I think a more accurate statement is “Israel infiltrated a supply chain to sell IEDs to, possibly, Hezbollah”. These explosives went off in public places and killed random civilians.
The only thing I’ve learned here is that securing the supply chain of consumer goods is more important than ever.
There are indeed lots of bodies buried under the rubble, and lots of bodies that are unrecognisable. Not sure about the hospital part, but I recall the process for identifying a dead body to be fairly involved
Huh. The bar of proof for the IDF to be rounding up and killing people is so high, but you’re quick to suggest that the people they round up are likely terrorists.
On the surface this is just another callous comment but you are making a few dangerous implications here:
1. Gaza is not as bad as Hamburg (for which no proof was provided)
2. Gaza has to be as bad as Hamburg for it to be called a genocide
3. You want Israel to make Gaza look like Hamburg ‘43
4. The historical precedent (without even getting into land occupation) of movements justifies a genocide.
How can they hate their methods if far worse methods are being used against them?
Besides, do you think someone in a war zone has the capability to support, or better yet, donate to a militant group when they’re on the brink of starving?
I don’t think anyone uses a saying to back claims over land.
In any case, your comment seems to suggest that Palestinians /could not/ have come up with this phrase, and had to resort to stealing the occupier’s, which is wildly misleading.
In any case, the origin of the phrase is ascertain.
Are you trying to run damage control here or something? I’m not sure why the GHM is being centered in this thread rather than the people who have been killed.
I agree with what bhouston said. With so much destruction and death happening (even right now), I suspect it will take very long to get an accurate count.
The original comment’s implication that infrastructure damage is somehow more damaging than the human death toll is abhorrent.
> Western drone development reduces the chance of you being bombed by belligerent drones far more than it increases the chance of you being bombed by allied drones
Bombing people in the name of drone development is not worth the moral cost. If you are specifically referring to anti-drone tech, maybe I can agree with some aspects of your statement.
> The AI drone bombing is coming to both the West and everyone else
I find this hard to believe because it doesn’t seem to generalize to most weapons advancements in the last 100 years. Correct me if I’m wrong, not a weapons nut here.
> and leftist tech worker objection is not going to prevent that
It is. It’s a form of pressure that can make a difference to talented individuals who have options.
> What we can prevent is Western weapons being inferior to ones developed and deployed by authoritarian and illiberal governments.
If you believe this, then your entire argument rests on the myth of the west being right, and the rest being wrong. Since this is HN I’m not going to comment further.
While this article is definitely long-winded, I’m definitely on the side of pushing defense tech out of these circles.
Private defense does not care about your safety. If it was profitable to harm you (similar to private healthcare) it can and will happen. You just happen to be in a position where this is unlikely. I’m happy for everyone on this comment section, but this is not the reality for civilians who get buried in the rubble from AI-targeting drones.
The only thing I’ve learned here is that securing the supply chain of consumer goods is more important than ever.