Sorry I don’t have a an exact source. From what I recall they were talking about this on the Bulwark a month ago I think? It’s such a weird thing (is bond the right word for it?) that there’s even a term for it. So it’s not an easy thing to search for. What do you even call it when you can buy a piece of a tax refund that you expect to happen when the court rules the government levied an illegal tax?
The whole thing is just a cost cutting measure. There’s a reason why all fast food places look the same now… it’s the cheapest way to build a restaurant.
But sure… let’s pretend there must be a politcal reason for all restaurants having the same boring design so we can pretend anything we don’t like is “woke”.
It’s not just domestic companies being greedy (though they definitely are) they kinda have to raise prices to avoid shortages. Basic supply and demand pressures.
In the long term they could expand their production and lower the prices, which is theoretically the point of the tariffs. But no one is going to make that long term investment because of the likelihood that the tariffs will be ruled illegal by the courts and general TACO stuff.
Even more frustrating…some companies are putting out bonds that they will pay out when they recover the money they paid to the government for these tariffs. There are members of Trump’s administration that have bought these bonds.
So you’re paying higher prices for everything and Trump’s guys (and likely Trump himself too) are going to profit from it.
Actual journalists won’t say someone is a murderer even if there’s a video of the person shooting a guy pulling out their ID and showing it to the camera and say “my name is ___ and I murdered this person”.
When the person is charged then they will be termed “alleged murderer”. Before there’s charges they’re termed something like “shooter” not murderer. Only once someone is convicted of the crime will they be called “murderer”.
Genocide is a much greater crime than murder. It’s not responsible journalism to make accusations like this. If a body like the ICJ convicted Israel’s leadership on charges, or maybe id the country the media organization is based in made a declaration, then a journalist will start using the word genocide.
“Alternative media” have no journalistic standards and will say such things to lead their audiences to conclusions. If you’re reading articles that are telling you how to think about a story, it’s not actually journalism. Real journalism is about telling people what’s happening, not telling people how they’re supposed to think about, and definitely not about making accusations in an effort support activist causes.
I’m not Israeli nor Jewish, but I constantly get labelled a “zionist” anyway because I don’t fall in line with the crazy bullshit conspiracies promoted on this site. You’ve come up with ways of labeling people so you can make them “the other” and acceptable to hate. That’s the tactic of a hate group.
The tactic of making it acceptable to hate a subset of Jews (while changing the terminology) has been used in past, particularly by leftists. Read up on anti-cosmopolitan campaigns in the Soviet Union. They also use the term anti-zionism back then too, because the Soviets didn’t want to sound like the Nazis.
But whatever terminology gets used, when you have hateful intent in your movement, you’re in a hate movement. You go around saying the Jews/Globalists/Israel/Zionists/Cosmopolitans are controlling world governments and the media, it’s all the same thing.
So… only Hamas tells the truth and everyone else in the world is lying?
Yeah, someone here is being suckered…
No, according to the Geneva Conventions only armed combatants are legitimate targets.
Show me where in the Geneva convention it says this. Go on, find this in the rules of war where it says that. I’ll wait.
You know just making shit up doesn’t further your cause, it just makes people distrust you.
If your ideas can’t survive any kind of opposition, it might be because you’re wrong.
This is the weakness of authoritarian regimes. Putin’s guys were all telling him what he wanted to hear in the lead up to the invasion on Ukraine. “They’ll greet us as liberators, it’ll be over in a week, two weeks tops.”
Next comes the corruption. You know your job is solely about telling the boss what he wants to hear, which will often be lies. If you’re a liar and in control of a procurement budget, you can move the money for your own benefit. You’ll have to lie to your boss about spending the money for what it’s intended, but since you have your job because you’re willing to lie to your boss, why not lie about how your budget was spent?
So you want someone else to do a violent resistance while you sit on your ass watching it on TV? Maybe you can make some popcorn to munch on while watching people die?
Even if one takes Israel’s allegations at face value — which I absolutely do not, given Israel’s track record — and entertains the idea that in 2013, at the age of 17, al-Sharif joined Hamas in some form, what are we to make of that choice? Hamas has been the governing authority of Gaza since 2006.
So… maybe he was Hamas, what’s the big deal?
Yeah if the guy was Hamas, he’s a valid target.
So there was a lot of outrage over his death by news organizations around the world last week. Israel presented their evidence, and then… silence. That indicates news organizations consider Israel’s evidence to be at least credible.
And then this opinion column comes out and this guy is saying “He’s not Hamas… and even if he was, it’s ok for him to be Hamas.” It smacks of the Trumpian “I didn’t do that, and if I did, it’s perfectly fine” style of logic.
The silence of news organizations (other than Al Jazeera and alt media trash) on this and then this opinion piece making excuses about why it’s perfectly fine for Anas al-Sharif to be a member of Hamas… it kinda seems like he actually was a member of Hamas.
The whole genocide narrative started with a NY Times story about Israel bombing a hospital. Turned out the story wasn’t true, and they retracted it.
It’s actually a bit of a problem going the opposite way than you suggest. People in news organizations can be emotional and publish anti-Israel stories without proper confirmation because they’re sympathetic to Palestinians. And the stories you’re seeing on Hamas propaganda feeds that don’t get published isn’t because of some Jewish conspiracy, it’s because even emotional journalists can’t justify publishing raw propaganda with zero confirmation.
They’re groomed from a young age by the manosphere to be losers that can’t get laid, so they’ll continuously buy self-help books from the manosphere.
They still vote though. And this all happens because to a teenager, the manosphere are the cool guys making fun of the whiny nerds.
To paraphrase Jon Lovett, they have “back of the classroom energy” while the left has “front of the classroom energy”.
“Teacher teacher, he said something some people might find offensive! Send him to the principal’s office”
“Thanks for narcing me out, r****d”
“Teacher teacher, he just said the r-word!”
The left just isn’t equipped to deal with the manosphere. Everything the left does just makes the manosphere seem even more cool to the kids.
“The UN is worried about these guys, they must be really badass!”
That is not true. You’re being shown video of a guy that’s dressed like a civilian being killed by a drone and told that’s not Hamas because they look like a civilian. But Hamas doesn’t wear uniforms. They all dress like civilians. So is that guy a civilian or Hamas? Depends on who you believe.
And that’s the horrible nature of Hamas. You may think that a military having their soldiers wear uniforms and clearly mark their vehicles as military is stupid because it makes them obvious targets. But we do this so in a war it’s easy to distinguish between military and civilians. This results in there being less civilian casualties. You may think that Hamas is being “smart” by dressing like civilians and hiding among the civilian population, but really it just results in higher civilian casualties. We respect soldiers for putting on a uniform because that’s them taking on additional risk to make civilians safer. Hamas doesn’t do this because why would they? More civilian casualties brings more sympathy for them, and more money being sent to them.
And international law agrees with this. The reason why captured Hamas are treated as criminals and not prisoners of war is because that’s what international law considers them to be. If they wore uniforms they would be POWs, but since they don’t they are criminals. Of course if they wore uniforms the war would be over fairly quickly and there would be much fewer casualties. But this is why international law is the way it is. To avoid long drawn out wars with combatants that don’t wear uniforms resulting in a high number of cvilian casualties.
Hamas is a criminal organization, and has been declared a terrorist group by most sensible countries for good reason.
That’s not how wars work. It is expected for a military to keep their own civilians safe by building their bases apart from civilians (not under hospitals and schools) and wearing uniforms. The onus isn’t on your enemy to keep your civilian population safe, the onus is on your military to keep you safe. Hamas is doing the exact opposite of keeping Palestinian civilians safe, they’re using the tactic of purposefully putting their civilian population at risk and for some reason you think it’s fine for them to do this. It is not illegal in war to hit a target because your enemy insists on using civilians to protect themselves. Hamas is using cowardly tactics, and telling you this is a good thing to do and you’re believing them.