All too true. It hurts to see. It’s also worth mentioning the sabotage/blockade of aid by Israeli protesters and that the UN says it’s out of stockpiled supplies.
As much as the “hurt with one hand, help with the other” approach bothers me, I really hope this enables sufficient aid to safely reach the civilians who so desperately need it.
For a moment I thought it was Columbia University and was a little shocked by the reversal. After correcting myself: it’s good to hear another nation is drawing some lines in the sand regarding behavior. Rules of war should mean something.
That’s a solid criticism and I upvoted. I hadn’t thought about YouTube. Anecdotally I’ve had factual comments about how many kids are killed, what Israeli politicians say, etc. auto-moderated into oblivion on YouTube. But at the same time I get a lot of the facts I use from YouTube (basically never been on TikTok) so it holds water. I also get a lot of info from other sources, but I can’t think of something specific I’d get from them that I could never find on YouTube.
In my defense, I’m basing my opinion on why TikTok is particularly targeted on interviews like this one with Ted Cruz. He talks about how TikTok is specifically designed to push messages that are harmful to America, including what he calls pro-Hamas content but I suspect is actually anti-Israeli policy, pro-Palestine content. That is why I would argue there’s some evidence of a campaign against TikTok in particular that might skip over YouTube or other major platforms. Perhaps the Western powers feel that YouTube is still acceptably moderated towards their interests whereas TikTok isn’t. Perhaps Google is just too influential domestically.
Edit: I found a video I was looking for: Biden talking about passing the TikTok/Israel funding/Ukraine funding package. A bit of language he uses that I think is telling is “it continues America’s leadership in the world and everyone knows it” which could signal US dominance as a motivation and thus TikTok as a target and not US companies.
That doesn’t mean your point isn’t worth discussion, or that my points aren’t opinion. I’m interested to see how it develops. I’ve based my opinion on the conversations I can find and language used, but I’m open to adjusting my view if evidence prompts that.
I 100% admit that my take on the TikTok ban is opinion based on the hearings and arguments + the scope of the bill, so you aren’t being unfair. I have never heard that about the Twitter purchase - I had read it was a poor decision Musk made only half-seriously and then was basically forced to follow through with.
Here’s Bernie Sanders from a year ago talking about how a handful of companies control the news people see, read, and hear. TL:DR - He makes the argument that it’s not fake news, that journalists are usually hard-working and honest. He says the problem is the limitation of allowed discussion - what topics make it to the consumer. He says for instance that he’s never asked about wealth and income inequality.
I believe TikTok is being banned because as it stands now it brings topics outside the limits of allowed discussion to a lot of eyes in ways US government/companies haven’t proven able to control. If the issues justifying a potential ban were truly data security or mental health as some argue (not without merit mind you), then the legislation to address those issues would look a lot different and include companies like Meta, Google, Instagram, etc. Those are valid concerns but the new measure is clearly not designed around them.
Finally, we’ve seen how Trump can tie up the courts for months on end even after all his self-snitching. Thus I very much doubt we’ll see any actual action in the 9 months + 3 months grace period laid out for the resolution of the TikTok matter. There are too many constitutional and business law challenges in my (admittedly layman’s) reading of expert opinion.
The footage of the premature baby born to a dead mother killed in a bombing, who then followed her into death moments later, was especially chilling. Can you imagine the outrage if that happened to someone from New York, or Britain, or Germany? But because they’re Palestinians the mother and newborn, both killed inside a “safe zone”, will be just a footnote.
There are no safe zones for Palestinians as far as Israel is concerned. Just in the last day Israel’s Finance Minister Smotrich has called for the “complete destruction” of Gaza and stopping peace talks with Hamas. "He said Israel needed to attack Rafah “as fast and as strongly as possible, and then continue with the strip until its complete destruction”.
Heat stress is estimated to have killed about 61,000 Europeans in 2022. If Western wealth and healthcare can’t keep up with increasing heat then these countries have no chance.
Thank you for responding to my question! I edited my original comment because I took a quick look into it and came to the same conclusion you did. I’m of the opinion that things like sex work can be done properly, and if they aren’t “officially” done properly they will be done improperly illegally. Sort of a “Prohibition” vs. “regulated alcohol sales” scenario. People like other sexy people, and some adults legitimately consent to be those other sexy people. However, in order for it to be ethical there have to be robust protections.
It doesn’t take much research to find out these maid cafes do not always feature said protections. So I edited my original comment because I found the answer and then you kindly backed it up very shortly afterwards.
It’s not just Japanese Maid Cafes that are a little crazy that way. Now I’m guessing Hooters doesn’t do much business in China either.
Any peace deal that doesn’t involve Russia leaving behind all Ukrainian territory rewards Putin’s Russia for their invasion. IMO Russia should have to at least pull back to the borders that existed before the 2022 offensive. Of course I’m not in a position to make decisions if it’s a bitter pill that must be taken, but real gains for Russia will be proof that aggression worked.
Also, peace doesn’t need a specific broker. If an international effort including China, or even led by them, can broker a good deal then so be it. Maybe China’s relationship with Russia makes talks more likely to be productive. I can’t think of an explanation as to why a US-led deal with the same terms would be inherently better (that isn’t just nationalism/pride and much less important than halting war).
I don’t have a source for the drones or missiles used in this recent attack, but Forbes has an article from February titled, “$375,000 - The Sticker Price For An Iranian Shahed Drone”. “Its delta-winged Shahed-131/136 variants are believed to have a range of approximately 500 to 900 miles.” and “The documents show that a single Shahed costs $375,000 to produce.” I’m not sure that’s long enough of a range to make it to the Israeli targets though, so take it with a grain of salt.
The New Arab’s article today about cost reports, “It is not known how much Iran spent on its attacks, though ballistic missiles in the country can cost up to $99,937 (₤80,000), The Guardian said.”
Politico has an article from December called “A $2M missile vs. a $2,000 drone: Pentagon worried over cost of Houthi attacks”. “The cost of using expensive naval missiles — which can run up to $2.1 million a shot — to destroy unsophisticated Houthi drones — estimated at a few thousand dollars each — is a growing concern, according to three other DOD officials.” and “The cost offset is not on our side,” said one DOD official." I’m guessing those are the bottom end drones and likely not capable of crossing the distance between Iran and Israel. It does give an idea of how much it might cost for Iranian-backed groups closer to Israel to use drones in the future though.
According to Israeli sources, the defense was very costly for Israel. "Israel’s interception of hundreds of Iranian missiles and drones overnight has cost Tel Aviv around $1.35 billion (up to 5 billion shekels), Israeli media reported. On Sunday, the daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Brig. Gen. Ram Aminach, the former financial advisor to the Israeli chief of staff, as saying that “the cost of defence last night was estimated at between 4-5 billion shekels ($1.08-1.35B).”
What I’m wondering is: if the US did most of the interception, is the price tag for that to US taxpayers included in that quote or did they pay even more? The USA pays for a lot of Israel’s Iron Dome defense to start, so what’s the final price tag for Americans?
Edit: I kept looking but couldn’t find any info beyond different versions of what I already linked. I guess it’s just a question to think about for now. For me, the large expense is yet another reason among several why Israel should let not continue this back-and-forth with Iran.
Yeah, when it comes to WWIII I’m more worried about what NATO/EU is going to do if Ukraine starts collapsing than Israel vs. Iran. If Russia takes Ukraine and starts eyeing other Eastern European countries, or strongly anti-Putin EU countries decide they are willing to go to war to stop him then things could get messy FAST. That’s why it’s so important that the US doesn’t stop funding for Ukraine (like a some politicians, especially Republicans, seem to want). Ukraine is legitimately the bulwark against Russian aggression that could bloom into something much worse.
Israel vs. Iran would be bad, but I don’t think enough countries would join in on Iran’s side to make this a world war. I’d expect more of a new Gulf/Iraq/Afghanistan War than WWIII.
Going to guess you mean John Bolton, the infamous warmonger who loudly started calling for immediate, “far stronger” US response yesterday. He’s a draft dodger who has admitted he joined the National Guard and then went to law school just to avoid going to Vietnam. “I wasn’t going to waste time on a futile struggle,” he has written, adding “I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy… I considered the war in Vietnam already lost”. Yet the whole time he advocated for keeping other US soldiers fighting in the war. He didn’t fight in the war of his time, he won’t ever go to war now that he’s old, but by damn is he ever sure that the US should send people to fight everywhere from Iran to Cuba.
In 2019, Democrat Seth Moulton, who actually served 4 tours in Iraq, called both Bolton and Trump “chickenhawks” because they’re hawkish for war but completely unwilling to fight it themselves. (Trump reportedly “avoided service in the Vietnam War after his father called in a favor with a doctor, who wrote a note saying that Trump had bone spurs on his feet, making him ineligible for the draft.”) To use the popular Franklin D. Roosevelt quote - “War is young men dying and old men talking.”
Jesus Christ the opening to that video had me guessing for a moment until I calmed down and realized it’s obviously a hypothetical. Given that it’s reported that Iranian officials consider their attack “concluded”, it would be great if all the players stepped away from escalation into open war. The video I linked talks about the pressure on both Iran and Israel to back down, and here’s hoping they do. The world really really doesn’t need yet another open war in the Middle East, USA-involved or otherwise.
For what it’s worth, it’s been reported that Iranian officials consider the attack “concluded”. They have said if Israel attacks again the next Iranian response will be considerably more severe, and have warned the US to keep out of this conflict. I guess we’ll have to see what each country does in the next little while.