Ooops

Not in the detail I would have liked. So declaring it an immidiate risk to US security is seemingly possible, but what are the standards there? Who can check the justification? What pre-defined guidelines for such an assessment exist?

Thats the problem with both sides, though, isn't it? Its always the other sides fault.

One side, the German government, was loudly criticised for their one-sided support comments. And later for their harsh reaction of banning protests when those protests included terrorists and anti-semites.

They are trying to fix the former, by also speaking up about the Israeli side of illegal settlements on one hand and Israel's responsibility to think about collateral civilian damages. Is this perfect? Of course not, but they are doing something. There is no need to "fix" the latter as we don't need people advocating for Israel's destruction (or Germany's destruction to create a new caliphate here - yes, that also happened in some of these protests) on our streets.

And then on other side we have people who still try to sell the banning of anti-semitism in protests as censoring Arab and Palestinian voices. And who have often done shit fixing anything.

Sorry, if you don't understand the concept of freedom of expression and opinion in comparison to absolute free speech. But that's how it is in Germany. Your freedom to say something publically definitely ends long before public calls for violence. We won't and we don't want to change that.

The sane ones advocating for Palestina without calling for the destruction of Israel themselves or associating with people that do... I can read about their opinions daily in the media. I guess they are doing a very bad job at censoring these voices. Or they never actually tried and it's not people being censored but certain opinions for specific reason that questions their status of "legitimate opinion".

Thanks, I probably know more about these tanks than you, if second hand media reports are your source.

Doesn't change the facts. Leopard-1s cannot be considered MBTs by modern standards. They are mobile guns at best but given their fire control actually really good at that job.

But on the other hand no modern MBT is actually immune to being immobilized by a mine and then destroyed by artillery fire either.

Yet that's exactly that this article is about: How Ukrainians "added reactive armor to Leopard-1s really in need of extra armor just in time..."... to then describe exactly the "immobilized and shot by artillery"-scenario that is now allegedly solved by reactive armor. Spoiler: No, this solves nothing, that's coping. No amount of extra armor will make Leopard-1 into modern battle tanks. Use them in a supportive role as a precise gun on range (and as it's rifled it is actually more capable in regards to long range precision than modern smooth-bore cannons). Believing otherwise will just get you killed.

You just type ZZ... then the program assumes you fell asleep trying to exit and stops.

Can we stop the bullshit narratives? Yes, those are light vehicles compared to modern MBTs. No, them being at risk when immobilized by a mine and then coming under artillery fire is not an issue of Leopard-1s. Neither is getting hit by ATGMs.

That's the reality of every tank and vehicle in a war zone. And not one some smart Ukrainians will fix with their ingenious engineering skills. That's just another bullshit fairy tale of how Ukrainians can improve crap the West delivered them. And I don't understand their need to push such narratives constantly.

"The problem is that people of Palestinian or Arab descent feel that they cannot express their concerns and criticisms."

No, the problem is that many seem to be completely unable to get rid of the people supporting their criticism while openly calling for the killing of all jews.

There were peaceful protests in Germany. Nobody had a problem with those. But the majority was instead infested with radicals that should have no place in a civilized society.

There is also a lot of criticism of Israel's government. And funnily enough we can read all these statements in international as well as German media... while they are being actively censored. Sure.

If I publically talk about a topic and half the audience cheering are nazis I will stop, reevaluate my message and clearly distance myself from them. When you 'protest peacefully' to critisize Israel's government however it's okay when a big share of attendees carry symbols of terrorist organisations. And if those protests are then banned it's "censoring of Palestinian human rights".

Don't get me wrong here... I am the first one telling you that the current government in Israel is a big part of the problem (for the very same reason: not distancing themselves from the radical morons - no, it isn't enough to speak out against statements of some government official later, those people can't have a place there at all).

And the official German government statements were clearly lacking balance. But they were widely and loudly criticised publically for it by many. And many called their initial reaction a massive overreaction. (Again... that was public and not censored...)

Yet many of those who camplain about banned protests and censoring however have actually another problem entirely: That they often can't (or don't want to) distance themselves from that strange other half of "Israel criticsm" that is in fact criticising their right to exist.

Fix your own side of the bed first, then you can start complaining.

Deutsche wählen Rechts. Dann sind die unzufrieden. Und wählen wieder Rechts. Und sind unzufrieden. Also wählt ein kleiner Teil endlich mal mit Verstand, nur dass dann linke Parteien immer noch so klein sind, dass die nur mit massiven Kompromissen und zusammen mit rechten Parteien Politik machen können. Ergebnis: Man wählt dann eben wieder Rechts, weil diese Linken ja auch nicht genug linke Politik machen (können!).

Die Lösung ist endlich die Gehrinwäsche abzuschütteln und nicht immer und bei auch dem linkesten Wahlergebnis eine rechte Mehrheit zu haben (unter denen man sich als Linker dann das geringste Übel aussuchen muss). Aber das scheint in Deutschland nicht möglich.

(Siehe unsere letzte Bundestagswahl: 53% aller Sitze bekamen rechte Parteien. Und dann weint man, dass die Regierung nicht "links" genug ist. Nach derzeitigen Umfragen kommen die Rechten dann zusammen wieder auf 67% der Sitze... das wird all den Weinern sicher zu mehr sozialer Politik verhelfen...)

Bei der nächsten Wahl haben wir also bei jetzigen Stand die Auswahl zwischen CDU und SPD (dann schimpfen wieder alle über die böse SPD, die als nur halb so große Partei nicht genug Sozialpolitik durchsetzt) oder man gibt der CDU die Ausrede, nach der sie suchen, mit der AfD zu koalieren. Die Grünen werden ja vorsorglich schon seit langem als der Feind dargestellt, mit dem man nicht regieren kann.

Und der Wähler heult dann wieder rum, als hätte er nicht genau das bekommen, was er gewählt hat.

Dann kriegen wir also rechte Migrationspolitik und Kuscheln mit Diktatoren in der Außenpolitik und ein bißchen Sozialpolitik inklusiver viel wahnhafter Dummheit. Nein, danke.

Willkommen in der Demokratie. Wenn die Mehrheit der deutschen Wähler will, dass Reiche nicht besteuert werden, sondern sie stattdessen immer mehr zahlen müssen, ist das auch 'ne Aussage.

Das sollte keine Partei davon abhalten, sich das klar zum Ziel zu setzen.

Wo wir wieder beim Thema wären ob Hausbesitz = Superreich bedeutet.

Wenn ich mich nicht sehr irre hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht da schon vor langer Zeit 'ne Meinung zu geäußert (weil die Besteuerung ungerecht war, wurde die Vermögenssteuer ja dann ausgesetzt anstatt das Problem zu beheben).

Also ja, Häuser als Vermögen dann zu besteuern, wenn damit Gewinne erwirtschaftet werden, ist möglich. Und das trifft dann eben nicht das Wohneigentum, sondern die Immobiliengesellschaften.

Allein von Schäden am "Wald" zu reden ist schon ziemlicher Blödsinn. Deutschland hat praktisch keine Wälder mehr, nur noch Holzfarmen. Abreißen und bei Aufforsten an anderer Stelle wieder einen echten Mischwald draus machen, ist so oder so die richtige Entscheidung wenn es um die Umwelt geht. Auch die oft zitierten Schäden durch Borkenkäfer haben nichts mit den Käfern zu tun, sondern damit, dass das eben keine echten Wälder sind, sondern beschissene Monokulturen und entsprechend anfällig.