There isn’t that much risk to killing someone relatively obscure. People die in the USA every day. Either from murders or from accidents. Point a might have been true in the past, but the modern NSA can distinguish rising internet celebrities with unwanted politics early.
In a scenario where he’s completely truthful, that means that the USA delivered their conditions. Iran accepted those conditions. And then the USA withdrew from their own proposal, and now Iran is doing what? Calling every 5 minutes with new concessions? Is it a 150-point treaty now?
Pretty sure this is called using human shields. Random hotel guests are now unknowingly sleeping in military command centres.
In case it’s too small to see, the third country that voted against is Israel.
that’s literally what Zionism is
Not really, most zionists aren’t Jewish
Zionism isn’t apartheid favouring Zionists. Then you could just say you support it and get all the privileges. It’s apartheid favouring Jews. At least on paper, since they exclude non-white Jews.
Labour can be shit without being “controlled” by Zionists.
Labour is clearly controlled by Zionists. Zionists doesn’t mean Israelis, it means Zionist. Keir Starmer is the current leader of labour. So it’s “controlled” by him. I can’t actually visit this page to see if the quote is real, but supposedly “He told Jewish News:”
I do support Zionism… I absolutely support the right of Israel to exist as a homeland…. I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.
(Page I found the quote on: https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/starmers-zionism-explained)
Even if you aren’t convinced from all his Zionist actions, surely this signals a Zionist ideology.
And this only accounts for 0% of their launching capability! Imagine how many missiles they’d be launching if the Epsteineers hadn’t destroyed 100% of their military.
Being completely passive and cold and ignoring the suffering of those around you is still better than actively inflicting suffering.
Would London have fewer missiles it would need to defend against if the UK didn’t help bomb Iran? 🤔
Probably someone tipped them off that the kids are writing “IOF”
Reads like theatre to me.
Who cares about the other guy? Every USA politics guy is the same guy. This lady included. People seeing through the pink washing is a mild victory and worth mild celebration.
Hell I’d imagine the war would be over pretty darn fast if the ukranians wanted it. White flags, surrender, get captured to protect themselves if their government is making them fight by intimidation.
Your comment is pretty reasonable if you do a quick fact check with the resources that Google or DDG gives you. But you should be careful to separate “Ukraine” with the specific people within Ukraine who live in the Donbas. Some quick factors to consider with your polling article. And I don’t blame you for not knowing to pay attention to this if you haven’t followed this conflict closely.
The poll is from before the civil war. The people in the Donbas were happy with their autonomy (They had some autonomy from the rest of Ukraine) and national status in 2014 and prior, because the sources of grievances weren’t yet fully established. After this they had to endure shelling and terror attacks from openly Nazi militias with de facto support from the new government. That changes your mind.
In your link, you can see that among the ethnic Russians (the majority of those living in the Donbass), and those in the east, support for joining the Russian Federation, and other types of pro-Russia sentiments are higher. Again, this was before the coup and suppression. 31% wishing to merge with another country with no incentive is in my opinion very significant. Can you imagine how this poll would look in your country asked about your neighbour?
But even after years of shelling, the people of the Donbass didn’t want to become Russian citizens, they wanted their own state, and that’s what the breakaway republics fought for.
Now after even more years of fighting, it’s obvious that isn’t an option, and so the question they have to weigh is if they want to be governed by Ukraine or Russia. Ukraine has stood by, and even aided the worst people terrorising them. Ukraine has spread extremely strong anti-Russian (not the state, but the ethnicity and language and culture and traditions and history) rhetoric and laws, and anti-Soviet rhetoric and laws. Meanwhile Russia has, from the view of many everyday people currently living in the occupied territories, treated them fairly, protected them and died for them. Russia listened to them diplomatically when they accused the Ukrainian government of genocide, and promised to recognise the breakaway republics as sovereign nations. The fact that this is in Russia’s benefit, or if they made promises they knew they wouldn’t have to keep isn’t that important.
Hell I’d imagine the war would be over pretty darn fast if the ukranians wanted it. White flags, surrender, get captured to protect themselves if their government is making them fight by intimidation.
All of this to say, the soldiers fighting aren’t from the cities they’re fighting over.
This seems extremely desperate. ISIS is stretched super thin, how are they supposed to have capacity to help Israel?
whose own wife was killed by ISIS
This might be a contributing factor. Iran is the primary actor combatting ISIS.
Trump has started a war of choice against a country that’s willing to use terror as a weapon
You bombed a school on the first day because a statistically higher number of their dads were in the military. You’ve done nothing but terrorism towards them for decades.
They don’t give a shit about Palestinians. They only support Hamas.
Did you confuse some names? Iran and Hamas aren’t allies. Iran supports Palestine and Palestinian resistance, but they’ve always been hostile with Hamas and were on opposite sides in Syria last year. A common criticism of Iran is that their support for Palestine is ineffective or a farse precisely because they try to give it to everyone else before Hamas.
Pigs aren’t sacred animals. You’re allowed to mention them. You aren’t supposed to eat them, but that rule is less strict than for example, you shouldn’t throw away good food because you fancy something else. The reason we hear so much about pork being forbidden in the west is because among cultural muslims, not eating pork is a very easy rule to follow while being somewhat visible.
I disagree with it being a defense for Mamdani. Mamdani is not unknown, and his rhetoric is getting less radical as he’s increasing in fame-derived protection. Rather you should take what Truly said to mean that he was vetted as this type of person before he was allowed to become influential.
In the USA, liberal democracy was legitimised on a framework apartheid, following public lynchings, following a genocide and cattle slavery. The optics in the USA have always been vile, and yet their PR is able to dictate the narrative. Even right now they have more political prisoners than anywhere else, yet the average liberal wouldn’t label the governance as “oppressive”.
There has been a period of fewer political assassinations in the USA. (Or they’re better at hiding them). We can safely presume they found lower risk and higher return strategies, but that doesn’t mean we can infer the risk was ever high.