> I have heard Trita Parsi's name mentioned, and those Iranian resistance channels regard him as a sock-puppet of the islamic regime, and as a traitor to Iran
Well yeah, there are resistance groups in Iran, and while some say things like Parsi's a western mouth piece, others say he supports Khamenei because he's mostly opposed to sanctions.
> Pahlavi already has a transition team to handle all that
Maybe bombing some of the government forces would change their current loyalty. But overall I'm not sure you're reading the situation right.
Notwithstanding the usual biases and childishness of the channel, and though none of it may be news to you, you might find this interview with Trita Parsi interesting:
A Closer Look At The Iran Protests - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
> Find out in which cities massacres have been taking place by the IRGC/Basij. Bomb IRGC bases in those cities and destroy arms depots
Once those current security forces have been stopped
> Once that's done, the Iranian people can handle it w/ minimal casualties
Who more specifically will handle what, and how?
I'm really curious
> The question is whether the consequences have any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the decision. Of decisions in general. The question is, should you consider the consequences at all? Are they relevant?
I understand you're answering yes to that, both costs and consequences are relevant, unless one claims the "rightness or wrongness of the decision" must be evaluated using things like divine inspiration and scripture.
> Put it in a simpler way, should the UK take some actions with the justification of reducing global emissions and temperatures if in fact those actions will not do that? And if so, why? Is it relevant that their actions will not have the desired effect? Or is it that emitting is just intrinsically wrong and should be stopped 'whatever the consequences'?
I gather you mean that the actions the UK could take would reduce global emissions but would not resolve global warming and therefore should the UK take those actions anyway. I think that is a useful question that deserves to be explored. But I'm not seeing any use in opposing that question to, or entering into questions of, intrinsic rights and wrongs.
> Then we can decide whether the consequences of our proposed action justify the costs of doing it.
How do you do that when there is strong disagreement on the consequences?
On abortion how do you take into account the comparative consequences, of the death of a fetus and the death of a mother, and the effect those deaths have on kin and community?
> Mainland China does by requiring permits for travel inside their own country.
References ?
I ask because, what I'm finding is that they are free to travel for work and pleasure in most situations and to most places.
> "Cancer village" refers to the shanty towns near the mining and refining sites
"Cancer villages" are definitely a thing in China. In the USA too, where they're called "cancer clusters and sacrifice zones", and Canada definitely has some too.
Hard to tell who has it worse per capita but the issues don't seem related to rare earths
> True, though we're not running out of it any time soon.
Isn't most usable land already owed by some entity making it a fixed amount?
> You don't have to trust Gemeni
You can ask yourself and read the referenced links.
> you can hear [youtube.com] from someone who was there [youtube.com]
Doesn't help, I see the Clinton of then as more of a host than a negotiator, and the Clinton of now as someone with a biased narrative.
> The Palestinians didn't want a two state solution then, and from the Palestinians I've talked to, they still don't want that today
I don't like your "The palestinians", it is obviously an over simplification, and if you're going to use that kind of rhetoric you might as well say "The Israelis" didn't want a two state solution then or still don't today.
But what's the point of doing that ?
Phantom,
It seems your over simplifying the process, from Gemini:
"The Oslo Accords failed due to unresolved core issues (borders, Jerusalem, refugees), mutual distrust fueled by extremist violence (Hamas bombings, Israeli settler massacres), the assassination of Israeli PM Rabin, continued Israeli settlement expansion, weak Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership, and the breakdown of final status talks (like Camp David 2000). They created an interim framework with vague goals, but key final agreements never materialized, leaving the two sides further divided and disillusioned."
> The PLA rejected the OSLO accords. Now what are you going to do?
Fix the points of disagreement I would suppose.
If the idea that one side started it is moronic then it seems the the idea that the other side started it is moronic too.
> The important part is who started to kill people first.
Why do you think you get to decide who and when the escalation started?
Are you in effect saying "should there be a right to anonymous speech"?
From last week's article, usually Meta doesn't ban an ad reported or automatically flag as fraudulent, instead they raise their fee:
"But the company only bans advertisers if its automated systems predict the marketers are at least 95% certain to be committing fraud, the documents show. If the company is less certain – but still believes the advertiser is a likely scammer – Meta charges higher ad rates as a penalty, according to the documents"
This is big business for Meta:
"Meta internally projected late last year that it would earn about 10% of its overall annual revenue – or $16 billion – from running advertising for scams and banned goods, internal company documents show." - https://www.reuters.com/invest...
And of those 16 billion dollars, we see today that Meta is making about 20% of that amount from advertisers in China:
"more than $3 billion -- was coming from ads for scams, illegal gambling, pornography and other banned content [from China], according to internal Meta documents" - https://www.reuters.com/invest...
> USA: 4,453,908 Muslims. Funny.
US seems to have about 1% Muslims and Switzerland about 5%.
> Incidentally, Germany has more Muslims per capita than Switzerland.
Yes they do. The GP didn't say otherwise.
> And what does LGBTQ rights have to do with whether "Islam has always been an integral part of the Swiss experience"?
That was a response to the GPs second part of the sentence: "Islam has always been an integral part of the Swiss experience
just like men have always been able to become women". I read that as meaning that trans or LGBTQ have also "always been an integral part of Swiss experience". Awkward formulation by NoorElahi1776, yes, but relatively true and in my opinion not an unreasonable interpretation.
I thought you would get that.
> Are you mentally challenged?
Are you offended by my comment? I just stated facts that I see as positive and not in any way a negative reflection on Switzerland, quite the opposite, and NoorElahi1776 was responding, I think in a generally positive way, to a comment that gave a very negative image of Muslims in Switzerland.
"You show me an American who can keep his mouth shut and I'll eat him." -- Newspaperman from Frank Capra's _Meet_John_Doe_
