I did not see the rules, I have deleted this post.

Well that’s one way to see it.

The company has attracted controversy for reports of political corruption, cronyism, fraud, financial manipulation, and exploitation of its customers, Indian citizens, and natural resources.[11][119][13][14][120] The chairman of Reliance Industries, Mukesh Ambani, has been described as a plutocrat

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_Industries#Criticism_and_controversies

8 subsections for ‘Criticism and Controversies’

The statement was that Jewish people would not be safe anywhere without Israel

There are Jewish people living safely in many parts of the world, and those people are protected and loved by the communities they live as a part of.

The irony is that the statement was made to Jewish people in such a community outside of Israel. The other bit of irony is that statements like this are further divisions. Divisions that make life unsafe for everyone

I’m not American and not the commentor, I’m observing from far away.

I agree, people should vote for the best possible candidate. Even single issue voters. The alternative is worse for this single issue. If I was American, I’d vote strategically like people on this thread are saying.

However

There are Americans that had friends, family members, and colleagues killed in this conflict, and they can’t stomach going to the polls and voting for Biden after how he’s acted throughout this conflict. I won’t hold it against those people for not voting.

I can’t even imagine what it would be like to have that happen and be told “go vote for him anyways”. As true as it might be, it’s not my place.

Which parts of it?

I don’t think Netanyahu orchestrated it if that matters. Same idea as Bush

We should investigate when leadership benefits from a tragedy. We should investigate the decisions that allowed a tragedy to take place. That’s how we prevent future tragedies

Sorry, I will highlight the important bit

Removed from power through legal means, by the people they state they represent. Removing either group with violence will beget more violence. A new entity with the same ideology will fill the gap.

Hamas as an organization has its own problems, and they share a lot of the same issues as Likud. They both hold on to power through violence and fear.

Even if it wasn’t intentional

• he directly stated in a speech that he approved funding transfer to Hamas to help them grow in power to keep the people divided

• they moved soldiers away from the border to the west bank to help with settlements

• as this article suggests, they had a lot of warnings

Those 3 points alone should be enough to send him and his party away, and until that happens (and until Hamas is also removed from power), that region won’t see peace.

We need to let the legal system do its job, and for both Likud & Hamas to be removed from power through LEGAL MEANS by the people they say they represent.

The “funding” was confirmed by him from a past speech. Funding is in quotes because it wasn’t all direct funding, and that particular speech was about him signing off on a transfer of funds from someone else to Hamas. But the underlying motivation is still accurate because… that’s what he said the reason was. He said he wanted Hamas to have more funding so they would rise in power and keep the people divided.

The rest of it is stuff that can never be proved in favor or against unless you can read minds. However, it seems more than likely if you take into account the wider history of him, his party, and the region.

On the other side of this you have years of massive protests within Israel by Israeli citizens, and ongoing criminal and corruption charges against him and his associates within Israel.

A violent war would help him, and that’s not a conspiracy

That’s the thing

Hamas is awful for putting military installations near civilian infrastructure, and the Israeli military is awful for bombing indiscriminately despite their advanced military tech and resources.

We don’t need to pick one or the other

Yea that would have been a dealbreaker for me. I’ve used offline maps while traveling fairly often. That’s one of the main advantages of GPS, not needing to send any signals to determine your position. The device calculates it locally based the timing of info that arrives from GPS satellites

That is a current problem with Twitter as well:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/08/twitter-saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuses

Saudi authorities illegally requesting data from Twitter / flipping twitter employees to figure out who is posting opposing views. Some of which lead to arrests, torture, imprisonment, and death sentences.

al jazeera is a wholy qatari owned propoganda mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis

… yea lol what?

Al Jazeera is Qatari, and so I don’t go to them for content about Qatar in case there’s a bias. However it’s a pretty large organization and they do decent investigative work on stuff happening in South America, Africa, & Asia. New organizations pick topics they think the readers want to see, and so in Canada (and likely the US) there’s usually little to no coverage on stuff in these parts of the world. Al Jazeera puts out decent investigative pieces and documentaries about these places.

TLDR: Al Jazeera isn’t unbiased, and I avoid them on certain topics. However I DO go to them for other stuff. It’s definitely not a “mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis [sic]”

What happened in this article is a bad thing:

had his Facebook profile deleted by Meta 24 hours after the programme Tip of the Iceberg aired an investigation into Meta’s censorship of Palestinian content

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources. Overall, we rate Reason Magazine Right-Center biased based on story selection that favors Libertarian positions and High for factual reporting due to mostly proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.

Huh, good to know while reading the article. Would be nice to have a better source though

That’s the idea behind it, but it causes more harm to that cause than whatever the gains from it are. Other forms of protest/raising awareness are more effective in the long run.

While I don’t know much about the specifics of “culture is trying to force change in areas where people don’t want that change”, my gut says that the vast majority of people already oppose those changes. An inflammatory ‘burning’ protest isn’t helping much.

Another example that comes to mind are the different types of climate protests. A lot of the public already supports positive changes. So when certain climate groups block roads or access to hospitals, while it’s a loud and clear message, it might hurt the cause more than it helps.

Ehhh, letting a protest devolve into chaos and violence will only cause more protests/chaos/violence afterwards

Her defence team argued the deaths and collapses were the result of “serial failures in care” in the unit and she was the victim of a “system that wanted to apportion blame when it failed”.

What

I agree people should have the right to burn it.

What’s important I think is that burning ANYTHING that people like / consider culturally important is going to make them upset, regardless of what the contents actually are. People absolutely shouldn’t get violent over that, but I don’t like how some comments (not yours) on these threads are fanning the flames to the conflicts. Hoping for things to escalate just to prove a point is… a bad look.

This next bit is opinion on the burnings: I don’t think the burnings are that productive and they don’t get much of a meaningful dialogue. Instead they just escalate tensions, deepen divisions / resentment, and when it happens it undermines the goals of the entire thing.

That’s not the point of the recent discussions, which are around if it should be legal. I guess I’m trying to say “it’s legal, but the act still harms everyone involved”

related example: Burning the Canadian flag is a valid form of protest, and it’s legal to do / should stay legal. However, it’s usually not productive