The same mechanical hard drive I bought for $250 three years ago is now going for $500 online USED. I was lucky enough to see a Microcenter listing them as in-stock for $410 about two months ago and drove an hour each way to get the last one. I haven't seen them available new since.
Fun fact: In the 1950s, Zionists secretly performed terrorist attacks on Jewish synagogues and communities around the middle east. This was done in an effort to make them feel unsafe in Arab countries to promote migrations to the newly-formed country of Israel. Before this, Jewish people largely lived at peace alongside Muslims, as they were traditionally considered "People of the Book" due to their shared Abrahamic-religious background.
Edit: I only say this because I don't believe ethnostates are necessary to protect groups of people, and I believe the "having nowhere else to go" mentality was intentionally manufactured. Furthermore, when these ethnostates claim ownership over a group of people and commit atrocities in the name of the ethnostate, that makes it more dangerous for that group of people to live peacefully elsewhere.
In regard to WWIII, focusing only on the current Israel/US-Iran conflict seems like rather America-centric thinking. Russia invaded Ukraine over four years ago and is still fighting in their territory. A foreign-backed civil war is raging in Sudan with massacres large enough for civilian satellite imagery to see large scale blood stains. Pakistan declared "open war" against Afghanistan just this month. China is continuing to claim the territorial waters of their South-East-Asia neighbors and engage in regular ship rammings to secure it. Israel has bombed Palestine, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Qatar, and Tunisia in just the last year. Russia-backed ships have been cutting undersea telecom cables. And a Chinese invasion of Taiwan seems imminent.
Sorry, I hope it didn't sound like I posted those additional quotes as direct evidence of abuse towards his daughters. Instead, I only thought they helped paint a bigger picture of his behavior around women and young girls in general. They seem to support the beginning of the original quote, "adolescents attracted and interested him", and made that paragraph feel more like a conclusion of common themes, rather than a random aside.
As for your question about the contrasting quote, I agree. This seems to be intended to show that these relationships with young girls wasn't always about sexual fulfillment. However, I believe it was telling that such a disclaimer was needed, and that this reputation was considered the general consensus of other aristocrats at the time.
Also, I won't argue against the label of "womanizer"; however, I don't believe that term should be used in the context of "young girls". Just as I don't believe we should give a pass to US founding fathers owning slaves just because it was common at the time, I don't believe we should give pass to those who took advantage to young girls from a position of power, even in a time when it may have been a social norm for a grown man to marry a young teenage girl. In modern times, we wouldn't consider such a person a womanizer, but instead, a pedophile.
I can't say for certain whether such a person, with a reputation for being a "womanizer" of young girls, would take advantage of the girls in his care. However, I don't believe it is a far leap to come to that conclusion based on the original quote and the supporting evidence of his character.
In the previously posted quote, I don't believe the terms and phrases "harem", "groom them", "lover", "he could use them as he chose", and "wife and children became in effect one" give a vague impression of his relationships with his daughters. I find these hard to interpret as anything but describing an abusive sexual relationship.
I'm by no means an expert on this subject, but I found a few other segments from the biography that I believe contribute to the bigger picture of how he viewed young girls and women in general:
Thus the dining-rooms of the embassies and the clubs and the Ankara Palace Hotel hummed with the latest gossip about Atatürk’s public behaviour. No woman was held to be safe at his hands. Turkish mothers might indeed thrust their daughters at him (and Turkish husbands their wives), but Diplomatic mothers would hurry their daughters away from a party for fear he would invite them to his table.
Madame Kovatcheva, the wife of his friend the Minister of War, was a Macedonian, and Kemal’s growing association with her young daughter Dimitrina was assumed by the local gossips to have political undertones.
In fact, it had a more romantic flavour. Kemal had never before come to know on close terms a young girl of good family and European refinement, and it was this that intrigued him in Dimitrina.
Asked once what qualities he admired most in a woman, he replied, ‘Availability.’
I just downloaded the book from Anna's Archive, and after a quick search, found this on page 853:
Adolescents attracted and interested him, and when the girls reached the age when they sat regularly at table he began to take notice both of their charms and their talents. None of them was exceptionally pretty; nor had they the graces of women of the world. But they provided him with the ideal ‘harem’. They were in his power, thanks to their youth and their dependence on him. He could groom them and mould them and guide them in the direction he wanted them to follow. He could use them as he chose – and when he no longer chose, could ‘wean’ them and launch them into marriage or into a career. For the girls themselves, so ambivalent a father-lover-schoolmaster relationship might create certain psychological stresses. But for Kemal it provided the family background he needed, one from which irksome ties of blood were missing, and in which wife and children became in effect one.
I can't find an exact quote with the specific word genocide, but he has accused Bibi of committing war crimes. Also, an Israeli advocacy group named him "Antisemite of the Year” for his anti-Zionist stances.
I saw he was recently interviewing Palestinian-Christian pastors around Israel and neighboring countries. Maybe he was still over there as part of that trip.
I believe strong evidence of this would be how politicians spend the majority of their time and money campaigning in a few swing states. In strong left or right-leaning states, that majority of voters is taken for granted.
That's not what the OP is asking. They're wondering why foreign governments aren't pushing for more files to be released, to aid in their own investigations.
20% of people outright lacking empathy is a lot. With such a large percentage, how can you be sure you aren't one of them?
Yesterday I helped to clarify why AIPAC fucked up in the NJ special election. When my response was followed with the joke "Ah, thank you for not explaining that while literally walking out the d", it started collecting downvotes. The "not explaining" seemed to stand out as negative, and I admit I was a little confused myself. However, instead of throwing shade or downvoting it myself, I just asked a simple question about what they meant. The response: "(I was walking out the door, like the author while writing the article)" put everything to rest. It was a joke about how the author of the posted article trailed off without coming to a clear conclusion.
Yet even after this clarification was posted, you jumped in with the worst negative assumption about the interaction. You weren't seeking clarity or offering anyone support, you were looking to attack. Even after being respectfully asked to re-read the conversation, you double and tripled-down on this incorrect negative assumption. I feel that this attitude is evident here, as you challenge your "detractors" and charge that they are the ones lacking empathy. Don't forget that every accusation is a confession.
Ultimately, I don't agree with your 20% statistic. Mostly this is because I don't believe in binary assignments, such as having or lacking empathy. We are all capable of making positive assumptions about each other's intentions. Some of us just choose not to in certain circumstances, but there is always room for change.
I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, it's even worse than most people realize. AIPAC is catching on to their drop in support and is now funneling their money to politicians through proxy PACs, such as the United Democracy Project (UDP). Also, since unrestricted arms sales to Israel is not a popular position, they didn't bother attacking Malinowski on that issue. Instead, they put out ads on the topic of him funding ICE, since they knew that would hurt him more.
Good news is that AIPAC has now paid for the focus group polling, and field tested the idea of attacking politicians on the topic of ICE support. This should embolden progressive candidates to attack establishment politicians on this issue.
Here is a longish article on AIPAC and the NJ special election for more details. Also, Ryan Grimm has a great summary in the first third of this video. It looks like Breaking Points covers this election again today, but I haven't had a chance to watch the new episode yet.
I think it is you who still doesn't comprehend what they were saying. They weren't getting sassy with me, they were making a joke while thanking me for the explaination. They made that perfectly clear in the later response.
The first question obviously wasn't a serious question, but they were clearly confused about who AIPAC was funding.
No AIPAC did not accidentally fund the progressive. Instead they accidentally went after the moderate with the best chances of winning. I was happy to clear that up.
India is on the ally list. Modi and Bibi have been getting very friendly lately. Big hugs! https://apnews.com/article/israel-india-modi-visit-netanyahu-3579fe515c0dad8c05431d59706a4cd7