Who would believe that bullshit, right? Well, as it turns out a lot of people continue to believe that bullshit. Propaganda is a powerful thing. — Tzeentch

Agreed. No qualms from me on that one.

And if we're honest, how is Gaza any different from the de facto and actual genocides the US has perpetrated and supported, like those in Vietnam, East-Timor and the Middle-East, with casualty figures running into the millions? — Tzeentch

Definitely, why I stressed genocide is not something American imperial custodians are against per se, just that this particular genocide doesn't serve US imperial interests.

Main difference is that this genocide is being broadcast live and there's also no plausible deniability, muddy the waters, kind of usual bullshit people easily swallow as you mention above. Israeli officials literally just get up on podiums and declare their intention to starve the Palestinians, that rape is ok, that they're animals, that children are just future terrorists and must be killed etc.

Normally you have clear evidence of mass murder on the one hand and a long winded plausible deniability bullshit narrative on the other and most people are then like "huh, who's to say what happened".

It's crazy, but they continue to get away with it. I can't blame the Americans for thinking they'll get away with it again. — Tzeentch

But they didn't!

The famous child burning photograph turned public opinion against the war, massive protests, huge cultural change.

It was so shocking to American elites that they did not in fact get away with it, they wanted to "win the war", that they completely reorganized the military, and in particular the draft, in order to be sure not to be bothered by public opinion in subsequent wars they will want to wage.

Of course, US remained a superpower and the threat of the Soviet Union was still current and so on and there were plenty of "rational" parties involved in US politics at the time.

For example, in 1975 you not only have the end of the Vietnam war but also the Churchill committee that investigated the CIA (for the first and only time). That no one was held accountable represents the fact corruption wins out over democracy basically in a process that continues to this day getting more and more corrupt all the time, but the fact the investigation happened at all represents things were on a knifes edge. It could have easily gone another way.

It's crazy, but they continue to get away with it. I can't blame the Americans for thinking they'll get away with it again.

I'm open to the possibility that they won't - times are changing - but that will require US assets from putting their money where their mouth is. No sign of that so far. Just "Oooh"ing and "Aaah"ing. — Tzeentch

Well there's two forms of getting away with it.

There's the "getting away with it" in terms of not being held accountable for law breaking and incompetence, starting a war on fabricated intelligence and lying to congress and the public and so on, and then "getting away with it" in terms of wasting the Imperial capital stocks of one form or another doesn't exactly collapse the empire and there is plenty left still to loot.

Soviet elites "got away with it" in both sense for quite some time and continued to "get away with it" in the various former Soviet republics.

Of course, if the US Imperial tributes suffers enough then there could be elite re-alignment to fix things, such as we saw with the re-ascendency of Russia under Putin, of which the key element was Putin putting in place a system of elite discipline (that is the key to play the geopolitical game coherently which Putin definitely understood from day 1; of course, who knows what will happen once he's gone if he's the linchpin in this strategic alignment).

Iran and Afghanistan are part of the same geographical region, so in my opinion this is not so strange.

Afghanistan has been wrecked, while Iran is now threatening to jump the gun on US intervention.

So the switch makes sense, and again I see continuity. — Tzeentch

Did Afghanistan really need to be wrecked? Was the Taliban building some cutting edged economic centre and I just missed it?

But my point was if you really want a war with Iran how do you geographically go about doing that without Afghanistan or Iraq?

So you really need to war game this out in detail. Obviously there's no actual plan to invade Iran, the best that can be done is a lot of chaos which would shut down oil exports from the region and (maybe collapse is too strong a word but) basically "not goodify" the global economy, seriously pissing off everyone in particular China. Is the expectation that China just accepts loss of oil imports from the Middle-East (and a lot of other people too)? Is Europe super happy about this?

There's the critical need of the oil, the super bad press of Israel committing a genocide, so how does the US maintain a forever war in the Middle-East between Iran and Israel without a coalition forming big enough to intervene?

Don't get me wrong, I do get the basic geopolitical idea of crashing the rest of the global economy and then sitting pretty in North America ... but how do you actually go about doing that?

Life ... finds a way.

As otherwise, the disruption must be only acute the time to accomplish some terminal objectives, such as invading and occupying Iran, which you'd definitely want to be in Afghanistan and Iraq to actually go about actually doing (which there is zero indication that the US can do, even when it was in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even less indication that the US is actually preparing to do such a thing).

Yep. It's all bullshit.

I'm as surprised as you are that people keep falling for this shit, but alas here we are.

By bombing Nord Stream the US has rolled out a plan that has been in place since at least 2014, of transferring European energy dependency from Russia to the US.

And the US has succeeded. Germany and the rest of Europe took it like a bitch. The US reaps the benefits. — Tzeentch

US elites reap benefits from harming Europe and forcing Europe to buy US gas.

The US empire benefited from a strong Europe. The whole reason the US can abuse European allies to begin with is that they are such diehard allies. They were far more useful to US imperialism with vibrant economies that can help balance against China.

The reasons to "take out" Europe are only sensical due to previous US imperial mismanagement, such as removing the Euro as competition for the dollar ... which only makes sense to do if you've already greatly mismanaged the dollar ... and doesn't actually solve the fundamental issues so only delays the day of financial reckoning.

Cannibalizing allies is again a sign of imperial decline.

Maybe this is true, but I will believe it only when the US empire is definitively put in the trashbin of history. Until that happens, history shows they're way too dangerous to underestimate. — Tzeentch

Yes, we shall definitely see.

However, just like Russia has gone through many phases of Imperial expansion and decline, and the corruption and discipline of each phase, and China for even longer, so too can America go through it's first imperial decline and reemerge later.

The great powers rarely just "go away" completely since the globalized international system started to form.

What's different now is nuclear weapons and environmental limits.

Either, or both, will kill billions of people in our lifetime. Which is unfortunate.

Main difference is that this genocide is being broadcast live and there's also no plausible deniability, muddy the waters, kind of usual bullshit people easily swallow as you mention above. Israeli officials literally just get up on podiums and declare their intention to starve the Palestinians, that rape is ok, that their animals, that children are just future terrorists and must be killed etc.

Normally you have clear evidence of mass murder on the one hand and a long winded plausible deniability bullshit narrative on the other and most people are then like "huh, who's to say what happened". — boethius

One could make the prediction that this will be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back.

Not an altogether unreasonable prediction, but at the same time I don't think it's obvious enough to take it as proof of US incompetence.

But they didn't!

The famous child burning photograph turned public opinion against the war, massive protests, huge cultural change.

It was so shocking to American elites that they did not in fact get away with it, they wanted to "win the war", that they completely reorganized the military, and in particular the draft, in order to be sure not to be bothered by public opinion in subsequent wars they will want to wage.

Of course, US remained a superpower and the threat of the Soviet Union was still current and so on and there were plenty of "rational" parties involved in US politics at the time.

For example, in 1975 you not only have the end of the Vietnam war but also the Churchill committee that investigated the CIA (for the first and only time). That no one was held accountable represents the fact corruption wins out over democracy basically in a process that continues to this day getting more and more corrupt all the time, but the fact the investigation happened at all represents things were on a knifes edge. It could have easily gone another way. — boethius

The US suffered strategic defeat in Vietnam and had to pay a price, but did it take responsibility for the millions of innocent dead it caused, and the effects of chemical warfare that last up until this day?

I'll let you be the judge, but in my opinion Vietnam vets paid the worst price, and the US itself largely got away with it.

Did Afghanistan really need to be wrecked? — boethius

Of course.

Afghanistan connects Russia and China to India.

Can't have the continental powers developing land-based trade relations on Uncle Sam's watch now can we?

Don't get me wrong, I do get the basic geopolitical idea of crashing the rest of the global economy and then sitting pretty in North America ... but how do you actually go about doing that? — boethius

The plan isn't so much crashing the global economy. The plan is, if things were to come to blows with China, to be able to cut off its land-based trade by sowing chaos in the bottlenecks that connect it to the rest of the world.

China is connected to Europe via Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Iran. It's connected to India via Pakistan and Bangladesh.

What do we see in all these regions? Long-standing US involvement.

The US empire benefited from a strong Europe. — boethius

Emphasis on the past tense.

When the Soviet Union was the big bad, the US empire benfitted from a strong Europe.

Today however Europe is unlikely to get directly involved in a war with the new big bad, China. In fact, a strong Europe would likely be able to slip US influence if it got into a war with China, and actually be able to benefit from the conflict. That's why Europe is now treated as a potential rival and no longer as an actual ally.

Not only that, but Europe can also potentially function as a critical market that can keep the Chinese economy afloat after its sea-based trade is cut off - this is why the disruption of Chinese-European trade routes is a fundamental part of US Eurasian strategy.

Europe's position in relation to the US empire fundamentally changed after the Cold War ended, and the Europeans were too slow the realize.

Israeli officials literally just get up on podiums and declare their intention to starve the Palestinians, that rape is ok, that they're animals, that children are just future terrorists and must be killed etc. — boethius

"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty" - J. Goebbels.

Straight from the Goebbel's playbook.

Not a word from you on the widespread sexual abuse of 10/7 hostages and victims as well as the general rape culture that pervades the Islamic world. Not a word from you on the genocidal intentions of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. Now go run along and be a good propagandist for the likes of Putin, Assad and Iran. :vomit:

That's profoundly cute, coming from someone who is literally spinning apologetics for a genocide.

There is no genocide; only the resurfacing of blood libels when Israel responds to the murder of 1200 of its own and the taking of hundreds of hostages (as any nation would). How dare they react.

Population figures simply do not support the idea of a genocide.

How dare they react. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, how dare they react to legitimate resistance to occupation by committing genocide.

There is no genocide; only the resurfacing of blood libels when Israel responds to the murder of 1200 of its own and the taking of hundreds of hostages (as any nation would). How dare they react. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, tit for tat, mate. How does the does the Gaza population dare to think of revenge in the long term? Prepare for the next generations of young Hamas fighters.

In calling the deliberate murder and rape of civilians "legitimate resistance" you only expose your own moral bankruptcy.

If that isn't wrong then neither is genocide.



We saw white flags over Jabaliya after Sinwar's death -- perhaps peace is on the horizon. It appears Israel has finally broke them and peace is at hand. Success emboldens them more than failure.

In calling the deliberate murder and rape of civilians "legitimate resistance" you only expose your own moral bankruptcy. — BitconnectCarlos

The only rape in all these events that's actually proven is the Israelis raping prisoners on camera.

How do you explain that?

Ah yes ...

"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty" - J. Goebbels. — BitconnectCarlos

Learn to condemn murder.

The only rape in all these events that's actually proven is the Israelis raping prisoners on camera.

How do you explain that?

Ah yes ... — boethius

"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty" - J. Goebbels. — BitconnectCarlos

:100:

And given Israel's conduct it's not the only lesson they're taking from the Nazi playbook.

-- perhaps peace is on the horizon. — BitconnectCarlos

Carlos, your optimism is—let's say— outstanding.

It appears Israel has finally broke them and peace is at hand. Success emboldens them more than failure. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah! Thanks Israel!

No... Let's get back to reality. Sinwar was a terrorist and the main objective of Israel since October 7th. The deaths of him —and Nasrallah in Lebanon— make the belligerent groups a bit dizzy and forsaken. But this is not over yet. Hamas will name another leader; the Gaza people are thirsty for revenge. You told me yesterday that around 80% of the population of Gaza is Hamas friendly or associated. Israel chopped the log but not the roots. While we are discussing here, I bet they are already reorganising themselves. It is pretty dreamy to think that peace comes by killing and destroying. 
 
Start with the basic premise: Does the current government recognise Palestine as a sovereign state? No! Right? Then, the conflict will remain.

It's the occupation, stupid.

UNIFIL needs to leave. — BitconnectCarlos

Whether UNIFIL is successful or not isn't the question here. It's attacking UN blueberets. It's just shows how absolutely reckless Netanyahu has come.

What the Israelis don't seem to understand is that it goes both ways. How many Oct 7s have happened to the people in Gaza and now Lebanon and how many civilians have been radicalized as a result? — Mr Bee

Formation of the Hezbollah was the result of the last occupation of Lebanon. That in itself shows how obvious this is.

In an intelligent debate this would be obvious, but policy has been hijacked by ideology and propaganda, where the leaders themselves are believing their own propaganda. Bibi and his administration has morphed into a wartime cabinet. Now before Israel and the IDF made limited military strikes, but those did go hand in hand with foreign policy and basically were peace-time operations. Now once the military has been totally mobilized (and demobilized partly for the economy not to tank totally), the threshold of military actions has severely been reduced.

What seems not to have been discussed is the possible nuclear weapons test made by Iran.

If the earthquake in a region where a testing site is would have been a nuclear explosion, although it could have been also eathquake (as there are earthquakes in Iran). Yet if it was, the absolute silence in Israel (except the Jerusalem Post) and in the US would be totally in line with how historically the US (and the West) reactions of the past.

When North Korea made it's first nuclear experiment and the tremors were noticed in an area where there's no earthquakes usually, the reaction was to play down it was a possibly a conventional explosion or in any case a failed test. And latter nuclear tests haven't made any outcry. With silence the North Korean nuclear arsenal has been building up.

Naturally this is speculation, but if Iran did make a nuclear test, it will be now frantically building it's meager nuclear deterrent and decentralized the weapon systems. As Iran and Israel are basically at war with each other (even if both sides really don't want to look it that way), then this would be the logical time for Iran to go through with it's nuclear weapons program. Anymore the "ability to make a bomb" isn't credible deterrence for Iran. And the rockets of Hezbollah aren't either, as Netanyahu has opted to destroy Hezbollah and invade Lebanon.

So that would leave Iranians with the attempt to have some kind of nuclear balance with Israel. Naturally this means that Saudi-Arabia or UAE could also decide to have nuclear weapons, if Iran goes public with it's nuclear deterrence. Yet also if Iran has a nuclear deterrent, even small one, it can also get a more aggressive. Which actually it has by now twice attacking Israel. Which in the latter strike the attack has seemed to have gone through... even if naturally the IDF says that the attacks were inneffective.

And Hezbollah (Iran) attacking Bibi's home with a drone in Ceasarea won't likely defuse the situation...

(Times of Israel) The Prime Minister’s Office confirms that the premier’s private residence in Caesarea was targeted in a drone attack from Lebanon earlier this morning.

In a short statement, the PMO says that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara were not home at the time of the attack and that there were no injuries in the incident.

I am curious about that. I think 5 were injured last time I checked. Perhaps a mistake? Fog of war? I don't know. I'd be horrified if Israel viewed the blue berets as valid targets alongside Hezbollah.

Hamas will name another leader; the Gaza people are thirsty for revenge. — javi2541997

Are you sure about this? Maybe they just want the war to be over and go back to pre-10/7 life. Hundreds of Hamas surrendered today; I think they're getting sick of it.

Now, if they were on the verge of victory things would be different and I'd imagine they'd be highly motivated rather than think "well we're basically victorious, maybe Israel has had enough. Time to take it easy on them!" It seems that victory emboldens and failure discourages (and this applies to the Jews too). Losing top terrorists is discouraging and possibly interpreted as a sign that God is not with them. In Islamic and Jewish theology it is God who grants victory.

You told me yesterday that around 80% of the population of Gaza is Hamas friendly or associated. — javi2541997

No, I said supposedly a source internal to Hamas said that 80% of the casualties of the Gaza war were Hamas & those close to them. The Palestinians were largely supportive of Hamas but many have become disenchanted after the results of 10/7.

It is pretty dreamy to think that peace comes by killing and destroying. — javi2541997

It sounds strange but this happens time after time in the Middle East. Strength is in that region. God grants victories.

Start with the basic premise: Does the current government recognise Palestine as a sovereign state? No! Right? Then, the conflict will remain. — javi2541997

You are viewing this conflict through a European lens.

Are you sure about this? Maybe they just want the war to be over and go back to pre-10/7 life. Hundreds of Hamas surrendered today; I think they're getting sick of it. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, I am very sure about my point. It is dreamy to think that there is a chance to come back to the context prior to October 7th. This date did critical damage to the collective thought and soul of Israel. Like to the Americans in September 11th or here in 2004 Madrid bomb attacks. Do not expect to go back to pre-10/7 life. It looks like it is acceptable to take Sinwar out because he is a terrorist. But this is the way Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, etc. think about Netanyahu. They will keep attempting to take him out. Will you feel safe in a nation whose president is in perpetual thread with their neighbours? Then, this will be another reason for Netanyahu to keep bombing, and this is why I can't see peace in the long term.

You are viewing this conflict through a European lens. — BitconnectCarlos

And you are viewing this conflict through a religious lens because:

God grants victories. — BitconnectCarlos

What God?
What religious text? Quran or Talmud?
What prophet? Muhammad or Abraham?
See? This conflict is endless because it always leads to religious differences and hostility. I am right and you are wrong because my holy book says so; don't try to argue why.

I am curious about that. I think 5 were injured last time I checked. Perhaps a mistake? Fog of war? I don't know. I'd be horrified if Israel viewed the blue berets as valid targets alongside Hezbollah. — BitconnectCarlos

I think it's quite obvious that where UNIFIL has stations and observation posts is known to everybody and in the maps. Let's take for example just some of the attacks at UNIFIL troops by the IDF:

(October 10th, POLITICO) ROME — Two United Nations peacekeepers were hospitalized after an Israeli tank fired at an observation tower Thursday, according to the U.N. mission in southern Lebanon.

The U.N. peacekeeping mission UNIFIL has been operating along the “Blue Line” that separates Lebanon and Israel since the 1970s, with a mandate to restore security in the area. - The U.N. said in a statement that Israeli forces have "repeatedly hit" its positions in recent days, including two Italian bases and the mission headquarters in Naqoura, a coastal town in the southwest of Lebanon.

And then, six days later:

(Oct 16th, Al Jazeera) UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon say Israeli forces have fired at one of their positions in the south in a “direct and apparently deliberate” attack that damaged a watchtower.

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said on Wednesday its peacekeepers near southern Lebanon’s Kfar Kila observed an Israeli Merkava tank “firing at their watchtower”, adding that “two cameras were destroyed, and the tower was damaged”.

You really think that a Merkava tanks, with their superb optics and fire control just "accidentally" fire on a marked and known UN watchtower? Fog of war, really? I won't buy the idea that tank crews are so disobedient and reckless that they just themselves decided to fire upon UN installations when they felt like it.

Look, Israel simply tries to intimidate UN forces simply to leave, hence there then would be nobody observing what they do. It's the obvious fact here. Even if nobody listens to what UN says, it's still there as an annoying neutral observer. Besides, there's historical examples of this. In one case in a prior war (if I remember correctly in the Golan Heights) IDF soldiers wanted UN peacekeepers that were Finns to abandon their observation post, which the Finnish blue berets refused to do. As the situation with two armed sides pointing assault rifles at each other was dangerous, the Finns laid down their weapons, but still refused to move. Hence an Israel-Finland wrestling match ensued.