Getting a tad nervous about Iran and Isreal if I’m honest

[theclampits]

Is ww3 going to kick off? Iran have hit the US embassy in Israel and now trumps threatening direct military action.
My Mom has just come back from Cyprus and last night they saw missiles 😟

Agreed, I think the UK PM mentioned sending aircraft to the region and people have been making 2+2=5, thinking that must mean Israel.

For info there's been a major RAF base at Akrotiri (just outside Limasol ) since the 1950's..bombers/fighters initially until the mid 70s, then for a few decades an almost permanent fighter presence, mainly for weapons training...probably less so in recent years but there's been the odd uptick in activity associated with events in the region and even the Ukraine/Russian conflict.

So basically deploying RAF fghters to almost certainly Cyprus isn't unusual,.it's the other goings on on the region that are much more significant

What does this even mean? Are you saying I’m lying about spelling ?

Still waiting for the links to back up your claim that the UK is ending military planes to Israel.

Well it is just odd that your spell checker has so far on this thread spelt it correctly once and incorrectly twice.

This world has too many men with small dick syndrome, in power.
I wish someone would put them all on a remote island & let them fight it out between themselves.

Give up sniping at each other please, it’s getting dull and distracts from the topic. Yes I am the thread police before that a cusation is chucked about. Some of you are coming across as childish.

if the op Has misspelt sue her and get over it. If however it’s a spell check error or the OP is dyslexic you’re going to look pathetic.

Grow up!

@LoisGriffinskitchen

Agreed.

Have to say I routinely commit whopsies.down to fat thumbs and a spell/grammar checker that is not set to English.....

Charming. Why are you getting yourself so exercised about my question? I haven't been rude to the OP.

I am genuinely curious as I have seen various other posters do the same on threads about Israel and wondered about it.

I doubt it would make any difference. Historically, women heads of state are more likely to go to war than male. It always seems to be the men because there are, or have been, far more male heads of state than female.

”Authors of the book Why Leaders Fight analyzed every world leader from 1875 to 2004 and statistically examined gender differences in military aggression. They found that 36% of the female leaders initiated at least one militarized dispute, while only 30% of male leaders did the same.”

Source: Forbes.

Thatcher was neither a man nor a woman, she was a malevolent entity ☠️

Could you please share some additional context. Interested specifically in the data.
During the sample period, how many leaders were there that were female, and how many that were male? And then respectively how many started wars?

I think the other point you’ve missed is that the findings found that men were responsible for far more acts of aggression & war overall.

It’s important because if we’re talking about one grain of rice being poisonous in a bowl with 4 grains, then that’s 25% of rice grains are poisonous. Vs one grain in a bowl with 100 grains, that’s 1%. The data matters. Otherwise it just sounds like shampoo ad stats.

That is a terrible insult to malevolent entities.

Maybe for the same reason that you spelled the word you as YIU in the attempt before the edit. People are typing on a forum letters get muddled. It isnt always noticed. It's no big deal everyone can understand what the OP is saying.

😂

What are you implying? Genuinely curious

I am going on Friday and I am not worried at all.

@PandoraSocksMy spell checker does all sorts of curious things, so you tell me ! Maybe I’m a bot and trying to be goads ? Who knows !! Isreal or Israel? As my spell checker underlines the second spelling.

The very next sentence is pretty important for context... "This does not mean that women are generally more aggressive, however. Men were responsible for 694 acts of aggression and 86 wars while women were responsible for just 13 acts of aggression and only one war (Indira Gandhi).”

Context? Click the link.

I think the other point you’ve missed is that the findings found that men were responsible for far more acts of aggression & war overall

I didn’t miss that point, I highlighted it. Of course there are currently more acts of aggression and wars started by men. That should not be surprising given that there are far more men in a position to start wars than there are women.

However, the “findings” suggest that if you take away all the male grains of rice (to borrow your analogy) and replace them with female grains of rice there would be more upset stomachs, not fewer.

Not really. Because we have to assume, on the balance of probabilities, those female leaders went to war against men. Remove men from the equation entirely, I'm willing to bet the need for aggression would reduce...

Also, were these female leaders picked at random from the female population or did they choose to run for leadership? We could also wonder if those women who chose to lead in a world and within systems designed by men were more prone to aggression and combativeness in the first place. Or were they more at pains to show they weren't 'weak women'. Queen Elizabeth I's speech comes to mind. Just musing.

Oh, because you say so?

It took me to Amazon to purchase a book…

Honestly I’m resigned to it. Humans love to fight. Every few generations there’s a bloody war. You’d have thought with all our advancements we would have moved on from war but nope seems not. Reading a book written in 700 BC they were fighting then we are still fighting now.

The Times said there was minor damage to the embassy after a strike in Tel Aviv, I'm not sure they aimed for it specifically? No other sources seem to be reporting on this and surely it would be headline news otherwise?