Craig24

You are thus refuting your own unqualified claim that "the tunnel network is a defensive utility for the terrorists"

No.
You are certainly aware that these tunnels are used also for storing weapons, including rockets and missiles. As well as for housing Hamas leadership and operatives.
You are also aware that Hamas fired dozen of thousands of rockets and missiles from Gaza into Israel. in the last weeks, but also before that.
So, let's connect the points to understand how it works: 
Hamas leadership sends small groups of operatives to collect weapons from the tunnel storages, to pop up at the surface from the many hidden tunnel shafts, fire the rockets/missiles then disappear back in the tunnel network.
If this usage of the tunnel network is defensive, what would be an offensive usage???😁

Because it is in the RAND Corporation document, together with “Russian escalation”, „brutality of Russia’s campaign in Ukraine”, „Russian war crimes” etc. ! These are not MY comments!
And even if not quoted literally, in an honest summary there should be a mention of the fact that the study considers the attack of Ukraine by Russia inacceptable and condemns it in the strongest words. And there should be also a mention of the fact that the study starts from the premise that the Russian Federation needs to be confronted.
These considerations are, for the study, the premises for their recommendations: - to continue to oppose RF, but
- to be aware that there are actions which RF will be capable to use as excuses to attack NATO,
- “but they need not operate under the assumption that every action will entail acute escalation risks”
This last point is a direct quote from the Study, namely from their highlighted assessment:
 “A Russia-NATO war is far from an inevitable outcome of the current conflict. U.S. and allied policymakers should be concerned with specific pathways and potential triggers, but they need not operate under the assumption that every action will entail acute escalation risks.”
Yes, precisely, the fundamentals, that is the main ideas of the study, in our case, and not some misrepresentation. Here is my very short, but fair summary:
“While considering the attack of Ukraine by Russia inacceptable and needed to be confronted, the RAND Corporation study advises that the US policymaker should be aware that there are actions which RF will be capable to use as excuses to attack NATO.”
It has 42 words, This can be augmented by a more or less detailed description of the four circumstances with the potential of being used by Russia as excuses to attack NATO. The total will not exceed 300 words [using the dream-weaver's 245-word summary]. The RT’s misrepresentation of the study has 800 words (the study itself has 2’800 words.) Therefore, “space constraints” is a shameful excuse for omitting to include the general position of the study towards this war.

No, it wasn't even a search for hints. It was pretty much so clear to me that it was as if they smacked me in the face. But, I decided to point out anyway exactly how to be skeptical of new sources, which you recommended that we do. I pointed out how quote splitting is a form of taking a quote out of context. People don't take quotes out of context for no reason. 
I mean, regardless of how brief it is, it is never appropriate to split quotes. Here's an example:
Speaking about the "Kremlin's brutal invasion" and why it is not  "included in an RT article", Tony considers how the "propaganda in this story" is written with "heavily edited and paraphrased" information.
I didn't edit your words, I didn't invent anything. I didn't even edit the verb tense. Notice that I didn't even use your scare quotes inappropriately - it's exactly as you wrote it. But with careful placement of words and where to split the quote, it makes it seem like you are suggesting something you never intended. 

If the Ukraine government has been persecuting and murdering Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine, why haven't we heard more about it from organizations like Amnesty International?
 

It's like people forget that we have to extend analysis back 20 years if we want to talk about provocation. 
If NATO provoked Russia, Russia should attack NATO. But they attacked Ukraine with its own issues. If they refused a direct attack on NATO because it would be certain suicide, they would be acting as if the Ukraine was independent of NATO. If NATO provoked, the justified target is NATO. Of course, if the Ukraine is de facto a member of NATO, Ukraine would be a justified target as well. But that would be suicidal, because if the Ukraine were a de facto member, NATO would retaliate. Except, NATO didn't retaliate. So I would conclude that Russia didn't think it was suicidal, and did not consider the Ukraine a de facto member of NATO. 
In other words, if NATO provoked, Russia attacked the wrong country. 
But then you might say "they knew that NATO would try to remain noncommittal to give the illusion of innocence!" The simple explanation: NATO doesn't consider Ukraine a member in the first place, so why would it commit? 

Israel is a "Jewish state" the same way France is a "French state". Zionism isn't the imposition of Judaism, it's Jewish nationalism. It's EXACTLY THE SAME as French nationalism. If you asked Macron tomorrow whether he would like France to remain French, he would say "Absolutement." Exactly the same answer Bibi would give, if you asked him whether he wants Israel to stay Jewish.
That's what a "national state" is. That's what "nationalism" means: it's the idea Europeans had, back in the 19th century, of replacing empires, kingdoms, dukedoms, and all the other aristocratic states, with states which draw their borders based on the ethnic identity of the inhabitants. And, once those borders are established, "nationalism" becomes the desire to preserve that ethnic identity.
And the vast majority of relatively capitalist countries follow this nationalist model. Just. Like. Israel. And that's no coincidence. There's immense value in the 1000 year language, culture and history of the French, or in the many thousands year language, culture and history of the Jews. Immense value to the state as a whole (the stability and wisdom of state institutions which often follow a model that's been tested and perfected over the course of centuries), and to the individual lives of the people who live in that state. The Jewish identity (with those thousands of years of culture that implies) is the reason why Jews have better lives than most others, both in Israel and elsewhere. It's why so many Nobel winners are Jews, so many billionaires are Jews, etc.
In short, French nationalism and Jewish nationalism (as I just described them) are both positive ideas, which contribute to positive outcomes both on the state and on the individual level. Obviously, ultra-nationalism goes beyond what I just described, and it doesn't lead to positive outcomes. But ultra-nationalism is atypical both in France and in Israel.
Back to the point:the notion that Israel is a theocratic state is a blatant lie. It's not, it's a typical western, national state. Aside from Switzerland, I can't even think of a major western country that's not a nationalist state. This includes the "monarchies" ... because those are strictly symbolic, the government is nationalist, not aristocratic.
Israel is also a democracy, of course, and, like all democracies with religious people in them, they have political representatives which push religion. These politicians represent minorities which identify by their religion, and vote accordingly. In Israel, there are two minorities which vote like that: people who vote based on their Judaism, and people who vote based on being Muslim. They are BOTH minorities (the orthodox Jewish vote is in fact smaller than the Muslim vote). They are both smaller minorities than Evangelicals in the US. Neither of them runs Israel to any significant degree.
I'll edit in a tldr, in all caps, so it sinks in: ISRAEL IS LESS RELIGIOUS THAN THE US. Americans sniping at Israel over religion is ridiculous. And, of course, Muslims sniping at anyone over religion is just madness.

I agree that someone who doesn't live in the region shouldn't focus too much on this. I'm quite deliberate in avoiding spending significant time on it myself. It's been days since I last posted in this thread, and that was the last time I discussed it, anywhere.
But that's not really what we're talking about. EVERYONE in this thread has already made the decision to dedicate some focus to the issue, so it would be absurd to interpret "I don't care" as "I choose to not direct my focus to it".
What "I don't care" means, in this thread, is "I'm focused on this (as evidenced by my presence in the thread) but it doesn't illicit a reaction in me".
And "I don't care because the rape and murder victims are of a different ethnicity than me" ....
Well you're here anyway, so why not exercise your rational faculty, and pass some judgement. Not on everything all at once. I don't want to take up too much of your time and focus. But pass SOME judgement.
In fact, since all journeys start with a single step, let's just decide ONE THING. The simplest, easiest decision in all of this, imo: Is Hamas evil, yes or no? That should take very little effort to answer.
 

Yeah, Russia is heroically trying to save the people of Ukraine, led by Putin. If it wasn't for the West, people would stop dying. Russia would be able to unleash freedom upon Ukraine. 
Yeah, Russia was always so nice ever since Putin came to power. Why would so many countries react defensively.  

Yes, this is an Ayn Rand fan-forum, but it is practically unmoderated (the nominal moderator is @dream_weaver).
As a consequence, @whYNOT does not consider having an obligation to back up his claims with facts, even if asked to. Also, he is approvingly referencing and quoting Putin's Russia governmental media and non-Russian commentators working for these media, which also don't back up their claims with facts, or back them up with fake "facts".
You may follow my debate with @whYNOT in this "About the Russian aggression of Ukraine" one year old thread. It is very long, so that you have to be quite motivated... Pay attention to his constant anti-Western, particularly anti-Western media stance.
He sees the generally pro-Ukraine position of the mainstream Western media as being a result of the activity of a centrally-driven propaganda machine - a conspiracy, IOW. He sees no other possible explanation.
The tactics I am using with him is to challenge him to prove his claims with facts. He never does, thus confirming his irrationality, but this doesn't bother him, nor does it bother the moderator...
So yes, @whYNOT is an Ayn Rand fan, but only in the sense that he quotes her from time to time, with no visible understanding of Objectivist epistemology and ethics/politics. Maybe this happens only with the subject Putin vs Ukraine...
His current defense of Israel's right to exist and defend itself is not based on principles, it is a whim: as I already said, even a broken clock is right twice a day.😁

Well, this is not quite exact. More precisely, it is quite INexact:
Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), added by the Lisbon Treaty, states:
"If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States."
IOW, it includes a caveat that this obligation does not prejudice the security and defense policies of any members that have a "specific character", like those of neutral countries. 
Therefore, Sweden and Finland did not end their neutrality status by joining the EU.
Besides, while Article 42(7) does create an obligation of mutual assistance between EU members in the case of armed aggression, it leaves significant flexibility in how that assistance is provided. Implementation of EU mutual defense clause is left to the discretion of individual member states. Responses could include diplomatic, economic or humanitarian aid rather than direct military force.
Not even the NATO Treaty's Art. 5  does commit members to an obligation to fight !

Israeli explains why the pro-palestinian view is wrong:
 

A (presumed) Muslim-Israeli lets rip on BBC Arab.
 

This whole thread is based on OPs willful evasion of the difference between Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, and Israeli nationals of Arab ethnicity.
 
Palestinians living in the occupied territories aren't second class Israeli citizens. They're not Israeli citizens at all. They're an enemy population, being indoctrinated into hating Israel and killing Jews from childhood until they die, by a government that is at war with Israel. Of course Israel discriminates against them. Every nation state discriminates against foreign nationals, as they should. The expectation that Israel, or the US, or any other state treat foreigners the same way it treats its own citizens, is unreasonable. Especially in the middle of a war. Calling that act of self defense apartheid is just childish name calling, by people who are at a loss of actual arguments.
 
Meanwhile, there is another group of Arabs, who are Israeli citizens. None of the laws and cases OP cites are discriminatory against Israelis of Arab ethnicity. Ethnic Arabs in Israel have the same exact rights Jews do, and, as Leonid said, one fewer obligations.

As a follow up to my last post here's a NY Times article on Russian censorship since the beginning of the conflict.
From the article:
 

1. There is nothing there about "majority willingness" or "referenda" in the words of the Vice-Speaker of Russia's "Parliament". On the contrary, he uses the verb "вернуть", which means return · restore · bring back · recover · get back · take back something which rightly belongs to Russia.
Neither the Deputy Head of the Russian Security Council and former Russia President, Dmitry Medvedev, mentions "majority willingness" or "referenda", he simply states that "[in the future] there will be more new regions attached to Russia." Note the unconditional "will be attached".
The previous experience suggest that this will happen by Russian troops first taking control of the Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkov regions, and only then organize "referenda". And not the other way around.
2. "referenda best conducted this time under official UN overview" About this - only after finishing with # 1. One subject at a time.

We have here a balanced struggle between law and politics. The bureaucracy exists because laws were passed, and they were passed for political reasons. The law is self-protective, not just at the level of agencies promulgating rules, but in the Constitution itself (the president does not get to name the Speaker of the House, or write the rules that govern Congress or the courts). In order to achieve politically-desirable goals (leaving aside who desires them), Trump operated both illegally and un-traditionally. If Congress doesn’t like his un-traditional actions, they can pass a law forbidding it (that’s why we have the Administrative Procedures Act). Proper criticism of POTUS as executive officer is directed at illegality, not unconventionality. Should we cheer the outcome, means be damned, or should we as-enthusiastically cheer an undesirable outcome that was properly implemented? That is, should be declare that a contradiction is possible? I insist that there are no contradictions, and we should condemn both evil means and evil outcomes, even when Mussolini gets the trains to run on time.

The main legal reason is that “abuse of power” is not a federal crime. There actually is a criminal law against “abuse of office” in 25 CFR § 11.448, which applies to tribal police and courts, thus is not applicable to Trump, though given the vague metaphorical slop in the indictment it is a little surprising that they didn’t overlook the limit in the scope of the law. Trump did abuse his power while in office, and the courts did rule against him (see for example travel ban 1.0). But SCOTUS can only say “no, you can’t do that”, they cannot punish a president for exceeding authority. This is the essence of objective law: that a person know in advance what things are forbidden. If there is no law against it, you cannot charge a person.
The matter of intent to deceive is a fundamental tenet of criminal fraud. I doubt that the defense will try to argue that the election fraud charges are true, since that would be an irrelevant side-show. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the claims were actually false, which would require proof that he said something crazy like “What if we make up some story about there being massive voter fraud in those states?”. OTOH, Nixon did have a tape recorder running in his office when he confessed to his crimes, so stranger things have happened.

The subject of my comment was not who had greater casualties. The subject was the fact that you post here as facts claims gathered from dubious sources or which were credibly debunked as having been doctored.

Why bring this hyped version of Bennett's interview back again ??? 
You already put on this forum a similarly hyped version a few months ago. And at that time I wrote, citing Business Insider, :
I have also showed what ridiculously LITTLE was Putin offering during the tentative negotiations.
Insider notes:
One of the social media that participated in propagating this hyped version of Bennett's interview was... the Objectivism Online Forum, care of @whYNOT !!!
Besides, Bennett mediation took place:
- at the demand of the "warmongers" France, Germany and US (says Bennett: "Anything I did was coordinated down to the last detail with the US, Germany, and France") and, incidentally,
- after more than two weeks into the invasion, after it became obvious that his Blitzkrieg tactics was failing.
So, again you post here as facts misrepresentation you gathered from dubious sources, which were credibly debunked.

The moral is what should be done or permissibly may be done given certain sorts of factors marked off as moral considerations. In Rand’s view, and in mine, rational process is what distinctively moral process comes to. What is the nature of rational process?
For the imagined scenario, if it is being asked whether the entertained action would be moral, within the Objectivist ethics, then I’d argue No. It would not be morally permissible on account of the virtues of Pride, Productivity, and Justice.
The last entails treating people as ends in themselves. Even if they are losing their powers for autonomy, homage to autonomous life-making they formerly had or had possible is within what may and should be respected by the rational agent in Rand’s sense of human rationality. Rand’s virtuous human buoys the best possible to humans.  Similarly, if a person said all their life that they wished their body to be cremated upon their death, it is against human rationality to instead bury the body upon their death, assuming cremation was indeed feasible, with the rationalization: “Well, it can’t matter to the deceased.” Respectful behavior for a life and autonomous person that had been or had been a potential in youth is within the ambit of Randian rationality and self-respect.
To focus on the getting of money by lottery, inheritance, or design of tort, is betrayal of the virtue of production and trade in the context of human existence and failure at holding productivity as the central organizing purpose of one’s life. Then too, as Rand had it, the getting of money is not the only rational human pursuit, and the pretension that her ethics entails such foolishness concerning values is a patent distortion of her thought (one she denounced expressly).
The virtue of Pride in the Objectivist system of ethics entails moral ambitiousness. The making of objectively grounded self-esteem has a precondition: “that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit.”

There has historically always been some partisan bias in the law but not to the point of creating a collapse in the long run. After all, the Constitution has not been followed for a very long time. Individual rights are trashed routinely. It's been dangerous for a long time.
The case Dershowitz would have to make is that it is extraordinarily different now. He can't say "Here is a completely innocent man being treated like a criminal". If he does, he's wrong.
Trump has done some things that a Republican or Democratic court could find him guilty of.
It does not seem more dangerous than other times, for instance, will this cause a civil war? It doesn't look like it.
Some will complain ... and then the Republicans will do the same thing to some Democrat ... and some will complain about that.

Our subject right now was NOT Putin's opposition to Ukraine's NATO membership.
Our subject was the question : did "the collective West" started to supply the Ukraine's military before or after Russia engaged in military operations against Ukraine. The answer is important, because if the Western military aid started after Russia engaged in military operations against Ukraine, the military aid cannot be the cause of the war.
You were the first to address this topic, namely with the following:
Now: Russia engaged in military operations against Ukraine in February-March 2014. Therefore, in order to justify the claim that the military aid to Ukraine was the cause of the 2014-2023+ war, you have to show that the West provided Ukraine with military aid before 2014.
Please do this and only this; I will simply ignore anything else.

To "secure Crimea" ? As if his desired ownership of Crimea is God-given and everybody has to submit !!!
Besides, you cannot really know that this was his reason, unless you read his mind. OTOH, the clues he generously shared since at least 2007 in his speeches and articles suggest a different, much more fundamental reason. It also explains all his actions during his reign. I wrote here about that a few months ago. Therefore your view needs to be substantiated, it is not the only possible and plausible one.
Control of Crimea is also important to strategic concerns of Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Turkey, and possibly of others. What now?
😁Why not to Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine or(and?) Turkey? You operate on strange premises! Why not check them from time to time?😁
Besides, for Putin's "strategic concerns", possessing the entire Crimea is a burden, not an asset. If he wants to control the Black Sea he only needs the Sebastopol naval base, a minuscule part of Crimean Peninsula, without the burden of a 2.5 millions population he will have to provide with water and electricity - from outside Crimea!
 But did Putin make an offer to Ukraine for the peninsula, or for the Sebastopol naval base? I don't remember. Maybe this confirms that he had other, more grandiose ambitions?
But to control(?) the Black Sea if he so wishes, or to prevent others to "control" it, he needs neither Crimea, nor Sebastopol: Russia had already hundreds of kilometers of Black Sea coast and the construction of a new naval base would have been much simpler, much less troublesome  and much less expensive...
But he didn't... Again: maybe this confirms that he had other, more grandiose ambitions, and the invasion (for occupation or submission) of Ukraine was one of the stages...

I said appeal to, as in, request help or make others aware. 
Which is fine, but "saving the Ukrainians" isn't "doing what's best for Russia". 
Well yeah, authoritarian and autocratic regimes are not respected. This is a good thing.
We already went over how it doesn't matter how many people consent, autocratic and authoritarian regimes are still not legitimate.