An internal government assessment shows USAID officials raised “critical concerns” last month about a key aid group’s ability to protect Palestinians and to deliver them food – just days before the State Department announced $30 million in funding for the organization.
A scathing 14-page document obtained by CNN outlines a litany of problems with a funding application submitted by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a US-backed group established to provide aid following an 11-week Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. The United Nations human rights office says that hundreds of Palestinians have since been killed around private aid sites, including those operated by GHF.
The assessment flags a range of concerns, from an overall plan missing “even basic details” to a proposal to potentially distribute powdered baby formula in an area that lacks clean water to prepare it.
A USAID official came to a clear conclusion in the report: “I do not concur with moving forward with GHF given operational and reputational risks and lack of oversight.”
Key concerns were raised by USAID in vetting process days before $30 million grant was awarded to US and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund, documents show.
An internal government assessment shows USAID officials raised “critical concerns” last month about a key aid group’s ability to protect Palestinians and to deliver them food – just days before the State Department announced $30 million in funding for the organization.
A scathing 14-page document obtained by CNN outlines a litany of problems with a funding application submitted by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a US-backed group established to provide aid following an 11-week Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. The United Nations human rights office says that hundreds of Palestinians have since been killed around private aid sites, including those operated by GHF.
The assessment flags a range of concerns, from an overall plan missing “even basic details” to a proposal to potentially distribute powdered baby formula in an area that lacks clean water to prepare it.
A USAID official came to a clear conclusion in the report: “I do not concur with moving forward with GHF given operational and reputational risks and lack of oversight.”
Key concerns were raised by USAID in vetting process days before $30 million grant was awarded to US and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund, documents show.
The US has removed Syria’s Al Qaeda franchise from its list of designated terrorist organizations just days after the UK added nonviolent activist group Palestine Action to its own list of banned terrorist groups.
The western empire will surely find ways to be even more hypocritical and ridiculous about its “terrorism” designations in the future, but at this point it’s hard to imagine how it will manage to do so.
This move comes as Sharaa holds friendly meetings with US and UK officials and holds normalization talks with Israel, showing that all one has to do to cease being a “terrorist” in the eyes of the empire is to start aligning with the empire’s interests.
So that was on Monday. The Saturday prior, the group Palestine Action was added to the UK’s list of proscribed terrorist groups under the Terrorism Act of 2000, making involvement with the group as aggressively punishable as involvement with ISIS.
The “terrorism” in question? Spraying red paint on two British war planes in protest against the UK’s support for the Gaza holocaust. A minor act of vandalism gets placed in the same category as mass murdering civilians with a car bomb when the vandalism is directed at the imperial war machine in opposition to the empire’s genocidal atrocities.
My understanding of Keybase is that it was some kind identity aggregator. You were able to link identities not just by keys, but also by external services, like Twitter (at a time), email and other things.
Is the data and public keys being replicated in the communication between instances? it's not made clear how the federation actually works, because "enabling users on different servers to share data with end-to-end encryption" (from foks.pub/) is something all services with TLS / HTTPS support already do...
Also.. one big plus for the OpenPGP HKP protocol is that technically you can self-host your own key in a static HTTPS server with predefined responses and be able to have it interact with other servers and clients without issue. I'm expecting the more complex nature of FOKS might make self-hosting in this way difficult. I'd rather minimize the dynamic services I expose to the outside publicly if I'm self hosting.
journalctl is the one part of systemd I really do not like. For whatever reason, it's insanely slow, taking multiple seconds before it gets around to display anything. It also has all the wrong defaults, displaying error messages from a year ago first, while scrolling to the bottom again also takes forever and consumes 100% CPU while doing so.
There are flags to filter and display only the relevant parts, but not only are none of them intuitive, doing a mistake there just gives you "-- No entries --", not an error. So you can never quite tell if you typed it wrong or if were are no messages.
Maybe it all makes more sense when studying the man page in depths and learned all the quirks, but /var/log/ kind of just worked and was fast, without any extra learning.
I totally agree. I used to hate systemd for breaking the traditional Unix philosophy, but the reality is that a tight init and service-tracking integration tool really was required. I work with and appreciate systemd every day now. It certainly didn't make things simplier and easier to debug, but it goes a long way towards making a Linux system predictable and consistent.
Poettering can go fuck himself though - and for PulseAudio too. I suspect half of the hate systemd attracted over the years was really because of this idiot.
Is it really breaking it? As far as I'm aware, it's more like gnu. It has components and you can select what you use (here meaning distros and packagers).
People mistake this for a monolith because it's all named systemd-thing. Integration, like you said, was and is needed. But what if all those separate utilities and services are actually disconnected and speak some protocol different to pipe? Does it make it less unixy?
And poettering is an absolute good guy here. Pulseaudio wasn't perfect, but did it improve things compared to what was there before? Sure it did. Even now, pulesaudio protocol is used within pipewire and it works just fine.
Perfect is the enemy of good. And while all these tools might not be perfect, they are the best in the Linux world.
Agreed. But he's also an abrasive know-it-all. A modicum of social skills and respect goes a long way towards making others accept your pet projects.
pulesaudio protocol is used within pipewire and it works just fine.
I wasn't talking about the protocol, I was talking about the implementation: PulseAudio is a crashy, unstable POS. I can't count the number of hours this turd made me waste, until PipeWire came along.
I always assumed that Poettering is an arse to people because of the hate he got for systemd. I imagine it's hard to see the best in people when there's a crowd of haters everywhere you go. Though I have no idea what he was like beforehand.
Everybody who is hated and popular gets death threats. Hell, even the nicest actors get death threats.
They are easy to write and send, and there's 0.01% of the population that is mentally unstable enough to actually do so. You and I don't get death threats because we aren't popular enough.
Nah bugger that. Famous actors are known by a vast majority of people. It is not normal for open source programmers to receive abuse to the level of death threats. That only happens when you get the attention of kiwi farms types.
I feel that generally, when the issue is that the person is an arse, then the complaints are often not about the software. You might see people campaigning to boicot the software out of spite, but they won't give you a technical reason, other than them not wanting the creator to get any credit for it.
When the complaints are about discrepancies in the way the software is designed (like it was with systemd), there's no reason to expect the person to be an arse. Though him not being an arse does not make the criticism about his software invalid... in the same way as him being an arse would not have made the software technically worthless. Don't fall for the ad-hominem.
Pulseaudio was introduced in 2004. How come it took almost 20y for it to be replaced if it was that bad?
Implementation, being what it is, improved the situation compared to alsa and other things before it. Again, while not perfect it made things better for everyone.
It's funny that this is a thing attributed to poettering as bad since things before were way worse... why not throw Sticks and stones at those people?
I really don't get it.
And all of these things are optional. The fact that distro people and companies select them is because they solve real world problems.
things before were way worse… why not throw Sticks and stones at those people?
My earliest memories of Linux audio were in Slackware in the mid 90s, reading and re-reading the HOWTO that started off with a bunch of attitude about how real computer users don't need audio, but we can do it anyway "so, if you must hear Biff bark..." and then a bunch of very unhelpful things to try following that never ever worked on any system I ever tried to use them on. Diverse systems that, of course, all played audio through Windows flawlessly.
Agreed. But he’s also an abrasive know-it-all. A modicum of social skills and respect goes a long way towards making others accept your pet projects.
This isn't what I get when reading bug reports he interacts in. Yeah, sometimes he asks if something can't be done another way – but he seems also very open to new ideas. I rather think that this opinion of him is very selective, there are cases where he comes off as smug, but I never got the impression this is the majority of cases.
I wasn’t talking about the protocol, I was talking about the implementation: PulseAudio is a crashy, unstable POS. I can’t count the number of hours this turd made me waste, until PipeWire came along.
PipeWire for audio couldn't exist nowadays without PulseAudio though, in fact it was originally created as "PulseAudio for Video"; Pulse exposed a lot of bugs in the lower levels of the Linux audio stack. And I do agree that PipeWire is better than PulseAudio. But it's important to see it in the context of the time it was created in, and Linux audio back then was certainly different. OSS was actually something a significant amount of people used…
From what i understand the problem is that while systemd is technically split up into different components, you can't really use it with the stuff you don't want ripped out.
You obviously weren't actually around when he was granted mini-king status and acted like a jackass to literally anyone who objected to pulse or systemd. As a result, redhat, canonical, and Debian had to eat criticism over pushing these before they were ready... because of "superstar" poettering.
You are correct. GNU has the bad habit of only working with itself as well. Systemd only works with Glibc so it fits in well.
The reality is that GNU is just a subset of the Red Hat Linux platform these days. Systemd is another part. GNOME is the other big chunk. They are all designed to work with each other and do not care if they work with anything else.
I don't know why they are downvoting you, it's true. I'm dealing with this kind of problem currently.. sometimes the boot lasts forever to the point that I have to use AltGr+SysRq commands to force kill everything.. other times it simply boots as normal. It's not consistent at all.
At least before with the old init it was relatively simple to dig into the scripts and make changes to them.. I feel now with systemd it's a lot more opaque and harder to deal with. I wouldn't even know how to approach the problem, systemd-analyze blame does not help, since the times I actually get to boot look normal. But I do believe it must have to do with the mountpoints because often they are what takes the longest. Any advice on what should I do would be welcome.
Also, I have a separate Bazzite install in my living room TV, and while that one does not get locked, sometimes NetworkManager simply is not running after boot... I got fed up to the point that I wrote a workaround by creating a rc.local script to have it run, so I can have it available reliably when the system starts (that fixed it.. though some cifs mountpoints often do not get mounted.. so I'm considering adding the mount command to the same rc.local script too....).
You can play around with the mount option nofail, if that's set, systemd will not wait for the mount point to be ready and continue booting normally. Can be useful with HDDs that take a while to spin up and aren't needed for the boot process (e.g. backup drives, etc.).
Another thing to look out for: SDCards or USB flash drives that might randomly fail to "spin up" and hang, unplugging those helps.
Linux audio has been a cluster^$%< of epic proportions since the mid 1990s. At least you can make single application systems work well these days, but Windows has really whipped the llamas ass on the audio front for 30+ years now, in terms of "it just works" user experience - without being hyper-draconian on the application ecosystem.
It definitely depends on what you are trying to get out of it.
I'll grant: low lag audio performance in Windows is... dismal. Which is why everyone had conference call lag adjustment issues in 2020, "go ahead", "no you go ahead", "ok" - both start talking simultaneously again... It seems better these days, I'm sure that's at least in part due to training of the conference participants, but maybe they have been working on getting the lag down without too many dropout / stutters.
We have a bespoke low lag audio system that was specifically implemented in Linux even though we put the GUI in Windows because of those lag / stutter issues, years back the audio was done on a dedicated DSP chip, but a Core i7 is more than up to the task on Linux these days.
The Linux audio pains I refer to were: A) audio just doesn't work at all, and B) audio works, until you start to try to use two audio applications simultaneously - then they start to mess each other up. Both of those were better in Windows long before Linux came up to speed. But a lot of how Windows audio gets acceptable performance is big laggy buffers.
I totally agree with the functionality of systemd. We need that. But the implementation… Why the fuck do we need to cram everything into pid 1? At least delegate the parsing into another process, god damn. And could we all just agree that ’systemd-{networkd,resolved,homed}’ don’t really have a reason to exist, and definitely not that coupled to a fucking init system. Systemd-timers are wonderful, but why are we running cron-but-better in pid 1?
We have an init-system where the developers are afraid of using things like processes and separation of privileges. I’m just tired of patching fleets of servers in panic every time Pöttering’s bad design decisions hit the fan with their CVEs and consequences.
The coupling in PID 1 is a bit much. I actually quite like systemd-networkd for some use cases, though. It lets me declaratively manage the network interfaces on my headless servers in a way that's very similar to how I'm managing the services. Sure, it's coupled to systemd, but it's mostly one-way coupling; if I want to use NetworkManager (which I do on my laptop), I can switch over, and nothing in the init system breaks.
I'd say the main bad part of systemd is how it's used and now expected everywhere.
If you search for some Linux guides or install something complicated or whatnot, they always expect you to have systemd. Otherwise, you're on your own figuring how things work on your system.
This shouldn't really happen. Otherwise, yes, it's great, it integrates neatly, and is least pain to use.
There is no authority delegating responsibilities of writing tutorials for Linux. It is the responsibility of nobody and everybody. If you can't find one for your problem, write it yourself when you have figured it out.
If you think so and that this is important, maybe you could be the one that makes it happen. Start a project and gather like-minded people. That is how Linux, FOSS and community driven efforts operate. It's useless to complain that nobody else makes the effort if you have the capabilities but can't be arsed making an attempt yourself.
I have struggled with Fedora for couple of years (graphics drivers after major updates), then Ubuntu got me down a couple of times (snaps and other malice).
Zero issues with Gentoo after the initial setup. You build it, update it, and IT WORKS. Also you can easily remove parts of software you're building with USE flags. -telemetry, -x11, and you never care about it anymore.
I must assume Gentoo does require manual intervention here and there, and updates must take eternity for packages that are not precompiled, ain't it so?
I have an 8 core CPU, but I have to admit I don't use any DE.
Updates can take several hours if I don't upgrade for a while, but PC is usable during them (you can set number of build threads).
Manual intervention is what I've said needed way more in Fedora, which left me without any video after updates, or Ubuntu which broke integrations or replaced my software.
Gentoo just... is.
There are sometimes updates that would require intervention if you do something special, nothing too difficult though, and you get a link to Wiki with working solutions.
I like systemd overall. The ease of use, uniform interface and nice documentation is awesome.
Though each time I try to run it on outdated hardware (say, my Thinkpad X100e, which is, well, a life choice xD) — it makes whole system much slower. IMO, openrc is not as bad, and in some ways it gives some capabiilties of systemd these days.
I'm over here still using OpenRC. Mostly because I want to. Some servers I run have systemd on them. systemd is generally nice. OpenRC has finally gained the ability to run user services, which is also very nice.
I hate to admit I didn't want anything to do with systemd because it took me forever to get somewhat familiar with some other mainstream init systems.
Then, I didn't care for a while until I developed software that had to keep running using some sort of init system. The obvious choice was whatever the default I had (systemd) and I fell in love with the convenience of systemd (templates, timers, ..). I started shipping sample systemd with the things I provide & yes, you are on your own if you use something else.
I've been using systemd on most of my systems since it was released; I was an early jumper to upstart as well.
The thing I don't like about systemd is how pervasive in the OS it is. It violates the "do one thing, do it well" Unix philosophy, and when systemd went from an init system to starting to take everything over, I started liking it less.
My issues with systemd is that it isn't an unmitigated success, for me. journald is horrible: it's slow and doesn't seem to catch everything (the latter is extremely rare, but that it happens occasionally makes me nervous). There are several gotchas in running user services, such as getting in-session services working correctly (so that user services can access the user session kernel keyring).
Recently I've been using dinit on a system, and I'm pretty happy with it. I may switch all of my systems over to it; I'm running Arch everywhere, and while migrating Arch to Artix was scary the first time, in the end it went fairly smoothly.
Fundamentally, systemd is a monolithic OS system. It make Linux into more of a Windows or MacOS, where a bunch of different systems are consolidated under a single piece of software. While it violates the Unix philosophy, it has been successful because monolithic systems tend to be easier to use: users really only have to learn two command-line tools, vs a dozen. Is it categorically better, just because the user interface is easier for new Linux users?
Systemd is modular not monolithic. Distros choose which parts of system d to implement and it just happens to be most of it since its really good at what it does.
It is not modular. This is a lie Poettering keeps pushing to defend building a huge edifice of interdependent systems.
Look at the effort required to factor out logind. It can't just be used in it's own; it has a hard dependency on systemd and needs code changes to decouple.
I will repeat that journald is really bad at what it does, and further assert that you can not run systemd without journald, or vice versa. That you can not run systemd without getting timed job control. Even if you chose not to use it, it's in there. And you can not get time job control without the init part. In most unix systems, init and cron are utterly decoupled and can be individually swapped with other systems.
Systemd is not modular if you can't swap parts out for other software. Systemd's modularity is a bald-faced lie.
The one exceptions are homed and resolvd, which are relatively new and were addedlong after systemd came under fire for being monolithic. And, ironically, they're the components most distributions don't use by default.
Systemd boot, Systemd network and elogind I'm pretty sure can be decoupled. There's 69 modules so I'm not entirely sure about all of them just the ones ive encountered.
I know logind can't easily be, because I ran Artix for a while and they were using a decoupled version of it, and there was a big discussion about swapping it for something else because it was so hard to maintain.
You cannot even decouple SystemD from Glibc, never mind separating the various components from each other. It is a bunch of processes but it is designed as a monolith.
It's refreshing to read to someone that actually says "I was so wrong"
I was wrong also with systemd, I hated it mainly because I already knew init.d, where files are, where configs where etc. Some years later hate is gone, I'm not a power user, but I just now know how to handle my things with systemd and all is good.
I see most often that it's the people who live in init.d - interact with it multiple times a day - who are most vocal about systemd hate. I'm going to call "old dogs don't like new tricks" on that one.
I do get into that layer of system maintenance, but it's maybe 1-2% of my time, mostly a set-it and forget-it kind of relationship. There was a time when the old ways were easier due to more documentation and guides on the internet, which I lean on heavily because I interact with this stuff so rarely. Those days passed, for me, 8-10 years back.
You do realize that it's not a binary between systemd and SysV, right? There are modern replacements for SysV other than systemd, like dinit, OpenRC, s6 and they all strive to address the shortcomings of SysV
I decided to finally lean into using systemd more while i've been using NixOS, since the OS already relies heavily on it anyway. Created targets for my window managers, starting all my programs with services instead of autostart scripts, etc. And it worked fine for the most part, except for some reason, in qtile the systray widget refuses to load the nm-applet when it's started through systemd. Waybar does not have this problem. I can't help notice that systemd is not just a little slower, which isn't the biggest deal in the world, but it also tends to hang more often when shutting down, which is a bit annoying and reminds me of windows lol. Before NixOS i used Void, and while i never really cared too much about what init system i'm running, i can't help but really appreciate runit for being so simple and fast. I'm thinking of moving back to Void but using the Nix package manager on top. I recently found a solution to the nix driver problem when using it on other distros, so now i should be able to combine the best of both worlds.
I've never used any other init system since I'm relatively new to Linux (8 years of use). So, systemd is all I know. I don't mind it, but I have this one major issue with it. That "stop job for UID 1000......" Or whatever it says. It's hands down the most annoying thing I have ever experienced in Linux. Making me wait for 3 minutes sometimes is just insane. I know I can go in and make it wait for 5 seconds /etc/systemd/system.conf or whatever, but why? Also, another one usually pops up.
Other than that, I really like how I can make timers. I like how I can make scripts run on boot, logout or login. And I like how I can make an app a background service that can auto start if they ever crashed. Maybe all of this can be done with other init systems? I wouldn't know, but I like these in systemd
I use it because I'm frankly too dumb to use something else, but if that wasnt the case, i dont think id be speaking fondly of it.
I'm a ram usage fetishist, I absolutely disagree with the "unused ram is wasted ram" phrase that has caught on with people.
I see some of these distros running a graphical environment with only 90mb ram usage and i cream myself. All of them run something other than systemd, usually avoid GNU stuff, and...require you basically to be a developer to use them.
I already run a half broken, hacked together system due to my stubborness, I can't imagine how fucked I'd be if I tried one of these cool kid minimalist distros.
So you just like having ram doing nothing? Unused ram is wasted ram. Distros cache a lot in ram because they can. I mean why hav RAM is you just want to stare at it and say ohh look at all the free RAM.
Even a system that uses 90mb of ram on a cold boot will accumulate gigs of stuff in cache if you're using it. (assuming it has the memory for it) That isn't what people have a problem with though.
Maybe this is an incorrect use of language on my part, but I feel like I'm not the only person who means "memory actively being used by a process" when referring to memory usage. I understand the whole linux ate my ram thing. That just isn't what I or what I assume a lot of people mean when talking about this.
When I boot up my system, pull up my terminal, run htop, and see 800-1200mb being used just by processes (not in buffer, not in cache), that doesn't raise any flags or anything, but I also know that some people have gotten their systems so streamlined they use 10x less than that. That's all memory that could be used by other things. That could be the difference between a low memory system running a web browser or not. Could be the difference maker in a game someone wants to play on their system. There are endless possibilities.
Could be the difference maker in a game someone wants to play on their system.
One reality of the world is: the developers choose what hardware/OS configurations they target. If the makers of your game don't target your RAM efficient system, you're outta luck. Developers make their choices for their own reasons, but even with the ever-growing FOSS communities, the majority of developers work for a paycheck, that paycheck comes from profitable businesses and those businesses have very strong influence on what the developers work toward. The businesses only exist because they are profitable... FOSS may not be bound by those realities, but it lives in a world dominated by them.
If you're in a system where 256mb of RAM is the limit, sure - go for the RAM efficient OS options, they're out there.
Can you even buy less than 2GB of RAM in a desktop system anymore? Even the Raspberry Pi 5 starts at 2GB (and, yes, the older models have less, but I did say desktop system, implying: reasonable desktop performance.) Maybe if you feel the need to use a RasPi 3 as a desktop for something then you should dig around for one of your more efficient OS configurations, but I'll note... back when RasPi 3 was the new model, Raspbian came default without systemd, but offered a systemd option. The systemd option booted from power off to the desktop (such as it was) in about 1/3 the time.
Unused memory IS wasted memory and my Linux machines, AFAICR, always have buffered everything possible since twenty years ago, it's not a systemd thing. It also speeds up things, why the long face?
I hated it and still do because for a period of years every weird, difficult to find issue on a bunch of servers was caused by systemd. It may be fine now, but I switched to Devuan and have had incredible stability. Poettering's response to security issues was also terrible and honestly the dude seems like a real piece of shit.
Ok I see. Without any intention to sound offensive, 5 servers is not enough to really see the pro cons of either init system. People handling 50 times those numbers encounter issues where it starts to matter, and those people tend to claim that, while it ain't perfect, it is a lot better than any alternative
You see, I scaled down a little in recent years because that is not my primary job any more. But, I am working as an admin from 1998. so my word should have some weight, right?
All words from any it admin have weight, that is not what I meant.
Its just that init scripts and weird boot requirements are really crap to manage at scale and my job, like many others became a lot easier with systemd, that is why almost everyone uses it now. In my experience those that complain either never encountered these issues because they never scaled enough and like to use what they were used to, or prefer to write a script over a config file and make this a religious issue for some reason.
I think it strongly detracts from the post. I basically skipped right to the comments without clicking the link because I'm assuming it's AI slop, and I'm hoping the comments are interesting.
People would be less mad if you straight up used a stock image with a watermark so I don't understand why people go out of their way to use AI when they know people will comment on it and it will detract from the point of the article.
Also, using AI in the thumbnail makes people automatically assume you're using AI in the text as well. And if you're not doing that, why would you lessen the perceived value of your writing by making it seem like you are?
It just seems pointless and actively harms your actual goals because people will get hung up on the fact that you used AI and ignore your actual valid points. Especially when you're writing about open source projects when most people interested in open source are vehemently anti-AI, it really just shows you don't know your target audience.
While I mostly agree with you (and 100% on it distracting from the article), I think you’re not thinking about image rights.
If you’re a serious blogger with a good sized blog, a lawsuit or DMCA or otherwise is potentially a killer outcome of using an image you don’t 100% sure have the rights to. With AI, you can be 100% sure you can use the image however you want, without any repercussions. I’d imagine that’s huge in the considerations for a blogger.
I dont think this is a reasomable counterpoint because the target audience in question would also vastly prefer shit as simple as an mspaint illustration or a dithered irl image.
Also, it is quite feasible to find royalty free images, and I have no idea where you're getting the impression it is not. There are a host of images that provide licensing metadata. Google image search and co. can find these. It's simply a matter of verifying the license authenticity.
Any idea how well verified the images are on those sites? What's the chance that one with copyright gets uploaded and I get hit with a giant fine for using it?
Dunno. I feel like if you've used an image from a reputable source under the proviso that you're licensed for it, and it turns out you're not... you may be able to blame Unsplash etc. and just swap the image out.
Personally I think it's fallen out of fashion. For my blog I'd either use a meme or other dump picture for each post. When generated images first came out I used a few for blog posts, it was new and interesting and said "I'm interested in technology and like playing around with new things".
Nowadays I'm back on the meme pics. I feel now it's so much easier to generate images, it more says "I want to look professional but also spend no money and have no standards".
i’m downvoting ai slop every chance i get. i’m sure it’s just as futile as downvoting every post that used the acronym ‘FAFO’. i hated that one because i think the people who used it thought they sounded sooo cool.
if you’ll excuse me, i’ve got some clouds outside i need to go shake my fist at.
I don't appreciate the attitude and arrogance of the guy behind systemd because he actually believes what he produces can replace everything that already "just works". He wants to push out systemd-homed because "why not". He wants to replace grub. He wants to replace a myriad of things that just flat out don't need to get replaced. autofs, cron, you name it! That kind of thinking and one-size-fits-all mentality is backwards and does not benefit the community in any way. All it does is stuff everything into one bin and so long as influencers like this guy continue to restrict what works or doesn't work according to their own work, the community and its users will not be able to freely develop FOSS. Gnome is a good example of something that creates too much of a dependency on systemd and so when you're trying to use something like Gentoo, it becomes very difficult to get that done and hacks have to made in order to get it working. FOSS shouldn't work like that. He'll keep stripping away legit projects from major distros until IBM/Red Hat finally decide to seal the deal and lock everyone out for good. Sorry if I can't rejoice in the woah whiplash.
So, I don't like the guy either, but for a little devil's advocacy:
The stuff that already "just works" was developed during a very different era in terms of computing power, tasking of the computers which were running the systems, etc. Nobody (serious, and he is serious) develops something different because "why not?" they, at least from their perspective, feel that they are improving on the status quo, at least for the use cases they are considering.
one-size-fits-all mentality is
being decided by the distro maintainers, not the developers. Sure, developers promote their product, but if a distro thinks that multiple flavors are a better path, they distribute multiple flavors. It's not like the systemd developers are filling billion dollar war chests with profit because they're using strong-arm tactics to coerce distro maintainers to adopt their products.
stuff everything into one bin
When one bin serves the purpose, it's a lot easier to maintain, modernize, security harden, etc. than ten bins.
the community and its users will ~~not~~ always be able to freely develop FOSS.
Fork it and your loyal users will follow.
Gnome is a good example of something that creates too much of a dependency
Agreed, I was never happy with GNOME, and starting about 5 years back I have been migrating my systems, personal and professional, off of it. That's the nature of FOSS, no contracts to negotiate, make the choices that make sense for your use cases and execute them.
FOSS shouldn’t work like that.
FOSS, by its very nature, should be expected to work all the ways. If a particular way can't get enough developer traction, it stagnates but never really dies, not until the ecosystem it is dependent upon can no longer find hardware to run on and users willing to run it.
IBM/Red Hat finally decide to seal the deal and lock everyone out for good.
I am very glad that I walked away from CentOS about 8 years back, its proximity to Red Hat never made me happy. I have been trying to walk away from Canonical (toward Debian) for about 3 years now, but it still has some hooks that keep our professional team happier than Debian. If the unhappy ever outweighs the happy, we'll execute the move.
Sorry if I can’t rejoice
Never asked you to. End of devil's advocacy. I still don't like the guy, but I never really interact with him. I do interact with his products and the alternatives, and in my use cases the products speak for themselves. There's nothing about systemd that makes me dig around for systemd free alternatives - they are out there, but for my use cases I don't care. YMMV.
Gnome is a good example of something that creates too much of a dependency
Agreed, I was never happy with GNOME, and starting about 5 years back I have been migrating my systems, personal and professional, off of it. That’s the nature of FOSS, no contracts to negotiate, make the choices that make sense for your use cases and execute them.
Does Gnome have too much dependency on Gnome: yes or no?
Absolutely. If you don't mind using Gnome exactly as Gnome wants you to - this year - then it's usually a pretty refined desktop experience, but if I wanted to be told what to like, how to like it, and to shut up and be happy, I'd use a Mac.
I prefer XFCE for its modularity... don't want a launcher bar? Don't run the launcher; nothing else misses it when it's gone.
Mess around with Gnome too much and it becomes a nightmare mess of dependencies.
Well, it is not one bin. There is no monolithic systemd bin that does everything. There are a lot of separate bin files for all the different tasks. Well and if you don't want to use timers, then don't and just use cron instead. If you don't want to use journald, then just don't and use rsyslog or whatever you want. Don't need systemd-homed? Well, then don't use it. You want to configure your network with something else then systemd-networkd? Great, do it if you want.
The Poettering Army will not come and force you to enable all the options 😜
Ah but you see, you have to understand the FOSS community a little more than just "using a license that FSF and OSI endorsed".
In terms of inter-project politics, systemd is almost wholly owned by IBM. They can override any will they want, they can change anything they want, all while fucking the community over. In short, IBM, using systemd as a massive octopus growing it's tentacles all over mainstream Linux distros, is gaining considerable weight to pull in the Linux world.
They can essentially dictate matters to everyone they want, because you don't want your distro to stop being supported, do you? And now, another IBM-majority project, GNOME, is almost dependent on systemd (despite the very good word of both gnome and systemd that this wouldn't happen, IT HAS) and KDE is also being slowly pulled in that direction, with DrKonqi becoming systemd only in it's latest update.
Essentially, we are handing over 30 years of work in FOSS to IBM, literally the caricature of evil tech company, and now they control the mainstream and can dictate their will.
Allow me to remind you that this same IBM almost immediately after taking over RedHat, started closing down the source sharing of RHEL, which is it's own whole thing so I digress.
Let my final word be this, R.M.S as much of a problematic piece of shit he is, correctly predicted we being fucked over by DRM and subscription services 20 years ago and was ridiculed for it.
Don't you think it's time to take a fucking hint? You don't have to be an anarchist to see where this is going.
I have seen with Oracle Java and OpenOffice (as two examples) that the open source community is very good in just leaving and forking a project if the current owners fuck up.
The same will happen with systemd if needed. Red Hat may be the primary source behind systemd now, but they don't own it. All the code is fully open source, none of your ramblings have any hint of facts or any real foreseeable danger behind it. I asked for facts, for anything with some kind of real information behind it.
There is nothing that powers the claim that RedHat or IBM could take over Linux with systemd. How would they do it? They can't, because even if IBM would tomorrow change the license to a closed one and would want money. Who cares, everyone will just fork the version before the license change and good is.
Just as it happened back then with Xorg (I mean the change 15 or so years ago, not the current strange fork), like it happened a short while ago with Redis, and there are so many examples more.
If it breaks it is, in my experience as a grub user for over 20 years and as a guy working in server hosting for 15 years, either because of failing HDD/SSD or because of user error. People don't read when the updater tells them that running "grub-install" is needed (or they perform it on the wrong drive/partition) and then blame grub when it fails on the next boot.
The crappy bootloader that comes with systemd very often, in my experience, fails to register that a new Kernel was installed and boots the old one (or fails to boot if the package manager removed the old Kernel).
Oh and GRUB has so many useful features, like booting a ISO image. GRUB is a piece of programmer art!
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/systemd/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus systemd Linux.
Because people here accuse Poettering of being an asshole: I've read some of his blogposts and seen some talks of his and him doing Q&A: He answered professionally, did his best to answer truthfully, did acknowledge when he didn't know something. No rants, no opining on things he didn't know about, no taking questions in bad faith.
As far as I can tell all the people declaring him some kind of asshole are full of shit.
He is not that bad, the issue is that, as all foss devs, he is not interested in solving problems he does not feel like are important.
The problem is, he disapproves when resources are allocated in his project to those problems and one main area he is not a fan of is support for legacy stuff.
It just happens that legacy stuff is the majority of the industry, as production environment of half the globe needs to run legacy software and a lot of it on legacy hardware
What tips about setting up my stock Android phone would you give me? It's not factory unlocked so I'm sticking with Google Android.
Things I've done: - Stopped and disabled all apps that I don't use or need. - Replaced all apps that I can with FOSS alternatives from github using Obtainium. - Not installed things that I can just check on my laptop like email.
Is there anything else that I can do? Thanks in advance
Edit I've also: - Changed my DNS to Mullvad DNS - Restricted app permissions to only what they need - Not signed into the phone. I don't even have Gmail account.
I assume you are using F-droid app manager, and also added IzzyonDroid repo to it? There you can get a lot of apps, like firewalls to block apps that call home when you don't really use them. Replace most of your apps with open source alternatives from F-droid. Get an email hosting alternative that isn't one of the big (spy, data mining) companies. Use decentralized privacy focused social media options. What type of phone manufacturer do you use and is it unlocked? You could use an android privacy rom like CalyxOS, that is what I use, completely de-googled, uses MicroG instead of Google Play services. A VPN would be my last option to add, especially when connecting to outside wifi.
So one of the gotchas about stopped/disabled apps is that other apps can still call and launch them. I frequently saw my apps pop back up even after being disabled, since I used SuperFreezZ to monitor them. f-droid.org/packages/superfree…
The alternative to that would be an ADB disable. IIRC it takes the app away from userspace completely. It doesn't touch the system-level though, so a factory reset will bring it back.
If you can't handle setting up ADB and it's hoops, there is an app combo that can set up a bridge and run the ADB disable for you: f-droid.org/en/packages/io.git…
With Shizuku and Canta, you can remove the spying system apps. You can break your phone though (fixable with a factory reset), so do be careful. If you want to play it safe, use the recommended list in Canta. These should be safe to remove.
I like NetGuard, but think that TrackerControl is a bit more privacy focused. It had tracker detection, includes a traffic log as a free feature (NG requires purchase), and a few of the other NG Pro features are implemented in TC as well. In the end having either is better than neither.
Rethink DNS is both a firewall app, and you can run a VPN at the same time using a wireguard configuration.
I use a VPN system wide, and for some apps like Fennec or a Torrent app (yes I torrent on my phone lol), I use a different wireguard config for each one of these apps. For the systemwide VPN, its using a server in my country, for individual apps, it goes to switzerland or iceland (So the IP used to check for system updates isn't correlated to the IP used for everyday browsing, watch youtube videos, or torrenting). I block everything from internet access unless it needs internet to function, like a phone app for example (for VoLTE). Enable "block connections without VPN".
Mullvad has the cheapest VPN at €5 Euro per month, and ProtonVPN have some free servers, but free servers have slower speeds.
As I said, it doesn't protect, it changes who can see the data.
Your ISP might not be able to see it, but your VPN provider will instead. VPN providers are hardly ever under any kind of regulation, except those run by secret services, of which there are many.
And there are more than enough VPNs that sell customer data while claiming to be amazing for your privacy.
I''d argue changing who can see your data from either a large group to a smaller one or one you do trust vs one you do not trust precisely is protecting your privacy.
Also FWIW you can host your VPN, you do not have to rely on a commercial VPN provider.
I’'d argue changing who can see your data from either a large group to a smaller one or one you do trust vs one you do not trust precisely is protecting your privacy.
It's always astounding to me that people put more trust in an intangible rando from the internet than into organizations governed by law. Like those people who don't accept mainstream medicine but eat random supplements they imported from India by the kilogram.
Also FWIW you can host your VPN, you do not have to rely on a commercial VPN provider.
Sure you can. And where does that traffic go?
If you e.g. host a VPN in your home network and you connect to it from your phone, and then you use this connection to access the internet, then your traffic will just be visible to your home network's ISP instead of your phone's ISP.
No idea what your analogy about non conventional medicine is about. Feel free to explain.
just be visible to your home network’s ISP instead of your phone’s ISP.
Indeed, which is already what I mentioned, namely another group. It's about the threat model namely if you trust one ISP more than another. I believe your understood that but chose not to acknowledge it and I'm not sure why but maybe it related to your analogy that I didn't get.
Edit: if you and others are interested in the topic I recommend splintercon.net/ plenty of resources on the topic.
PS: FWIW I didn't suggest VPN is the solution to all problems but they do alleviate some. The point is one must understand both how they work and their OWN threat model rather than an idealized one.
The analogy is that on the one hand you have a corporation where you know who they are, where you know which laws they are governed by, where you know how to file a privacy complaint, where you know who to sue in case something goes wrong. And you don't trust them.
Instead you choose to trust some rando from the internet. Where anyone with a sane mind knows they will get screwed over.
Even if you have encrypted your traffic with a VPN, advanced traffic analysis is a growing threat against your privacy. Therefore, we have developed DAITA – a feature available in our VPN app.
You can't. Some might say that the less adversaries monitor you the better. But you will never be private unless you ditch all the proprietary software and practice good opsec on the internet and in real life. Hate to break it to you, but privacy is fundamentally a binary thing: you are either spied upon or you are not, regardless if it's one hundred companies or just one.
To the extent that you still need to use standard apps, consider disabling your advertising ID. EFF has a guide to this at eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/how-…
This won't stop google of course. You should probably also install a firewall, like other people here have suggested. And keep in mind, disabling features entirely is different from not using them. For example, if location services is turned off, then even google maps doesn't know your location (in theory anyway), whereas if it is merely unused then google will still check periodically.
Nobody expects Russia to march to Berlin. They will selectively annex or invade wherever suits them if they don’t face resistance. This article seems to say we should abandon Ukraine so German industry can have cheaper power from fossil fuels. Merkel also treated Russia like a normal trading partner when it was clear they were not trustworthy.
No, Germany decommissioned its nuclear plants as an act of foolishness. Ukraine should not pay the consequences. If Germany wants less war, it would be easy to stop supporting genocide in Palestine, while continuing to support Ukraine.
Germanys economy is suffering, but it has turned the corner. Likely trade with America will affect it more than Russia.
You're just regurgitating propaganda you've memorized instead of actually engaging with the article. Why would they bother spending the effort trying to annex or invade Europe when they can just exploit political instability resulting from the self inflicted harm that militarization will cause? The elephant in the room is that European economy is already suffering, and spending 5% of GDP on NATO is going to require massive austerity. Nationalist parties are already polling sky high across Europe, and this will only further drive their popularity. All these parties are perfectly happy to work with Russia and exist the EU.
I don't think Europe should be spending 5% of GDP on defence. That doesn't mean Russia is not a threat. You're saying that Russia is a threat, but from a intelligence and misinformation point of view. What makes you think much of the new spending won't be on that?
These questions have been answered in detail many time by plenty of people such as , Jeffrey Sachs, and many others. Russia's annexation of Crimea was a direct response to the overthrow of the legitimate and democratically elected government by the west. The invasion of Ukraine was a response to NATO provocation. The fact that this was a provocation wasn't even hidden. It was openly discussed in mainstream US media and by US think tanks. A couple of examples for you here
In fact, entire books have been written on the subject detailing the history of the provocations that led to the conflict.
You’re saying that Russia is a threat, but from a intelligence and misinformation point of view. What makes you think much of the new spending won’t be on that?
What I'm actually saying is that Europe is creating internal political instability and popular revolt against the neoliberal regime through its austerity policies. Meanwhile, Europe's own actions are the reason for the adversarial relationship with Russia. Russia will obviously continue to see Europe as a threat given Europe's openly hostile stance towards Russia, and therefore has every incentive to destabilize Europe in every way possible. Thus, European strategy becomes a self fulfilling prophecy where the actions Europe is taking ensure an adversarial relationship with Russia while destroying the foundation of economic stability that allows current political system to function.
THE GREATEST risk facing the twenty-first-century United States, short of an outright nuclear attack, is a two-front war involving its strongest military rivals, China and Russia.
Lol, so NATO provoking Russia is saying that Ukraine could enter at some point. Russia invaded them as in the future, they may not be able to invade them?!
At no point has there ever been any indication that NATO countries would impact on Russian sovereignty without provocation. Russia doesn't want more NATO members as it wants to invade and control their neighbours when it wishes.
Democratically elected? Do you forget that Victor yanukovich had his competition jailed. Yulia Tymoshenko was democratically elected and was pro eu. She then lost a run off to him and he had her jailed.
NATO provoking Russia with constant expansion to Russian borders since the 90s. Don't take my word for it though, here it is from the former head of NATO:
He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
I guess he must be spreading Ruzzian propaganda. 🤣
At no point has there ever been any indication that NATO countries would impact on Russian sovereignty without provocation. Russia doesn’t want more NATO members as it wants to invade and control their neighbours when it wishes.
I literally linked you an article and a policy paper above showing the exact opposite. I love how you ignore the reference I provide you with and just keep spewing propaganda talking points.
Democratically elected? Do you forget that Victor yanukovich had his competition jailed. Yulia Tymoshenko was democratically elected and was pro eu. She then lost a run off to him and he had her jailed.
Zelensky also jails his competition, and even cancelled elections. Yet, according to eurotrolls Ukraine is the pinnacle of democracy. I guess it's not just Ukraine nowadays, Romania cancelled elections when the wrong candidate won and jailed him. So, let's not pretend cancelling elections is something that doesn't happen in European "democracies".
I don't think Russia wants to "invade and control their neighbors when it wishes", but I also don't think the expansion of NATO justifies in any way the war Russia started.
And ironically, this Russian reaction is helping NATO expand further.
Russia is playing into USA hands by behaving this way, imho. Just as much as Europe is.
Talking about justifications is just moralizing, and it's not constructive in nature. The question should be how different countries should behave to avoid conflict.
Meanwhile, the whole talk of NATO expanding is pure nonsense. NATO has been shown to be impotent in Ukraine, and the US is now actively pulling out of Europe. Without the US there is no NATO because Europe lacks industrial capacity to pick up the slack. Even with the US in NATO, Russian military industry is outproducing it by a large factor according to a no lesser person than Rutte:
All the NATO wunderwuffe failed to turn the tide of war in Ukraine, and now NATO stocks are running dry with no clear way to replace them because NATO is not capable of pumping weapons out at the rate they're consumed in Ukraine.
Russia is playing into USA hands by behaving this way, imho. Just as much as Europe is.
Not really, the most likely scenario here is that Russia and the US will make a deal over the heads of the Europeans. They've already reestablished diplomatic relations, and when it becomes clear that Russia won the war, the US will make the best of it by throwing Europe under the bus.
Talking about justifications is just moralizing, and it’s not constructive in nature.
Then why do you moralize Europe's reaction? Or are you saying that you don't think wasting money in military is bad?
"Moralizing" just means "making judgments on whether it's good or bad".
Are you saying that we should not judge whether the decision to start a war was good / bad?
Meanwhile, the whole talk of NATO expanding is pure nonsense. NATO has been shown to be impotent in Ukraine, and the US is now actively pulling out of Europe.
Can you explain what you mean by "this whole talk"? which talk? is this something I said?
I don't see how this challengues anything I said (if this was your intent).
"NATO provoking Russia with constant expansion to Russian borders" is something you said, not me. I was just following up from that.. I didn't say anything about the power of NATO in Ukraine.. you are making up your own straw man....
Not really, the most likely scenario here is that Russia and the US will make a deal over the heads of the Europeans.
And you think this will not benefit the USA?
Europe also does deals with USA over the heads of the Russians.. this is not benefiting Russia either.
Then why do you moralize Europe’s reaction? Or are you saying that you don’t think Europe’s reaction is morally bad?
Point out where I make any moral arguments regarding Europe. What I'm actually saying that Europe is acting in an irrational and and self harmful way that's at odds with its own interests. The key is that strength is multifaceted, and it’s important to understand what type of strength is called for in any particular situation.
Are you saying that we should not judge whether the decision to start a war was good / bad?
I'm saying that we need to consider the context that led to the decision to start the war, and talk about what could've been done differently to avoid the war.
Can you explain what you mean by “this whole talk”? which talk? is this something I said?
I'm referring to you saying: "And ironically, this Russian reaction is helping NATO expand further."
And you think this will not benefit the USA?
I didn't say it wouldn't, but something benefiting the USA isn't contrary to it also benefiting Russia. It's not a zero sum game.
Europe also does deals with USA over the heads of the Russians… this is not benefiting Russia either.
If by does deals you mean gets brutally exploited then sure. The US is now selling Europe energy at 5-10x times that Russia was charging, it's actively poaching European industry that can't survive on high energy prices, and it's insisting on Europe spending an astounding 5% of GDP to pay US military industrial complex.
What I’m actually saying that Europe is acting in an irrational and and self harmful way that’s at odds with its own interests
Ah, and don't you think that's bad? ...or you just don't think that acting in a way that harms the population should be "moralized"?
Do you think Russia is in a better position now than after the war? I don't think Russia's attack on Ukraine was a rational response to NATO's expansion or beneficial to the Russians. If you don't like the word "justified" then you can think of it in those terms.
I’m saying that we need to consider the context that led to the decision to start the war, and talk about what could’ve been done differently to avoid the war.
Ok, what should Russia have done differently to avoid the war? or is this exclusively Europe's responsibility? Is Russia like a wild animal that simply reacts mechanically, taking only reactionary action, even when the decision can hurt them more than it can benefit them?
Do you really think that NATO's expansion was such an existential threat for Russia that waging war was "rational"? Because a moment ago you were saying that "NATO expanding is pure nonsense", that it can't really keep up, etc. So was NATO a threat or not?
I’m referring to you saying: “And ironically, this Russian reaction is helping NATO expand further.”
Yes I said that. Is it wrong? you mean the war has not triggered several countries to start having interest in joining NATO?
And this article is even about European members of NATO wanting to spend more in military... I think this is the opposite of what Russia wanted, which is why I find it ironic.
I didn’t say it wouldn’t, but something benefiting the USA isn’t contrary to it also benefiting Russia. It’s not a zero sum game.
I didn't say it's a zero sum game. The fact that this whole thing is forcing everyone to make deals with the US is quite telling, imho.
Same for Europe, the deal was brutal, but the pressure was high due to the breaks with Russia. Losing European business was a hard blow for Russia too, and they are overall in a much worse position now, imho.
I'm not surprised at Europe's stupidity, but Russia is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, to put it mildly. Both Russia and Europe are best when they work together... and they will destroy themselves if they continue this way.
Ah, and don’t you think that’s bad? …or you just don’t think that acting in a way that harms the population should be “moralized”?
I've explicitly and repeatedly explained what I think. If you have trouble understanding what I wrote then please let me know what part of it you need explained to you further.
Do you think Russia is in a better position now than after the war?
Furthermore, NATO is now in a state of complete chaos. There is infighting between Europeans internally, as well as growing ideological fractures across the Atlantic. It is not at all clear that NATO will survive the next few years. Don't take my word for it though, here's The Times describing the last NATO summit as Potemkin in nature.
Ok, what should Russia have done differently to avoid the war? or is this exclusively Europe’s responsibility? Is Russia like a wild animal that simply reacts mechanically, taking only reactionary action, even when the decision can hurt them more than it can benefit them?
Russia did try to avoid the war for 8 whole years. That's what the Minsk agreements were about. The ones top European leaders have now admitted were never intended to be implemented faithfully and were used to buy time to arm Ukraine.
Perhaps what Russia should have done differently was to not wait as long as they did to intervene in the ethnic cleansing that Ukraine was conducting in Donbas with western help.
Do you really think that NATO’s expansion was such an existential threat for Russia that waging war was “rational”? Because a moment ago you were saying that “NATO expanding is pure nonsense”.
I do think that, and plenty of western experts think that as well and have been warning about this since the 90s. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
::: spoiler 50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
:::
::: spoiler George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
:::
::: spoiler Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
:::
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Yes I said that. Is it wrong? you mean the war has not triggered several countries to start having interest in joining NATO?
Yes it is wrong, and I've explained in detail why it's wrong already.
And this article is even about European members of NATO wanting to spend more in military… I think this is the opposite of what Russia wanted, which is why I find it ironic.
You seem to have this infantile notion that simply adding NATO members makes it stronger.
I didn’t say it’s a zero sum game. The fact that this whole thing is forcing everyone to make deals with the US is quite telling, imho.
Russia isn't forced to make any deals with the US last I checked. It's the US that's trying to make deals with Russia right now, not the other way around.
European business was a hard blow for Russia too, and they are overall in a much worse position now, imho.
It's not because it opened up domestic niches that are being filled by local businesses, and China was able to redirect its trade towards BRICS. For example, trade with China stands at over 200 bln now. And of course, Russian oil and gas revenues soared 41% in first half of the year, as the data shows
I’m not surprised at Europe’s stupidity, but Russia is not the smartest tool in the shed either.
Russia is now largely insulated from the economic chaos in the west because it's mostly cut out of western economy. This alone is a huge benefit because it will insulate Russia from the economic crash that's unfolding in the west. Russia is still able to sell its commodities to the world, and it's no longer reliant on the western financial system to do that. It managed to strengthen relations with friendly countries. China in particular has become a strong ally for China, and its economy already surpasses the US in terms of PPP. It's also where pretty much all technology is produced.
Both Russia and Europe are best when they work together… and they will destroy themselves if they continue this way.
Russia has other options and it has proven over past three years that it does not need Europe. Meanwhile, Europe cannot function without Russian energy.
Moscow, Oct 1 (Prensa Latina) Trade exchange between Russia and China will exceed in 2024 the goal of 200 billion dollars proposed by the leaders of the two countries, declared the Russian ambassador in Beijing, Igor Morgulov.
Sorry, but if you truly don't think that decisions that lead to suffering should be "moralized", and you really think that it's "rational" and in the "own interests" of a country to wage war in order to grow the economy, then I think we simply disagree on what should be the goals of a society and where its interests should lie.
From the article you linked:
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine took much of the world by surprise. It is an unprovoked and unjustified attack that will go down in history as one of the major war crimes of the 21st century, argues Noam Chomsky
Chomsky even uses the word "unjustified". He's saying pretty much the same thing I said.
Note how what I was asking is whether NATO's expansion was a threat for Russia, not whether the expansion of NATO was a good decision. (or if you don't like the word "good" then... "rational and under our own self-interest").
I can perfectly agree with NATO's expansion being a "bad" (sorry... irrational / self-harming) decision by the West, but that wasn't what I asked.
You seem to have this infantile notion that simply adding NATO members makes it stronger.
hahaha... infantile? Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ the adult.
You seem to have the delusion that I was talking about "strength" when I said "expansion".
Is it true or is it false that the war has motivated NATO's expansion (ie.. adding members)? because that's all I said, ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆.
Sorry, but if you truly don’t think that decisions that lead to suffering should be “moralized”, and you really think that it’s “rational” and in the “own interests” of a country to wage war in order to grow the economy, then I think we simply disagree on what should be the goals of a society.
You're just putting words in my mouth at this point. What I said is that it's rational for a country to respond militarily to an aggressive military alliance surrounding it. Given that NATO would be able to place nukes in Ukraine that could hit Moscow under 5 minutes, it would be insane for Russia not to respond to that.
Nowhere did I suggest that Russia started the war to grow its economy. What I said, is that Russia managed to restructure its economy away from the west, and it is not harmed by the war the way Europe is.
Chomsky even uses the word “unjustified”. He’s saying pretty much the same thing I said.
Chomsky can use whatever words he likes, but the provocations are well documented. Again, as I've already explained to you repeatedly, talking about justifications is not constructive. You're back to doing moralizing here.
The question is how to avoid conflicts like this going forward. The argument about whether it's moral for Russia to start the war does the opposite of that because it implicitly ignores the role the west played in starting the conflict.
Since people in the west have little influence over Russian actions, it is the most productive to focus on what their own governments are doing. That should be obvious, yet here we are.
Is it true or is it false that the war has motivated NATO’s expansion (ie… adding members)? because that’s all I said
I love how you're trying to be clever here, but let's reason through this using your adult brain Ferk. Explain why would NATO expansion be a problem for Russia if the alliance isn't becoming stronger?
What I said is that it’s rational for a country to respond militarily to an aggressive military alliance surrounding it.
So you are saying that if there was a bordering country (let's say... Belarus.. for example) that decided to strike a military alliance with Russia (let's say they decide to call it "Union State Treaty"... or maybe for example "ODKB"), then do you really think this should be seen as a "provocation" and that it'd be a "rational" reaction for Europe to wage war?
I don't think war is the answer to a defense treaty. NATO was a defense treaty.. a weak one (by your own admission) without a lot of military investment, specially by Europe. I disagree that it was really a threat.. the same way that I would not have seen it as a threat if Russia started making some NATO-equivalent treaties with countries in the Europe-Russia border. If the roles were reversed and Ukraine joined a treaty with Russia, China and other big powers, I would be against Europe waging war. Would you not?
Nowhere did I suggest that Russia started the war to grow its economy. What I said, is that Russia managed to restructure its economy away from the west, and it is not harmed by the war the way Europe is.
Ah, so the economic boom has nothing to do with the war? Because what I wanted to ask is whether the war caused self-harm or benefit.
In your last bit there it seems you are hinting that Russia was harmed by the war, even if it wasn't harmed "the way Europe is".
So.. which one is it? was the war a rational benefitial thing for Russia that resulted in them being better off? or was it an irrational self-harming thing (even if not "the way" it was for Europe)?
You’re back to doing moralizing here
Chomsky is too. I believe that if you don't have morals in regards to which decisions are beneficial for a society then is when discussing these topics does become "not constructive".
it implicitly ignores the role the west played in starting the conflict.
I have no problem accepting the role of the West. I agree that NATO's expansion was a "morally bad" (irrational / self-harm) decision because it should have been the better person and realize earlier that Russia would end up behaving the way they did (irrationally).
My point is that Russia feeling entitled to wage a war was also "morally bad" (irrational / self-harm). I'm saying this because I feel that your comments imply that Russia was completely rational in waging war.
reason through this using your adult brain Ferk.
hahahaha thank you! I'll try to explain it clearly Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆! 😁
Explain why would NATO expansion be a problem for Russia if the alliance isn’t becoming stronger?
Huh? That's not what I said.
My point is that NATO expansion was NOT a real threat/problem for Russia. That's why I think the attack was (to use Chomky's words): "unprovoked and unjustified".
So you are saying that if there was a bordering country (let’s say… Belarus… for example) that decided to strike a military alliance with Russia (let’s say they decide to call it “Union State Treaty”), then this should be seen as a “provocation” and you’d think it to be a “rational” reaction for Europe to wage war?
I'm saying that when USSR put nuclear weapons in Cuba we know what the reaction from the US was. This is not a hypothetical debate.
I don’t think war is the answer to a defense treaty
NATO is not a defense treaty. It's an aggressive organization that has been invading and destroying countries for decades now. Go read up on Yugoslavia and Libya as two examples. Meanwhile, the key member of NATO has been at a state of continues war all around the world.
I disagree that it was really a threat… the same way that I would not have seen it as a threat if Russia started making some NATO-equivalent treaties with countries in the Europe-Russia border.
It's entirely irrelevant what you think. What matters is how Russia perceives NATO. The fact of the matter is that NATO should have been disbanded when USSR dissolved. Yet, for some reason it was not. Then Russia offered to join NATO and create a joint security alliance on equal terms, but was rebuffed by NATO.
You keep trying to paint this as a neutral situation, but the facts are against you. NATO is the organization that has been expanding towards Russia despite giving guarantees to the contrary in the 90s.
Ah, so the economic boom has nothing to do with the war? Because what I wanted to ask is whether the war caused self-harm or benefit.
Russia did not invade Ukraine for economic reasons. The economic boom is the result of Russian being much better at restructuring its economy than Europe.
In your last bit there it seems you are hinting that Russia was harmed by the war, even if it wasn’t harmed “the way Europe is”.
Where was I hinting that?
Chomsky is too. I believe that if you don’t have morals in regards to which decisions are beneficial for a society then is when discussing these topics does become “not constructive”.
The elephant in the room is that the west is not able to impose its morals on Russia. We can control what we do in the west, and the question becomes whether we should take actions that lead to war or to peace.
Avoiding a war requires empathy. The west has to honestly acknowledge that Russia has legitimate interests of its own, and security concerns that the west has been trampling over. Then the rational thing to do is to find a compromise that both sides can see as being preferable to open war. That's how diplomacy works.
Instead, the west tried to impost its will on Russia while disregarding Russian concerns, and that led to a conflict that the west is now losing.
My point is that Russia feeling entitled to wage a war was also “morally bad” (irrational / self-harm). I’m saying this because I feel that your comments imply that Russia was completely rational in waging war.
Can you demonstrate in what way this was irrational self harm on the part of Russia? I gave you concrete examples in this thread showing that standard of living in Russia has improved during the time of the war, Russian economy has grown, Russian military has become far stronger, and Russia has become a much more important geopolitical player in the world. In what way has Russia irrationally self harmed itself?
My point is that NATO expansion was NOT a threat for Russia. That’s why I think the attack was (to use Chomky’s words): “unprovoked and unjustified”.
I literally provide you with many quotes and references from top western academics, diplomats, and politicians who disagree with your bold statement mr Ferk. I love how you cherry picked a single line from Chomsky while ignoring all the rest to make another straw man. Very mature of you.
I’m saying that when USSR put nuclear weapons in Cuba we know what the reaction from the US was. This is not a hypothetical debate.
Do you think the US reaction was "rational"?
That said, putting nuclear weapons is not the same as having a treaty. I don't want the US to set up their nuclear weapons in Europe.. I'm against that too.
NATO is not a defense treaty. It’s an aggressive organization that has been invading and destroying countries for decades now. Go read up on Yugoslavia and Libya as two examples. Meanwhile, the key member of NATO has been at a state of continues war all around the world.
Whenever a "defense treaty" takes any action it's always gonna be controversial because each side is always gonna argue that they are the ones that are actually defending themselves, each is gonna have a version of what they consider "pacekeeping", "humanitarian protection", etc.
But why would you think that the Russians would be any different? Do you really think this is one sided and Russia would not try to argue that they did not start any attacks even when they might have actually attacked? (even if it were to be by accident! ...or because of orders to pull off not arriving in time...)
Also.. you said "this is not a hypothetical debate" but at the same time you say that the level of "aggression" isn't the same... so tell me: if Russia DID set up an organization in the same level of "aggression" as NATO (whichever high you may believe that is), do you really think that Europe should be "rational" in reacting by automatically waging war against the country that the treaty is written with?
Where was I hinting that?
Here: "it is not harmed by the war the way Europe is"
You qualify it by saying "the way Europe is", implying that there might be some "way" harm was inflicted, just not in the same "way" (or level?) as Europe.
Do you really think Russia received ZERO harm? the war caused no suffering at all to any Russian?
the west is not able to impose its morals on Russia.
Sorry, but I'm not "the west" ... Chomsky is not "the west", you are not "the west" (or are you?)
Me, Chomsky, and any person with a set of moral standards should be allowed to judge whether they think that an action made by any third party is morally "good" or "bad"... if someone came and tried to kill someone else I would have no problem in accusing the killer of doing something wrong, regardless of whether they would listen to me or not.
We can of course try and take measures to try to prevent that person from committing acts that cause harm (and sure, that might imply making concessions.. like agreeing for us to drop the knives, if that works at preventing them from using theirs), but that does not mean that this person is immune from being judged in moral grounds when they actually go and kill someone.
If you truly believed that what the Russians did was not causing harm... if it truly was a just and well deserved war that is actually good and rational, then maybe Europe should not try to prevent it. But if the attack was a bad thing, morally, rationally, and in terms of causing harm, for both Ukrainians and Russians, then it's something that should be prevented. Even if you think that one side might have been more hurt than the other, that does not make it right for the "winner". There are no real winners here.
Can you demonstrate in what way this was irrational self harm on the part of Russia? I gave you concrete examples in this thread showing that standard of living in Russia has improved during the time of the war, Russian economy has grown, Russian military has become far stronger, and Russia has become a much more important geopolitical player in the world
Before, you told me that these things (the economic growth, etc) had nothing to do with the war... now you are using those things as a reason why the war was ok to wage?
In wars like these, you are either profiting from the suffering of others or (and often, in addition to) causing suffering for sections of your population. It does not matter whether it's Russia, US, Europe or whoever it is that wages the war.
I literally provide you with many quotes and references from top western academics, diplomats, and politicians who disagree with your bold statement mr Ferk.
I literally said, I think this is the third time.. but I'll repeat that I think the west was wrong in what they did, that NATO should not have expanded. I agree with those western academics.
Do you understand that? Do you disagree with that? I hope not!
The one statement that you seem to disagree with is the other one, the one I made before and that Chomsky agrees with, the one concerning Russian actions in response to NATO expansion. The one that states that the action was not "rational" because NATO wasn't really a threat FOR RUSSIA. It might be still be a threat FOR WORLD PEACE to expand NATO because of the reaction many, including those experts, were predicting Russia would have). This is not the same statement, Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆.
I do, it's rational for them not to want to have nukes on their doorstep just as it's rational for Russia to want the same.
That said, putting nuclear weapons is not the same as having a treaty. I would not want the US to set up nuclear weapons in Europe… I would be completely against that too.
Yet, the US does precisely that in Europe right now making it a target for Russian nuclear weapons.
Whenever a “defense treaty” takes any action it’s always gonna be controversial because each side is always gonna gonna argue that they are the ones that are actually defending themselves, each is gonna have a version of what they consider “pacekeeping”, “humanitarian protection”, etc.
NATO has been invading countries contrary to all international laws and norms. Only valid peacekeeping is done through the UN.
But why would you think that the Russians would be any different?
Russians literally wanted to join NATO and create a joint security framework that would be acceptable to everyone. Why did NATO reject that?
if Russia DID set up an organization in the same level of NATO (so the same level of “aggression” whichever you believe that level is), do you really think that Europe should be “rational” in waging war against the country that the treaty is written with?
If Europe thought it could win against Russia and it had credible evidence that Russia was setting up an organization to invade Europe then it would be rational for Europe to take military action. However, none of that is actually happening last I checked.
You qualify he level of harm by saying “the way Europe is”, implying that there’s a level of harm inflicted to Russia, just that you don’t think it’s in the same level as Europe.
No, it doesn't imply a level of harm. I'm literally saying Russia is not harmed while Europe is harmed. I've also provided you with concrete sources detailing the state of things in Russia. I think I've been quite clear regarding what I actually meant.
Do you really think Russia received ZERO harm? the war caused no suffering at all to any Russian?
I think there was initial harm to Russia at the start of the war, but on the whole it seems pretty clear that the overall situation in Russia has improved compared to prewar period now. Amusingly, a lot of it has to do with the economic decoupling from the west. This forced Russia to actually start investing in domestic industry and revival of what became the rust belt after the fall of USSR. You keep talking about harm to Russia, but you still haven't provided any examples of what you mean by it. I've given you plenty of sources supporting what I say. Feel free to explain in concrete terms what you believe the harm to Russia is.
We can of course try and take measures to try to prevent that person from committing acts that cause harm, but that does not mean that this person is immune from being judged in moral grounds.
Do you think Russians are losing sleep over you judging them?
But the reality is that the attack was a bad thing.
The reality is that you can't just arbitrarily pick a point and decide that history starts now. The attack you lament was a response to decades of actions by the west that have been well documented, and with many people having warned that continuation of such actions would lead to a military response from Russia. Now that it happened you evidently want to ignore the actions that led up to this response and frame it was Russia being wrong morally.
There are no real winners here.
I think the side that's actually growing stronger both militarily and economically is objectively the winner.
Before, you told me that these things (the economic growth, etc) had nothing to do with the war… now you are using those things as a reason why the war was ok to wage?
Do you have reading comprehension problems? What I said was that growing the economy was NOT THE REASON why Russia went to war. However, in the course of the war Russian economy did improve because Russia managed to do good planning. Let me know if you're still struggling to comprehend this and I have to use smaller words. I've explained this three times now.
In wars like these, you are either profiting from the suffering of others or (and often, in addition to) causing suffering for sections of your population. It does not matter whether it’s Russia, US, Europe or whoever it is that wages the war.
The cause of the war was NATO expanding to Russian borders and Russia responding to that. This is now acknowledged by everyone including the former chief of NATO. This is what the conflict is about. The fact that Russia managed its economy well during this time does not imply that Russia is profiting from the war. It's absolutely incredible that you have so much trouble understanding these basic concepts.
I literally said it 3… maybe 4 times… but I’ll repeat that I think the west was wrong in what they did, that NATO should not have expanded. I agree with those western academics.
And yet, you also continue to insist that the war was unjustified and unprovoked, citing Chomsky over and over here. Pick a lane bud.
The one that states that the action was not “rational” because NATO wasn’t really a threat FOR RUSSIA (it might be a threat to expand it BECAUSE of the “unjustified” reaction many were predicting Russia would have). This is not the same statement, Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆.
Yet, the sources I provided you very clearly state that NATO was a credible threat to Russia. In fact, this article in National Interest that was published in 2021 EXPLICITLY states that the goal the US had was to break Russia:
It is absolutely surreal that you continue that NATO was not a threat to Russia when the key NATO member openly discusses policy of dismembering Russia in preparation for war on China. This is absolute clown shit.
THE GREATEST risk facing the twenty-first-century United States, short of an outright nuclear attack, is a two-front war involving its strongest military rivals, China and Russia.
it’s rational for them not to want to have nukes on their doorstep just as it’s rational for Russia to want the same.
You agree with me there then.
Yet, the US does precisely that in Europe right now making it a target for Russian nuclear weapons
And I'm against that. Are you not? I don't see what point you are making.
Only valid peacekeeping is done through the UN.
Yes, that's what NATO argues. NATO's intervention in Libya was authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1973. Similarly with NATO's intervention in the former Yugoslavia, they claim to enforce UN mandate. The UN has no army to enforce anything on their own.
As I said, of course each side will always twist the narrative to their advantage. You cannot just say that one side is right and pretend that you are being impartial and unaffected by propaganda.
Russians literally wanted to join NATO and create a joint security framework that would be acceptable to everyone. Why did NATO reject that?
They shouldn't have rejected it. No.
If Europe thought it could win against Russia and it had credible evidence that Russia was setting up an organization to invade Europe then it would be rational for Europe to take military action
I disagree sorry. It would be wrong and stupid for Europe to wage war against their Russian neighbors and create an environment that ultimately would lead to self-harm. Waging war is not benefitial. Europe being capable of winning (your scenario) would also mean that the Russia alliance would be less of a threat.. so I think attacking then would just be bullying and that decision would end up coming back to bite us at some point in the future. It would motivate our neighbors to guard themselves and invest in military, and it would also cause diplomatic problems in future relationships.
Do you think Russians are losing sleep over you judging them?
No. Why would you presume that?
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
I think we are talking past each other... these questions are clearly in bad faith and what follows shows that you misinterpreted the question that elicited the previous answer you are referring to.
I feel I've already explained myself way too much in too many ways, and I don't think we are gonna reach anywhere here. I don't think it's worth continuing.
If you're saying Russian response to NATO expansion was rational then we agree.
And I’m against that. Are you not? I don’t see what point you are making.
The point I've been making this whole thread is that Europe is the only entity in this equation that is not acting rationally in its own interest. Both US and Russia are pursuing their interest, meanwhile Europe is not.
Yes, that’s what NATO argues. NATO’s intervention in Libya was authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1973. Similarly with NATO’s intervention in the former Yugoslavia, they claim they were enforcing UN mandate.
Incidentally, Russia says that their intervention in Donbas is directly modelled on NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. Just as NATO did, they waited for LPR and DPR to separate, then they recognized their independence, and then had them invite Russia to intervene on their behalf. So, Russia is enforcing UN mandate as well following this logic.
As I said, of course each side will always twist the narrative to their advantage. You cannot just say that one side is right and pretend that you are being impartial and unaffected by propaganda.
That's literally been my whole point here. However, the historical facts are important. It was NATO that refused to disband after the USSR dissolved despite the fact that it's entire mandate for existence disappeared. It was NATO that rebuffed Russia's offer to join it. It was NATO that broke its promise not to expand easier. It was NATO that played games with Minsk agreements. The history very clearly shows which side has been consistently escalating tensions since the 90s.
I disagree sorry. It would be wrong and stupid for Europe to wage war against their Russian neighbors and create an environment that ultimately would lead to self-harm.
If the threat was existential then there would be no choice. The same way Europe had no choice but to resist nazi Germany during WW2. However, this course of action only makes sense if there is a credible existential threat. In case where things can be resolved diplomatically, then diplomatic approach should absolutely be followed. We are in complete agreement here.
No. Why would you presume that?
Then why spend so much time talking about what you think is moral or justified. Your adversary does not care one bit about that. They have their own morals and their own justifications for what the do. This is why I keep saying that focusing on morality is not productive. What you have to focus on are national interests. What does Europe want and what does Russia want. You have to develop empathy to see things from the perspective of your adversary and to understand WHY they do the things they do. Then and only then can you start having meaningful dialogue and try to find common ground.
The reason this war happened was precisely because the west refused to try and see things from Russian perspective and to genuinely understand their interests and goals.
I think we are talking past each other… these questions are clearly in bad faith and what follows shows that you misinterpreted the question that elicited the previous answer you are referring to.
I'm not sure what I misinterpreted. You keep pointing to me saying that Russian economy has improved throughout the war as some sort of a gotcha in terms of the underlying reasons for the war. And I keep explaining that these things are tangential. Russia did not go to war to improve its economy, and had its economy suffered, it would have continued the war anyways because Russia sees this war as being existential.
I feel I’ve already explained myself way too much in too many ways, and I don’t think we are gonna reach anywhere here. I don’t think it’s worth continuing.
Improved profile features, enhanced list management, refreshed navigation, and the initial part of our Quote Posts implementation. All of these and more, in our latest release.
Finally, list of followed hashtags are more visible. I endorsed it, since I think it has a potential to bring more attention to tags, thus making them more useful
Myanmar is ruled by an illegitimate military junta which literally seized power by simply jailing its democratically elected leader in 2021 and declaring "no more democracy". Rebel forces have been fighting against the junta since. In the northernmost state of Kachin, China is putting pressure on a rebel group to stop fighting the junta. China wants access to the region's heavy rare earth minerals. Unrest and instability make that more difficult.
When eight men in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement boarded a plane in May, officials told them that they were being sent on a short trip from Texas to another ICE facility in Louisiana.
Many hours later, the plane landed in Djibouti. The men were held in shipping containers for weeks, shackles on their legs. This past weekend, they were expelled to the violence-plagued nation of South Sudan.
This deception, revealed by an Intercept investigation, highlights the lengths to which the U.S. government will go to further its anti-immigrant agenda and deport people to so-called third countries to which they have no connections.
I call BS. Why would they bother lieing. It isn't like the 8 guys could tell anyone after they got on the plane. Even if they did, it isn't a "length to which the gov will goto" because it did nothing to impact what they could do at all. Probably some AI slop
Also Canada - our new PM is cranking up the military spending without raising taxes. It looks like we're gonna get a cut in federal services to pay for the splurge.
Iran has taken possession of Chinese surface-to-air missile batteries as Tehran rapidly moves to rebuild defensives destroyed by Israel during their recent 12-day conflict, sources have told Middle East Eye.
The deliveries of Chinese surface-to-air missile batteries occurred after a de-facto truce was struck between Iran and Israel on 24 June, an Arab official familiar with the intelligence told MEE.
Another Arab official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive intelligence, said that the US's Arab allies were aware of Tehran's efforts to "back up and reinforce" its air defences and that the White House had been informed of Iran's progress.
The officials did not say how many surface-to-air missiles, or SAMs, Iran had received from China since the end of the fighting. However, one of the Arab officials said that Iran was paying for the SAMs with oil shipments.
Iran has taken possession of Chinese surface-to-air missile batteries as Tehran rapidly moves to rebuild defensives destroyed by Israel during their recent 12-day conflict, sources have told Middle East Eye.
Russia was refusing to sell Iran anti air defense systems and fighter jets. Iran was trying for quite a while to get their hands on the S400 anti air missiles. Russia was gladly offering them to India and Turkey but didn't want to sell them to Iran.
Just saw some statement from China that they didn't actually sell air defense systems. So they won't even do weapons deals apparently amp.scmp.com/news/china/milita…
You saw a report from SCMP on a different report from an Israeli Newspaper, in which the Chinese embassy within Israel denies the prior reporting with the statements
"The embassy finds the contents of the report to be incorrect. As a matter of principle, China firmly opposes the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, and continuously strengthens its enforcement capabilities regarding non-proliferation."
The embassy further stressed that "China never exports weapons to countries engaged in warfare and maintains strict controls on the export of dual-use items. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China upholds a cautious and responsible approach to the export of military-related goods."
Why is the reporting of Miriam Adelsons Israeli Newspaper more trustworthy to you than Middle East Eye?
Yet another China W. Iran is problematic for materially supporting Putin's war of territorial expansion, but as the sole country willing to go against Israel in the middle-east (besides the Houthi's) I strongly support Iran being able to rebuild it's military strength.
Probably a diplomatic win too, other than with America but diplomacy don't mean jack with that guy.
Nobody really knows what Chinese tech can do because China does not participate in war.
The only thing we really know is that the Pakistani Chinese made fighter jets shot down a bunch of French Rafale jets when India attacked Pakistan recently. Though the Indian Rafale's are fourth generation jets not 5th.
If China sent their top end SAMs then I have no doubt it could shoot down F35's. Though they probably didn't do that.
Iran would actually need airborn early warning and control (AEW&C) to effectively defeat F-35 fighters with anti-air defenses. But if Iran were to deploy a few J-10C that were used by Pakistan, they would at least put an obstacle in acquiring air superiority in Iranian territory, since the jets would not be able to maneuver freely in Iranian territory.
Let's keep in mind that J-10Cs are 4th gen as well. But I think Iran would be able to replace their old fleet with newer J-10Cs as quickly as Pakistan did with their older jets.
Following the emergence of reports that China has supplied air defence system to the Iranian Armed Forces, there has been significant speculation regarding the kinds of
If they've already shot down F-35s with inferior/older equipment doesn't that show that they already have the systems capable of effectively defeating F-35s?
The only thing I see in that article is that it wouldn't be as effective as it could be due to their lack of their own fighters and an AEW&C, not that it wouldn't be effective.
Yep, they would need both fighters and AEW&C to make AEW&C effective. But if they at least have more modern jets, deploy their anti-air defenses strategically and use radar tricks to hit F-35 then they would be able to tick the scales a bit. But this depends on how much Iranian air forces are used to these tactics and are used to the more modern equipment.
No confirmations of downed F35's were made after the war. Several Israeli $30m Hermes 900 drones smaller ones were downed which might have been translated to plane and then misreported as f35's.
The US will never admit their F-35 got shot. They alleged a few F-35 fell into the ocean after defensive maneuvers done by a carrier. Note that this happened at least twice.
If the backwards rebel group in Yemen can disrupt U.S. air operations so easily, how can America conduct effective air operations against a more sophisticated adversary?
I mean they theoretically can but they'd have to hide one under like a false rock, keep the radar off until they somehow know an F-35 is very close, flick it on and then hope that's close enough for a track and launch.
Israel has huge intel on where their SAM sites are located in real time, so this already makes it near impossible.
A better solution would be a fully integrated radar system with a modern airforce to run and protect it, but that's expensive and would require years of buildup.
Then you could use some stacked radar tricks to identify F-35s from further out, and use data link to avoid alerting them on RWR. It would still be hard just due to the low RCS so any non stealth fighters would likely be prime targets as the F-35s slip by.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Monday the U.S. will have to send more weapons to Ukraine, just days after ordering a pause in critical weapons deliveries to Kyiv.
The comments by Trump appeared to be an abrupt change in posture after the Pentagon announced last week that it would hold back delivering to Ukraine some air defense missiles, precision-guided artillery and other weapons because of what U.S. officials said were concerns that stockpiles have declined too much.
“We have to,” Trump said. ”They have to be able to defend themselves. They’re getting hit very hard now. We’re going to send some more weapons — defensive weapons primarily.”
Rightwing influencers in the US who are often aligned with Donald Trump are angry that a joint justice department and FBI memo has dismissed the existence of a “client list” in the case against late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The disgraced financier killed himself in a jail cell at the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York City in 2019 while awaiting prosecution on child sex-trafficking and conspiracy charges.
Almost ever since, Epstein’s death has been the subject of conspiracy theories on the right, including a supposed “client list” that he purportedly used to blackmail wealthy co-conspirators.
was happy when I checked r/conservative yesterday (I know I shouldn't check). and practically all the comments were about how they were disappointed, or actually starting to understand that Trump is in the list or protecting his buddies.
However, when I checked today, lots of top comments were peddling a conspiracy theory about how Trump is under threat of the deep state, and if he releases it he and his family will get murdered. There had to be some AstroTurfing injecting conspiracy theories.
I want the list leaked. Every single name exposed. And everyone from anywhere who's there needs to be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest.
Even if there wasn't an OPSEC failure like a list. There was video. Feed that shit into an AI. Let it scrape for faces and redact everything else. Nobody needs to watch thousands of hours of CP looking for who did what. Investigate. Prosecute. Execute publicly. Make it a spectacle. Let the surviving victims who want to do so smash their heads with sledge hammers.
A new study of defense department spending previewed exclusively to the Guardian shows that most of the Pentagon’s discretionary spending from 2020-2024 has gone to outside military contractors, providing a $2.4tn boon in public funds to private firms in what was described as a “continuing and massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to fund war and weapons manufacturing”.
The report from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and Costs of War program at Brown University said that the Trump administration’s new Pentagon budget will push annual US military spending past the $1tn mark.
That will deliver a projected windfall of more than half a trillion dollars that will be shared among top arms firms like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon as well as a growing military tech sector with close allies in the administration like Vice-President JD Vance, the report said.
Rescue crews continued on Tuesday to comb through parts of the Texas Hill Country devastated by catastrophic flash flooding over the Fourth of July weekend, but with more than 100 dead and hope fading for survivors, efforts have increasingly turned to search and recovery.
As of Tuesday morning, the death toll across the six affected counties surpassed 100. Most of the deaths were in Kerr county, where officials said 87 bodies had so far been recovered, including 56 adults and 30 children. Identification was pending for 19 adults and seven children with one additional person still unidentified, county sheriff Larry Leitha told a news conference.
Texas governor Greg Abbott said many people staying in state’s Hill Country still unaccounted for as questions mount over official response to disaster
Yes. It's the same debunked statements which have been proven false because things like beheaded women did not exist.
Also they got some Israeli released captive to say they were 'almost' raped now while they were in captivity because that sounds like someone got raped to people who can't read.
Still zero women claiming they were actually raped.
Today the Israeli death and rape-cult that has actually been engaged in systematic pedophilic gang-rape of Palestinian children, girls, boys, women and men is going to desperately try to re-launch the genocidal atrocity propaganda rape hoax.
Israel released a new report about rapes on october 7, citing the old already debunked claims as evidence. Not even taking the effort to fix their lies.
Yes. That exists and is well documented. There is even leaked video evidence of it despite being in a high security prison where Palestinians have no access to the footage.
Oh, I'm not putting this on any individual citizen, I'm genuinely sorry if it came out that way!
Sharing is virtuous, and everyone should most certainly try to share more (within their means, of course!), but the game was rigged long before those who are alive now ever existed. Unfortunately, as long as the system itself doesn't change, individual action can only achieve so much in terms of offering fair conditions and opportunities for everyone...
Again, no such issue, I'd actually have a bit more respect for LLMs were they this eloquent and pleasant!😀) Glad to have generated a crumb of something good!😁
To be perfectly frank, I can relate... Not gonna give up trying, just that I've never had much use for optimism given how things have been going overall.
Nope... zero. It's just what I feel is the right thing to do, regardless of results. And, on a more self-serving note, I will at least die with a clear conscience knowing that I did all I could do to follow and respect my principles, to be at least a quasi-decent human being.
What did they say? They deleted their account, so we all feel like assholes trying to figure out what you are replying to.
Don't feel obligated to respond, you aren't the "c u next Tuesday" in this situation
Edit: go figure, they didn't delete their account, just whatever they said. This is an incredibly META thing for someone with an 'umbrella emoji as a username' to do.
That's not enitirely true. The American Dream was (and is) settler-colonialism. Early settlers were promised free land if they killed indigenous peoples living there already, which led to a mostly self-sufficient labor class that could use its self-farmed land as a means to support themselves while bargaining for higher wages. If you were a white man, this dream was attainable, period, even if it meant enslaving and genociding millions of people.
Then came the post-war period. The wartime economy was still fairly planned, and aimed at full employment. Further, the US was emerging as world hegemon and de-facto empire. Imperialism and social safety nets largely expanded due to needing to provide better metrics than the Soviet Union was providing again kept the white men of the US living in the American Dream.
Now that imperialism is decaying, and social safety nets have been gutted along with the fall of the USSR as the main rival power, even white men are starting to fall into genuine proletarianization at large. The US is still a settler-colony, but its one where finance capital has dictatorial control yet imperialism is waning, and where many industries have been hollowed out and shipped overseas because imperialism was more profitable. The US is working its way to its own demise.
Agreed, that was the "advertised" goal, and the overall shape things took once it was set into motion. But looking at things now, in retrospect, I genuinely believe that's just what everyone was told to sell them on the idea, with the actual plan being very different for those who had access backstage, y'know?
I mean, it's much easier to motivate people to uproot their lives (regardless of how abysmal their living conditions were at the time) by promising a Land of Opportunity For Everyone, instead of telling them "yeah, we're a bunch of rich guys who want to get even richer, and we need cheap labour to get things started, then work for us, so that we may accumulate all of the wealth."
My point is that, initially, labor-power wasn't cheap. That's why there were slaves and indentured servants, to make up for the fact that the commodity labor-power was pricier. That's what's so dangerous about settler-colonialism, it "works" for a far larger portion of society, which is why it has led to some of the most horrendous crimes of all time.
It's only now that the system is starting to genuinely unravel, but the US Empire's history as one of the most far-right and brutal countries ever is directly tied to its large settler-colonial class relations.
Well, yeah, it's the pyramid scheme to end all pyramid schemes, not arguing against that. But that was the Dream.
And "not cheap" as in "had a wage," as opposed to not being paid at all as a slave (although there were some costs involved with that as well, so not entirely free - I am not arguing for slavery in any way, I was just boiling down the expenditure). But wealth was clearly still pooled at the top, while most people were no better off than they are now, when talking strictly about wealth distribution ratios.
Edit: the only advantage they had was that land was "free for the taking" (if they were willing to do a little genocide beforehand), but even that ended up pooling around a handful of people once things and people settled in.
The disparity is actually skyrocketing moreso now, and steadily has been for the last century. The New Deal, as a response to the USSR, did manage to temporarily lower inequality, but corporations weren't nearly as monopolized. The status we are in today took a long time, and for hundreds of years, disparity was actually much lower than England and other countries that had started capitalism in earnest. The semi-yeoman worker in the US had bargaining power and land, which slowed down tge process of disparity.
None of this is in defense of settler-colonialism. I bring it up because it points to the class character of the US, and helps explain why it's so far-right and reactionary, as well as why leftist radicalization is increasing rapidly.
Yet again, I agree! But wouldn't you also agree that the system always had this in-built inequality? What I meant to say was that, while it was less immediately obvious at the start, the subsequent pooling and acceleration of said pooling were always going to happen within this system.
And that's why I suspect that this was the plan all along, because it has been visible from the start, it didn't require a retrospective if one was paying enough attention. And those who did got very, very rich.
But even if everyone would have been paying attention*, there would be no room for equality, otherwise the entire pyramid would collapse, taking everyone's "more than" with it.
Yes, I absolutely agree that the disparity we see today is a direct result of the former social relations. The agrarian slave-driven economy in the south was certainly going to result in conflict with the industrial economy based on wage labor in the north, especially as the north needed new wage laborers to expand industrially. Historical progression is a process of endless spirals, tendencies and trajectories accumulate over time until a quantitative buildup results in a qualitative change.
However, I don't see it as something that was intentionally planned. Capital doesn't think that way. Capitalist production is an ever-expanding circuit that must constantly be repeated, anything going against that system of voracious profit gets dashed. Long-term planning is characteristic of socialism, not capitalism, nor the semi-yeoman style of settler-colonial capitalism or slave driven agrarian economy.
This is important, because understanding how we got here today can tell us where we are headed. The historic task of the US proletariat in the age of dying imperialism is to topple the capitalist state and replace it with a socialist state, focusing on decolonization and anti-imperialism. The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born. This is only increasingly possible because the US working class is becoming increasingly proletarianized due to monopolist capture of the land, and imperialism is weakening to the point where we cannot be bribed as much by its spoils.
We aren't here because of some 5-D chess from the old bourgeoisie, nor did the settlers have ignorance of the system. The US settler class was bribed using the spoils of genocide, and its only increasingly true now that there isn't really a semi-yeoman class. The immense brutality of settler-colonialism can't keep the US afloat anymore, nor can imperialism.
I'm just trying to help provide a Marxist perspective, as it genuinely gives us a chance of completing the US proletariat's historic duty. I'm a Marxist-Leninist.
Maybe you're right, maybe I'm just so completely lacking any faith in greedy humans that I now suspect everything was a ploy. I dunno, maybe it's one of the pitfalls of hindsight, that it can easily seem to have intentionality when the string of failures is so smooth and perfect. I mean, at the end of the day, Capitalism is, to my mind, uniquely insidious as a system.
Either way, I really don't want you to think I was disagreeing with you about anything else, whether planned or not, it is most certainly worth learning everything we can from its evolution. As you've said, we need to have the future in mind, because this thing'll be around for at least a bit longer...
Sincerely thank you for the theory! I'm not as versed in these aspects for now, so I don't know where I'd land on the political/philosophical spectrum exactly. All I know is that I sincerely want everyone to have a truly fair chance at life without having to worry about being persecuted for who they are, without having to be relatively rich to afford basic healthcare (I'm including the various hormone therapies here because it's well past time we grew the fuck up and stopped obsessing about other people's genitals, as... uuh... someone smarter than me put it) and without the fear that they may starve or become homeless, ffs... And I also know that what we've been doing so far obviously ain't it...
Modes of production are historical phenomena, guided by technological advancements. Capitalism wasn't a choice, but a result of growing industrial bourgeois production resolving its contradiction with feudal agrarian production. The steam engine is what accelerated this process. Zooming out, capital is the real master of capitalists, capitalists are merely the high priests of capital best guessing at what it wants, but ultimately are slaves to the profit motive and how to best extract it.
And no worries! One thing that's helpful, is that the centralization of capitalism over time is exactly what creates a large class capable of collectively planning and running production in the interests of all. The profit motive destroys the profit motive. I try to maintain revolutionary optimism, doomerism is more of a product of the capitalist class trying to remove revolutionary fervor.
Based on your final paragraph, you'd do well with reading leftist theory! I already said I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I actually made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list if you want to spend some time on theory, but you can explore whatever leftist tendencies you want to. The two biggest umbrellas are anarchism and Marxism, the former being about decentralization and horizontalism, the latter being about centralization and collectivization (to massively oversimplify), and the biggest tendency in Marxism is Marxism-Leninism. If you want to learn more about what makes these distinct, feel free to ask, I used to be an anarchist myself.
Also, if you can, join an org! If you're US-based, I recommend something like The Party for Socialism and Liberation. There are probably other orgs local to you, though, so do some shopping around. Getting organized is the only way out of this mess, and into the new. A better world is possible!
It's time to read theory, comrades! As Lenin says, "Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle." Reading theory helps us identify the core contradictions within modern society, analyze their trajectories, and gives us the tools to break free. Marxism-Leninism is broken into 3 major components, as noted by Lenin in his pamphlet The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism: | Audiobook
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Critique of Capitalism along the lines of Marx's Law of Value
Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
As such, I created the following list to take you from no knowledge whatsoever of Leftist theory, and leave you with a strong understanding of the critical fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism in an order that builds up as you read. Let's get started!
Section I: Getting Started
What the heck is Communism, anyways? For that matter, what is fascism?
Breaks down fascism and its mortal enemy, Communism, as well as their antagonistic relationship. Understanding what fascism is, where and when it rises, why it does so, and how to banish it forever is critical. Parenti also helps debunk common anti-Communist myths, from both the "left" and the right, in a quick-witted writing style. This is also an excellent time to watch the famous speech.
Section II: Historical and Dialectical Materialism
By far my favorite primer on Marxist philosophy. By understanding Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, you make it easier to understand the rest of Marxism-Leninism. Don't be intimidated!
Further reading on Dialectical and Historical Materialism, but crucially introduces the why of Scientific Socialism, explaining how Capitalism itself prepares the conditions for public ownership and planning by centralizing itself into monopolist syndicates. This is also where Engels talks about the failures of previous "Utopian" Socialists.
Section III: Political Economy
That's right, it's time for the Law of Value and a deep-dive into Imperialism. If we are to defeat Capitalism, we must learn it's mechanisms, tendencies, contradictions, and laws.
Best taken as a pair, these essays simplify the most important parts of the Law of Value. Marx is targetting those not trained in economics here, but you might want to keep a pen and some paper to follow along if you are a visual person.
Absolutely crucial and the most important work for understanding the modern era and its primary contradictions. Marxist-Leninists understand that Imperialism is the greatest contradiction in the modern era, which cascades downward into all manner of related contradictions. Knowing what dying Capitalism looks like, and how it behaves, means we can kill it.
Section IV: Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
Can we defeat Capitalism at the ballot box? What about just defeating fascism? What about the role of the state?
If Marxists believed reforming Capitalist society was possible, we would be the first in line for it. Sadly, it isn't possible, which Luxemburg proves in this monumental writing.
Excellent refutation of revisionists and Social Democrats who think the State can be reformed, without needing to be replaced with one that is run by the workers, in their own interests.
Section V: Intersectionality and Solidarity
The revolution will not be fought by atomized individuals, but by an intersectional, international working class movement. Intersectionality is critical, because it allows different marginalized groups to work together in collective interest, unifying into a broad movement.
Critical reading on understanding misogyny, transphobia, enbyphobia, pluralphobia, and homophobia, as well as how to move beyond the base subject of "gender." Uses the foundations built up in the previous works to analyze gender theory from a Historical Materialist perspective.
De-colonialism is essential to Marxism. Without having a strong, de-colonial, internationalist stance, we have no path to victory nor a path to justice. Fanon analyzes Colonialism's dehumanizing effects, and lays out how to form a de-colonial movement, as well as its necessity.
Solidarity and intersectionality are the key to any social movement. When different social groups fight for liberation together along intersectional lines, the movements are emboldened and empowered ever-further.
Section VI: Putting it into Practice!
It's not enough to endlessly read, you must put theory to practice. That is how you can improve yourself and the movements you support. Touch grass!
Mao wrote simply and directly, targeting peasant soldiers during the Revolutionary War in China. This pair of essays equip the reader with the ability to apply the analytical tools of Dialectical Materialism to their every day practice, and better understand problems.
Congratulations, you completed your introductory reading course!
With your new understanding and knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, here is a mini What is to be Done? of your own to follow, and take with you as practical advice.
Get organized. Join a Leftist org, find solidarity with fellow comrades, and protect each other. The Dems will not save you, it is up to us to protect ourselves. The Party for Socialism and Liberation and Freedom Road Socialist Organization both organize year round, every year, because the battle for progress is a constant struggle, not a single election. See if there is a chapter near you, or start one! Or, see if there's an org you like more near you and join it.
Read theory. Don't think that you are done now! Just because you have the basics, doesn't mean you know more than you do. If you have not investigated a subject, don't speak on it! Don't speak nonsense, but listen!
Aggressively combat white supremacy, misogyny, queerphobia, and other attacks on marginalized communities. Cede no ground, let nobody be forgotten or left behind. There is strength in numbers, when one marginalized group is targeted, many more are sure to follow.
Be industrious, and self-sufficient. Take up gardening, home repair, tinkering. It is through practice that you elevate your problem-solving capabilities. Not only will you improve your skill at one subject, but your general problem-solving muscles get strengthened as well.
Learn self-defense. Get armed, if practical. Be ready to protect yourself and others. Liberals will not save us, we must save each other.
Be persistent. If you feel like a single water droplet against a mountain, think of canyons and valleys. Oh, how our efforts pile up! With consistency, every rock, boulder, even mountain, can be drilled through with nothing but steady and persistent water droplets.
"Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent."
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) is a national organization of revolutionaries fighting for socialism in the United States. Our home is in the working class.
Most definitely have a lot of Leftist reading to do! If nothing else, I at least know I'm well Left of Center:))
Now that I've mulled it over some more, I think it feels very intentional to me because I do see a lot of similarities between it and Feudalism, yes! It's like Capitalism is comprised of multiple smaller monarchies, referring to Corporations and any organisation/person with a large amount of capital at their disposal, and thus influence. But, yeah, we're talking orders of magitude of complexity above traditional feudalism, so it would stand to reason that it's most likely just a mathematical whirlpool of sorts. I do agree that capital is the main point of power in Capitalism and that everything else has formed around it.
Which, on a personal side note, is so sad when looking at the big picture! It means that the people in power aren't actually driven by anything concretely Human™, so to speak, they've ceeded full control of themselves and their lives over to the accumulation of something entirely fictitious... It'd be lamentable if it wasn't so damned dangerous...
Thank you so much for the reading list! It's so nice to have a quasi-curriculum for these things! And I probably will drop a line or two once I get started with the reading! Truth be told, I'm at the point where I know enough to understand just how little I know about the subject, so I can't even think of relevant questions at the moment. I've focused more on existential philosophy and such so far, needed to fix myself first:))
As for joining an org, that's in my 2-year plan (life got upended, again, so it's running alongside several other need-to-do stuff). I will lean very heavily into volunteer work, hopefully that'll open up some political networks as well. If nothing else, it is urgently clear that it's time to act as a citizen. Thank Christ we've managed to pull another 4 years of European Union (Romanian)... We have a lukewarm Centrist now, but at least it's not a raging Fascist...
Yep! Marx himself said that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles, after all. Feudalism does have a lot in common with capitalism, but what makes Marx interesting is how he analyzed how capitalism is different. Many leftists of his era were focused on the similarity between capitalism and feudalism, Marx focused on the opposite, how it's different, and this is what propelled him into scientific socialism, socialism as it emerges from capitalism.
And no problem for the reading list! It's designed to be completed in order, and is focused on taking someone freshly radicalized but with no experience with leftist theory, and leave them as someone with a firm grasp on the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism and how to behave as an organized leftist! It also has audiobooks, queer and feminist theory, a good dose of basic history, and more. Since you mentioned philosophy, the 2nd section goes over Dialectical Materialism, so it might be a really good fit for you if that's your current interest! Still read section 1 before 2, but 2 is a fun section once you get there!
And great to hear you plan on getting organized! Really, that's step 1, but obviously not everyone can do so immediately due to life events and whatnot. Just do what you can!
Yep, that makes a lot of sense. I mean, it's much easier to change things if said change is built upon what's useful from the old. No use throwing out the things which actually do work (whether by design or incidentally, doesn't matter, happy accidents are still happy), plus it has the added benefit of maintaining some degree of familiarity, so I would imagine that makes the pill easier to swallow.
I'll most definitely take it in the order given, the new is always prioritised:)) Sounds delectably thorough, my brain will be happy, thank you! And, yeah, that's pretty much the basis on which I've started pulling hard to the Left (used to be Undecided, a.k.a. I'm Severely Depressed And Don't Have The Space For It). Existentialism steered me toward an understanding of what a satisfying life means for the human psyche, which then shoved me into "well, hey! Sounds like something which would be nice for everyone!" Then I finally saw the world for what it is and... yeah...
Completely agreed, change starts from home, always. It looks daunting, but the fact that so many people remember that Fascism is objectively bad, actually, means it's not impossible.
Thanks so much once again, both for the resources and the conversation! And sorry again if I came off as hostile, I've been struggling to manage a hefty case of misanthropy for the past almost-decade.
No worries, and have fun with it! Feel free to ask any questions or give feedback for it if you want to. It's also an intro list, there's a ton you can read beyond it once you finish, but you should be able to figure out what you want to read when you finish it.
Except we're witnessing the entire establishment media publishing the same claims as they did before except they have already been fully debunked by the UN. So now they are posting provably false information.
A 'journalist' who published the new one literally debunked the claims.
But this is also an rw antisemitic trope, to the extent it has its own wikipedia article, and has since 2003.
Search Zionist control of media and you'll find an endless series of righting fascist, white nationalist, and straight up Nazi promotion of the idea (although they use Zionist and Jewish interchangeably, when I recognize that you geneva_convenience, do understand the difference).
Its a painful kind of wrap-around bending of reality that has happened, and I don't disagree with the reality. I'm just pointing out its irony.
The meme is of the format "Is this something it isnt?", which is intended to highlight the irony that now the left is having to make the same claims rw's have made for decades, but now that its real, the rw actually supports the Zionist control of media, and maybe even represents the primary force of Zionism internationally through Christian Zionism.
It's great that you know how to cite conspiracies from Wikipedia. Now please explain why all the mainstream western news outlets are uncritically citing debunked Israeli propaganda. Including the authors who debunked the propaganda.
Now please explain why all the mainstream western news outlets are uncritically citing debunked Israeli propaganda. Including the authors who debunked the propaganda.
You don't have to imply that there there are any antisemitic dog-whistles. Zionists in America are primarily Christians. I will very gladly change my stance if someone can provide a reasonable explanation for this.
Now please explain why all the mainstream western news outlets are uncritically citing debunked Israeli propaganda. Including the authors who debunked the propaganda.
Is Zei still up Glenn Greenwald’s ass? I still remember them (several years ago at this point) blocking every trans person who even pointed out to them that he’s a bigot, no matter how gently.
Okay, I don’t have links and I’m not going to dig through that shithole to try to find them 🤷♂️ At one point they explicitly thank Glenn Greenwald (try searching by @ and not name) for helping to get their account restored when they got suspended. That was when trans people started pointing out GG is a fuckhead and started getting blocked.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve tried to erase all evidence of it since his turn to the right, but my ass stays mad about people being chummy with bigots.
If a single critical post is proof they hate GG, why isn’t a post thanking him and blocking a ton of trans people evidence to the contrary?
As for what else I would want, what I and all the blocked trans people pretty explicitly wanted was just an acknowledgement that he was transphobic. But that’s too big an ask apparently.
You got a post about the Squirrel explicitly attacking Glenn for his anti woke GOP farming. I didn't even put in effort I just searched Glenn Greenwald on their profile. Can you source what claim you're even talking about?
I already told you I’m not digging around in that waste dump and told you how to find it on your own (search for Greenwald’s @, not his name). Assuming it hasn’t been shame deleted.
If you’re going to refuse to believe this thing I watched happen in real time and have talked about with multiple people actually happened unless I find you the links myself, then there’s nothing else to say here. I didn’t hang out in leftist spaces and argue with libs on the fediverse for 2+ years to lead up to a secret anti-Zei campaign, they just piss me off every time I see them because of their shitty past behavior to trans people.
I have never seen the squirrel post about trans people except if it was used for pink-washing or in Glenn's case the opposite, anti-woke simping for billioniares. Unless you can provide me with some incredibly damning quote it feels like you're just grasping at straws here.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has ordered the IDF to prepare a plan to establish a camp to concentrate the entire civilian population of Gaza on the ruins of the southern Gaza city of Rafah.
The West and the Zelensky regime have voted for “press freedom” at the UN — while banning Russian media and keeping mum on Russian journalists killed by Ukraine. Time is right to pay tribute to some of them again
According to any person who can recognize disinformation and general bullshittery. I don't need anyone to tell me that Sputnik is untrustworthy, just like RT, Fox News and a long list of other bad sources.
The Ukraine government proper was overthrown by the US empire in 2014 for the crime of being friendly with Russia (among other reasons) and then the empire propped up a Nazi regime that spreads Russo-phobia among its populace
The maidan coup is a straight up fact. Only sounds wild to you because you're so deep in a propaganda bubble that you're hearing it for the first time through a forum comment 11 years late.
Consortium News, 2015: The Mess That Nuland MadeAssistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.
The Maidan massacre trial and investigation produced overwhelming evidence that Maidan protesters were massacred by snipers at Maidan-controlled buildings, rather than by government snipers or Berkut policemen—who were nevertheless charged with the c…
So I actually took the time to read those articles and watch the video. Now I'm not well informed on past Ukrainian politics, but none of them talk of Zelensky. Which I think was elected democratically and not put in power via a coup.
And honestly, if I had to pick between a pro-Russian and a pro-US government in that area of the world, I'd pick a pro US one for sure. It's the least worst choice.
Yes, Zelensky was democratically elected on a platform of peace & reconciliation. Unfortunately he wasn’t able to deliver on those promises, because as soon as he got into office, the fascists made it clear that they’d kill him if he did deliver, and the pressure they put on him to get what they want continues.
I'm sorry but all of that is a big ass load of bullshit. No matter how you try to sugarcoat it.
First you talk about a coup, then you say it isn't. Then you attack Zelensky because he was an actor, completely disregarding what he's been able to do with the difficult situation he's in. Arnold Schwarzenegger was also an actor but was a great politician and was a great governor for California as far as Republicans go. So that's not a good reason to discredit someone. In fact, anybody can go into politics and become great.
His presidential term may have ended a year ago, but how the fuck do you conduct an election when a chunk of your country is under foreign occupation? There are usually measures in place in constitutions for times of war, and guess what? THEY'RE AT WAR!
I tried to keep an open mind about this and your article and watched your videos, but you're over the edge. You're irrational. I'm not gonna have this argument anymore. I'm done.
Love a good news day
Strit
in reply to ikidd • • •just_another_person
in reply to Strit • • •Right at the top:
Strit
in reply to just_another_person • • •I guess the reason I am asking is that I have never understood the use-case for Keybase either.
So your answer does not really answer my question. 😀
like this
TVA likes this.
alexcleac
in reply to Strit • • •like this
TVA likes this.
Strit
in reply to alexcleac • • •Ferk
in reply to ikidd • • •Is the data and public keys being replicated in the communication between instances? it's not made clear how the federation actually works, because "enabling users on different servers to share data with end-to-end encryption" (from foks.pub/) is something all services with TLS / HTTPS support already do...
Also.. one big plus for the OpenPGP HKP protocol is that technically you can self-host your own key in a static HTTPS server with predefined responses and be able to have it interact with other servers and clients without issue. I'm expecting the more complex nature of FOKS might make self-hosting in this way difficult. I'd rather minimize the dynamic services I expose to the outside publicly if I'm self hosting.
Federated Open Key Service (FOKS)
foks.pub