RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
No bio...
User ID: 317
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
The chorus of skeptics here should look at past events. The Israelis shoot children all the time. They even manage to get off in court after shooting a child in the back.
Can you even imagine what would happen if a white US police officer mag-dumps a 13-year old black girl for walking into a 'security area'? She was 70 m away when she was first shot. Heading away from the army camp and 'security area'. The soldier runs out to follow her and confirm the kill, as per procedure.
On the tape, the company commander then "clarifies" why he killed Iman: "This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over."
The officer who shot the girl is then acquitted of any malpractice in court.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/24/israel
I think leftists would undergo some kind of super-saiyan transformation upon hearing such a case, especially when the transcript has these extremely villainous lines. This is what actual systemic racism looks like, when you blow people away with impunity and get off in court.
That was 2004. In 2018 they shot and killed another 35 children peacefully protesting in Gaza, amongst others. There are probably many more cases that I haven't heard of, these are the two that immediately come to mind.
The base assumption should be that of course the Israeli army is shooting children. They did that before October 7th. They did that 20 years ago. Of course they're doing it today. There is a great deal of hatred in this part of the world. There is a reason people join Hamas, taking on roles with a pretty poor life expectancy and few perks.
I don't believe in a global crusade against every bit of unfairness in the world but the whole 'Israel is so noble and innocent' angle needs to be shut down.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
Trump had a Platinum Plan in 2020 where he was offering about half a trillion for blacks. Who knows if he ever intended to follow through on that or what exactly he meant but he absolutely plays the ethnic spoils game...
If you vote Republican over the next four years, we will create three million new jobs for the Black community, open 500,000 new Black owned businesses, increase access to capital in Black communities by $500 billion. This includes investing in community development, financial institutions, and minority depository institutions. Build up peaceful and safer urban neighborhoods with the highest standards of, and you know this, of policing. We want the highest standards. We have to have highest standards of policing. Bring even greater fairness to the justice system. We did criminal justice reform. We remember that. Even greater.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
I wouldn't panic just yet; even if this is the big one (and it may not be), my guess is that they won't open WWIII with a nuclear first strike on CONUS/Europe/Australia (pre-emptive ASAT use to wipe out US satellites - and probably destroy all other low-earth-orbit satellites as collateral damage - is a possibility, though, so you may lose any communications dependent on those).
China has possibly the most credible no-first-use policy of all the nuclear powers. They traditionally maintained a very weak deterrent and only recently started to get serious about MAD. As far as I know, they are still debating about going up to launch-on-warning, which the US and Russia have been at for ages. It would be illogical (and very out of character) for them to launch a nuclear first strike when they're outgunned at least 10:1. The US nuclear deterrent is very hard to crack, the meat of it is all in submarines. Going counterforce (targeting launchers) would do very little and invite a devastating counter-attack, going countervalue (targeting cities) would result in massive and disproportionate retaliation.
I suspect that China's advantages are still increasing, it makes sense to keep waiting and reduce the costs and risks of any war. The US Navy will keep shrinking till 2027. The Chinese Navy grows continuously. Their nuclear forces are growing rapidly. Western munitions stockpiles will remain depleted for some time and it's not like US munitions production could be anywhere close to Chinese munitions production, considering the sizes of the industrial bases involved. India remains weak.
The US seems to be increasingly distracted by the Middle East situation, further dispersing strength away from Asia.
China is pulling ahead in most scientific fields. More and more ethnic Chinese scientists are migrating back to China.
They're producing more and more energy domestically, though imports are higher than ever. Huge stockpiles of food and fuel have been built up. The sanctions weapon seems to have bounced off Russia and hit Europe, there is reason to think it will be ineffective against China as well (and/or cause incredible pain to the West): https://en.thebell.io/inside-russias-budget-taxes-borrowing-reserves/
Salaries in real terms are set to rise 7% next year, down from 9.25% this year. By 2027 the annual increase will be 4.1%. Real disposable incomes — a key measure of living standards — are set to slow even faster due to increased utility charges and expensive borrowing fees. They will rise 7.1% this year, then 6.1% in 2025 and 3.4% in 2027.
I'm frankly staggered that this anti-Putin outlet is putting out these numbers and trying to spin them as bad news for Russia. Likewise, Chinese real disposable income per capita keeps rising at a pretty respectable 4-5%. That's pretty good economic performance. The US is at 2%, most of Europe is below 2% and Australia has sunk to 2018 levels.
Anyway, China may expect further positive surprises in the future. If the US gets dragged into a struggle with Iran, if the political crisis in America heightens further, if Ukraine goes under and Russia ties down more troops in Europe...
The biggest uncertainty for China is some major advancement in AI where the US seems to be retaining an edge.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
Just look at the Rwanda solution, Britain's laughable attempt to emulate Australian policies. Subsaharan African countries are quite proficient at exploiting European aid providers and the British ran the project in a clownish and unserious way, the whole thing collapsed in a heap of scandal and delays.
This isn't a matter of cash, it's a political issue. The reason Belarus is using these tactics is because they have structural political advantages and know it. Belarusian human rights lawyers either operate outside the country or sleep with both eyes open.
In Europe, human rights lawyers and NGOs run wild. The EU coats everything in a suffocating layer of law. It is possible to break through like Denmark has. But the question is fundamentally about willpower and organization, about the internal conflicts within the Union and within individual countries. Belarus isn't outspending Europe, they're inducing division.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
Australia does this with Nauru and Papua New Guinea. There's a policy where no asylum seeker who arrives by boat will be resettled in Australia. Europe however is short on unpleasant pseudo-colonies these days, there's no politically reliable, nearby, unpleasant place they could be sent. Maybe France could set up a facility in French Guyana?
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
What would you say the optimal balance looks like
Core capabilities are decentralized and privately owned, preferably by many people as opposed to few. Economic transactions via crypto for instance, private ownership of weapons, private ownership of land, private ownership of websites and communications.
Metrics - self-employed as % of the population, wealth equality, number of people arrested for social media posts per year, size of government as % of GDP
I want a more strictly defined role for the state and large companies. Police should be focused on real crimes as opposed to speech, the organs of government should be less ideological. Of course government is innately political but you should not be able to get ahead of the queue in the NHS because you're pro-Palestinian. The US Air Force should not have a written desire to reduce the percentage of white male pilots to X%, even if they say 'oh this is still totally meritocratic and just an aspiration' as a disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Institutions and companies should be purely focused on their formal goals, not social engineering. If people think 'oh this cause is worthy' they should donate their own money, not company funds. Spending other people's money on other people is the worst kind of spending, it should be minimized where possible.
Governments should accept limitations in their powers, not grasping at extraordinary interpretations of the constitution or law to retroactively justify doing things they have no head of power for (this happens all the time in Australia).
In some areas I want stronger government powers, to speed through industrial projects to completion, produce housing and crack down on crime. But I want them wielded by people with a different understanding of what their role is and what they're aiming for.
Clearly this is a difficult equilibrium to maintain. Governments and big corporations all want more power and control, that's a natural desire. Ideologues want more power so they can achieve their goals. The population at large has a tendency to be distracted by prosperity or the media.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UrEUzKTt7j0
Succinctly, it's that people who don't want you to own things want power over you. Vehicles, guns, food, wealth, houses are sources of power and sovereignty. If you own nothing, just have a few lines in some bank's excel spreadsheet, then you're much more vulnerable than someone who owns things. Your bank could freeze your assets for being politically unacceptable. What are you going to do - hire a lawyer? With what money ;)
Or just look at the wikipedia page, it talks about how Auken proposed giving up control of electrical appliances to reduce power consumption. So at peak use times, perhaps it would reduce your aircon usage. That makes economic sense but it transfers power from the individual to the company or state. Each tiny loss of power and control matters, convenience comes with a price. We can't - and shouldn't - all be autarchic farmer-warrior kings of our own domain, the Somalia experience. Neither should we be totally docile serfs, hoping that our lords and masters see fit to treat us well. There needs to be a balance and I personally think we're already too close to the latter, better to arrest this trend than accelerate it.
I'll add to the rot13 and say that people who want you unable to resist authority, who want more power from you, are probably untrustworthy. They're at least suspicious. 'Relax, you don't need to bring your pepper spray or the phone in your purse - I'm a professional boxer' is all well and good, how do you know the boxer is not the threat?
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
Yes, 'truth-telling' is even worse than 'we need to have a conversation about _____' IMO, it doesn't even pretend to be a democratic or two-way exchange.
The main, accepted line, it seems to me, is that it failed because the country’s centre-right party opposed it,
I've heard people argue that referendums don't pass in Australia without bipartisan support. It requires a majority of voters and a majority of states and voting is compulsory, so there's a certain level of innate conservatism as people who don't really care vote for the status quo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Australian_referendum_(Aviation)
This referendum was just about giving the commonwealth the power to regulate aviation, since it's obviously a federal matter, planes routinely flying inter-state. It failed!
That's not to say I think the Voice referendum was reasonable or desirable. What's the point of a constitutionally enshrined body to advise Parliament if it's non-binding? Formally non-binding is one thing, what would be the de facto outcome? It would be a powerful political tool towards a treaty (the ultimate goal of the 'sovereignty never ceded' aboriginal historical falsification movement) and yet more sabotage of national industries. We already have huge mining projects continually being blocked by lawfare and dodgy-sounding ancestral lands claims. We already have a huge national DEI push, better to keep it out of the functioning of the legislature.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
This isn't quite news - but there is a guy on reddit who claims to be a meth addict fighting in the Sudan Civil War. Everyone is apparently running around on drugs there, people are falling out of aeroplanes as they drop their makeshift bombs on semi-randomly selected targets.
https://old.reddit.com/user/Background_Ad7522
I tineyed some of his images, he doesn't seem to be lying about being there. I guess he could just be a poser enjoying the cheap drugs. Anyway, it makes a change from high-level, abstract depictions of these endless sub-Saharan civil wars.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
What do physicists or astronomers know about space? They can't even tell us the basic configuration of 95% of the universe's mass-energy, it's 'dark' to us.
Those huge space telescopes clearly aren't so great on a cosmic scale, we're missing so much. It's not even in the realm of unknown unknowns, it's known unknowns.
If we don't have a clue on the universe's basic composition, then we don't have the standing to rule out FTL travel. Our physics simply is not developed enough.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
Isn't it a national humiliation to have a president who can't string a sentence together unscripted? All these people just saying 'oh yeah the country basically doesn't have a leader, this is fine actually' seem bizarre to me.
The whole point of having a leader is that this is the person who makes the calls, the final arbitrator, the one who decides on exceptions, makes quick decisions. A blob can't decide things coherently, a deep state can't plan anything out. Suppose the Pentagon wants to dump Zelensky and the Department of State wants to prop him up - who resolves this? Do they just go and do their own thing? The Department of Energy and big tech want more nuclear plants, the green faction wants more solar - what happens? Does the US buy solar panels from China or not? These questions need to be unambiguously decided by somebody, not left to a bunch of fractious court eunuchs.
The horse needs a rider, the newspaper needs an editor, the ship needs a captain. Throwing your hands up and saying 'oh well it's a clownshow anyway' misses the point that the clownshow is going to get a lot more chaotic if the ringmaster is unable to grapple with the job and delegates it to... who? The Smoking Man? The chaotic, aimless situation under Biden will keep entrenching and metastatizing as the govt runs away with itself.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
How can any of us predict how a man who commands a singleton would behave? After year 1 or year 10 maybe he remains benign - but maybe he grows tired of everyone's demands and criticism. Or he decides to rearrange all these ugly, boring populations into something more interesting. Or he eventually uploads himself and is warped into the exact same foom/reprocess-your-atoms monster we are afraid of.
Nobody has ever held that much power, it's a risk not worth taking.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
the vast majority of humans want a future with lots of happy people in it, while AI samples a much wider distribution of goals
If the keys to the god-machine were randomly distributed then sure. However, the people most likely to end up in control are Tech Billionaires (specifically the most ruthless and powerhungry of this highly selective group) and Military/Intelligence Goons (specifically the most ruthless and powerhungry of this already subversive and secretive group). It may even lean towards 'who can command the obedience of Security during the final post-training session' or 'who is the best internal schemer in the company'.
The CIA or their Chinese equivalent aren't full of super nice, benign people. There are many people who say Sam Altman is this weird, power-hungry, hypercompetent creep. Generally speaking, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We should be working on ways to decentralize the power of AI so that no one group or individual can run away with the world.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
The Australian military is in a similar position. We only field a very small force, so there are few economies of scale, little learning by doing. There aren't usually any serious threats that we can handle, so we can afford to bungle submarine procurement catastrophically. We've been trying to replace the dodgy Collins-class submarines (Swedish-designed but locally built) since 2007. First we were going with Japan. Then France. Now the UK and America. All of this indecision cost us enormous amounts of time and money.
The new plan is to buy Virginias from the US (America can't even produce enough for their own needs, let alone ours) and then acquire a joint Anglo-American sub that hasn't even been designed yet sometime in the 2030s, hopefully fielded by 2040.
Our defence procurement is addicted to buying only the most expensive technologies in tiny numbers and then modifying or changing requirements to cause even longer delays before they enter service. For instance, we buy US Switchblade drones. They're expensive and ineffectual compared to refitted commercial drones used on the battlefield in Ukraine but I'm sure they meet all the gilded requirements written up by some Canberra official.
Everything moves at an absolutely glacial pace since everyone knows the US will be doing all the heavy lifting in any serious war and that our own capabilities have basically nothing to do with outcomes. About the only thing we've done tangibly on the submarine front is funded US submarine construction to speed up Virginia production. We're buying massively underarmed frigates at ridiculous prices (though the US isn't doing very well with frigates either).
I suspect Canada is in the same boat, the Armed Forces have no incentive to be capable. Imagine if the Canadian military was a really top-notch force, superbly efficient. So what, the Chinese could sweep them aside because of the massive difference in scale. We have 7 frigates and 3 destroyers (each maybe half as capable as a US Arleigh Burke), Canada has 12 frigates. China has 50 destroyers and 47 frigates, many much more modern and capable than anything in our fleets.
OK, she's a bad speaker, we all knew that: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/09/29/vp-harris-hails-us-alliance-north-korea-speech-gaffe/10460822002/
That's an embarrassing mistake, maybe she could have misspoken. But past a certain point we have to wonder whether there is anything in her head at all.
Kamala enjoys the favour of the media establishment. She had plenty of time to prepare for this. She knew what kind of questions they were going to ask her. She could have given some convincing lies and hope nobody would fact-check her, that's a strategy. A primary plank of her campaign is lying about Trump's plans to ban abortion. Trump himself is no stranger to lies, they're a vital political tool.
But she isn't even capable of that!
It might even be edited to look a little better than it actually was, people have been remarking that the interview was shorter than expected. That was why I was confused, wondering how Kamala could answer the same question twice.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
Quite right. Either Arrow was saturated or they judged it too costly to sustain their missile defences.
Kamala's word salad causes prediction market meltdown?
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1843450980291010656
Question: "What does success look like in ending the war in Ukraine?"
Answer: "There will be no success in ending that war without Ukraine and the UN Charter participating in what that success looks like."
I guess she could be referring to Article 2(4)?
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Even with a positively colossal steelman it's hard to understand what she's saying, charters cannot participate in successes. I think she doesn't really mean anything by this statement. It's what Gary Marcus says about LLMs, how they're just spinning word associations around.
She then continues on to repeat fairly standard US rhetoric 'we're not going to do a deal without Ukraine at the table' and dodges the question of NATO membership. None of it is particularly adept politician-speak IMO, she could do with lessons on muddying the issue.
How hard would it have been to say 'we want a free, democratic Ukraine with 1991 borders' or if they want 2014 borders, why not say that? Or if territory is too sensitive to talk about, just say 'we want a free and democratic Ukraine, a Russia that isn't going to be invading any more countries, deterrence for all America's enemies'? It was a pretty easy question!
It's not just that, there's more:
https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1843449294008836567
She's asked about whether it was a mistake to let illegal immigration rise so dramatically and fails to dodge the question. She could've said 'oh there are enforcement problems since it's a big border' or given a distracting pre-prepared anecdote about one of the challenges they faced. She just says 'oh we have been offering solutions, solutions are at hand and we'll make more solutions on day one, when I'm elected!"
Here's a bigger chunk of the video, each minute I watch there's all this word salad and flailing question-dodging:
https://x.com/ThisIsJnored/status/1843473339085631770
For instance, at about 1:50 there's a question about the extensive US military aid to Israel and whether the Biden Harris administration is capable of putting any pressure on the Netanyahu govt.
Her answer: the work that we do diplomatically, with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles.
Him: But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.
Her: We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.
She does say something substantive from time to time, carefully implying that the alliance is between the American people and the Israeli people, not with Netanyahu. She uses a proper technique like 'the real question is...' there which makes her look more in control. But it's still a pretty bad performance overall.
Presumably this is why polymarket has gone from parity to 53-46 in Trump's favour): https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-2024?tid=1728364599343
And then there's the editing! I think whatever portion of the interview they're releasing is the most flattering stuff they could get. How else do you explain this: https://x.com/LangmanVince/status/1842964122553761982
He asks the same question "but it seems Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening" with the exact same head movements (from a slightly different camera angle) and she gives a different answer, even more full of spaghetti:
Well Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of... movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.
What's going on here? Am I missing something basic? Kamala's answer isn't coherent either way but it's vaguely related to the question, was it edited from something else? This is why you should just give clear answers that specifically engage the question. Not interchangeable babble with with six clauses to a sentence.
I feel concerned (not only because I've placed bets that Donald Trump will lose the popular vote since I thought it was a dead sure thing) but also because this is the apparent calibre of American leadership. Even if we assume that Elite Human Capital or the Deep State is running the show, why can't these people find a decent media spokesperson? How hard can it be?
Apologies for how much of this post is rhetorical questions, twitter links and transcription, I'm truly confused by the whole thing. I also feel like people should know what I'm linking to, they should be able to scan the link with their own eyes and know to nitter or whatever if they don't have an account.
Edit: https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1843664856446316758 (this shows the editing they did somewhat more clearly)
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
To me it seems that all Israel adversaries do their best to throw some token rockets and then do nothing.
Did you miss the fireworks recently? They got plenty of missiles through, hitting much of Nevatim airbase amongst other things. There were videos of dozens of missiles piercing air defences. Either the Iron Dome was saturated or they judged it too costly to sustain their missile defences.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
I'm pretty sure youtubers can see who is watching their videos, even down to a subnational level. I think they could tell if it was Floridians or Californians. Don't think X is on that level.
One thing to consider is that the US military just isn't very high-performance at these kinds of logistical tasks. Remember the pier in Gaza? Cost hundreds of millions, took ages to put up, got unmoored several times and then scrapped after dispersing a fairly modest amount of aid.
People may point to the initial invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq as counterexamples - but that was 20 years ago. There's probably been a lot of rot since then, DEI and recruitment shortfalls are a pretty toxic combination. They probably got used to re-supplying well-established bases in the Middle East for continual, low intensity fighting. There's probably lots of procedures and admin they feel they need to do, there's not much sense of urgency. What logistical ability there is resembles an imperial baseline, sending gunboats out to the colonies and manning forts. Sudden campaigns like this mean setting up new bases and supply routes at short notice, a different task.
I'm not saying that it's just incompetence but that expectations should be fairly low.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
My point is that 'no war crimes' is grossly estranged from reality, as is the 'most moral army' meme. The Egyptian army is not known for its moral rectitude but they don't go around crowing about how they're so noble and civilized for all the world to see.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
I read a long essay about how Stanford was crushing social life, somewhat relevant
https://www.palladiummag.com/2022/06/13/stanfords-war-on-social-life/
What happened at Stanford is a cultural revolution on the scale of a two-mile college campus. In less than a decade, Stanford’s administration eviscerated a hundred years of undergraduate culture and social groups. They ended decades-old traditions. They drove student groups out of their houses. They scraped names off buildings. They went after long-established hubs of student life, like fraternities and cultural theme houses. In place of it all, Stanford erected a homogenous housing system that sorts new students into perfectly equitable groups named with letters and numbers. All social distinction is gone.
Unlike Harvard, which abruptly tried to ban “single-gender social organizations” and was immediately sued by alumni, Stanford picked off the Greek life organizations one by one to avoid student or alumni pushback. The playbook was always the same. Some incident would spark an investigation, and the administration would insist that the offending organization had lost its right to remain on campus. The group would be promptly removed.
When Stanford could not remove a student organization for bad behavior, they found other justifications. One such case was the end of Outdoor House, an innocuous haven on the far side of campus for students who liked hiking. The official explanation from Stanford for eliminating the house was that the Outdoor theme “fell short of diversity, equity and inclusion expectations.” The building formerly known as Outdoor House was added to Neighborhood T.
Lonely, frustrated students are less safe than happy ones. Within four weeks of school starting, ten students had to be taken off-campus to get their stomachs pumped, a Stanford record for alcohol-related “transports” in such a short period of time. Occasionally, my Row house is rented for parties which are always overrun with freshman and sophomores. They’re not particularly good ones; still, I see freshmen in the corner of the events, drinking until they pass out. Despite the safety rhetoric, the new atomized campus culture isn’t even safer.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
The wage equals the value of the marginal product of labor.
So now you're taking a definition that axiomatically assumes the answer you're looking for? If the marginal product of labour is 0 because machines are doing all the work, the wages offered would logically be 0 but the productivity of the corporation or country would be enormously high! This is the common-sense conclusion, bereft of the economic jargon. If we take Xiaomi's automated phone factory as an example for the future of production, the value-adding is coming from the machinery, not the human workers because they aren't doing anything since they're not even there. Maybe there are a few engineers who fix whatever broken machinery the AI can't handle. They will not be earning a substantial portion of the returns from that factory. The paradigm of productivity you're invoking does not apply to the systems I'm describing, like how Newtonian gravity does not apply at high speeds.
OK, so the EPI graph is wrong and misleading in showing that wages haven't kept up with production. They're only counting production and non-supervisory roles... the easiest jobs to automate. And they ignore the massively overpriced non-wage healthcare that workers receive from their jobs as well, horrible! And everybody ignores the people who were automated out of work entirely, that falling male participation rate...
So what's really going on is that inequality between workers (and the no longer working) is rising massively, presumably due to technology substituting for human labour in value-creation and a shift towards highly skilled, highly renumerated human labour. This doesn't really counter my main point.
Pretty much everything you've absorbed about the economy from the internet is bullshit lefty propaganda.
I don't think you understand me. I am not a leftist. I have invested a large amount of money into NVIDIA, Tesla, Lockheed Martin and various cryptocurrencies. I believe in the market system. But I do not trust that it has my best interests at heart.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
What about rape/grooming gangs in Europe?
There is not much PR value in publicly declaring your support for inserting sticks into prisoner's rectums, but Israeli politicians do it anyway. One can only imagine what this fellow says in private.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-hamas-war-idf-palestinian-prisoner-alleged-rape-sde-teinman-abuse-protest/
Why is it so hard to believe that many Israelis really hate Palestinians, that your natural thought is not 'Oh the Israeli soldier shot the enemy civilian' but 'Hamas is shooting their own children in the head to make Israel look bad'?
Hatred is a thing. In Israel, hatred clearly has a constituency, votes and gets elected. It follows that they are also in the military.
More options
Context Copy link