5 ms·

They said nimbus was for civilian use only, then time publishes an article saying they are dealing with the IDF directly and have a discount given that Nimbus e

by gorbot 2y ago

They said nimbus was for civilian use only, then time publishes an article saying they are dealing with the IDF directly and have a discount given that Nimbus exists… https://time.com/6966102/google-contract-israel-defense-ministry-gaza-war/ https://time.com/6966102/google-contract-israel-defense-mini...

m00x 2y ago
It's pretty weak proof. It only says some part of it was billed to the ministry of defense. Who knows what it was used for? It could be their HR, billing, etc.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - arrowsmith 2y ago
    > the ICJ has found there is a possible case for this This is not true, and is based on a misreading of the ICJ's judgement and of the relevant law. https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/lawyers-letter-based-on-error https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/lawyers-letter-based-on-err...
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      That is a lie. Here are the explicit findings: > 72. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment. > 73. The Court recalls Israel’s statement that it has taken certain steps to address and alleviate the conditions faced by the population in the Gaza Strip. The Court further notes that the Attorney General of Israel recently stated that a call for intentional harm to civilians may amount to a criminal offence, including that of incitement, and that several such cases are being examined by Israeli law enforcement authorities. While steps such as these are to be encouraged, they are insufficient to remove the risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused before the Court issues its final decision in the case. > 74. In light of the considerations set out above, the Court considers that there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible, before it gives its final decision. Basically, based on the facts on the harm coming to civilians in Gaza, and on reports of genocidal rhetoric being used in Israel and investigated by Israeli authorities, they find that there is a real and urgent risk that the citizens of Gaza will be subject to genocide. This is not in any way based on the simple existence of an abstract right to be protected from genocide. It is about finding that there is a real, urgent, risk of genocide happening before the ICJ can issue a final decision. [0] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...
      - arrowsmith 2y ago
        I stand corrected.
  - Boatfaceing 2y ago
    [dead]
  - gataca 2y ago
    repeating lies doesn't make them any more true. starting a war, then losing badly, is just that, losing a war. Or maybe you think the US committed genocide against Germany in the 1940s too?
torstenvl 2y ago
That isn't at all what the article says. Every liberal democracy subscribes to the idea of civilian control of the military, so the distinction between civilian leadership and the military they oversee isn't a new or foreign concept. Why would you assume MoD use = IDF use? Do you also assume everything the DoD contracts for is used by the U.S. Army?
- _AzMoo 2y ago
  > Do you also assume everything the DoD contracts for is used by the U.S. Army? tbh, I would expect most people assume that.
  - torstenvl 2y ago
    Oof. The DoD proper (as in the OSD and OUSDs) is a sprawling bureaucracy. And frankly it sure would be nice to be as well-funded as they are.
- underdeserver 2y ago
  I also suspect that almost everything to do with actual military operations - intelligence, logistics, targeting, whatever - would be classified, and therefore could not run on civilian infrastructure.
JamesAdir 2y ago
The same contract the exists between CIA and aws for it's top secret regions. I always ponder why people protest against something that happens thousands of miles from their homes, while the same activity occurs in their own country.
- gorbot 2y ago
  Maybe they protested those things too? And maybe they have family that died or other connections to this topic? Or maybe they feel that there’s a better ROI on protesting this while the conflict is ongoing and the contract is newish versus protesting an American company doing business with America? Maybe they weren’t politically aware when those contracts were signed? Just a few off the top
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  [flagged]
- cad31 2y ago
  It is because the CIA is not using AI to create strike target lists.
  - underdeserver 2y ago
    How are you so sure?
  - NeverFade 2y ago
    You'd rather Israel doesn't have the technology to target terrorists with precision, and instead will be forced to use crude methods to carpet-bomb large areas where they hide?
    - gorbot 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - NeverFade 2y ago

by gorbot 2y ago

m00x 2y ago

It's pretty weak proof. It only says some part of it was billed to the ministry of defense. Who knows what it was used for? It could be their HR, billing, etc.

tsimionescu 2y ago
[flagged]
- arrowsmith 2y ago
  > the ICJ has found there is a possible case for this This is not true, and is based on a misreading of the ICJ's judgement and of the relevant law. https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/lawyers-letter-based-on-error https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/lawyers-letter-based-on-err...
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    That is a lie. Here are the explicit findings: > 72. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment. > 73. The Court recalls Israel’s statement that it has taken certain steps to address and alleviate the conditions faced by the population in the Gaza Strip. The Court further notes that the Attorney General of Israel recently stated that a call for intentional harm to civilians may amount to a criminal offence, including that of incitement, and that several such cases are being examined by Israeli law enforcement authorities. While steps such as these are to be encouraged, they are insufficient to remove the risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused before the Court issues its final decision in the case. > 74. In light of the considerations set out above, the Court considers that there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible, before it gives its final decision. Basically, based on the facts on the harm coming to civilians in Gaza, and on reports of genocidal rhetoric being used in Israel and investigated by Israeli authorities, they find that there is a real and urgent risk that the citizens of Gaza will be subject to genocide. This is not in any way based on the simple existence of an abstract right to be protected from genocide. It is about finding that there is a real, urgent, risk of genocide happening before the ICJ can issue a final decision. [0] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...
    - arrowsmith 2y ago
      I stand corrected.
- Boatfaceing 2y ago
  [dead]
- gataca 2y ago
  repeating lies doesn't make them any more true. starting a war, then losing badly, is just that, losing a war. Or maybe you think the US committed genocide against Germany in the 1940s too?

torstenvl 2y ago

That isn't at all what the article says. Every liberal democracy subscribes to the idea of civilian control of the military, so the distinction between civilian leadership and the military they oversee isn't a new or foreign concept. Why would you assume MoD use = IDF use? Do you also assume everything the DoD contracts for is used by the U.S. Army?

_AzMoo 2y ago
> Do you also assume everything the DoD contracts for is used by the U.S. Army? tbh, I would expect most people assume that.
- torstenvl 2y ago
  Oof. The DoD proper (as in the OSD and OUSDs) is a sprawling bureaucracy. And frankly it sure would be nice to be as well-funded as they are.
underdeserver 2y ago
I also suspect that almost everything to do with actual military operations - intelligence, logistics, targeting, whatever - would be classified, and therefore could not run on civilian infrastructure.

JamesAdir 2y ago

The same contract the exists between CIA and aws for it's top secret regions. I always ponder why people protest against something that happens thousands of miles from their homes, while the same activity occurs in their own country.

gorbot 2y ago
Maybe they protested those things too? And maybe they have family that died or other connections to this topic? Or maybe they feel that there’s a better ROI on protesting this while the conflict is ongoing and the contract is newish versus protesting an American company doing business with America? Maybe they weren’t politically aware when those contracts were signed? Just a few off the top
ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
[flagged]
cad31 2y ago
It is because the CIA is not using AI to create strike target lists.
- underdeserver 2y ago
  How are you so sure?
- NeverFade 2y ago
  You'd rather Israel doesn't have the technology to target terrorists with precision, and instead will be forced to use crude methods to carpet-bomb large areas where they hide?
  - gorbot 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - NeverFade 2y ago