This package is a small portion of that total.

No. The US, Ukraine, and Russia aren’t signatories to the convention on cluster munitions.

(there’s a little arrested development in the mix too)

Huzzah!

And it wasn’t announced until pretty late that she was. She was teasing it on her podcast like ‘stay tuned, I know serious people with money who are ready to launch something big’

You don’t need to convince me. I’m Fediverse all day every day :)

I’ve never used post and I haven’t heard anyone talk about them in a long time but they were pushed as a big deal after Musk bought Twitter. Kara Swisher and a lot of rich tech bros were trying to convince everyone they were the Next Big Thing around the time of the big wave of migrations to Mastodon.

The vote was 311 to 112 in favor of the aid to Ukraine, with a majority of Republicans — 112 — voting against it and one, Representative Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania, voting “present.” The House approved assistance to Israel 366 to 58; and to Taiwan 385 to 34, with Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, voting “present.” The bill to impose sanctions on Iran and require the sale of TikTok by its Chinese owner or ban the app in the United States passed 360 to 58.

You should keep the potato compartment filled with spuds as the good lord intended

Sweet mother of fuck is this ever good news.

Archive link.

Probably just an effort to discourage escalation. They don’t have diplomatic relations so they’re always signalling through military and public statements. Iran doesn’t want a direct war with Israel and wants to go back to the shadow war they’ve been fighting for decades. They’ve been sabre-rattling militarily and pressuring restraint diplomatically since their attack. They’re obviously not going to say “attacking us in a limited way is totally cool,” but I think the takeaway is basically “we won’t escalate if you won’t.”

NYT now too. Any time you hit “share” and grab a link it’s a gift link.

The Good Guy Iran narrative is so bizarre. It’s like applauding someone for “showing restraint” because they hired a hitman instead of killing someone themselves.

That’s not what it means. I suspect you’re reacting to the headline without reading the article. It’s not making a moral statement about arms sales. It’s saying that countries are realizing that they face potential legal exposure for continuing those sales/transfers. That’s why it’s risky. No one knows if they’ll actually face those consequences so, in that context, there’s a “chance it’s alright.” Legally – not ethically or morally.

The Leahy Laws are another example of that – they’re frequently criticized for being selectively enforced. The Leahy Laws put Israel aid at risk but it’s not a sure thing, regardless of the moral implications. At the end of the day, if the US believes or chooses to believe that they don’t apply, they probably won’t.

I suppose we’ve gotten to the level of admission where the media is calling continued illegal support “dicey”.

This article is about global resistance to sending arms to Israel. It’s “dicey” (meaning risky) because, on top of public pressure, governments are now facing potential legal consequences both locally and internationally. Calling it either “concerning” or “troubling” doesn’t make sense in this context. Ironically, if they used that language, the article would be doing the very thing you’re accusing it of doing.

The thesis of this article is that Germany under both Scholz and Merkel put profits over human rights. They’ve ignored warnings and pressure from allies in pursuit of those profits and are under economic pressure to continue to do so. Hardly a far-right position. I doubt anyone would have an issue with it if didn’t have a terrible headline.

Multiple organizations rate Politico as “center left” or “leans left” in terms of editorial bias and, per the included link, they have not failed a single fact check in the last five years. They’ve actually been rated as shifting slightly to the left since they were bought by Axel Springer.

No idea why they aren’t showing up in voyager but you can block them from the default web front-end.

No. Their MBFC page is an interesting read:

It is considered the first alternative investigative journalism internet news source. Consortium News covers stories deeply and has been responsible for uncovering scandals and important information that was not found/covered by the mainstream media.

They also get a bit philosophical about the nature of truth, which I don’t think I’ve ever seen before.

Haaretz actually reported this first (there’s an archive link in the article) and they’re high credibility.

This is a conspiracy/propaganda site.

MBFC

They’re also banned from Wikipedia for publishing “false or fabricated information.”