pandapoo @ pandapoo @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

273

Joined

2 yr. ago

You're the type of liberal who actually believes Dubya is a good man, or a better president than Trump.

Nevermind that he killed over a million people in Iraq.

Trump is a malignant tumor, no doubt.

But so are people who campaign alongside Dick Cheney.

Don't assume that the majority of people who vote for Trump, are MAGA.

Many, if not most, are the same as many Biden/Harris voters in that they hate both candidates, and are voting for who they view as the lesser of two evils.

As I'm a Lemmy user, you can safely assume I'm not one of them, but the point stands.

But, if you're talking about people who have gone full on MAGA insanity, well they probably got there somewhere between 2016 and 2020, so there's not a a ton of new converts to deal with.

And even with then, they're the minority of a minority.

Of course, if someone is of the opinion that anyone who votes for Trump, no matter the reason, must be excised from their life, well that's their choice, but I kind of pity them.

Trump is not Hitler. He's too lazy and stupid to be Hitler. Let's not pretend that voting for Trump is the same as supporting Hitler, it's not.

He's a piece of shit authoritarian, but on the scale of American Presidents, the areas where he deviates the most from the norm, is how stupid and crass his corruption and racism is, not that he was corrupt and racist.

No, I'm referring to back channel reports where Iran was relaying something along the lines of the "acceptable targets" where they would not retaliate, or at least not escalate. Including certain types of military bases and facilities.

I don't believe the IRGC headquarters was included on that list, but as it's "proportional" to targeting Mossad HQ, I think it's possible they could lump it in with the other acceptable strikes.

That is, assuming that reporting was even accurate, and if it was, that they'll extend additional restraint for the IRGC strike.

Again, if that reporting was correct, and if this attack was more or less in line with it, I think it's extremely likely that the reasoning would be that the US government applied real pressure for the first time during this conflict.

However, that is a lot of what ifs, and assumptions, and it's probably just as likely, if not more likely, that they're all shit.

Guess we'll see.

That might indicate that this really is a proportional response, the kind that Iran has already signaled they would not retaliate against.

By giving the market the weekend to confirm that Israel has not significantly escalated over Iran's attack, it could very well temper market movement. Especially if it's confirmed they did not strike any energy infrastructure.

Of course this is israel, so unless America behind the scenes is actually applying pressure for once, they could decide to strike all of their oil facilities tomorrow.

I guess we'll see soon enough.

I can see it now. This great AI mediator will reach the consensus that Eric Schmidt is correct. We shouldn't worry about meeting our climate goals, we should cook the planet faster to accelerate AI development.

Eventually of course, the AI will save us.

Now some of you might think that's a terrible idea, from bad actors, that simply suits their own greed.

Don't worry. The new Google AI wouldn't leave us without a backup plan.

That backup plan? If plan A fails, simply reduce human population by 35%.

Concerned about who will get picked for population reduction? Don't worry, the AI has it covered...

The situation in Haiti is directly attributable to Western powers, specifically France and America...

You don't have to pretend the gangs and their violence aren't real, in order to acknowledge the historical realities of how Western powers have fucked that country up beyond belief. A tradition that has continued into the modern era.

The YPG is not the same as the PKK. Kurds and Kurdish militias aren't a monolith...

Unfortunately the USA has classified the PKK as a terrorist organization, so no, it is highly unlikely they coordinate much, especially involving Turkey.

I agree that the person you're responding to is wrong, and pretty dim, but that doesn't mean you should counter their bad takes, with possibly even worse ones.

Of course, I never said otherwise. But there is a big difference, politically speaking, between providing K2 tanks and anti-personnel drones, then ballistic missiles intended for strikes deep inside of Russia.

This has nothing to do with South Korean capabilities. I'm well aware that they are a premium first world arms exporter, and high tech weapons manufacturer.

As Americans we like to joke about Russian threats of retaliation, and how we aren't worried about it. There is truth to that, at least enough truth that I think restrictions on our weapons platforms should be lifted, or at least eased.

That's what I mean when I say South Korea is not America. They do have to consider the ramifications and implications about how they approach something like enabling deep strikes into Russia. For that reason, I am skeptical they would provide weapons for use inside Russia.

I never said they wouldn't provide weapons to be used inside Ukraine, but that is different than providing weapons to strike deep inside of Russia.

South Korea is not the United States.

South Korea is highly unlikely to provide weapons for deep strikes into Russia.

For that matter, the only countries that would likely provide that weaponry would be the USA, UK, and maybe France.

But probably just the USA, as both the UK and France have significantly less secure and defensively sound positions relative to the United States, both physically and militarily.

But you could see capital flow from any number of countries purposed, or repurposed, for what Ukraine is requesting.

The cartels have a long and storied history of not just employing former soldiers, but even being formed by former soldiers.

But yes, if this was really 19 KIA narcos, and zero casualties for Mexican military, there was clearly some lopsided aspect to the engagement. Whether it was luck, training, or tactical competence, I don't know.

Part of me is envisioning the narcos were all relatively close together and attacked some military convoy or vehicle that either had an M2 mounted, or armored vehicles with gun slits, and they just got mowed down.

Putting aside the wide range of political considerations and subjectivity that goes into the decision-making process that each country has when they decide who to consider terrorists, or not, I'm not sure I understand what your point is.

Are you saying that because Russia doesn't list the PKK as a terrorist organization, that means Russia is behind this attack?

Not really, because it involves condensing a lot of white papers on the topic of nuclear strategy.

The policy itself is referred to, at least colloquially, as Israeli Nuclear Ambiguity. While that covers a lot of aspects of Israeli nuclear strategy, you probably want to look for papers that deal with how Israeli Nuclear Ambiguity and the US Nuclear Umbrella work together to impact nonproliferation in the wider region.

The WWII allied strategic bombing campaigns are nothing close to what occurred here. The comparison is at best, ilconceived, but at worst, intentionally disingenuous.

This company manufactures weapons to sell to their government for a profit, which are then used to kill a particular ethnic group. That means it's a part of their military industry, and as such is a legitimate target.

Terrorism does not require a non-state actor, I don't where you got that definition from. Terrorism is any attack that is strictly against civilian non-combatants, for the express purpose of achieving a ideological or political objective. This was an attack on a military contractor who is actively profiting and engaged in this specific conflict.

A very lopsided conflict that Turkey has been engaged in for decades, so for Turkey to cry foul about this, and decry it as terrorism, is particularly loathsome.

Legitimate military target. It's a military contractor and weapons manufacturer, whose systems are used to kill members of the group who likely attacked it.

Considering this company manufacturers military platforms that are used to spy on and kill Kurds, it was probably the PKK.

Is it terrorism to attack military facilities and military contractors...?

This company manufactures drones and aerial platforms that are used to to kill Kurds, or at minimum, members of Kurdish militias.

If the Kurds had the capability to launch an aerial bombardment of their production facilities, we would recognize that as a legitimate military strike, of a legitimate target, but they don't have those advanced capabilities.

If they followed executives home and murdered their families, okay, terrorism... But you can't call this terrorism, while cheering on Ukrainian drones strikes on Russian industries, inside of Russia.

There's actually a very good reason for this, and it benefits everyone, including anti-zionists.

For them to publicly acknowledge it, would force the hand of many countries in the region to develop their own programs, which could result in an uncontrollable nuclear arms race in the wider region.

There's a lot more game theory and realpolitik involved on the subject then I care to delve into on a comment, but there's no shortage of white papers walking through it that anyone is free to read.

So, speaking of someone who is looking forward to Israel's upcoming demographic and economic implosions, I am still very happy they haven't publicly acknowledged their nuclear arsenal.

Bitcoin was never meant to be legal tender, and it still isn't.

The fact that it's now a regulated commodity is pretty antithetical to its original purpose, but still, it doesn't make it legal tender.

But setting all that aside, you're right, monetary controls are pretty important tools of a nation state... And your alternative is what? A digital gold standard based on Bitcoin....?

That idea is so idiotic, that I can't even start to write out the problems with it, because I wouldn't stop.