Netanyahu’s address will be presided over by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Ben Cardin in Harris’ absence.
Harris’ meeting with Netanyahu is separate from his expected meeting with Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden who stepped aside as candidate for the 2024 elections and endorsed Harris, her aide said. Biden is recovering from COVID.
Politico reported that Netanyahu also requested an in-person meeting with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump but the former president has yet to agree.
It’s fucking insane how little money it’s taken Israel to buy off our entire government.
He should be handed over for war crimes the second he sets foot on US soil, but there’s no chance of that happening
The money is important, but it isn’t the most important part of the equation. The value of having a nearly 100% dependable ally in that region trumps almost every other possible concern from a political perspective.
Not a great sign, if she’s going to go out of her way cozy up to him it’s back to Uncommitted for me. Certainly don’t want to, but I guess we’ll see if Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with this.
Nope. I’ve been supportive of Harris up to this point since her stepping forward as potential nominee. I genuinely hope she can demonstrate that she’s against the genocide.
There will be two candidates to choose from who are going to collectively get 90+ percent of the vote. You can vote for the lesser of 2 evils or waste your vote on third party.
Do you know nothing about Project 2025? It will cause more genocide. Genocide in your country.
Do you want to see Latinos carted away and queer kids committing suicide after being forced into “conversion therapy?” Because that’s exactly what Trump will bring.
How about all the other people? Millions of people. Fuck them? Because she’s just having a meeting with the perpetrator of a different genocide on the other side of the planet? A genocide that Trump will also perpetuate and has already said he would make worse?
So essentially your refusal to “support genocide” in another country will make that genocide worse and add more genocide to the mix.
But hey, this is all about sparing you from potential harm, right? Fuck all those illegals and homos.
You dismiss the idea that the humanity of Palestinians is equal to your own. Its ok for them to die under the bombs and weapons we supply to Israel, as long as it allows us to avoid our own domestic discomfort. We differ on this fact.
I’m part of the groups that will probably be most immediately effected by a Trump admin. That fear will not push me to support a genocide.
If the American system is broken and corrupted then we as Americans should be facing and reconciling those problems ourselves, not transferring our own potential discomfort and suffering overseas to kids that are out of sight and out of mind.
It’s about millions of other people. People whose lives you apparently don’t care about. I guess they’re too brown or too queer to be part of that whole ‘humanity being equal’ thing.
Yes, it is. It’s cowardice and self-interest. You’re not going to be able to flip this.
You can’t on one hand claim you care about the hypothetical suffering millions while arguing for ignoring a very real on-going genocide funded by your representatives.
“Just let Democrats get away with funding the slaughter of Gazans as long as we can skirt around the consequences of our corrupt politics here.”
Maybe this will help; imagine the Gazans are white Americans. Ignore that they’re brown and live behind some imaginary line “somewhere else” in the world and instead pretend you see them as equal to you.
When you take the perspective that they’re just as human and deserving of life as any of the other domestic groups you’re talking about, you realize that Biden is, at this very moment, doing a “Project 2025” of his own. It’s just against human beings who happen to be 7,000 miles away instead of closer to you.
If Harris chooses to continue Bidens policy on this, I can’t vote for her, exactly the same as I can’t vote for Trump or Biden or any other zionist.
Do explain to me how it’s self-interest when I am cishet and white.
And again- the “real ongoing genocide” will be made worse by Trump. You just obviously don’t care about that. And if you don’t feel like voting for either of them, just stay home and don’t vote. Why waste your time or energy?
the “real ongoing genocide” will be made worse by Trump.
Why are you putting this in quotes? It’s an on-going genocide.
And there’s nothing Trump can do to make what’s hapoening in Gaza any worse. Israel is doing exactly as they please. There us no more room to push the needle. The fact that you think there’s room for “worse” makes me think you don’t actually understand what’s happening there.
Even if Trump sent troops to help with the killing it wouldn’t do anything, because it’s a full-blown genocide already and the only thing Israel needs to continue it is what we’ve bern giving them.
You understand the implication of putting something in quotes. It’s not my subjective opinion what’s happening in Gaza. It’s real. No quotes are necessary, same as if we’re talking about cars you don’t need to put “car” in quotes when you talk about them as if it’s some controversial term.
Again, I am cishet and white, so how is this self-interest?
Because Project 2025 will effect you too. The groups you’re talking about (lgbt people, brown and black Americans) have already been suffering the consequences of right-wing oppression and neoliberal negligence. The difference now is that those consequences are threatening to bleed over into the comfortable bubbles of neoliberal middle class and it’s freaking them out. Suddenly it’s this big priority that we all must pitch in together, while for the last 40 years those minorities gave been told they need to accept “slow progress” and “generational change” so that the corporate status quo can continue on without disruption.
What the fuck.
Do you think a Palestinian child cares if it’s an American pulling the trigger or an Israeli? Does it make a difference in the result?
I used quotation marks because that is how punctuation works.
Also, the groups I’m talking about have not yet been marched into concentration camps like Project 2025 has planned for one and implies similar issues for the other.
U.S. troops on the ground would make the genocide worse.
You don’t seem to understand the concept of a bad thing being made worse. As if Britain aiding the Nazis in the Holocaust by killing all of their own Jews would somehow been equally as bad as what actually happened. Either that, or you’re fine with the Gaza genocide being worse and more genocides planned in the U.S., one of them explicitly stated by Project 2025 is a good thing so you can say you told us so.
So which is it- more genocide isn’t bad because lots more dead people doesn’t make genocide worse or you don’t care if there’s more genocide because you can gloat afterward?
I’m rejecting your notion that the genocide can be made worse as baseless. You can’t fill a bucket that’s already full, regardless of how much more water you pour into it.
It’s full scale genocide. Nothing is inhibiting Israel, Biden is giving them everything they want already.
They have enough guns, they have enough bombs, they have enough soldiers, they completely control every entrance into Gaza. They control the water, the food, the stopping of aid. They are shooting people indiscriminately in the streets, in hospitals, bombing them in safe zones, pushing them into mass graves.
They have destroyed all the hospitals, all the schools, all the homes, all the infrastructure. They’ve killed all the press, they’ve bulldozed all the cemetaries. Children who’ve lost their entire families areliterally laying down, hoping to get run over by a car or killed.
That’s how hopeless the genocide is in Gaza right now. Don’t talk to me about vague “worse” options, as if that will give me a reason to ignore what’s being done.
You can’t actually offer up anything except “Maybe the American-made and delivered bullet that kills a Palestinian will be shot out of a gun held by a US soldier instead of and IDF soldier”. That means nothing to me, it’s immaterial to the real concern.
So if the hundreds of thousands of Jews that lived in the UK were also put in the ovens, that wouldn’t have been as worse as the six million who already were.
Palestinians, apparently, yes. That’s the whole problem.
You want me to believe it’s ok to off-shore the consequences of our political failings, I just don’t accept that as a viable way towards changing the problem of zionism in the Democratic party.
You just told me saving one life in the holocaust wasn’t worth it. Is saving one Palestinian life worth it? Is one Palestinian life in 2024 worth more than one Jewish life in 1939?
You want to believe that the IDF is held back by lack of personnel, but they’re not. They are not being held back from anything they want to do. Putting US soldiers in Gaza does not add to their capacity to continue the genocide exactly as they wish.
Zionists keep trying to convince everyone that Trump would be worse on this, which is simply a way of refusing to accept the reality of just how bad it really is.
You’re not understanding what I was saying (or you’re continuing to try to intentionally misrepresent what I was saying).
Using your analogy, you’re the one saying 6 million deaths is acceptable as long as it doesn’t get to six million and one. You’re trying to simultaneously say we need to accept mass slaughter to avoid mass slaughter, it’s nonsense.
The “six million deaths” are happening in Gaza right now. They are actually suffering and dying, but you’re telling us we should accept that since you’re afraid of not being able to kick the political can down the road and kerp pretending everything can be fine.
It doesn’t matter, I can’t make you understand why rewarding the Democrats for genocidal fascist policy is a losing strategy when they’re suppose to be the alternative to genocidal fascists. You either let yourself understand it or you don’t.
No, what you said was that it doesn’t matter if Palestinians are being genocided only by Israel, or simultaneously by Israel and The USA.
The latter results in significantly more civilian deaths in Palestine. To you, these lost lives don’t matter, because genocide is apparently equally bad no matter how many people die…
Which is just to say that “genocide” in your worldview is just a buzzword you use to attack people with, and not an actual atrocity that ought to be opposed.
No, what you said was that it doesn’t matter if Palestinians are being genocided only by Israel, or simultaneously by Israel and The USA.
That’s what you want me to be saying, not what I’m saying.
The latter results in significantly more civilian deaths in Palestine.
This statement keeps being repeated, but it’s simply baseless. Nothing is holding Israel back, they are slaughtering and starving just as many people as they want, right now. And you are arguing for people to accept that.
I’m protesting the slaughter of Palestinians and saying it’s unacceptable and that I’ll never vote for anyone who is pro-genocide. You’re arguing for me to accept it as inevitable that democrats continue supporting genocide. And somehow you think that translates into me holding your pro-genocide position. It’s nonsensical.
You’re desperate for other people to accept your justification for supporting what’s going on in Gaza, you can’t face how sick that is. You want to believe you’re a moral person, but you’re literally the cowardly towns folk who sees the plumes of smoke from the camps over your village and tells everyone who mentions it to shut up because “it could be worse.”
This is exactly why Netanyahu is doing what he is doing. He wants Trump. He knows the US doesn’t/can’t lose an ally in the region and he forces the administrations hand, which makes them look bad to their supporters. Those supporters stop supporting… and then Trump gets elected.
Don’t let Netanyahu play you. Don’t fall into his trap. Vote in local elections for people opposed to the genocide. Reach out to them and express it is a huge, maybe the only, concern of yours. That is how you bring change.
Removing yourself from the conversation doesn’t make the problem go away.
There are millions that just don’t vote. Never have, never will. So their stance has no impact. It is worse to be willing to use that vote and then throw it away on a single issue that won’t change, no matter the candidate (and honestly in this case one candidate there is a chance vs one where there is zero chance for Gaza and things get worse for Ukraine).
We’ve effectively been given the Trolley Problem and, instead of playing, you’re choosing to walk away and whatever happens, happens, as long as you feel good.
It can be endorsing, yes. There’s a reason so many democrats are not attending – going to Netanyahu’s speech lends him legitimacy and a greater perception of support.
World politics is about negotiation.
Stopping the genocide doesn’t require negotiation, you withhold aid until they stop.
But as I keep saying, Harris will need to find way to signal that her meeting isn’t in support of Netanyahu. If she goes in and is giving him hugs and holding his hand up in unity and that kind of bullshit, that’s a really bad sign. It can go either way, I’m just stating that I won’t support genocide just because it gets a fresh face on it, Harris needs to prove her commitment to holding Netanyahu to account in a real, material way.
There’s no such thing as “ultra genocide” and if there was, it’s already happening in Gaza and it’s being fueled by a Democratic administration, not a Republican one.
Uh huh, and how realistic do you actually think that is? Israel is going to allow Trump to drop a nuclear bomb on their border…
The fact that the retort is “It could be worse, they could drop a literal nuke on Gaza” should be an indicator that what you’re arguing as an acceptable alternative is indefensibly extreme.
I am just so relieved that most people seem capable of understanding nuance.
By all means figure out if you can somehow give us a better candidate. But when it’s time for you to actually do something real, remember to play the hand you have.
Having different values from you does not mean they don’t understand nuance. They’re not stupid. They just have a moral boundary that they refuse to cross: supporting genocide. If the lesser evil involves voting for a politician who provides military and financial assistance to a genocidal regime, then I would say that the only morally correct course of action is revolution.
No, a working class revolution. A general strike. Whatever you want to call it when the working class refuse to capitulate to the demands of the ruling class. And if necessary we will defend ourselves, but violence is not the goal. The goal is to remove the ruling class from power, by any means necessary. By refusing to provide for them, and to follow their demands, they lose their power, and alternative structures for society without imbalances of power or systems of oppression can be formed.
I hear you. I feel that. But just remember to play the hand you actually have as best you can. Sometimes the situation sucks but it’s still up to us to make decisions.
I support your diversity of tactics, I just don’t think the American people are there with you yet… So keep on pushing us.
Sure, I get that too. I completely understand why people would’ve voted for Biden, despite all of the glaring reasons not to. I sympathise entirely with your situation, it’s really a shitty decision to be left with. I just think it’s unfair to say that people who disagree with your decision are, necessarily, not understanding the nuance of the situation. They probably all understand why you’d make your decision and for the most part don’t really have a problem with it. Most of us just want an acknowledgment and an understanding that both sides are fucking horrible and that we need to find a third solution, whatever that may be, in the long run, because voting for the least worst option will only work for so long, and we’re rapidly running out of road.
The presidency isn’t the right place to dig your heels in to force a massive cultural shift. Those candidates are arising from the most average aggregate American opinions, it’s how they got there.
From the top down, a nudge is all we’re going to get. Even if you win all your policy positions, that will probably still be true.
If we’re successful at winning hearts and minds, better candidates will arise from us, that’s what representation is.
Local politics is so ripe for disruption when it comes to expertise and integrity, hell even the US house is like a kindergarten playground with bottom of the barrel officials.
Meanwhile we need to play some defense, especially in the court appointments. We need to focus on our communities, but at the same time not giving away an inch more than we’re forced to.
Even when you think you’re losing, there is still always one best possible thing that you can do. Maybe rolling over is it, if you believe D and R are the exact same thing, but I happen to think there’s a lot more at stake here in the long game.
The medium is the message. Americans view their politics as a vote they do every four years. Only by making them accept the fact that voting will never accomplish the change they want to see, will they ever be willing to wake up to the fact that they need to do something beyond voting.
You can vote for fascism now, or fascism later. You can’t vote for no fascism. I agree that fascism later is the better choice, but you have to take that choice knowing that you’re not helping solve any problems, you’re just doing harm prevention.
The wealthy elite will never, ever allow any change that challenges their hegemony to happen through the political system, the media, the courts - all institutions are firmly under their entire control.
Only by acknowledging the truth can you do something about it.
In her place, Trump would be lauding how great he thinks the US-Israeli alliance is and commit twice as many resources to Israel in the process. Acting like Harris is anywhere near as bad as Trump on the issue of Palestine is either being grossly naive or intentionally deceitful, while not voting for her just because she isn’t pro-Palestine enough is counter productive when Trump is far less so.
Again, we haven’t seen if she is as bad as Trump yet. Biden is, we know that, and it’s a large part of what made him unelectable. If Harris picks up the genocidal mantle she’s inheriting that same unelectability as far as I’m concerned, it would be a politically stupid move.
We have to see now if Harris will take deliberate steps to distance herself from the genocide support of Biden. Meeting with Netanyahu is not a good indication, but it’s yet to be seen how it plays out.
I’m anti-genocide. Biden’s policy on Gaza is fascism. It’s the same at its core as Project 2025 or any other far right agenda. He’s funding the slaughter of innocent human beings.
I’m not far-right, so I won’t support it. Hopefully Harris chooses not to as well.
You’re not dumb and you’ve heard it a thousand times I’m sure, but you live in a country with FPtP voting and is therefore a two party system. You know that not voting or voting third party in the general election only benefits Trump. The ONLY chance of things getting better in Israel is if Kamala wins, even if she doesn’t do anything, because the alternative is things get worse. Those are facts.
Damn near everyone is anti-genoocide, but most of us realize the reality of the situation. Kamala may make it better over there, Trump will make it worse, and there is no third option. As mentioned there’s one option for your vote that isn’t pro Trump. Voting for Kamala is the best option for Israel regardless if you think she’s doing good enough for your beliefs.
If you disagree, tell me how you think any other vote will help Israel. If it’s purely a moral choice, explain how you think it’s morally better to turn your back on the problem knowing full well the facts of FPtP, vs voting for the best option that may make things better. The possibility of betterment is better than no possibility at all.
In the worst case scenarios, personally I would rather say, “I voted for Kamala hoping she would improve the situation in Israel which didn’t happen” instead of, “I voted third party / didn’t vote at all, and Trump made it worse in Israel”. At least in one situation, there’s a chance.
The election system is first passed the post, that doesn’t mean that’s where our political agency and influence ends – we just proved that with Biden stepping down. We created a third option.
A large enough number of people said “We will not vote for a zionist” and it had a real world effect on the behavior of the party. That never would’ve happened if people just accepted that Biden was running again and there was nothing we could do.
Damn near everyone is anti-genoocide
This is not true. There are many Israel supporters, even here on this thread.
If you disagree, tell me how you think any other vote will help Israel.
I’ll assume this was a freudian slip and you meant help Gaza.
The only hope Gaza has in regards to the US is if we actually work to hold our own politicians to account. Republicans are a write-off, but Democrats are suppose to be the more moral party that has a baseline on human rights.
That notion needs to be enforced by voters, Democrats need to be held to at least the most basic of standards.
When we vote for an out and proud genocide supporter we move the Democrats further from reform that would help Gaza. If we vote for a pro-genocide dem it’s the exact same to the people in Gaza as us voting for a Republican, and it has the added effect of signaling to the party that voters will accept genocide support from Democrats.
It should be unacceptable.
In the worst case scenarios, personally I would rather say, “I voted for Kamala hoping she would improve the situation in Israel which didn’t happen” instead of, “I voted third party / didn’t vote at all, and Trump made it worse in Israel”. At least in one situation, there’s a chance.
And if she signals support for Netanyahu during the visit, I would rather say that I voted against a future of continued genocide support for the Democratic party.
You’re correct, I meant Gaza, or improve the situation in Israel.
It wasn’t pro Palestine protestors that got Biden to step down. It was the pressure from his declining mental state. Policy didn’t have anything to do with.
I do stand by my comment that the majority of people are anti-genoocide. If every Jewish person in America was pro genocide, that would still be a minority of people.
I still don’t understand how with all of those facts, you could possibly justify not voting Kamala when it seems your single issue is this particular issue, not that it’s not significant. There will be one of two outcomes in November, Dem or Rep. Unless Kamala does something exceptionally unhinged before the DNC, the candidates will be Trump or Kamala. One will 100% be worse for Gaza. Not voting, voting third party, or voting Trump are all the same thing in reality.
All of this ignores the fact that it’s a much more complex issue than yes or no.
100% pressure from the debate. I didn’t hear a peep from the Palestine vocalists for weeks leading up to his announcement, only his debate performance.
So the fact that Uncommitted votes across multiple swing states added up to more than the margins he won by in those states in 2020 had no influence.
I think you know that’s not true. His debate performance was the final straw but wouldn’t have been enough on its own. The dems were calculating (wrongly, I think) that they could ignore the anti-genocide demographic as long as they made up for it with right-wing independents. The debate happened and the combination of losing both groups of voters made it impossible to ignore reality, even for the neoliberal establishment.
Biden being ousted was a referendum by voters on his support for the genocide as much as it was about age.
I’ll jump in here, though I know that everybody is dug in, and this is akin to poking the hornets’ nest. Anyway, it’s a matter of differing ethical calculations. On one side is utilitarianism, which says that if your choice is between Nazis who will murder 5,000,000 Jews, and worse-Nazis who will kill 5,000,001 Jews, then it’s a moral imperative to support Hitler for the sake of that one person.
And that’s… not wrong. I can imagine that many people would make that call, if it were some sort of send-a-time-traveler-to-kill-Hitler-or-not scenario, when the outcomes are fixed. But imagine deciding to support Hitler and personally aiding the systematic murder of 5,000,000 humans when the alternative is speculative, still in the future, when it’s not assured. I think a lot fewer people would be willing to do it. How many more people would the hypothetical worse-Nazis have to kill to make that an appealing choice?
Everybody has got a moral line after which we can’t abide cold, utilitarian calculations. Maybe some people would help produce the Zyklon B on the prospect of saving one life. Maybe some would only do it if it was required to save humanity from extinction. Probably a lot of people would do it to save themselves. (Hello, 1930’s Germans!) That’s getting off-topic, the point is that everybody has a line, and some of us would just refuse to aid the Holocaust.
Furthermore, the reality is not nearly so black and white as it is usually framed here on Lemmy. We don’t actually know what a future dementia-addled President would do. He has the attention span of a toddler. He’s not a strong manager and has a lot of power-hungry underlings (like Vance); his administration might resemble a bucket of rats each scrambling for the top. We don’t know how the world would react to anything he’d do. Bottom line, it’s speculative at this point.
And on the other side, the usual framing casts Democrats as fixed in their positions and imperturbable as the faces on Mount Rushmore, or at least boxed-in politically. They’re not. President Biden has already felt the heat and slightly altered his position on Israel in a couple of instances. In fact, while we could change and abide their support of genocide, they too could change at any time to just simply not support genocide. They could even frame it (accurately, as I see it) as tough love, protecting Israel from itself and assuring its survival long-term.
That’s why we pressure the people actually in power now, who are the ones supporting genocide right now, because that’s democracy in action. Yes, to be fair, it might result in a worse outcome later, but that’s far from assured, and in the mean time, you’re telling people not to even try to stop evil.
Wow, seems like that crystal ball of yours is in excellent working order still. How do you keep it working so consistently for so long? Is it the rock polish?
Genocide is not a “single issue”. It’s every issue. No, I will not “come on” and accept it as part of the party platform. If Dems can’t stop themselves supporting an active genocide they’re politically and morally useless.
Who ever israel kills is a terrorist! Don’t you know that by now. The fact that neither nominee is willing to stand up to Israel is the reason we need to take our country back.
Project 2025 mentions Trump’s name 300 times. Officials from his administration were involved in writing it. It’s a plan to replace public servants with “Trump loyalist” - which Trump calls “destroying the deep state” but is actually know as “Unitary Executive Theory”, aka a dictatorship.
In 2018, The Heritage Foundation said on their website, that two-thirds of the previous “Mandate for Leadership” they wrote for Trump had been passed into law. They’re a big part of how the GOP sets policy when in office, dating back to the Reagan era.
If Kamala blows this meeting she will lose any momentum she has. She needs to be firm with them about ending their war. His speech to congress was pure propaganda to rile up the zealots.
If Michael Lee will not hold corporations responsible for their crimes, then he should be removed from office and put on trial for his complicity.
It is clear that the only justice to be had in this world will come from the working class dismantling the institutions that protect the ruling elite and stopping these assholes from causing any further harm.
I have no idea if that framing is outrage bait — like, who gives a shit about hideous industrial blight when people’s homes and a national park are being destroyed — but also, what horrors are unleashed when an oil pipeline meets a wildfire? It sounds like it’d be pretty fucking bad.
Also, I get protecting the waste treatment plant. Firemen have it hard enough without having to trudge through actual hot shit. (And it might be flammable too. I do my best to avoid learning what happens after a toilet gets flushed.)
TL/DR: I’m totally ignorant of what happens when oil and shit meet fire but I’m guessing it’s bad.
I mean, we all knew it was quite easy, but I still think that it’s journalistically valuable to go through with it to see, and show how easy it actually is.
Maybe. When Reuters publishes such a thing it just makes me wonder what crazy new law they are trying to gin up support for. As they say "When authorities restrict one chemical, suppliers and traffickers just switch to another." It worries me to imagine what kind of "solution" they might dream up for that problem.
I think that assuming that editorial decisions are never influenced by financial interests would be naive, but they’re such a big organisation that covers such a breadth of topics that it would also seem foolish to assume a douplicitous intent behind every story. It might just be journalist covering a currently relatively widely discussed topic.
Also, Reuters generally does quite well in remaining relatively neutral in their coverage (though that impression might of course just be based on my biases).
In this particular case, Reuters seems to be pushing the narrative that there’s a Border Crisis.
The dominant players in the illicit opioid trade – the Mexican cartels that manufacture most of the drugs and smuggle them into America– have been the subject of detailed reporting over the years. Now, as the first news organization to buy and test fentanyl’s essential ingredients, Reuters has penetrated the hidden sub-industry that makes the cartel operations possible: the international supply chain of precursor chemicals.
Nearly three-fourths of those caught attempting to smuggle fentanyl into the U.S. since October 2022 were U.S. citizens, and they brought in more than half of all fentanyl seized by U.S. authorities, the officials said.
I just find it funny that they said they used the Internet to buy it, so what did they do, put it in will call just this side of the border and drive to pick it up once it’s safely inside the country? No they used the USPS the biggest drug trafficker of our current time.
I don’t think you know what clickbait is. Clickbait means burying the, usually nonexistent, lead in order to bait views.
Ex. “Here’s how drug dealers make millions” and the content is just a long drawn out version of “they buy them online for cheap and then sell them to people” without any actual info on how that happens.
It’s not clickbait when you conduct a journalistic experiment and publish the literal result as the headline, and the content is an actual documentation of the process you went through in detail (or as much as is safe to publish). That’s just called journalism.
Well, producing illegal drugs seems to be generally rather high risk, high reward. You’d also need a lab, possibly employees, a distribution network, and might encounter potentially rather violent competition, though, so I’d say there might be a few more cost centres other than the raw materials.
The Reuters reporters didn’t make fentanyl, had no intention to do so, and arranged for safe destruction of the chemicals and other materials they purchased
I mean… the article says the seller was located in China and using a pseudonym to communicate over Telegram and accepting payments in cryptocurrency. All to ship precursor chemicals in packages disguised as electronics. I wouldn’t exactly be surprised if the seller didn’t have a return policy.
reuters.com
Oldest