xor

There was a somewhat understandable reason initially; when the embargo was first started, it was because Cuba allowed the UUSR to use it as a forward base for missiles so they could reach the mainland US, which, understandably, the US wasn’t very happy about

But ever since the fall of the USSR it’s been absurd

“Everything is politics” - Thomas Mann

Presumably they don’t especially care, as long as they’re able to take their land

But I expect a lot of the refugees will go to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye, probably a handful to Egypt but from what I’ve heard the Egyptian border is pretty much closed

shoot them

“they should have killed all the Israelis, and simultaneously are bastards for using exclusively tear gas against people actively throwing petrol bombs at them, and trying to burn down the building with them inside”

What a reasonable take

Absolutely wild accusations to throw out with no sources

You can’t possibly think that a monitoring mission for the UN is armed with chemical weapons lmfao

That’s not how UN peacekeepers work

So there’s a few things to note; firstly, that this article isn’t a eulogy, but about the smuggling and content of his diaries. Regardless of his political positions, those diaries are a fascinating artifact in their own right, especially his perspectives on Russian politics, and the experience of a political prisoner in the Russian prison system.

Also worth consideration is that his views/rhetoric shifted massively over the years, and he became far more liberal as he aged. People who manage to shift away from the far right are a valuable resource in understanding the thought process of other people who think like that.

Yes, to be clear, I’m not trying to argue that they aren’t committing genocide, just that the initial copy-paste comment leaves out the most important part of doing so, because that’s the bit that’s actually challenging to prove

That’s deeply upsetting, but still not the same as proving systematic intent to commit genocide

I do believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, but you missed an important part of the definition from your source:

with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical (sic), racial or religions (sic) group

Doing one of the above actions alone isn’t enough to be classified as genocide, it has to be done with systematic intent to destroy the group. That’s the bit that’s much harder to actually prove, because it requires having insider knowledge of Israel’s military complex.

Yeah that’s a fair point wrt non-militant roles, my assumption was that they were primarily used in the military since their purpose was to avoid the issues with mobile networks being used to track them.

But we don’t know exactly how the devices were distributed, so you’re right that there were potentially a large number of non-military Hezbollah staff.

I mean, yeah. The tragic answer is that civilian casualties are inevitable in war, unfortunately.

According to a UN meeting from 2022, 90% of war casualties globally are civilians. That’s not to say that’s an acceptable ratio, in fact it’s horrifying, but it does show that a ratio of “a handful” to “a bunch” is quite a lot better than the average.

https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14904.doc.htm

And, frankly, this is one of the least morally concerning things Israel has (presumably) done. The pagers were targeted specifically because they were used almost exclusively by Hezbollah.

We do for the ayatollahs though, because they are the ones who actually make the decisions, same goes for Russian presidents and CCP general secretaries

I have a bit more sympathy for the president, since his decisions can all be vetoed by the ayatollah, and he broadly seems to be trying to move Iran in the right direction

I’m on it lads, booking my flight to Tehran now

Now, in a scenario where they are about to commit violence, or the justice system has failed, the balance may be different

Left your reading comprehension at home?

The argument I was supporting is that you don’t have carte blanche to do whatever you want to intolerant people. The argument I am making is that you have a moral obligation to rely on the law first because that IS the social contract. Not because the law would punish you for it.

Not all police are the same everywhere, but regardless, you can’t just stab people who are being racist.

Just “because nationalism”

Doesn’t mean it’s not profitable, though!

But there’s an important difference between allowing intolerance, and letting the legal system be the arbiter of how it should be disallowed.

Vigilante justice not only deprives the perpetrator of their right to a fair trial and proportionate punishment (yes, being intolerant does not deprive you of your human rights) but also denies the victims their right to see the perpetrator receive justice.

YOU do not get to be the arbiter of justice, just because you think someone is a terrible person. Maybe they’re mentally ill. Maybe they have dementia. Maybe they’re also a victim of abuse.

Document the incident, protect and comfort the victim, contact the police and allow actual justice to take place.