Then why bring it up and say someone will correct you if you're wrong?
ltxrtquq
joined 2 years ago
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html
If this is an accurate translation of the laws, 203 is about doctors, lawyers, government officials, etc. sharing priveledged information they had access to because of their jobs and 206 only applies to owners/employees of telecommunications or delivery services.
Edit: and to go one step further, Section 201: Violation of Privacy of Spoken Word means you can't record phone calls without everyone's permission, but Section 202: Violation of Privacy of Correspondence is about opening other people's letters.
I don't know how long that video actually is, but a lot of it is made up of unrelated clips of lions and tigers not even in the same location with a couple of clips of lions and tigers "fighting" for less than a minute before they both back off.
Based on this newsweek article, that happened around June, 2020. Looking at the JRE website, I think Bill Burr got invited on one more time in December 2020, but hasn't been on since.
On three. You hear three, you lift. Everything leading up to it should just give you an idea of when three will happen.
It is not common practice for automakers — in China or elsewhere — to sue their customers. But Tesla has pioneered an aggressive legal strategy and leveraged the patronage of powerful leaders in China’s ruling Communist Party to silence critics, reap financial rewards and limit its accountability.
This was very explicitly in China. That's not to say we're doing much better though.
Why would you do this? Why provide a link to the youtube video but have it hyperlink to this post?
Isn't it that if they start accepting Palestinian refugees, they're helping to empty Palestine and helping Israel take the land?
https://apnews.com/article/palestinian-jordan-egypt-israel-refugee-502c06d004767d4b64848d878b66bd3d
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi made his toughest remarks yet on Wednesday, saying the current war was not just aimed at fighting Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, “but also an attempt to push the civilian inhabitants to ... migrate to Egypt.” He warned this could wreck peace in the region.
... Their refusal is rooted in fear that Israel wants to force a permanent expulsion of Palestinians into their countries and nullify Palestinian demands for statehood. El-Sissi also said a mass exodus would risk bringing militants into Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, from where they might launch attacks on Israel, endangering the two countries’ 40-year-old peace treaty.
... But Arab countries and many Palestinians also suspect Israel might use this opportunity to force permanent demographic changes to wreck Palestinian demands for statehood in Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem, which was also captured by Israel in 1967.
El-Sissi repeated warnings Wednesday that an exodus from Gaza was intended to “eliminate the Palestinian cause … the most important cause of our region.” He argued that if a demilitarized Palestinian state had been created long ago in negotiations, there would not be war now.
“All historical precedent points to the fact that when Palestinians are forced to leave Palestinian territory, they are not allowed to return back,” said H.A. Hellyer, a senior associate fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Egypt doesn’t want to be complicit in ethnic cleansing in Gaza.”
Even if stopping warming before 2C is impossible, the sooner we do stop it the less bad things will be down the line.
Most of the pictures of the dead are of protesters, and they're plenty gruesome.
That’s photographic evidence. Evidence that contradicts the idea that it was just a peaceful protest. Yet another seed of doubt on the general accuracy of western reports.
But importantly, do you know the timeline of events leading up to that one soldier being burned and hung up? Probably not, since there aren't any timestamps for it that I've been able to see. When I throw the first image into google translate, it turns some of the writing on the bus into "he killed" and "return blood."
That's obviously not a complete or accurate translation, but do you think it might be possible that that particular soldier was killed after committing some crimes of his own? Do you know when and where the violence started, and by who? I'm guessing not, because the whole event is pretty heavily censored by the chinese government. And that censorship is a large part of what makes me think that the government was in the wrong, and that "massacre" is an accurate term for the hundreds of civilians that were killed.
Many people wouldn’t be able to distinguish between a massacre and a war zone. Like I said, what makes something a massacre is more about how it’s carried out than any certain number.
Even if we assume the chinese government was "fighting a war," they're sending armed soldiers and tanks into their own cities to fight against mostly unarmed "combatants". One might say that the use of such overwhelming force in a fairly one-sided battle could be called a massacre.
Evidence of a massacre having occurred in Beijing was incontrovertible.
Chinese army tanks guard the strategic Chang'an avenue leading to Tiananmen square (6 June 1989) Manuel Ceneta/AFP Troops fired at unarmed citizens on the strategic Chang'an Boulevard
Numerous foreign journalists saw it from widely scattered vantage points.
On the morning of 4 June, reporters in the Beijing Hotel close to the square saw troops open fire indiscriminately at unarmed citizens on Chang'an Boulevard who were too far away from the soldiers to pose any real threat.
Thirty or 40 bodies lay, apparently lifeless, on the road afterwards.
That scene outside the Beijing Hotel alone justified the use of the word massacre. But the students who had told me and other journalists of a bloodbath on the square proved mistaken.
From the article you posted. At this point I don't care that the massacre didn't happen inside the square. The Tiananmen Square Massacre describes a massacre near Tiananmen Square, that was started because of events that happened there. And also, because it's especially relevant here:
The Chinese government was quick to exploit the weaknesses in our reporting.
By focusing on what happened in the square itself, it began sowing seeds of doubt about the general accuracy of Western reports among Chinese who did not witness what happened.
view more: next ›
Again, 202 is about opening other people's mail/messages, with the electronic subsection being about accessing their digital messages when you aren't supposed to. And section 206 wouldn't apply to Drag at all, since they aren't even an admin. As far as I can tell, there's nothing legally wrong with sharing "private" messages that are sent to you.