If someone invaded your country, would you still have the same opinion? If Trump invaded your country(assuming you are not an american), would you still say "why are we spending billions to fight Trump, when we could have spent them on education and housing?".
Except Israel is one of the most secure countries against attacks like this, because they have experienced many attacks like this. And they are doing everything they can do to prevent similar attacks, including using racial profiling and other authoritarian tactics(apartheid).
It is much easier for radical islamists living in Russia, places like Dagestan/Chechnya or living in neighbouring muslim countries, to go to Russia.
Now you might say, why would they attack Russia? Because Russia has been attacking ISIS(and affiliates) in both Syria and Africa. And thats on top of the Chechen wars, Afghanistan invasion or maybe more relevant, the Tajikistani war(since the perpetrators seem to be from Tajikistan).
What you need to understand is that ISIS(ISIS-K) is against everyone. They are against the Taliban in Afghanistan, against Iran, against Pakistan, etc.
It is actually a thing, called greeklish. It used to be more common/popular during the earlier days of computing/internet due to limited support of the Greek alphabet. It remained popular even later on and even today but i feel it is getting less popular nowadays.
Google translate supports greeklish, you can select Greek and type greeklish and it will work.
I dont think that is a fair equivalence. The mexican cartels dont do what they do in the name of Christianity. Boko Haram on the other hand, does kidnap and traffic kids and murder people in the name of Islam. From wikipedia
their main goal was to "purify", meaning to spread Sunni Islam, and destroy Shia Islam in northern Nigeria"
On 14–15 April(2014), Boko Haram kidnapped 276 schoolgirls from Chibok, Borno. Shekau(Boko Haram's leader) announced his intention of selling them into slavery.
Boko Haram is less of an issue nowadays and hopefully these kids are just kidnapped for ransom, but Boko Haram normalized this practice and still exists(and their allies).
Would you be ok if the american navy started shooting iranian civilian ships? Are we saying that civilian targets going through international waters are valid military targets? Should other countries do that too?
What would become of the world then? Do you think that would improve the world? If any country starts hitting civilian targets? Why stop at ships? Why not start nuking cities because you dont like something? As long as you have, what you consider, a "valid" ethical issue you should be allowed to do anything you want.
“Without immediate action, this situation could escalate into a major environmental crisis,” said Julien Jreissati, program director at Greenpeace MENA.
“As well as any further leaks of fuel oil from the engines, the sinking of the vessel could further breach the hull, allowing water to contact with the thousands of tonnes of fertilizer, which could then be released into the Red Sea and disrupt the balance of the marine ecosystems, triggering cascading effects throughout the food web.”
According to this poll, only 5-26%(varies a lot by country) of people living in arab states think that homosexuality is an acceptable practice(the rest is no/unsure/did not answer, which might be unfair to lump them all together but still)
Are you saying that these polls are misleading and that most people in arab countries support lgbtq people/relations/rights? Do you have any polls that support your position?
Do you think that Hungary and Turkey are more conservative than your average arab nation? If lgbtq is an issue for these countries, dont you think it is safe to assume that this will be an issue for most arab countries?
while no official reason for the withdrawal was given by the broadcaster, an inside source speaking with the website Index.hu speculated that the contest was considered "too gay" for MTVA to participate
Turkey left because they didnt like the scoring system and because of lgbtq "In August 2018, İbrahim Eren, the Director-General of TRT, stated that TRT does not plan to return to the contest and break the boycott for various reasons, citing Conchita Wurst's participation and eventual victory in 2014."
Lebanon almost joined but didnt due to Lebanon's laws banning the broadcast of Israeli content. Qatar, is outside of EBU, but kinda wanted to join but things seem to not have progressed since then. Tunisia tried to join but eventually withdrew because of Israel. Morocco participated once in the past, didnt do well and left. They also have issues with Israel.
Generally their main issue is Israel but do you honestly think they would be ok with a song like this?
It is just that their Israel issue supersedes their issues with lgbtq. But if somehow everyone in Middle East loved Israel tomorrow, most of them would still abstain from Eurovision because of the lgbtq. In many of these countries, women arent even allowed to wear a miniskirt, do you think they would be willing to show Eurovision uncensored?
PS Turkey even won Eurovision in 2003, and had plenty of top 5 finishes in the following years.
If you scroll down to the participation section, you will notice that all of northern Africa and some of middle east is eligible to participate(it has to do with old Telegraph networks). And some of them are participating or participated in the past.
Most dont participate because Eurovision is gay as fuck and these countries dont like that. And because of Israel's participation.
Nowadays pretty much anyone can join. Even China was about to join but because they censored the broadcast(because one country had a gay singer and another had a tattooed one) the EBU kicked them out
As a result, the EBU terminated its partnership with Mango TV, citing that censorship "is not in line with the EBU's values of universality and inclusivity and its proud tradition of celebrating diversity through music,"
Either Ukraine or Russia(accidental friendly fire) shot it down. It was probably Ukraine, risking one its few precious patriots and moving them close to the front. Ukraine is trying to shape the battlefield for the arrival of the F-16, so shooting down flying radar planes is very desirable.
Generally these radar planes are not only rare but extremely valuable for Russia's war efforts.
And in before "good job greek conservative government for making gay marriage possible". The main opposition to gay marriage was the current government and even though it was their own bill, half of their mps voted against/abstained.
The government just wanted to disarm the opposition and knew that even though most of their voters opposed it, in the long run(once old people die), the majority of voters will support gay marriage.
And if they keep opposing it, it will have significant political repercussions, especially since the main opposition party just elected a gay leader. Also our prime minister is a CIA asset(thatcher conservative, not maga conservative), so that works too.
The bill passed only because most of the opposition voted for it(except for the communists and nazis).
It isnt about China collapsing, the West didnt collapse in 2008, it is about understanding reality and taking measures to deal with issues. China used construction similarly to how people in the West used the stock market. As a speculative investment scheme. And similarly to stocks, there were some underlying issues that caused a massive bubble(on top of your typical capitalism issues).
This isnt a good argument. For Fox News carbon emissions are irrelevant or good or whatever. But since Taylor Swift is saying she cares about the environment and according to her carbon emissions are bad for the environment, it is hypocritical to use a private jet.
The problem Fox News have with Taylor Swift isnt her carbon emissions, it is her hypocrisy.
If someone invaded your country, would you still have the same opinion? If Trump invaded your country(assuming you are not an american), would you still say "why are we spending billions to fight Trump, when we could have spent them on education and housing?".