They’re still civilians. Only enemy combatants can be killled under international law. Otherwise I assume that you’d be okay if Hamas planned a suicide bombing inside the Knesset? And also, even if he was a legal target, he enjoys the same protection as other wounded do if he’s being treated at a hospital.

The thing that pisses me off about westerners is how most of them seem to think international law ever mattered outside the imperial core/first world. I mean come the fuck on.

You can look it up, but short of it is that the Gaza Health Ministry’s casualty numbers are very accurate and have been used by pretty much everyone since 2007, including Israel. Whenever the UN tries to count independently their numbers match up with Ministry numbers. If anything the Ministry’s numbers are an undercount because they’re only people who have been confirmed as directly killed by the IDF by a doctor in a hospital. People who simply weren’t counted for whatever reason (usually because Israel destroyed all hospitals in the area), as well as people who starve or die to disease, are not included. This is, by the way, why estimations of the true casualty number by are always more than the official number and never less.

There are no institutions in Gaza run against the will of Hamas.

It seems the will of Hamas is to have rock-solid casualty numbers that even the most rabidly Zionist can’t criticize, because if there was even a small overestimation (let alone fabrication) anywhere Israel would use that to discredit the casualty numbers and Zionists in the West will lap it up. I mean they tried anyway, but because the methodology leaves no room for criticism they got shut down pretty quickly.

Both sidex are not the same.

That’s exactly the point.

Hamas’s al-Aqsa TV said Barhoum was being treated at the hospital for wounds sustained in a previous attack.

Still a war crime, Israel.

They only know how to handle half-ass things through legislation.

FTFY. Let’s not pretend the Democrats were ever any good at legislation either.

Unless there’s some kind of treaty preventing satellite warfare and that treaty is respected, the answer will be yes.

I stand corrected.

Yes, but it sure helps when your internet connection can’t be turned off by foreign powers on a whim.

In fact, that would make any democrat (as in believer in democracy, not Democrat™) or republican (as in believer in a republic, not Republican™) leftists as well, since they believe in democracies or republics instead of a monarchy.

Or that’s what you’d think, but the guy who created conservatism was a monarchist trying to figure out a way for the aristocracy to exist within democracy. The right is stanning for monarchy under a different name, as proudly admitted by their ideological leader. For details look up Edmund Burke.

Yes but not enough I think. Of course the organizing themselves part is important too, but more than that a rally and a protest are fundamentally different. In a rally you’re there to listen to someone speak, not do anything yourself. I doubt 34000 would attend if Bernie or AOC were there leading a protest. Focusing only on organization ability ignores the vast different in willingness to act.

21,000 in Paris is very similar to 34,000 in Denver.

The 34000 in Denver showed up for a rally, not a protest. Completely different things.

Come the fuck on are we back to the “Hamas-run” nonsense again? Eat shit BBC.

None of them European.

Ok, please tell me one thing they did to advance space exploration. And please don’t say reusable rockets that bring down costs, because this is still a pipe dream.

Since its founding in 2002, the company has made numerous advancements in rocket propulsion, reusable launch vehicles, human spaceflight and satellite constellation technology.

-Wikipedia. I don’t know nearly enough about space exploration to explain these advances, but again if they weren’t good at what they do they wouldn’t be the biggest space launch provider in the world (even counting national programs).

Jokes aside, why do you need ultra-high-speed internet always and everywhere? For emergencies or normal usage, it definitely doesn’t matter if a request takes 10ms or 250ms.

I don’t know why but Ukraine was using it so clearly it’s good for something. It’s also useful for people in remote places where there’s no good internet otherwise, or to avoid government censorship.

But does it need private institutions for that? Innovation, at least in my opinion, means making possible something we previously thought was impossible. Production and distribution aren’t.

I don’t think anyone in the 80s thought a smartphone was possible, nor did anyone in the 50s think the Macintosh possible. Maybe it didn’t have to be private institutions making them, but it was.

If something is truly wanted or needed, people will manufacture and distribute it easily without the need for private corporations to tell us what we need.

No? For a lot of modern technology decades’ worth of infrastructure and know-how are needed to even think about making the stuff, and most of that is the product of private investment and development. I, as someone from the Middle East, don’t have access to that infrastructure and know-how and therefore am forced to pay through the nose for an American phone or a Japanese car. You can make the argument that private innovation is nonexistent or unnecessary only by using the results of decades upon decades of private innovation. You only need to look to the Global South to see what happens when you don’t have that.

If you think that money is the driving factor, how would you explain the entire open-source ecosystem?

A lot of it (but not all) is in fact developed by developers in companies. Also there are many applications where the best option is closed source, one example being Excel.

NASA sent people to the moon in the seventies. SpaceX must be happy if their rocket gets into low earth orbit without falling apart.

Okay I’m all for Musk hate but there’s a reason SpaceX came to prominence and it’s not because their rockets are always falling apart. Hell, the whole reason we’re now talking about a European space industry is because of Starlink, so clearly capitalism was able to innovate that. Europe is now realizing it’s falling behind because they have nothing to compete with SpaceX.

It’s a widespread myth that capitalism is best at innovation. Quite the contrary is true. Most (real) innovations get developed with public resources in public institutions and private companies then take it and commercialize on it.

It’s a myth that capitalism has a monopoly on innovation, but it’s also a myth that capitalism can’t innovate. Public institutions and universities usually make the big breakthroughs, but the commercialization is also important. Taking something from a proof of concept in a lab into factories all over the world and then continuously improving it is innovation. Governments around the world made the computer, but it was Steve Jobs who put it in people’s homes.

And as we see it doesn’t and will never happen in our current system.

That seems more of a problem with lack of spine than anything else.

Eg, free education, citizen pay, more renewable energy good but unchecked, uncontrollable immigration bad.

That just sounds like a center-leftist with one extra step, and that’s the problem with centrism: The right has little to no good ideas, so someone who thinks critically about their positions will strongly lean left, and someone who doesn’t will strongly lean right. “Centrists” are therefore people who simply don’t care about politics and not subscribers to a coherent political ideology.

I mean true, but putting it in state hands encourages stagnation and will eventually leave you unable to compete globally. Also if someone tries to do stupid shit like Elon you can just nationalize the company or enforce some other harsh consequence. He does shit like this because he knows nobody can punish him.

I mean you do need satellites if you want to have satellite internet.

I wouldn’t go that far. Centrists, and most right wingers actually, aren’t fascist by default. They provide a fertile ground for fascism and will likely support it once it takes hold, but most of them aren’t ideologically committed to establishing an ethnostate. I mean screw them anyway; they do support protecting the capitalist aristocracy (I’m not kidding this is a central tenet of conservatism), but let’s not use the word where it doesn’t belong.