Nope. Read it again.

So what is it?

Support Ukraine in the war against Russia - or all wars are equally bad, only chickenhawks support wars?

The law should still apply equally to every company, shouldn’t it?

That’s because they like the idea of a Trump dictatorship. They simply assume they’d be on the side that’s going to do the dictating.

“Achso dieser Terroranschlag. Ja das waren natürlich wir”

“Die Terroristen sind natürlich Helden. Und übrigens rufen wir noch zu viel mehr Terroranschlägen auf Zivilisten auf!”

deleted by creator

That’s fair.

However, it’s just an argument for cracking down on money laundering, criminal enterprises, dark money in politics, etc.

Bad actors who oppose cryptocurrencies out of nefarious reasons don’t make cryptocurrencies a good thing, particularly if even worse actors support cryptocurrencies for even worse reasons.

Another thing of course is that the banks are unhappy with not getting their share in money laundering, crime investments and tax evasion, like they do with government currencies. Cryptocurrencies could also democratize organized crime and not just leave it to the established ties between politics, banks and existing crime groups.

I’m not sure that “cryptocurrencies make it much easier for criminals to launder money, finance criminal enterprises, evade taxes and for organized crime to funnel dark money and into politics and corrupt politicians” is the kind of pro-cryptocurrency argument you seem to imply it is.

You’re spelling out how they’re acting like a neutral party here.

Qatar is knowingly and willingly hosting the leadership of a terrorist organization that mass murders innocent civilians - both Israelis and Palestinians. Hamas leaders live in luxury in Qatar, they have billions of dollars stashed away.

That makes Qatar about as “neutral” about Hamas as the Taliban were “neutral” about al Qaeda.

It’s a destitute open air prison. Come on now.

You act like I’m debating that, or like I’m taking sides.

I’m not.

I’m just pointing out that a totalitarian regime - a regime that tolerates no dissent, that enforces strict religious laws, that suppresses women, that has the death penalty for homosexuality, that openly uses slave labor - isn’t some kind of neutral party if it has a vested interest in Gaza and has been openly supporting Hamas for decades.

I don’t blindly trust their reporting.

That’s all I’m asking for.

The hostage deal was negotiated by Qatar, the Hamas leadership is living in luxury in Qatar, Qatar is seeking to gain more influence in the future of Gaza.

Is this really the right moment to blindly trust the Qatar state owned news source with its reporting about a Qatar negotiated deal related to a conflict that Qatar has a vested interest in?

Point being that installing Chrome isn’t the “trouble” you’re making it out to be, when switching to Edge comes with zero advantage.

But you weren’t asking an open ended question anyway, right?

Conversely, if they’re both evil, why use Microsoft over Google?

People have their browser set up the way they want it, and downloading and installing Chrome to have everything sync back and work exactly the way they want things to work takes all of two minutes.

Why use Edge and spend time and effort to import bookmarks, import passwords, change settings, install extensions etc. only to have the exact same end result that downloading Chrome would have given them in the first place, but with the added annoyance of Microsoft leveraging Edge to nudge them into the Microsoft ecosystem?

Winamp wasn’t a Google project.

Ich glaub halt einfach nicht daran, dass solche Aktionen die “Aufmerksamkeit auf das Thema lenken.”

Klar, die Aktion selbst zieht schon Aufmerksamkeit auf sich.

As mentioned in the article.

Then I assume you’re aware that the Geneva Convention make one exception where hospitals lose their protection: when they’re used for a military purpose that is harmful to the enemy.

In other words: a warring faction cannot simply set up a military headquarter, a military outpost or a military attack position in a hospital and expect to enjoy the full protection granted to medical facilities while using it to attack the enemy.

You’re aware of that, right?

Except that in this case, the UN is explicitly saying that the numbers they’re quoting cannot be verified and they’re merely cutting the numbers Hamas is giving them.

So the question is: if the IDF cannot be trusted, why should we trust the terrorists?

What does the Geneva Convention say about using civilians as human shields? What does the Geneva Convention say about using hospitals, schools, places of worship as military headquarters or outposts? What does the Geneva Convention say about murdering civilians to prevent them from evacuating from an area that is under attack?

Das trifft aber nicht auf alle Menschen in Dagestan und sicher auch nicht auf alle, die am Flughafen protestiert haben zu.

Hat niemand gesagt.

“Guck mal alles antisemitische Islamisten”

Hat auch niemand gesagt.

Die Aussage war, dass sich in Dagestan Islamisten eingenistet haben.

Indem man die Menschen, die ständig Terror vom russischen Staat erleben, als islamistische Terroristen brandmarkt schlägt man sich nun mal auf die Seite Putins, der die Unterdrückung mit genau dieser Begründung fortführt.

Was für ein absoluter Schwachsinn.

Niemand verleugnet die Unterdrückung der Menschen durch das sowjetische Regime oder durch das System Putins.

Aber salafistische Extremisten, die Hass und Hetze predigen, die mit Gewalt einen Gottesstaat errichten wollen, die ein System der Unterdrückung und Unterwerfung basierend auf die Sharia einführen wollen, und die deshalb Menschen angreifen, Menschen ermorden und Terroranschläge verüben werden als “islamistische Terroristen” bezeichnet weil sie islamistische Terroristen sind - nicht, weil sie arme, missverstandene, von Putin unterdrückte Minderheiten sind, die man nur besser verstehen muss.

Schau dir vielleicht noch mal an, wen genau du da so vehement verteidigst.