She’s also less likely to be disappeared than others.
Honestly I feel this is her playing to her advantages - Israel can (and does) sink ships carrying aid - and while I have utmost respect for the crews and aid volunteers on those ships - Israel doesn’t - and having a high profile person on board that Israel knows is bad PR if they kill provides some safety for the whole crew.
uhm no I’m pretty sure op wouldn’t approve judging by the:
“but you can-” I’m gonna lose it
deleted by creator
What about Gemini Space (aka Ambient Data) that’s tied to Android System Intelligence - which is a system app enabled by default that can be disabled (if you know how to disable system apps) but of course cannot be uninstalled.
Also google is planning to replace Assistant with Gemini in the near future so all phones that have assistant (which is again enabled by default on most if not all android phones) will get Gemini sooner or later.
US for all it’s shitty things, is still, in my opinion, a far safer choice for world than the cool trio Russia, North Korea and Iran
As I said: “that’s an easy position to hold when you’re on the side with all the nukes…”
I’m just trying to warn you that defending such a system only leads to more contradictions, which require more violence to subdue, which in turn creates even more contradictions, which repeats until it collapses under it’s own weight.
Fair, the whole point of attacking Iran was because of Europe having a diverging stance on Palestine than Israel so we agree on that - but now that Israel has bombed Iran - all of Europe is rallying behind them and the genocide in Gaza has fallen to the wayside.
Obviously I’m not saying that killing civilians (both scientists and casualties caught in the cross-fire on either side) is equivalent to the annihilation of a state. I’m saying that by manufacturing consent for the “war on terror” the G7 is exposing itself as the unfair political partner it has always been which only fuels more resentment on the side of BRICS, which will only further escalate the conflict until another full out war erupts (like what’s happening in Ukraine)
So I’m arguing that we should discourage unprovoked attacks by allies of the G7 on the grounds that those are unproductive to peacekeeping.
And if you’re claiming that “Everyone’s in agreement about the fact that Iran should not have nukes.” but “Blowing up nuclear sites and some scientists” is “hardly a war” - then you’re either saying BRICS can do the same and should expect no repercussions or you’re saying that they should expect repercussions and therefore attacks and escalations against the G7 are justified as well.
I feel we may not be understanding each other so I’ll present my argument and you present yours?
My point is: The G7’s hypocritical application of international law and use of violence and coercion to maintain dominance is exactly what drives countries to join BRICS as an alternative, making Western actions counterproductive to their own stated goals of democracy, peace and stability - which results in further conflict and loss of life across the globe.
Again, the UK (MI6 on behalf of British Petroleum) were one of the key players in carrying out the coup against Mosaddegh and despite the whole Brexit thing the UK is still very much part of Europe.
Western Europe is quite obviously against everything that’s currently happening.
Also this^ is obviously nonsensical when we’re commenting under a post about how the major European powers are 100% backing Israel and condemning Iran in an escalation that was started by Israel - which part of this looks to you like Europe is against what’s happening?
As for the alliance between Iran and Russia - yeah it sucks - I’d much rather them be aligned with us but I can’t blame them when they’ve been historically exploited by the west so they turn to the enemy of my enemy as their friend.
Maybe if western proxy states (Israel) were to stop bombing them under the pretext of Iran being months away from nuclear weapons for the past 30 years it would be possible to have more civil relations and be less aligned with Russia.
Now you may think it’s too late for that - which I understand - but then you must also recognize that at that point you’re calling for the military annihilation of either side - which is an easy position to hold when you’re on the side with all the nukes…
Ugh - why does renewable energy have to be such a politicized issue - the article begins by stating that the president absolutely denied it was due to renewables - only to spend the rest of the article exploring how to handle renewable overproduction so it doesn’t cause grid instability
like can we not tackle infrastructural problems without them turning into a shit flinging contest - people are afraid to say that renewables have any downsides because the fossil fuel industry spends so much on propaganda to politicize energy production - like we’re supposed to argue that unless renewables are flawless there’s no point in even trying
how did we go from reasonable discussions on how to most effectively solve problems (ie climate change) to making sure you don’t rustle oil barron’s jimmies so they don’t oust you out of government?
I’m just hoping people start waking up to how ridiculous this narrative is…
“Oh you want clean air and a stable environment for you children? Have you considered changing nothing and hoping it works out?”
(ps nuclear is cool but wouldn’t have solved the issue of overproduction)
And you think this is appropriate to comment practically as a form of defense for a person who pressured his own 15 year old daughter to get breast implants as a way to “help her along”?
Or seeing as all his wives have either had naturally large breasts or implants doesn’t strike you as odd that he would draw budding breasts on a small body in a birthday card about their “wonderful secret” to a world renowned pedophile?
So more power to you for liking small breasts but maybe read the room next time?