Megha Vemuri called out MIT for having research ties with the Israeli army and "aiding and abetting" the country with its "assault on the Palestinian people."
Most big colleges have helped evict and deport people on studen visas. They cooperate and are complicit.
I’m betting it wouldn’t be difficult to find links between MITs research and development labs and weapons and technologies companies involved in Gaza.
Societies are sometimes like big interconnected machines, large parts become complicit in denial, repression, and destruction.
Edit: yep, as expected:
Since at least 2015, MIT laboratories have received millions of dollars from the Israeli Ministry of Defense for projects to develop algorithms that help drone swarms to better pursue escaping targets; to improve underwater surveillance technology; and support military aircraft evade missiles. Two of these sponsorships were renewed since October 7th, 2023, while one came up for renewal in December 2024. Second, MIT maintains institutional collaborations through the ILP, LGO, CSAIL, and MIT Energy Initiative programs with companies that sell vast amounts of weapons to Israel. These include Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest military contractor, as well as Maersk, Lockheed Martin, and Caterpillar. These collaborations grant genocide profiteers privileged access to MIT talent and expertise.
P.S That drone swarm technology is part of why 83% of American doctors who have provided care in Gaza, have reported treating children for being shot in the head. Source: NPR’s The American Life.
There is a whole lot of terrible shit going on in Gaza, and Israel is committing war crimes all over the place.
However, chasing down and shooting a fleeing enemy combatant is not a war crime. If a russian soldier tries to flee from a failed assault, Ukrainian troops are free to shoot them in the back. The same applies to troops fleeing a position that is being attacked or encircled. They can be hunted down and shot unless they surrender.
I’m pointing it out because it’s a common misconception the enemies that are unarmed, wounded or fleeing are “out of bounds”, but that’s not the case. It’s perfectly legal to bomb an enemy camp full of sleeping soldiers, or shoot an unarmed or wounded enemy that hasn’t surrendered.
The absolutely horrifying thing with Israel is that they treat starving civilians as if they were soldiers, and shoot unarmed civilian kids in the back.
That is a good shout, withdrawal =/= surrender. You’re not wrong to clarify rules of war, as false accusations lead to propaganda reinforcing against the real accusations.
Though my statement does stand - “they design drone technology for war criminals to pursue fleeing targets” is a factual statement.
Plus, we will almost certainly see a new version of the Geneva convention in response to drone warfare in our lifetime.
Oh, they’re absolutely selling weapons to war criminals that use them to commit crimes, I 100 % agree.
Just wanted to clarify that “persuing fleeing targets” isn’t a war crime, it’s the targeting of civilians itself that is. Your statement,
It’s unreal that they can just say “We design war crimes”
Made it sound like you thought chasing down fleeing targets was itself a war crime, regardless who the target was.
I can see there being some changes to laws of war, or at least interpretation in response to drone warfare. Specifically, there’s a law against “causing unnecessary suffering” which prevents the use of weapons designed with the intent to maim rather than kill. Most countries have banned anti-personnel mines, and use this as part of the reasoning (another being the non-directed nature of the weapons, and long-term effects after the war is over).
Drone-dropped grenades have a clear tendency to wound rather than kill, and I can see an argument that when infantry throw grenades they usually follow up with gunfire rather than leaving the enemy in a field. With this in mind, I can see an argument against drone-dropped light grenades. Then again, drone-dropped grenades give such a massively asymmetric advantage that I have a hard time seeing any army giving them up.
I wonder if these scientists graduating and working for tech that is used for genocide, do they question their research has resulted in deaths of people or they try to rationalize it
Ever watched Destin from the YouTube channel, SmarterEveryDay - he used to work on weapons systems. As did a guy named Tom Campbell - who now discusses his theory of everything on YouTube.
They don’t seem to think about these things.
The philosopher, Robert Anton Wilson, has a movie that touches on this topic, it’s called Borders.
Most big colleges have helped evict and deport people on studen visas. They cooperate and are complicit.
I’m betting it wouldn’t be difficult to find links between MITs research and development labs and weapons and technologies companies involved in Gaza.
Societies are sometimes like big interconnected machines, large parts become complicit in denial, repression, and destruction.
Edit: yep, as expected:
P.S That drone swarm technology is part of why 83% of American doctors who have provided care in Gaza, have reported treating children for being shot in the head. Source: NPR’s The American Life.
What the fuck.
It’s unreal that they can just say out loud “we design war crimes” like what the actual fuck.
There is a whole lot of terrible shit going on in Gaza, and Israel is committing war crimes all over the place.
However, chasing down and shooting a fleeing enemy combatant is not a war crime. If a russian soldier tries to flee from a failed assault, Ukrainian troops are free to shoot them in the back. The same applies to troops fleeing a position that is being attacked or encircled. They can be hunted down and shot unless they surrender.
I’m pointing it out because it’s a common misconception the enemies that are unarmed, wounded or fleeing are “out of bounds”, but that’s not the case. It’s perfectly legal to bomb an enemy camp full of sleeping soldiers, or shoot an unarmed or wounded enemy that hasn’t surrendered.
The absolutely horrifying thing with Israel is that they treat starving civilians as if they were soldiers, and shoot unarmed civilian kids in the back.
That is a good shout, withdrawal =/= surrender. You’re not wrong to clarify rules of war, as false accusations lead to propaganda reinforcing against the real accusations.
Though my statement does stand - “they design drone technology for war criminals to pursue fleeing targets” is a factual statement.
Plus, we will almost certainly see a new version of the Geneva convention in response to drone warfare in our lifetime.
Oh, they’re absolutely selling weapons to war criminals that use them to commit crimes, I 100 % agree.
Just wanted to clarify that “persuing fleeing targets” isn’t a war crime, it’s the targeting of civilians itself that is. Your statement,
Made it sound like you thought chasing down fleeing targets was itself a war crime, regardless who the target was.
I can see there being some changes to laws of war, or at least interpretation in response to drone warfare. Specifically, there’s a law against “causing unnecessary suffering” which prevents the use of weapons designed with the intent to maim rather than kill. Most countries have banned anti-personnel mines, and use this as part of the reasoning (another being the non-directed nature of the weapons, and long-term effects after the war is over).
Drone-dropped grenades have a clear tendency to wound rather than kill, and I can see an argument that when infantry throw grenades they usually follow up with gunfire rather than leaving the enemy in a field. With this in mind, I can see an argument against drone-dropped light grenades. Then again, drone-dropped grenades give such a massively asymmetric advantage that I have a hard time seeing any army giving them up.
Shooting people in the back is a bad look. Especially when the victim is a child.
"War is a racket. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
…
War like any other racket, pays high dividends to the very few. The cost of operations is always transferred to the people who do not profit."
General Smedley Butler - War is a Racket (1935)
I’d argue that health insurance also qualifies.
Yeah pity he didn’t have any advice on stopping it.
I wonder if these scientists graduating and working for tech that is used for genocide, do they question their research has resulted in deaths of people or they try to rationalize it
Ever watched Destin from the YouTube channel, SmarterEveryDay - he used to work on weapons systems. As did a guy named Tom Campbell - who now discusses his theory of everything on YouTube.
They don’t seem to think about these things.
The philosopher, Robert Anton Wilson, has a movie that touches on this topic, it’s called Borders.
they dont want to think about it, because they will feel guilty or they feel they are complicit