NeuronautML

I'm thinking a terrorist attack of this magnitude with the amount of collateral casualties it had will have international implications that reach far beyond convincing Hezbollah from escalating into a war, if it's actually going to achieve that at all. We're talking about a terrorist group, not an army. Personally i think this will probably just delay it and strengthen their resolve to actually go to war and be even more cruel. Terror groups thrive in terror conditions. The strongest military force on the world couldn't make a dent in terrorist groups operating in the middle east. Peace and stability, however, destroy terror groups.

I'm pretty sure everyone has realized that further atrocities are not the way out of this war. I just hope the belligerent parties can realize it faster and start coming to terms that they will have to share the land and make concessions. Until then i guess we'll keep seeing innocents die for motivations that make less sense each time, like Fatima Abdullah, who was just 9.

Sending NATO in fundamentally breaks the treaties upon which the organization was founded. NATO isn't a joint military force to send to places for freedom and democracy, it's a defensive organization. Without an explicit article 5 declaration from a current member state against a specific threat for a specific reason, a deployment of NATO would be undermining of the organization's mission in itself, putting in question whether NATO is there to protect its members or just to be used as a cudgel for potential inconvenient threats because the alternative is a financial strain.

Interventions like this, such as the 2011 intervention on Libya to enforce UN resolution 1973 will fuel arguments that NATO is altering its mission from defending its members to participate in US led (or in this case also French led) interventionism. Upon such a time where threats are no longer direct as is the case of the current Russian invasion of Ukraine, this will have implications on the future of the organization and questions will be made about its purpose, as it has happened before after the fall of the USSR. Ultimately NATO's mandate must be upheld and strictly followed, for the sake of the treaty. At least that's the opinion i share.

I wasn't necessarily thinking the law would protect the person who did this, but pondering if the existence of that legal framework does not create the impression that this is acceptable, even though it isn't and that's not what the law is.

And also, i do understand this isn't applied everywhere in the US, but to me I see the US as a country. As a foreigner it's probably very unlikely I'm going to refer to it as the law from Connecticut or whatever. I just know this law exists in the US and to be fair I'm not really that interested in knowing specifically where and the nuances of state to state legislation.

But nevertheless i thank you for clarifying the difference between Stand your ground and Castle doctrine and reminding me that it's not a national thing.

This is why stand your ground laws can't realistically exist in places that aren't sparsely populated. Because someone will read "defend your property and life with force if necessary" as "act as a raging lunatic and attempt to shoot anyone who comes at the door because it's legal to do so if you claim you were defending your property, even though there was no indication of actual imminent danger to property or people".

In my country we don't have stand your ground laws. You can only defend yourself in case of an attack, but not drive away a thief. You're supposed to run and call the police, but I keep wondering if a legal framework like the US where you weren't legally punished for attacking a thief in your house wouldn't be fairer but then there's news like this.

Nope on being an hyperbole. Netanyahu's picture fits very squarely next to Hitler and Stalin. The whole demeanor is very similar. Not a single humane feeling goes through that man's heart, you can see it in his eyes. He's one of the monsters of our time.

I just read an article that said both Kamala and Trump are keen on helping out. You know, with the indiscriminate murder of thousands of children.

I gotta say this is really dragging US's public image through sewage. People weren't too keen on the US's foreign policy after that Afghanistan withdrawal, but basically delivering a country and millions of dollars of military equipment to a terrorist group on a silver platter doesn't even come close to literally helping out murdering children and paying for it.

I sure hope the US government comes to their senses at some point in time, preferably soon and stops this for the literal sake of children. At this point what choice is even there for American people.

On top of that can you imagine the US actually punishing its heads of state for anything on behalf of an international organization?

The US is literally funding and helping carry out the genocide and war crimes against an entire people with absolute impunity. Its two parties fully support it. Its corporations and universities fully collude with it and name and shame employees and students that don't in public, so their livelihoods are affected.

It seems all these international organizations can do is publish statements that the law is being broken. At least the history books have a legal, contemporary point of view, i guess. Peak performative justice.

It's not just the US. Most countries aren't doing any meaningful change to counter climate change. It's just net zero by 2300, ban straws here, make stupid soda caps that stick to the bottle, performative trash separation that gets dumped together, magic carbon offsetting and climate summits of empty promises that overall net more pollution due to heads of state and heads of corporations traveling somewhere rather than if it hadn't happened at all. Just kicking the can down the road, while living through the hottest summers on record.

Quit complaining, cause the aliens are coming in next, probes blazing.

Yeah i didn't necessarily mean our DNA, more like our internal fauna, in particular our gut fauna, which has tremendous implications over how our body functions, influencing our brains, metabolism and immune system.

If bacteria are changing and our bodies are about a one to one ratio of human cell to bacteria cells according to recent studies, it follows that bacteria changing does not preclude us from changing as well, since not only are bacteria a part of us, we fundamentally depend on bacteria to be alive. We cannot ever be separated from the evolution of bacteria.

So while our own DNA will not change significantly in such a timescale, that doesn't mean our internal metabolism processes will not change somehow, i would wager. Not only us, but all the animals around us that we eat and live with as well. It's interesting to think, for instance, of vitamins we don't produce but still need and we take from bacteria living inside us. I wonder if similar bacteria would, for instance, evolve to decompose plastics in our bodies or such like.

Plastics are becoming endemic at this point. There are bacteria evolving to live in and consume plastic already. I wonder how our bodies are beginning to change to cope with this.

Imagine saying in a public forum that all people of a certain religion, even though most of them do not commit acts of violence against others in such a manner and are children, must be "eradicated" like they're some kind of pest and thinking you are on the right side of the argument.

That's just indiscriminate hatred right there. It's crazy how you consistently barely ever get a positive rated comment in multiple forums yet persist without putting your hand on your consciousness and thinking, what if i am wrong.