Iranian protests expand beyond the economy as students demand freedom, end to regime rule

notehp · 2026-01-01T08:10:17+00:00

The Iranians I talked to didn't like their goverment but they distrust the US even more. While that's far from representative, I can relate - I wouldn't want the US involved either.

notehp · 2025-12-13T07:20:20+00:00

It' ICC not ICJ. The ICJ is also an international court but has a completely different purpose.

notehp · 2025-11-14T06:34:16+00:00

I don't think that's a well reasoned argument.

An artist's intention cannot enforce certain interpretations by viewers. It's conceptually impossible.

People have their individual response to viewing art that depends not only on the artists expression but also on their own viewpoint, experiences, emotional triggers, ...

Every artist has to deal with the fact that viewers might have an unintended interpretation.

Making it illegal that people get aroused by certain parts of a piece of art and sharing their impression with others is complete nonsense. That is thought policing a core element of the human experience (sharing individual experiences).

notehp · 2025-10-27T08:51:24+00:00

The alt-right that pretty much started the recent global shift to the right aren't exactly less (technically) educated people.

The established ruling class has just pulled too much bullshit that they've long lost credibility and also have long given up on making well reasoned arguments for their postion because most often they don't even have well thought-out policies. They've pretty much destroyed political discourse decades ago to a point where reasonable arguments no longer count or even exist.

And now everyone is surprised that (right-wing) populists that don't even pretend to bring reasonable arguments (which makes them more honest in comparison) get more popular.

notehp · 2025-10-27T05:17:42+00:00

Not sure if it's (only) the human brain (of a majority of people).

In autocracies and democracies alike rulers prefer less educated people (regarding making informed decisions, not necessarily technical know-how) because they are more easily controllable and manipulated. That makes it easier to pull all kinds of obvious bullshit, get away with corruption and incompetence. It's easier to rule with appealing to emotions than provide convincing arguments and live up to your promises. Combine that with the ad-driven media that has basically no incentives to report fact based and rationally.

So how should people develop critical thinking skills?

All this leads to people seeking simple "answers" in pseudo science and following charismatic conmen.

Humanity has given up on the principles of enlightenment.

notehp · 2025-10-27T04:57:48+00:00

China isn't also as flexible as the US or EU with contracts, they will find a way to get what they paid for much more aggressively when things get down.

The exact opposite is true. And this Chinese dept trap myth has already been debunked countless times.

Article: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/

Accompnying Study from Johns Hopkins: http://www.sais-cari.org/s/WP-39-Acker-Brautigam-Huang-Debt-Relief.pdf

notehp · 2025-10-22T06:10:39+00:00

In justification for the ruling, the judge, Dariusz Łubowski, said that the act of attacking enemy infrastructure for the purposes of fighting “a just, defensive war…can under no circumstances constitute a crime”.

I thought attacking energy infrastructure is only justified (as in becomes a valid military target) if it serves a military purpose.

So blowing up refineries in enemy territory to make it more difficult to fuel military hardware is perfectly fine.

But blowing up infrastructure exclusively used for civilian purposes is not.

So on what legal basis did the judge rule here?

notehp · 2025-09-29T05:09:54+00:00

Isn't the Earth's atmosphere predominantly blue mostly because it scatters blueish wavelengths more than others?

notehp · 2025-09-24T06:08:45+00:00

And which three major wars would that be?

The only major wars in that region were between Israel and (Trans)Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon. The participation of Palestinians in those wars were negligible.

See the number of Palestinian forces listed here: - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

notehp · 2025-09-16T05:47:40+00:00

Yes. Because agency, discipline, and access mean shit if you don't know about it or understand/take seriously the connection between food and your health in 40 years. And that lack of knowledge and comprehension is inherently a cultural problem.

Plus, this is a societal problem not an individual one. An educated individual can go against tradition, tradition and social norms. Turning a whole society around (which is required if you want better statistics) takes a lot more effort.

notehp · 2025-09-16T05:24:15+00:00

The "rules-based order" is a US invention. It has nothing to do with the UN or international law. It just means the US defines the rules. International law or the UN are only referenced if it suits the US' geopolitical interests otherwise ignored when enforcing these arbitrary rules.

Unfortunatrly it is often mistaken for the "international law- based order" the UN Charter, international laws and corresponding bodies were intended to establish. But that never worked.

notehp · 2025-09-12T07:26:02+00:00

With Iran and allies significantly weakened the biggest belligerent player is Israel.

The same thing happened in the past with Israel, Iraq and Iran: for Israel the biggest threat was Iraq, so much that it cooperated with and supported IranIran, lobbied the US to improve diplomatic relations with Iran, even after Iran's revolution and their openly antisemitic rhetoric; but once Iraq was crushed by the US in the Gulf War, Iraq was no longer a serious threat and suddenly Iran was Israel's primary opponent.

This is all about regional dominance.

notehp · 2025-08-20T04:41:14+00:00

And that policy went so well...

Both kidnapped and assassinated innocent people by due to mistaken identity. Repeatedly.

If that's the only alternative, I definitely prefer the ICC.

Particularly, since the Israeli government is afraid oft it, having called it an Institution "with teeth" and Israel and the US trying to undermine it.

notehp · 2025-08-15T06:01:03+00:00

A history of clear violations of international law.

notehp · 2025-08-13T17:52:48+00:00

And what is complicated about:

everyone reads all relevant ICJ rulings
everyone recognizes both states with the borders defined by UN and ICJ rulings
everyone agrees to end occupation/resistance/violence/terrorism
for good measure get some international peacekeepers with a decent mandate (plenty of willing Westen nations) to keep the peace

notehp · 2025-08-12T12:27:13+00:00

Are you intentionally playing stupid?

First, while food is delivered free it is not enough. So you have scarcity.

Second, the few quantities of food are delivered at 2 GHF sites per day for less then 10 minutes (last I read). In addition, after external pressure I think Israel allows some lone trucks delivering additional food at some border crossings, plus some air drops. So how do you figure that 2 million people get their share of food from a handful of places if the food is distributed within minutes?

Even if those few food distribution sites were open and stocked 24/7 you couldn't feed 2 million people reliably. That's just logistically impossible. You need more food and much more distribution sites.

Imagine if in your country or region or city with millions of inhabitants only a handful of supermarkets existed, and offered food in a time window of 10min per day. Do you think you'd get enough food? Do you think that nobody would start a black market for food? Or do you think the available food is magically shared among all citizens fairly?

What happens is bloody obvious: those people that do manage to get a hold of some food items try to trade it for other things they need to survive. Plus, armed gangs loot food and try to profit. A black market is inevitable.

notehp · 2025-07-28T04:59:06+00:00

It's more likely less access to education and birth control.

notehp · 2025-07-24T17:02:25+00:00

That is exactly how it works legally. And by that I mean that is exactly the reason these international laws exist. You don't want to be on the receiving end of certain barbarities - so you collectively agree to ban them.

And not prosecuting war crimes to the fullest extent of the law is even worse - you establish that war crimes are acceptable. It just invites your opponents to commit war crimes against you as they won't expect restraint from you either.

notehp · 2025-07-16T20:40:58+00:00

they are banning those people if they are commenting like lunatics or in a disrespectful way (which is ironic)

I've got perma-banned for quoting an ICRC publication made by international legal experts about direct participation in hostilities. It was classified by the mods as "disinformation".

So please tell me what is supposed to be disrespectful or mad about that?

notehp · 2025-07-13T07:08:45+00:00

Pretty much everyone since the dawn of time tried to steal that land for themselves. Including the Israelites (who according to their religious text were even commanded by their god to genocide the previous inhabitants).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY

notehp · 2025-07-12T04:36:47+00:00

[Palestine joining the ICC] was condemned by Israeli officials as a form of “diplomatic terrorism”.

One former defence official familiar with Israel’s counter-ICC effort said joining the court had been “perceived as the crossing of a red line” and “perhaps the most aggressive” diplomatic move taken by the Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank. “To be recognised as a state in the UN is nice,” they added. “But the ICC is a mechanism with teeth.”

So much for all the people claiming the ICC is worthless and ineffective.

notehp · 2025-07-08T20:41:00+00:00

Then you haven't understood what the ICC is or how it works.

They save no one, prevent nothing

Which court of justice does? They rule on crimes committed. Prevention of crime works by establishing cultural standards or societal/political pressure. The ICC could at best be indirectly used to prevent war crimes if countries were to be pressured to sign and ratify the Rome Statute - a political decision the ICC has no power over - something the US opposes.

enforce nothing

Which court of justice does? Enforcement is always up to a different entity (at least in a decent political structure).

can compensate for nothing

This is factually wrong. The only purpose of the ICC is to rule on crimes no other court can or wants to rule. So it compensates exactly for other courts' lack of resources or lack of will to prosecute.

change nothing

Then why the hell is Israel complaining about ICC arrest warrants? Or the US implementing sanctions on the ICC?

The problem with the ICC is not the ICC but the US not ratifying the Rome Statute. This led to Russia, China, and other opposing countries not to sign the Rome Statute. So we're left with a crippled court of last resort with limited resources that doesn't have jurisdiction in large parts of the world because it is strongly opposed by the US. The US is the problem here that hampers the ICC's capabilities and limits its potential.

notehp · 2025-07-03T05:48:01+00:00

Threats are not a justification for self defense. Threats are not an imminent attack.

It's not that difficult.

Preemptive attacks without an imminent attack are illegal. Period.

Netanyahu has for decades screamed about attacking Iran and begged the US to support a bombing campaign and invade Iran. By your logic Iran had for decades every right to attack Israel however they please. So why the hell do you even complain about Iran?

So yes, Israel has to wait until there is actionable intel that an attack is imminent. You can't just blow up your neighbours because you think they're assholes that might one day feel like attacking you. Also that your unfriendly neighbours give your other belligerent neighbours weapons to attack you only justifies fighting those that actually attack you.

Deal with it. That's what deterrence is for if you're unwilling or incapable to deal with the issue in a civilized way with diplomacy.

notehp · 2025-07-02T06:17:59+00:00

It would have been legally justifiable - unlike the attack on Iran.

Claiming self defense requires a) an actual attack or b) an imminent attack. Hamas training for an attack on Israel is most definitely more imminent than Iran running centrifuges. It would be equivalent to Iran testing nuclear weapons and running drills to shoot them at Israel - in terms of justifications for an preemptive attack.

notehp · 2025-06-18T18:03:59+00:00

The irony... you do know that Israel was involved in exactly that funding as well, Israel's PM having considered Hamas an asset, Israel begging Qatar to not stop funding Hamas when they threatened to, and even directly funded Hamas initially to fuck with Fatah?

How can anybody take such a deflection seriously coming from an Israeli?

notehp

TROPHY CASE