Atrocities & War Crimes

A #front for #Zionist #genocidal #expansion #UAE and #mercenary #genocider #RSF publicly #defending mercenary genocider regime of #Ethiopia. https://t.co/ljaedW0hOJ

I had a dream where the world was destroyed as usual in Undertale genocide route. But Berdly was there and wasn't destroyed and solo'd Chara.

Rabbi who coached Adam Brody for ‘Nobody Wants This’ calls him ‘ignorant Jew’ over Gaza genocide comments

British police arrested Margaret Owen, a 94-year-old Jewish human rights barrister, in Liverpool on Sunday for holding up a sign expressing opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza and support for the direct action group Palestine Action

Help with 2 plot holes All, Like all of you the end of season 3 has a complete hold on me, even after several weeks and a rewatch. There are 2 potential plot holes (although I am highly doubtful they are plot holes) that I really need some opinions on. 1. Why was Daniel SO coveted by the founders? After my second viewing of season three I am still hung up on why Daniel was so coveted by the highest ranking members of the “project”. His initial appeal was centered around the site prep portion of the project (the drills). Okay I get that based on his work in New Orleans and engineering background, but that doesn’t answer why he was deemed critically essential for the post underground “work” that would be needed in Silo 1. So much so that 3-5 of the most senior members of the project made keeping him close to silo 1 as their sole priority during the planned event.. Looking back He definitively said he was at peace with his decision when walking with Victor before the bomb went off. So what skills did they see, that we didn’t see, that deemed him mission critical for silo 1. Especially considering his obvious appeal to the project team was very much centered around the prepping of the site. And speaking of plot holes that simply cannot be that obvious.. 2. This one goes back to season 1 when Juliette goes out to clean, with the hind site of watching Season 3 episode 9 where we are deliberately shown in graphic detail how Silo 1 handled Silo 17’s rebellion.. Which would have taken place roughly 30-40ish years in the past based on how long we know Jimmy was in isolation post rebellion. With all that said.. Who was in charge in silo 1 when Juliette first went out to clean, in broad daylight, and why did they allow her to make contact with Silo 17. Daniel (Troy) told us, the audience, that the most critical component of the “Order” is to eliminate silo to silo contact at all costs. So much so that he openly committed genocide against an entire Silo civilization as they knew it. I just can’t wrap my head around how intentionally we were shown this in retrospect as to why Juliette was, in my opinion, allowed to make contact with Silo 17. It goes without saying that I LOVE the show, especially the back half of season 3, which in my opinion blew a massive amount of life back into a show that was falling off a cliff. With all that said, I will be incredibly disappointed if both of these instances end up being unexplained plot holes. Then there is always the possibility that I’m just way dumber than I think I am and missed the answers while my ADD was on full throttle! I just believe there is no way, a show this intentional has plot holes that are this obvious. Somebody HELP ME!

7 years friendship destroyed by political divergences (for once not about a MAGA friend) Hi, I (23M) and my best friend (24M) have recently clashed over political beliefs, and I am considering on whether to stop our friendship. For context, she has become "far-left/communist" while I am rather centrist (in a French context). I have no issue with her political beliefs usually, even though we diverge. But she has been recently idealising China while always talking badly about the "West". Last week, she told me Muslims are better treated in China than France (my dad is Muslim, she is Vietnamese origin). She told me the Uyghur Genocide is a CIA hoax, that only terrorists have been punished etc. I got quite fed up with this discussion, and sent her a message a few days ago, explaining that I was hurt and that I thought she had gone too far. She went on sending me random vlogs of Xijiang, showing Muslims dancing and being happy, as well as some communist magazines explaining why the West depiction of anti-Uyghur crimes was just a racist anti Chinese discourse. I feel really weird about the whole thing, and the discussion is to me no longer a political belief but crimes negation to me. I understood that she probably feels the same about the red Khmer, Ethiopian genocide etc, as they are to her lesser crimes than what capitalism has done (don't wanna position myself on this). I am wondering if it would be too radical to cut her off and stop talking. We have always been best of friends but started getting away since she is dating her anarchist boyfriend 2 years ago.