Given what astronauts drop, this may be common in place.
It seems because neither the US or Isreal are signed up to international law, both governments, companies and individuals are potentially immune.
The UK has banned export to the USA of chemicals that can be used in executions (hence I think why some states are looking to use Nitrogen) In theory if the UK developed tecnnology such as drones with guns, we could face prosecution.
As others have pointed out, Palestine is a testing ground for terrible new weapons. Weapons that can just as easily be used against us if we're 'in the way'
How do we wait for independent investigations when Israel won't let people in ?
With #Israel blocking foreign journalists from having any access to #Gaza, and murdering more #Palestinian journalists in just 80 days than ever before recorded in a single nation across any 12 month period, and with reports of Israeli bulldozers flattening sites that potentially retain evidence of yet more #WarCrimes (bulldozing confirmed by satellite imagery), and with claim after claim from Israel officials concerning specific incidents being revealed by subsequent investigations as being yet more baseless propaganda, the only epistemic assumption that is morally justifiable at this point is to act on the assumption that every testimony of atrocity coming out of Gaza is true.
And to assume that there are more going unreported, whose witnesses are all killed or silenced.
No other position is morally defensible under such conditions.
There is overwhelming evidence that the side with overwhelmingly more power is committing ongoing atrocities against civilians on a massive scale, while attempting to hide the true extent of their crimes.
"We didn't know. We couldn't tell. The fog of war. Both sides tell lies. Wait for independent investigations." These deflections and deferrals can no longer be used with intellectual or moral credibility by citizens in the western nations backing #Israel.
Thanks for this ,
@zleap Not actually.
The legal reasons any State can send military to or take armed action in the territory of another are:
• Invited by the de jure and/or de facto territory holder (=no).
• By a UN Security Council (UNSC) mandate (=no).
• In direct self-defense to an ongoing armed attack, which must end once the attack claimed as being defended against stops being ongoing. In such cases they MUST be reported to the UNSC for further consideration of actions (=no).
The defense rationale can NOT be used for retaliation and can NOT be used with claims of preemption or similar because an opponent group is in the other's territory, as ruled long ago by the relevant court (ICJ).
There is no complexity, at all.
Unless the #PeerTube server I use gets significant donations, it is going to go away. Please donate if you can! https://liberapay.com/DavidNelson/donate
My favorite loaf to date https://www.diningandcooking.com/1118358/my-favorite-loaf-to-date/
No problem, your post reminded me about it.
It really bothers me these days when people assume that a piece of software is "abandoned" because it hasn't received any updates for a while. It might be hard to believe, but software can actually be finished.
This is now starting to really backfire on Isreal though, October 7th there was sympathy, now that is waning and fast, Isreal are going to find them selves along with the USA more and more isolated.
In addition the weakness to fully condemn will surely empower other nations to be agressive towards others, if Isreal can, why can't we. We are probably seeing this now.
Israel has waged one of this century’s most destructive wars in Gaza - https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2023/israel-war-destruction-gaza-record-pace/ "in Gaza, the level of death and destruction in this relatively short period of time, is absolutely staggering in comparison. Nowhere is safe for civilians." fine report, shameful deeds
Ah thanks, seems like a complex issue as a lot of things are.
@zleap Erdoğan has several times tried to pull NATO in on their aggressor side alongside the rebranded regional al-Qaeda against the peoples of north and east Syria, including with NATO-chief Stoltenberg's support, but since it is Turkey doing the war of aggression, NATO's defense-clause can not be used and so every time the demand has been rejected before coming to a formal vote.
Well joking aside, I know much of what makes the internet work is technology developed decades ago, so hence there are issues, I guess security was not something that was really needed back then.
Would we have or want it any other way? If big tech had it their way they would control everything from the RFC stanards documents that determine how things work to the actual implementation, this would mean that rather than everyone being able to contribute it would all be in the hands of a few billion dollar companies.
We are already seeing some of this now,
As users and admins on fedi, we have control over what happens, this is precious adn needs to be defended, hence the debates as to if we should allow Threads or not.
They say a Storm Shadow hit that frigate, or maybe corvette, Ropucha class big landing ship #46. And there's that huge #mastodon in the room, where's all LRASM, JASSM or SLAM-ER? The US won't contribute then whine Europe should do more for NATO?!
The country remains a member of NATO, why ? If they are attacked, the rest of us have to come to their aid.
Interested in Technology, Science, Chemistry, Education, Fediverse, GNU/Linux and free software.