Watching the Taliban try and be a functioning government, and getting chewed out by both their own people and the international community, has been fascinating to watch.
(edit)
Jokes aside, it also took me forever, and I went through the exact same list of who might be offended. Who reads “Ham-mas” on a christmas bag and even when saying it out loud associates it with Hamas? I mean it’s not like anybody still associates Christmas with Christ, so who cares what the first part is. Give me Crisp-mas with lots of crackers!
Not entirely true. Go eat a ham sandwich outside a Hasidic synagogue when they’re being let out of temple; probably gonna cause a stir. Especially if said temple is in Israel proper.
Granted, I’d find it hard to believe such a sandwich eater wasn’t trying to stir shit, so maybe getting yelled at is justified….but you see my point, i hope
Adding context that makes it an obvious attempt to insulting does not contradict the statement that they don't care about others eating ham. They care about the obvious intent to be offensive.
Keep in mind that if someone was eating a sandwich it would be hard for them to even know if it was ham without the person making a scene about it.
Ignoring morals and ethics and focusing mostly on historic precedent?
Firebombing a few city blocks. Possibly letting the angry young soldiers run wild on the civilian populace under the guise of getting “justice” for the civilians that hamas brutalized.
That is more or less “war”. You raid one of my towns, I’ll raid two of yours. Ends when one side has been beaten into submission.
Actively attacking third party civilians is not. The IDF has a very long history of doing this.
I’d say anything post train you’re going to try to capture infrastructure to make war, so saying we’re sieging cities sounds more ancient to me.
If you read that post, you’ll see ‘foraging’ really meant robbing and brutalizing local populaces for their food since anything but the smallest sized army can’t feed itself for more than a few weeks. Not to mention once we are sieging a city and starving all the people out.
What are some modern examples of ‘letting your army run wild on the populace’? I know that happens quite a bit but I can’t think of any sanctioned ones unless we go to wwii Japan maybe? and that was more than a little wild. Seems like most of the time a platoon or w/e just goes berserker.
There is strategy and there is retaliation. Shockingly, retaliation usually results in a prolonged war and long term rebellion.
But if your goal is to hurt them for hurting you?
As for recent wars where soldiers commit horrific crimes against civillian populaces. Off the top of my head:
EVERY army in WW2. Japan took it down to a science but The Allies and the rest of The Axis were no saints
Vietnam with US soldiers commiting horrific atrocities against the Vietnamese people
Pretty much every civil war in Africa
The Yugoslav Wars
Russia’s actions in Ukraine (every time they invade)
It is mostly that the US shockingly went hard on stopping troops from those kinds of massacres during the various invasions of the Middle East. That isn’t to say we didn’t find OTHER horrible shit to do but…
I don’t think you can call My Lai ‘sanctioned’ or official even though it was done by a commissioned officer who was court martialed (but got off). Even then they gave the heli pilot that landed between US troops and a group of civilians about to get murdered a silver star – www.britannica.com/event/My-Lai-Massacre
Japan wwII definitely tactical and sanctioned but that one is weird because all of the military operated so independently.
I don’t know enough about your other examples. It makes sense though and I like the word you use ‘retaliation’
A good modern war planner isn’t going to waste energy on retaliation but when you get onto the ground and have a bunch of killers that don’t think of the enemy as all the way human (so you can convince them to do so much killing) retaliation would come up often. Also if you have some crazy strong man dictator, he may need retaliation to keep the image or drive his paranoia.
A well executed police raid to drag Hamas’ leadership out
This is 1,000,000% corruption coming from the head, so chopping off the head will go a long way towards ending Hamas’ problem causing.
Problem is that Netenyahu trying this is what got Hamas into power in the first place because he decided he wanted a replacement govt to be a hateable enemy so I’m not too hopeful
… How do you identify government leadership in a group that notably violates the Geneva conventions at least as often as Israel by going plain clothes and hiding in the civilian population? Do you think Israel has police forces in Gaza still?
Additionally, Mossad is one of the most successful and widespread intelligence agencies in the planet. I don’t buy anyone saying they don’t already have lists a mile long and the resources to carry it out.
Others have pointed out but Mossad are a different branch of the Israeli intelligence apparatus than the folks who’d likely be handling this, but the point most likely stands either way that this whole incident represents an abject failure of intelligence ops in preventing a large scale attack.
I think that sounds absolutely right. But I worry about while it sounds good from my armchair, to what extent it’s really possible given conditions on the ground and the hostages.
Well first of all military response, proportionate or not, is meaningless in such a conflict. Israel is feeding Hamas who's in turn feeding Israel etc etc, so the answer is to work on securing peace rather than radicalize the Gazan population more (because God knows after this shit they'll be out for blood), but if there needs to be a military response it should at least follow Israel's own roof knocking policy, which they're not following in these attacks, where they drops small non explosive rounds to warn civilians to evacuate before bombing their homes (which is also bad but less bad than indiscriminate murder). See also: Not using actual fucking white phorphorus, not bombing routes and locations they designated as safe, and definitely not bombing hospitals and ambulances. These are all things the IDF has been confirmed doing in the past few days.
Don’t know who’s down voting you, but yes, this is actually textbook strategy for insurgent warfare.
Little guy makes a move with the goal of provoking big guy to create a security clampdown and overreact. This feeds little guy’s PR and recruitment efforts, as well as potentially overstretching big guy’s resources.
I even have a recent and precisely on topic video that covers it:
Yeah, especially considering the initial attack was likely somewhat related to trying to stop Israel and Saudi Arabia’s growing friendship, but can anyone name a country that wouldn’t demand vengeance after the atrocities at the music festivals and overrun communities?
The attack was designed to be brutal to force a brutal response, probably designed to be like that by Iranian religious fanatics who couldn’t care less about the Palestinian population as long as they’re a good weapon to use against Israel.
None of that justifies Israel doing awful things but it does make it harder to think about.
The other option is to be sad about the atrocities, not angry. Yes I know that basically doesn’t happen especially anymore with everyone on such high edge.
But, if we want to not immediately go this route every time to not play into the hands of terrorists then the answer is sad. Empathetic. Feel the pain and hurt of all the people lost and what it would take for someone to do something horrible. It needs to be a tragedy first and an excuse for a slapping contest after.
It won’t work on everyone but it’s a far better response, and will get people on the side of the victims more than the terrorists and then with a slower response less needless casualties.
But what leader have you seen been upset about this and not just excited to finally do something interesting like war? Empathy hasn’t been important to society for too long now.
“They’re [students] laying down with blankets over them, their eyes are closed. It’s very dark in there. I just had candles and little tea lights lit the whole room, and I was just walking around playing my drum. I had a nice floaty top on with large bell sleeves,” she said.
“A couple with some dogs just came up to the window and were having a look in, but they walked off really quickly and I didn’t think anything of it.”
I think there was a scene showing a gay couple checking out Ken for a couple of seconds when they arrived at the beach
Would be very funny if they did leave that out in their release there and it still got banned for that since everyone knows that it’s not about that why they don’t want people seeing that movie
Fine... Why should I ever be able to just enjoy shallow entertainment as such? Guess I have to rewatch the movie at least another time to look for details I might have missed because I'm not properly sensitized like a good morally uncorrupted Algerian.
Mrs Scott was unable to free herself and, as Cliff drove away, she was dragged under the Go North East vehicle and remained pinned under its rear wheels for almost an hour.
That’s the part that horrified me the most. An hour?! That’s an eternity. And somehow nobody noticed her despite the bus being in service? I kinda hope she was at least noticed quickly and the delay was something like first responders not being sure how best to remove her, because the alternative of being active dragged for that long with nobody noticing is even worse (as if it wasn’t bad enough).
I’m not surprised. The number of people sharing accounts who now need their own was always likely to be greater than the number who were going to cancel. They only had to convert a fraction of the non-subdividing viewers for it to work out in their favour. I think they’ll find they have less viewers now, though.
The approach of tacitly allowing account sharing to build viewership then cracking down on it to boost revenue is smart enough as a business strategy. It signals what most of these companies will do when it comes time to really monetise.
I worry for the future of the internet when YouTube and Google really kick off. It’s going to be a subscription hellscape (it is already, but it’s going to be so much worse).
The approach of tacitly allowing account sharing to build viewership then cracking down on it to boost revenue is smart enough as a business strategy. It signals what most of these companies will do when it comes time to really monetise.
It’s less extreme than Hulu’s method of going from an all free service to a subscription service. When you think about it from Hulu’s perspective there’s no way they would make less money and unlike social media sites like Twitter or Facebook the users’ labor isn’t the content. The movies and tv shows are.
I don’t have a link for it, but I read that YouTube is working on a 3 strikes policy for anyone using AdBlock programs… So after the 3rd warning you’re not able to watch anything on YouTube at all…
Most people I saw on here were critical of being uncommitted towards the general election and don’t care about being uncommitted during the primary. Several states don’t even hold a primary for the party if they are currently holding office.
To add to that, they mostly agreed that Trump would tell Israel to finish the job, and they were right, that is what he ended up saying. Voting against Biden would in fact doom Gaza to genocide.
It’s like running your own email server in the early 2000s. For large businesses it totally makes sense.
Hobbiests can do it to if they are interested.
Most people will land at a “shared” service and let someone else handle the admin tasks. I’m afraid that eventually there might only be “outlook.com, gmail.com, and yahoo.com” so to speak, because it’s just the easy way to go for most people and economies of scale make it more feasible for the operators who find ways to get paid.
But people self host email today, and there are many more email orgs around including private work email and specialised services such as Proton mail focusing on privacy and security. It’s a good analogy.
An open standard like Mastodon will allow big players but also niche and small players, who can focus on specific communities or offering specific spins.
Totally agree. The smtp protocol server to server interoperability made email all work smoothly across many federated hosts and I think ActivityPub is more or less designed with a similar strategy, except for defederations. I guess the equivalent would be blocking spam at your smtp gateway, lol.
Do people actually self host mail? I remember watching some conference that said it is basically a full time job nowadays to get your mails actually delivered if you're not one of the big providers. Much easier to pay one of them and just use a custom domain instead, and I can easily see this being a thing for the fediverse one day too (assuming it ever gets big enough)
I selfhost my own email and you are absolutely correct it is musch easier to receive than to send. I use a 3rd party to send all my outgoing mail on my behalf.
Humm, they do charge for some options like the "business account" but have blocked even allowing you to use an email reader that is not theirs. I know, I've been trying use all the things that used to be free...
If you go to another domain (or even one of your own), you can still talk to all the people who use GMail.
Maybe GMail should choose to defederate, so GMail accounts would no longer be able to receive from or send emails to non-GMail accounts. Then maybe they could trap people and charge more.
bbc.co.uk
Top