Not to mention you never apply that same lens about aggression to the actions of Israel.
Sure I can. For example, Israel attacked Iran with an airstrike. That’s an act of war. When Iran retaliated, nobody pretended the victim was the aggressor like they are now with Israel and Hezbollah.
I think Israelis and Palestinians need to have a Secular One-State with equal rights for both
Unfortunately I think that would be very difficult in practice. How to ensure it remains secular?
Hezbollah should not care about Israel indiscriminately bombing Civilians in Gaza
Lots of people around the world care about what is happening to civilians in Gaza. That doesn’t mean they want to kill Israelis.
If Hezbollah wants to show how much it cares by launching rockets at Israel, then it will find out how much Israel cares about being attacked by rockets.
No, the first attacks came from Hezbollah, in solidarity with the Hamas attack. The first casualty was Israeli, thus starting the current cycle of escalation.
Hezbollah started firing rockets at residential areas in Israel back in October. That’s an act of war.
Plans are not an act of war. China has plans to take Taiwan. The US has made detailed plans to attack everyone, even Canada, if necessary.
If Russia fired actual rockets at Lithuania, that’s an act of war and Lithuania would have a right to defend itself.
Let’s try an actual historical example.
Russia historically colonized Lithuania in the past, until the dissolution of the Soviet Union forced Russians to withdraw, but Russia continued to occupy and ethnically cleanse Kaliningrad (formerly the German city of Konigsberg).
What do you suppose would happen to Lithuania if it started launching rockets at Russia in an effort to decolonize Kaliningrad? Same as Hezbollah: FAFO
And if Canada agreed with you and started launching rockets at the US on that basis, it would suffer the consequences. Much like Hezbollah.
Notice that the US didn’t enter WW2 until it was attacked at Pearl Harbor.
And since then it hasn’t launched rockets at military peers, even to stop a genocide. Just ask the families of tens of thousands of Chechens killed by Russians ~20 years ago.
If Hezbollah wanted to follow the modern American example, it would only start wars against weaker countries. Israel isn’t one of them. Instead, Hezbollah is using the FAFO strategy.
I’ve been told Biden is guilty of genocide, is that no longer true?
Canada has a longstanding border dispute too, with the US.
Imagine if Canada launched rockets at the US, because of the border dispute and also because Canada believed US arms shipments to Israel violated international law. It would not end well for Canada.
deleted by creator
What does that have to do with Lebanon?
Imagine if Mexico launched rockets at the US in 2003 to protest our pointless invasion of Iraq. It would not end well for Mexico.
deleted by creator
Why should they be forced to allow other retailers to sell Steam keys at whatever price they want
Because those other retailers already paid Steam for those keys.
If Steam doesn’t want to compete against third party key retailers then the solution is not to sell keys to third party retailers. Once Steam takes their money, they have to accept the competition.
Why is that reasonable? Storefronts don’t get free keys from Steam, they have to buy them. After they pay Steam, they should be allowed to sell them at any price they want.
Imagine if Ford said you couldn’t sell your car for less than what Ford dealers charge for used cars.
all media
Not true. The fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast media on public airwaves. It has never applied to newspapers (the NYT endorsed Eisenhower in 1952) or cable news.
And it was repealed in 1987, under Reagan. However, broadcast media (not newspapers or cable news) are still subject to the equal time rule.
The reason that these rules only affect broadcast media is that there is a limited number of broadcast licenses, but no limit to the number of newspapers or cable channels. It has nothing to do with Nazis, in fact the equal time rule originated in 1927.
No, that’s not what I said.
Having more money provides an advantage, but so do many other things like media endorsements, union endorsements, incumbency, etc.
Plenty of candidates who outspent their opponents went on to lose their elections.
That’s not true. Media have been endorsing and supporting particular candidates since the beginning.
One hundred years ago, the NYT endorsed John Davis for president over Calvin Coolidge. They weren’t neutral.
Money is a necessary part of politics. Which means that if you want to win, you need donors. And if your opponent wins over more donors than you do, that’s on you. Do you think it’s unfair that people are way more willing to donate to Harris than Trump?
You would have pressed it to retrieve a personal item? Seriously? Like if you’re visiting a factory and your phone fell on the assembly floor you would run to the first red button you could find and press it without asking anyone? If so, please never get on an airplane.