The question is, what symbolism do people draw from this gesture. The symbolism I see is viewing the current conflict through the lense of 80 years ago. And, in my view, the pervasive of that 80 year old lense to this conflict is the central problem to solving it.
If Germany wants to pay symbolic reparations for the Holocaust, fine. But don't tie it to something that has nothing to do with the Holocaust.
And Israel has been attacking Hezbollah and Hamas.
Iran has been surprisingly restrained in not getting directly involved. However, directly attacking an Iranian embassy forces their hand in a way that retaliating against their proxies does not.
This is not some abstract notion about ethics. It is simply a basic strategic observation. The fact that Iran is attacking Israel directly, is a direct and predictably consequence of an strategic decision that Israel made.
No. It is the equivalent of a PC maker going "yeah. I don't think we are going to put in a CD drive anymore because the DVD drive we have been including for years can do CDs as well"
Ramsey did not get rich from a $1 million loan.
He got rich by having $1.2 million in loans. Declaring bankruptcy, then building a financial media empire that teaches people to get rich by avoiding all debt; buying his books; attending his classes; and investing with financial advisors whom his organization carefully vets to assure that their kickback checks clear.
They tried to frame a guilty man.
That’s illegally discriminatory.
Under what law? I'm not familiar with Australia, but here the the US, transfolk are just piggybacking off of legal protections against gender discrimination; which were never actually intended to protect trans people.
In most cases, that actually works out fine. If you discriminate against a transwomen, it's because you think they are a man presenting as a women. However, you have no problem with a women presenting as a women, so you are running afoul of gender discrimination laws. Legally speaking, your problem was discriminating against her for being a man.
In instances like this though, that argument doesn't apply. Once you get to the "you are discriminating against her for being a man" stage of the analysis, the response is simply "yes, and I'm allowed to discriminate against men".
It seems like Australia would need to have a law that specifically protects trans people for her to prevail here.
I'm not familiar with Australian law, but how do you get to "discrimination on the basis of gender identity" in this case. Wouldn't the case for that be a trans man trying to join or stay on the app? (Or a cis man for that matter).
It sounds like Tickle's position is that the app should be discriminating based on gender identity. Her complaint seems more like them discriminating on (vaguely defined policy ammounting to) assigned gender at birth.
Having said that, I suspect their tune will change if a trans man tried joining.
It is literally the 2 paragraphs that OP quoted in the submission.
The thing is, that excuse actually seems worse to me than just saying "yeah, one of our people saw an aid convoy and decided to order an attack". The latter is a single bad apple. Sure, in that counterfactual Israel should have noticed the person was unfit and never let him in a command position. However, people are unpredictable and momsters exist.
However, in the story Israel gave, there was no individual monster; only a systemic one. Misreading a grainy image is not a crime. It is not even morally wrong. And, more importantly, it is going to happen thousands of times weather you like it or not. The problem was the policy that that single determination was enough to authorize a strike. According to Israel; that policy is a-ok.
There are 3 possibilities:
Israel internationally bombed a clearly marked aid convoy after being informed of and approving their route.
Israel internationally adopted rules of engagement so lax that they allowed for 3 accidental bombings on a clearly marked aid convoy after being informed of and approving their route.
All of the above.
The problem for Israel is that all of those possibilities are war crimes.
He was already convicted of the financial crimes at the state level as well.
That was never alledged during the trial itself. There was live round practice, but it was done properly at a fireing range.
The prosecution's theory was that they came from a different set which did use live rounds. Reed brought dummies herself (instead of going through the prop house for everything) due to shortages.
The defenses theory was that their prop house messed up and provided live rounds with their dummies.