Okay, thanks for the information. That’s…obviously dumb as fuck and simply adds to Israel’s crimes. Didn’t Nestle try to pull some similar shit somewhere?

I agree the context makes the entire existence of a siege unusual here, I’m just pointing out that water and food deprivation have been used as tools of war for forever. The language used in the article—the “weaponization of water”—is meant to put a shiny new coat of paint on something ancient and make people think this is some new diabolical tactic Israel has invented on its own and that no one prior to them was barbaric enough to think of it. That’s what’s garbage journalism here.

Again, not defending Israel, just trying to point out sensationalist manipulative tactics on the part of this media outlet.

Source? It doesn’t say anything like that in the article. It mentions that 30% of Gaza’s water is purchased from Israel, but that’s hardly claiming that “all rainwater” belongs to Israel.

Not trying to defend Israel’s actions here, but let’s keep claims fact-based.

Christ, these headlines. What Israel is doing is abominable, but it’s nothing new. These are siege tactics and they’re practically as old as war itself.

deleted by creator

Much better headline than a previous article from yesterday stating he was sentenced to “life in prison.”

Then they’d be wrong. It objectively isn’t worth it.

In the paragraph the HBS draws attention to, Gessen wrote that “ghetto” would be “the more appropriate term” to describe Gaza, but the word “would have drawn fire for comparing the predicament of besieged Gazans to that of ghettoized Jews. It also would have given us the language to describe what is happening in Gaza now. The ghetto is being liquidated.”

Not taking sides here, but it does seem to me like Gessen’s phrasing was deliberately provocative towards those who might be offended by their comparison. I’m left thinking, “I mean, if you kick a beehive, don’t be surprised if you get stung.”

I really hope he lives so they can properly execute him.

Refreshing to see an article focusing on the suffering of boys and men in these sorts of wartime atrocities. Normally, articles focus on how women are raped and/or sold into sex slavery, while not at all or merely as a footnote mentioning that boys and men are systematically killed or forced to serve the attacking militia as cannon fodder.

I did a brief Google search prior to making my comment and found nothing, so I figured I’d ask you. It does seem like the kind of claim that someone would make based on mere prejudice. I take your refusal to provide evidence as a sign that it is, indeed, baseless.

Chinese espionage is totally rampant> Chinese espionage is totally rampant

Please show me a reputable source documenting how rampant Chinese espionage is on university campuses and how they’re stealing American IPs.

Anyone know what kind of punishment this traitor is likely to face in Taiwan?

Wow, communism is fucking awesome. /s

Stop defending terrorists you right-wing shill.

If you want a tolerant society, you cannot tolerate the intolerant

That doesn’t mean silencing anyone who utters “wrongspeak,” but authoritarians like you are pushing precisely that. “We shall decide who the intolerant are and they shall be banned from our tolerant society.” I would much rather live in a world where I had to listen to ignorant views like yours than be “protected” from them but never forced to figure out for myself why I disagree. Bigotry flourishes in darkness; the solution is to bring it out into the light.

Pretty sure it’s already considered one if you’re in the Russian army in Ukraine.

I don’t give 2 shits about punishment for punishments sake. If anything I only see that as causing more harm.

Yes, this is the standard view I get from a lot of liberals these days. Maybe you’re right that most liberals are more aligned with me than you, but I’ve personally seen your views getting more popular with time, and I really don’t like it.

Reason being, your view only takes into account the likelihood of future harm, but explicitly fails to address the harm already done. It’s like you don’t give a damn about the people criminals hurt, only their likelihood of hurting people in the future. Let’s say this driver had merely been drunk, rather than racist, and he accidentally killed this family. In your view (and correct me if I’m wrong), he should only be incarcerated in a treatment facility for as long as it takes for his treatment providers to feel he is no longer a danger to society. Let’s say this is the only time he’s ever driven drunk, and its enough of a wake-up call for him that he’s sober and remorseful within a year. That means he would be free and back to his life while the family of the people he killed are likely still mourning their deaths. Does that seem fair to you? According to you, it doesn’t matter. Who cares? To me, that means you don’t really give a damn about justice.

Like it or not, punishment is a part of justice. It’s not about revenge—that’s why we have punishments decided on and doled out by an impartial third party—it’s about making someone who has made others suffer suffer themselves in some humane way, because if we don’t, most people do not feel justice has been done. But you think we shouldn’t even do that. This astonishes me. It makes me think you need to be the victim of a major crime, to be seriously hurt in some way by someone else, and then see them get a slap-on-the-wrist sentence, and see how it makes you feel.

I’m going to tell you right now that I’ve had this conversation with people like you many times over the years, and so I don’t expect you’re going to offer me any arguments that I haven’t heard before. So, if I don’t respond to your next comment, that’s why. Just FYI.

I probably should have said “some liberals.” My experience is that younger liberals tend to hold the view that punishment shouldn’t be a goal of criminal sentencing, only rehabilitation, which I adamantly disagree with. Obviously, such a view is mainly held by the Far Left, but from what I’ve seen it seems to be getting more popular and thus more mainstream. Just my impression; I’d be happy to learn I’m wrong and that those liberals are more in the minority than they seem to me.

The jury took around six hours to convict Nathaniel Veltman, who attacked the family in the Ontario town of London. He faces life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 25 years.

This man ended four lives and orphaned a young boy, all out of irrational, racist hatred, and he may get to walk free at 47 years old. I oppose the death penalty only because human justice systems are shockingly bad at ensuring innocent people don’t get convicted of crimes they didn’t actually commit, but I very much believe in life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and this douchebag definitely deserves it. I don’t care if he reforms himself in prison, later regrets his actions, and plans to spend the rest of his free time at a charity for Muslim immigrants; he should never see sunlight again. Not only are four people dead because of his bigotry, many other lives have been scarred as a result. He does not deserve mercy nor a second chance. Morally, he doesn’t even deserve to live out the rest of his life.

It really irks me that liberals are so reticent about punishing vile pieces of human waste like this. This is not fair, not just. So much hand-wringing about mercy and second chances for cold-blooded killers. When you have more empathy for criminals than their victims, your priorities are way out of whack. Shameful.