OP is known tankie just fyi. Doesn’t justify US or Ukrainian actions but make sure you understand that the reason for posting this isn’t out of any actual concern for human beings. They’re also peddling covid conspiracies
Yeah that’s a silly article. Strange that a supposed “tankie” would post something that pushes the Chinese lab leak conspiracy though, especially from an outlet run by an NYT liberal like Bari Weiss.
The people that don’t support either side of the war and want to end it as fast as possible through peace talks are evil tankies.
And the bloodthirsty monsters that want to prolong a pointless war, arm Azov Nazis and kill as many people as possible with illegal inhumane weapons that scar generations are freedom-loving liberals.
Seems like the tankies are the more reasonable ones in this situation.
want to end it as fast as possible through peace talks are evil tankies.
Surrender == the end of Ukraine. There’s 0% chance of Russia honouring it for any meaningful length of time. They’ll see it as a weakness of Ukraine and they’ll just build up their forces again and attack. Any legitimate peace deal HAS to have the condition of Russia pulling out of all Ukrainian territory otherwise it’ll completely legitimise nations to start wars to take land for themselves. Russia loses nothing by withdrawing. And you 100% know this, which is why tankies keep peddling it - they can claim to be on the moral high ground by saying “we want peace! everyone else are bloodthirsty monsters!” but in reality they know it’ll just lead to more violence and genocide. Imagine calling the Allies blood thirsty monsters in WWII because they didn’t accept a peace deal with Nazi Germany because they wanted it to end as fast as possible.
Nobody wants bloodshed. Ukraine didn’t ask for this war. But they’re not going to give up and let Russia get away with a land grab.
Seems like the tankies are the more reasonable ones in this situation.
If by reasonable that you want Russia to win this war then yeah, sure.
This isn’t a children’s movie, there is no good guy in this war.
No one fucking wins, if Azov ‘wins’ then Ukraine will become even more of a Nazi shithole and a husk of an economy as the US calls in all its debts. If Russia ‘wins’ then it won’t be much better off either.
Nobody wants bloodshed. Ukraine didn’t ask for this war.
Than advocate for peace talks instead of grinding more Ukrainians and Russians into paste, you bloodthirsty ghoul.
But they’re not going to give up and let Russia get away with a land grab.
See? You do want bloodshed. You care more about dirt than human life.
There are only two outcomes of this war: A bloody long battle where innocent people get thrown in the meatgrinder regardless of which side comes out on top, or we get both sides to stop fighting and do peace talks so they can compromise and stop the killing as soon as possible. Nothing good will ever come out of this war. It needs to end as soon as possible to stop the bloodshed. The concern here should be stopping the loss of life as soon as possible, not caring about lines on a fucking map. For supposedly being pro-Ukraine, NATO sure loves killing Ukrainians.
otherwise it’ll completely legitimise nations to start wars to take land for themselves
Have you been sleeping for the last decades? There were plenty of wars. The US didn’t stop them, in fact, the US started a bunch of them, and more were started by US allies, or waged with US help. The US supports illegal occupation (“taking land”) all over, too.
So is there actually any norm anyone adheres to? Seems to me the actual norm is “don’t do anything the US doesn’t like”. It’s got nothing to do with starting wars or taking land.
If we’re supporting capitalist Russia the same way NATO tools are supporting Nazi Ukraine then where are our comments saying we should send money and weapons to Russia to defeat the Ukrainian ‘orcs’, then? Show me where these pro-Russia comments are, I’ll wait.
Get real, none of us have said anything in support of modern capitalist Russia. We’re communists ffs, would we really support the thing that killed the Soviet Union? Use your head.
Next, you’ll tell me that people against the war on terror in the Middle East were on the side of the Taliban.
This does sound like appeasement. If I buy a book, be it a copy of the Koran, 50 Shades of Gray, or anything else then it’s my property and I should be able to do with it as I wish. If someone else gets offended, that shouldn’t be my problem.
What do you think of “no burning any books” That way it’s not about catering to a religion, and if you burn a book in your home who’s really gonna stop you
Because they are using it to incite violence and hate. I’m big on the fuck all religions bandwagon but burning a religious text in front of said religious group is just being a dick.
We tell people they can’t do stuff with their property all the time, if it’s affecting their surroundings negatively as is clearly the case.
It’s also always the same book that gets burned, there’s clearly a heavy undercurrent of xenophobia. You wouldn’t be asking this question if it was a Torah instead.
There would be a justified outcry if a Torah was burned in front of a synagogue. The instigators would quickly be villefied and called Nazis. At the minimum, no one would be actively defending it.
It shouldn’t have to be against the law, but people are abusing to the point of starting riots. It’s disturbing the peace. I lump this in with following people and screaming racial slurs constantly at the top of your lungs. Freedom of speech only goes so far, I’m okay with banning clear hate speech and similar actions.
It makes no difference to me if someone is burning a Torah, Koran, Bible, or any other religious text, as long as it’s their property they can do whatever they want with it.
I think we’re placing too much emphasis on the person being provocative and acting like a dick and not nearly enough on the people who resort to violence over these provocations.
What about burning crosses on someone’s lawn, or flying Nazi flags? Lmao, they could just not burn the damn book. Usually, people being dicks don’t have a army of people coming to their defence.
Obviously you don’t care, you aren’t the one being personally attacked so you can just overlook it. But if this happened in a vaccum, you wouldn’t be defending the Nazi burning a Torah infront of a synagogue yet here we are.
Look, I hate the policies in the middle east as well, but I’m able to differentiate between individuals and governments. This is Muslim hate and nothing else.
You should stop trying to misrepresent my position, it doesn’t help you at all.
If an asshole is trying to get a rise by burning things the worst thing to do is to give them what they want. Where I live we have an old guy who regularly flies the confederate flag. He’s a sick old fuck who only wants attention, or better yet, a chance to shoot someone if they try and take the flag down. What can be done?
The only solution that makes sense is to ignore the loser and not give him the attention he so badly needs.
Why can’t trans people just grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?
Why can’t women just grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?
Why can’t jews/muslims/insert group of your choice grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?
See how fucking stupid you sound?
Equality means equality and we shouldn’t be selective about enforcing it. If a group of people are offended by something, grow the fuck up and stop doing it. Period.
What are you on about? Religion is a mental illness forced on children through abuse. No one is born with it. It’s not a choice. Why should these violent maniacs dictate policy for normal people?
Please name some instances when a trans person or woman has thrown a violent tantrum and ended up killing more than ten people. These issues are far from being equal or even comparable.
It did and it was the last few lines of my comment.
“Equality means equality and we shouldn’t be selective about enforcing it. If a group of people are offended by something, grow the fuck up and stop doing it.”
The rest of the responses to my comment have been a combination of bad faith arguments and deflections, which is why it’s not worth responding especially when people have their minds made up.
If a group of people aren’t going to stop harassing another set of people just because they belong to a certain religion, it’s incumbent on a government to step in and pass legislation that prevents/discourages it. I’m not sure why this is confusing to literally any sane minded individual.
I partly agree but this is about personal responsibility. If someone is trying to provoke you, your reaction is entirely your decision. Someone burning your holy book didn’t “make” you retaliate. You made this decision yourself and should own the consequences.
It reminds me of the rationale for requiring women in some countries to cover their faces, lest the sight of an uncovered female face “makes” the men rape the woman.
Why can’t free speech absolutists just grow up instead of throwing irate tamper tantrums on forums over being asked to show a modicum of respect to other people?
I’m by no means a free speech absolutist, but I have to side with them on this one.
I will show a modicum of respect the day they show they’re taking ANY measure to actually try and stop violence, and stop sending and carrying out threats. And I believe it’s of utmost importance that we don’t change our laws BECAUSE of those THREATS.
Who? Be precise, please. The kind of Muslims who react to the burnings by announcing that they’re going to gift free Qurans? Those kinds of muslims?
And I believe it’s of utmost importance that we don’t change our laws BECAUSE of those THREATS.
Over here we do have laws against revilement of religion – not blasphemy, not disagreeing, but revilement. They were introduced after the 30 year war to make sure both Catholics and Lutherans would cool it down.
You don’t make people less irate by stoking the flames. Stop believing in such nonsense. What you have to do is take away the fuel.
Burning an item be it a flag or a book is a quintessential form of free speech. It’s a clear way of expressing discontent towards an idea.
Controversial speech is the most important kind of free speech. If we only allowed speech we agreed with society wouldn’t advance and grow.
Ideas like ‘Women should get to vote’ once were controversial and that expression might have been met in an incendiary manner by it’s opponents, none the less that speech was important to protect.
If you only support free speech for ideals you agree with you don’t support free speech at all.
But not all speech is protected speech. The same should be true here. Like as an extreme example, should the KKK be allowed to burn a cross outside a black person’s house?
On that black man’s lawn? No. On their own? Knock themselves out.
Like I said if you draw the line at the ends of your own beliefs you don’t believe in free speech. I have enough faith in the general public to come to the correct (read: not the kkk’s) conclusion on that matter.
Let them speak, and the world will hear their points don’t have merit.
I have enough faith in the general public to come to the correct (read: not the kkk’s) conclusion on that matter.
Then I would say you are incredibly incredibly incredibly naive, to the point where I don’t think you’ve actually put any thought into it, or a purposefully and wilfully ignorant of all the very blatant and obvious examples where the opposite has happened. Including the very example I gave of thr KKK, as well as antisemitism in the 20th century leading to nazism and concentration camps. Or how about how we’ve gone from nobody caring about trans people to them having their rights denied across several states. Or how about vaccines going from routine healthcare to a massive hot topic because people pushed it as an agenda.
Do you actually have faith in the general public? Or is the whole “Let them speak, and the world will hear their points don’t have merit.” Just the canned response you’ve been given to justify this fetishism version of free speech?
I never suggested that those changes would be instant. You point out concentration camps, racism, & antisemitism as counterpoints. But they are more widely accepted to be wrong today then they’ve been historically in no small part due to their opponents speaking out against them.
I’d counter do you faith in yourself to make the right conclusion when presented all the information? Have you never changed your stance? If you have what makes you better than the general public?
I get this argument, I really do, but it’s very much the same thing as “free speech absolutism” that the right uses to justify doing whatever they want.
Yes free speech is important, but certain things should not be protected.
Yes doing what you want with your property is important, but some things should not be protected.
If you’re using either right to call for violence, escalate violence or intentionally goad people into violence, you should not be protected imo.
You declare “should not be protected” but don’t provide any justification, that’s not a persuasive argument to me.
Where does it end? If burning only certain books is now illegal, what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet? If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
This is appeasement and it won’t stop just by creating one law.
You declare “should not be protected” but don’t provide any justification
I would think the argument speaks for itself, but i forget what kind of people im arguing with so ill give you the full justification.
Violence is bad :. advocating for violence is bad and inciting violence is bad :. speech that intentionally does either should not be protected.
is that better?
Where does it end? If burning only certain books is now illegal, what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet? If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
This is just a slippery slope fallacy.
what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet?
Is there any reason to other than to offend muslims? Does that offence have any value to anyone? If an act has no positive value for anyone society or good reason for someone to do it and a large portion of society doesnt like it, then personally I would not care if it was banned.
If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
Obviously not, because a persons right to exist as they are supersedes someones right to not be offended and gay people dont exist and hold hands for the sole purpose of offending muslims.
Its actually really easy if you’re not being purposefully obtuse to try and prove a point.
speech that intentionally does either should not be protected
No speech, just the act of burning a book. Try and stick to the topic at hand.
If an act has no positive value for anyone society or good reason for someone to do it and a large portion of society doesnt like it, then personally I would not care if it was banned.
Who gets to decide that? You? You’re advocating for going down a very dangerous path here. Any wannabe authoritarian starts by silencing dissent because protests “have no value”, “there’s no good reason”, or “the majority are against it”.
This is just a slippery slope fallacy.
It’s absolutely not. You’re being incredibly naive if you think passing this law will be a solution to this problem. There will always be further demands.
Obviously not, because a persons right to exist as they are supersedes someones right to not be offended
But a person’s right to do what they wish with their own property does not?
Its actually really easy if you’re not being purposefully obtuse to try and prove a point.
No, you’re just not thinking of the implications of this law, you’re pro-appeasement.
No speech, just the act of burning a book. Try and stick to the topic at hand.
This would be protected under free speech. Speech doesn’t only include things spoken when we use these terms. I don’t know if you’re being purposefully obtuse or actually ignorant of this information, but I’m providing it either way so there isn’t an excuse.
Most of the time speech is protected, which includes many things like protests and things like that, not just speech. Sometimes it is not. For example, it’s questionable that the speech Trump gave before the January 6th riots are considered protected speech or are not protected because they were calls to violent action.
Who gets to decide that? You?
What don’t you get about this. The court gets to decide, and their decision is based on how the law is written. We’re not just saying random people getting offended get to decide. None of this is a weird process that hasn’t been done before.
It’s absolutely not. You’re being incredibly naive if you think passing this law will be a solution to this problem. There will always be further demands.
The slippery slope falicy is when you start at one point and then it moves to an extreme without any reasonable way to reach that extreme from that first step. Having a law that limits burning certain books in a fashion designed to encourage violence without having a purpose has no relation to banning public displays of affection.
But a person’s right to do what they wish with their own property does not?
Not totally, no. There are plenty of things you can’t do with your property. For the US: If you live near other people’s property, you can burn your house down. If there’s a residence you can’t legally fire a firearm within a certain distance of it (though this often isn’t obeyed, especially in rural areas where literally no one else is around). You can put up a cross and burn it because it’d be hate speach (most likely at least, but it’d be up to the court to decide. If you’re not from the US, this is what the KKK did.) There are tons of rules you have to follow that restrict what you can do with your property.
I’m unfamiliar with Danish law so I was trying not to get into the specifics. Can you cite the relevant legislation?
The slippery slope falicy is when you start at one point and then it moves to an extreme without any reasonable way to reach that extreme from that first step. Having a law that limits burning certain books in a fashion designed to encourage violence without having a purpose has no relation to banning public displays of affection.
It absolutely does if you consider my entirely reasonable point that passing this law will not be the end of the matter. There will always be further demands. To not consider this is naive.
As to your last point. There are laws in place to protect other people’s property which prohibit what you can do with yours. That’s obvious.
Maybe I don’t burn the book. Maybe I rip pages out of it or otherwise deface it. Should those actions also be illegal?
I somewhat agree, but there should probably be instances where it’s not allowed, similar to hate speech. I’m not sure how Danish law deals with hate speech, but I’d bet speech isn’t allowed all the time. If the goal is to induce violence or anger, that should maybe be prevented in some instances.
Who decides, what’s “similar to hate speech”? When I burn my property? That’s a slippery slope there. Respect is important, but when the intolerant demand respect with threats, that’s blackmail.
But didn’t this recent influx of burnings start when an Iranian refugee burned the quaran in protest against the government he fled from? This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with skin color.
Normally I’d agree, but these COVID vaccines put me down for 24-48 hours and the flu shot has never done that. Its very weird and difficult to schedule myself 48 hours of ‘sick time’ for a vaccine recovery.
Edit: I’d like to clarify that I’ve always gotten them when available, so I’m 3x boosted or whatever, I just wish they had options for people that react like this.
Nope, I’ve never had anything more severe than some malaise for a couple hours that evening. With the moderna shots I’m usually down for 36 hours and on the mend for another 8. the 2nd booster that happened in quick succession gave me a 102 degree fever before i started taking tylenol for it but i consistently run 99-100 even with tylenol dosing.
I have the same mild reaction to COVID and flu vaccines. I feel shit for about eight hours. The only COVID shot that put me down was the second of the two moderna shots. That hit hard. None of the boosters have hit hard.
Yeah that was the same for me, the second one in quick succession hit me, but the following ones that were months (year?) apart didn’t really affect me thankfully. Just an incredibly sore arm for a couple days, but that’s standard for me and shots.
Yeah same. The flu shot usually makes me feel a little bad for a morning. The Covid vaccine makes me feel flat out sick for 24 hours.
I just had a doctors appointment on Friday where they offered me the newest booster and I had to say no because I had full days of work the next 3 days.
Yeah better to plan it out. My wife and I take it on Friday and then we take the Saturday to just be lazy, usually it’s conveniently timed to rewatch Star wars
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. I guess it’s because any negativity to the vaccine.
The same thing happened to my wife. It was much less the for the boosters so it will likely get better in the future. I never even really felt bad. A little bit of a headache the first time but I’m not even sure that was related honestly. And I’ve gotten a little bit of a drained-feeling with the flu vaccine.
Each one of the shots made me feel worse than the last (multiple side effects) so I stopped at 3. The one time I got sick with covid was a lot worse than the shots mainly because it lasted for about 10 days, but the intensity was similar to the shots’ side effects. It was after my 3 shots were all completed. Now I’m fine fortunately but I don’t want any more covid shots.
I never actually got sick with covid until I stopped wearing a mask. N95 masks work well against covid and pretty much everything else. If you don’t want to get sick, get some N95 masks and use them wherever it’s crowded.
yeah in hindsight i probably should have elaborated more on the perspective of yearning for the dosing or something to get better for people that have severe reactions.
I don’t disagree at all, I should have elaborated in my original comment but I guess I was more yearning for better suited vaccines for people that get hit hard by them. Maybe we could take a smaller dose or different cocktail?
Which one did you take? A lot of people I know who took Moderna got hit hard, but only one person I know who took the Pfizer did. My family all took Pfizer and didn’t have any symptoms besides the usual soreness at the injection site.
Post viral syndromes are phenomena that have been well documented long before COVID. You can find any number of scientific papers on the matter if you only cared to look.
I had it for three weeks and that was long enough, and for a couple of weeks after still I couldn’t enjoy coffee or chocolate or anything with floral flavors. Definitely sucked hard, I can’t imagine having it longer
Last booster with moderna was a half dose. If you had Pfizer it was a full dose. Not sure what the next ones will be but make sure you check and see if there is a half dose option.
I had Covid and other than taking away my taste for a while it didn’t really do much to me. The vaccine is what knocked me out. I had an allergic reaction to it and got a 103°F temp, body aches, and severe flu like symptoms so badly that I had to go to the ER.
It’s unfortunate, but kinda inevitable. I’m sure there’s a graduate student somewhere whose thesis is on approximating the popularity and diversity of social platforms necessary before trolls swoop in.
I looked at /r/conservative last night and it was not good for my mental health. Thousands of commenters all agree it was a sham trial that he will win on appeal and that this will only earn him votes.
The last two things, they may be right about and that’s terrifying.
They don't even realize that that's not how appeals work. It's not just "the appellate court says acquittal," there needs to A) have been a failure in the legal process which B) would have been impactful on the jury's verdict during the first trial for an appeal to be successful. Appellate courts only address the legal process. An appellate court would only get into addressing the facts of the case if there was an absolutely glaring smoking gun to point to some evidence or testimony having been false.
You know, like Allen Weisselberg does when he testifies.
Even if an appellate court was to side with Trump's appeal, that just means it goes back to the lower court to be tried again, unless the DA goes "yeah, forget it."
This right here. I am not a legal expert, but I do know that this is how it typically works. The point I want to make, though, is that the prosecution likely knew trump would want to appeal, thus tried to make their legal process as air tight and by the book as possible
My favorite is the ones crying about how America has fallen into nazism because… Trump got convicted of a crime with overwhelming evidence of it.
And its especially funny considering how down with nazism they have been until its conversationally convenient to suddenly cry about the evil nazi persecution.
I haven’t been to that sub, but is there any way to estimate how many there are Russian operatives or bots? I’m guessing this conviction will be fertile fodder for encouraging uprisings amongst Trumpies.
They said mostly. I know a few Trump supporters. They’ll all agree with each other that it was a sham trial, but it wont amount to anything. They peaked with January 6th and even that was pathetic compared to real revolutions from history.
If there actually was a real Revolution they’d get wiped out pretty quickly. At some level they actually do know that or at least the brighter ones do.
They won’t do anything for the same reason that most Russians won’t do anything about Putin. Actually putting your life on the line is a pretty big ask, and most of them wouldn’t dare do it.
On more than one occasion in my life, they’ve been told not to drink bleach to cure diseases. Disinfo has a cost, and our (somewhat) stable and (somewhat) educated society is bearing the brunt of it right now. When they can’t get to doctors, or they resort to prayer and holistic medicine for mortal wounds and illness, their herd will start to thin dramatically.
I think the scenario is flipped between Russians and US Republicans. Russians don’t protest because they don’t know how bad they have it. There were occupying Russians in Ukraine who didn’t know what “automatic” toilets were. They only knew the manual ones where you brought in a bucket of water to pour in to flush the toilet, but because most adults in Russia only know Putin’s Russia, they believe all the propaganda.
US Republicans don’t know how good they have it because their propaganda is based on the world being a Zero Sum Game and any rights minorities gain means that loose equivalent rights. Legalizing Gay Marriage means their Cis Marriage has less value. But they don’t really think they have it that bad. They wont admit it, but they have too much to loose with a revolution. They may want one, but they aren’t willing to actually put themselves in harms way. Why do you think they all freaked the hell out over Ashli Babbitt being shot dead? None of them actually understand that that’s what a real Revolution entails.
It was a feeble attempt at an insurrection by a bunch of soft skin, small minded cucks who have daddy issues. None of those people have actually suffered a fraction what they think they have.
Who do you think was “on the fence” about Trump but now that he is a convicted felon is now definitely convinced Trump is their guy?.. because this is the only way he gets more votes after the conviction
I don’t know. It might convince some elderly or very young idiots that their vote is more important than ever and increase turnout. But I have no idea. I’m just terrified of another term of trump. He would end the United States’ chance of improving any time soon.
As opposed to… lol Biden? You do realize we’re at the verge of losing relations that benefit the U.S., right? With Biden and those like Biden running things, the Global South will be the new power house of the world.
You’re saying that the potential for the economic development of historically exploited colonies under Biden is a more grave risk than the potential end of democracy in America under Trump?
Trump did a lot to alienate allies too, way more than Biden has a far as I know. You really are clueless.
I remember when they said he’d win big in 2020. I remember when they said he wouldn’t be indicted. Next it’s some other silly line in the sand. They’re not exactly great prognosticators.
They call it a sham but I ask, where is the proof? There is, of course, zero.
Yeah, what’s been going on this whole time with Trump is gaslighting. It’s extremely bad for all of our mental health.
Our nation is sick, and the first bit of medicine we need is some semblance of justice for one of the most renown white collar criminals to ever hit the American spotlight:
Trump must be published for his crimes. If he is not, then America and the entire world is at risk of destabilizatiom.
I would agree with you. It is quite shocking to read conservative opinions on this though. None of them have a fucking clue what he did wrong but they’re all sure it was rigged.
How embarrassing for Republicans, that their party is being gutted from the inside by a poor, orange, dementia-ridden blow-hard. He’s stealing from their coffers to pay his debts and killing off the RNC to make room for the Trump Party.
Really wonder how centrist Republicans feel about it. Abject horror? Or do you guys support it?
There’s a passage in the Bible where Jesus states exactly what the most important rule is, and why. Yet too many Christians argue with it because it’s too easy (or too hard, for them) to follow.
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Don’t forget about the giving your wealth away parts
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Yet conservatives may be shocked to learn that their idol Reagan was once a union boss himself. Reagan was the only president in American history to have belonged to a union, the AFL-CIO affiliated Screen Actors Guild. And he even served six terms as president of the organized labor group. Additionally, Reagan was a staunch advocate for the collective bargaining rights of one of the world’s most famous and most influential trade unions, Poland’s Solidarity movement.
Reagan was the fucking worst asshead politician of my lifetime. Just god awful. And him firing the air traffic controllers was shitty. But that was on that shitty union. I’m saying that as a very pro-union person, who worked for a couple of decades for a union. That doesn’t mean there aren’t shitty unions out there.
I remember seeing something a few years back that said all of the American rich dudes wanted Reagan as POTUS because he was a great public figure head that could be manipulated with “bribes” and the simple act of rubbing elbows with them on occasion.
Essentially he was easily placated and a good soldier to do their bidding.
I don’t know, I feel like it works on both levels really. There are actual people that think like that and it’s insane. The US trade war doesn’t really help, It paints China as the bad guy even though they’re only doing the same thing as every other country in the world.
By all means demand China improves in areas which makes sense such as blatant copyright violation and human rights abuses but not this. Making cheap cars is hardly nefarious.
Well the US has 1.2 million prisoners who get paid on average 86 cents a day. So effectively slave labor. That they aren’t directly building cars doesn’t matter because money is fungible. Every dollar saved not paying prisoners is more money elsewhere in the economy.
Ugh I can’t believe I’m wading into a “who’s worse” thing on the internet, but here we go! Are the imprisoned Uyghurs all convicted criminals? Not that it makes it ok that the US prisoners are effectively slave labor but they did do something to get there (yeah yeah unfair justice system sure but I want to believe most are there for a legit reason). Maybe the Uyghurs broke the law of “don’t be a Uyghur” and the US prisoners all jaywalked. I don’t know. Even if we can say one is worse, everybody sucks. Why did I say something here? I feel gross now. I have to go take a shower. Look what you’ve made me do! It looks like I’ve defended effective slave labor and somehow endorsed the US’ incarceration system!
I can’t believe I’m wading into a “who’s worse” thing on the internet,
China. China is way worse. It’s not even a fair comparison.
China has a near 99% conviction rate of all “trials”. People get disappeared all the time at an alarming rate. Criticizing the government is illegal and silenced immediately. Buying a woman (trafficking) is punishable by three years in prison. Importing an invasive species of plant is punishable by 7 years in prison. Buying/owning an airsoft rifle can land you life in prison.
They are currently violating the maritime borders of many countries, to the point where they are deploying nets as a way to “claim” the waters well beyond what they’re entitled to by international law.
During covid they welded shut the entrance to buildings to forcibly keep people inside. And many of those people died from starvation or being ill and not receiving care. Then there were those buildings that caught fire and the occupants couldn’t get out.
Then again during covid it was mandated that “foreigners” were not allowed into grocery stores, restaurants, hospitals, etc. And it didn’t matter if you lived their for decades, or your whole life, of you weren’t Han Chinese you’re a foreigner. Some people even had signs up that said “blacks are not allowed inside”.
And this isn’t the people’s fault. They’re working off of information and mandates given to them by their government. A government that has a death grip on all communication in the country.
And this doesn’t even get into the allegations of organ harvesting of the Uyghurs (and others). And yes, “only allegations” because that kind of thing would be done in very dark and secure basements. Although there are first hand accounts of people who witnessed such things who managed to get out, it’s anecdotal but there are more than one account.
Edit: just to add. I’m not American, and don’t live in the US. I think that country is terribly broken in many, many ways. I would never want to ever live there, but I would choose the US in a heartbeat if it was down to that place or China.
they have dropped subsidies, and the companies making terrible product, and those with unsustainable business models are collapsing… Weltmeister, Lepin… all defunct.
I get your sarcasm, but Chinese products are life savers in 3rd world countries like mine. My brother bought a Chinese pickup truck for $3500 brand new. American trucks are at least 10 times that. People there work a whole month for $500 - $900. No one can and will never afford that shit. Same goes for other products like cellphones, computers… Etc. an iPhone there costs $1200 - $1400 and a Chinese one costs $300 max and it does the job no problem. People in those countries love China.
Iraq is where I’m originally from, and Chinese products are ubiquitous there. They even built schools and hospitals there. Sorry for misunderstanding at first.
Not that we should have the contracts and control a country like that, but I’d like to think there could have been a win/win. Would have been nice to have a friendly and supported Iraq, on its way to healing some, at the end of the day.
Overall, a failure of US leadership on all fronts. Any positive results may have just been a bridge too far in the minds of politicians and rallying the public just not worth it for them. Silly.
That’s exactly what I meant, a win win situation. “Hey, we know we fucked up, but here let us get you some very much discounted contracts to rebuild your country”. And don’t get me started on politicians. :/
Edit: I meant to say, you’ve worded it correctly/better than I did :)
Yeah, the law this vague is purposely designed to be abused by the government. German police are already trying Nazi tactics at this point. The pro Palestinian rally at Frankfurt, they literally isolated young people with Palestinian flags, took pictures of people and their ID cards, and suddenly these people now have started getting problems in their schools,universities and jobs, even when they never shared anything political themselves. Germany and Fascism is a story for the ages.
Ah yes, because recognizing that Palestinian civilians should have human rights and not be discarded like subhuman scum is what flies as antisemitism now.
the part where pro-palestinian protesters attack jews and synagogues. This happened some years ago here in Germany and happens now again.
The german central council of jews is aware of this and has been complaining about the rising number of antisemitic attacks by Muslims for many years now.
People attending an outlawed protest get rounded up and identified, news at 11.
No, seriously. There have been plenty of pro-Palestine protests in Germany getting permits, there also have been plenty of pro-Palestine protests in Germany which got outlawed. The reason? Different organisers. Different capacities of those organisers to make sure that the protesters won’t commit crimes. Courts overruled some of those police assessments, but not all.
Like, people were up in arms even before all this went down that the Nakba protests in Berlin got outlawed. They completely ignored that in previous years, the same organisers held protests and those turned violent, broke out into “gas the Jews” chants, and whatnot.
As the Basic Law says: Every German has the right to peacefully assemble without weapon. The “German” part is usually ignored, also foreigners enjoy that right in practice. The “peacefully and without weapons” part OTOH is not negotiable.
Part of this is a cultural problem: The organisers don’t seem to understand how protesting works in Germany, what the do’s and don’ts are. And when they cross those lines, things get out of hand, public order is infringed upon, they try to play the victim card.
Do you know how much German police or Germans in general care if you call us Nazis? How much that stings? I’ll tell you: Zero. Because we know you’re full of shit.
You wrote a whole lot of words to just say that the government can do whatever. The protest on the 20th of October was specifically granted permission from the courts on the 19th, a day earlier. Half an hour before the protest, Polizei announced that it is now verboten (when? where?) and started arresting people and IDing them, the people who are unaware of changes and coming to attend a permissible demonstration. How isn’t that sketchy? That seems like an operation to identify pro-Palestinian people and intimidate/harass them, and actually follow through by contacting their universities and work.
I have been in Germany for around 2 decades as a dark skinned person, don’t tell me the scope of Nazi infiltration in the German military and police. I face them everyday. It’s common news among everyone, only willfully ignorant ones try to overlook it, and later will cry after their fascism gets discovered, just like from the Holocaust documentary when, German citizens were first taken to see concentration camps, and started crying “we didn’t know”. Ja right, gimme a break.
On the 20th? Only thing I can find in the press talks of a protest in Frankfurt around that date is on the 21st, which was peaceful and legal. A couple of counts of display of forbidden symbols (presumably Hamas flags), one count of incitement to hatred, but in a context of 1500 participants that’s nothing.
Me thinks less of what you think, and the 21st was also not peaceful but due to what happened on previous days, lawyers had a court order of peaceful assembly again, and didn’t back down, and let the demonstration happen. The irony of other people gaslighting me and telling me what happened when I witnessed it myself. Were you there at Frankfurtdemonstration? You are free to look, social Media is full of these things.
and the 21st was also not peaceful but due to what happened on previous days,
The police literally called it peaceful. What do you mean by “what happened on the previous days”? The city wanted to ban it, the court allowed it, and the protest went ahead as planned. That’s business as usual in Germany.
If there were protests before that they likely were (correct me if I’m wrong) unannounced and if you don’t announce a non-spontaneous protest the police can dissolve it without a court order. That’s why people announce protests: To have legal protection.
You are free to look, social Media is full of these things.
Do any of those people understand the legal and cultural situation? Also, which fucking posts. You have been asked before to provide links, and came up empty. I gave you a report from the hessenschau, do you see any factual errors in there? Ones that you could back up?
The law is pretty clear. Are you a Nazi? Don’t be or else you don’t get a citizenship. They already have a law against being a Nazi so this new one isn’t some new law they could abuse now that they couldn’t before. Stop fear mongering.
I appreciate what you’re saying and I’m a little angry that people are calling you out for not providing sources. So I went and found some articles that can get us started finding out more about how the German government is treating pro-Palestinian protestors.
That town has gotten pretty ritzy in recent years since Lady Gaga moved in next door and they added a fancy new production center near the airport. Big name tours use the space to build and test lighting and sound setups, so there's a lot of rock stars in town.
Bullshit, there’s plenty of good chocolate in any major retailer. I can go to my local grocery store and find Godiva, Ghirardelli, Lindt, Ritter, along with a wide selection of miscellaneous European imports.
The stuff you’ll find in stores is not “premium chocolatier in the Swiss Alps” quality, but it’s decent chocolate and it’s not hard to find.
I think a large detterent for many is the price difference. Hershey’s kind of matches that snack price for a little treat you’d find at the front counter. Going back to the good stuff and seeing it 3 or 4 times the price will lose a lot of people. There’s a reason people say you get what you pay for though…
I am buying $1 bars of dark chocolate at dollar general now. Luckily I haven’t really had good chocolate, so I don’t know what I am really missing, and I like it better than Hershey’s milk chocolate to me. Claims profits help literacy, so I doubt it is really that great of a chocolate when you get down to it. But I like it and that is enough for me.
There’s a large range of smaller brands too. Pascha, Cultura, Raaka, Taza, Lily’s, Theo’s, Tony’s, Green and Black, Alter Eco… plus dozens of tiny regional brands. It’s about like craft beer.
I generally prefer dark chocolate once I learned there was more than "Shitty Hershey Dark Chocolate" in existence, so I go with Ghirardelli. 72% cocoa, that's the stuff.
Ah, I see. You do realize that reacting to “processed” things isn’t really actually a thing though right? Those are all pretty different. Either you’ve got an allergy to something they have in common or you’re letting all the fear mongering get to your head. Oooorrrrr I suppose you may get a bit of a totally normal upset stomach if you never eat anything but fresh food and then have some cookies. Which is again totally normal because it’s now not something that you regularly have in your diet.
Either way, the processed food fear mongering is frankly getting kind of old. You’re not reacting to processed foods because they’re all “processed”. That’s not really how it works with such a variety. The way people with less resources are shamed or made to be afraid of perfectly accessible and shelf stable food isn’t really acceptable anymore. I really wish you guys would go back to being “intolerant to gluten” again or something else for attention. That actually did wonders for the people that are actually intolerant lol. I hear blaming everything on ADHD is very popular right now!
I haven’t eaten Hershey’s in so long because I remember it tasting mildly of vomit. Am I the only one who thinks the flavor has hints of vomit? What even is that?
The sour notes in America’s most popular chocolate are commonly attributed to butyric acid—a compound found in spoiled butter and, yes, vomit. Hershey denies adding it to their product, and the ingredient isn’t listed on the label, but that doesn’t mean it’s not part of the recipe.
You pull a firearm’s trigger you bear responsibility for what happens. Period.
Was the armorer also at fault? Absolutely. Doesn’t matter: Baldwin still failed a duty to check it. Further, as a producer, he was responsible for ensuring the armrorer…. Was competent
Edit to add: yes, this is absolutely partisan politics, but it doesn’t change that he should have been charged the first time around
Baldwin’s defense just needs one juror*. If they are able to define this is case as partisan politics, I bet all 12 vote to acquit in less than an hour.
Only internet weirdos would want to spend days arguing over this case, normie jurors want to go home.
The only reason Baldwin hasn’t been already found guilty of inv. manslaughter is because people like his movies. You’re right, though.
This is a prime example of tiered justice. If any normal worker was handed a firearm, and told it was unloaded when it wasn’t they’d be held criminally liable along with the idiot who didn’t. And that doesn’t even account for it bejng the boss being handed the firearm
You pull a firearm’s trigger you bear responsibility for what happens. Period.
Utterly wrong. The ONLY person that bears any responsibility for firearm safety on the set of a movie is the armorer.
Unless absolutely necessary, no live or blank firing arms should be accessible to actors.
When needed, the armorer will verify the safety of the blank or live firearm and hand it to the actor. Depending on the armorer and the situation they may not even allow the actor to do something as simple as turn the safety off.
After firing the weapon, the armorer will take the firearm from the actor, clear it, and remove it from the set.
One person has that responsibility. In situations where there are multiple live or blank firing arms there may be multiple individuals with those same resposibilities, but ultimately it will still come down to the one in charge.
Repeat after me: A MOVIE SET IS NOT A GUN RANGE. You are not dealing with even twice a year hobbyist shooters. You are not in a controlled environment. The protocols that are used for firearms on set have been developed after decades of trial and error, and these are situations where said error ends in death. Trying to apply range logic to a movie set is what gets people killed, which is why sets do not work like that. You have one dedicated professional whose job is ensuring the safety of everyone on set WRT firearms. At no point did Baldwin have any responsibility to check any weapon as any weapon available to him at that time, by protocol, should have ONLY been a "weapon shaped object." That is, a chunk of rubber or plastic molded from a real weapon that's used for doing things like blocking shots (which is what Baldwin was doing) and generally carrying around a scene. Instead, the armorer had zero control over where firearms ended up and Baldwin picked up what he thought was a prop gun. Instead, it was a loaded live firearm. The scene involved Baldwin pointing a gun at the camera and pulling the trigger.
In no way is Baldwin criminally liable here.
Note I say nothing about civil liability. In my opinion, he's is absolutely responsible for helping create a lax working environment by continuing to employ an armorer that clearly did not give a shit about doing their job properly.
EDIT to mention that Baldwin and the production company VERY quickly came to a settlement agreement with the family of the deceased. They were always going to win so it basically just skipped over a meaningless trial.
When your holding a firearm, You don’t get to “not my job” basic fucking gun safety.
Professionally, as an actor, it wasn’t Baldwins job. The criminal code doesn’t care what was in his job description
Criminally, it doesn’t matter. There is a long sequence of actions that Baldwin should have taken that he did not take, any one of which would have prevented this from happening.
That sequence:
hiring a competent armorer who: didn’t have live ammo, who cleared fired arms, ensured all staff handling the weapon were trained in firearm safety, and that a multi-layered safety protocol was strictly adhered to.
could have used a non-firing replica for the blocking shots
could have cleared the firearm
could have not pointed the weapon at other people
could have not pulled the trigger.
But nope. Apparently it’s not his job and now someone is fucking dead.
You know literally nothing about anything. I already explained to you why none of your points are relevant. Stop making yourself look like more of an an idiot by continuing to post your ignorance to the world.
Says the guy quoting civil litigation in a discussion of criminal charges. I wasn’t going to go there even if it is like 6th grade civics level…. But now your just being insulting.
Just because another person also had a duty of care- doesn’t mean Baldwin didn’t.
It’s simple tragic fact that Baldwin failed in his obligation to handle a weapon that was fundamentally designed to kill humans in a safe manner. If he had done anything to even half ass checking that weapon Hutchinson would still be alive.
That the armorer failed to do their job, doesn’t change that simple fact. When you’re dealing with things that have “death” as a likely consequence… you don’t rely on a single person, which is why the armrorer is also guilty. They both are.
Nothing you are saying actually changed that Baldwin’s own actions lead directly to it- and if we swap out literally any other actor, that don’t change.
Because he still pointed a weapon fundamentally designed to murder people, at Hutchinson, and pulled the trigger.
Reasonable people don’t do that without excessive amounts of paranoia- including checking a firearm that takes ten seconds to safely check.
I find some humor in the wiki link you provided for duty of care, the first sentence starts with “In tort law” as you keep trying to use it for criminal law.
There are no legal requirements for firearm handling that requires someone to check for a load. When you, and many others, say “the first rule of firearms” I invite you to provide us with a legal definition of these rules.
There is no expectation for a non-expert to identify the differences between blanks, dummy, and live rounds.
While there was likely gross negligence on the set, I’m not sure it rises to the level of criminal liability. A film set is a unique situation where there are different rules to firearm handling. This is a simple fact that cannot be overlooked. The rules of firearms as you have been trained on and as you understand them simply don’t apply.
So your saying that an adult picking up a firearm and waiving it around cocking it and pulling the trigger (accidentally or otherwise,) isn’t negligent when that firearm happens to go off?
Yes that article mostly covers tort law which is civil. esp. In this case the negligence rose to the level of criminality, and the test for duty of care applied to show he was being negligent.
Oh, by the way. The armorer wasn’t even on site. He was handed the weapon by a non-expert who declared it cold. Adding another failed check: “hey you’re not the armorer!” Would have also saved his victim’s life.
But nope. They had a schedule to keep. So whatever. What’s the worst that could happen?
You’re acting like Baldwin is not a reasonable human- he’s not a toddler who you would have no expectation of knowing “hey maybe I shouldn’t do this”. That it was on set in a staged scenario doesn’t absolve people of their personal responsibility.
Baldwin didn’t receive the gun from the armorer. So he wasn’t even following your rules either. He’s still responsible. If he had followed the rules as you stated, upon being handed the gun by the assistant director he should have said “you’re not the armorer” and refused to handle it until it was verified as safe by the armorer.
You're taking bits and pieces and ignoring the full context, which is a shit thing to do.
The firearm should never have been available to an AD in the first place, or to anyone but the armorer.
On a set the assumption would be that anything available to someone that wasn't an armorer would be a non-firing replica.
The armorer alone is tasked with firearm safety on the set.
This is how it works. This is how the entire legality of the situation is established. As long as everyone is acting in good faith the liability does not fall to them, it falls to the armorer. When Baldwin received the weapon he did so believing it to be a non-firing replica, not an actual loaded firearm, as it would not be proper protocol for a loaded firearm to be available to anyone other than the armorer.
He has already settled the civil liability aspect with the victims and families. That was done rather quickly. As producer, he was liable for the hiring and continual employment of the incompetent armorer. That makes him liable on a civil level.
He has zero criminal culpability here, no matter how hard the DA tries. His roles as producer and actor are legally distinct.
Might be a good argument for using clearly fake stuff in movies further on. Just hand the actor a TV remote and CGI in a hand gun or a plastic sci-fi “gun” that has no means of firing anything.
He and his production team hired the “expert.” They are responsible for vetting and overseeing employees and contractors.
Even if (big if) he’s not guilty for pulling the trigger (actors take weapons safety courses), he’s completely guilty of negligently surrounding himself with unqualified people in positions that are of life and death importance.
Gross negligence can and should be brought up in a civil case. But criminal law is a different animal. People get killed all the time, but you don’t get charged for murder when it’s obviously an accident. Even involuntary manslaughter probably has too high a bar for a rich person to get convicted. Remember the afluenza kid?
A weapons safety course doesn't mean anything when it comes to criminal liability on a movie set. All that does is absolve the studio if stupid shit happens because an actor did stupid shit. It was not an actor that did stupid shit here, it was the armorer.
The armorer that Baldwin hired and continued to employ long after she was shown to be ill suited for the job, which made him and the company civilly liable.
Baldwin and the production company already came to a civil settlement with the deceased's family.
As the producer and the actor pulling the trigger, he is ultimately responsible for this. He hired the “professional” who was supposed to make sure there was no live ammo on set, and he was responsible for checking the chamber and magazine before they started the shoot.
If my friend handed me a gun and I pointed it at someone thinking it was empty and killed someone, I would still be charged with at least manslaughter. I don’t see how this is any different.
Anyone that has ever taken even a basic gun safty course knows that 1 you never hand someone a loaded and chambered gun and 2 when you are handed a gun the first thing you do is check to see if it is loaded/chambered.(the real first rule is never point your gun at anything you do t want to destroy but that does not apply to this situation)
This was extreme negligence from top to bottom and if even 1 person on set that day that handled that gun(especially the last peraon to have it the actor) did their job correctly no one would be dead.
Doesn’t matter who hands it too you. People fuck up. That’s why these rules are in place. Your argument is bad anyway because it wasn’t the armorer that handed it to him. It was an assistant director (who is also not an expert)
Assuming the rules they use on movies are different he still didn’t follow them because the gun was given to him by someone who was not an expert. He should have had the armorer check it before he used it if he was not qualified to do so himself.
Nobody has pointed to a source of what the movies rules actually are so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. It’s beside the point anyway as he himself has already admitted he was wrong by settling the civil case.
If that was literally their job that they are being paid to do and you were specifically using the gun to film a movie involving you pointing that gun at someone and pulling the trigger under the pretense it was cleared and verified by a professional prior to the filming, they should definitely shoulder some burden.
Arguments can be made about working conditions not being suitable causing mistakes to be made and those conditions were brought on by Baldwin, but then he should be treated almost as two separate people. If it had been a different actor to pull the trigger, would that actor be liable? Would the producer, or whatever role Baldwin had outside of acting, be liable?
If it was a different actors then yes, they should still be held accountable in some way. Anyone who has ever taken even a basic gun safty course knows the first thing you do when you are given a gun is to check the chamber to see if it is loaded every single time.
Every time I go so a shooting range with friends and it is their turn to shoot I place my handgun on the bench unloaded with the chamber/Cylinder open and the mag/rounds next to it. Complacency kills and this movie is a perfect example of extreme negligence from the top down.
False equivalency. Those are completely different situations. This gun was MEANT to be loaded and chambered because THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO FIRE IT IN FRONT OF A CAMERA. But go on with your “oh I’m so good because I know gun safety and am the expert of the experts now reee”.
Worse: they are saying that he, rather than the weapons handler, is somehow responsible as if he should know more than an expert.
A bus driver who drives a bus trusting the mechanics kept the brakes in working order and runs over someone doesn’t get to blame the mechanics. They’re supposed to pretrip the bus and check that it’s in working order.
A maintenance tech doesn’t get to blame the the operator when the operator tells them an industrial machine has been de-energized after opening it up and getting their partner fried. They’re supposed to verify the system is in fact de-energized.
You shoving a friend out an airplane hatch without a parachute because your sky diving instructor said it was safe…. You don’t get to blame the sky diving instructor.
You don’t get to hold a firearm and blame the person that handed it to you when you fail extremely basic gun safety. Criminal law doesn’t account for job descriptions.
If you pick a firearm, you have a duty of care to handle it in a safe manner, Baldwin didn’t. Further, even if the armrorer said it was safe he should have had prior experience handling fire arms screaming “nuhuh”.
It’s pretty blatantly self evident that Baldwin failed duty of care - evidence exhibit a: the dead body he put in the morgue.
This is literally the opposite of true. We have actually real world cases where airplane engineers fuck up and cause the plane to crash and they are found to be at fault, not the pilots.
I don’t get how casual people are with machines designed solely to kill. It may be perfectly a cut and dry case of self defense, but it was designed to kill.
That being said, I am pro 2a generally, though I wish proper handling of firearms was taught at different age levels in school. From elementary where, just no, to high school. Additionally, a better system to screen for mental health issues (of which I might not be able to own a firearm) but that would rely on the US having any sort of infrastructure for mental health care.
My insurance is so shit I could go to a practitioner down the road and pay less, with no insurance taken at all. That’s just for mental health.
I like the place I’m at, but the shitty insurance really has me looking.
Of course there is a whole other dialogue on how the US has fallen behind most of the civilized world in medical care, under a variety of parameters - part of that being insurance is tied to your employer. I can accept it or look elsewhere for work.
Interesting that you are pro 2a yet recognize that US healthcare has fallen behind the rest of the civilized world. You probably don’t realize these are related.
Gubs on a set can very very realistic looking gun shaped objects, same bullets, blanks, dummy rounds, non functional bulleted shaped objects. This is why on movie sets you have firearm experts.
The simplest and surest way is to use a clearing station. basically, they’re steel containers with… stuff… inside that the bullet slows and is caught. I’ve never been to a gun range anywhere that didn’t have one… and that model in the link is meant to be portable. For a revolver, you just dry-fire through the cylinder, and maybe an extra time or two to be sure. any live rounds would go off, and somebody would get bitched at, maybe fired… but nobody would be dead. That is, if Baldwin was running a safe set.
Baring that, Colt .45 SAA’s are pretty easy to check. You open the loading gate, see the cartridges, so you pull them out and check the cartridges. if you want to check the entire cylinder, the process is fairly simple, and you can see that briefly in this video (which is demonstrating how to carry an antique single action revolver safely. this was the historic method of carry, by the way. And you can see why at the end of video.)
Generally, props are all marked in a variety of ways that indicate- and obviously so, even if it’s not obvious to the camera- that they’re distinct from real. Cartridges for example are loaded with BB’s so they rattle (and frequently will have holes drilled in the side, and used primers so there’s a giant divot,) non-firing prop guns come in a large variety of differing levels of functionality, and are usually pretty obvious when you’re actively holding it.
our police/courts/corrections is an industry, unfortunately. Who knew that placing ever more profit motives on arresting, processing, and jailing people would end up leading to bad outcomes.
But, hey, it’s just the unwashed the masses, so who cares, I guess.
It won’t be America it bites in the ass; they’ll be a deadly menace to their neighbors in the West (as I would imagine Russia is going to remain on its toes about armed Ukrainian militias). They’ve been pretty open about their far right views. Frankly this was actually a brilliant strategy for the government; much like how they turned the Middle East into nations yearning for America’s protection, so too will the rest of (Western) Europe now become new clients. As a business strategy it’s brilliant, my only question is why European governments and the idiots who vote for them over there actually going along with this; you’re watching the car careening towards the cliff, why are you cheering the guy pushing it from behind rather than slamming on the brakes.
Even the Taliban didn’t commit 9/11 until the US had already been engaged in military actions in Afghanistan for years by that point. War profiteering is the point.
File size requirements made me create this low res monstrosity lmao, also please do replace the Tilted Towers for the Palace of Culture and Sciences for thr more realistic scenario.
reuters.com
Top