【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】 @ JustZ @lemmy.world

Posts

14

Comments

4,496

Joined

2 yr. ago

Dogs are dogs. I'm familiar with many dogs. I'm familiar with many dogs that are Shepherd breeds that don't flip out when someone rings the door bell. The dog only knows about doorbells because of how humans react to it. If you react calmly, and sit down for a second, and then walk to the door calmly and open it calmly, and you don't do loud sing-song greetings with everybody making a bunch of noise, if you're not trying to restrain the dog or block the dog from running out the door, or panicking that someone is there, then the dog will be calm too. It's not rocket science.

Socom!

He was like 19 in this photo, too.

We really don’t like people, outside of expected visitors/deliveries, coming to our door. Our dogs lose their minds barking and then are on high alert for a while going off at every little noise.

Your dogs take their emotional cues from you. You lose your mind when someone comes to your door unexpectedly, said so yourself.

Yes, it does.

The real interesting question is those two holes in the end of two of the prongs.

What are they for?

A long time ago there were two little dimples inside the outlet that corresponded to those holes, they would kind of help snug the cord in place and hold it in. Modern outlets don't need that anymore since they kind of squeeze the prongs with springs, so why are we still drilling holes in all the plugs?

Well, it turns out, that if you don't drill them, consumers think there is something wrong with the plug and don't want to use it. True story.

Apparently, there are places out there and manufacturers that have decided to stop drilling the holes. I've seen one or two of those plugs and they immediately look extremely weird.

Empty tub of lard.

The entire world doesn't call it a genocide.

In fact, most of the western world does not. Your own country, probably, does not.

Dumbass. Erasing their existence. 50,000 people in Gaza are dead. 98% of Gaza is still alive. There are 2,000,000,000 Muslims in the world.

Oh no, 0.000025% of the world's Muslims have been killed, in a warzone, in a war that their elected leaders started.

"OH NOES THERE BEING ERASED BY THE GREAT SATAN."

I remember when I turned 14.

Ohio.

I don't buy that whole trope about how the people that deserve power are the people that don't want it. That may be true for such a person at first, but if they're the sort of good person who can recognize policy failures and offer popular solutions, at a certain point it becomes them to fight against those policy failures. And if that person recognizes that public office is the best way to do it, wanting to run for office would be a perfectly natural desire.

Yes.

Nobody in the military or foreign service world think this was indiscriminate. So you can make up your own definition of discrimination, but this was a highly targeted attack.

Proper discrimination is a question of the feasibility of treating protected persons as distinct from soldiers. Period. This attack did that by intercepting pagers marked for Hezzbollah, rather than pagers marked for general sale to the public. See the difference? The attack treated military targets as distinct from the general public. Therefore, nobody can say the attack was indiscriminate. That's just not what the word means.

If it was discriminate, was it proportionate? The 3,000 pagers were for 3,000 members of Hezzbollah, and specifically those members whose work could not be done in cell phones because of the secret military nature of the communications and Hezzbollah's fear that the cell networks were compromised. That's a very valuable target. Killing them would be a huge strategic advantage, especially in the midst of daily rocket attacks, being coordinated on the very pagers that were turned into weapons. The chance that some Hezzbollah member doesn't use the pager given to them by their employer, and instead gives it to some innocent person is minimal. The chance that someone standing nearby the person also gets hurt was very high. I think the strategic advantage clearly outweighs the risk. Virtually all 3,000.of the pagers were going to be in the hands of the people responsible for coordinating conducting the rocket attacks against Israel which are actually discriminate.

Further, it's the incidental civilian casualties that must be avoided, not the accidental ones. In other words, that a guided bomb may have a guidance malfunction and strike a civilian target does not ex ante make the attack indiscriminate. There was clearly going to be both come incidental civilian casualties and some accidental casualties. Incidental being the case where, for example the target is struck correctly but maybe was driving when the pager detonated, causing the car to crash into civilians. That's incidental. Accidental is the pager gets picked up by a kid instead of the Hezzbollah member that owns it. It was not feasible to limit those casualties, so the strategic advantage must be balanced. See how this logic works?

Here's a good article on the legal analysis that focuses on the order, and the logical sequence of the analysis. https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-lethal-misconception-in-gaza-and-beyond-disguising-indiscriminate-attacks-as-potentially-proportionate-in-discourses-on-the-laws-of-war/

The problem with doing the analysis out of order, is that if you do, you will find that all anyone has to do to win any war ever is bring their families to the front. Suppose your country is being invaded, and all the invading soldiers have their families with them. You agree that you can kill the soldiers and their families right?

That kind of gets back to your point about people being both civilians and fighters. That's not a thing. If you're a fighter, you're a fighter. If you're supporting fighters, you are also a fighter.

You have a bunch of random sentences strung together. You haven't even attempted to refute a single thing I said and apparently cannot do basic math. You're at the peak of Mount Stupid looking down when you should be looking up.

I saw that. I guess it would just be gratuitous.

Another fat guy done in by his love of RC helicopters.

Why would they withhold anything?

Projecting your own shit.

Nothing of substance to say so call me a racist, couldn't be farther from the truth.

Do you have a more accurate description for the Iranian leadership?