"Israel's defence minister has said a buffer zone will be set up inside southern Lebanon and that Israel will keep security control over a swathe of the territory even after the end of the current war against the armed group Hezbollah."
"JERUSALEM, March 31 (Reuters) - Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.
Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended."
The sovereignity of foreign states and there territorial integrity according to international law.
"Under present international law, annexation no longer constitutes a legally admissible mode of acquisition of territory as it violates the prohibition of the threat or use of force (Use of Force, Prohibition of). Therefore annexations must not be recognized as legal."
Sovereignity isn't infallible, and Israel has a very clear Article 51 argument due to Hezbollah's attacks.
As long as it's temporary (even if the end date isn't clear yet), it's an occupation, not an annexation. Occupations can certainly be legal if necessary for self-defense.
The actual solution would be to enforce UNSC 1701 and disarm Hezbollah. Until that finally happens, Israel has no choice but to respond to cross-border terrorist attacks.
There is still a difference here at play you haven't addressed yet: "posting" here sounds like its some form of direct speech i.e. the author is using the nword as part of their terminology. The context is what is the deciding factor. Does the display of a specific cultural artifact stand to represent itself and and thus point towards its own specific context, or is it a stand in for the authors speech, with a thin veneer of displacement of authorship that ambiguates thuer racist bias.
The argument against classist bigotry is also "just something to think about" and not identified specifically with saying the n-word"
Also there might be some contexts in which this identity might be a valid argument - e.g. some works of black artist/thinkers/writers philosophers etc. (E.g. sylvia wynters ceremony must be found, the music of aanderson paak etc.) Well thinking about it: As a rule of thumb it seems pretty reasonable to not converse with people who >>post<< the nword as long as it is not a dogma that takes the responsibilty of contextual awareness away. (Not certain about the context here, haven't properly read the article)
Well not sure where the disgust for jellyfish is coming from but there isn't really much of a moral argument here. What you are saying is akin to: look you just ate a burger, what's next–the holocaust?
(The organisation of the functioning of bodily orifices of the organism isn't really at all relevant for that.
One might also add, that in the case of the burger, there might actually be an argument for some structural analogy that depends on the origin of the meat in a process of captivity and killing, that is organized in an industrial fashion..)
Vegans actually do say that but I get your point, not sure what the parent is getting at either, if jellyfish were to have the intellect and dexterity I still wouldn't see why they'd build camps.
-Affinity instead of adobe is just fine imho. Gimp is not.
-Rhino3D/Grasshopper
Especially Affinity imho. A lot of the people studying graphics design in the last 3 years or so, that I know of, saw the benefit of not paying for an Adobe subscription.
LoL scapegoat found. Actually not a bad idea. "Your child must not bring any digital end device, that is, in fact or in principle capable to connect to the internet, and display graphical content in any form other than text. Needs for telecommunication do not constitute a claim for exemption. Parents who want their child to be able to make calls from a mobile phone, may supply their child with what's colloquially called a "dumbphone" ,i.e. a phone that is not capable of the aforementioned technical features. Breaches justify the exclusion of your chid from participation in class for the day, or in cases of repeated violations of this policy, of up to one week. The parent agrees to have the full responsibility for the care and supervision of their child upon short notice. Resulting financial losses that might follow in the aftermath of such a transferral of guardianship back to the parents on short notice from thus necessitated time commitments for them are their responsibility alone and cannot constitute claims against the school. The responsibility to catch up on thus missed lessons lies with the pupil alone and does not constitute the privilege to be excused from examinations.
In my country, state schools strictly forbid students from bringing devices to school. This rule was actually introduced because of the haves/have-nots issue here, because many kids are too poor to afford devices. The schools themselves don't provide devices because it would be prohibitively expensive due to the large student population. Most private schools don't allow devices either.
A niche reference almost no one gets, except one
reply