With how much bombing the US and Israel are preparing to do, a stalemate won't come without major destruction in Israel and US bases. I'm not sure that'll be helpful for Satanyahu's campaign.
Israel and the US have begun their war on Iran with a "regime change" as the stated goal. If they succeed, Israel cements its expansionist goals and the middle east is fucked. If Iran succeeds, Israel is fucked.
There's a small chance of a stalemate and both give up and we go back to "normal" after a whole lot of death and destruction.
The entire middle east is going to be affected either way, and to a lesser extent the world as energy distribution from the gulf will be effected.
He wanted to have his genocide and give Israel everything he could, and as soon as he was gone Bibi shit on him and said he did very little. Fuck Biden.
Then if he went far enough to lie about identifying the body, it would serve him to not make a lot of noise about there being a big government conspiracy around it...
"hacker"...
According to Epic, someone changed their handle to Epstein's handle that was exposed in the files. There was no hacking involved.
I would absolutely believe it that he was walked out and flown to Israel where he lives as a hero of the pedo-genocide state, but his brother who identified his body is vocal about evidence it wasn't a suicide. I'm not sure what incentive he'd have to both lie about identifying his brother's body and making so much noise about it being a murder...
I think you should engage with challenging ideas as the post says, I don't think it's an "ideal of intellectualism", I just think it serves your own interests to be open to realize you've been mislead.
Because you can use it on any device without having to install the whole app and sync the data separately... It's super convenient, and cross-platform.
You tell them to fuck off because you engaged with it and found it completely meritless/abhorrent, not because you're above engaging with it. If they present new evidence for lizard people, you should skeptically examine the evidence and tell them to fuck off when it doesn't hold up.
You don't have to engage with them and waste your time debating them, but you absolutely should be open to challenge your own positions.
Because yaml is not a programming language, and debugging why your whatever you're configuring isn't working correctly can be a nightmare. It doesn't tell you you missed an indent on a block, it just assumes it should be there and changes the meaning.
This dude right here was the poster child for "good billionaire"
Really? I mean he tried really hard to whitewash his image with his charity and malaria research, but he was always a piece of absolute shit and the ‘good billionaire’ label was always a scam: DOS deal games, monopoly behavior, billionaire policy capture through his foundation, education meddling, vaccine-IP politics, nothing he did was truly charity, everything was self serving.
Will you accept evidence? Or will you downvote and call me a Russian bot?
Treating invasion as a morally acceptable “option” (“lesser evil”)
The Guardian explicitly described military intervention in Iraq as potentially justified:
“We argued that it would be justified as a ‘lesser evil’…”
That’s a classic consent-making move: the debate becomes when invasion is justified, not whether the West has the right to invade at all.
Amplifying government “humanitarian” justification after the fact (Libya)
On Libya, the Guardian reported (without challenging the premise in the headline or framing) the UK government defending Nato’s intervention as life-saving:
“the government argued its actions ‘undoubtedly’ saved civilian lives in Libya.”
“required decisive and collective international action”
Even when the article notes criticism, this kind of repetition of official justification is exactly what sourcing/agenda-setting critiques focus on.
Making war plans sound like “policy tools” (Syria no-fly zone)
A no-fly zone is an act of war (you enforce it with force). But it’s often discussed as a humanitarian “measure.” The Guardian’s reporting frames it that way:
“a potential no-fly zone over Syria to protect civilians”
And then the debate becomes technocratic (“who enforces it?”) rather than moral/anti-imperial (“who gets to control Syrian airspace?”). Example of that framing inside the piece:
“Who would enforce that safe area?”
“All sides / cycle of violence” symmetry (Gaza)
A common liberal-media pattern is treating a radically unequal situation as a tragic “both sides” spiral. In a Gaza editorial the Guardian writes:
“All sides should contribute to halting the cycle of violence”
Same editorial also uses the legitimacy gateway line:
“Israel has a right to defend itself”
And frames it in a way to not directly endorse it, but still assert it by not stating the objectively moral rebuttal: Gaza has the right to defend itself.
Not genocide, guardian. You shouldn't do genocide.
Even when labelled “alleged,” this piece foregrounds the IDF narrative and evidence drops in a way that can function as justification-for-bombing context:
you can believe Hamas uses civilian cover and still see how this repeated framing becomes a ready-made moral alibi for mass civilian killing. We know Israel uses Palestinians as human shields, they'll literally strap children to the windshield of jeeps to shield them, why don't they cite that as rebuttal? Why don't they cite that as justification for attacking IDF?
On their funding:
Guardian Media Group says it runs a “diverse revenue model” including “reader revenues, advertising… licensing and philanthropic funding.”
https://www.theguardian.com/about/organisation
And it says “Revenue from readers now accounts for over 50%” which also means a large share is still non-reader money (ads, licensing, etc.)
Their own annual reporting stresses growth in reader revenue, but they’re still operating in the same media ecosystem: big audience incentives, elite access journalism, reliance on official sources, and the kinds of “respectable” foreign policy frames that dominate UK/US politics. (That’s exactly what “manufacturing consent” critiques are about: structures, not cartoon villain owners.)
Read Manufacturing Consent, then come back and tell me they don't.
Or downvote and maybe throw an insult my way, that works too.
At least you have that ability, some of us are sheltering while missiles and their debris rain down on above us.