The democrats will just pick another stinker. How do you think we got Biden in the first place?
The two party system needs to be fixed before we will see any actually good candidates.
The democrats will just pick another stinker. How do you think we got Biden in the first place?
The two party system needs to be fixed before we will see any actually good candidates.
Civilians are pretty much everywhere alongside Hamas members who are usually between them.
Yeah, so maybe they should stop dropping bombs.
Israeli actions wouldn’t be similar to any of them.
Not only is this not true, but even if it were, as I’ve already pointed out it doesn’t need to be similar. A genocide can be totally unique yet still fall under the definition of genocide.
It’s impossible not to kill civilians in such a conflict when the area you are fighting in is a densely populated city
But it is possible to not drop bombs on areas you KNOW civilians are at.
Of course genocide is not defined by numbers. However, all genocides should have some traits in common.
This is also not a part of the definition of genocide.
How should Israel respond?
I get that there are unused ways of minimizing civilian deaths
Seems like you already know the answer to that question. Yet for some reason you’re giving Israel a free pass for killing civilians. So effectively you’re just arguing for terrorism. State terrorism, but terrorism nonetheless.
Good people don’t kill civilians.
I agree that genocides have different flavors but the results of all is a completely or partially removed ethnicity. By saying partially, I mean roughly 40% killed or moved to a detention facility.
The definition of genocide contains no percentage threshold. You’re making definitions up out of thin air.
Most of those deaths happen due to the lack shelters and lack of places where people can hide.
…and the bombs landing on their heads.
If Israel wanted to genocide Palestinians, they would have done it in a week.
Not all genocides are done with equal fervor.
Also, they would not have to be dead if Hamas didn’t start this.
This was started in 1948 when Palestinians were forced from their homes. Playing a game of “who started it” doesn’t justify anything.
it’s more of an approach where they no longer try as much to limit civilian causalities as much as possible.
Yeah… almost like they are totally OK with killing civilians (genocide).
it’s probably more than 20k. What does it prove though?
See above definition on genocide. If thousands of dead Palestinian civilians (~50% of whom are children) isn’t enough to be labeled as genocide then the definition you are using is a bad one.
Judging which bomb is purposefully thrown on civilians is impossible.
Are you saying that when Israel bombed the Jabalia refugee camp, they were not intentionally killing civilians?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/18/israeli-airstrikes-kill-80-in-palestinian-refugee-camp
How many Palestinian civilians have been killed?
How many bombs have been intentionally dropped on civilians?
In Israel, citizens are equal. Muslims and others have the same rights as Jews.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/human-rights-watch/
It is an ethnostate, by definition it does not treat people equally.
You also conveniently ignored the fact that they are committing genocide.
Ethnostates are inherently immoral, regardless of which race they are. Everyone should be treated equally under the law, regardless of race. Nobody should be a 2nd class citizen, apartheid is immoral.
And that’s all before counting the ongoing genocide.
Have you been living under a rock?
To be completely fair, if they’re in the U.S., the amount of propaganda flying around coupled with the complete lack of history being taught about the issue is more than enough to leave the average person unaware of these genocidal actions.
The difference is, Trump did so for personal political gain. Netanyahu’s government is killing thousands of palestinian civilians, which is genocide. Coercing a foreign nation to stop genociding people is a good thing.
Sure they could. But that’s not going to stop me from circumventing their attempts if it is reasonably possible.
Why would I do that when it can be automated with a script that removes HTML and scripts responsible for ads?
I updated my original comment to make it more clear.
if you were able to ascertain with 100% accuracy that an ad was not a security or privacy violation
Security isn’t the only part of this.
if viewing ads on your PC had as little potential for harm as viewing ads in the newspaper did, would you still block them?
I basically already do this with the radio. The moment an ad plays, the radio gets shut off. I turn it back on at the next 0 or 5 minute mark and it’s over.
Advertisers do not have a right to force me to listen. The same applies for internet ad blocking. One of these is just automated.
therefore it kinda is piracy.
It’s not an illegal form or copying though. It’s the equivalent or turning off the radio when an ad comes on, then turning it back on once it’s over.
All websites are unable to be trusted.
Because ad blocking is a security and privacy feature. We have the right to choose what HTML and scripts are loaded into our browser. Without that right, we have no web security or privacy.
We also have the right to not listen to ads, turning off the radio the moment they come on. Internet ad blocking is effectively the same thing, just automated. Piracy is completely different, because it is the unlawful copying of digital data.
And for those that are able to keep to just one subscription, switching to another when they’ve finished watching whatever show it is that said service had, they aren’t safe either.
One of the next steps that these corporations are going to take is to add fees for dropping their services, with year long contracts.
They don’t want competition, so they will try to force you to stay.