That’s not something I know about, mind putting me in the loop?
In any case, I was sarcastic if that wasn’t obvious. There is good people among anarchists, as well as among those who aren’t. But not having rules make it way easier for the bad apples to get their way with it, as with them it requires a lot more investment and careful planing to break them.
Anarchism, like most other social organisation theory, isn’t immune to mass manipulation, coercion, or similar techniques used by the few to impose their view and interest to the broader masses.
sounds like you don’t know what the word sarcasm means. is the word you were looking for ‘flippant’? its a good word and I’m sad I don’t see it more, so I hope you did.
so yeah its not perfect? nothing is? but most criticisms of anarchist thought seem to just be describing the present as what-if, and most of the ‘solutions’ to ‘avoiding’ those involve ‘let’s just do that on purpose right now!’. including this one. the point is resistance and resilience, not immunity. also like human dignity and well being and flourishing and junk.
As far as I understand, Anarchism doesn’t mean no rules, it means no rulers. No hierarchy of people.
The rules would be set up in such a way to actively discourage individual accumulation of power as much as possible. But a system like that could still have rules, just enforced collectively instead of power being parceled out to individuals. I think there are a lot of practical ways you can try to reduce power accumulation, like term limits is a very obvious example that is a concept we are familiar with. Or like ways of reducing wealth inequality can also be seen as a way of trying to reduce hierarchy.
I don’t know all the theory, I honestly feel like that kinda shit isn’t always the most useful anyways. But there are obvious things we can do now to reduce hierarchy and they seem like things that would be good. Having an ideological stance that hierarchy is bad, and we should reduce it as much as possible… that’s Anarchism.
The rules would be set up in such a way to actively discourage individual accumulation of power as much as possible.
When the state nextdoor rolls in with tanks, aircraft, and warships, how do you push them back? Is the ‘collective enforcement’ armed with such weapons as well, trains together, and has a solid command structure to coordinate and fight back the invader? How do you organize the command structure of your military defense force such that it fits within the ‘collective enforcement’ model, without instantly devolving into a free for all?
Sucks to be a civilian or one of said militants in Afghanistan though. You die at much higher rates than your occupier and your people are completely at their mercy. Normally one would want to stop an invasion before it is an occupation, not just weather an occupation, while taking dizzying losses, for decades.
I mean more seriously the basic question you’re asking is just how an anarchist community would fight off an outside force, and that’s kind of a really complicated question, to ask, which probably doesn’t have that much to do with the overall structure of a country’s governance. If you want a more in depth answer, then the distinct advantage of a decentralized structure in that kind of context is the ability to be hardier, while maybe being less coordinated, caveat, this isn’t necessarily the case, or maybe being able to make snap judgements less effectively, which, also maybe is not an advantage.
We’ve also not really seen many peer or near peer conflicts in the modern era, with maybe the major exception being Ukraine. Everything else has been proxy wars waged by larger colonial powers, and there’s not any level of organization that’s going to really help out against drone strikes.
The larger thing that you’re maybe getting at here is that centralization and hierarchy is kind of an easier short-term gain specifically because of it’s authoritarian nature, so everyone kind of, is automatically more likely to lean into it. Especially at larger scales, as those larger scales kind of, select for those more authoritarian structures automatically. We’re more likely to have those power structures at large scales, basically. So we don’t have a whole lot of examples to go on, and especially not at large scales or from peer conflict. The things we see the most are anti-colonial struggles. I dunno, you could try looking at the ezln, but there’s not much good documentation in English. that I’ve seen.
first off, rigidly vertical command structures basically always lose to structures with more devolved authority. its a pattern borne out by 20th century warfare. this isn’t some fringe anarchist theory; you’ll learn this in a military academy. theres math behind why this works.
second: organized ≠ hierarchal. just because you can’t imagine what this would look like doesn’t mean there aren’t volumes and volumes about it, and history going back to at least the ancient world in a military context.
third: aside from extermination, which tends to put people opposing you on the same page; try a military occupation of a population with as many guns and as rough terrain as the american empire. it can’t be done. sure, maybe you take DC, but no way in hell do you hold Appalachia or Chicago, if you even penetrate in the first place. even Florida or Los Angeles would be a blood bath for any would-be occupier. it literally can’t be done. if you think otherwise, you’re missing multiple entire categories of things about how wars and armies work. if you doubt this, ask why Afghanistan and Vietnam aren’t us colonies right now.
what exactly is this argument you’re making? would it not apply to switching to democracy? would it not apply to moving towards liberalism? how come when it comes to going further left suddenly “no system is perfect” arguments come out as if better needs to be perfect
therefore you must put the few in charge without contest? compromise with tyrants? edit: except forgetting to negotiate for yourself, and being all in on team tyrant?
sorry I dont mean to sound rude, its just it always sounds like a christian standing up in the pews, proclaiming that the pastor is being corrupted by the devil, and declaring that he’s done with this blasphemous church, and he’s starting his own church (of the devil. but not in like the cool way, because he’s a christian)
it just sounds like an excuse to not try. and its not like there aren’t measures to take; forms of organization, social leveling conventions, etc.
you commit a genocide, you are no longer the priority. your victims come first. everyone else comes first. you are no longer human.
if they want to save you, your victims can do it. but literally every other person on earth gets falgsc before I offer you a grain of rice, or steer my car out of the way to avoid hitting you.
honestly, a policy where food etc aid is only allowed to these genocidal monsters through Palestinians is pretty reasonable. it would be a way to beat some humanity into them, but they must be allowed to die, so the Palestinian people’s goodwill is the only way they survive.
Never in the history of the world has grouping literally everyone of a particular group together has gone poorly, except for all the time. To say every Israel is culpable is factually untrue. Hold the accountable accountable.
so Palestinians. you choose to share the world with Palestinians rather than genocidal monsters who jack off about starting world war three. same, honestly. they seem at worst indifferent.
which means, unless you kill the monsters, there will be no more Palestinians.
No people who don’t want to eradicate others. Simple as that, I don’t want to share a world where people can call for the subjugation of any group, or say they should all be killed.
then you don’t want to share the world with “Israelis”. cool. were on the same page for the same reason. so, kill em all or they won’t stop, or kill every military age asult and then put them entirely at the mercy of Palestinians.
I don’t want to share the world with people who call for the eradication of others. Obviously missing the point on purpose. I don’t think calling for genocide is the answer to genocide. Your view is twisted.
You are wrong. Calling for genocide is wrong in any and all cases. Your view is twisted and abhorrent. Your want for Israel to be eradicated is no better than those of them that want Palestine gone. Hold those responsible accountable yes, but the way you look at life is quite sad.
I don’t think it materializes from nowhere, it materialize when people talk about removing that other group from existence. Not a joking matter. Genocide to “solve” Genocide is dumb.
that’s the thing. do Palestinian lives matter, or do “Israeli” lives matter? because they can’t both. the “Israelis” have seen to that, and since they have consistently made that choice with very little dissent over the past century+, I say they should be the ones whose lives no longer matter.
Israeli lives matter, as do Palestinians. Because they obviously both do and they both can. Why the quotation marks around Israeli? If you say otherwise, you are genocidal. Thankfully your opinion of the value of lives is as worthless as you deem Israelis to be.
when you do a genocide, when your entire national project and identity is the commission of genocide:
no. your life does not matter, except as a target.
when ending your life slows a genocide, your life does not matter, except as a target.
when ending your culture ends a genocide, because your culture is literally only genocide and atrocities and hiding behind all the Jewish people in the world so they take splash damage from your bullshit, maybe that’s a culture we are better off without, just like the Russian royal family.
Genocide is not the answer to Genocide, you know this. You cite an example that doesn’t remove every russian but instead goes after those responsible, yet you see content with the thought of every Israeli being Genocide. You know there is such a thing as Israel, because it exists.
so saying we should stop genocide is advocating genocide, because their culture is just so exclusively nothing else, it would be like what killing the buffalo was to the plains tribes?
that’s cool. that’s a culture worth preserving. I want to share a world with that.
well maybe if the fucking Americans stopped giving them top of the line military hardware, there would be other fucking options, but this is all that’s left.
they can’t be negotiated with, and short of killing or badly maiming literally every military age adult, nothing’s going to stop them-and we can’t just subdue them, because they have too many toys now.
also if we don’t, they literally start world war three, which they’re apparently fucking into
please tell me if you have another idea, besides “let the genocide continue”. one that hasn’t failed like twenty times already.
Dehumanizing Israelis to justify their deaths isn’t going to solve anything. Like with South Africa, international pressure and (at this point hopefully) intervention is necessary to force Israel as an apartheid state to dissolve and a new state with equal rights for all Palestinians and Israelis takes its place. Due to the Land Grabbing and violent settlers, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories are already a One-State Reality.
they need to be killed because they won’t stop killing any other way.
survivors need to be entirely at the mercy of Palestinians.
no fuck this equal rights. you don’t get to have equal rights with someone after Fucking genociding them.
that’s like letting most of the Nazis live after world war two, not killing Mussolini’s daughter, and every CSA slaver. it will come back.
you need to cripple and kill enough that they cannot possibly fight back, and then out everything about their existences at the mercy of Palestinians, or just kill the remainder. only two ways this ends.
I’m not prepared to be the kind of asshole to condemn a whole race of people. The majority of Germans supported Hitler and then the war ended and they’ve gotten a lot fucking better.
I’d be happy to accept any Isrealis that are willing to abandon ship.
if they already left; vet their shit, make sure they’re not still affiliated, and sure. dont hold the shit hole they were born in against them. but starting now, when they’re just afraid? nah. main lesson from world war 2 was we didn’t kill enough Nazis.
I don’t really care? they have been unwilling to stop for longer than I have been alive. they’ve been offered the moon,and turned it down, because they prefer genocide. they haven’t stopped. they haven’t had substantial internal strife or attempted revolutions or internal assassinations of particularly warmongery leaders.
their soldiers literally sing while they do atrocities, their prime minister says it, their citizens say it, their children say it.
Not a single joule of energy should be wasted attempting to preserve “Israeli” life. not ever. to do otherwise would be an insult to their victims. stopping this genocide and world war three must come first.
I dunno, maybe you think 1 genocidal pedophile life is worth global thermonuclear war. I guess agree to disagree?
Call it the the genocidal problem. The issues isn’t with Jews in general, just people who are carrying out and supporting the genocide. I would lump Biden in with them as well.
you saying theres a way to stop world war 3 without glassing that shit hole?
and stop saying Israelis are Jews. they’re not. they once rationalized an internal purge by saying ‘if you kill other Jews for political reasons, youre out’ to kill other Jews for political reasons, then did the whole white supremacist sterilizing of Ethiopian Jews. they are not. they do not count. and even if they did, Jewish communities ive spoken to feel, at best, mildly embarrassed by them.
Jews are an ethnic group, culture, and religion, but not a race. It’s a common enough misconception spread via the media. Also any given Jew is not necessarily all three.
The lesson from World War II is that war can only delay the spread of an idea, but not destroy it. Ideas have to be fought with other ideas. Killing Nazis only bought us time to think of better ideas, spread them, and deradicalize people. Thanks to conservative propaganda networks and social media, we’re on the verge of a fascist takeover. We are in an information race against fascists. The fascists are turning the US into a christofascist dictatorship, by controlling the narrative and driving the news cycle, not by killing anyone. We have to beat them in this race to stop them.
Yes, I am Jewish, but not Israeli. I assumed most people referring to Israelis as a race are referring to Jews a race. It seems weird to confuse nationality with race in the 21st century.
Many Jewish people hate Israel.
I don’t hate Israel, because hating Israel is more taxing to me than it is to Israel. I think Israel is an apartheid state that’s committing genocide and war crimes in Gaza, Zionism is a fascist ideology, the current Israeli government is dominated by fascists, and that the concept that we need a Jewish ethnostate in order to be safe is ridiculous. Israel needs to change radically and it needs to change as soon as possible.
I’m talking about Israelis, cut your equivocating antisemitic bullshit. talk like that gets people killed by idiots who can’t tell the difference, but know genocide is bad and Nazis dying is good.
we didn’t stop Nazism because we didn’t kill enough Nazis, on either side of the ocean. the fuckers who got social media in on it can be traced back to that. if we’d killed more Nazis then, we wouldn’t have these problems now.
who the fuck mentioned Jews here? I’m talking about Israelis, cut your equivocating antisemitic bullshit.
If someone refers to Israelis as a race I would assume they are confusing Jews, an ethnic group, culture and religion as a race as opposed to confusing Israelis, a nationality, as a race.
we didn’t stop Nazism because we didn’t kill enough Nazis, on either side of the ocean. the fuckers who got social media in on it can be traced back to that. if we’d killed more Nazis then, we wouldn’t have these problems now.
Even if we had killed everyone who was a Nazi, the ideas could be still be spread by people who are not Nazis and then internalized and adopted by a new group of Nazis. Ideas outlive the people came up with them and believed in them. The best that would do is kick the can further down the road, but we still have to deal with this problem eventually.
don’t think I referred to tfem as a race but I could have. I’m not super likely to bother scrolling up for a hezbarite though.
the ideas could have been spread by people who weren’t Nazis, but were I’m this actual extant timeline spread by actual Nazis.
american civil war was the same. every one of those slaver families needed to die. every adult, and possibly the children, if they weren’t adopted out (possibly to the people who should have got the property and would have done the raising if the slavers had won anyway). yes that’s technically genocide, but I’m saying it should have happened to some of my shitty ancestors, and I still think I’m right. that culture of keeping human beings imprisoned as chattel slaves needed to die, and because we left them alive; it didn’t.
don’t think I referred to tfem as a race but I could have. I’m not super likely to bother scrolling up for a hezbarite though.
I was referring to the poster above you.
the ideas could have been spread by people who weren’t Nazis, but were I’m this actual extant timeline spread by actual Nazis.
My point is that killing all Nazis wouldn’t have prevented Fascism from spreading.
american civil war was the same. every one of those slaver families needed to die. every adult, and possibly the children, if they weren’t adopted out
Killing all slave owners wouldn’t have stopped the Lost Cause of the Confederacy myth which is responsible for the confederate sympathizers we have today. The myth is an idea and can be spread by people who don’t own slaves.
killing all the Nazis wouldn’t have stopped fascism
hard disagree. it would have stopped. maybe somebody would have dug it up later and started it back up, but it would have stopped.
killing the slavers wouldn’t have
I met them. their grandchildren and great children, at family reunions. they worked hard to craft and propagate these myths. they were proud of it. expected their grandchildren to keep it up.
now, me noping out isn’t so much fix as those first couple generations did damage, abd that’s why I think they should have been killed. every single one.
hard disagree. it would have stopped. maybe somebody would have dug it up later and started it back up, but it would have stopped.
People who weren’t Nazis knew what fascism was. Fascists wrote books and gave speeches. Fascism would still exist in peoples’ minds as a concrete idea that can be communicated to other people even if no Nazis survived the war.
I met them. their grandchildren and great children, at family reunions. they worked hard to craft and propagate these myths. they were proud of it. expected their grandchildren to keep it up.
People who didn’t own slaves spread the myth as well. Killing entire families of slave owners would not have stopped this.
The fascists and confederate sympathizers of today aren’t necessarily direct biological descendants of those in the past. They are ideological descendants.
it might have been restarted later, but it would have stopped first
read and respond to this. read and fucking respond to this please.
people who didn’t own slaves
propagated it, but somebody had to do the initial push, and in telling you, from my own family, they’re proud of the major push and consensus manufacturing they accomplished, even well into the 20th century. this is not hypothetical, this is literally what I have seen and heard them admit to me and noticed them try to push me to continue the tradition. this is what happened, and open historical documents noting membership in the early kkk and dotc support it.
this happened. it was real. it likely still is real. atop denying history to spare fucking Nazis.
and its not just here. the old Italian fascists were mentors of the current Italian fascist leaders, including Mussolini’s family. the places the rat lines lead to tended to have fascist coups during the 20th century. modi’s explicitly fascist RSS (currently doing a genocide) was founded as a stay-behind by Nazi agents in the 30s.
kill. more. fucking. Nazis. all of them. kill all the Nazis. every single fucking one, or it will happen again. and again. and again.
it might have been restarted later, but it would have stopped first
Fascism doesn’t stop until everyone internalizes that fascism is a terrible ideology. And then keeps teaching that to new generations.
this happened. it was real. it likely still is real. atop denying history to spare fucking Nazis.
Killing people won’t kill their ideas. The myth of lost cause would still have been spread by non-slave owners. It just would have taken longer. People don’t have to directly learn about fascism from a 20th century fascist to become fascists. Even if every living Nazi, fascist, and confederate sympathizer dropped dead right now we would run into this problem sooner rather than later. Ideas and information are freely available on the internet. They circulate faster than ever before. If we don’t defeat these ideas then we will keep having this problem no matter how many people die.
it would have taken longer and killing slavers is no great loss. I also think it would have been less coherent and less awful, it wouldn’t have had money behind it, it would have been less sticky. I’m not sure it would have survived.
so theres a benefit but no down side to killing every last one.
Typically when people are saying Jews are a race, they referring to the idea that Jews are not White, as in they cannot be White. Jews can be White, but they can also be Black, Native American or Hispanic. Jews are not in a racial category that excludes them from being part of these groups. That’s what I was referring to when I wrote race.
That’s not really the main point, I was agreeing with the person I responding to and adding some clarification. It seemed to have distracted from the issue at hand.
Killing people isn’t how we stop the spread of fascism in the modern day. We need to spread information, for example, that fascism is a self-destructive ideology that will destroy hundreds of millions of lives and that the Republican Party is controlled by fascists. I think most people know that on lemmy, but there are plenty of people who will check into politics in the months leading up to the election and form their opinions then. A misconception I see on lemmy is that some people assume we can defeat fascism with guns alone. That isn’t going to cut it. We have to reach more people with true information before fascists reach them with misinformation. Once a person forms an opinion they are unlikely to discard that opinion when presented with new information in the short term. That short term can easily last until the election, so these months leading up to the election are crucial. edit: capitalization
If it has no scientific definition, it has no scientific definition. The fact that you can’t provide one is good evidence. The fact that the thing you are telling me to read says so is much better evidence.
Despite the centrality of the idea of “breeds” to animal husbandry and agriculture, no single, scientifically accepted definition of the term exists.[3]: 340 A breed is therefore not an objective or biologically verifiable classification but is instead a term of art amongst groups of breeders who share a consensus around what qualities make some members of a given species members of a nameable subset.
Apparently the whole thing. Either that or you don’t know what it means. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7925393/ you should tell these guys what they study and track don’t exist.
Still waiting for that scientific definition of breed. That link doesn’t have it and the thing you’ve told me to read more than once literally says it is a term of art, not scientific.
They track heritable disease frequency by race, which obviously exists scientifically being that. you act like 23 and me doesn’t exist. “race doesn’t exist” vs “DNA says this was a (whatver race)”
Humans have much genetic diversity, but the vast majority of this diversity reflects individual uniqueness and not race.
And
The question of the existence of human “races” now becomes the question of the existence of human subspecies.
… One definition regards races as geographically circumscribed populations within a species that have sharp boundaries that separate them from the remainder of the species (Smith, Chiszar, & Montanucci, 1997).
… A second definition defines races as distinct evolutionary lineages within a species. An evolutionary lineage is a population of organisms characterized by a continuous line of descent such that the individuals in the population at any given time are connected by ancestor/descendent relationships.
And
It is critical to note that genetic differentiation alone is insufficient to define a subspecies or race under either of these definitions of race.
You seem to have linked something that argues and shows the opposite of what you intended there, bud.
I think you might have just skimmed it. Throughout the paper the authors include examples of “race trees” which they argue have no places in scientific literature because they do not apply to humans.
I have an idea. Why don’t you quote the section that proves your point. If I can’t rebut you by copying and pasting context from the same paper, you win. Deal?
It’s ideology for these people. Lysenkoism all over again. Meanwhile the existence of genetic subgroups, however hazy and overlapping they might be, remains extremely relevant in medicine - which they’d also be quick to point out in different circumstances.
I get their motivation - the idea of there being 3-5 rigid classes of human that should be treated differently is ridiculous and sinister. But are there distinct genetic lineages? Absolutely, you can track human migration that way, it’s very interesting.
A lot of the disagreement seems to come from conflation of the word “race”, which doesn’t really have a firm definition anyway. To some people in the USA it refers to this strict division of humans into absolute categories, but if you’re not predisposed to think that way it’s just shorthand for ethnic or geographical heritage.
Globally, this heritage is something people still consider very important; whether rightly or wrongly is not for me to say. But that definitely lends an irony to the whole discussion. Being simultaneously obsessed with identity categories while claiming they don’t exist is par for the course nowadays, I think, at least in parts of the USA.
According to Templeton’s research, perceived differences in races are more related to cultural perceptions and biases than any underlying genetic reality.[5] For example, Templeton’s statistical analysis of the human genome shows that much greater genetic diversity exists between populations of chimpanzees than humans from different parts of the world.[3]
It think it’s debatable about how you define Races, but it’s also quite obvious that biological races exist. There are specific differences in the physical biology that separate the races, and common traits among them that identify them as part of the group. Skin color, hair type, bone structure, genetic predisposition to certain diseases, etc. Physical traits are passed from the parents to the children, and when the parents are of different races we get blending of the characteristics and so on. Some Native Americans even have different kinds of teeth than European-Caucasian descended folks do.
Basically it’s not something you can choose or change, it’s an immutable biological set of characteristics. I don’t know what “race” the Jews in Israel are exactly but I suspect it depends a lot on the region their ancestors are from. Many of them might even be the same “race” as Palestinians.
You want to reduce everything into simple concepts just to argue about them. Reality is not that simple, and that’s clearly not all that I said about the subject. There’s no need to make up your own version of “what I said” when what I actually said is still there in plain text to read in the past comments.
It think it’s debatable about how you define Races, but it’s also quite obvious that biological races exist. There are specific differences in the physical biology that separate the races, and common traits among them that identify them as part of the group. Skin color, hair type, bone structure, genetic predisposition to certain diseases, etc. Physical traits are passed from the parents to the children, and when the parents are of different races we get blending of the characteristics and so on. Some Native Americans even have different kinds of teeth than European-Caucasian descended folks do.
No, and you fundamentally misunderstand biology, genetics, and race.
In essence, per Robert Saplosky, race is a cultural construct, not a genetic or biological one. He has his entire Stanford lecture on human behavior including human genetics on YouTube. He also has several books explaining this. Here’s a link to a summary video: youtu.be/YVT5iIXdjek?si=jXKvfd3fUEdQcjMx
Just because you can reactively type people into races, doesn’t make race a real biological phenomenon. There are plenty of races that look like others, plenty of admixture that ruins your theories. Sickle cell anemia can exist in white people (people who appear to look white) who have black ancestry, but you wouldn’t know they have either sickle cell or black ancestry from looking at them. Because race ISNT genetics. There are people within the same family who are different races, one who is lighter and one who is darker, etc. And melanin production is only one small component of the cultural cues we see as someone’s race.
Again, it’s not biological and no real scientist would think that.
Do they all participate though? A coworker of mine is in Isreal right now caring for her mother, she grew up in Isreal and was staunchly antiwar. She’s once again an Isreali resident - does she deserve to die?
Do the three year olds deserve to die to? Do they deserve to be made orphans?
Please realize that you’re so far gone that you’re advocating for the erasure of a state… your stance is one that Netanyahu would applaud.
its not about deserving to die. its about going literally an inch out of your way to save one while stopping a genocide. which you shouldn’t. saying otherwise is an insult to their victims.
Oh FFS. This had better be an extremely limited response to Iran’s response to Israel’s bombing of an embassy. Here’s hoping it’s just the same type of symbolic attack that Iran made last weekend - all show and no intent. Just Israel refusing to let anyone else have the last word.
Anything more serious and things are about to become very messy and even more expensive. Although it would explain why Israel is suddenly arranging to get dozens of jets from the US in the last month or so. Lord knows they don’t seem necessary if the only goal is to keep blowing up Palestinians.
Although it would explain why Israel is suddenly arranging to get dozens of jets from the US in the last month or so
That’s just a quid pro quo kickback between the corporatocracy.
“We’ll channel more tax payer money through your military industrial complex if you let us continue with our nationalist ethnostate genocide… We may even start another gulf war and channel trillion$ more”
Au contraire, it was defense and very mild at that. If Israel can kill 40,000+ people because “wE hAvE a rIgHt tO dEfEnD oUrSeLvEs” Iran absolutely can volley some missiles in response to Zionist actions
It’s also extremely justified to respond to someone launching missiles at you. Are you really that much of an idiot that you can’t see how this ends or are you just arguing in bad faith?
Israel bombed their embassy first, full stop. What are you on about? Iran had a right to defend itself.
Bibi, who has never shown a modicum of restraint when there’s potential for bloodshed, isn’t going to change course until the US forces him to by withholding funding. Considering how Zionist Biden and 2/3 of Congress are, that ain’t happening, so buckle up for some real shit “leadership,” Jack.
Was that first? The embassy bombing was certainly before Iran’s counter attack but if you’re searching for justification then it’s not like Iran and Isreal were buddies before this. Iran has repeatedly funded Hezbollah launching rockets into Isreal and funded the Houthi rebels attacking shipping.
My point was that constantly retaliating is an unhealthy cycle and your take away was that “But actually it’s okay if it’s in retaliation.” Wut.
And Bibi funded Hamas, his (now realized) end-goal being to destabilize the region and provide cover for further Israeli violence and land grabs from the indigenous people.
I agree with you on tit-for-tat bringing about undesirable results, but you lost me on “Iran’s bullshit aggression.” Israel is 6mo+ in all-out genocidal warfare on innocent Palestinian civilians, and still maintains this stems from their “right to defend themselves.” Iran on the other hand exercised immense restraint, coordinated with western powers, and executed a highly telegraphed counter-offensive focused exclusively on military targets in Israel as an overly nice way to say “please don’t bomb our stuff.” In this way I think Iran’s counter-attack was in fact beyond justified. Unless you meant it was bullshit in that it was entirely orchestrated, but I doubt that was your intent.
Netenyahu, being the absolute child that he is, had to strike again anyway. This is in fact unjustified and unprovoked, but to use your own terminology it appears Iran will be the “bigger man” and doesn’t plan on further hostile action. Again highly coordinated with the west, in order to walk on eggshells around the unhinged Israeli government.
The fact of the matter is this: Bibi is a far-right war mongering zealot who needs to be deposed immediately. The US is despicable for providing him cover the way they have. Despite who’s in charge in Israel, they at least offer their citizens basic social safety nets like universal healthcare and paid family leave. America doesn’t have these things, yet it can afford to send Israel 10s of billions to continue murdering brown children?! Israel are warmongers, and America is shameful for backing them.
Although it would explain why Israel is suddenly arranging to get dozens of jets from the US in the last month or so.
Forgive what feels like a nitpick, but we should take a moment for wider historical scorn. WaPo at the end of March:
Last week, the State Department authorized the transfer of 25 F-35A fighter jets and engines worth roughly $2.5 billion, U.S. officials said. The case was approved by Congress in 2008, so the department was not required to provide a new notification to lawmakers.
Biden owns the fuckup, but it comes after all the shit Israel put the administrations of Dubya, Obama, and Individual 1 through, and after all the atrocities upon the Great March of Return and the other surges of conflict. The planes could fill another allies’ order, the MIC could get their warbucks, and Joey could have kicked the can down the road, but here we are.
You did ask a question that I attempted to answer… That does not entail in any way that I did not understand the other stuff you wrote nor that I dismissed it.
no? like I know France helped design the thing, so obviously they’re getting them, but I know Poland and turkey dont have them yet, and I dont think they’re going to soon.
the point is theyre not going to the people who serve amrrica’s military interests.
Poland waiting has little to do with politics and more to do with when contracts were signed. They only signed in 2020.
Turkey is trying to develop their own 5th generation fighter after getting kicked out of the f35 program due to being a leaky sieve sending data to the Russians. That’s on them.
By and large, the wait elsewhere is mostly to do with the bad reputation the program got before it was operational. Now that it’s all in the past and it’s proving to be an excellent fighter, contracts with allies are coming in faster than they can be produced. That’s the price of waiting.
both kind of the point anf completely missing the point;
there are NATO countries, including those on the border of an ongoing war they expect to join pretty soon, who dont have them. why the fuck are the kapostanis getting them? so they can start world war 3 better?
that’s why I’m fucking shocked. all biden has to do is just fucking… well at this point he needs to glass the shit hole, but all he had to do last month was stop.
That’s a fair point, no need to apologize for keeping me accurate. I had read and forgotten that detail honestly, because in my head I lump the two deals together - the other one being the new $18 billion contract for F-15s that Biden’s administration is seeking approval for currently. I think I mentally shorthand it to “arrangements for new jets going to Israel” but there is definitely detail involved as you point out.
We’re still trying to paint Biden as worse for Gaza than Trump huh? Like it or not, those are the two choices, so if you shit on Biden enough, you’re practically handing Gaza to Israel on a fake gold Trump-branded platter. Regarding Gaza, Trump literally said Israel should, and I quote, “finish the problem”.
dead is dead. there is no difference on this issue, the same as they probably like French fries about the same.
fuck Joe burden for not stepping aside and giving us a real shot at stopping fascism. i will not be voting for anyone with a d by their name ever again.
this is a post about world war three though, and biden’s making that one happen. I genuinely would have called trump for this, but biden’s nailing it.
wild how Iran launched missiles at Israel and then was struck by Israeli missiles… the Israeli missiles weren’t launched, though. They just sprang into existence above Iran
Obviously not but the wording make it out that Iran’s attacked is “unprecedented” against Israel, despite being retaliatory, and Israel didn’t “attack” Iran but rather “responded”. I’m certainly not implying Iran is “good” but journalism is already telling you who is “innocent”.
Right? Like we all saw that Iran was going to for tat, and their attack was pretty much neutralized. At this point Israel is just accelerating the conflict.
I don’t want to believe our media is biased either, but like let’s take a moment and remember that we’ve been told the reason Iran and the Taliban hate us is because we have and love freedom. Like seriously, take a moment if you were alive and conscious in 2003 and what messaging we got then. It’s so stupid.
I wish the EU would fucking invade the US already. Either put us out of our misery or save us, either way, it stops our leaders from spreading the evil and murder around the globe.
It is not illegal. You will only get publicly humiliated, have your house raided on bullshit reasons and if you get any government funding for anything you did, you can say bye bye to that. Especially if you are jewish and dissenting to the zionist agenda. Jews are disproportionaly targeted by these measures. Because nothing protects Jews form antisemitism, like targeting Jews that “stepped out of line” in the eyes of the pro zionist government.
I don’t have the link handy but I read that Jews make up about 1% of the population of Germany and have been the accused in about 30% of the cases of antisemitism, lol.
I don’t disagree with you there. Labeling people as antisemetic and a Nazi has been used as a weapon for a long time to target anyone that went against the Zionist agenda.
To drag the US into an Afghanistan-style quagmire conflict with Iran, something American evangelicals and far-right military gumbas have been chomping at the bit for since the Carter Administration?
We don’t want to go to war in the middle east. You are 100 percent right that some conservatives have been after that forever. Luckily I hope that as a nation we have grown past policing the world and being involved by sending troops. We can’t handle another war right now.
Just gonna leave it at some mysterious Jewish plot without going into a rant about space lasers or whatever the popular conspiracy theories are these days?
You can’t fire 300 drones and ballistic missiles at a country and not expect a response back. It was so over the top they had to respond. The response is so mild I think we can all step back now
Yeah most likely. The reaction to Iran’s strike was to underline that it was against military targets and that they wouldn’t assist Israel in striking back.
So as long as they don’t help Iran hit back against Israel, then yeah the reaction will be the same.
Listen, Israel has a right to exist, and part of Israeli’s existence is firing missiles at its neighbors, so maybe back off and stop being anti-Semitic about this why dontcha?
Please explain how Israel attacking Iran is Joe Biden’s fault? He said the United States would not support a retaliatory strike against Iran’s retaliatory strike. All the blame falls directly on Netanyahu and the Israeli government.
He’s failed utterly for 6 months to do anything to reign in Israel when their genocide is being funded by US taxpayers. He’s had 6 months to yank Netanyahu’s leash and he’s refused so the entire time.
This ENTIRE situation is a result of US foreign policy: Its a direct consequence of Bidens failure of leadership.
I think that is the point. So far Biden has apparently just said a bunch of words. Biden could actually do more than he is now. Instead, the genocide is continuing unabated, Israel continues to aggressively and wrecklessly escalate the regional tensions.
Come on genocide Joe, actually draw a red line and stick to it.
Well, the Biden Administration did not support it in the sense that they din’t send their missiles along and no US launch infrastructure was used.
They never actually said they were against it much less they would punish Israel for it.
The use of a “we won’t help doing it” fromulation in a way that can be misinterpreted as “we’re against it” so that they can have plausible deniability later when it turns out they’re not really against it is pretty standard doublespeak from the US Administration.
You must be fucking confused if you think Netanyahu is Joe Biden’s “attack dog”. The Israeli government has spent the last 40+ years successfully coopting the United States government.
What do you think those shifty mother fuckers would be doing in an election year if he came out against them? I agree they need to he brought to heel, but if you think that is going to happen given the existing externalities of global & US politics then you are living in a fantasy.
We aren't, which is why we remember that Biden is the first and only US president that allowed Israeli aggression to get to this point since the Nakba.
That's an extreme fringe position even within the current government. Just for starters, the land in Gaza is essentially worthless, with poor soil and worse water.
The enormous costs of this war to Israel's government and economy and the clear lack of a plan they had for both the war itself and still have for what's to follow afterwards indicate that nothing of this sort was planned or even considered.
He hasn’t done anything to stop Netanyahu when he has a position of unique leverage. In fact he keeps rewarding this behavior with more weapons and fighter jets.
Netanyahu takes most of the blame for being the guy but Biden has had a 100 chances in the last few months to pressure him to stop. Instead we’re shoveling more coal into the fire.
Down voters need to take a hike. Biden and Democrats (right along side the Republicans) have done nothing but enable and embolden Bibi’s genocide in Palestine, offering only lipservice and more aid for Israel while allowing Ukraine to flounder.
This is on Joe Biden. Not Trump. Deal with it you neoliberal & neoconservative apologists.
Downvoting an overly simplistic take should not be discouraged. I don’t think bothsidesarethesame is fair on Democrats who want support for Ukraine to go through.
Biden is the number on recipient of Israeli campaign contributions.
Bothsidesarethesame is actually the case here. Bidens throwing the election in because he refuses to budge on his foreign policy positions. He’s a neocon. Its like people apologizing for Biden have forgotten the previous 20 years of US history.
If Biden wants to be different, he actually has to be different.
According to Catherine Croft, who served as Ukraine director at the U.S. National Security Council, Trump had viewed Ukraine as a corrupt country and believed it should pay for the weapons itself, Foreign Policy magazine reported in 2019.
As well, a condition was placed on the sale of the Javelin anti-tank missiles: They could only be stored in western Ukraine, away from the conflict, to be used as a deterrent.
Then, in 2019, Trump ordered a freeze on a $400-million package of military assistance to Ukraine that had been approved by Congress. The freeze came days before Trump’s phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, where he pressured the Ukrainian leader to investigate Joe Biden, a presidential front-runner at the time, and his son Hunter Biden. It was this request that led to Trump’s first impeachment.
The aid, though, was released on Sept. 11, only after a whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s pressure on Ukraine had surfaced and a few days after Democrats in Congress opened the investigation.
According to Catherine Croft, who served as Ukraine director at the U.S. National Security Council, Trump had viewed Ukraine as a corrupt country and believed it should pay for the weapons itself, Foreign Policy magazine reported in 2019
The US governmenrment policy is ukraine is a corrupt country. That’s why Biden did what he did. Why Obama Wouldn’t sell weapons at all and why we’ve excluded many weapons to transfer.
My dude the training and arming of Ukraine by NATO started happening before Trump came into office.
Trump tried blocking the Javelins in 2018. He wasn’t for it. He was convinced ultimately to follow longstanding US foreign policy that started before he got there.
Yes he approved it. 1 scenario where he got out of the way. Neat.
As well, a condition was placed on the sale of the Javelin anti-tank missiles: They could only be stored in western Ukraine, away from the conflict, to be used as a deterrent.
Yeah… okay, and threatened to withdraw support unless he helped him politically. Really lovely.
After the Republican Party, largely led by Trump, have stymied aid to Ukraine and generally been pro Russia.
The motherfucker was for all intents and purposes outed as a Russian asset during congressional hearings.
Now Trump makes a politically pragmatic statement (backed up by no action or calls for his party to turn and support Ukraine) and suddenly we’re supposed to think he’s on their side?
Neuromancer you have got to be one of the dumbest motherfuckers to exist if you think you’re fooling anyone.
Bruh, what you don’t seem to be fucking noticing, is that the extant option is doing all of the above.
Your blind support of Joe Biden is an endorsement of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and signals approval of Israels widening of the conflict to include Iran and Syria.
Yesterday Biden vetoed Palestinines recognition by the UN. Not Trump. Biden.
Bid n is bad enough that Trump is a non factor at this point and you are arguing in favor of both genocide and a regional war in the middle east.
Your the one who don’t seem to realize what’s at stake.
“As everyone agrees, Ukrainian Survival and Strength should be much more important to Europe than to us, but it is also important to us! GET MOVING EUROPE!”
Don’t worry. EU institutions without all the countries gave more than USA to Ukraine. If you additionally consider the small EU countries, it’s also a lot. So don’t worry. EU gives enormous support, even though USA is the largest donor as a single country.
Usually when I read “both sides are the same”, it’s a blue conservative like you trying to make people critical of the Democratic party seem unreasonable.
Both sides are capitalist and conservative, but there are differences for sure. Dont you want more differences?
If you wanna really shut up those people bitching from the sidelines, the best way to do so is to put them in the game! Force them to show us how to do things since it’s so easy and they have it all figured out.
Switching away from first past the post voting allows people to vote for who represents them best while still counting their vote against those they dont want to win. Just search for videos on FPTP voting if you want an explanation on how and why the spoiler effect exists.
Electoral reform is possible in each individual state (for now), we dont need federal reform! Maine and Alaska have already passed electoral reform.
Republicans are moving to make alternative electoral systems illegal in their states. Why would you want to use the same voting system republicans prefer?
More political parties means a higher percentage of the population is represented by their choices in the voting booth. More people involved in the electoral process, more people engaged.
Its a win win win all around for not just the people, but also for the democratic party. More people voting means more democratic votes. The numbers dont lie. So what’s the hold up blue states? Electoral reform needs to be the number one priority for every democrat. No more waiting.
Consider starting a campaign to change how we vote in your own state! Force our representatives to compete with fresh outside ideas. We deserve the best representation, not excuses.
No, the Great War in the Fallout universe happened in 2077. The 50s revival was just the fashion at that time.
Just like the 50s were a time when technological advances were spreading rapidly, the Great War happened during the time of technological breakthroughs like personal assistant robots and fusion power.
Ok, that does explain some things. But it seemed to me like the technology is all kind of slow and bulky. The mech suits, and the doc was able to outrun those turrets. I thought that was because it was the 50s when the war happened, but I guess not?
Who would win; tens of billions of dollars worth of US-built air defence systems, or whatever surplus scrap the Chinese or Russians have flogged to Iran recently
ive been saying it for a long time, but you make a choice every day: do you want the possibility of world peace, or do you want to draw ‘protocols of the elders of zion’ fanfic on your maps.
I’d be careful about considering Israel’s defense as a complete success, or at least an easy one. According to Israeli sources cited in this article, achieving that result cost Israel as much as $1-1.3 billion USD, and I can’t find out if that includes the price of interception by other countries - a lot of the heavy lifting was done by the USA after all. Given that they say that’s the cost for Israel specifically, I don’t think it does but I can’t find sources. Regardless, it’s a big bill for an attack that everyone knew was coming days in advance and gives a sense of the economics involved in an open war several times more intense.
It’s also incredibly significant for future missile attack that all their radars turned on and all those intercept assets are revealed and clocked and analyzed. Assuming a video going around portrays what it claims, Hezbollah even zeroed in and missiled an Iron Dome launcher site during the attack.
Counterbattery in general is fucking hard. If the proxy can pull that shit off, you had better expect the state actor to take even greater advantage.
Source? Because the articles I can find such as this one from Reuters say very much the opposite: “Although Israeli officials have given no details, according to calculations by a number of analysts, the price of Iran’s attack probably amounted to $80 million to $100 million — but cost Israel and its allies around $1 billion to repel.”
Here’s another analysis: “Experts have calculated the cost of the April 13 attack for Iran at $100-$200 million — perhaps five to ten times less than what Israel spent to repel it. That means a huge recurring bill if Iran were to keep attacking.” They go through the math of it and cite specific weapon systems costs.
I’ll wait to see if you can back up your assertion, but I’m quite skeptical at time of writing.
Key word relative. The US did the vast majority of the heavy lifting. $1B is 0.0625% of the US military budget. $100M is 0.4% of Iran's, nearly an order of magnitude more costly relatively, more than one if it's on the high side.
That would only be a fair comparison if the US was willing to devote it’s entire military budget to these actions the way Iran can. It would also assume that the US can (and is willing to) spend 1 billion dollars + costs required with overseas operations every time Iran spends 100M on missiles. Iran broke the top 15 for military spending a few years ago so they’re going to have decent capabilities when it comes to being a pain.
It also ignores the cost of dealing with Iranian proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthi, which has Pentagon officials worried as detailed in this article “A $2M missile vs. a $2,000 drone: Pentagon worried over cost of Houthi attacks.”. I’m definitely not cheering for Iran, but I don’t think your total budget vs. total budget comparison is true to the actual economics of a US defense of Israel in the case of sustained attacks. Or even relative cost given that the US has it’s budget spread across many more pursuits than this region.
To add to that, every commitment to defending Israel while it is provoking and escalating things in the region, means less resources to Ukraine. So if the western European countries are committing more to helping Israel in its bullshit, that shifts the power balance in Europe more in Putins favor.
So it is not only about the relative cost to cost and relative cost to economy/budget but also relative from budget to budget.
And for bonus points, it’s basically just a list of every possible approach, starting with diplomatic approaches at the top:
diplomacy
military intervention
regime change
doing nothing at all
It’s “all going to plan” in the same way “guessing all 52 cards in the deck until one of them is right” is a magic trick
Actually given your comment, it’s more like someone else listing all the cards until it’s right, and then just saying “tada” when they say the right one
I just provided a link that shows sometimes those guesses have merit. But continue to dismiss those trying to provide background information. I’m sure it won’t lead us like it did in Iraq or to WW3.
Edit: Let’s look at the careers of the signees of this foreign policy document:
So, this paper isn’t just for fun. These people are CIA, ambassadors, advisors and served in administrations. This is the shit that gets things done in Washington. To dismiss it is negligent.
No, these people are former CIA, ambassadors, etc that have pivoted to a think tank, which is common. There is a revolving door just like in any ecosystem of industries/entities that overlap. Also, the document addresses multiple strategies.
I never said this attack is in the document. I’m only showing that the Warhawks in and out of think tanks in the government have been contemplating and planning for a war with Iran.
The military and think tanks plan for everything. But no, they have no plans for Iran. Just lots of former government officials earning 3 figure salaries for funsies.
Yes, every professional field has adjacent areas of operation. Geneticists aren’t going to work in astrophysics and truck drivers aren’t suddenly going to child education conferences. That’s what the revolving door refers to. Shocking, I know.
Because you make the revolving door sound like a nefarious scheme and I’m telling you it’s the most common thing for professionals in similar fields to intermingle.
The issue isn’t “providing background context,” it’s presenting an advisory document of all the possible approaches to a diplomatic scenario as being some sort of conspiracy, rather than the result of some people literally just doing the job they are paid to do.
By just linking an enormous document and presenting it as if it were some massive revelation, you’re basically just relying on people not bothering to read the document and accepting the inference that the document actually just says only the thing that has happened.
Yeah, sure. War is spontaneous, and not planned at all. It’s not a revelation or conspiracy, it’s years of groundwork and planning. I displayed that war with Iran has been in the works for at least a decade. You- it’s a conspiracy.
Add comment