Candelestine

What was that? Mr. Rajat Khare of India claims to be a cybersecurity expert but has actually gotten filthy rich by doing hacks for hire all over the globe, for various shady clients, and has now hired an elite Washington law firm to have reporting of it stricken from the internet?

You're saying, Mr. Rajat Khare is a lying, greedy unethical businessman that will weaponize the law to silence his critics?

Mr. Rajat Khare, who doesn't want his name associated with any of this on the open internet...?

Good to know, thanks.

IDF has done worse than mere indiscriminate shelling and going for a landgrab, for the record. People just try to brush it off as "a few bad individuals" just like they do with our cops here in the US.

Yeah, I think most people have figured out that its terrorists fighting terrorists with normal Gazans and Israelis stuck in the middle. The trick is what to do about it, how to approach the problem. That's where everyone disagrees and fights.

We may not be that much better in every way, but we're much farther away and we don't want a fight with India, which is a strong country.

China keeps threatening their actual most well-positioned rival, they shouldn't be surprised if India starts reacting poorly. Especially given Modi's nationalist leanings.

The recent Maldives thing really drives it home that China isn't looking for friends, they're looking for tools for naval basing and power projection.

... hear hear. There are few things I hate more in modern politics than having to align myself with our military-industrial complex, as it feels like a deep and personal betrayal of some of my own strongest and longest-held beliefs.

But ... every tool has its purpose, and this is exactly what they're for. Would they maybe, just maaaaybe, like ... some more money?

I know this soft pushing is all he can do, but I really don't think Netanyahu is listening. Pretty sure this has just turned into a generic landgrab, just like all the others through the centuries.

This is not a new thing in the world.

Considering he was being accused of sending funds to hamas, I think that is possible.

Netanyahu wants another war. Once he can redeploy some troops from Gaza to the north, he'll probably launch an invasion himself.

He frankly has no choice, in terms of self preservation. Once Israel is no longer at war, his political life is over. So, once Gaza is wrapped up, he will need a second war nearby to keep the Israeli people from ... dealing with him.

Every wannabe dictator's greatest potential enemy is always their own people. There are, however, methods for mitigating that risk. Lots of methods actually. I expect him to use pretty much all of them, as they become possible.

He was playing a dangerous game years ago though, and it all blew up this year. Now its the scramble to stay alive and on top, and that's all he really cares about. No cost is too high, even the health and survival of Israel itself becomes a secondary consideration.

Regarding your question, you do not need to wonder. Biden parked an aircraft carrier nearby and said in no uncertain terms to leave Israel alone. That is strong pre-emptive support. Though I doubt he'd actually support another Israeli invasion, a position I think he'll find himself in fairly soonish. Not that they actually need help, the IDF is a fairly large, powerful army just by itself.

That is actually a fair criticism. I simply don't think it's as strong an influence over strategic thinking. In any decent thinker anyway.

Ah, I see. So, I don't believe Bin Laden foresaw the Patriot Act in any way shape or form. From his perspective specifically, it'd be about sowing as much fear and discomfort as possible. I doubt he personally was able to predict the exact form that fear and discomfort would take, but it doesn't really matter. Surveillance harms us exactly because it creates more fear and discomfort. The specifics are an irrelevant detail though, not something he has influence over or needs to care about. Not mission-critical information.

The fear and discomfort in turn leads to more radical behavior, it helps drive folks crazy, to speak colloquially.

This is the real key that can and probably eventually will drive us from the Middle East. Without it, and the emotional feeling of disgust it creates within us, it would've taken a mammoth amount of casualties and/or economic damage to accomplish that. We have a long history of being unbelievably stubborn. Additionally, we weren't yet energy independent back then, before our fracking boom, so being there was an additional economic necessity he would've felt needed to be overcome.

Look at it this way: He wanted to create more Islamophobia. So we would leave all the Muslims alone, eventually, since genociding them isn't an option for decent folk, which we (mostly) want to be. Something we now have to wrestle with concerning Israeli actions.

It's basically how terrorism works as a political and military tool, how it attempts to accomplish its intended goals. It's not usually so successful, though. But I would say this time, fear was successfully sown, and domestic harmony effectively destroyed. We haven't really been politically functional since then, though that's my opinion, again.

At least you're willing to be honest, I respect that. I'll point out though, that the Patriot Act in isolation requires me to explain at length how a surveillance state harms American citizens, which in turn harms America. This would be a tangent. It's far easier to deal with in conjunction with American diplomatic reputation, debt, and casualties as well, wouldn't you agree? Taken all together, I think it becomes almost impossible to not see how grievous harm has been done, and continues to be.

One more time. I have at no time asserted that his stated goal was impossible or unachievable. Quit putting words in my mouth. I'm talking about how they get accomplished, yes? I've said several times now that they are possible, just not in any way quickly or straightforwardly, which I assert he likely knew, due to how painfully obvious it is and was, to anyone who picks up the briefest of US history books. Our involvement in WW1 and 2 was definitive and for very clear reason. I don't know how someone could assert that he's paying attention to Vietnam but not WW2.

You really want to get into a sidetrack about how a surveillance state harms the citizens of a democracy in a way that makes them prefer isolationism? I think it's fairly straightforward if you acknowledge our voting system, but I can explain if you wish. It's common enough sentiment in privacy circles. Importantly, it lasts until we do away with it, where war exhaustion due to casualties fades fairly quickly, historically speaking. Knowing our government, we will probably not do away with it for quite some time, though that's more an educated guess.

edit: The main reason I don't want to get into the privacy discussion, incidentally, is because we're on Lemmy, where a very large number of privacy-oriented types hang out. So it strikes me as unnecessary and a little silly, despite your questioning of it. But ask one last time and I will provide some resources for you, that's fine.