420blazeit69 [he/him] @ 420blazeit69 @hexbear.net

Posts

1

Comments

505

Joined

4 yr. ago

What you're doing here is interpreting any evidence as supportive of the conclusion you chose at the beginning. You're making that conclusion unfalsifiable.

If Russia said he died of natural causes, you'd say they're lying. Ukraine says the same thing, well this blood clot must be evidence of torture. Why Ukraine wouldn't jump on that interpretation if it was at all plausible is left unanswered. If he was struck by lightning you'd say Putin used him to test a new superweapon.

So you didn't read the first half of the headline, either!

He wasn't killed, he died from a blood clot. Even Ukraine isn't entertaining speculation that Russia killed him.

You're saying Ukraine's intelligence chief is wrong? Smdh just what a Russian bot would say

We're talking about ports icing over, which will happen less as global temperatures rise. Bringing up other climate change problems (that are far from unique to Russia) does not change that.

artic north sea

When you have a deep understanding of the issue

It freezes, it will continue to freeze

No, the likely scenario is that maximal ice coverage will (continue to) recede noticeably.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-53308-5

As Arctic ice continues to melt, [the Arctic Northern Sea Route] is anticipated to become more accessible to ships, albeit with navigational availability remaining contingent on the ship category and seasonal considerations.

Seems like most countries would cancel this sort of arrangement with a country funding their opponent in a war

warm water ports

A meme that will only look sillier as climate change gets worse

This is magical thinking. "If the enemy were to simply disappear, everything would be fixed."

You have to engage with the reality of the situation.

I agree that Ukraine's allies tanking immediate peace talks was criminal

And thats on record

Got a good link handy?

I won't pretend every single bit was 100% legit, but you don't pretend that every single bit was 100% stolen.

"Your honor, I only stole some of what I'm accused of stealing, not all of it" is not a great defense

"No country is fully independent" says nothing about whether Israel is properly classified as a colony. It's a platitude.

a right to exist

Another platitude. What do you mean by this? Israel's current actions are indefensible. Many of its past actions are indefensible. Its policy of neither recognizing a Palestinian state nor granting equal citizenship to Palestinians is indefensible. It must either fundamentally change or be replaced by a government worth supporting, like South Africa before it.

It certainly does not have a right to continue existing in its current form, no more than Nazi Germany did.

Your point?

Israel is making it's own decisions and will happily shrug off any criticism from the Western powers

There has been zero sincere criticism from the West. If you circumvent Congress to give Israel more money and openly state you are unconditionally supporting it, I don't buy it if you leak a story about being furious with them behind closed doors. You shouldn't, either.

the vast majority of its citizens don't have citizenship in any other country and have literally nowhere else to go. Therefore it's not a colony

It directly refutes this.

If you're leaning on Israel being formally independent, they're about as independent from the West (particularly the U.S.) as a college freshman getting their tuition paid by Mom and Dad. No one here is talking about Israel being independent on paper, we're talking about how it interacts with other countries in reality.

When the British expelled criminals to Australia they couldn't return home. Was Australia not a colony? A ton of European immigrants to the American colonies intended their journeys to be one-way trips, and were functionally barred from returning by cost. Does that mean there were no colonies in the Americas?

Besides, throughout history you almost never see settlers leaving en masse when colonial administrations end. Sure, some recent arrivees may turn around, and some administrators who moved there mostly to work in the colonial government may leave, but you really never see the main body of settlers leave. You didn't even have this in South Africa. They simply have to live under a government where they can't shoot the locals with impunity.

Let's set aside the multiple issues with "I think one of my distant ancestors lived here 2000 years ago, or maybe just other members of my religious group, therefore I have a right to live here today" and assume that yes, that sort of historical/ancestral claim gives comtemporary Jewish people a right to live in Palestine. Even in the most generous light imaginable, it would not give them a right to build an ethnostate by committing genocide on the current inhabitants. Israel is so far past anything that could be reasonably granted from ancient Jews living in Palestine that there is no possible defense along those lines.

Or are we strictly talking about western powers giving the Jewish people a 'homeland' after the second world war and the holocaust?

Yes, that's what people mean when they refer to Israel as a colony of Europe/the U.S.

That's right, they should be. They aren't doing so because it's in the interest of the U.S. to continue the war, and the Ukrainian government more or less exists at the pleasure of the U.S.

In this scenario, by assuring the coup plotters that the U.S. will keep funding the war as long as they keep fighting it, as opposed to cutting bait with the coup as an excuse. The coup plotters would then accuse the deposed government of treasonously planning a surrender (a mischaracterization, but that's par for the course) and portray themselves as acting in the national interest. They then keep the status quo of the war, with just a change in management. This would all fit neatly with the anti-Russia/pro-U.S. propaganda Ukraine has been subjected to. Any Russian objection would be written off as lies.

If Russia tried to support a coup government, that government would be branded as treasonous even if they sought to act in the best interest of the Ukrainian people. The U.S. would immediately seek to discredit and destabilize the coup government, and a lot of Ukrainians would listen as they're fighting a war with Russia.