davel [he/him] @ davel @lemmy.ml

All text lovingly hand-crafted with 100% organic em dashes.

---

Read more

Posts

280

Comments

6,192

Joined

2 yr. ago

No, they didn’t. The Did you learn nothing from the Iraq War?

Many such cases.

Hitting nuclear facilities with conventional weapons is just dirty bombs with extra steps. These attacks are a number of international high crimes, including the nonproliferation treaty.

Imperialism and anti-imperialism are exactly the same. You fool. You absolute buffoon.

So… Once Iranian government falls.

I wouldn’t take that as a given.

So the US probably got handed off this hot potato because, if no western countries is doing it, China or Russia will come in and cause chaos later.

Is this a joke? Western imperialist states entering would create chaos, while China and/or Russia entering would be stabilizing. Iran, China, and Russia are major BRICS partners, and have shared regional security interests.

Who do you think organizes, funds, trains, and equips the various groups of Salafi jihadist terrorist groups that wreak havoc in Western and Central Asia? The United States, with some assistance from Israel and probably the UK. The US has wanted regime change in Iran ever since the puppet regime they installed in the US-orchestrated 1953 coup was overthrown in the 1978 revolution. The US has wanted to regain its imperialist control of Iran for the last 47 years.

Edit to add a primer: The blueprint of regime change operations How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent

[H]ere’s the step-by-step process summarized:

1. A strategic country is selected as a target.
2. Stories start being fed to the media about human rights abuses or just concerning developments (lack of democracy, dwindling economy, etc).
3. To help lay the basis, the government may make official reports the media can then use. They might also use humanitarian NGOs (Amnesty, HRW…) or outright CIA outfits (World Uyghur Congress, Radio Free Europe…).
4. Stories start coming out more and more often. The volume of coverage regarding the target country becomes much bigger than before the campaign.
5. At the same time, groups and individuals in the target country, that have been funded by the imperialist country, are being put in the spotlight. They have been groomed for years, laying somewhat dormant until it’s time to activate them.
6. Stories about these groups call them champions of democracy, freedom fighters, etc. A clear limit is drawn: they are good people, and the government that’s preventing them from achieving their policies are the bad guys. This is the basis of a color revolution.
7. Slowly, public opinion starts to shift. We don’t necessarily act on this opinion yet though, we plant the seeds to make later consent easier. Each seed makes the next one easier to plant and grow.
8. The imperialist country continues the campaign but also starts small, probing actions to see what it can get away with. It might enact sanctions or query the UN for intervention. It will also call these acts “moral” and underline that they are meant to sanction the country until it becomes a democracy again, further digging the good vs. evil line.
9. Meanwhile, everything the target country does to prove its innocence and lawful conduct is not published or gets blocked (e.g. request for a UN delegation visit). Their point of view is never printed in the media or if it is, only when they can spin it in a good way.
10. Slowly, regime change is brought up. Subconsciously at first (e.g. “China would be free if it wasn’t for the communist party”, which implies destroying it and the system it built). Later, it can be more overt (e.g. Iran).
11. Finally, consent has been manufactured and public opinion has completely shifted on the target country. People come to see invasion as the only solution, and they will happily support it once it happens. It may not happen for several years though, as material reasons might not make invasion possible. Sometimes, a color revolution (which is mostly carried by nationals of the country in question but funded and trained by the imperialist country) is the best thing we can do.

If the operation succeeds:

12. If the operation succeeds, a pro-US dictator will be ‘elected’ or seize power. The election will be called fair and democratic, as was the case in Ukraine 2014. This president will be paraded around in the West and become a media figure that everyone comes to know. This is what happened to Zelensky, but also to Pinochet in his time and Juan Guaido.
13. Inside the country, everything gets privatized and sold to US and European companies under the directives of the dictator. This is rarely talked about or if it is, it’s presented as banal — e.g., “Ford to open factory in Argentina”. Quality of life plummets, actual humanitarian crises start, etc.
14. The media still publishes stories on the country, but always in a good light, and not as many as during the operation. They might sometimes call to unrest in the country but always as a distant, abstract phenomenon.
15. As long as the dictator plays by our rules, the country keeps being talked about positively. As soon as he starts to become too independent, we will use the chaotic post-coup situation to repeat the process with a new President.

Most people smart enough to join are smart enough not to.

It discounts my impression of them.

Topologist: It’s the same picture.

oic. Carry on, comrade.

If only to liquidate the super straights.

Pacifists are worthless in the face of a genocidal, ethnosupremacist state seeking Lebensaum for a Greater Israel.

Jihad—“struggle”—against the genocidal Israeli state that is pursuing Lebensraum against its neighboring states is a good thing.

By that logic my ass. There is no a genocidal gay supremacy ethnostate.

When statistics agree with my preconceived notions, I consider them trustworthy, and if not, I assume that reality lines up with what I expect.

I… thought you were being sarcastic. This is an obvious and severe flaw to have in one’s rational thinking.

prejudice (noun)
1 The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
2 An adverse judgment or opinion formed unfairly or without knowledge of the facts.

You’re assuming a Harris administration would have handled this significantly differently, when regime change in Iran has been bipartisan consensus ever since the 1978 revolution removed the puppet regime that the US installed in 1953.

Administrative detentions can be longer. On paper they can hold you about a month, but it can be longer than that with a judge’s signoff if they have proof of a crime.

And in the US, jail can be up to just short of a year.

This is typically where the police try to get you to confess to something and drag it out as long and uncomfortably as possible until you do, after which you either get to go free (though you end up on a list for a long time) or you may go to a “black jail”/黑監獄 which is a sort of under-the-table prison.

The terms of release can also sometimes require completion of a rehabilitation program, which is often the voluntary alternative to prison, or getting transferred to a short stay detention center for a few months to perform community service.

So pretty similar to the US.

More ghosts of Kyiv propaganda.

• To this point, only 37 members of Congress have endorsed any of the pending resolutions designed to keep the US out of a war with Iran.
• Instead, the Democrats have allowed the resistance to be led by the likes of Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Alex Jones, Matt Gaetz, Rand Paul, Steve Bannon, and Thomas Massie.