dlubarov

19 ms·

181.
by dlubarov 1y ago
> For me Zionists for Palestinians are fair game I hope you meant to say something like militants, otherwise this is justifying unlawful violence based on the victims' political beliefs. It certainly wouldn't have been fair gam
182.
by dlubarov 1y ago
> obstruction of justice Possibly, depending on intent. But even if so, obstruction of justice is not fraud. > the real crime is treason This hypothetical crime (which I'd say is highly unlikely to occur) would definitely not be
183.
by dlubarov 1y ago
The investigating authorities aren't being defrauded though; making someone's job harder isn't fraud. Google or Amazon could be committing other crimes,[1] but not fraud. [1] If they actually violated a gag order, which reali
184.
by dlubarov 1y ago
In all likelihood there's just language like "to the extent permitted by law", which The Guardian isn't telling us about. Even if they didn't write that explicitly, it's implied anyway - Israel knows any US cou
185.
by dlubarov 1y ago
It is extremely hard to imagine such an article being written, and such a response generated, about any other country. "Denmark asks cloud providers to privately notify it if its data is leaked to other states" sounds way too bori
186.
by dlubarov 1y ago
How can an independent state "infringe on the laws of other countries"? If you think Israel is somehow bound by foreign states' laws, should it also be enforcing the Great Firewall, for example? And how is it dodgy to want to
187.
by dlubarov 1y ago
> The ones willing to defer to an ICJ investigation? What state has ever consented to an ICJ investigation that was focused on interrogating its military command or other sensitive military assets? > Hell, an IAEA inspection? If a sta
188.
by dlubarov 1y ago
> if the IDF didn't directly censor all domestic reporting and investigations This just seems like another double standard. What modern military doesn't censor reporting during a war in its own territory? > An honest postmor
189.
by dlubarov 1y ago
Your speculation seems a bit farfetched - there's no evidence that intelligence collected by USS Liberty was hurting Israel, and if Israel's goal was to avoid scrutiny, attacking an expensive asset of the world's superpower w
190.
by dlubarov 1y ago
The claims that it was deliberate boil down to "they must have known because there were identifying marks", which can be said about almost any friendly fire incident. In reality, not every operation is executed competently. Plenty
191.
by dlubarov 1y ago
> they killed American navy men This was about 50 years ago, was accidental, and Israel apologized and paid reparations soon after. This is a pretty clear example of double standards for Israel - no other country gets demonized for frien
192.
by dlubarov 1y ago
By wanting to know when foreign states are snooping on their data? The Guardian is trying their best to paint this as something nefarious on Israel's part, but it just isn't. Maybe Amazon and Google created a compliance issue for
193.
by dlubarov 1y ago
I'm not pro secret police, just pro factual discussions. We shouldn't ignore the deceptive headline when it's the whole basis of this discussion.
194.
by dlubarov 1y ago
Baruch Goldstein was not the leader of Israel. The attack Hamdi praised was planned by the leadership of Hamas. We can set aside the Hamas connection if you like, but in any case he was glorifying an attack that included deliberate massacre
195.
by dlubarov 1y ago
I think the appropriate reaction would be suspicion, not jumping to assumptions. Speculation can be okay too, but we should be forthright about it, whereas The Guardian headline above tries to misleadingly pass off speculation as fact.
196.
by dlubarov 1y ago
Expressing an opinion about the Hamas-led attack means expressing an opinion about Hamas, whether or not the speaker uses the word "Hamas".
197.
by dlubarov 1y ago
My point isn't really "no speculation is allowed", but that we should be honest about the assumptions we're making. The Guardian headline that kicked off this thread uses misleading wording to hide the assumption being m
198.
by dlubarov 1y ago
It's glorifying the Hamas-led attack; it seems accurate to call that pro-Hamas (as well as anti-Israel) rhetoric.
199.
by dlubarov 1y ago
It's not word-of-mouth, you can see his remarks about Hamas' Oct 7 massacres for yourself: "celebrate the victory", "how many of you felt the euphoria", etc. https://www.memri.org/reports/b
200.
by dlubarov 1y ago
That's a separate issue though - intransparent law enforcement is bad, but that doesn't justify making assumptions. Or if it did, then why this particular assumption? Why not assume that Hamdi was arrested because of his hair styl
201.
by dlubarov 1y ago
While others have pointed out his pro-Hamas rhetoric, I would also point out that we don't actually know why he was detained. The Guardian is just citing speculation from an advocacy group friendly to him. The headline is technically a
202.
by dlubarov 1y ago
The second link works for me, and indeed shows him saying "celebrate the victory" etc about Oct 7.
203.
by dlubarov 1y ago
> It does have jurisdiction. Under its own rules and its own interpretation of Gaza governance. That doesn't make it some sort of legal or practical reality - I can make up a set of rules under which I'm the world leader, but i
204.
by dlubarov 1y ago
> There is hamas and the PA, who aren't UN accepted governments of any territory whatsoever, who both have signed the Rome statute This is half-right - officially only the State of Palestine (really Abbas, the PA president) has sign
205.
by dlubarov 1y ago
Cites what findings? They don't quote the opinion at all, except for one vague observation. You can read the opinion yourself here [1]. Reminding Israel about its obligations is not a finding of breach. It's more like that ICJ lan
206.
by dlubarov 1y ago
Nowhere in the dispositif does the court find a breach; this is just more misinformation from The Guardian.
207.
by dlubarov 1y ago
WMF only spends a couple million on essentials like hosting though. They have over 700 employees, and their budget is pretty bloated with thing that aren't really related to running Wikipedia, including sizeable grants to other organiz
208.
by dlubarov 1y ago
> Israel, a nation-state, also pays the mods of /r/news and /r/worldnews. Is there any evidence behind this claim?
209.
by dlubarov 1y ago
Humanity has little to do with it; Wikipedia is anti-Israel because there are approximately zero Israelis (especially with the requisite English skills, patience and political correctness) against heaps of editors with anti-Israeli agendas.
210.
by dlubarov 1y ago
> the opposition was very well coordinated hostile actors Where are you getting this idea? While you can find examples of coordination on both sides, the most significant instance of coordinated editing and recruiting for agenda-based ed

More ›