Did you read his comments? I would think it’s more cosmopolitan to support the civilians of both Israel and Palestine than just Israel. It’s not like he showed support for Hamas.
It's always charitable to assume that someone with whom you may disagree, did read the same thing as you, otherwise it might come across as suggesting your conclusion is the only one acceptable, which suggests a lack of respect for other people's views.
While it's true that he didn't explicitly say he supported Hamas, his suggestion that Israel's response constitutes a war crime, less than 1 week after Hamas' brutal slaughter of at least 1400 innocents, may be interpreted as insensitive and biased.
> While it's true that he didn't explicitly say he supported Hamas, his suggestion that Israel's response constitutes a war crime, less than 1 week after Hamas' brutal slaughter of at least 1400 innocents, may be interpreted as insensitive and biased.
I get what you are saying, but whether or not an action is a war crime is not really contingent on how justified the war itself is. I also think he did plainly condemn Hamas's actions. But also: wouldn't it be insensitive to ignore the slaughter of Palestinian innocents and civilians? That strikes me as really biased as well. Really think about the implications of what you are saying.
Regarding the mention of war crimes, it's important to note that allegations of this nature are very serious and should be based on international law, ideally confirmed through independent investigations.
Crucially, Cosgrove's explicit condemnation of Hamas was made during his apology, 3 days after his controversial statement.
You raise an important point about not ignoring the slaughter of Palestinian innocents and civilians, and how it's vital to carefully consider what you are saying, but your suggestion that my comments are transgressing these seems to ignore that advice. Your statement looks like it misses that my comments have examined Cosgrove's statement from different perspectives on multiple sides.
Your comments show a seeming swiftness to accuse, which might be read as a form of conflict escalation, or even bias, while your accusations themselves could be seen as an example of simplified "binary" thinking, in contrast with your advice to carefully consider what you are saying. This could lead to your comment being viewed as an unhelpful, or contradictory, contribution to a dialogue aimed at fostering impartiality and peace. You support those, but they are not reflected in the above comment.
I can only see that you are justifying the war crimes and atrocities by isreal against Palestinian civilians by just saying that anyone opposing whatever response isreal is doing (even war crimes) is a support to terrorism.
Your suggestion regarding avoiding binary thinking is a great idea, and in this complex conflict it is important to retain nuance. However, your comment above could itself be interpreted as an example of binary "with us or against us" thinking, which might be seen as escalatory or unhelpful if we wish to avoid bias and conflict.
In other words, it's important to incorporate diverse perspectives and not end up promoting the very thing you may be against.
In examining multiple ways Mr Cosgrove's comment could be interpreted, my perspective here is striving for a balanced viewpoint. Striving for a balanced viewpoint does not necessarily imply insensitivity or bias; rather, it's an effort to understand the complexities of this long-standing conflict.
> his suggestion that Israel's response constitutes a war crime, less than 1 week after Hamas' brutal slaughter of at least 1400 innocents, may be interpreted as insensitive and biased.
His comments came around the same time as Israel announced their blockade of all food, water and electricity into Gaza.
Dont use the deaths of innocent Israelis to silence legitimate critique of the Israeli government and the war crimes they’re committing.
Mr Cosgrove's comments were made on October 13, 6 days after the Hamas attack. Israel announced its blockade on October 9. While technically true that they came around the same time, it might be a challenge to argue he was referring to that specifically.
Without additional context that clarifies his statements, it's likely his tweet could be interpreted as supporting Hamas by suggesting that any response was an unjustified war crime.
This raises the important point that allegations of war crimes are significant and it's critical to follow due process, and evidence in their investigation. Attempting to side step such legal principles could lead to the terms being abused as a pretext to try to justify further killings.
Crucially, using the terms in a casual context or without specific clarifications, could be read as an attempt to delegitimize any actions taken by those targeted with such accusations. It could even be seen as part of a larger information warfare or asymmetric campaign waged by an opponent to depict its own acts as justified, through the portrayal of its victims as war criminals deserving of punishment.
Yet such abuse of the terms to justify killing would only pervert the justice that's intended to be served by the notions of war crimes, and likely contribute to escalating cycles of violence that would be wise to avoid.
You raise a compelling point about the use of such narrative techniques to silence legitimate critique of the Israeli government. However, your comment might be interpreted as an attempt to do the same by utilizing the term war crimes to portray the Israeli government as war criminals deserving of retribution, which could be seen as an attempt to justify Hamas' actions.
Therefore, it's crucial to emphasize evidence, legal process and impartial investigation before using terms that could serve as a justification for killings, or contribute to a wider campaign to escalate conflict.
It's important to remember that playing the blame game is unlikely to lead to peace. Instead, it might be more helpful permit notions of criminality and responsibility to be adjudicated by the courts, while instead focusing on the construction of peaceful and profitable solutions now to limit human suffering.
Having knee-jerk reactions is totally understandable, and especially common when a topic is this intense and impactful.
It's crucial to remember that while normal, those reflexive responses don't define who we are, and also to strive to get beyond those initial highly charged responses to something more strategic and constructive.
Solana has a higher nakamoto coefficient than ethereum. It’s faster due to higher base validator requirements and technical improvements (such as proof of history, etc). Which makes sense as it’s a newer chain.
Something like MINRES or GMRES or CGSTAB. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the covariance matrix in GPR should be diagonally dominant, so the diagonal of the matrix can be used as a somewhat effective preconditioner.
A good proportion (often all) of C-level insurance executives were actuaries that moved up the ranks. I would say it has quite good advancement opportunities.
To offer a dissenting opinion, I have found stimulating work in actuary - having worked in economic scenario generation and market risk modelling.
But I have also had actuarial work that was closer to accounting than I would have liked. Certainly you have to pick your roles carefully - which is perhaps only feasible in large markets.
