In California, it’s an issue of fairness to count ballots cast by people who then die before election day, Secretary of State Alex Padilla said. He said it’s just as conceivable that someone who votes early in person also dies before election day, and there is no way to identify and reject that ballot.
Edit: I feel compelled to make it clear that I don’t want anyone to die due to political violence. However, if someone has to die I would prefer it be those who seem hell-bent on undermining the democratic process.
It’s sad that I knew what you meant before reading your edit. Like we all know that this next election will result in violence. We can all only hope that it’s against the right people…
Probably. But for every Trump fascist getting arrested or making a video "patrolling" a ballot box drop-off, for every fascist getting killed, those are huge news stories that will make voters reconsider if it's even safe to vote. It'll have a massive chilling effect on voters who aren't obvious Trump supporters. Which is the point: fear.
Pussies are warm, deep, and can be quite resilient. Trump voters as a whole have a long way to go before I would bestow them with that honorable title.
Islam is so touchy. Even pointing out Mohammed was a bandit and a pedophile gets them going and that is just straight facts anyone can get from reading about his life.
To be honest, the Nationalist Christians (Nat-C’s) that we have here at home are pretty fucking unsettling. They know that it’s their god-given right to be in charge of everything and they will “save” everyone by trying to force their twisted interpretation of religious texts onto the populace with zero compromise, because “that’s god’s plan”.
They’re just as bad as Islamic extremists; they’re just committing their violence in more official channels and in a slower fashion, up until the day that they manage to get an unshakable hold on power (read: establish a “theocratic” dictatorship, like the Republic of Gilead from Handmaid’s Tale, which they took as an aspirational goal instead of a cautionary story).
In Europe there are more Muslim refugees though, than, for example, in North America which gets more regular Muslim immigrants.
It’s a specific problem in Europe with an influx of refugees from war torn and poor countries who are often troubled, more extreme in their religion and potentially less educated (because they fled from shitty countries).
I guess it’s more connected to those circumstances than with Islam in itself. Statistically, more educated and better off people are less religious. I suspect that’s the same with Muslims?!
You don’t get to say “some Muslims are in peace”. Muslims are part of a religion that is causing a lot of troubles.
When someone is part of a big organization, like the police, one does not get to say “not all of us are pigs”. If they are not raising their hand and telling on the shitty people causing problems, then everyone is the problem.
It’s just as stupid as your moronic comparison, cartel enabler. If you really cared about the damage the cartels do to the world you’d leave Mexico. We don’t want to hear your excuses.
Oh, so it’s okay to belong to a group of people whose open tenet is murdering and enslaving people, but a religion that teaches against those things, but has a few nutjobs is somehow not?
Everyone says this bullshit until it’s their group causing the problems and then all of a sudden they deserve mercy and understanding for how complex their situation is.
Most Muslims are decent people. If they weren’t, the west would be in a continuous state of violence. People like you are just racist assholes looking for any excuse to justify your prejudice.
You don’t get to judge an entire group by the worst members without it coming back to bite you in the ass some day.
If I were part of a religion that is so extrem that is killing people and attacking members of the LGBT community, etc, I would 100% leave said religion/group. Its not really that hard to do it. A decent person wouldn’t be a part of those kind of groups.
You wouldn’t give a shit if you did. Most of my Muslim friends aren’t religious at all, pro-LGBT and everything. They still get shat on by racist fucks like you. You don’t care about people.
And your education has sadly failed you in teaching you what an analogy is.
An analogy is a comparison. I wasn’t comparing, just trying to teach you a basic logical thought process. Don’t worry, I’ve given up on that. I can see why your teachers failed. Prejudice is a hell of an intelligence blocker.
You know you don’t need to virtue signal “all religions!” in a thread specifically about islamist terrorism, right? Do the “all religion” thing when it’s a christian, sikh, buddhist, etc. sawing the head off a school teacher in the street.
I know we’re all cynics here, but good for him. Even if this is entirely a publicity stunt, the guy is still taking a huge risk that someone might offer to take him up on it. That’s a lot of nerve, and that’s a lot of faith, either in God or in the way Hamas values hostages.
Either way, to repeat the notion elsewhere in the thread: any of us offering? Maybe it’s a low risk–but it ain’t zero. It’s easy to dismiss these kinds of gestures from the same armchairs from which we solve geopolitics and warfare, but a public figure going on record for selflessness is something to be celebrated, even if the only noble trait is willingness to roll the dice on human nature in the hope of sharing an altruistic sentiment.
“Hurt me instead of her” is something we wish more people of faith would say everywhere.
I'm an Adamsian Last Thursdayist of the Subgenius, which synthesizes The Hitchhiker's Guide and the Church of the Subgenius into something resembling a theology.
If I'm going to believe in something made up, I'll make up something fun.
Me and a few buddies tried writing a “Not So Holy-ish Boble” in grades 7-9, it quickly became a one-upsmanship contest to see who could write the gayest thing you’ve ever read. There were characters such as Adam the Ant, a three-foot tall anthropomorphic ant with a ten-foot long penis, and Elliot the Otter, who was not only a literal otter, but also figurative. He was based on a real guy we knew, who loved it, but was not actually an otter himself (more of a twunk). Where’s Bob in all this? Very much involved in every activity, he was basically a super horny pansexual Jesus who would use his powers to incite orgies. I think it ended with a cumshot from Adam, so hard that it blasted the whole crew into space so they could convert other worlds. I was supposed to write the “Revelations” final chapter, but by then the group had converted to some other weird thing that the (very hot) new girl in school brought with her, and interest had waned.
I’ve used this argument unironically with creationists without realizing it was a thing. “If God is omnipotent, why couldn’t God create something that didn’t exist a moment ago but then comes into existence with billions of years of history.”
It’s just an attempt to at least get them to acknowledge science while still leaving room for faith, since carbon dating isn’t really up for debate and cosmology offers more than enough convincing evidence against a young universe, just to name two examples.
Anyway I thought I was being creative and original… guess not.
I’m willing to throw some shade at the Dems for not forcing a floor vote here, put people on record refusing the nominee. It’s obvious though his first pick wasn’t getting the 60 needed though to pass, so it’d be for show at best.
That’s not how it works. The FCC is on a completely different cycle and you can only appoint new people when old people expire out. It’s supposed to keep politics out. Impeachment is a possibility but that’s the only remedy.
“Sohn ultimately faced senators across three confirmation hearings since Biden first tapped her for the post. Her nomination, which awaited a committee vote in 2023, never received floor consideration.”
I’m referring to the notion of the first nomination being held in committee for almost 2 years rather than forcing cloture and having the full vote. It would have presumably gone nowhere, but at least it’s an affirmative action.
That faulty line of thinking (shitting on everything) is the same line of thinking that “lets imperfect get in the way of good.”
“Oh, this action was late. Bad!”
“Oh, this action only solves part of the problem. Stop trying! Bad!”
“Oh, the rich will just use a loophole to get around this! Bad!”
If repubs can convince critics that doing nothing is better than doing something, repubs win. A seemingly very effective exploitation of the narcissism of the online critic.
People scoff when you mention these sentiments have been proven to be pushed by foreign state agencies to create voter apathy too.
Shit look how much people espouse ‘green washing’ on Lemmy then pretend like they’re the one true enlightened ones. Mean they’re stuck doomscrolling on an even less regulated platform than Facebook or Reddit pretending like converted efforts of state propaganda isn’t pushed here.
Like guys, anarchist and communist viewpoints are just fine when you aren’t pushing parroted fascist rhetoric. Few people have issues with you being further left than American progressives. They’re the Lemmy equivalent of vegan jokes now lol.
It’s a waste of time criticizing organizations that are beyond being reformed like the Republican party is. The Democratic party can and must do better and should hear about their screwups, the Republican party just needs to be rendered irrelevant entirely and doesn’t need to see it coming.
If this was the '90s or '00s or early '10s, I’d agree with you. There were a lot of conservative Democrats in congress that were taking up potentially liberal seats and some Democrats (Clinton) pushed conservative initiatives even further in order to win.
Now, I constantly see cynical Democrats blaming everything on Democrats, even if it’s out of their control. Blame Republicans when Republicans are to blame so we can beat them. Blaming Democrats is often counterproductive.
Example, post. This is good. Let’s continue to do good.
The reason the right has been kicking liberal asses lately is their unity. That unity was mostly due to the torrent of dark money from billionaire foundations like the Koch network pushing an agenda, but none the less they moved this country so far right it will take decades to change things. The left needs to learn to stop attacking the few people we still have in power so hard and look at the bigger picture. You will never get progressive change quickly, it takes a long coordinated movement. It’s an election year and we know our options are Biden against the anti-thesis of progressivism. Lets rally now and push Biden for change after the election when we have ensured we elected someone who could actually listen.
Imo, it made sense to attack Democrats 15 years ago who weren’t representing their constituents (more recently, Sinema comes to mind). But we’re past that. Now it’s time to back our people, get more of them in office, push progressive ideals to the public, and get things done.
For example, saying Democrats don’t do enough to protect abortion access is counterproductive. You have to support more liberals so they have the power to make change.
Same with net neutrality. Saying it took them too long doesn’t help. They got it done. Celebrate it.
They’re not being criticized for doing the right thing. They’re being criticized for the negative aspect. Many others have answered it, but the way you’re framing this is kinda strange.
You’d equally criticize anyone else that you thought had the power to save a drowning man but sat there watching for a while before finally saving him.
Now imagine their replacement actively wants to drown people and for some reason there are people who think both sides are reasonable choices and others are backing the pro-drowning guy.
I’ll take the guy who took his time. And yeah, I’m going to call out the critics.
Now imagine their replacement actively wants to drown people and for some reason there are people who think both sides are reasonable choices
Nobody here is saying that. Do you really think the person who’s wondering why it took this long is sitting there saying the Republicans made a reasonable choice to remove net neutrality? Really?
others are backing the pro-drowning guy.
Who cares? They’re irrelevant to this. We already disagree with them. We’re likely never going to agree with them. They’re not criticizing how long it took to reverse Net Neutrality. They’re mad that it was reimplemented at all.
I’ll take the guy who took his time.
What? Who isn’t? Again, the action of reimplementing Net Neutrality isn’t being criticized. Them taking this long is what’s being criticized. Or do I need to ask you to give evidence of left leaning people complaining that Net Neutrality was reimplemented?
You’re advocating for just taking whatever you get as long there’s someone worse. With that same logic, the guy could wait and watch the drowning guy get bitten by something in the water and get injured trying to save himself and then save him. You’d still accept that no problem huh? You’re saying that there’s no reason to improve, because at least you’re better than the other guy.
Furthermore, everyone I’ve seen so far has accepted the reason for it taking this long. So again, the way you’re framing this is strange.
Fascinating how there’s no logical reason for that to happen, but carry on. Doesn’t look like you ever cared to actually make a reasonable case for yourself.
You just misrepresented what I said and ignored my point. YOU never made a reasonable case. You keep putting Dems down, don’t be surprised when fascists win.
Trump is going to win unless people start supporting Biden. Same with congress. Celebrate the wins or the centrists are going to give control to the fascists.
You just misrepresented what I said and ignored my point.
Quote it then. You’ve done literally nothing to actually show where or how I’ve done that.
YOU never made a reasonable case.
My point was always: you can criticize a negative aspect of something without it being a criticism of the entire thing. That still holds true.
Now you’re trying to make this about the Democrats as a whole. You’re really not able to think about things in parts huh? I can criticize something taking far too long(which, if you saw my response to another comment, removes pretty much all actual criticism from this specific case) and still accept that they did something good. Merely asking why it took this long isn’t, by any means, saying that them doing the thing was wrong. I’ve said this multiple times already.
Trump is going to win unless people start supporting Biden.
Let me know when left leaning persons have started voting, in significant numbers, for Biden merely because they have criticisms for Biden. That’s actually asinine. Actually going along with that same logic, do you think Republicans and centrists magically start voting for Democrats if any criticism is levied from their side?
Celebrate the wins or the centrists are going to give control to the fascists
Nah, I’m not stupid. I’m not going to ignore every negative thing that “my side” does just because you think it means the other side will lose. As I said before that’s literally giving leeway for them to do absolutely anything they want, as long as they’re at least marginally better than Republicans. I’ve gladly accepted that Net Neutrality is back, but I’m not going to realize it’s only back now after years, and ignore it without good reason. At this point, we’re not even arguing over the actual Net Neutrality case anymore.
Soooo, where’s the quote my guy? Instead of actually responding with something of worth, you make a piss poor insult that doesn’t even make sense. I’m not even sure what part of my comment that’s supposed to be in response to, because again, I’m not stupid. Why would any kind of propaganda work on me?
Nevertheless, seeing as you really don’t have anything of substance to add, I guess we’re done here.
You don’t know what sealionong is. 1. It has to be repetitive or be multiple requests 2. It has to be in spite of requests that were previously fulfilled. It’s been one request. You said I misrepresented you. So quote where I did. It would literally be you scrolling up and copy/pasting it. It’s one simple request. Hell, my comments have been far longer than yours. If anyone’s a troll here, it’s you. You’ve yet to make a substantial point.
And I might as well address your other comment in this one too.
The analogy was never about Democrats; it was about being able to criticize anyone while still accepting that they did a good thing overall. You’re the dumb one that tried to jump all over the place.
I’m just jumping in to call out your “oh we would never do such a horrible thing as not vote” bullshit.
You mean the thing that you brought up? Absolutely nobody said anything about not voting. If this is a troll, at least do something that isn’t this blatantly dumb. C’mon, at least make a comment that’ll demand more than a quick 2-minute response from me. I clearly have the free time. I miss the days when trolls were at left somewhat intelligent. It’s also an apt analogy for the situation it was actually getting used for. The other commenter was able to interact with it perfectly.
But you know what, I said I was done before and now I’m gonna stand by it unless you can actually back up the stupid claims you’re making. Quote where I misrepresented you or I guess we really are done.
EDIT: Holy hell! I only now noticed that I’m responding to two different users tag teaming in and out. No way in hell someone’s that dumb to not just point out that it’s someone else. Dude really said sealioning.
My point was always: you can criticize a negative aspect of something without it being a criticism of the entire thing. That still holds true.
Sure, it’s possible, but no one on lemmy is actually doing that and there’s no way anyone is blind enough to not know that.
Behind every “criticism” of Democrats is a fucking Republican. This close to an election? On Lemmy? It’s propaganda. Fuck that. Democrats did a good thing. Stop there.
You kept insulting people who helped drowning victims, now no one wants to save drowning people, or is scared to do so. So the pro- drowning people faction has won.
Insulting? You’re insulted by any kind of criticism huh? Yeah, makes sense. And that’s not in any way how this works. That’s not at all analogous to what we’re talking about anymore.
Saving a drowning man doesn’t have people trying stand between you and the drowning man. Just because a new president comes to power doesn’t mean he just gets to change things from previous administrations on a whim. Those powers that helped see it pass don’t just disappear. Government is fights and compromises and those take time. You deal with the other party and special interests paying whoever they can to move forward or obstruct anything to their advantage. Right or wrong it’s reality of government. Changes in government rarely are bi-partisan enough to pass quickly.
You and I don’t disagree here. The guy I replied to is arguing that we shouldn’t really even be asking why it took this long, because we eventually got it. The act of questioning why it took this long shouldn’t immediately get a response of “at least it’s reversed now, stop complaining”. The guy saving the drowning man could very well have very valid reasons as to why he’s waiting, that we don’t know. But if we don’t know them, we kinda have to ask don’t we?
I’m yet to see anyone get the reason for it taking this long and not accept it. It’s been ~6 months since they got back the FCC. The complaint isn’t over a measly 6 months. That’s an acceptable amount of time really. The first assumption is usually that they’ve had the ability to reverse it much closer to when Biden took office. Waiting until near to the end of a 4 year term is a really long time.
No, the system was the problem, not the people. Criticizing the people is ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst. It’s just adding negativity cause someone wants to complain…
Well the door will jam if you kick it. Then you’re trapped in the damn room. Sometimes you don’t need to apply pressure because the door wants to open. You just need to help it by finding a door knob. And sometimes you can turn the wall into a door.
I emailed the Ars Technica article to my Trump voting mother on jackass what’s his face when Trump appointed him and accused her of harming the internet. We have a no-politics rule now because of how angry I grew over time with that orange fuck. It was my idea. Saved our relationship.
I don’t know much about Peltz but I kind of agree that you don’t NEED to have all black or all women cast. The art should dictate it. But on the flip side, having an all black or all women cast isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Representation in media may not matter to some, but it can make a big impact on others.
Furthermore, most of Africa is black. What were you expecting out of Black Panther???
Everett Ross is associated with Black Panther in the comics as well… And is basically a token there. But his existence predates the Disney acquisition.
I get your point but I mean Wakanda is supposed to be the most technologically advanced society. Why shouldn’t diversity sort of be a given in that context? Because only fellow Africans can be trusted to keep the place a secret?
Seems kinda hostile. Africans can be born without pigmentation for one thing. And just because there are colonial powers doesn’t mean a society has to be so bigoted (which they clearly aren’t in universe) to see everyone who doesn’t look like themselves as part of “the others”. They allowed the Avengers in anyways. But my point was meant more like, technology thrives when cultures and people come together.
They completely cut off their society from the rest of the world, it’s not like any African gets a pass in, they don’t allow anyone that isn’t Wakandan. It was like, a pretty significant plot point.
Yea well like I said in the other comment, a society that advanced free from cooperation with other cultures or people seems unlikely. The point of their isolation isn’t lost on me. Still I wouldn’t know why zero tolerance towards that policy would be necessary or sustainable while thriving for technological innovation.
a society that advanced free from cooperation with other cultures or people seems unlikely
True. The writers probably agree. Hence Wakanda literally having been built on top of a literal mountain of magic space science unobtainium that makes science go brrr practically by just being there.
Oh, and with magic drugs that allow Wakandan leaders to not only single handedly beat up any would be invaders, but also share the wisdom and acquired knowledge of all their ancestors.
Seems quite less unlikely and unsustainable when you take into account those two little details. 🤷♂️
Not trying to point out lack of realism in a work of fiction anyways. I was just trying to suggest that diversity hires could’ve been the name of the Disney game on those movies just as they are on many others. When it comes to representation there’s definitely no need to diversify a majority black cast. At least not for the sake of more caucasian faces. But I really do feel the words “the art should dictate it”. Black Panther’s source material was probably honored quite faithfully.
You got me there ngl. I’m not saying Black Panther has plot holes, I’m not even saying that the cast should’ve been more diverse because Disney or whatever. I was just trying to level with @hddsx saying the art should dictate the content instead of executives bending it to their will. In the case of Black Panther it was probably the art or the source material anyways so no real issue there.
Yes the implication that they sequestered themselves away and somehow progressed alongside the rest of humanity, sorry not only progressing but outpacing the rest of humanity is ridiculous.
It has nothing to do with them being African, the concept is made ridiculous by simply possessing a working knowledge of what human beings are.
Well how far do you want me to go in refuting that? Would attributing the US space program to the leftover Nazi braintrust be too far? I’m saying what I have said. That no people on their own can truly thrive. We excel when we work together (the moral implications of working with ex white supremacists exist but don’t negate that fact).
But yea sure we’re talking about a work of fiction. I just thought that people here feel that vibe of Disney pushing diversity for the sake of diversity. I feel like that does raise certain valid points about artistic integrity. And if that makes me sound to you like the guy who can’t stand the thought of a female Bond then that’s you reading stuff into it that I haven’t said.
To me turning Arielle black is like making Maleficent the protagonist. If something works (not for me personally but for audiences in general) then it will be rewarded accordingly. Whether i.e. The Marvels worked is up for everyone to decide.
I’m just letting you know your previous comment had racist undertones.
Your comment about turning Ariel black also has racist undertones. Mermaids aren’t real, maybe the black actress was better suited for the role in ways we don’t know about?
Well I think you were now given the chance to judge the book by something other than its cover. If you stick with your original assessment that’s entirely your prerogative. I was giving Arielle as an example of something that worked.
Sure, it isn’t necessary, but would he say the same thing about an all white or all male cast? That’s the default, so having something to show the default isn’t the only option is good too. As a cis straight white man, I don’t give a fuck if there isn’t a straight white man in a movie. Why should I? I see myself everywhere being validated. Let’s give other people extra space because they’ve been denied it for so long.
It’s mostly not necessary, just like it’s not necessary to have an all-white cast. In the last few years I came to realize that colorblind casting doesn’t diminish great art, just like it won’t help bad art to become better. I’m not saying casting should always be colorblind, but in sci-fi and fantasy movies I don’t see skin color or gender matter at all.
How do they define “antisemitic acts”? There have been widespread protests in support of Palestinian civilians, which goes against a ban in place since the attack by Hamas. Are they going to use vague definitions to revoke citizenship for people protesting against the genocide of Palestinians?
They will not revoke anything. They will just not grant citizenship for immigrants who have committed crimes that go against the (rough translation) "free and democratic foundations of the nation". Basically: if you are against German democratic and humanitarian values to a degree that is criminal In Germany (eg Hate crimes, attempts to overthrow an election, etc), you can't become a German citizen. You can live in Germany, you can be allowed to work here in Germany, but you ain't one of us ans you can't apply for most benefits.
Besides, the law actually makes it easier for immigrants to get German citizenship.
Uh, is my lemmy attaching the wrong replies to posts or something? Cause for me the comment this reply is on just doesn’t make sense as what is being replied to.
If it doesn’t make sense, let me explain it. Germany has previously banned nazi iconography. This has been true for my entire life. I’m drawing parallels between this new law in the article from Germany that has very little explanation, and an unconstitutionally vague bill in Florida being used to ban real history about the US.
No, it’s impossible to revoke German citizenship. Defined in article 16 GG. The only exception is treason benefitting a state the offender also holds citizenship in.
Canada should run it’s own official mastodon or lemmy instance to post canadian news/communications and whatnot. I never undestood how we still depend on American corporations like Twitter and facebook to share news. Like, even for my local govt, if I want to know if there is any road works, water issues and so on, it ends up on facebook only! This is dumb.
Canadian governmental entities (at all levels) aren’t known for their innovative thinking. Throughout the pandemic, regardless of your position on vaccines, the main fact that it was a group of volunteers in a discord channel that were responsible for the information shows the archaic state of digital communication in Canada. Frankly embarrassing by global comparison.
Israelis murder Palestinians, destroy their homes, attack schools and hospitals, shoot children, shoot doctors, bulldoze their refugee camps, etc etc, constantly, for decades and the world turns a blind eye.
Whenever there’s an attack from the Palestinians the world loses it’s shit.
Of course all deaths are bad but Israel are the oppressors here. Their actions are vile and now Netanyahu has said it’s “war”. If it’s war now what the fuck was it before?
Buddy you summed up my sentiments exactly. It feels like the whole fucking world is suffering from some form of amnesia. What do they expect the Palestinians to do, just accept their own extermination?
I can’t help but to think about the mental gymnastics required to support Ukraine while screaming about how Palastine is actually evil and needs to be stopped. Do they honestly think Ukraine hasn’t killed Russian civilians during the war? War is messy and when your options are to fight or face annihilation the answer is always the same, and it’s always messy.
Hamas sets up military operations in a civilian building by force - the civilians have no say in this and get killed if they protest Hamas then uses that building to launch rockets, store ammunition, communication stations How the fuck should Israel proceed to neutralize those sites? Because what they do is:
“Roof knocking”: Hitting the building’s roof with a small explosive to announce that it will fall in 15 minutes (see video www.youtube.com/watch?v=teevWpXlRZY example from yesterday) Automatic SMS and phone calls impacted areas warning and urging to evacuate Precision strikes that make the building fall vertically with minimal damage to the areas As a result, civilians (and potentially military personnel) are given a chance to evacuate while ammunition stashes, rocket launching stations etc stay in the building and are destroyed.
To be honest, I’m shocked those protocols are still used after Hamas’s attack. I would absolutely not be surprised of these measures stopped.
The anti-Israel don’t care that Israel is bending over backwards to minimize human suffering while fighting a decades long war against people who are deliberately trying to kill their children.
Remember how upset they are when Israel does something 100 percent defensive, like build a security fence to keep out an endless stream of suicide bombers?
This isn’t good-faith criticism.
These people hate Israel for this that they works be applauding other countries for. And we all know why
The logic is you hide within the general population and count on the other side to be “more civilized”. Or you’re enough of a sociopath to want the response to hit the general population to radicalize people just trying to live their lives
Hamas sets up military operations in a civilian building by force - the civilians have no say in this and get killed if they protest Hamas then uses that building to launch rockets, store ammunition, communication stations How the fuck should Israel proceed to neutralize those sites? Because what they do is:
“Roof knocking”: Hitting the building’s roof with a small explosive to announce that it will fall in 15 minutes (see video www.youtube.com/watch?v=teevWpXlRZY example from yesterday) Automatic SMS and phone calls impacted areas warning and urging to evacuate Precision strikes that make the building fall vertically with minimal damage to the areas As a result, civilians (and potentially military personnel) are given a chance to evacuate while ammunition stashes, rocket launching stations etc stay in the building and are destroyed.
To be honest, I’m shocked those protocols are still used after Hamas’s attack. I would absolutely not be surprised of these measures stopped.
The anti-Israel don’t care that Israel is bending over backwards to minimize human suffering while fighting a decades long war against people who are deliberately trying to kill their children.
Remember how upset they are when Israel does something 100 percent defensive, like build a security fence to keep out an endless stream of suicide bombers?
This isn’t good-faith criticism.
These people hate Israel for this that they works be applauding other countries for. And we all know why
That’s because people don’t pay attention. There have been several times over the last few years where I see a story of IDF leveling an apartment block or executing a group of people, it’s always hand-waved as “they were terrorists, trust me Bro I’m looking at the evidence that I can’t show you for security reasons”
And the world turns.
Days later one of the victims sorry TERRORISTS stabs an IDF soldier on the street? PROOF THAT ALL PALESTINIANS ARE TERRORISTS is the gist of every news outlet.
When you move into your neighbors pool house, don’t be surprised when they chase you around with a baseball bat.
Yes, it IS unfortunate that civilians get caught in the crossfire. But when one side started by targeting civilians, it’s not as simple as “these guys are terrorists and the people who fight them are inherently good” like a shitload of people are trying to make it out to be.
We have no way of verifying facts and obviously there was no trial in those cases, yet they have been consistently in response to terrorist attacks.
The whole area is a shitty complex mess with a long history of violence back and forth. Claiming there’s a simple solution is just naïveté, saying Israel doesn’t have a right to respond is just stupid. I have no idea if there is a way to fix it, but I know pressuring one side to not respond to terrorism is not it
Hamas sets up military operations in a civilian building by force - the civilians have no say in this and get killed if they protest Hamas then uses that building to launch rockets, store ammunition, communication stations How the fuck should Israel proceed to neutralize those sites? Because what they do is:
“Roof knocking”: Hitting the building’s roof with a small explosive to announce that it will fall in 15 minutes (see video www.youtube.com/watch?v=teevWpXlRZY example from yesterday) Automatic SMS and phone calls impacted areas warning and urging to evacuate Precision strikes that make the building fall vertically with minimal damage to the areas As a result, civilians (and potentially military personnel) are given a chance to evacuate while ammunition stashes, rocket launching stations etc stay in the building and are destroyed.
To be honest, I’m shocked those protocols are still used after Hamas’s attack. I would absolutely not be surprised of these measures stopped.
The anti-Israel don’t care that Israel is bending over backwards to minimize human suffering while fighting a decades long war against people who are deliberately trying to kill their children.
Remember how upset they are when Israel does something 100 percent defensive, like build a security fence to keep out an endless stream of suicide bombers?
This isn’t good-faith criticism.
These people hate Israel for this that they works be applauding other countries for. And we all know why
No one is pearl clutching over dead soldiers, but when you machine gun down several hundred music festival attendees (incl. foreign nationals), rape the women, parade their naked defiled corpses around so others can spit on them, and upload the video to share with everyone, you’re going to get some international condemnation and re-evaluation of support.
Ironic since Israel has practiced “kneecapping” for years during protests. The reality of the situation is that both sides are shitty. But one of the sides gets a complete pass, while the other gets shat on and ignored.
Wait, so you’re saying that bad IDF acts justify sadistically murdering hundreds of civilians at a music festival? Well, that is some beautifully circular logic, because now whatever warcrimes the IDF commits during this war, which seems likely, magically become a wash.
So when videos come out of dead Palestine kids in Gaza, I imagine you’ll gladly accept the same argument when someone points back to the festival and says “It’s justified because of this”, right?
No. What I said is “the world is grey”. Palestine has been under occupation for over 70 years. Their country is routinely attacked. The people are being locked up inside a tiny space with little prospects for the future other than Israel walking in and bulldozing everything. Then Israel has been attacked by its neighbors as well. They have a need to arm themselves to exist.
The reality is both sides are playing the entire situation shittily. You can’t undo years of hurt by both countries.
You’ll see that this will start a genocide of Gaza. And when those photos of dead kids start arriving, people won’t care. When the death toll in civillians starts rising to unprecedented levels, people won’t care.
I mean this attack very openly and clearly targeted German nationals. Its not odd for a government to oppose another government (if you can call hamas that) when they just up and kill and mutilate your citizens with impunity. Of course governments should also care about other people’s being killed but frankly they can’t for the most part because their interests always align with what’s best for their own people and close diplomatic ties is better than aggression. You kill their people, well no amount of grandstanding will save you.
Yep, both sides just fired thousands of rockets at civilians, intentionally shot hundreds of civilians at a festival, in homes, or on the streets. Both sides kidnapped civilians, including foreign nationals, and publish torture videos, defiling bodies, etc. both sides not just kill soldiers on the other side but raid, torture, publish video defiling their bodies. Yep, same exact thing.
This “what aboutism” is as bad as the Hamas guy saying this is all just to get international attention for their plight. Yep, I see you as terrorists, and won’t object to however Israel responds, nor will I object to any support for Israel, including military. They’ve just given most of the world a reason to rally around Israel and ok whatever they do. Good strategy
Google the proportion of dead Israelis and dead Palestinians over the years. But you won’t, you’ll just react emotionally to everything since that’s more convenient. Both sides fucking suck. Both sides have civillians that get hurt. You equate hamas to the two million people that just want to live their lives. Which is basically equal to “all brown people are terrorists”. And right now, those two million people will be denied electricity, food and water and will be genocided away.
That will show you one thing only: Israel has the stronger military.
It doesn’t say a thing about who attempted to kill more civilians, and who took steps to avoid civilian deaths. It doesn’t say anything about who has made concessions for peace, and who has walked away from peace deals for almost a century.
If you think those numbers shows that Israel is the bad guy, you would absolutely shit yourself if you saw a similar chart comparing the US and Nazi Germany.
You are right, it shows the fact that Israel killed more people.
Israel is the bad guy. And so are the Palestinians. There is no black and white situation here - with one being the good guys and one being the bad guys. Israel isn’t in the right here, they don’t have the moral high ground. And neither do the Palestinians.
You are a fascist Westoid and you’ll get what’s coming to you. The world doesn’t stand with Israel, the fuck? Only the imperial West stands with the apartheid state, just as they once stood with Africa. Fuck Zionism, Free Palestine
All violence in Israel and Palestine is directly caused by the Israeli apartheid. It sucks all those innocent people died, but I’m not going to feel sorry for them when they started the fight, and they continued it for 75 years.
The world knew, but they didn’t know what to do. The only thing that could have helped is getting UN soldiers for protection, so the Israelis would have to attack soldiers of other nations to harm Palestinians.
I mean, that’s what this comes to, right? If he ordered Seal Team Six to storm Mar-A-Lago to recover classified materials with deadly force, then he’s operating in order to maintain national security via his authority as Commander in Chief. That would be legal under this ruling, correct?
I get that would lead to an actual civil war, and I get that their argument is important to shield the office from neverending frivolous lawsuits, but in being forced to rule so explicitly on this it seems like they’ve opened the door to political assassinations. All a President would need is a willing wing of the military and a superficial rationalization and there’d be nothing a court in this country could do about it.
You’re missing that the Supreme Court is taking the piss and the District Court they’re kicking this back to has already done their homework and defined the official acts versus unofficial acts. They’re ret-2-go but the Supreme’s did their job of punting this until at least October, since that’s when they come back from vacation. So when the District Court punts it back up the chain to the Supreme Court, they have to wait for the Supreme Court to reconvene. It’s fucking stupid, but it accomplished getting Trump nothing but a legal time-out.
Oh, ALSO:
Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
They literally fucked us out of a ton of evidence with this part of the ruling.
But national security is. All they would need is a flimsy justification that the person was stealing state secrets (like Trump) or organizing a terrorist attack, which could include any contact with an armed or paramilitary group that’s planning a protest. They could use state influence to coerce that group to take action, and the records of that planning process would be inadmissible per this ruling. It’s not hard to come up with superficial reasons that do align with Constitutional obligations.
Edit to add: Hell, just look at the McCarthy era, or the Iraq war. It’s not hard at all for a sufficiently shameless group of politicians to gin up a moral panic about national security. They don’t even need evidence, they just need motive. We’re real fucking close to the government being able to legally assassinate purported communists for subversion.
Just because national security is the domain of the Executive doesn’t mean they can use lethal force on anyone they wish in any scenario they wish in lieu of effecting arrests for alleged crimes.
I mean, they have to sign some paperwork to make it an official act, but otherwise what’s the difference? They don’t have to arrest anyone according to this ruling, if I’m reading this correctly. Sure, us normal citizens probably do, but according to the court, presidents don’t have to follow the law if it’s an official act. That’s kind of the basis of the dissent. It separates the rules we follow and our leaders have to follow.
You might want to reread the syllabus of the opinion. They differentiate between actions that may be official and ones that can’t. About halfway down pg 4.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If it explicitly says the president can do something any law stopping him from doing that would be unconditional and voided, at least as applied.
Otherwise it would be like they amended the Constitution without going through the correct process.
The syllabus only says that SCOTUS can’t decide the line between official and unofficial acts because it’s a court of final review, and they offered a list of guidance to lower courts who they charged with making the distinction. They point to pp 16-32 for more detail on that guidance.
The guidance says:
Courts cannot consider motive
An act is not unofficial simply because it violates a law
Courts cannot consider negotiations with DoJ
Courts cannot consider negotiations with or influence of the VP if the VP is serving an executive branch function, but may consider influence of the VP if the VP is serving a legislative branch function (i.e. supervising the Senate)
Engagement with private parties is not an official act
Public communication of the person serving in the role of President is official, but public communication of the President serving in another role is not
Prosecutors cannot use a jury to indirectly infringe on immunity unless a judge has already ruled that immunity does not exist
So again, if a President sends a branch of the military to a) assassinate a terrorist or b) recover national security secrets, none of the allowable court considerations above come into play. Nor do they if the assassinated individual is a SCOTUS justice or a political rival. The executive branch and military are the only entities involved, no public communication happens, murder is OK if it’s done in an official capacity, and planning records are inadmissible. A prosecutor would have no authority to bring a case, and a court would have no precedent to allow consideration of the charge even if they were brought.
The ruling says that INTENT cannot be questioned. The President can say whatever he/she wants after the assassination, and it cannot be questioned by courts. The Pres can say that the killing stopped an imminent terror attack. They can say the person was in the middle of committing a crime and had a (totally not planted) gun on them.
I get what you are saying, that extrajudicial execution is not a faculty given to the executive branch. In the US, the judicial system is supposed to have the power over adjudicating crimes. And US citizens have the right to trial by their peers. But the government has shown repeatedly in the past that when it comes to terror that they are more than happy to waive rights. See: Guantanamo, drone kills of US citizens, cops killing people who are only suspected of being a threat, etc.
“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
Of course that’s only for Republican presidents. The Supreme Court has already shown that they don’t care about precedent, so if Biden does something, it’ll come back up and they’ll find it was not an official act and can be prosecuted, no matter what it was.
The main thing you’re missing is that the words of the court are meaningless. They’ll always be able to use the next ruling to bend the outcome to the conservatives’ whims.
This is a government of men, not laws. Always has been.
“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
One justice put that out there during oral arguments, but I’ve read the majority ruling and it doesn’t mention assassinations. The dissenting opinion does mention the question of what acts fall within official duties, including political assassinations.
He didn’t want to pack the court so I’m not holding out hope that he’d empty the court either. Obviously assassinating justices would completely fuck the country up, but one could argue that the current justices are slow playing us into a fascist dictatorship.
Honestly, the quickest way out is to officially order the summary executions of the judges who established this new immunity - then pass a second law ordering that SCOTUS must always evenly represent all major parties, one out, one in.
Then get new judges in that will reverse the immunity ruling. That way this sort of problem won’t come up again.
Sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be watered with blood. This is may be one of those times.
Honestly this is an awful situation. But the reason you don't see more harsh criticisms from world leaders (and there have been criticisms and statements calling some of what they are doing as illegal) is because the world leaders know that they may need to same option if something similar happens to them.
Do you have a better suggestion for what Israel should do in order to respond. And saying "free Palestine" doesn't count. They completely left Gaza and it got worse. I can't stand Bibi, but he absolutely called it when they were planning to leave Gaza. The blockade of Gaza didn't start until Hamas took over. And do recall Egypt is also blockading.
If Tijuana started launching rockets and attacked thousands of civilians in California, what do think the response would look like? Or if Morocco did the same to Ceuta?
I don't see how this attack ends. I mean it has absolutely destroyed the chance for Gaza reps to be involved in peace talks. Not that there was much chance of that. Honestly, if I had to guess, Israel plans to wipe out all of the higher up Hamas this time in an attempt to bring Gaza back under the PA/Fatah.
But, given the situation is what it is, how do you think the Israeli government should respond?
I mean. I agree that Hamas are fuckheads and the leaders are very safe somewhere else. They don't care that much about the response. And of course I condemn Hamas' killing of civilians.
Hamas is a tumor that is not interested in lasting peace with Israel. I agree that moderate factions should be governing.
Now, as what Israel should do. It's not easy, I agree. Any option has drawbacks, so there is no good solution, especially at this boiling point.
Keep up the siege, or rather lockdown athat point, but let necessities of life through. Let the Red Cross and other orgnizations help the civilians.
The issue is, that doing this will not lessen the disdain peolle in Gaza have for Israel and become new fertile ground of hatred against Israel. Unless they kill everyone there, at which point the situation is solved. But for what price?
Incentivizing mass murder, bold move. Next time someone you love gets murdered be sure to give the murderer a gift rather than seeking punishment for them. I'm sure that will improve things and lead to a more safe and fair world.
Your position might have been reasonable two weeks ago. Today, reconciliation with a hostile enemy who is actively murdering and kidnapping your civilians is both inappropriate and foolish.
I’m a fool then. It’s called settler colonialism. And even if I don’t agree with the methods, who am I to judge those who are oppressed. Israel enabled Hamas. So if you don’t like what they did, blame Israel. It’s not complicated.
So if you don’t like what they did, blame Israel. It’s not complicated.
"Look what you made me do!" Screamed the terrorist as he murdered old women, kidnapped innocents to be used as hostages, paraded bloodied bodies through the streets, beheaded babies, and raped civilians in front of their dead friends.
Your bent logic doesn’t work. Was I vile when I nearly cried as I watched a young, barely teen, Palestinian girl pulled from the rubble of her home after it was bombed? If that’s vile, so be it. I stand with Palestine! Not Hamas. Palestine! You stand with Settler Terrorism.
Was I vile when I nearly cried as I watched a young, barely teen, Palestinian girl pulled from the rubble of her home after it was bombed?
That is worthy of sympathy, what's vile is then saying this justifies mediaeval brutality against civilians. There's a difference between collateral damage and intentionally murdering civilians. Israel goes to great lengths to minimize collateral damage, often giving targets of their strikes advanced warning. If Israel behaved like Hamas, if they went by the same playbook and sought to maximize civilian deaths, there would be no Palestine. The behaviors of these actors are not morally equivalent.
I stand with Palestine! Not Hamas. Palestine!
Palestinians of Gaza elected Hamas, they are the representatives that they chose to represent them. Don't pretend this is an unrelated entity. These attacks were not orchestrated by some clandestine civilians, it was the genocidal government they chose behaving the way they said they would.
You’ve been brainwashed. You have no understanding of the history of this conflict. I’ll let Richard Boyd Barret explain it. Don’t bother shopping for shoes, you have no legs to stand on.
Then they should probably return to the negotiation table to participate in the peace process willing to make concessions, and stop launching constant guerilla terrorist attacks against civilians, poking the bear. That's the only viable way that they can be left alone. They don't seem interested in going that route and instead seem keen on genocide against an enemy they can't hope to defeat militarily.
Israel withdrew from Gaza and then the Palestinians there elected Hamas, now this happened as a result. Way to incentivize Israel to leave them alone.
I mean, they kind of left Gaza. They still send soldiers in there all the time, they still control most of its borders, it’s water, electricity, trash, etc, and they cut those things off all the time. It’s basically an open air prison.
Also, Israel has killed off all higher Hamas members before so that won’t work. And Bibi supported Hamas to prevent a two state solution before so doubt he wants them united under one government. He just wants to do a genocide now, let’s be honest.
As for possible solutions, there’s too much emnity between Israel and Palestine, there probably needs to be a third party at this point, even though one caused the problem in the first place lol. Someone that’s not the US or UK, since Israel is basically their puppet state and the UK caused the initial issues, and not one of the anti-Israel states like Iran. Or maybe it needs to be formed from both groups so that both points of view are represented? Idk. A solution is definitely the hardest part for sure.
Gotta love how everyone calls Gaza an “open air prison” then go on to blame Israel, totally disregarding the fact that Gaza’s southern border is with Egypt.
That’s because Egypt isn’t the one who kicked them out of their homes and spread into more land, kickstarting the crisis in the first place.
They definitely should accept more than they have, but we can’t blame Egypt for not wanting literally millions of refugees. No country would want that. Otherwise you end up like Palestine when the Israelis came in, or the Native Americans when British colonists come in.
I’m a little uninformed on the topic but what’s stopping Egypt from taking over the territory? Millions of refugees clearly is a hard prospect but tonnes of land, lots of new citizens to live on it, a wealthy neighbor in Israel, and I have to imagine Israel would be more receptive to Egypt than hamas.
Gaza was controlled by Egypt for quite a while. Israel occupied it and the Sinai after the 1967 six day day war. When they returned the Sinai to Egypt they also offered Gaza back as well so it could go back under their control, but Egypt refused as they didn’t want to take on all the Palestinian people who could potentially destabilize Egypt.
Jordan also wouldn’t want the west bank back (not that they really have a claim to it either) because Palestinians in Jordan tried to overthrow the monarchy there.
Now that there’s a Palestinian identity (instead of just a general Arab identity like it used to be) the Palestinians need to have their own self governance and independence. Absorbing the territories and population into other countries isn’t going to be a solution.
Both sides need to cut out the bullshit and negotiate in good faith to find a long term solution. Unfortunately with how entrenched the hate is it’s sadly unlikely to happen. The cycle will continue until both sides want it to stop.
I think the horrible truth of the matter is that the cycle won’t stop until one side is dead, no matter how much we wish otherwise. There’s just too much bad blood for either side to trust the other, too many old grudges spawning new grudges that in turn result in more bloodshed. I legitimately, honestly, seriously don’t see a peaceful solution–the Israelis won’t give anything up because they (rightly) fear any concessions will simply be used to fuel further attacks by militants until they’re driven out or eradicated, and the Palestinians won’t give anything up because they don’t have anything left to give up, nor do they have anyone who will take them in, so they can’t even leave (which they don’t want to do anyway since they’d been living there for centuries).
The worst part is that deep down, pretty much everyone knows this, and they know that supporting one side means tacitly supporting the genocide and eradication of the other. But nobody in power wants to come out and say it, because admitting you’re supporting genocide is a surefire way to piss off literally everyone. So we get platitudes and high-minded speeches about preventing civilian casualties, and everyone hems and haws while we create our own little Hell on earth.
I’m addition to all the good info buzziebee gave, It’s too late with Hamas having control of Gaza now. They’re affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt doesn’t want those extremists in their country, they’ve already had issues with them before so I’m pretty sure the MB is illegal in there now.
Great points, but that doesn’t stop Egypt from allowing food, water, humanitarian aid, etc from being brought into Gaza, but people talk like Israel has 100% control over Gaza’s borders.
Besides, if Gaza and the West Bank were officially the state of Palestine, Israel would have no obligation to allow free passage between Israel and Palestine so it would basically be the same as it is now, although I’m assuming that right now there is also a naval blockade.
Presumably, they’d finally have control over their own water, electricity, trash, etc. And international recognition would help them avoid Israel just taking over more land like they have in the past and are currently doing in the West Bank. But it’s complicated. Idk even know if I’m for a one-state or two-state solution. I feel like I keep bouncing between them, because you’re right, there’s still some problems with the two-state solution.
It would be better if they could all share the land in peace, without the settler colonialism. Maybe with some Constitutional guarantee of rights so the more numerous Palestinian population didn’t immediately use their votes to fuck over the Jewish population there as soon as they got the right to vote. But idk, I’m not some doctorate in international and Middle-Eastern relations, I’m just a person who doesn’t like civilian deaths and wants to see it all stop 😔
I totally agree. I think a separate internationally recognized Palestinian state is the only solution to keep Israel from encroaching on any more land than they have. That’s been offered in the past but turned down by the Palestinians. A separate Palestinian state will also not prevent both sides from firing rockets at each other until the end of time.
The only reason they can cut off water and power is because Israel provides them with those things. PA has been given money to develop infrastructure, but Hamas chooses to cut up pipes to build rockets and use cement for smuggling tunnels.
But the reason you don’t see more harsh criticisms from world leaders (and there have been criticisms and statements calling some of what they are doing as illegal) is because the world leaders know that they may need to same option if something similar happens to them.
They left Gaza and then doubled down not only on embargoes, but also on building illegal settlements in West Bank in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention that they are signatories to.
One of the Egyptian security sources, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters news agency that Egypt rejected the idea of safe corridors for civilians to protect “the right of Palestinians to hold on to their cause and their land”.
Evidently they care more about the political pressure Palestineans provide against Israel than they do keeping their fellow Arabs safe, and they don't want to deal with the negative effects of letting hostile refugees in. (That didn't work out well for Jordan or Lebanon.)
If you were in charge of Israel right now, how would you respond? Just sending in troops without air support to pacify Gaza would presumably lead to a lot of deaths like it has in the past.
Do as Pakistan did when retaking occupied Swat from the Pakistan Taliban. Flood in soldiers and retake the territory. Of course Pakistan knew that their troops would behave themselves in Swat, I think the Israelis are worried what IDF soldiers might get up too.
Yes. Pakistani troops are definitely better trained and more controlled than the Israeli military. That sounds right. Also, you are overlooking some big differences. The civilian population could "easily" leave and did. And the Pakistani Taliban were an organized group of militants more easily separated from the general population.
No dumbass. What I meant was that the Pakistani Army specifically used natives of KPK in their attack, y’know so that it was certain that they would care about the civilians since they were the soldiers’ own people. Obviously IDF soldiers do not consider Palestinian kin, as proven by the 200 or more Palestinians killed every year. And obviously the IDF couldn’t give 2 shits about their conduct towards the Arabs.
And no the population didn’t leave? Where the fuck did you get that from. It was bloody urban fighting all the way down the valley and up the glaciers and mountain sides. And no how would you separate the Taliban from the civilians, cause they were also mostly locals.
And yes Pakistani troops are better behaved in their own country. As proven by the ongoing military occupation of multiple northern territories as well as a mission to police Karachi. Go to currently occupied, previously Taliban controlled territory, every shop shutter is covered in Praise for the Army.
2.2 million compared to the 33 million population of the province of KPK. The same proportion in Gaza would be 120k people. Moreover, the token Arabs in the IDF are not comparable to the likes of the Frontier Corps, the Pakistan Rangers or the IX Corp.
There is a reason that Pakistan eventually fully integrated the ‘federally administered’ tribal areas. Just ask America what happens when you send in a bunch of troops that can’t even begin to pronounce the language, nevermind understand local culture.
The Arab states don’t want an influx of refugees, especially if that means a fraction of them will Islamist (Egypt in particular), but they also don’t want to let Israel depopulate Palestinian territory by forced relocation of the residents into their countries.
Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim brotherhood. Egypt has a long history of issues with the Muslim brotherhood. Some of it, in fact, just happened. They are not keen on more of that trouble.
Couldn’t be happening to a more deserving guy. Between the racism lawsuits, his ex-girlfriend lawsuit, investor lawsuits, former executive suing him, and now the SEC? I hope this is the year we take all of Elon’s money.
Just shows how weak our government is against the rich. If the SEC order any of us to appear we would appear or go to jail. These fucker can even ignore subpoena.
They couldn’t even enforce their settlement with him over the fraud he was investigated for at Tesla. Which doesn’t even count all the fraud they turned a blind eye to.
I’m extremely aware of what the SEC is. They explicitly chose not to go back to court when Musk refused to abide by the terms of the agreement that was further clarified by the court after he refused to abide by the settlement terms initially.
Having to type a whole extra paragraph just to make pedants happy makes the internet suck.
As much as I would love for that to happen, money just gets shuffled around between companies and people like cards at a casino. It's exceptionally easy to launder it when you're that wealthy.
And then even if you do somehow manage to remove all his assets, he still maintains his existing social networks and connections, which may be enough to get him back to a similar position.
Prison is necessary if he has committed financial crimes. Anything less is merely finger-wagging.
With the latest decisions related to discussions of piracy on Reddit I wouldn’t be surprised if piracy specifically gets added to a list of banned topics.
Okay, isn’t bombing an embassy an absolutely insane escalation? Even throughout WW1, WW2, or any other war in the past century, no country was crazy enough to undermine the sanctity of diplomacy like this and antagonize everyone.
The only other time this has happened in history was when NATO bombed a Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999, and even here the US — the most war-mongering nation on the planet — apologized, said it was a mistake (though it definitely wasn’t — it was removed from the list of prohibited targets beforehand and struck 3 separate times), and paid for it to be rebuilt. Israel is completely unhinged.
Yes. This is generally agreed upon as being a terminal escalation.
Attacking diplomatic missions very quickly turns into no diplomacy between the two countries. This doesn’t leave many options other than military actions on the table.
The US has commissioned entire offices devoted to ensuring striking an embassy doesn’t happen again. Millions are spent every year to update the (surprisingly ever-changing) locations of embassies around the world so they don’t make the same mistake in the future. Whatever the thought process was that “allowed” a strike then has been eliminated and then some.
Okay, isn’t bombing an embassy an absolutely insane escalation?
Yep. There’s literally two countries in the world who could get away with it without causing a major diplomatic crisis if not downright war: Israel and the US.
Or anyone else everyone is basically already at war with. E.g. if Ukraine were to destroy the Russian embassy in North Korea, nothing would escalate past where it already is.
Little nuance here, Syria and Iran don’t get along, and Israel doesn’t have any particular problem with Syria, they have a problem with a nominally Syrian area controlled by an Iranian backed militia. Syria will do nothing, probably thinks this is funny. Iran might.
reuters.com
Top