The official reason for the introduction of the six-day work week is that there is a shortage of skilled workers on the Greek labor market as the population keeps shrinking and the country losing scores of thousands of workers who fled during the economic and austerity crisis in search of jobs in other countries.
So "The austerity and beatings will continue until morale improves."
It's interesting that we have documented cases of homosexuality in thousands of different species, and yet not a single other species that practices Catholicism.
And this shows that those opposed to Israel's actions in Gaza are not antisemitic (ignoring the eventual neonazi assholes), they are opposed to a government that is committing genocide. Especially a government that governs a people THAT SHOULD KNOE BETTER.
I have no problems at all with Jews and I'm sure that, given people who really want peace, a good treaty can be made where both the Palestinians and the Israelites can peacefully coexist, that would be awesome.
However, right now saying even something like that is somehow antisemitic. If anything, I find that sort of behavior antisemitic, because it is so transparent that it pushes more people to the far right and into the hands of neo Nazis.
Stop the genocide, stop the war, withdraw ALL Israeli forces immediately and unconditionally. Then put in a peace keeping force comprised of multiple countries in that same area, and make sure they all work towards peace.
Israel jews are a different breed than the holocaust survivors. Germany paid reparations to Israel and barely, if any, actually made it to the actual survivors. They're generally not a good people. But I have seen protests and legit compassion from them to know that it's always the loudest voices that are most often heard.
People like me get no love from anyone because I want the Jewish people to have Israel as their country, and I want to help protect the rights of Israelis. I also want the same for Palestinians.
People who perpetuate genocide against anyone shouldn’t be tolerated by civilized societies. The fact that mass killings exist in any form in human history is not a role model for the future.
How is what I am describing one-state? The reasonable path forward, which limits bloodshed and violence, is supporting both Israel’s and Palestine’s right to exist.
Yeah. Before that there were a Greek guy named Alexander, before that there assyrians. Let's give it back to them. Oh wait, there were since guys from deeper Africa before them... The concept of countries or nations is utterly stupid.
Sorry, reality doesn’t agree with your assertion. Also, your mask is slipping.
Hamas announced its acceptance Monday of an Egyptian-Qatari cease-fire proposal, but Israel said the deal did not meet its “core demands” and that it was pushing ahead with an assault on the southern Gaza city of Rafah. source
There’s just one small flaw in your plan. Hamas has widespread support in Palestine and is not interested in peace, only in the destruction of Israel.
If you end the war you just go back to the previous situation where Hamas will continue to persistently launch rockets at Israel and execute more terror attacks, not peace.
No, I’m not commenting on Israels methods which clearly could be better, to put it mildly. That doesn’t mean it’s logical to dream there can ever be peace with jihadists
Maybe it has such support because of Israel actions.
I bet after the Netanjahu war crimes it will have 99%. Hell survivors probably will KoS anyone who even remotely resembles someone from Israel and will pass this tradition on generations to come.
I can understand why you’d think that coming from a position of logic, but no, it’s Islam.
You’re right, it’ll probably go from >50% to 99%. And probably few of them will ever acknowledge that their religion and support of Hamas is what led to this tragedy.
So what you want to just murder them all? Clean up the place? There are certain historical figures from ww2 Germany and Russia that figured out all the methods, bells and whistles.
Where do you live? Was it always the country it is now? How would your government react to constant bombardment from a fanatical religious neighbour that wanted to wipe your country off the map to get into paradise?
Probably not digging mass graves everywhere. It would be lots of foundational work. Cultural assimilation. Economic warfare. Coca Cola. Replacing the leaders.
Violence is easiest and quickest but is also stupid and has opposite effect, unless of course we go all the way to a complete wipe out. Stalin way.
At this point there is no half measures. You have to go all the way, total wipeout. Those people will not forgive Israel in hundred years. It makes no sense to start genocide but not finish it. That would be pure madness and random convulsions of some blind, shortsighted idiot.
Hell, I would grab a grenade launcher myself at this point if I was in their shoes. This stuff is the worst possible way to handle it.
They could throw a nuke there and it wouldn’t be far off from the mess it is now.
Result is everyone hates them, people are all radicalised against them. Bombings inside Israel will probably continue nevertheless. Nothing is solved but there is a gargantuan pile of problems added.
I suspect the goal was populism all along. And this guy is a psychopath.
Clearly because he wants to eliminate the jihadist terrorist organisation. I’m not claiming that’s the right decision but I understand it. But it seems a lot of Israelis don’t support him.
But just because Netanyahu is no longer interested in peace doesn’t automatically make Hamas a peaceful group. The group that performs suicide bombings, uses human shields, beheads civilians, would stone you to death for drawing a picture of the prophet. They are not looking for peace no matter how much you downvote
First of all if Israel, having such a strong military and industrial base, were not a piece of rotten evil, it could make a huge difference in the Middle-East.
But instead of actually working toward that end Israelis decided to put a kinda similar image and exploit it. Simultaneously having a narrative of "we tried, but they just don't want to live happily" in their propaganda and even believing that themselves.
First of all if Israel, having such a strong military and industrial base, were not a piece of rotten evil, it could make a huge difference in the Middle-East.
Then they wouldn't be the US and EU's middle East military base. Why do you think they have the money and weapons? To fight proxy wars and keep opec in check.
Germany depends on the votes of Spain and Ireland at the EU for a lot of things that Germany finds important.
If a measure at the EU level has enough consensus and Germany vetoes it, they'll see other members be a lot more likelly to use veto power on things that mostly matter for Germany.
Since Germany are in the curious position of being the EU member that benefits the most from the Free Market (they're the biggest exporter and their biggest market by far is the rest of the EU) and the Euro (their currency now is a lot weaker and hence they're more competitive because it's a currency union with far weaker countries, than it was back in the deutsche mark times), they can't even threathen to leave the EU as that would a bit like threatenning almost everybody else with a good time whilst they shot themselves on both feet.
Still, the most likely outcome is going to be nothing at all getting done at EU level, either way, if only because that's always the most likely outcome.
If only Germany would not be willing to recognice Palestine, then this might happen, but that is not the case. France and Italy the two next most powerfull countries do not recognice Palestine either.
Germany is usually fairly happy with the current state of the EU. The things Germany wants to change are usually also supported by Spain and that means blackmail is harder. The only exaption to that is finance. However Spain is not going to let billions go to waste to have Palestine recogniced. That is just more of a symbol, rather then massivly important.
Also Germany leaving the EU would cause some massive problems in other EU countries as well. They would hardly be cheering for it.
It's unclear were exactly France is on this, though I agree that Italy under the current far-right government is unlikelly to recognize Palestine.
I'm mostly thinking about the Financial stuff: none of the so called PIIGS forgot how they and their populations were sacrificed to save German banks and a "Let's fuck Germany" posture wouldn't at all be a hard sell in those countries plus I very much doubt that generally not doing what's good for Germany would be bad for those countries since they're almost opposite to Germany in the forms by which their economies can benefit from the Euro - they would actually grow more in an Euro without Germany.
I'm also not so sure that a German exit would end up being bad for the rest of the EU, especially for the less export oriented and more peripheral countries like Spain - certainly an Euro minus Germany would actually be better for everybody else but Germany (as Germany pushes up the value of the Euro, making other Euro nations less competitive and partly explaining their anemic growth and lack of funds to restructure their Economies, which is the other big reason for their anemic growth) though granted it depends on how important are exports to Germany in each economy, though on non-Euro EU matters you might be right. In summary and as I said before, almost nobody else but Germany benefits from Germany's Euro membership and the kind of nations that would be least affected by a Deutschexit are the ones who have no borders with Germany, a group that includes Spain, Ireland and Norway (though the latter is not an EU member and hence has no vote or veto so doesn't really apply for the scenario we are discussing).
Spain has grown faster then Germany for most of the last decade(besides 2020). Out of PIIGS Portugal and Ireland also have done pretty well. Greece got hit hard and Italys economy has problems since the 90s(aka not a EU/Euro problem).
The figure is quite different if you look at the growth in nominal per-capita terms rather than in percentage of initial value as any shitty-shit growth in a poor nation looks a lot more in percentage terms.
Further, I'm living in Portugal and I can tell you that at least in quality of life terms the country has been going backwards for at least a decade, even if mathematically, thanks to a housing bubble and understating housing inflation, the GDP figures produced show "Growth" which is actually just housing inflation that has not been discounted from the Nominal GDP.
The only one of the PIIGS anywhere near catching up to Germany is the Republic Of Ireland and even those have fishy numbers because of how many international companies declare the revenue of their entire EU operations in Ireland because of just how much Ireland facilitates tax evasion - a lot of the money being "made in Ireland" is neither "made in Ireland" nor does it even pass by Ireland and it being counted as Irish GDP is just an accounting artifact.
But yeah, Norway is not an EU member, as I myself pointed out in the very post you replied to.
their currency now is a lot weaker and hence they’re more competitive because it’s a currency union with far weaker countries, than it was back in the deutsche mark times
That myth again. The Euro is a much harder currency than the DM ever was. Most of the trouble states had with the Euro was not due to Germany but them not being accustomed to having a hard currency in the first place, being used to relying on monetary fuckery to steer the economy.
As to recognising Palestine: Not a EU prerogative, simple as that. And I highly doubt states would pressure Germany over this, it'd be a lot of political capital spent on practically zero impact -- up to negative impact as Germany has a much better chance convincing Israel to recognise Palestine with its current stance, and there's simply no country with deeper diplomatic ties to Israel than Germany. If anyone can convince them, it's Germany.
Obligatory note for all the "Christians should support Israel" crowd. The Israeli minister of Security said, that Christians should be spit on. When Christians want to pray for Easter in the Church of the holy sepulcher, Israeli security forces are also harassing and attacking them. Israel is not only an ethnostate, it is also founded on religious and race supremacy, where white european/american Jews are on the top of the hierarchy and anyone else will face discrimination.
Definitely true, its just the arms companies milking your country dry want more money. So, they'll convince you all that you're no longer a super power.
Militarily speaking the US is still a force to be reckoned with, they can bitch-slap any smaller non-nuclear country anywhere in the world on a moment's notice.
Soft power wise, though, the US is in freefall. And without that soft power the hard power can't be readily employed because blowback. I'd say in the future the US is going to do a lot more riding on the EU's soft power than they're currently comfortable admitting. That is, they're not going to invade random countries to bolster election results at home, they're going to knock on Brussel's door and ask "hey anything need peacekeeping right now that would be popular with the world?", then portray it as their own initiative.
There is no ceiling. It might go up 6 or 7C. The people who have the power to change things do not give a shit if the rest of us die. They don't care, and they won't change anything. That's the world we live in.
They (selfishly) believe that allowing the problem to flourish is what will get us to solve it.
They're not wrong. There's just way better, more humane approaches.
So you're mostly right. Because they know they have the wealth to weather the discomfort in comfort. But it is accurate that humans historically are fucking aces at reacting and kinda piss poor at proacting.
Finally some good news on the climate. Our ability to fuck the Earth will mostly go away when our civilization collapses. We might even get a second Genghis Khan cooling when everyone dies.
There isn't one definitive paper I can give. They're are of course also papers claiming the opposite.
I've seen multiple articles about this. Less yield from staple crops, productivity loss with heatwaves, storm damage. There are a bunch of papers too, usually about a specific region. But roughly above 2°C, the hurt really begins with the cost to the economy exceeding almost every country's growth. Exact numbers differ per article.
Too bad, I'll have to hunt around myself. Simulation is always a bit vulnerable to assumptions when human behavior is involved, but it's definitely worth trying to model things.
If that's true, the political landscape is going to become starkly different. We expect growth right now; it's used as the yardstick of economic success. Obviously past civilisations didn't, and we could go back, even peacefully for all I know, but it would be uncharted territory post-industrialisation.
I kind of suspect climate adaptation produces more CO2 than other forms of activity, because it would be construction heavy. I wonder if that's factored it. Actually, I wonder what the adaptation assumptions are in general.
There is a problem of lag. By the time temperatures are high enough to force the economy to stop, the amount of CO2 will be sufficient to continue pushing the temperature up considerably.
The problem is that feedback loops start to kick in above 2°C so it doesn't matter if the economy crashes.
In fact, in some cases that makes things even worse. One example is that without smokestacks and ships pumping out sulfur dioxide the albedo of the atmosphere will rapidly drop, which might cause immediate and rapid warming over a period of only a few years.
We could be pushed past 2.5°C or even 3°C without industrial forces contributing at all.
Yes and no. Renewables are now cheaper than other forms of energy but cost isn’t the only issue.
There are practical limits on how many renewables projects we can build and integrate at a time. We’re not even remotely close to building them fast enough to save anything. We can’t even build them fast enough to keep up with the ever increasing demand energy.
Nuclear is expensive as fuck but we need to be building more of it as well as renewables because we can’t build enough renewables fast enough to avert the catastrophe, and that’s about the only other tech we have that can generate energy in the massive quantities needed without significant greenhouse gas emissions.
I don't think that's quite true. Where I live it has expanded from nothing to a major power source in just a few years. We'll need grid storage of some kind to kick fossil fuels completely, but that seems surmountable. Worst case scenario we build pumped air and just eat some round trip losses.
Nuclear plants take many years to get off the ground, so I'm not sure that's actually an easier solution. Once they're up and running at scale they're actually really cheap per unit production, so I would have agreed with you a decade ago, but as it is solar and wind have just pulled ahead.
Don’t take my word for it. Look up the numbers for yourself and do the math.
Search for “National GHG inventory {your country}”.
You find a report listing (among a bunch of other things) the amount of electricity generated each year by each method, and the emissions from each. Look up the total TWh of electricity produced by fossil fuels.
Then look at the total TWh from renewables, and rate it has been growing Y-o-Y and extrapolate until it reaches the number needed to eliminate fossil fuels.
You’ll find it will take decades to build enough renewable capacity to replace fossil fuel based electricity generation.
And that’s before you realize that only about 25% of fossil fuel combustion goes to electricity generation. As we start switching cars, homes, industries to electric we’re going to need 2x-3x more electricity generation.
Yes it takes a long time to bring on a new nuclear plant, roughly 7-9 years. If it was remotely realistic that we could build enough renewable power generation in that time to replace all fossil fuel generation then I’d agree we don’t need nuclear. But we’re not anywhere close to that.
It’s also helpful to note too just how much power a nuclear reactor generates. I live in Canada, our second smallest nuclear power plant in Pickering, generates almost 5 times more electricity annually than all of Canada’s solar farms combined. It will take 1000s or solar and wind farms covering and area larger than all of our major cities combined to replace fossil fuels…
…or about 7 nuclear power stations the same size as Pickering.
Then look at the total TWh from renewables, and rate it has been growing Y-o-Y and extrapolate until it reaches the number needed to eliminate fossil fuels.
You’ll find it will take decades to build enough renewable capacity to replace fossil fuel based electricity generation.
I get ~2 decades when I extrapolate these numbers (from 2010-2023) to get to 2022 total primary energy usage for solar alone.
Energy usage will grow as well, and keeping that growth is ambitious, but it the future doesn't look that bleak too me if you look at it that way.
Did you use linear extrapolation, or something else? Because it's an actual paradigm shift happening now, I'd guess some kind of exponential or subexponential curve would be best. That would bring it even faster.
Extrapolation is tricky, and actually kind of weak, although I think it's appropriate here. This XKCD explains it really well, and I end up linking it all the damn time.
Exponential, it fits the curve very nicely. I can give you the python code if you want to. I got 2 decades for all energy usage, not only electricity, which is only one sixth of that.
I just took the numbers for the whole world, that's easier to find and in the end the only thing that matters.
The next few years are going to be interesting in my opinion. If we can make efuels cheaper than fossil fuels (look up Prometheus Fuels and Terraform Industries), we're going to jump even harder on solar and if production can keep up it will even grow faster.
E-fuels are a big deal, particularly for aviation. Non-electricity emissions are also something to watch. Hydrogen as a reducing agent seems like it can work very well as long as we do phase out fossil fuels like promised, so that solves steel production and similar. Calcination CO2 from concrete kilns is a very sticky wicket apparently, since they're extremely hot, heavy, and also need to rotate, which is challenging to combine with a good seal.
Cheap grid storage is a trillion-dollar question, but I suspect even if new technology doesn't materialise, pumped air with some losses can do the trick, again subject to proper phase-out of dirty power sources.
Alright, I can't seem to find useful numbers anywhere. We went from 50% coal to nil in just a few years, though, so big changes fast are possible. If you're in Ontario, you also have to consider your local renewables penetration was really high to start with, because of those waterfalls.
And yeah, like I said to the other person, exact growth pattern matters. It's probably exponential-ish right now, not linear, because it's just unambiguously cheaper to move to renewables, and so just getting ducks in order to do it is the bottleneck.
I respect you for doing your own research. People need to understand the scope of the problem if there’s going to be meaningful action.
The reason I’m passionate about nuclear in particular is that only about a quarter of all fossil fuel consumption is from electricity generation.
Most of the rest is burned in transportation, buildings, commercial and residential applications. We have the tech already to switch most of these things to electricity, and eliminate their direct emissions, but that’s not much of a win if we’re burning fossil fuels generate that electricity. Which is what happens today when electricity demand is increased, we can’t just turn up the output of a solar/wind farm in periods of high demand, but we can burn more natural gas.
Switching to electric everything (Car, trucks, ships, heat pumps, furnaces, etc) will increase electricity demand by 2-3x.
Even if renewables growth is held to the exponential-ish curve it’s been so far (doubtful) we still need 15+ years just to get to the point of replacing current global fossil fuel electricity production in the most optimistic case, never mind enough to handle 2-3x demand.
Massive quantities of new carbon free electricity generation is needed to “unlock” the electrification technologies we need to deploy if we going to avoid the worst of the disaster. If we wait until renewables alone get us there it’ll be too late.
The more carbon free energy we can build in the next 20-30 years, the more options we have. Even if we can reach a place of excess capacity, there are a lot of things like DAC and CCS, that we could use it for that today result in more emissions from electricity generation than they sequester.
I don't mean to diminish your point about the utility of nuclear, but (a) it's subject to the same ramping up/scaling issues as anything else*, and (b) you'd be surprised how quickly we could ramp up manufacturing of renewables if The Powers That Be actually wanted to.
(* Or worse: in particular, the absolute debacle that was Plant Vogtle 3 and 4 -- delivered years late and billions overbudget, while bankrupting Westinghouse in the process -- shows that we definitely did not maintain our nuclear expertise over the past several decades of building exactly fuck-all new plants.)
Same. England for me, but I think it’ll bother the people in power who abhor people migrating and also deny climate change or at the least taking adequate action to mitigate the effects / affects (which is it).
uh no florida has already made the next play, and it was to repeal all protections for outdoor workers against the elements
in other words the next move is literally "Fuck you, die", apparently, so, good to know we're past the bullshit and can get on with actually solving the problem properly.
Some rich asshole named Stuart Sloan, owner of University Village, tried low key getting rid of our nude beach here in Seattle. He talked directly with the mayor to get a children's park right next to the beach and offered to pay for it which would likely mean police would crack down on nudity there. Thankfully the community gathered together to tell him to fuck off.
There is one near there for sale for only $2.7 million. The other one near there is less affordable at $6.2 million. That one does have a pool though so hanging dong easier to do.
When billions of dollars worth of equipment is shipped to Ukraine, that's billions of dollars going to the American military industrial complex. Some of them might prefer if Russia weren't dramatically weakened, so as to still have something to point to when lobbying for additional military spending.
Arms manufacturers have no reason to produces weapons if the ones they made before aren’t being used. Pretty much every US politician is invested in these companies. War = profit.
For the US maybe, but I don't think it is profitabel for Europe.
Refugees aren't cheap (even though ukrainian people might integrate easier than others and later add value), a good part of money for weapon purchases flows towards America since they have more immediate capacities, and long term we do want to integrate Ukraine, which means Europe will ultimately bear a significant chunk of rebuilding costs.
Ukrainian refugees are great. They're highly educated, have high standards of work ethics and are just great people overall. I'm definitely biased as a person from xUSSR country who is also 1/4 Ukrainian myself, but I'm really glad to see more Ukrainians in Europe.
It's like we learned nothing from the 20th century: every time the rich get too greedy, they'll gleefully fertilize the fields of fascism before they'll accept making less money.
The rich wrote the history books and have a strong influence in education, so... yeah.
Don't forget about the Red Scare either. We're still feeling the effects today (mostly in the US, which matters everywhere else as well due to the economic influence of the US in the world)
Mr Bin Omran told his rescuers he had at times seen his family from his prison, but claimed he had been unable to call out for help “because of a spell that his captor had cast on him”, local media reported.
According to accounts by Kristin Enmark (one of the hostages): the police were acting incompetently, with little care for the hostages' safety.
She had criticized the police for pointing guns at the convicts while the hostages were in the line of fire, and she had told news outlets that one of the captors tried to protect the hostages from being caught in the crossfire
but the prime minister [Palme] told her that she would have to content herself with dying at her post rather than Palme giving in to the captors' demands.
Ultimately, Enmark explained she was more afraid of the police, whose attitude seemed to be a much larger, direct threat to her life than the robbers.
Which could possibly be relevant here, particularly the civil war part.
Yeah but that ain't superstitious that's just being dumb as shit. Like how did he even arrive at that dumbass conclusion? Did the guy tell him he cast a spell and he just accepted it or did he try to yell and no one heard him so he thought, "yup that's a spell right there."
I can’t imagine the mental anguish this man had gone through. I can’t imagine the toll it took on his general sanity. He probably would’ve believed anything. And a mind in turmoil, under torture? Is capable of insane things, I’m sure. Who knows what went on up until that point. He was probably fucking destroyed. And here you are, calling him dumb as shit. Gross.
Also let's all live cramped up together in cities! Except for the owners who live in far off places. Cities make it easier to use you all in a convenient place. Plus it reduces traffic in the freeways. Traffic reduces the flow of goods which is how your owners can extract money from your labor at the end of the day. So get off the freeway, be at work on time, live in the city. Oh if you want to travel we have a convenient tram and bus. You can pay your owners to travel!
What an asinine take. I choose to live in a city because I can meet many different friends in many different interesting spots, where we can e.g. eat excellent iterations of different cuisines.
All without sitting my ass in a car and driving for an hour to meet a single couple that lives in some other hamlet. Or having to plan the exact amount of drinks and food to consume before the evening starts. And I can do that multiple times per week if I please.
You like living in the countryside, I get it. Don't pretend that's somehow objectively better lol
Well I didn't start my comment insulting the commenter.
When you think about city vs country living: 1) there's not enough space, some/most people have to live in people storage systems like cities. 2) cities do not produce anything. They consume. Cities do not produce fruit, fish, meat or their vegan counterparts. Cities do not produce minerals needed for even the most basic processes. Cities do not produce any of the basic human needs such as shelter, food, water, clothing. All of those things come from agriculture, mining, fishing, manufacturing etc of the raw materials which cities do not produce and do not want to produce. 3) cities do not produce energy. Rather cities use up energy and lots of it. There's no significant production of energy of any form coming from cities. No oil, wind, solar, hydro, thermal energy at all.
All of these things are produced away from cities for the purpose of actually being able to do it. You can't go drilling for oil in the middle of times square or downtown Chicago. You can't fish where there's no water.
What cities do produce is trash. Millions and millions of cubic miles of trash all together. Along with sewage raw contaminated water. Those two things are the 100% product of cities. Cities sometimes produce processed products and also have education centers. Usually cities are were local jails are as well as population control systems such as government offices, testing clinics, hospitals, people furnaces etc. None of these things made in cities would be possible without what is made out in the country side. Think of anything made in your city and chase the raw product and you will realize that cities are people storages because they depend on the means of production of the countryside. And cities are always fighting to remove anything that is "dirty" ... Usually dirty is the original reason the city was crated. For example a saw mill. I live in a city who's name comes from a saw mill and has no such thing today. Or it could be industrial processes such a pig and cow and chicken murdering companies, plastic or oil production etc. Somehow a guy or gal found a cheap piece of land, started a business gathered people and bam a city is founded. Then later they make legislation that bans the industry and you are left with a city that produces nothing and still needs that product they used to produce.
Notice that I did not insult you personally in my description of the difference between cities and country. Notice also that it's actually very hard to come up with things that a city makes which are tangible things that do not depend on the outside.
For those reasons cities are people storage units.
But you did insult. You asserted that living in a city isn't a voluntary choice, therefore taking agency away from people who choose to live in a city.
You're both pivoting (now you're suddenly talking about production) and wrong. Cities produce cross pollination between minds. Art, science, philosophy. Cities are where the ideas for photovoltaics were seeded and developed. Cities are where most music genres emerged.
We live in a world where currently, the most popular alternative to city living is being a narrow-minded redneck who holds their gas guzzler as the ultimate expression of freedom. Anarchist communes in the countryside might be part of the solution, but I bet you that what's going on in and around the city will also play a vital role.
Were you not aware the auto and oil lobbies you're paying to get stuck in traffic for 20 minutes to get to a place a mile away are a huge portion of the capitalists who own our politicians?
Yes, our owners are everywhere. They get to choose where to live whereas the rest of us either live stuck in a city or cannot afford living in one so we live on the outskirts closers to industrial locations.
Without a future or desire to live, why would we have kids? Why are we listening to an 80 year old male virgin in a dress who represents a fairy tale and participated in covering up the rapes of children around the world?
Israel literally told Gazans to go to Rafah to be safe. They said it was a safe zone.
And the IDF was operating elsewhere, not entering Rafah at the time.
Now they're supposed to leave Rafah.
Yes, that's how it works. It's like how sometimes during road construction, the construction crew might route you into a different traffic lane. Doesn't mean that lane will remain safe to drive on forever.
You might ask where Israel thinks Gazans are supposed to go. The answer is- nowhere. They're supposed to die.
Now this is just plain false, since it doesn't look like you actually bothered reading any details about it. Israel did in fact tell them where to go.
Terrorist group Hamas is shooting rockets from there, so of course Israel isn't going to ignore it completely. If Hamas stopped hiding behind civilians, the entire area would have been left alone.
Why is it kill counts? Because over 13,000 children have been killed in this war. I suppose you'll claim all 13,000 of them were Hamas soldiers. Even the babies.
Sure, put words in my mouth. You've yet to answer why you're justifying rockets fired at Israeli civilians just because they're mostly being stopped, while condemning rockets fired at Hamas.
Oh very easily. I said Hamas is shooting rockets out of there, and your immediate reaction is "so what IDF killed more people than Hamas, so it's fine"
You're admitting to being on the wrong side without realizing it. IDF has been the instigator committing what the rest of us call terror attacks on civilians for decades and you are incapable of acknowledging that makes them bad guys.
You're also incapable of acknowledging that both sides have civilians which needs protection.
Because you only think one group of civilians are human.
Oh right, instigators with holy leaders that say murdering Jews will get you to heaven, and government officials that pay your family using international funds if you go and kill Jews. Oh wait.
You're also incapable of acknowledging that both sides have civilians which needs protection.
Sure they need protection. One government does all they can to protect their civilians, the other stripped them of resources and instead choose to go attacking others using those same resources needed for life.
So you're ignoring that much of the Israeli government says they want to destroy everything, wipe out the entire people, saying that not even the children are innocent, etc?
Neither government protects civilians.
Hamas don't care at all.
Israel knew about the attack in advance but didn't care to protect their own. They also don't give a shit about Palestinian civilians. You're actively lying if you claim Israel cares about civilian safety.
Quoting a couple extremist politicians and claiming is the entire government is like saying the entire US government is subservient to Russia just because Trump sucks Putin's dick.
Hell, some of the Arab politicians in the Israeli government might give you quotes on quite the opposite of the narrative you're driving.
For over 100 years zionists have been terrorizing and committing genocide there. They killed or pushed out the Muslims, they disenfranchised the Christians until they left. They’re currently clamping down on Jewish people who don’t believe in Zionism.
They have always pushed. Every treaty, every agreement. Every legal attempt to stop the violence has been ignored, or discarded under paper thin or faulty pretenses. Terror is often the last resort of a people who have no other options. (Unless western nations give you billions of dollar in weapons and force other nations to recognize your presence, then you can call it statecraft!)
For zionists and for Israel, the goal has always been to paint the land red with non-believer blood and to destroy every bit of culture that isn’t ‘theirs.’
That’s why they bomb mosques and universities. That’s why they bomb infrastructure. That’s why the West Bank has been split into tiny enclaves. They’re choking the life out of the land so they can plant the seeds of their hollow society on barren soil.
That's great fiction you're writing there. Too bad you show no actual understanding of the region. It's almost as if you get your info from outlets peddling anti-Israel hate, since their governments failed to wipe it and all the people in it off the map repeatedly.
Nah, he's got to go, but the amount of misinformation about anything related to Israel is absolutely ridiculous. Especially in places like lemmy, where you have 3-5 people flooding the whole place with propaganda that's then lapped up by people who get all their news from lemmy posts.
Misinformation like multiple Israeli newspapers quoting Israeli ministers who spoke in public and checking it against other public information which you can look up
You haven't even offered any counter information. You're just accusing people of lying or not researching when they're the ones pulling out actual graphs, figures, and historical facts.
How did you know?!? I have to admit, my beliefs were really hard to come by. I almost didn’t have them!
I read Exodus when I was 13 and I believed it. A few years later, a history teacher challenged me to write a research paper over Israel for my IB history class, so in spring of 2002, I had to work so hard to find anti-Israel propaganda. I didn’t really find any in news media, but I went to the school library, and those people are absolute radicals!
They had books from the 1960’s that discussed Jewish settlers forming militias and attacking “moslem” civilians and burning their family farms. It totally blew my mind that Ben Gurion coordinated terror attacks on British officials in the region, so Britain would withdraw and let the Zionists massacre Palestinians - which they did within weeks of Britain formally withdrawing from Palestine in 1948.
Finding all those anti-Israel accounts of things they actually did was a lot of work!
Yet you’ve offered no comment that wasn’t surface level. When pressed, you fell back on insinuating others were uninformed or intellectually lazy. Claims you failed to substantiate.
Your comments lack substance. Your positions lack support. You fail to engage intellectually, and the embarrassment you feel at being outclassed is palpable and plainly visible.
You are naked and shameful.
I never said Hamas was not in Rafah. In fact that's the opposite of what I said. I did say it was designated a safe zone. Now they're moving the safe zone to a new area and the people with it.
Extremely honorable of Hamas to fire 350 meters away from the nearest populated area. Difficult to find an empty place within such a densely populated area.
Also great targeted attack hitting only israeli Nazi soldiers and no civilians.
Extremely glad to see Hamas follow international law so well.
Are you saying that there's anything wrong with this very targeted attack from Hamas, against a base of Genocidal Nazis, which was not launched from a civilian area, creating zero civilian casualties and only military casualties?
Hamas did exactly what you asked of them here. What is your problem with it?
Yes, that's how it works. It's like how sometimes during road construction, the construction crew might route you into a different traffic lane. Doesn't mean that lane will remain safe to drive on forever.
That’s a bad analogy. The construction crew direct you to a safe place while they repair the rest of the road. There’s nothing being repaired in Gaza. It’s just being systematically destroyed.
Or claims to. I am not sure that he's a true believer so much as an authoritarian who wants to hold onto power and escape justice by pulling the hatred/religious extremism lever that helped him get where he is (he literally marched calling for Rabin's death prior to the assassination).
World News
Top
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).