It's amazing how effectively just hearing this from someone who has firsthand insight can put it in perspective.
Jimmycrackcrack
Further to that third point as well, there's probably also a question simply of opportunity. You could take the Munich situation as evidence of capability, but it may also have been opportunity plus capability. Intelligence seems like it's a pretty difficult game and perhaps the successes in operation bayonet had to do with fortunate and unlikely intelligence scoops that they have not luckedh upon this time around and can't rely upon as a strategy. Also, while I don't know much about the post-Munich assassinations, it sounds like they went on for over twenty years, didn't really take out many of the actually important, directly involved individuals and a lot of the people they would have logically wanted to target successfully went in to hiding out of their reach so if the strategic goal is to behead the organisation that carried out attacks as a defensive strategy to weaken their capacity to do it again, 20 years just to take out relatively minor unimportant figures isn't really going to work.
That said, it also looks, as many have stated, like "taking out Hamas" is more a convenient political smokescreen for a much more sinister goal so a very successful intelligence operation that rapidly took out all their leadership at once would actually run counter to their true objectives in this scenario.
This is not relevant to the story, but like, what the fuck is happening in this video? It looks like someone tried to artificially create a depth of field by rotoscoping Roseanne and adding a blur to everything behind her or.... something. There's definitely a matte around her that's occasionally flickering and fucking up. It's hard to say what exactly because it's so compressed, but there's also something else about that video as well (besides it's subject matter) that's just really weird.
Shredded of course
Wow. That was fucked up.
It's also a pretty common lighting choice in just about any office building or commercial entity. When you're as big as a giant fast food franchise, I can see the likelihood someone might have done the research necessary to conclude it was worth getting this lighting specifically to avoid sleeping customers and staff but I think it's also quite likely they're just cheap.
I think he's famously at least eaten a lot of McDonalds.
Seems more sort of cute and questioning than menacing. Seems like he's cheerfully asking what's going on.
I can't imagine getting worked up about it either, but then the whole mildly infuriating deliberate oxymoron turn of phrase is that it's something that should only really be a little annoying but which nonetheless is really quite annoying. It's a type of silent frustration where you feel it, but you don't really express it or visibly react.
In terms of what should they have put on these screens? If they felt they absolutely had to do this or really thought it might help make people's situations feel even a modicum of improvement, then the glib messages could maybe have focussed on something other than gratitude as their common theme. It hardly seems like the appropriate time to bring that up. By their nature, any cheesy and overly broad phrase is probably going to have a sadly ironic and patronising tone to it in the circumstances but maybe something like "hang in there" or just about anything except what they went with has got to better.
To keep you busy so they can show up during the call and claim no one was there.
Weirdly enough I often find things playing back better in IINA than VLC even though as I understand it they're basically the same under the hood. I also find the reverse occasionally as well.