An Israeli airstrike carried out within Syria without its consent would be in contravention of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits a state from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state... Unless Israel were able to justify any airstrike as an act of self-defense, it would be in violation of international law.
I think we'll be seeing a lot more of this. It's a massive brand liability to have an association with Israel and there's an unknown potential for future damage.
I don't follow you. Osama Bin Laden said that the bombing of the WTC was in retaliation for Israel bombing Beirut:
God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed - when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the US sixth fleet.
That's not true at all. Nakba was an ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Palestinians. Voluntary Jewish immigration at behest of Zionist urging to Israel is not the same thing.
Gaza was under complete blockade from Israel (after it was occupied by it). That's not an environment you can create reliable governance since it wasn't allowed to be a sovereign state.
Interesting how quickly this was addressed and redacted vs. the fabricated rape propaganda that Israel has been spreading about Oct 7th. Just as with this case, a family member said that there was no rape. The difference is that The New York Times ran the Israel propaganda as fact.
People aren't fools. They know that TikTok is being put into this position by the US government. You can go on any social media platform right now and see how outraged TikTok users are. This is going to have incredible political blowback from the younger generations and there won't be any "lawyering" around that. Even if the ban doesn't go through, a lot of damage has already been done.
Opposing this ban isn't "malicious intent" lots of people think it's an infringement upon their rights for the US government to decide what they can and cannot see.
It's not useful though. I actually think it's very cool that TikTok got a bunch of young people to contact their representatives. If this ban goes through, the political blowback is going to be extreme. It will be like the Streisand effect x100,000,000.
This level of censorship isn't good, it's very bad. It's also concerning the speed at which the government mobilized to do this. It's a rapid crackdown on free speech and individual freedom.
The users who want to use that app, should get to use that app. If there's content on the app that breaks the law, that content can be addressed directly. This thankfully will be a very politically costly move if they pull it off. Millions of people will be pissed, and they will be right to be.
I don't think any website or app should be banned just because the owner is accused of having an agenda (foreign or domestic owned). That's not society having "no order", it's basic freedom of speech and personal liberty.
I disagree. It looks like they're fighting for the rights of US citizens. If you were one of the millions of people who use and like the app, you might feel the same way.