Skiluros @ Skiluros @sh.itjust.works

Posts

5

Comments

458

Joined

9 mo. ago

It seems that the Israelis were killing civilians, not US mercenaries.

I think this is all bullshit for market manipulation. "Lars" can say he has three dicks, that doesn't make it so.

Musk is a known and confirmed liar ("deal secured"), it is reasonable to assume he has a level of commitment to dishonesty, especially considering he lives in the US, where criminality and dishonesty are broadly encouraged both at an institutional level and among wider society.

You bring all this cybercab and unboxed stuff, what makes you think you are more qualified to evaluate these points than Reuters?

Are you claiming you have insider info or are you just repeating various Tesla PR copytext?

It's really too bad that Lemmy MAUs are once again on a decline curve. I was really hoping we would stabilize above 50K MAU.

As I am not a lawyer and I don't support "wiggle" room judicial approaches when it comes to oligarchs (especially ones that have been caught lying in similar cases before - e.g. "funding acquired [with Saudi sovereign fund").

What may happen in a few years is IMO irrelevant. We are discussing things as they stand now. It's either cancelled or not with respect to short/medium term introduction.

As the old saying goes, in the long term, we are all dead.

I am no lawyer, but I think it possible to relatively easily prove whether the project is current or not. I mean "prove" in the real sense, i.e. any individual of sound mind would agree that it was actually cancelled and the attempts to bring in delays and so on are are malicious actions to avoid legal responsibility.

This is not a complex issue, either the project was cancelled or it wasn't.

How is this even legal?

And this is not the first time Elmo has been engaged in market manipulation via premeditated misinformation campaigns.

Says who?

It's pretty clear you have no clue what you are talking about or you're playing dumb (in an effort to work as a free PR shill for China).

I am done here!

What info have you provided?

There is no moving goalposts. From the Wikipedia article:

Construction of the port commenced in January 2008. In 2016, it reported an operating profit of $1.81 million but was considered economically unviable.[4] As debt repayment got difficult, the newly-elected government decided to privatise an 80% stake of the port to raise foreign exchange in order to repay maturing sovereign bonds unrelated to the port.[5][6] Of the two bidding companies, China Merchants Port was chosen,[5] which was to pay $1.12 billion to Sri Lanka and spend additional amounts to develop the port into full operation.[7][8][9]

In July 2017, the agreement was signed, but CMPort was allowed a 70% stake. Simultaneously a 99-year lease on the port was granted to CMPort.

Can you explain Kerry Brown's arguement in context of this information?

Russophia is a propaganda term.

A sober view of russian "culture" and history is not a phobia. It is reasonable to approach russians as they are (e.g. strong majority support for genocidal imperialism even with adjustments for preference falsification during polling) and not as one would like them to be.

What wasn't refuted?

The port has no commercial viability. If it does, show me its transactions relative to ports of comparable size in say south India.

Have you ever lived or visited the region? Sri Lanka or south India. Or any part of the Indian subcontinent. Or any part of Asia for that matter.

Prove me wrong! I will admit I am wrong and will appreciate the correction.

Let's not play dumb, ok?

That China's investments aren't necessarily beneficial for the country host country.

There is an element of domination and geopolitics (having a de facto military port on India's doorstep).

Different port. I am referring to the one from 2018.

This article references the story of the OG port from 2018:

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/2/17/sri-lankas-chinese-built-port-city-stirs-white-elephant-fears

This is false. In case of Sri Lanka, they did take the port back and arguably the whole thing was setup since the economic viability of the port is suspect.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html

You're either ignorant or a demagogue.

The American government (I think that's what you are referencing when using the term CIA) has done a lot of very bad things. I don't they've done anything as bad as the concentration camps and cultural genocide in Xinjiang (in the last ~100 years).

IMF can actually be flexible in some situations and there is measure of accountability. Chinese loans are managed by the CCP; an authoritarian criminal group.

They are not better than the IMF or more ethical than the CIA. They are most likely far worse.

Don't be naive. If it benefits China, they would be more than happy to grind people to "cash powder".

50% decline is honestly still too low.

It depends on your view of ethics.

Exactly! If you have a superficial view of ethics that does not account for reality, you will have a very simplistic view. If you are willing to look at what is actually happening on the ground, you will have a more sophisticated understanding of ethics that goes beyond theatrics.

The issue of collaboration is very a complex topic. There are many cases where low level collaboration (if motivated by factors other than support for russian genocidal imperialism) should likely be dealt with a simple affidavit requiring the individual to confirm that should ideological motivation for collaboration be identified at future date, they will have problems.

With Portnov, there is no complexity. It is a clear cut case. Open and committed treason and support for russian genocidal imperialism.

When you are a smaller country fighting for centuries against a brutal genocidal imperialist population, you need to act in a manner that greatly reduces the incentives for high level collaboration.