“The Israeli forces are saying that they might have hit Aysenur unintentionally - that she was not a target” … “but aimed at the key instigator of the riot”. The UN says Aysenur was “shot in the head” because the perpetrators said protestors “burned tyres and hurled rocks towards security forces”
Can you elaborate on what specifically the “lie” is? The logical side of me takes the words “truth”, “fact”, and “lie” very seriously, and I worry that we too often use them to express a point of view including pragmatism. I’m genuinely curious!
I don’t know: Does that framing take away from the international law argument? How long has that argument been in play and how has that worked so far? It’s a powerful framing in that it illustrates the power that money being used to fuel hate could instead have for some semblance of good. Even if it’s impractical among today’s US elected officials. Also, arguments like this are how to get negotiation leverage. In general in this political climate, while we might want to be prepared to compromise I challenge the wisdom of leading with a compromise. I say different strategies need to be tried until something sticks.
I don’t game much anymore, but I have been fascinates by city sims recently. Last year I got sucked into Tropico (again). This year it’s City Skylines (1) and all the DLC
It’s disheartening to hear. Typically the Anti Defamation League draws attention to rising antisemitic behavior whenever there is a tension abroad but often does so to divert attention from the issue abroad.
To be clear, any kind of hostility/prejudice/discrimination to any group is wrong. Supporting one group shouldn’t negate from the other. As someone who identifies with neither group I can see why one or another would resort to name calling — it gets us nowhere. But to shut down discussions because people are frustrated is also wrong.
And then there are people to use these events as an excuse to get away with bad behavior.
You reacted to me but you didn’t listen to me.
Both “sides” have employed justice by “slaughtering innocents” in response to the other side. Both sides think what the other side did was reprehensible and deserving of retaliation. This pattern has been going on for 75 years. It clearly hasn’t worked, so maybe we should try something different?
Let’s study the conflict before making such comments.
I am not aware of any conflict in US history where the US did not defend an American journalist dying performing their duty abroad. This is a war crime, and it sets precedent for Americans when they travel or work abroad anywhere in the world.
Hamas is not representative of all Palestinians. Hamas’ attack is a reaction to a 75 year history of tit-for-tat where “Israel” continuously breaks international law including murdering of civilians, the international community condemns them, and the big world powers like the US give them impunity. Like Russia to Ukraine, Israel is an occupying force of the Palestinians — the longest in modern history.
Comparison to Bid Laden is a false equivalence.
I’m still waiting for justice for Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh — the investigation of which currently rests in the hands of her perpetrators. It seems to me that recognizing American deaths only matters when it benefits US foreign policy.
Yeah, I heard it happened 30 minutes after some activity got dissolved. (I don’t have a source offhand for that.)
I deliberately chose to quote the words of the perpetrator, and the UN as a recognized observer, because the perpetrator incriminates themselves