating Jews, then you start hating your fellow citizens who do not share your hate, to the point of calling them traitors. Once you demonize your own, you are willing to build gulags to punish them for wrong-think.

boognish_bear said:

---

Tucker Carlson: "We're moving toward one of two endpoints."

"One is a totalitarian society, where... you have to obey, because you've got programmable digital currency and universal surveillance."

"Or, we're going to have a revolution."

"The current course won't work because… pic.twitter.com/s3pV5s1OMD

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) March 28, 2026

---

This guy's dire predictions are a hoot. They literally never come true.

But boy does fear mongering generate clicks...

Mothra said:

---

The reason I asked you to quote the specific language of the GC you are referencing is because I wanted to see exactly what the language says. You've still haven't done so, so I looked it up for myself.

The language you are referencing is stricter, as well as more nuanced, than what you are suggesting. You appear to treat the destruction of civilian property that isn't "absolutely necessary" as automatically unlawful. That's an oversimplification.

Article 147 defines "grave breaches" (the most serious violations), not all violations. Indeed, the relevant legal standard you've referenced (without quoting) is whether destruction is "rendered absolutely necessary by military operations", otherwise justified under "military necessity and proportionality." As I've repeatedly argued, punitive demolition can be viewed as a form of lawful security measure, not "unlawful violence." In short, your position assumes that the demolition is purely punitive. But Israel's stated justification is deterrence preventing future attacks. As any lawyer well knows (and I know you are not), that matters legally.

Indeed, the GC is quite clear that nation states are permitted to take preventive security measures against ongoing threats. I would submit that If a policy is aimed at deterring imminent or recurring attacks, it can be framed as part of military necessity, not arbitrary or unlawful punishment. You don't have to agree with the policy to see the legal distinction: collective punishment (clearly illegal) vs. deterrent security measure tied to an ongoing conflict (indeed, Hamas' has remained at war with Israel, with its stated goal of annihilation of the Israeli nation state. You make your argument under the first prong, when there is clearly an alternative to the interpretation you see as patently obvious (newsflash: it's not).

As for your position that the GC or international law provide that a state can only destroy property if there is no other conceivable option, that simply isn't in any way accurate. Military necessity generally allows actions that provide a definite military advantage (as here), and are not otherwise prohibited. A state could certainly argue that suicide bombings or attacks are hard to deter through conventional policing, that harsh deterrents reduce future attacks and, therefore, demolition contributes to military/security objectives. Now, you may dispute whether that works, but legally, effectiveness and intent matter.

As for your quibbling with my referring to terrorism, if you recall, you are the poster that started out this discussion by calling Israeli demolition of homes of mass murderers terrorism. Your position that the act constitutes terrorism, as you originally argued (but now seem to be abandoning, after being called out) is by far the weakest. You define terrorism as unlawful violence plus political purpose. Even if we assumed for sake of argument that the act was unlawful, your "political purpose" prong is being stretched to the absurd. By your logic, any state action aimed at influencing behavior (deterrence, sanctions, policing) becomes "terrorism." A state attempting to prevent violence is simply not the same as a group using violence to cause loss of life and spread fear as a primary tactic. Intent matters, but you seem to conflate the two.

In short, your legal reasoning is incomplete and overconfident rather than "cut and dry," as you've attempted to paint it.

At the end of the day, you're damn right I do make a moral judgment on which side's objectives and goals are moral and just, as opposed to taking your more wishy-washy "nuanced," and quite frankly, cowardly approach. I make no apologies for that. I would rather take a stand for what I believe is right rather than lay in the weeds like like you and Sam, taking potshots at a country fighting for the right to exist against an enemy that uses terrorism and targets civilians, while refraining from criticizing the terrorist organization seeking the nation state's destruction. That fact doesn't mean I support everything Israel does, as I've already stated. But on this specific discussion, you're just not able to make a persuasive argument to fit your narrative.

---

Even if you don't see it that way, you seem to admit that you are not being objective about this, or, to whatever extent you had objectivity, it seems to go out the door once you have decided which side is more moral and just. The Palestinians believe they are fighting for their right to exist on land taken away from them... And I just don't want to be involved with either side. So this is more of an academic exercise than anything else at this point. That said...

*I have told you from the jump that your proposed course of "blow up the dead terrorist's house to send a message" is less interesting to me, and it only serves as a micro example of the much larger issue when such a strategy is pursued at scale. Under Article 147, the intentional destruction of hospitals when part of a pattern of systematic attacks against hospitals has been charged as a war crime constituting a "grave breach".

*You said:

Quote:

---

You define terrorism as unlawful violence plus political purpose. Even if we assumed for sake of argument that the act was unlawful, your "political purpose" prong is being stretched to the absurd. By your logic, any state action aimed at influencing behavior (deterrence, sanctions, policing) becomes "terrorism."

---

Any state action aimed at influencing behavior WHEN COMBINED WITH UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE is terrorism. It isn't just the goal of influencing behavior; it is the goal of influencing behavior PLUS unlawful action = terrorism. It is not just the the intent in of itself. E.g., I do not believe the death penalty after full due process is terrorism (lawful state action + intent of influencing behavior is *NOT* terrorism). I do not think killing Hamas members is terrorism. On the other hand, summary execution by the state in the absence of immediate threat and due process for the purpose of deterring future crime is terrorism.

You are the one who is stretching definitions here. Virtually any act can be framed as a deterring action during war. There is no discernable limiting principle here. So please offer your limiting principle.

I quoted the IDF general above who explicitly said the approved plan is that disproportionate force of total destruction will be used against any village from which an attack on Israel is launched. You haven't objected to that.

So, if it is okay to destroy the dead terrorist's home in the name of deterrence, it is okay to destroy the apartment complex his home was located in (around 80% of all housing stock in Gaza is multifamily and I am unaware of any bombs that only damage the apartment in question but leave the rest of the apartment complex undamaged)?

If it is okay to destroy the apartment complex is it okay to destroy the city block?

If it is okay to destroy the city block is it okay to destroy the neighborhood?

If it is okay to destroy the neighborhood is it okay to destroy the district?

If it is okay to destroy the district is it okay to destroy the city?

If it is okay to destroy the city is it okay to destroy province?

If it is okay to destroy the province is it okay to destroy the entire territory?

If it is okay to destroy the entire territory is it okay to destroy the entire political entity?

If it is okay to destroy the political entity is it okay just kill all its people?

You just tell us where the line is for you. This is strictly a judgment call, so I won't fight you on it. I just want to know where the line is for you.

You said

Quote:

---

As I've repeatedly argued, punitive demolition can be viewed as a form of lawful security measure, not "unlawful violence."

---

It simply cannot be viewed as a lawful security measure under the GC. Take a look at Article 33.

Quote:

---

Article 33:

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

---

This was an antisemitic conspiracy theory yesterday https://t.co/K0FYXzp7nl

— Kaguya’s Top Gal (@hayasaka_aryan) March 31, 2026

muddybrazos said:

---

This was an antisemitic conspiracy theory yesterday https://t.co/K0FYXzp7nl

— Kaguya’s Top Gal (@hayasaka_aryan) March 31, 2026

---

Now watch as the goal posts move for the Zionists on this board.

I can hear it now… "Israel needs total hegemony over the Middle East to ensure peace throughout the region" !

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. That seems to either be a misunderstanding of my position, or a gross mischaracterization of it.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

If I had told you when you started this thread that in the next 6 months Israel is going to start a war to take half of Lebanon you would have called me crazy and implied I was one of the bad guys from WW2.

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

If I had told you when you started this thread that in the next 6 months Israel is going to start a war to take half of Lebanon you would have called me crazy and implied I was one of the bad guys from WW2.

---

I will point out that your post assumes, of course, this is what occurred.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. That seems to either be a misunderstanding of my position, or a gross mischaracterization of it.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

IT MADE ZERO SENSE TO ATTACK IRAN RIGHT NOW! What is the expressed reason for the attack? Do you understand the utter danger the world economy is in right now?

Under reported in the USA:

Inda has seen panic buying of diesel fuel. The Indian government is desperately trying to calm its domestic fuel market. Plz, explain how you move needed goods around a country without diesel?

New Zeland has around 45 days of refined products available. They'll start rationing in a couple of weeks.

Major and critical mining companies are putting out press releases to their investors announcing that
they have secure diesel supplies. (Hint: you don't do that unless there is a big problem).

Qatar, the world's most important natural gas supplier, has had 20% of its capacity knocked offline for 3-5 years. That means around 5% of worldwide LNG capacity is going to be offline for the next 36 to 60 months. LNG is a critical feedstock for fertilizer. This means higher food prices are incoming.

And this playing out around the world. Mercifully, we're insulated from these problems in the USA for now because those buys in west Texas figured out shale, but eventually the inflation spike is going to come to our shores.

So please what is the urgent, sensible reason for why we attacked Iran na four the world's economy in play?

What should Israel do? First I don't care if we aren't involved (directly or indirectly). But if we are involved (directly or indirectly) Kill all its enemies. Just do everything possible to minimize collateral damage and protect innocent women and children and other noncombatants.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

---

Did you watch Tucker's interview with Huckabee?

Israel doesnt follow international law and views the UN as an illegitimate body with no governing authority so the UN's position is irrelevant.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

---

Did you watch Tucker's interview with Huckabee?

Israel doesnt follow international law and views the UN as an illegitimate body with no governing authority so the UN's position is irrelevant.

---

It's funny. Suddenly the friendly neighborhood Zionists care what the UN thinks

I mentioned months ago how the UN has raised concerns of genocide in Gaza and the usual suspects told me it was leftist propaganda. But it's a different story when the UN recognizes Israel's right to exist…

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. That seems to either be a misunderstanding of my position, or a gross mischaracterization of it.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

IT MADE ZERO SENSE TO ATTACK IRAN RIGHT NOW! What is the expressed reason for the attack? Do you understand the utter danger the world economy is in right now?

Under reported in the USA:

Inda has seen panic buying of diesel fuel. The Indian government is desperately trying to calm its domestic fuel market. Plz, explain how you move needed goods around a country without diesel?

New Zeland has around 45 days of refined products available. They'll start rationing in a couple of weeks.

Major and critical mining companies are putting out press releases to their investors announcing that
they have secure diesel supplies. (Hint: you don't do that unless there is a big problem).

Qatar, the world's most important natural gas supplier, has had 20% of its capacity knocked offline for 3-5 years. That means around 5% of worldwide LNG capacity is going to be offline for the next 36 to 60 months. LNG is a critical feedstock for fertilizer. This means higher food prices are incoming.

And this playing out around the world. Mercifully, we're insulated from these problems in the USA for now because those buys in west Texas figured out shale, but eventually the inflation spike is going to come to our shores.

So please what is the urgent, sensible reason for why we attacked Iran na four the world's economy in play?

What should Israel do? First I don't care if we aren't involved (directly or indirectly). But if we are involved (directly or indirectly) Kill all its enemies. Just do everything possible to minimize collateral damage and protect innocent women and children and other noncombatants.

---

Again, you seem to be arguing against a position I haven't taken. I have no clue why we decided to attack now. My suspicions are that we had just struck Iran's nuclear facilities, and given the brutal crackdown on all dissent in Iran, decided to go in and take out its leaders responsible for slaughtering civilians. It sounds from Trump's reasoning like he believed that would result in the people rising up and calling for regime change, but it appears he severely overestimated their ability to do that, as well as the stranglehold the Islamists have on power.

But it still makes zero sense that the reason we attacked Iran now is so Israel could grab a small strip of land in Lebanon.

Thanks for the response on Israel. I don't disagree with you.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

---

Did you watch Tucker's interview with Huckabee?

Israel doesnt follow international law and views the UN as an illegitimate body with no governing authority so the UN's position is irrelevant.

---

To answer your question, yes.

As for Israel, whether they currently believe the UN body is illegitimate is not really relevant to the fact the world decided that Israel had a right to exist.

I know you believe they don't, of course, and hope for their destruction at the hands of the Islamists. The groypers and Islamists make for strange bedfellows, but share a common hatred for the Jews.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

---

Did you watch Tucker's interview with Huckabee?

Israel doesnt follow international law and views the UN as an illegitimate body with no governing authority so the UN's position is irrelevant.

---

It's funny. Suddenly the friendly neighborhood Zionists care what the UN thinks

I mentioned months ago how the UN has raised concerns of genocide in Gaza and the usual suspects told me it was leftist propaganda. But it's a different story when the UN recognizes Israel's right to exist…

---

What's even more funny is your strawmen arguments. They are a hoot.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

---

Did you watch Tucker's interview with Huckabee?

Israel doesnt follow international law and views the UN as an illegitimate body with no governing authority so the UN's position is irrelevant.

---

To answer your question, yes.

As for Israel, whether they currently believe the UN body is illegitimate is not really relevant to the fact the world decided that Israel had a right to exist.

I know you believe they don't, of course, and hope for their destruction at the hands of the Islamists. The groypers and Islamists make for strange bedfellows, but share a common hatred for the Jews.

---

I used to be apathetic towards Israel and just wanted to completely disassociate and no longer fund them with my tax dollars, but over the last year I have had the epiphany that the world would indeed be better off if Israel no longer existed.

Never has such a minor, insignificant, and totally dependent state cost so many lives and resources and exported so much pain and suffering across the globe.

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

---

Did you watch Tucker's interview with Huckabee?

Israel doesnt follow international law and views the UN as an illegitimate body with no governing authority so the UN's position is irrelevant.

---

It's funny. Suddenly the friendly neighborhood Zionists care what the UN thinks

I mentioned months ago how the UN has raised concerns of genocide in Gaza and the usual suspects told me it was leftist propaganda. But it's a different story when the UN recognizes Israel's right to exist…

---

What's even more funny is your strawmen arguments. They are a hoot.

---

Your trolling bit was entertaining for a while but it's become awfully tiresome as of recent

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

---

Did you watch Tucker's interview with Huckabee?

Israel doesnt follow international law and views the UN as an illegitimate body with no governing authority so the UN's position is irrelevant.

---

To answer your question, yes.

As for Israel, whether they currently believe the UN body is illegitimate is not really relevant to the fact the world decided that Israel had a right to exist.

I know you believe they don't, of course, and hope for their destruction at the hands of the Islamists. The groypers and Islamists make for strange bedfellows, but share a common hatred for the Jews.

---

I used to be apathetic towards Israel and just wanted to completely disassociate and no longer fund them with my tax dollars, but over the last year I have had the epiphany that the world would indeed be better off if Israel no longer existed.

Never has such a minor, insignificant, and totally dependent state cost so many lives and resources and exported so much pain and suffering across the globe.

---

Yes, I understand you hate them, wish death and destruction on them, and blame them for the world's ills, including your own personal problems. You've made your hatred very clear. If they were nuked off the map tomorrow and completely slaughtered, you'd be celebrating their genocide. Anyone who has read your posts totally understands the depth of your hatred for them.

And you now have a small, but vocal minority who agree with you. You may get your wish, we will see. The Islamists are producing babies at a rate unmatched by Western society. So someday, your kids - should you choose to have any - may have the Koran as required reading. But at least it won't be the Tanakh.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

---

Did you watch Tucker's interview with Huckabee?

Israel doesnt follow international law and views the UN as an illegitimate body with no governing authority so the UN's position is irrelevant.

---

It's funny. Suddenly the friendly neighborhood Zionists care what the UN thinks

I mentioned months ago how the UN has raised concerns of genocide in Gaza and the usual suspects told me it was leftist propaganda. But it's a different story when the UN recognizes Israel's right to exist…

---

What's even more funny is your strawmen arguments. They are a hoot.

---

Your trolling bit was entertaining for a while but it's become awfully tiresome as of recent

---

Well, you should know, youngster.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

---

Did you watch Tucker's interview with Huckabee?

Israel doesnt follow international law and views the UN as an illegitimate body with no governing authority so the UN's position is irrelevant.

---

It's funny. Suddenly the friendly neighborhood Zionists care what the UN thinks

I mentioned months ago how the UN has raised concerns of genocide in Gaza and the usual suspects told me it was leftist propaganda. But it's a different story when the UN recognizes Israel's right to exist…

---

I wonder how they feel about Resolution 38/17.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

---

Did you watch Tucker's interview with Huckabee?

Israel doesnt follow international law and views the UN as an illegitimate body with no governing authority so the UN's position is irrelevant.

---

To answer your question, yes.

As for Israel, whether they currently believe the UN body is illegitimate is not really relevant to the fact the world decided that Israel had a right to exist.

I know you believe they don't, of course, and hope for their destruction at the hands of the Islamists. The groypers and Islamists make for strange bedfellows, but share a common hatred for the Jews.

---

I used to be apathetic towards Israel and just wanted to completely disassociate and no longer fund them with my tax dollars, but over the last year I have had the epiphany that the world would indeed be better off if Israel no longer existed.

Never has such a minor, insignificant, and totally dependent state cost so many lives and resources and exported so much pain and suffering across the globe.

---

Yes, I understand you hate them, wish death and destruction on them, and blame them for the world's ills, including your own personal problems. You've made your hatred very clear. If they were nuked off the map tomorrow and completely slaughtered, you'd be celebrating their genocide. Anyone who has read your posts totally understands the depth of your hatred for them.

And you now have a small, but vocal minority who agree with you. You may get your wish, we will see. The Islamists are producing babies at a rate unmatched by Western society. So someday, your kids - should you choose to have any - may have the Koran as required reading. But at least it won't be the Tanakh.

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

---

Did you watch Tucker's interview with Huckabee?

Israel doesnt follow international law and views the UN as an illegitimate body with no governing authority so the UN's position is irrelevant.

---

To answer your question, yes.

As for Israel, whether they currently believe the UN body is illegitimate is not really relevant to the fact the world decided that Israel had a right to exist.

I know you believe they don't, of course, and hope for their destruction at the hands of the Islamists. The groypers and Islamists make for strange bedfellows, but share a common hatred for the Jews.

---

I used to be apathetic towards Israel and just wanted to completely disassociate and no longer fund them with my tax dollars, but over the last year I have had the epiphany that the world would indeed be better off if Israel no longer existed.

Never has such a minor, insignificant, and totally dependent state cost so many lives and resources and exported so much pain and suffering across the globe.

---

Yes, I understand you hate them, wish death and destruction on them, and blame them for the world's ills, including your own personal problems. You've made your hatred very clear. If they were nuked off the map tomorrow and completely slaughtered, you'd be celebrating their genocide. Anyone who has read your posts totally understands the depth of your hatred for them.

And you now have a small, but vocal minority who agree with you. You may get your wish, we will see. The Islamists are producing babies at a rate unmatched by Western society. So someday, your kids - should you choose to have any - may have the Koran as required reading. But at least it won't be the Tanakh.

---

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

---

Did you watch Tucker's interview with Huckabee?

Israel doesnt follow international law and views the UN as an illegitimate body with no governing authority so the UN's position is irrelevant.

---

To answer your question, yes.

As for Israel, whether they currently believe the UN body is illegitimate is not really relevant to the fact the world decided that Israel had a right to exist.

I know you believe they don't, of course, and hope for their destruction at the hands of the Islamists. The groypers and Islamists make for strange bedfellows, but share a common hatred for the Jews.

---

I used to be apathetic towards Israel and just wanted to completely disassociate and no longer fund them with my tax dollars, but over the last year I have had the epiphany that the world would indeed be better off if Israel no longer existed.

Never has such a minor, insignificant, and totally dependent state cost so many lives and resources and exported so much pain and suffering across the globe.

---

Yes, I understand you hate them, wish death and destruction on them, and blame them for the world's ills, including your own personal problems. You've made your hatred very clear. If they were nuked off the map tomorrow and completely slaughtered, you'd be celebrating their genocide. Anyone who has read your posts totally understands the depth of your hatred for them.

And you now have a small, but vocal minority who agree with you. You may get your wish, we will see. The Islamists are producing babies at a rate unmatched by Western society. So someday, your kids - should you choose to have any - may have the Koran as required reading. But at least it won't be the Tanakh.

---

---

---

https://t.co/uYH93kQZms pic.twitter.com/ABtqOB6TwW

— fiat money (@fiat_money) March 31, 2026

Clowning on Zionists and their supporters is easy work.

You can't make this up. pic.twitter.com/ypjch1jFTR

— Rye-B (@ImmaCallYouBack) March 30, 2026

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

---

Did you watch Tucker's interview with Huckabee?

Israel doesnt follow international law and views the UN as an illegitimate body with no governing authority so the UN's position is irrelevant.

---

To answer your question, yes.

As for Israel, whether they currently believe the UN body is illegitimate is not really relevant to the fact the world decided that Israel had a right to exist.

I know you believe they don't, of course, and hope for their destruction at the hands of the Islamists. The groypers and Islamists make for strange bedfellows, but share a common hatred for the Jews.

---

I used to be apathetic towards Israel and just wanted to completely disassociate and no longer fund them with my tax dollars, but over the last year I have had the epiphany that the world would indeed be better off if Israel no longer existed.

Never has such a minor, insignificant, and totally dependent state cost so many lives and resources and exported so much pain and suffering across the globe.

---

Yes, I understand you hate them, wish death and destruction on them, and blame them for the world's ills, including your own personal problems. You've made your hatred very clear. If they were nuked off the map tomorrow and completely slaughtered, you'd be celebrating their genocide. Anyone who has read your posts totally understands the depth of your hatred for them.

And you now have a small, but vocal minority who agree with you. You may get your wish, we will see. The Islamists are producing babies at a rate unmatched by Western society. So someday, your kids - should you choose to have any - may have the Koran as required reading. But at least it won't be the Tanakh.

---

---

---

https://t.co/uYH93kQZms pic.twitter.com/ABtqOB6TwW

— fiat money (@fiat_money) March 31, 2026

---

Your strawmen and false dichotomies are always a source of amusement.

Thanks.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Welp, I've been saying in this thread to keep an eye on southern Lebanon. The other shoe dropped yesterday:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/middleeast/southern-lebanon-israel-buffer-zone-intl

Quote:

---

The Israeli response has been aggressive: a massive aerial bombardment of Hezbollah positions including in densely populated cities, displacement of a million Lebanese with no option for return, and a fullscale Israeli ground incursion in the south of the country.

---

Of course, justified in the name of security:

Quote:

---

Israel's strategy marks a deliberate reversal from its approach after October 7, 2023. Rather than evacuating civilians from the danger zone in Israel, the government has opted to force residents of southern Lebanon to flee their homes and establish a buffer zone on that side of the border.

The military is currently holding positions up to 10 kilometers deep in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told CNN. The government is aiming to go even deeper, targeting at least 18 military positions across the area with declarations of plans to control territory all the way up to the Litani River, some 15 to 20 miles north of the Israeli border.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, explicitly citing the Gaza model, has laid out the principle: "where there are terror and missiles, there are no homes and no residents."

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all-houses-near-lebanon-border-defence-minister-says-2026-03-31/

Quote:

---

Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.

Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended.

More than 1.2 million people have been displaced and another 1,200 have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah on March 2, ignited by the group's decision to open fire in support of Tehran in the regional war.

The Litani River meets the Mediterranean about 30 km (20 miles) north of Israel's border, and the area between it and the Israeli border amounts to nearly a 10th of Lebanon's territory.

---

Honestly, the USA attacking Iran has made very little sense from an American perspective. Reports are that American intel unanimously agreed Iran was NOT close to a nuclear weapon but that another intel agency argued to the contrary. I have wondered if the Iran conflict was really a distraction to go grab southern Lebanon.

---

This conclusion makes little sense. You risk an all-out war with Iran so you can grab a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from Hezbollah attacks? Highly doubtful.

I don't agree with this move, as this seems like an overreach by Netanyahu if this is in fact occurring. That said, it appears from the article that Hezbollah started firing rockets again into Israel civilian centers in early March. This is the response that followed.

That is the thing about these skirmishes. It is almost always the side that calls for the destruction of Israel that starts these things, and then Netanyahu responds in ways that many deem disproportionate. But I suspect the vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

---

It is one hell of a coincidence that yesterday, on the same day that (a) Israel openly acknowledges what it is doing in southern Lebanon then (x) Trump announces he does not care about the Strait of Hormuz and that if Europe cares about Hormuz then Europe can come open the Strait, (y) Trump announces that the US has accomplished what it needed to accomplish in Iran and will be ready to leave in 2-3 weeks and (z) equity markets around the world seem to have bottomed out and are on the upswing.

Watch for Trump tonight to declare victory and announce that we will leave if Iran engages in a cease fire that holds. Otherwise, the amphibious forces that we've been positioning in the ME over the past few weeks will be ready to go.

Attacking Iran at this moment made zero sense. Multiple reports that the American Intelligence community concluded Iran was not close to achieving a bomb. If Israel wanted southern Lebanon (for whatever reason), having the US occupy Iran was going to create the easiest path possible for Israel to achieve that goal as Iran would not be able to support its client militia forces in Lebanon.

I don't think 100% of the 600,000 now homeless people from southern Lebanon were challenging Israel's right to exist. If it was just 50% does that justify kicking out the other 300,000? Also, this is going to push hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from south Lebanon into north Lebanon where the 30-35% of Lebanon that is Christian lives. Watch for that disaster to unfold in the coming decade.

I want to test your idea that the side with the moral high ground gets to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security. Play along with me, for just a minute:

Assume Mexico had the military capability to do the following:

1. Claudia Sheinbaum declares that Americans have an insatiable appetite for narcotics and Americans' industrious ability to continually smuggle weapons into the Mexican drug cartels cannot be stopped.

2. American drug dollars plus American weapons have resulted in a state of permeant, paramilitary guerilla warfare in Mexico that has costs hundreds of thousands of lives and that threatens the safety and security of the Mexican people.

3. Consequently, in the name of its security, Mexico is going to seize everything south of the Red River along with massive parts of southern New Mexico, Arizona and California (I am assuming your home is impacted by this seizure). This amounts to right around 10% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. Mexico will then bulldoze everything in the seized territory in order to create a militarized security buffer where people cannot travel and commerce cannot happen.

Your reaction to the foregoing is?

---

If you will re-read my post, I was challenging a very specific point you made in your post - your belief that attacking Iran was cover for Israel taking a small strip of Lebanon to use as a buffer from rocket attacks. As I said above, that makes zero sense.

If you will re-read my post, I also said that I don't agree with Netanyahu's overreach. To be clear, if CNN's reporting is accurate and Israel is indiscriminately bombing a civilian center, that is immoral and should not be condoned.

Thus, I reject the entire premise on which your hypothetical is based: the side with the moral high ground does not get to (seemingly) do whatever it wants in the name of security.

I suppose the real question for you, and those who hold your worldview, is - is Israel justified in doing anything in response to being attacked, in your minds? And if so, what?

---

Your premise is flawed.

Israel is a mutual combatant in a war the jews and their devoted slaves, guys like yourself, started 80 years ago.

They are not a victim.

---

Ah, so you reject the UN's position that Israel has a right to land and an existence, as set forth in Resolution 181. I am not surprised by this, and it of course confirms exactly what I stated in my post above: "The vast majority of those objecting just don't agree that Israel has a right to exist in the first place."

Thanks for the confirmation.

---

Did you watch Tucker's interview with Huckabee?

Israel doesnt follow international law and views the UN as an illegitimate body with no governing authority so the UN's position is irrelevant.

---

To answer your question, yes.

As for Israel, whether they currently believe the UN body is illegitimate is not really relevant to the fact the world decided that Israel had a right to exist.

I know you believe they don't, of course, and hope for their destruction at the hands of the Islamists. The groypers and Islamists make for strange bedfellows, but share a common hatred for the Jews.

---

I used to be apathetic towards Israel and just wanted to completely disassociate and no longer fund them with my tax dollars, but over the last year I have had the epiphany that the world would indeed be better off if Israel no longer existed.

Never has such a minor, insignificant, and totally dependent state cost so many lives and resources and exported so much pain and suffering across the globe.

---

Yes, I understand you hate them, wish death and destruction on them, and blame them for the world's ills, including your own personal problems. You've made your hatred very clear. If they were nuked off the map tomorrow and completely slaughtered, you'd be celebrating their genocide. Anyone who has read your posts totally understands the depth of your hatred for them.

And you now have a small, but vocal minority who agree with you. You may get your wish, we will see. The Islamists are producing babies at a rate unmatched by Western society. So someday, your kids - should you choose to have any - may have the Koran as required reading. But at least it won't be the Tanakh.

---

---

---

https://t.co/uYH93kQZms pic.twitter.com/ABtqOB6TwW

— fiat money (@fiat_money) March 31, 2026

---

Your strawmen and false dichotomies are always a source of amusement.

Thanks.

---

Hitler would never do that because he knew broadcasting the mechanics of systematically killing millions of civilians would shock and disgust the German civilian population. Israelis are different. https://t.co/aNCItODGOz

— happy (@abjectbaby) April 1, 2026