lemmydividebyzero @ lemmydividebyzero @reddthat.com

Posts

10

Comments

376

Joined

11 mo. ago

Why would exactly this change lead to a nuclear war???? The 45 other times, it did not either.

The current period of the war will maybe end faster.

The problem is that Russia will not see this as as the end of the war, but rather a pause for a few years.

It has always been a proxy war!!!!

North korea versus the west!!!!

North korea will let all the Russians die on the battlefield...

/s

Dammit.... BP found out...

Can we please not destroy the word algorithm? It's such a nice word....

You are saying "Be careful with the words here" and that there a different definitions...

I am the one here who is careful with the G-word. Others just throw that word in (of course without mentioning which definition they refer to)...

Let's be honest: In the end, the legal definition (and therefore the legal decision) is the one that has actual consequences.

I agree that that's probably the difference.

"They should not be the final authority anymore." And who should be? Creating something new that the whole world agrees on seems like a hard task right now.

I’d rather accuse a country of genocide too soon than being a fucking denialist.

It's not that we agree on whether it's a war or whether children die. It's a Genocide accusation, which is pretty much the hardest accusation possible. My view: I don't want to accuse a country too soon.

I'd rather get called a denialist for now reason (just, because I don't throw the hardest accusation on the target) than potentially having to back-pedal later. I think, that our language(s) has/have a lot of potential to describe the terrible things that happened in Israel on Oct 7th and in Gaza since then (which is the opposite of denial) without using the word "Genocide" like there was already a decision by the ICJ.

What are you afraid off? Less people dying?

What is your hope by using the word before there is a ICJ decision? Less people dying? Because I don't see a causal connection there.

There is the UN with its ICJ. That's what pretty much the whole world agrees on.

They are the final deciders, but we can agree that it will take time for a decision.

What might be interesting, is what happens and how various people (including the scholars or you) react, if the ICJ decided differently. But that's just speculation at this point.

I prefer to not throw words on something based on emotions.

There are usually 3 views on the internet:

1. "It's a genocide!!! I am sure."
2. "It's not a genocide!!! I am sure."
3. "I was not a virologist during Corona and I'm not an expert on genocides right now, but others are. So, I'll wait for the experts of ICJ to decide."

Mine is Nr. 3! If you think, that Nr. 2 and Nr. 3 are the same, the problem is on your side.

That's the worst. If it's worth it in the end, this will not be tge last war in Europe.

And the German Wikipedia community sees it differently (differently = waiting for an official decision) and does not allow an article called "Gaza Genozid" until now...

The matter remains contested

That could also be the argument for calling the article "Genocide accusations" and waiting for the ICJ...

On its “Gaza genocide” page, it states that “Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.”

Compared to the previous 2 quotes, this is actually a fact: There are accusations.

PS: Just to make it clear: I am not the ICJ either. And I think, it's fine to share it as an opinion ("I think, there is a genocide happening"), but referencing it as a fact ("The genocide is getting worse") before it is actually classified as one by the people who are responsible to do so, is just not useful at all. I know, that especially people from the USA see this differently.

The English speaking Wikipedia community is not the ICJ.

Dammit, don't ruin it!!11 The "of" is silent 😉

I don't see how your suggestion solves the problem at all... Maybe, that's a start...

Putin made clear multiple times that we wants the whole Ukraine. Serious question to you: How do we pretend this from happening?

The only way for a stable peace that I can imagine is: The remaining area of Ukraine gets full protection by NATO. Otherwise, Putin will try it again.

Alright, feel free to tell us how to achieve a permanent peace there.

Hint: In 2014, we got a peace agreement in Ukraine and now, we have war. So, what should we do differently this time? How can we make sure that Putler doesn't just fill up the army for 3 years in a "peace" phase and start the next attack afterwards??

Trump sees that as an advantage... Putin thinks and plans for him for free... All the other people want $$$ for that.

Is it thread safe?

An average politician does what brings the best result during the next 4 year in power.

Trump will do what he thinks is best for the next week, mesassured only in $.

That's the wrong direction...

So, foreigners like me with US shares can now benefit from the fact that the US population voted for self-exploitation.... Thanks, I guess.... Would have prefered Kamala anyway.....