When asked by reporters at the White House what his message to family members of hostages was, he said: “Hang in there, we’re coming.” […]
White House spokesman John Kirby told reporters on the presidential plane, Air Force One, that intelligence confirmed the militant Hamas group, which rules Gaza, used tunnels underneath Al-Shifa and other hospitals to conceal military operations and to hold hostages.
I’m not sure how you interpret “we’re coming” by Biden regarding hostages that US intelligence says are being held in the hospital currently being raided, but it certainly doesn’t seem like Israel is doing this at odds with Biden’s intentions.
If anything, Biden’s red line of “hospitals must be protected” seems like it might be behind the IDF claim in the original article of:
The IDF forces include medical teams and Arabic speakers, who have undergone specified training to prepare for this complex and sensitive environment, with the intent that no harm is caused to the civilians.
We’ll see what the next few hours hold, but Biden’s comments just a few hours before and the US intelligence publicly weighing in certainly looks like this is intended to be a hostage rescue operation which the US is at very least aware of if not actively involved in.
It’s absurd to claim that IDF wants “no harm to civilians”. They wouldn’t be bombing residential neighborhoods on the scale they are if they had that goal.
Is Hamas not the slightest bit culpable for using a hospital to stage militant operations? I think they are.
Is it not a brazen war crime to use the sick and injured as a human shield? In fact, it is.
Hamas militants should be nowhere near any hospital, school, place of worship, or other place where civilians and noncombatants may be gathering. To use places like this as a base of operations is both cowardly and completely against international norms and laws. The IDF would have zero justification for any military operation at Al Shifa Hospital had Hamas not made the horrible decision to use it, and the suffering people within it, as a shield. For context:
The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Optional Protocols of 1977 (the main treaties of International Humanitarian Law – IHL) set a range of minimum standards for the conduct of hostilities. They are based upon the fundamental principle of distinction between civilians and other protected persons, on the one hand, and those who take part in hostilities (combatants for short).
The term “civilian” refers to individuals or objects (e.g., premises) that do not have a direct role in hostilities (See Rule 5 and Rule 9 of the Study on customary international law by the International Committee of the Red Cross – ICRC). An attack against a civilian person or object is therefore generally a violation of IHL and may constitute a war crime. A person or object can however lose its civilian status if it starts making an effective contribution to military action. It would then become a legitimate military objective (and hence a target) (See Rule 10 of the Study on customary international law by the ICRC). This determination must however be unequivocal: when in doubt as to whether a school or hospital has become a military objective, there is a presumption that it retains its civilian status.
Even attacks against legitimate military targets must, however, follow two additional principles: 1) the principle of proportionality – whereby an attack that would cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited (See Rule 14 of the Study on customary international law by the ICRC) – and 2) the principle of precaution in attack – which states that constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects (See Rule 15 of the Study on customary international law by the ICRC).
Hamas are certainly not ignorant of this, and so they must know that by using the Al Shifa Hospital as a strategic location they are deliberately putting a target on it, so why would they do it?
Hamas 100% wants to provoke IDF killings of Palestinian civilians. This is not a shock, this is how modern guerrilla/terrorist/resistance wars work (pick your adjective).
The Vietnamese resistance under Ho Chi Minh were the most masterful recent practitioners, but the IRA, LTTE, etc also deployed this.
Israel is playing into Hamas’s hands and will get about as much benefit (reputationally and politically) from killing Gazans and razing their homes as the US did in Vietnam.
No one here at all says that. What people are saying is that those in the hospital should not have to pay for Israeli shit or for Hamas shit just the same
Obviously I agree with that. I think all sane and reasonable people agree with that.
At the very least, civilians should have somewhere to go to escape from the fighting, and the sick and injured especially should be able to seek treatment in peace.
Make no mistake though: if Hamas really have been using this hospital as a strategic location for keeping hostages or other militant activity (so far the publicly available evidence suggests that they have been, though, you know, fog of war and all that), then what they are doing is cowardly, shameful, harmful and criminal, as they would be knowingly putting patients in harms way by essentially inviting proportionate counter-operations on the hospital from the IDF.
Is Hamas not the slightest bit culpable for using a hospital to stage militant operations?
Sure, but the difference is that that the IDF is actively murdering with weapons that we are giving them.
Also, if Hamas is subject to the Geneva convention then they are a legitimate state authority. Are you sure you want to take that position? Because it means that literally everything that Israel is doing in Hamas is a war crime.
Then I’m sure other Arab countries would gladly take these people into their countries, since they are the same ethnicity, after all. What? They don’t? They see them as a different ethnicity and don’t want a(nother) provocative minority in their country?
I mean, ethnicity isn’t really a qualification for citizenship. And all countries with an ethnic majority aren’t really obligated to take in people of the same ethnicity. The only country I’ve heard of with such a policy is weirdly enough Israel itself. The other arab countries should take Palestinians in just as an act of morality but this “they don’t because of their race” take is bizarre to me. Its very publicly because they don’t want a sizable chunk of their population to have supported radical governments like hamas (even if most Palestinians don’t and haven’t had the chance to since what is it, 2006?).
I traveled with General Brown as part of a diplomatic engagement while I was stationed at central command in Tampa Florida back in 2017. I even got to sit in on a meeting with him and a foreign minister of defense.
I found him to be level headed, calm and very intelligent. He handled himself well and was everything you would want a general to be. I’m glad to see he’s risen to the position of chief of staff
Lol, wasn’t trying to advocate for the government at all. And don’t really care if it’s believed. Just saying I met the dude and he seemed like a pretty good guy to me.
At the time I was a low level USAF officer (Captain) assigned to be the US liaison at Central Command for the US embassy in Turkmenistan. It was a temporary, normally very sleepy assignment, since we don’t normally do squat with Turkmenistan, but at that particular moment in time the US decided to do a diplomatic engagement, and I got to travel with the team. It was a fun and somewhat surreal experience. I even got to meet the US ambassador.
Oh yeah? Well I traveled with Biden and he seemed unwell as it was past his bedtime and he was sundowning, but his dog didn’t bite me, so that was nice.
People who join the military aren’t exactly known for being smart.
Or more accurately, the military wouldn’t want you if you are too smart. They want the average person that can understand basic commands without being too smart to question it.
Not surprising at all that a military person decided to do this.
Edit: On the other hand. Maybe he’s actually a genius attempting a “becoming a propaganda tool” gambit. North Korea wouldn’t lose much for treating him good, and they can make him say things on camera about how “bad” the US is. As long as North Korea deems him useful, he might actually live a decent life. But thats dependent on North Korea doesn’t just decide to get rid of him once they decide that they don’t like him anymore.
lol what. You literally need to pass a test to join the military at all. And it's a pen-and-ink test with science, math and physics problems. Not a "can you follow commands" test.
they might maybe want meatheads for some positions but theres a lot you dont want meat heads for. like you dont want your nuclear techs to be meat heads.
Weird take. Plenty of people join the military because it’s their best immediate option career wise. As for the military not wanting you if you’re too smart - they try to recruit college educated people all the time and the higher you score on their exams the better. The US military is huge and diverse, I’m not sure I understand the point you’re making.
Strange thing, that asvab. The people in the Navy that scored the highest were also the dumbest. On top of that, the Navy told 'em to go play with all their nuclear toys.
Obeying a chain of command does not mean you have to be dumb. As a matter of fact, it is every person’s job in the military to report unlawful orders and not follow orders blindly.
Additionally, the entire command structure in most American branches is setup for each unit to operate somewhat independently. As an example, a general or admiral says: “I want those 10sq miles flattened by tomorrow and here is all the equipment it should take to do it.” Every division, unit or whatever, figures out how to do it. If they have problems, they can reassess the situation on the ground and report back up that a strategy is or is not working. Units on the ground can coordinate with other units to ensure a smooth attack.
In Russia, the chain of command doesn’t work like that. The generals will tell units what to do, and that is that: One unit attack from the east, the other from the west and hopefully they don’t start shooting at each other.
(I over-simplified a ton, but you get the idea.)
Also, the military absolutely wants you if you are too smart. The problem is, those smart people can get 20x the pay with half the shit in the private sector.
When I was in the Navy, two of my five years were spent in school learning electronics, radios and computers. (I slept through IT school since I could have probably taught the classes anyway.)
This used to happen occasionally during the cold war. US/NATO defecting to the USSR didn’t happen often, but it did happen occasionally.
You’ve already gotten read on that take on the military, so I’m not going to bother with that. I will say that it seems like this young person has some mental and behavioral issues, given his rank at his age and his disciplinary history. I would think he’s not someone who tends to make sound judgments or think things through.
In general, the military tries to actively avoid people with these kinds of issues, and will generally not reward this kind of behavior when it comes up. There are a lot of things you can point a finger at the military about with regard to behavior toward civilians or abuse within the ranks, but in this case it looks to me like things were more or less working, to the point that he decided to run away and join the circus.
I would put it another way. The military had a great number of members who are very smart and also very dumb. Some are going to make incredibly dumb decisions.
King, who joined the U.S. Army in January 2021, faced two allegations of assault in South Korea, and eventually pleaded guilty to one instance of assault and destroying public property for damaging a police car during a profanity-laced tirade against Koreans, according to court documents. He was due to face more disciplinary measures when he arrived back in the United States.
LOL. How come every black person didn’t try to free themselves from slavery? How come every black person didn’t become a civil rights activist? How come every black person didn’t march on Washington, become a conductor on the underground railroad, or join the Black Panthers?
Your grasp on what it means for an issue to be systemic is ridiculous.
Those companies are such a drag for human society because they are afraid of their bottom line. the Music Industry and Amazon also would have burned down the Library of Alexandria if they had deemed it worrisome to their profit.
I think it'd be completely unrealistic to think that there are no lost sales...whether or not the amount they're losing is actually meaningful would be a better question....
I definitely understand this take but there are a lot of things that I would have never watched if I hadn’t torrented it. Many things I do want to see more of I pay for of course but a lot of it I would just never have viewed or listened to in the first place.
It's definitely somewhere in the middle. I agree there's definitely a good number of cases where the person downloading also wouldn't have considered it otherwise.
394 from the perspective of Hexbear. The pre-emptive lemmy.world defederation with Hexbear effectively splits big threads like this into two sections. At the top is the much higher activity Hexbear posting, and at the bottom is the lower activity lemmy.world posting where instead of substantive discussion, people who are in support of China just get downvoted to oblivion.
Ironically, Hexbear’s total removal of downvotes on their end confers an advantage here. Discussions and dunkings involving a lot of Hexbear users tend to rise to the top of threads sorted by hot because the lack of downvotes promotes actual discussion upon disagreement. This results in higher activity levels than those produced by the passive downvoting behavior typical of more reddit-like instances.
Lemmy.world seems to be the only instance that would have been big enough to downvote us down the thread as viewed from other instances, but they defederated so we can’t see them and they can’t see us at all.
The rest that are federated don’t have the numbers to do this, especially when you consider a large chunk of them are lemmygrad users who are posting side by side with us. So overall our higher posting activity (that is partially a result of the lack of downvotes changing how we interact) results in Hexbear user heavy discussions rising to the top of threads even as viewed from other instances.
To see the whole structure, go over to lemmy.ml or lemmygrad, find this thread there, then scroll. Toward the bottom you’ll find a sort of underworld in this thread of lemmy.world users downvoting lemmygrad users into oblivion.
I don’t care if they are considered our enemies; that’s fucked up. Our government’s grievances are of their government. Not the people. Not the culture. Not the land itself. Doing shit that harms the average person is incredibly vile.
Our government’s grievances are of their government. Not the people.
Have you noticed how all those nukes the US government maintains don’t target governments but population centres instead? The mass-slaughter of civilians have always been the US way - this time, they just did it with misinformation.
Didn’t say you were… that’s not the point. The point is that the US has always treated civilian populations as perfectly expendable - to be kind of honest, I’m not even sure they don’t see the US population in the same way, either.
They don’t target population centers, they target military bases that always happen to be near a population center. In the 50’s and 60’s missile targetting was shit so they had megaton yield bombs to make sure they got the bases. Nowadays they have lower yield bombs so they can have more bombs that specifically target bases.
It’s no use targeting population centers as those bombs could be used instead to cripple them militarily. It’s just that no country would have a good day if nukes went off anywhere near them.
They don’t target population centers, they target military bases that always happen to be near a population center.
That’s exactly the excuse they used to justify every aerially-delivered atrocity from Hamburg to Hanoi. Britain was routinely doing it in the middle-east nearly a decade before the Nazis did it at Guernica.
If you don’t want to believe me, you can believe Curtiss Le May himself.
There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn’t bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders.
The mass-slaughter of civilians was the point then, it’s the point now - the nuclear ballistic missile is simply the logical conclusion to this. It literally allows for mass-murder at the push of a button.
You need to stop confusing the propaganda with the actual reasons.
Meanwhile Alabama makes 450 million a year off of “modern slavery” by punishing convicts if they don’t work for, in some cases, 2 dollars a day. At least bathroom users can rejoice that the person they can’t see in the stall next to them has state-approved genitalia. Also schools won’t have to worry about planning curriculum with nuance or historical accuracy.
The GOP is full of bottom feeding scum who would absolutely love to be Russian oligarchs. I’m surprised we haven’t seen more of them relocate there and actually become them. But then, Russian oligarchs get where they are by having a lot of money and cunning, which a lot of these GOP hucksters don’t have. The only thing some of them have is some really stupid constituents whom they know how to whip into a frenzy bstter than anyone else can. And that’s worth exactly shit in Russia.
I can almost understand the Personal Liberties Libertarian, which I think is what the philosophy was originally supposed to be about. But we often see Corpo-National Libertarians or Totally-Not-An-Anarchist-I-Swear Libertarians, and both of those are baffling to me.
I’ve meet way too many libertarians who don’t want their taxes to go fund cycle lanes because they don’t ride a bicycle. “it does not benefit me” they say while they fail to see that people in bicycles mean fewer people in cars clogging up traffic.
Libertarian world view cannot even see past their nose
This move is a necessity in Argentina’s Political and Economical situation, by shutting down the Central Bank (and subsequently moving to Dollars) Milei is killing the Politicians’ (long standing and abused) Ability to finance themselves with monetary emissions (their Agendas and Deficient governments just to not say corrupt money laundering), which is the cause of inflation, which makes all Argentines poorer by the hour.
It is if not his biggest, one of the major promises on his campaign and the one most people voted him for, Argentines understand (as seen trough Random Street interviews) that this will create major hiccup on Economy while they transition to dollar, but given it’s long tern effects are willing to put up with it
The long term effects are going to be serious whiplash. The monetary regime would go from severe inflation to super low inflation (below what Argentina needs). They will essentially be using Argentinian Government funds to buy US dollars, thereby helping the US keep its inflation under control.
That’s good for the US, but Argentina may fall into a recession. Growing economies need a growing money supply or businesses will not be able to borrow money to expand. By essentially hitching their economy to the slower growing US economy, Argentina is ensuring that their businesses pay high interest rates to borrow money. The US government is paying you 5%, risk free. Why tf would anyone loan money to Argentina less than 10-15%?
Remember how US tech companies all fired people at the same time when the Federal Reserve increased interest rates (it happened)? That’s what will happen to many companies in Argentina at the same time.
Edit: lol, he was just lying about “dollarization” for votes because it’s nuts:
He added no dollarization was planned in the short-term, as fiscal and monetary stabilization were need, the first source said.
Yes, its gonna be serious and difficult, but like said they are willing to put up with it… with they I mean the 55% that voted him of course…
And no, the dollarization was not a lie, like he said (his whole campaign…) it’s for the long term, first comes solving the gigantic Economical Deficit the State currently generates, then it’s Public Organization’s and then cutting taxes, only then he’ll move forward with it obviously because otherwise is suicide.
And this is very important to remark: News Outlets other than Javier Milei’s Official Twitter Account or the Government’s Official Channel (after December 10) ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED. You may think this is just him shielding against media “calling him out” but there is a serious issue with Argentina’s News outlets: They are funded by the current government and are VERY functional to it. Other International Media arent necessarily but yeah it’s obviously more profitable to report “Argentina’s new president is A NAZI” than “Argentina’s New President Denies the Made up Number of Dictatorship deaths” (which just in case, the authorities that made up the number did confess to making it up in national TV)
Hell, its even as bad he’s been putting “Official Communication” posts to clarify that what the media is saying about his proposals or plans is false, including those claims of him backing down on Dollarization.
Yeah that says a lot about Argentina. If you have two brain cells even, just to rub together a little bit, you realize this is an idiotic idea, incompatible with taking part in the modern, global economy.
Great! A majority of the unwashed masses, half of whom are illiterate. I’m not really interested in what another illiterate person thinks about economics, either. Shows a total lack of appreciation for Argentina’s most imminent, existential problems, and now you have a majority of the country tricked by a charlatan, and they’re excited about it!
Thanks, social media, for giving know-nothings an “equal” voice. /s
What are you on about with Social Media? For the WHOLE elections Social’s were INUNDATED with Ads and Publicity of Fear Campaign against Milei (from the current government and friends which Official Spending numbers could have paid a lot of debt mind you)
The fact that most people voted for him still is a telling that they are not able to be tricked.
Well, yeah that’s also what democracy is about, no matter your conditions you have a voice, regardless of how educated that is… cough 45% cough . But most of all why would they need to all be Economists to vote for the guy that IS an economist and his economic proposals at that when his opponents have given 0 Proposals ALL COMBINED
Obviosly he’s a Moron, any person with 2 Braincells would run for President, Win and continue the status quo stealing from Argentines like the previous 20 Years politicians have, afterall there’s been no consequences for them.
But he’s not doing that, instead he’s complied with his campaing promises and pushes to break Argentina’s decadence with a radical change that so many promised and backed out after winning, putting himself at the stake most of all
So yeah, absolutely crazy from him. Voters? About to be defined
I’m sure crime will not rise up when people have no food because they don’t have dollars, I’m sure people will not go out violently on the streets and raise hell, yes the policy may be be beneficial to those who have their on dollar reserve, but the rest? Save my comment, and hope that doesn’t happen.
You mean the heists that have happened since August of this year when the dollar was even lower than now? Or are we talking about actual big amounts of people dying for not having money or food and insecurity striving like in the pandemic Two Years ago? (Argentina being one of the worst casualties rate of the world with covid, thanks to the current government)
TL;DR: Basically, in the US at least, Libertarians are spoiled white guys who don't even understand how good they have it and have Ayn Rand power fantasies that they'll make their own way and the rest of the world has just been dragging them down.
A couple of my college buddies are full on Ludwig Von Mises/Murray Rothbard anarcho-capitalist nutjobs. The basic conceit is that all governments and states are illegitimate uses of force and are drags on the free functioning of the economy. Left with no "coercive" governments, people will competitively self-organize into private collectives to replace all governmental services, and all resources will flow to their best and natural use. It's absurdly naive and ignores absolutely everything about human nature and even the de facto reality of their desired end state.
So somehow private property will continue to exist and be protected by voluntary courts and security, and funny how it works out that in this case my buddies get to keep the fruits of the privilege enjoyed by centuries of their ancestors and built up in a decidedly non anarcho-capitalist system. All existing government property will be sold off and the proceeds distributed to... someone? No word on how natural monopolies like the best water route between two river ports will be handled, but it will be privately negotiated and definitely perfect!
It will be a utopia of people pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and not letting silly things like "personal safety" or "living wage" or "stewardship of resources" get in the way of making the completely even-handed and non-coercive deals that all people will make with the private entities that spring up to replace governments, but only VOLUNTARILY! People definitely won't make deals they don't like, and that reduce their future power, to avoid death in a "market" with limited opportunities. They definitely won't leave their shares (or whatever) to their children and recreate all the same social structures we have now, but with corporate self-interest as literally the only governing norm.
Now, I suppose you could end up with corporate bodies that are outcompeted by "fairer" competitors (ignoring, of course, all first mover advantages and the willingness to protect profits by violent force that we already see in so many times and places), or maybe certain security and judicial corporations will make agreements with each other and install themselves as a layer over the more economically productive companies and collect fees that are definitely not taxes. Maybe some of them will be the "fairer" entities.
But where does that leave you? Basically, our current world is already at least a little better than the libertarians' best-case scenario, and what their system really does is tell people to give up, that they are not worth one cent more than the economic value they can provide to someone else, and that they deserve no voice in the governance of their lives beyond what they can take.
How this doesn't descend into competing warlord fiefdoms, eventually to be swept away by spasms of violence (in this system, "competition" is just a euphemism for politics and war), is beyond me. With some luck, it might lead to some parts of the world on a tortuously slow and uneven march in the vague direction of egalitarian governance to moderate the use of coercive force. In that case, CONGRATULATIONS! You've landed the world right back where it started, but now with millions dead and the Earth in even worse shape than it would have been.
Agreed. The only thing to add to this is that government systems are voluntary and propped up by the people. The reason our current system actually works so well is because there is already a strong sense of local governance and accountability albeit on some rails. Each state defines the types of organized entities that if will sanction. In NJ for example, we have townships, but you could also register using other systems like village, etc. If they wanted to appease the libertarians a little, they could potentially allow for that experiment to exist in the same way that Indian reservations are their own systems.
I mean, the anarcho-capitalists are fairly extreme, but the libertarians in general seem to be people who want to lock in the benefits they've got in the current system and remove any barriers to fucking over people who don't have them. They also seem to forget that you can't just declare that coercive force no longer exists. The best you can do is try to have some sort of consensus to apply it fairly and sparingly and in the pursuit of noble ends. All of their proposals are just variations on directing the thrust of that power to enforce the status quo when it comes to property holders.
The crazy thing is I'm not even particularly ideological, and I imagine our friends on the .ml domains would not be fans of me. I am just in favor of measures to moderate the worst tendencies of capitalism and to preserve the fact that no one succeeds in a vacuum, things like paying my fair share so people can have safety and opportunity. The Libertarians are just not what they claim to be, either because they're evil or naive.
What an amazing, cojent and objective description. You’ve definitely done your homework. Glad to see you passing on your good knowledge to someone more ignorant
It always seems like “common sense” (short-sighted and moronically simplistic) solutions to problems they don’t understand but waffle on about something tangentally related to make it sound like they do.
It’s very simple. They incorporate as a superperson. You’re a human, somewhat rich. You get a corporation. You put it on like a magic suit and you have super-immunity (impunity) from laws, you can do anything.
The freedom that they want is the freedom to exercise their power (money) with no bad consequences for them.
Which means, $20bn in Twitter seemed a better investment than keeping them in Tesla. I don’t know what would be funnier, that he was right or that he was wrong with that gamble.
Technically he had a way out. He could pay 1bn to cancel the contract, but he didn’t. Again, very funny if he overpaid so much to make everybody think he’s so smart when he dad a “cheap” out
See, if he’d done that, he would have looked bad, and he couldn’t have that. He wanted out, but only if he could have the out not look like he was the one backing out. He needed it to be Twitter’s fault, same way as he’s trying to blame anyone by himself for advertisers fleeing.
The 1 billion termination fee only applied in very specific circumstances. He couldn’t just choose to pay it because he didn’t want to go ahead with the purchase.
Edit: Well, to be clear he actually he could decide to pay 1 billion and walk away but he would be opening himself up to a multi-billion dollar lawsuit from Twitter for breaking the contract.
he never intended to buy Twitter though. He just wanted to manipulate the stock by saying that he’s going to buy it and then dump his shares at a higher price. He thought he could get away with that, because the SEC wouldn’t do shit. Like the time he said that he found a buyer for a Tesla. But then Twitter sued him and the judge forced the sale onto him.
From memory I think it still had to go to trial and he had a good chance of weaseling his way out of it. Apparently there was a lot of stuff that would have come out in discovery so what ever was in there was bad enough that he preferred to take a really bad deal than let people find out what ever he’s been up to. For money grub musk that must have been very bad to lose money in favour of maintaining his privacy.
He didn’t sell the Tesla stock. He used it as collateral to borrow the money. Rich people rarely sell their things while they are alive. They borrow against their fortune because if they sell, they have to pay capital gains taxes.
He did sell the stock, like $23 billion worth. He entered the agreement to buy Twitter to show that he had another use for that cash, so that Tesla investors didn’t get spooked and sell off when they see the biggest shareholder selling (along with the downward price pressure that comes from selling a significant percentage of a company’s stock).
There was some speculation at the time that he entered the agreement with Twitter with no intention to close, just to cover his desire to cash out of Tesla at its high. Then the courts actually held him to that.
Ask Hamas… also, get within 6 blocks of Hamas, and we’ll probably kill you. Given a little time, we’ll probably kill you anyway.
Israel have the motivation and means to commit a genocide. Hamas terrorism was always going to be the pretext, it was just a question of when. Meanwhile, the civilians all get fucked - though not remotely equally.
reuters.com
Top