How does this not lead to sanctions and international isolation? It's incredible that so many countries actively support Israel, or just look away from this.
IDF says they're targeting a command centre for the Jenin Brigade, "a place where armed terrorists would gather before and after terrorist activities,” the IDF said, adding that the camp was a “site for weapons and explosives” and “hub for coordination and communication among the terrorists," in an effort to break the "safe haven" mentality of the area for terrorists.
They say they told the Palestinian Authoroty and Jordan they were going to do this in advance.
They say "Some 50 shooting attacks against Israelis have emanated from Jenin."
My best guess as to why it doesn't lead to immediate sanctions and isolation is because some governments think the above is true.
Phones should be turned off or left at home anyways when protesting. Here are my 10 commandments for engaging in protests:
1: never bring your wallet/ID. If you need to buy things, bring cash
2: either shut off your phone or leave it with your wallet. Recording police violence can be useful, in that case get the aclu app, a burner phone with the app, or an action camera
3: never speak to police under any circumstance
4: you can beat the charge but you can't beat the ride
5: bring water, it's more useful than for just drinking
6: bring hats, sunglasses, etc to avoid being identified by the state if it gets violent
7: wear good running shoes
8: know your rights, both federal and local, and when to use them
9: take out any contact lenses in case police use tear gas
10: stay aware of your surroundings; listen to picket line enforcers/community organizers
As others have pointed out, Crimea is not 82% Russian. The majority of the populace speaks Russian, but a shared language does not indicate a shared culture. They don't want to be part of Russia, and were illegally invaded.
Crimea wasn't "invaded". Russia was already there as it leased the port and officially managed it for military use already. That's why there was no fighting. They already ran the checkpoints, they already were the entire military presence in the region. The changeover from "this is Ukraine" to "this is Russia now" was entirely the signing of papers and changed absolutely nothing about the presence in the region or the average day to day. They certainly took it over, but to say it was invaded is somewhat misleading, more of a "we've decided that this is ours now".
This is a gross and flagrant distortion of events in Crimea leading up to the illegal annexation. It leaves out the fact that the operation of the checkpoints was still subject to Ukrainian governmental oversight, the fact that prior to the take-over, Russia illegally brought soldiers in unmarked uniforms over the border (the "little green men"), and the fact that the "changeover" was far from violence-free, let alone just a "signing of papers."
The denial of reality going on here is absurd. Pre 2014 I know they operated the checkpoints because I went to Crimea for 2 weeks in 2009. I'm not saying that there wasn't also fuckery involved but denying the reality of events is nonsensical. There is even a vice documentary that shows just how casual the transition was. It's extremely painful discussing these topics with people online whose only understanding of these regions comes through the lens of this war.
I never said Russia didn't operate the checkpoints. But prior to 2014, Crimea was indisputably Ukrainian territory, and Russia operated security checkpoints inside Ukraine at Ukraine's discretion.
No one is claiming that the annexation of Crimea involved violence at the scale of the current war, but it was not non-violent, either. Characterizing it as just "signing of papers" is false.
It’s extremely painful discussing these topics with people online whose only understanding of these regions comes through the lens of this war.
What other lens should we look at the annexation through? It was clearly the early stages of this war.
I'm not saying it wasn't Ukrainian territory. I'm saying that the presence there was 100% russian military because it was functionally operated as their military port.
This is precisely why there was no battle over it, no deaths, no nothing. Just "this is russia now" and continued operation of it as they always had but with different flags.
What other lens should we look at the annexation through? It was clearly the early stages of this war.
I'd much prefer a non-war lens of the place and how cool it is. Most people in america hadn't even heard of it until the annexation, it's very unfortunate.
I don't think calling it the early stages of this war is quite accurate but it's not really that important and kinda gets into unnecessary semantics. The war probably wouldn't be happening if the Minsk agreement had been kept. Russia were never going to let Crimea go because they needed it as a military port but they avoided Donetsk and Luhansk up until the Minsk agreement failed. If they had taken these regions in 2014 it would have been a breeze for them as Ukraine had no military to speak of, which is why the civil war was fought by the nazi volunteer batallions (azov, right sector, etc etc). Ukraine's military was ramped up between 2014 and 2021. They did not really have much of anything until the 2016 Stategic Defense Bulletin followed by the State Program for the Development of the Armed Forces (2017-2020). In 2014 the military was only 90k active personnel with over half being civilian staff.
We'd all prefer a non-war lens of Crimea. You're right, it was a cool and interesting place, and hopefully still will be when the war is over.
But Russia has no say over whether another country's territory will be used as Russia's military port. The fact is, Ukraine was amenable to hosting Russia's military there, so long as Russia didn't try to actually own the land, but they've forfeited their right to use it now.
Ultimately, Russia's military will be ousted from Crimea along with the rest of Ukraine, and that will be that. Had they never annexed it or escalated to open warfare, they would still be operating there freely today, with a much friendlier Ukraine happily hosting them.
I uhh. Don't share your optimism or actually care who runs it, I only really care that the people I know there remain safe. For them and for myself the flag be waved around is somewhat meaningless compared to the human impact of all this nonsense, particularly because some of my socialist friends are gone now. With that said I don't see Crimea changing hands again, nor does anyone I have spoken to currently in Crimea. I might change that assessment if the counteroffensive ever actually sees the first line of dragon's teeth but so far it's been completely underwhelming. Everyone also sees the deployment of clusterbombs as a "let's salt the earth so it's worthless to them" move rather than anything that will change the counteroffensive's prospects.
There is an easy way to end the war: Russian withdrawal. It really is as simple as that.
At any point in history Russian Federation had no right or business to occupy any part of Ukraine. It was up to Ukraine to decide what to do with those areas.
While we all want the war to stop, it cannot be done at any price. Ukraine must be allowed to return the areas stolen from it and Russia must return to pre 2014 borders. Either they do it willingly or with force. No one likes it, but it's Russia that chose to attack, not Ukraine.
I hope your friends are safe, but at the same time I hope they have the sense to leave Crimea until things settle.
And let's hope for peace, but recognize that it cannot be achieved by giving into the offender's demands.
There is an easy way to end the war: Russian withdrawal. It really is as simple as that.
Not physically possible under russian law.
While we all want the war to stop, it cannot be done at any price. Ukraine must be allowed to return the areas stolen from it and Russia must return to pre 2014 borders. Either they do it willingly or with force. No one likes it, but it’s Russia that chose to attack, not Ukraine.
Again, this is not possible under Russian law. The notion that it'll be done with force is similarly unrealistic, nukes would fly before these were taken by force. But before that happens you'd have to see the removal of the Russian warships off the coast which will be obliterating anything that comes near Crimea. It just isn't ever happening without a navy or an airforce.
I hope your friends are safe, but at the same time I hope they have the sense to leave Crimea until things settle.
They're fine for now. It's relatively quiet there because the defensive line is so far away, barring these bridge incidents.
And let’s hope for peace, but recognize that it cannot be achieved by giving into the offender’s demands.
We'd be there already if not for boris fucking johnson. I really don't know why you care about the "offender's demands" either. Are you a nationalist? People are what matter. I could not give a shit about what flag exists between the two, right now it's just a situation where two extremely shit sides throw thousands of lives into a meatgrinder and all I want to see is the meatgrinder stop.
Even at the cost of Ukrainian territorial integrity? That’s for the Ukrainians to decide, and so far they’re picking the meat grinder. More power to them.
Yes. I could not give a shit about "territorial integrity". This is nationalism. I'm not a nationalist, I don't like states especially bourgeoise states.
You are putting nationalism ahead of people's lives.
That’s for the Ukrainians to decide
No it isn't. It's for the Ukrainian rulers to decide. The people don't get any choice in it, that's the problem. And everyone that opposed this war was rounded up and arrested, every left wing party in the country was shut down, and the left wing tv channels were also shut down, all under the "they're pro russia" excuse simply for being against the war. There is no "let the ukrainians decide" under that environment.
Support for the war is high in Ukraine. Where did you get your sources for freedom of speech being suspended in Ukraine and people with anti war sentiments getting arrested?
It’s ironic, you claim to care about the people, but you don’t care about what the people of Ukraine actually want.
Una dintre cele mai bune case de pariuri, superbet din România vă va deschide o întreagă lume de divertisment în materie de jocuri de noroc. Oferă nu numai o selecție largă de jocuri, dar oferă și un proces de pariere sigur și securizat, astfel încât să te poți distra de minune, fără să îți faci griji decât pentru câștigul tău. Pe site, veți găsi o mulțime de tipuri de pariuri interesante pentru toate gusturile, care cu siguranță vă vor cuceri de la prima vedere.
The majority of polled economists in the US do not support getting rid of student loan debt but continue to argue that the Wall Street Bailouts were a good idea. The Brookings Institute for example publishes near monthly articles on the subject.
Economists are not objective. They work for banks. They tells us what banks want us to think.
This is so far from being the truth. Please get an economics degree and see if you still think that.
First off I don't need a degree in theology to be an atheist. Nor a degree in Chiropractic "medicine" to know that it is dangerous bullshit.
Secondly, what did I say that factually was not true?
I don’t know if I like this place. Everything is so conspiratorial.
Sorry, you should ask for your money back. Go hang out on like reason.org or some economists blog and circle jerk each other on how great student loans are.
Correct, you don't, because those are garbage disciplines based on nothing whereas economics is decidedly not. Economics is the study of constrained choice, using rigorous math to model these scenarios and applied statistics to test the models. Any 1st or 2nd year course you take in economics isn't revealing truisms about the world - they are introducing concepts and highly simplified, abstracted models so that when you get into upper year courses and you start using extremely heavy math to make more realistic models that are serious attempts to explain actual human behavior, you're not completely lost.
You take at face-value that certain subsets of economists argue in favor of bank bailouts but against student loan relief is proof that they're evil, or garbage, or bought and paid for, without even understanding the arguments. The bank bailouts were loans which the banks paid back - would you be fine with the government giving out more loans to pay off existing student loans?
How long have they been recording? I assume there's no records from all that long ago. Being as how humans, and measurement especially are a fairly new thing.
Oh, they’ll do the ad campaigns and raise the prices in the name of green-ness.
A classic example of this is electric utilities charging more and saying "all our electricity comes from renewable sources!" while ignoring the fact that renewable energy is typically cheaper for them to buy on the market.
You misunderstand. I'm saying the end user energy company justifies being on the more expensive side by advertising that they use renewables, but actually when they buy electricity renewables is cheaper for them. So they're paying less but charging the end user more.
The cost saving of renewables is rarely passed on to the consumer.
I mean there is some reason not to, at least until proper alternatives are set up. I work in the HV industry, and in my opinion we've rushed to close larger, relatively efficient coal plants and replace them with smaller, far less efficient diesel and gas generators that can be hidden behind tall fences in industrial estates. These pollute far more per MW than coal plants, but they're out of sight, out of mind.
We definitely should be going hard into current renewable technology to fill out demand. That's the fastest way to net zero in many regions. There is something to be said for big rotating generators though, ie large turbines, as these provide voltage and frequency stability - renewables are often inverter driven, even wind turbines, so these are always following the grid and can destabilise if voltage or frequency goes. Meanwhile, a large machine has inertia so it will want to keep spinning and maintain the same output when large loads switch in and out. This sort of thing can be provided by nuclear power. So if we build lots of renewables now to get clean, then build nuclear to fill out, that might be the best solution.
I could go into detail about the many ways in which you're wrong, but it's frankly not worth the time and effort, especially with the detailed back and forth that would inevitably follow, so I'll just cut to the chase and summarise:
I mean, most of what I said is backed up by a Future Energies Study, that went into far more depth than you or I are aware of, but you go ahead and think you know better.
This crucially important caveat they snuck in there:
"Prof Scarborough said: “Cherry-picking data on high-impact, plant-based food or low-impact meat can obscure the clear relationship between animal-based foods and the environment."
...which is an interesting way of saying that lines get blurry depending on the type of meat diet people had and/or the quantity vs the type of plant-based diet people had.
Takeaway from the article shouldn't be meat=bad and vegan=good - the takeaway should be that meat can be an environmentally responsible part of a reasonable diet if done right and that it's also possible for vegan diets to be more environmentally irresponsible.
Instead of going vegan or not having kids, I died when I was 5. Because living also creates more greenhouse gasses.
In fact, having a small footprint is just a matter of choosing how miserable you're willing to make your life.
Unfortunately the Earth cannot sustainably support so many people living COMFORTABLY, and eating WHATEVER WE LIKE. The more people, the more miserable is the globally sustainable way of life.
Curbing population growth - not Thanos-like, but through education and availability of contraceptive methods - is the only way we can all have the cake (and the meat) and eat it.
Many wealthy countries have their population declining. Maybe if we get to the same level of wealthiness everywhere, less people would engage in procreation.
In any case, if we just do nothing and the doomsday evangelists are even nearly right, extreme weather, plage and famine caused by climate change will indeed curb the population. Eventually it reaches equilibrium.
In this case, the faster we get to the edge of the abyss, the quicker the situation will solve itself.
The problem is not the amount of people but how much each individual consumes. Getting meat out of your diet is a simple and a small sacrifice. Besides the health benefits there is also the fact that you don't contribute to the culling of 70 billion animals per year (of which 40% is probably not eaten and thrown in the trash). Not only that but you don't contribute to the greatest cause of deforestation, antibiotics resistance, decline of biodiversity, water waste, ...
Besides the global population is steadily stagnating (Africa is still booming) as a lot of countries see population decline (less than 2 children per woman).
Couldn't we just stop food waste? Most food is discarded before even making it to the store. Seems to me being more efficient with how we distribute food is more realistic that trying to convince everyone to go vegan.
Because I'm not going to stop eating meat and the amount of ppl like me is larger than you think
Except those two things are not the same. We already have regulatory organizations that determine how food is handled and distributed. We can't regulate veganism, we can regulate food waste
We could absolutely regulate veganism. Hell, it's the other way around at the moment. For pretty much every animal rights law, there's an exception specifically for farm animals. Just removing those exceptions would make factory farming (and therefore like 90% of meat production) illegal.
And in a more general sense, we absolutely can regulate carnism (aka the opposite of veganism), exactly how we regulate a million other moral questions.
Ok, are actively working on this? Is your work on it so horrendously demanding of all your attention of every single day, that you couldn't ALSO go vegan, or vegetarian, or just eat less meat? Eat the rich is just a fun day dream and a lazy excuse to not do what you can (like going vegan).
Eating the rich would also vastly reduce racism, sexism, classism, and worker exploitation. Can I therefore ignore my negligible personal impact, and keep being racist, sexist, classist, and buy only the cheapest clothes crafted by the most exploited third world toddlers?
Every time I read about meat and greenhouse gases I feel the need to explain the natural carbon circle. A cow does not produce carbon. It takes carbon from plants and releases it to the atmosphere. Then plants retake that carbon.
Humans are adding carbon to the atmosphere by digging out stored carbon from the ground and bring it to the atmosphere.
So we have to fix the part where we bring additional carbon to the atmosphere. But yes, there are other environmental issues with cattle if you read the op's article.
A cow also produces a lot of methane, a much worse greenhouse gas.
Besides, the problem isn't the grass from cows grazing, it's the rainforests that go down all around the world to convert to farmland to produce animal feed.
It's much more efficient to use that farmland to feed humans than to feed cows and then feed humans (1kg of meat needs 25kg of feed)
Disclaimer - I'm not vegan but I try to reduce my meat consumption overall, especially red meats.
World News
Oldest
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).