There are much more Muslims living in India than just those in Kashmir. They also have regions where Muslims treat Christians that way. India is big. That said, yes, it sucks, but Kashmir is a situation where "both sides" can be used honestly. It's just that somehow Europeans and Americans like to consider Muslims the oppressed group number one. Usually they are the oppressors.
That small proportion of situations is those where it was simply impossible to live oppressed, because there only were options to fight or die. A much larger proportion of people in this world live oppressed.
As compared to beheading them for their ethnicity, yes. So until Azerbaijan is sanctioned and put to its place, please shut up. We all care more about things closer to us, but one is worse than the other.
Drones randomly dropping anthrax are simpler.
I just repeat my 'yes' and grunts and 'I see' in triples. Aha, aha, aha, yes, yes, yes, no, no, no, ok, ok, ok, click there, click there, click there, no, no, no, yes, yes, yes, NO-NO-NO HIGHER yes-yes-yes, okay sigh.
Can we just do things the conservative way and lay more wire?
And where that doesn't help, use packet radio links?
And where that doesn't help, use mesh networks?
Why do they have to do it all the ugly and pretentious way?
They are openly showing that they can do whatever they want.
All the rest is gaslighting so that you'd not be completely sure that that's what they are saying, thus not so confident in yourself. Another kind of attacking other's morale.
They don't have to, the supply chain is friendlier to them than to Lebanese.
And they whined about a fucking bus exploding.
About some pipe rockets killing a random bloke or two.
And this
against a Lebanese political organization
appears to be wrong since their attack wasn't at all this targeted. It's a mass terror campaign against whole Lebanese population in order to saturate its attention and reduce morale before an invasion.
We all got complacent relying on big nations with big militaries for punishing such behavior, and they are all in bed with the criminal.
Despite this not being Hezbollah's best moment, I think they and similar guerrillas are the exact kind of people we should learn from for solutions to Israel and the rest of the problem.
It's the exact same as we had before. What Israel and Turkey and Azerbaijan and China and Russia are doing is exactly the same as Nazi Germany before it got its head broken.
Or maybe it's better for those not affected because the world war is not happening - instead such things go completely unpunished.
I dunno, maybe I should go out and behead a few people, what if that'll elevate my status?
You got it ass-backwards. The point of the UN as opposed to LoN was that it can enforce shit. And do that very heavily. The only problem was that the chosen group of wise and powerful to decide this now includes Russia as the heir of the USSR (why the hell) and China (which is not the China that got the place initially) and UK (which is collecting cannibals to suck off all over the globe) and USA (which just arbitrarily invaded Iraq and didn't even apologize) and France (seems kinda normal, but CFA etc were not nice) and the situation really sucks.
or anybody else: the whole point of the place is as a diplomatic talking shop for everybody
Except Artsakh and Tigray and Rojava and ... Cause UN membership has been coerced to be used as some "proof of sovereignty" while it's not even in UN's own founding documents. So a non-UN member state won't get accepted to UN (cause everybody voting likes their elevated status through such a situation) and additionally can be militarily attacked, even wiped out, and everybody acts as if that were normal, while, again, even in the UN charter it's not.
I'd argue the harm from that is bigger than the purpose you named. After all, diplomats can already talk wherever they want and they do.
Iran, if compared to most big countries except maybe India, Egypt and Latin American ones, is a paragon of humanism. They are at war with so many other countries because they behave like they are supposed to, while those others behave like Israel right now.
Of course murder, torture and rape of protesters is not something I'd sign under. It's just that some things come down to numbers and make Iran better.
Which is keep the current world order of countries doing such dominating?
And nobody will obey that decision.
ICJ has made some rulings about Artsakh too. Should have been not so hard to sanction the beheading savages out of occupying a small country and expelling its residents. By the way, in the UN charter a "country" does not only refer to UN members, that distinction is intentionally made clear in a few places.
UN is less useful than Holy Roman Empire.
That's true. Ancaps love to talk how almost anything government-done can be done by private entities in the right conditions and social consensus. Turns out this is true for censorship too.
I'm completely ideology-agnostic at this point. Whatever works, works. Nothing around seems to work though.
In any case, while this is true, power goes the shortest way and power corrupts. USA is the hegemon of our world and the center of our civilization, which is now united by American English language and American technologies, and what's the worst, American corporations. Much more power goes its way to corrupt it.
You know how bad people like to grease in shit the right tools for fixing the problem, preventively? That Putinist thing about "multi-polar" world means that they want to be a little hegemon too, and to have free reign in gray zones. But there is a similar sane point.
But really decentralization of tech research and production and standards is something we all need else we vanish. Right now we have one big Internet with one set of protocols, a handful of very complex software stacks everybody uses, and this situation should already be called a centralized one. Due to network effects and other, mostly with fake argument, kinds of pressure it doesn't make sense for most people to use parallel systems.
A de-facto conglomerate of companies, social groups, interests and ideas can be a monopolist too.
The guy who answered you is actually right.
Outright military interventions and coups are part of the package called the real world.
Anyway, I would replace "capitalist" with "bandit" here. Because "capitalism" is just as square-abstract as "communism", while IRL just as vulnerable to those.
See, there's an important thing called "feedback". If there's no feedback from you, your life doesn't matter and you get stomped upon.
60s-70s USSR had very weak feedback mechanisms, but still surprisingly better than today's Russia. Some things that people just accept today would cause real protests there. Half the ministries would be paralyzed by people saying that following such a policy is against their conscience. I really believe that, yes.
But then, due to its slow collapse and decay, those feedbacks becoming stronger started pushing for change that would deprive the ruling class - KGB and similar or related people, bureaucrats and relatives, anyway, the real structures usually don't have names, - of power. That's when that class hijacked the popular movement from the likes of Sakharov or Starovoitova and created modern post-Soviet states.
Which means that it had blind zones with no feedbacks said class used. And the more centralist-bureaucratic and non-transparent a state is, the more blind zones it has.
Anything that takes the power from being distributed between separate people and assembles it into one Moloch, calling it "power of the people", controlled by hell knows whom, means that those people who actually have principles will get stomped.
As we can see, though, same things happen in countries very far from being "communist" or "socialist".