Zoraptor

Considering how bad Trump's prose is it's amazing that his writing style isn't the most embarrassing thing about that, uh, missive. It isn't even the second most embarrassing. It's ten year old gets hold of the family AOL account and posts on usenet levels, and the ten year old has the excuse of being ten- and doesn't have access to US military.

This is what is known as a straw man argument. to whit: make up something you wish had been said, then argue against that. Ironically, that is a summary of pretty much every single one of your arguments, going back a decade. It's clear that those quotes were part of a summary. I'm not arguing with you, I'm stating a fact. As last time, I don't really have any patience to lose since I'm not putting any effort into arguing with you. I'm just telling you you're wrong.

That is context. You'd have some sort of point if I'd pulled the quotes from elsewhere in the articles, but I pulled them from the place which every source (other than you) has as a summary giving what the author thinks was the most important facts. As I didn't, you don't. In order for your claims to be relevant you have to show that there's some unique property about Reza Pahlavi that makes articles about him different. We both know you won't, because you can't. I mean, it does, in english, and for news articles. Hence it isn't sophistry from you, it isn't semantics, it's just refusing to concede something which is blatantly obvious and hoping the other person will just give up so you can 'win'.

Can't see any way it wouldn't. Very hard to envisage any situation where rump NATO could politically sell any other response to their populace. Best result would likely be the US being suspended, but there's neither precedent nor method for doing so in the North Atlantic Treaty. Indeed, the broad calculus of those pushing it in the US is that Denmark values NATO and the US so highly that they'll eventually fold in some face saving way in order to preserve NATO; and if they don't, well, what are they going to actually do when faced with a Little Green Men type situation let alone an invasion? Greenland is not really defensible from the US, and short of threatening nukes (via France, no way Britain does it) rump NATO has no viable military response available. There really isn't a face saving way out of it for Denmark short of the US backing down on the idea. It'd be asking everyone involved to commit political suicide at very least and, really, handing over a chunk of your land to a foreign country would be tantamount to treason. For the same reason Europe would have to respond somehow, no matter how much von der Leyen/ Kallas/ Mers/ Macron etc might like to patch things up and not make a permanent break they'd have to do something. The problem is that support for the US and having the preservation of NATO be a very top foreign policy goal works well when it's a traditional actor as US President- you might get drawn into a bunch of wars that aren't really your concern, but the balance is worth it- but all Trump sees is a vassal with pretensions. And vassals are supposed to give stuff to their overlord when demanded. The ultimate problem is that appeasement doesn't work- as stated by Europe for the past four years, and true enough- but they then rolled over for Trump first time he growled to preserve relations. All that says is that you can be bullied, and your instinct is to fold. The likely misjudgement from some in the Trump Admin is that Europe will fold over Greenland, when if an invasion or Little Green Men situation arises they simply cannot.

You'd have a point, if they weren't from the first paragraph. Since they were, you don't. After all, the first paragraph, to quote some random "presents essential facts" hmm. I do hope you don't say the exact opposite in the very next sentence, otherwise some might suspect it isn't me who is being false and misleading. Well now, that's just plain embarrassing. Everything about the description of the lede is what you'd expect in a summary. Burbling about it not actually being a summary isn't even really sophistry, it's just denying reality. I think I may owe Bruce an apology.

Holy moly, you do a fabulous impression of being denser than the galactic core. Good thing I know from experience it's actually MAGAesque refusal to accept the obviously true. The first paragraph of an article is always a summary. It is, by design, what the author thinks is a 'meaningful representation' of their article and its most important points. ie, the complete opposite of what you are saying above given that all but one? of the quotes came from the first paragraph. They are what the authors' thought were the most important points in their article. Since you, apparently, need a citation for facts that are taught to nine years olds: "The lead is the opening paragraph of a news article—the top of the inverted pyramid. It sets the tone for the story and delivers the core facts to hook the reader." "1. The Headline: Your First, and Often Only, Impression.. Immediate Impact: Deliver the most significant piece of information upfront. Don’t hide the lede.. Ask yourself: If a reader stops after the lede, have they fully grasped the fundamental facts of the story?" Do I need more? Do I need to provide, lol, 'context' for those quotes? Well, you're not going to get any. If you really and genuinely cannot grasp the basics of article structure may I suggest enrolling in elementary school for a refresher?

Do you know what 'context' is. Because you were most definitely given it. If you really need it spelled out for you, again, lead paragraphs of articles are introductions to and summaries of the main points of their content. That's context, and you were told that, and anyone who has completed primary school would know that. You were told why they were picked, you were told how they were picked, you were told where in the article the quotes were taken from... that's context. You just don't like it so have decided to burble on MAGAesquely (again) as if you get to make up definitions to suit you (again). Boring.

Yes, but there are definitely legitimate questions for Bill, especially. Much like Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, Peter Mandelson and others Bill seems to have kept contact up after Epstein had his legal troubles whereas Trump cut him off years beforehand. Not for morality concerns, one very much suspects, but still. Obviously a non partisan approach would have Trump answering questions too, but neither side really wants a non partisan approach. It's rather like Jimmy Saville in the UK; nobody in power really wants a proper investigation because a lot of influential people stand to get caught out and they aren't limited to one political slant. They were all of those at times and most of them very frequently, unfortunately they all too often weren't incompetent/ ineffective. Most of the 2nd tier of leadership was very good; for a certain definition of good of course. Even some of the top tier were effective. Himmler was a terrible guy to say the least but his secret police was very competent, and Speer was perhaps the best administrator of the 20th century. Donetz ran the navy well and Jodl/ Keitel implemented a lot of stupid orders as well as they could. There's also been a certain amount of effort put in to frame the competent Nazis as not really being ideological Nazis, but convenience ones. And, if you describe Nazi Germany that way then you don't leave any room for describing the almost complete talent free zone which was Fascist Italy.

Apart from the cringe of trumpeting a copy cat as american innovation why on earth would you have to reverse engineer a Shahed? It's pretty much literally a delta wing moped, a decent number of people could build an equivalent in their garage. And if you go by reports, it's also completely ineffective (it's not, but according to the US...). They should be reverse engineering highly successful designs like the Flamingo instead.

well yes, you certainly do very much love an out of context quote. Indeed, most of the time you spend your effort arguing against them since it's all you've got. As per original, it certainly isn't just Trumpists who use word vomit as a tactic. You got the explanation of why that was- which was not really for you in any case, since I knew you'd ignore it; because that's the part used in search engine summaries, which is what most people will see. Announcing you're planning to use that as a- rather pathetic- gotcha in the future is also... pretty damn sad. That is essentially, a large part of why engaging with you is so worthless. It's pretty clear you don't actually disagree with my assessment of Pahlavi nor of his actual influence. As usual, you just want to nitpick and try to pick a fight. Fact is: All 7 western media used similar lines, all towards the start of their articles, that is a pattern when none of the 3 non western ones used similar lines. The narrative driver that Pahlavi was getting significant numbers out to protest is pretty obvious and localised to western sources; and, again, it's pretty clear neither of us think that's what is actually happening.

I read the whole BBC article, it's certainly the best out of the 7 western ones. Not as good as the Emirati one and about the same as the two Indian, to be fair. My main beef with the BBC is them having a video clip labelled as being of people chanting for Pahlavi where it's actually a generic anti regime chant. I don't really care in the slightest for you trying to pick holes in a pattern- selected by a search engine using the most generic search I could think of- by hand picking articles. Indeed, I didn't even bother to mention that your idea of western journalism amounted to, well, all US sources. Because that is, sadly, very very typical. I based my view on what most people will see. Every single quote I picked was in the first few lines of the articles. Most (all but one?) of them were in the lead or second paragraph. ie the part people actually read, and which gets summarised by search engines. Are there sources with a better grasp of Pahlavi's influence? Sure, I cited one myself, and I got my personal views of him from somewhere, rather than it appearing to me via a vision of the archangel Gabriel. Nevertheless, when every single article from western sources on the first page of a non biased search on a ongoing current affairs issue has the same slant- and it is a slant, because the vast majority obviously aren't protesting for Pahlavi's return, and anyone who thinks they are is mad; probably something we actually agree on- well, it certainly ain't coincidence.

Funny thing is, the US had the chance to bring back a genuinely popular royal to a country they'd 'liberated' and wanted to 'stabilise' in Afghanistan's Zahir Shah. The US vetoed him and they got Hamid Karzai foisted on them instead. And we all know how that turned out. Not great for Afghanistan, not great for the US. Same with Chalabi and his INC in Iraq. Indeed, far from rightly being seen as a US stooge, many in US intelligence consider him to have not been a US stooge but to have been working for... Iran. Though whether that's revisionism, who knows. And on Pahlavi, taking the first ten search engine results for reza pahlavi (exc wikipedia/ brittanica and revapahlavi.org) over the past four days "Protests across Iran escalated dramatically this week, largely fuelled by a call issued by Reza Pahlavi, which was rebroadcast by Farsi-language satellite news channels and websites abroad, urging protestors nationwide to take to the streets." "Many demonstrators in Iran have been calling for the return of Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran's last shah (king)." "Pahlavi successfully spurred protesters onto the streets Thursday night in a massive escalation of the protests sweeping Iran." "Pahlavi’s name is being chanted through the streets of major Iranian cities including Tehran and Mashhad, with phrases “Pahlavi will return” and “Seyyed Ali will be toppled”." "Amid these events, Reza Pahlavi, the 65-year-old exiled Crown Prince and son of the late Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, has re-emerged as a leading figure in the various Iranian opposition movements. In messages shared on social media, Pahlavi spurred protesters onto the streets Thursday night and Friday." "Reza Pahlavi has galvanised protests in Iran, helping to transform what started as grievances over the Islamic Republic's weakened economy into a serious threat to the country's theocracy." "Pahlavi successfully spurred protesters onto the streets Thursday night in a massive escalation of the protests sweeping Iran.*" [3x non western sources not included; one emirati, two indian; none of which contained similar lines] That certainly does a pretty good impression of looking like an organised campaign to embiggen his standing via western media. The protesters were going to turn out if he told them to, if he kept quiet, or if he didn't. *same line appears twice, as the Globe and Mail rewrote an AP article. With original byline retained, so no shenanigans.

The thing about repeatedly reporting someone is dead or on the brink of death is that you will inevitably be correct, and most people will only remember that instance instead of all the times you were wrong previous. Kadyrov has some way to go to better his compatriot Omar al-Shishani who got blown up 4 times by the US, or Ibrahim al-Douri who died 5 times including the (still supposed, though it was his side making the announcement so more likely) real time.

A far more realistic, if now slightly dated take. Far more that the three letter acronyms want the Shah- and, of course, and quite possibly more importantly, SAVAK- back; and the western media is laundering their opinions. It's basically like me calling for a mass demonstration at Eden Park and the press saying how important I am for getting 50k people out (having picked the day of a NZ/ South Africa rugby match, or an Ed Sheeran concert). Very, very far from the first time media has laundered such preferences too. Indeed, picking someone who is deeply flawed and will divide a country is a tried and true formula for making sure a country stays stuffed up, while exonerating yourself from the blame. Doesn't matter what Iranians may or may not want- and it's pretty clear they don't want the Pahlavis, they got rid of them twice- it's far more important to get someone pro west and pro Israel in there who can be relied upon to crush dissent and sell out natural resources to the US.

It certainly wasn't the actual reason for using Oreshnik. However, that definition of 'everyone' also agreed that Russia blew up Nordstream. Which, now, pretty much everyone agrees wasn't Russia. A pretty large proportion of that 'everyone' also decided that Russia blew up the Kerch Bridge as a false flag as well, which also wasn't Russia. (As per usual there was a certain amount of hilarity watching media report Zelensky's "may he perish" Christmas speech; then a few days later acting as if Zelensky trying to hit a Putin residence was just unthinkable. Gold fish have longer memories)

The shooter himself is already thoroughly doxxed. lol. Yes, the last one you highlighted was someone- well, you- speculating without any hard evidence about Trump having dementia. Y'know, him taking a test was evidence he had it. And when was his first test again... like, 8 years ago, for a progressive disease... Funny how there was no need to avoid rush to judgement and wait for all the evidence to be in there, eh. Could it possibly be because that was your speculative conclusion. Last line from my previous post still applies, I'm not going to bother arguing with you so no need for a thesis length word soup (yep, not just Trumpists used the technique) reply.

Another Oreshnik* strike on something in Lviv. At least 6 submunitions, and a fairly impressive fire started by the looks of things. Timing is probably as interesting as the target (best guess so far is natural gas storage). *basically an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile without the nuclear payload. The submunitions are solely kinetic as at the speed they travel- ~6km/s- an explosive payload is essentially redundant. Pretty well known that it was coming, though not where exactly, as such launches are Notified so avoid people thinking it's a first strike and the US embassy issued a warning about a major incoming strike like last time.

Not even JD Vance is stupid enough to actually mean 'absolute immunity'; since that means they couldn't be prosecuted for shooting, well, JD Vance. It's what happens whenever something goes wrong for the Trump admin: projectile vomiting of semi digested word soup in the hope (eh, knowledge) that some people will accept whatever they say; and those that don't will likely get distracted by arguing over qualified vs absolute immunity, or the definition of domestic terrorist, or imminent threat.

Indeed, claiming someone is triggered is very often in and of itself trolling, since it's almost always used to try and elicit a response of "no I'm not!" (generally followed by "hahaha I knew you were really reading my posts!!!1!! Wooo teh win for me"). It's also very low effort. Not quite as annoying as the habitual incorrect use of 'whataboutism' at least. Or fricking bananas. Fruit of the devil. The only time what would in the olden days have been called killfiling someone is annoying is when the person doing so is triggered and is obviously still reading, and keeps indirectly replying to the person they've blocked. Otherwise it's a perfectly reasonable response, like removing heavy metal songs from a playlist if you're a classical music enthusiast rather than constantly complaining about the lack of a string quartet and a competent flautist in Rammstein. Think it's fair to say that Bartimaeus is not habitually reading Bruce's posts on the sly, and a 'Bruce still Bruce? Seems so' every few years is hardly being triggered.

Remembering all the times people were told that the US President wasn't really that powerful because of all the limitations in the US constitution so we didn't need to worry about Trump that much is almost enough to raise a smile. Until, of course, you remember it's actually deadly serious that suddenly all those limitations seem to have been thrown out the window. Maybe at least, maybe, having some balaclavaed brownshirt with a badge and a schlong that can only be detected under an electron microscope execute a woman on video may get a proper reaction since it was an actual factual american woman; but I don't think anyone will be holding their breath. Still, kudos to that mayor for telling Trump's off brand sturmabeitlung to eff off, and the non forum friendly version of the term too.

I mean yes, but... that isn't really the root of the problem. Or at least it isn't really ignorance, per se. As with so much the root is that people love to convince themselves by telling stories. Especially ones that have positive outcomes (bonus if they make you a hero). That's basic evolution and a great asset if you're sitting in a cave in winter with no food and your alternatives are starving or going out to hunt, since convincing yourself that you and your buddies are great and will single handedly butcher a mammoth is better than definitely freezing to death due to having a more realistic take. Similarly, going and nicking stuff from the Thog tribe is fine, because they worship the local stream and obviously we're the favoured ones because we're us (and sensibly worship the sun). Europe has capital C Convinced themselves both that they are the heroes- cue Borrell's beautiful garden that must be protected from barbarians analogy- and that the US is their Friend. Everything they are geopolitically is based upon those two premises. So, Europe is desperately hoping that this really is a one off, like Noriega, despite everything Trump says. They'd kowtow if it was 'just' Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Cuba too, because end of the day it doesn't really effect them. Denmark or Canada though- that would break their entire system of belief. It's like asking the Pope to repudiate Christianity. Even if Jesus himself appeared and said that Mohammed was right, and the world should be converted at the end of a sword you wouldn't expect the Pope to Believe it and order the world's catholics to convert. Appeasement is a fundamental misjudgement of Trump's character as so well illustrated by the surrender over tariffs earning no actual goodwill (indeed, being seen as the abject surrender it was and proving that Europe has no spine), but one that is understandable when the alternative calls your entire world view into question. That is may well end up with Little Green Men taking over Greenland like it's Crimea... just believe it won't happen, and hopefully it won't. The 'funniest' thing is the dichotomy of it all. Americans clearly elected Trump and knew what they were getting, but aren't really responsible for his actions. OTOH, Russians didn't elect Putin, but are responsible for his actions. Appeasing Putin is a new Munich Agreement, appeasing Trump is a sensible geopolitical play. China loaning money to countries in return for resources: terrible! US saying they'll just seize them instead... crickets. The last one in particular stems from not condemning Trump's Pillage of Syrian oil, a literal war crime, in his first term.

Sigh. hmm. heh. r00fles! In the spirit of asking disingenuous questions: why do you personally support machinegunning civilians? You approved of Marikana- possibly the only positive thing you've ever said about part owner Ramaphosa- and don't seem to find it disqualifying for Morsi's legitimacy after all.

What's even the point of that question anyway? Apart from trolling. Morsi in Egypt, MbS, the al Thani's in Qatar, haven't had proper elections or anything approaching it and are considered fine. Morsi was considered fine and his elections free after blatantly machinegunning thousands. Even Zelensky has prorogued his term and is refusing to hold elections. The US won't invade any of them, removing Zelensky by force wouldn't be justified using his overstaying his term as an excuse and Maduro being 'illegitimate' is not the reason for his kidnapping; it's just an excuse for those for people who cannot stomach 'narcoterrorist' as one. That's obvious to anyone with critical faculties. The real question as in all these situations is: if I considered the above, or Trump, an illegitimate leader and had the power to remove them, would it be ok if I did so? Would it have been ok if Putin had removed Maduro (even without burbling about stealing their oil)? Not a great hill to die on, defending Trump's decision on the basis of 'democracy'. It's a defence solely based on positive feelz about the perpetrator, and negative ones about the victim. It's also, of course, an utterly terrible idea because it encourages Trump and says that anything is OK, so long as it's him doing it. Trump's also implied that if Venezuela's leadership doesn't play ball he'll kill them. Truly, democratic values at play there. Same as threatening Honduras if they didn't elect the candidate he wanted there. If you've got rules they apply to everyone. They prevent people you like from doing things they want to as much as they prevent people you don't like. They also provide protections to those you don't like as much as those you do. If the sole basis of what you approve of is whether you like the perpetrator or the victim then you're a awful person- or an awful country. The sooner the collective west wakes up to that the better.

It'll be hilarious- for a certain definition of hilarious- watching some of the usual suspects contort themselves into justifying the US invading Mexico, or Canada, or Greenland. In particular Kallis/ von der Leyen. I'm not sure even invading Denmark would be enough for them to grow a spine. Giving any sort of justification for invading a country for 'regime change' is incredibly short sighted because even if you say it's a special case every other case is also special, to someone. Recent history is littered with such short sighted stupidities. It's even worse when it's Donald Trump, a man with an enormously fragile ego and an obvious need for a capital L Legacy. You don't need articles like the one above to know that Venezuela will not be a special case. This is how you end up with Iran, Brazil, South Africa and a dozen other countries with nuclear weapons; and they'd be entirely justified in it. You can kind of understand someone like Zelensky cheerleading it despite the potential... implications, for him. A willingness to justify it from Kallis and von der Leyen and other members of the- and it really is a laugh out loud designation at this point- Rules Based Order while not at all surprising is as stupid long term as their abject surrender in the tariff war. Same as for Netanyahu all you're actually saying to them is that you're fine with them doing anything, so long as it's them doing it.

I wonder if anyone has told Trump just how bad Venezuelan oil is? Canada's tar sands aren't great, but they make the vast majority of Venezuela's stuff look like light sweet Brent comparatively.