Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)B

420blazeit69 [he/him]

@ 420blazeit69 @hexbear.net

Posts
0
Comments
65
Joined
5 yr. ago

  • Jesus Christ

  • Lmao well you sure don't use the actual definition of genocide

    [T]he ICJ ruled on Friday that it will not address whether Russia violated the 1948 Genocide Convention by using what Ukraine says were trumped-up genocide charges as a pretext for the war, even if the invasion may have violated international law broadly.

    Instead, the case will proceed to assess whether Ukraine committed genocide in the eastern parts of the country, as Russia claims – a matter where judges ruled that they have jurisdiction.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/2/icj-rules-that-it-will-hear-part-of-ukraine-russia-genocide-case

  • This will be something that's derided as a wild conspiracy for 30 years until the CIA posts an old doc on their official website that confirms it matter-of-factly

    On a more positive note, the time between speculation like this and hard proof emerging seems to be plummeting. Bushnell was not the only person inside the machine struggling with the consequences of his actions, so hopefully we get some leaks sooner rather than later.

  • What you're doing here is interpreting any evidence as supportive of the conclusion you chose at the beginning. You're making that conclusion unfalsifiable.

    If Russia said he died of natural causes, you'd say they're lying. Ukraine says the same thing, well this blood clot must be evidence of torture. Why Ukraine wouldn't jump on that interpretation if it was at all plausible is left unanswered. If he was struck by lightning you'd say Putin used him to test a new superweapon.

  • So you didn't read the first half of the headline, either!

    He wasn't killed, he died from a blood clot. Even Ukraine isn't entertaining speculation that Russia killed him.

  • You're saying Ukraine's intelligence chief is wrong? Smdh just what a Russian bot would say

  • This is magical thinking. "If the enemy were to simply disappear, everything would be fixed."

    You have to engage with the reality of the situation.

  • I agree that Ukraine's allies tanking immediate peace talks was criminal

  • And thats on record

    Got a good link handy?

  • I won't pretend every single bit was 100% legit, but you don't pretend that every single bit was 100% stolen.

    "Your honor, I only stole some of what I'm accused of stealing, not all of it" is not a great defense

  • "No country is fully independent" says nothing about whether Israel is properly classified as a colony. It's a platitude.

    a right to exist

    Another platitude. What do you mean by this? Israel's current actions are indefensible. Many of its past actions are indefensible. Its policy of neither recognizing a Palestinian state nor granting equal citizenship to Palestinians is indefensible. It must either fundamentally change or be replaced by a government worth supporting, like South Africa before it.

    It certainly does not have a right to continue existing in its current form, no more than Nazi Germany did.

  • Your point?

  • the vast majority of its citizens don't have citizenship in any other country and have literally nowhere else to go. Therefore it's not a colony

    It directly refutes this.

    If you're leaning on Israel being formally independent, they're about as independent from the West (particularly the U.S.) as a college freshman getting their tuition paid by Mom and Dad. No one here is talking about Israel being independent on paper, we're talking about how it interacts with other countries in reality.

  • When the British expelled criminals to Australia they couldn't return home. Was Australia not a colony? A ton of European immigrants to the American colonies intended their journeys to be one-way trips, and were functionally barred from returning by cost. Does that mean there were no colonies in the Americas?

    Besides, throughout history you almost never see settlers leaving en masse when colonial administrations end. Sure, some recent arrivees may turn around, and some administrators who moved there mostly to work in the colonial government may leave, but you really never see the main body of settlers leave. You didn't even have this in South Africa. They simply have to live under a government where they can't shoot the locals with impunity.

  • Let's set aside the multiple issues with "I think one of my distant ancestors lived here 2000 years ago, or maybe just other members of my religious group, therefore I have a right to live here today" and assume that yes, that sort of historical/ancestral claim gives comtemporary Jewish people a right to live in Palestine. Even in the most generous light imaginable, it would not give them a right to build an ethnostate by committing genocide on the current inhabitants. Israel is so far past anything that could be reasonably granted from ancient Jews living in Palestine that there is no possible defense along those lines.

    Or are we strictly talking about western powers giving the Jewish people a 'homeland' after the second world war and the holocaust?

    Yes, that's what people mean when they refer to Israel as a colony of Europe/the U.S.

  • Socialism took the USSR from a late-feudal backwater that just lost the most destructive war in history (to that point) to the first man in space, and it did so in one generation and in spite of two subsequent invasions.

    Socialism took China from a bunch of squabbling warlords dominated by foreign empires, where famines were regular and severe enough that people regularly sold their own children to survive, to a modern economic powerhouse, lifting a billion people out of poverty along the way.

    Socialism took Cuba from a plantation run by foreign gangsters to cutting-edge medicine and higher life expectancy than the U.S., all while fending off a low-intensity war the most powerful empire in the world has waged against it for the entirety of its existence.

  • Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.

    “Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”

    The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.

    Foreign Affairs is a Kremlin propaganda outlet now?

  • I trust the translation, I don't trust that there is no important context lost (again, diplomatic speak is filled with hedging and caveats).

    But taking it at face value for the sake of argument: he said Russia's stance on NATO expansion hasn't changed.

  • "They want to keep doing something you think is futile and causing senseless deaths, so why not help them?"