Zoraptor

Personally, I thought Picard S3 fell apart near completely at the end. That's a flaw a lot of shows have though, and was far less a flaw than... well pretty much anything and everything in S1; where the plot (such as it was) fell to pieces well before the end. Maybe around TNG S2 sort of level for Picard S3 ; wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again, don't regret the time spent though. Now to something I do regret watching. Or do I? The new Robin Hood show- with Sean Bean as the sheriff. Does he die, or does he not? Until you watch (or look it up on wikipedia) who knows. I'd kind of actively avoided watching it, since the promos made it look awful. Watched the first episode to see how bad it was and ended up watching the whole thing. As expected, it felt rather like it was cobbled together from bits of other shows- and one presumes deliberately, a certain Fellowship of the Ring scene featuring Boromir- but was okay enough that I can be bothered writing something about it and given the dross a lot of shows put out in their first season. Indeed, I'd even go so far as saying it was enjoyable. Probably needs to decide whether it's going for the old Robin of Sherwood approach or something a bit more... Spartacus* and stick to one or the other. The Herne the Hunter analogue is a hot naked blonde, so it's somewhat less PG than the old series. OTOH, the violence is pretty Hercules/ Xena most of the time. Norman mail is about as useful as stormtrooper armour it seems. Pedant complaint: saxons converted to Christianity about 500 years before this is set, so christian vs pagan is a bit odd. Plus Henry d'Anjou (Henry II) and Eleanor d'Aquitaine were not Normans- it's in their names, to coin a phrase. Also, you can charge a walled town's gate successfully with cavalry, ho hum. There's certainly a lot to take issue with but I'm feeling generous. *also watched Spartacus: House of Ashur, which I outright enjoyed in a guilty pleasure sense. Plus it's always nice to see local actors having a great time dressing up and overacting. Slight departure from history in the last fifteen minutes or so, but made me lol so I'll allow it.

Come on guys, it's obvious what has happened. Trump has clearly consulted the Delphi of Oracle for advice, and been told that if he attacks Persia a great civilisation shall fall. He's just relaying that in his own inimitable style. It would also be extremely on brand for Trump to ask an ai for cool sounding quotes from the richest guys in history, then miss the lesson on hubris.

Terry Matalas took over as show runner He had some experience on old(ish) Trek- Voy and Enterprise- and ran the far better than it should have been 12 Monkeys TV show. While technically he ran S2 as well due to the shooting schedule he had limited influence, but had far more on S3, and it shows. (In slightly related news, the planned Mass Effect TV series has been sent back to the writing room to make it 'more appealing to non gamers'. Much like Halo was made more appealing, or The Witcher more appealing, or Wheel of Time more appealing, no doubt)

Australia has finally arrested someone (non whistle blower) involved in their SAS's Afghanistan war crimes, Ben Roberts-Smith. Probably going to try and claim now that his (failed) defamation case makes it too prejudicial for him to be tried. It would at least make his defamation suit make sense, though hubris is at least as likely.

Despite what Trump said he almost certainly meant pre-existing armed groups rather than the protesters. Remember all those rumours that the Kurds were going to imminently invade in the first week? It'd be 100% on brand for anyone Barzani affiliated like KDPI to take proffered money and arms then sit on their hands; even more so for PJAK having seen their sister organisation in Syria get shafted by the US less than a month earlier once their usefulness was done. While quite a lot of security forces died in the unrest as well as protesters there's no evidence that was from protesters being armed by outside forces.

You know he's serious since he used three exclamation marks.

That's probably the best evidence that the US thinks Iran has got their pilot (well, crewman) so far. Fits exactly with Trump's mentality that he'd want something for a swapsies.

Not at the point that it matters yet. Anything the Ukrainians could realistically offer- and what's listed is pretty close to what everyone says Ukraine has been offering- is not enough for the Russians to realistically accept. So things will continue. I'd be less than convinced that the main obstacles to peace would be Ukrainian soldiers though. It's not 2022, most of them are not volunteers, and a lot are not there voluntarily in any meaning of the term. If anything that makes it less likely that the more... pagan symbol enthusiast elements could decide to derail things. Politically it'd be very hard to win an election running on a realistic peace deal though since it would involve compromises that would annoy everyone.

A-10 crashed as well near Hormuz, albeit according to unnamed official. Seems to be being treated as genuine though. And really, the A-10 is a sitting duck in anything approaching contested airspace. Would be Classic Trump if it were shot down as well: proclaim the enemies' anti air as totally destroyed to the nation; proceed to lose 2 planes to it in the next 48 hours.

Hegseth more so, I'd say. Leavitt is probably next though if she doesn't end up 'quitting' due to her pregnancy. Trump seems to have decided that people not seeing the US as being the winningest side of a war ever is down to bad communications more than anything. Which is about the only reason I can think of for his speech yesterday; so the great communicator could show them how it's done (badly. It must be incredibly frustrating and difficult trying to run PR for a guy with a shambolic mish mash of concepts of plans and views that change every few hours). Gabbard, like Vance, clearly didn't support attacking Iran in the first place and has said the bare minimum. Those who opposed it are probably in a safer position than those who supported it at this point.

Some allowance made for the obvious losing of voice, but he certainly sounded drunk or similar. Really though, what was the point of that? It was the political equivalent of your 'outspoken' uncle having a rant after one too many Christmas sherries. Nothing new, nothing genuinely important and the only people who'd be impressed are people who are already impressed; everyone else verges from appalled to incredulous. At this point those impressed are likely to be the sort of person who'd applaud Trump eating a boiled egg because it's Trump doing it Be interesting to know if he was using a teleprompter or not. Guess he must have been in part since he wouldn't have had war lengths right (?, well they didn't seem miles off as they would have been if he was just making them up; also didn't mention Afghanistan there) but how on earth it was handled for all his weird digressions and circular sentences I don't know. Unless he actually sat down and wrote it all out, which seems... unlikely. I personally particularly liked him singling out all the Gulf states for praise for all their help, then very next sentence wondering why the Iranians were attacking them and saying that was proof of how dangerous they were. Good thing for him Trumpists aren't renowned for critical thinking.

If Trump really wants to leave NATO there are ways he can, irrespective of what the law says. Like invading Greenland or Canada. Invading a NATO member is a pretty effective way to destroy the alliance without having to do anything formal about it. Usually you'd think it's bluster to try and get them to help him out, but there has been an awful lot of very similar bluster from him in the past year(s). You might also have thought the issues with Iran might have tempered Trump's military adventurism, but it's Trump. If anything his self created crisis seems to have convinced him even more that the Euros are simply weak rather than not willing to bail him out of a pot of hot water he willingly jumped into. And the weak deserve to have their lunch money stolen. (Ultimately, it's the problem of von der Leyen, Rutte and pals completely misjudging things and folding like a napkin to every bit of early pressure. You might think you're 'building up credit' or similar by signing massively disadvantageous trade deals or financing Ukraine's weapons instead of the US or agreeing to up your military spending to ludicrous levels or agreeing to buy overpriced LNG but all evidence is Trump simply doesn't see the world that way. He sees you as a serf who should fight in his armies and be hung upside down and shaken to make sure they haven't got some coins hidden from the taxman. And of course as a serf, you don't really own anything except the stuff your lord lets you have...)

Iran will pretty much 100% blow it up themselves, if it looks like the US is going to seize it. At that point, why not. Hence the 'set american troops on fire' threat. That's the Russia 1812 comparison, Napoleon simply could not comprehend that the Russians would burn down Moscow to deny it to him and was convinced they'd negotiate. Indeed, he was convinced of that even after they'd burnt it down which is why he sat in the ruins for 4 weeks twiddling his thumbs. Blowing up desalinisation plants and power stations is certainly the easier option in the sense that it can be done and would have an effect. But even Trump would likely baulk at being remembered as the guy who depopulated the middle east out of pride. The best option/ approach would be to not be in this position in the first place. No good answers now, no one wants to bail him out, and Trump isn't handling it well. Best option may actually be to just declare victory and leave the mess to others (which as of now he seems to be suggesting; then again a few hours ago it was something different) and that is still an awful option.

Hard to see how that could be done. If you go by what the US claimed earlier it's mostly sitting under tons of rock, after all. Going to fly in some excavators and backhoes on a Globemaster you land on some back country Iranian road? Yes, that is answered in the article, but taking up to weeks to set up a temporary airstrip in the middle of Iran would seem to have one or two minor potential problems associated with it. Even if they don't think of Dien Bien Phu they could always think about Hostomel. And for below, Russia in 1812 or the USSR in 1941. Kharg Island makes more sense. Not much sense either, since it's near inevitable the Iranians would blow all the oil infrastructure up themselves if the US tried to seize it, and then it's just a very hot flat rock. (I actually wondered what had happened to Hegseth yesterday, since he seems to have disappeared. Then I saw an article saying that they seem to have given up on doing briefings about two weeks ago)

There is no border weirder than Oman and the UAE. Two Omani enclaves*, one with an Emirati enclave inside it. Whoever came up with that must have been taking the mick. The most likely scenario for Trump using a nuke is so he can claim he's 'destroyed' any Iranian nuclear material. By distributing it and a bonus amount over a large area of Iran, but still, it's Trump. Tactical nuke, not a strategic one. Plenty of people around who think they're fine [for their side] to use, and it's very likely Trump and Kegseth are two of them. Which is why it might be an actively good thing if Trump is bored. *as demanded of a true pedant: one is technically an exclave, since it borders the sea. Quoting myself as I forget to mention: also rather begs the question that if that AWACS is just 'damaged' what other stuff labelled as 'damaged' is, well, missing the equivalent of a third of its fuselage and all the equipment essential to its role. Labeling that as 'damaged' is actively damaging to PR, since it's very obviously destroyed to all practical purposes.

Another bunch of refueling planes and an AWACS (! total loss, couldn't have been done cleaner with a Ginzu) appear to have been hit at Prince Sultan Air Base by Iran. This is separate from the incident a while back where half a dozen were hit, and separate from the collision (or 'collision') that killed one of the plane's flight crew. That's as much as 10% of the total fleet out of action now, and even though they're being replaced a completely unsustainable rate of loss. (one might opine that it was highly incompetent leaving a dozen or so planes in a beautiful ordered formation on the tarmac after the experiences of Russia and Ukraine... but it probably isn't. If you don't have hardened shelters you don't have them; and they're big planes. Does make you wonder if a site as well defended as Prince Sultan is getting hit what other places are as well that we aren't seeing)

If Trump really is 'bored' by his war then at least the chance of him using nukes is at least reduced to negligible. He'd be more likely to just declare victory- for the howevermanyth time- and tacitly leave the mess to everyone else. Then invade Cuba; or Canada or Greenland. Given it's Trump those ors could easily be ands instead. If he decides to send in the troops there's a decent chance he'll take the inevitable fp drone videos of marines getting gibbed very personally* indeed. At that point things may get interesting. *not on behalf of the dead soldiers of course, but because it's politically embarrassing for him and will inflame both the pro and anti war sides of his voter base

So, the 'big gift' Iran gave Trump was allowing ten ships (from friendly to Iran countries) through Hormuz. Or in other words Trump just got manipulated into admitting Iran controls the Straits. By a strategem that's barely better than 'pull my finger' or giving him a big beautiful gift of updog.

Yep. They probably thought they were safe due to Russia not targeting all the western assets that Ukraine uses- which are also legitimate targets. That rather ignores that if Russia were in a similar situation to Iran is rather than Russia is... well, she wouldn't be, due to having nukes. ie the US would be trying to explain why the Ford was atomised rather than had a 'laundry fire'. Plus of course and inevitably there's an extremely long list of all the times the west bombed 'non belligerents', targeted the economies of 3rd parties etc. Indeed, every single point is a lesson in double standards. Perhaps best summed up by quoting an expert referring to the San Remo Manual. Which is specifically not binding, but in any case says: So yeah, you can legally target neutral ships running a blockade (though the binding legal framework for it is, iirc, from the 19th century). And of course, most of the people shocked and appalled at Iran Blockading the Strait aren't shocked and appalled at, say, Israel starving Gazans or denying them water via blockade; they're just shocked and appalled when it effects them.

Hormuz is conclusively Persian in origin already, and it's already the Persian Gulf so Trump might need to make another concession. Though one suspects Trump's idea of concessions would be offering to build Trump Tower Tehran. Really Bruce, even for you that's weaker than a homeopathic dilution drink. So the sole reason the US and Israel's attacks weren't cowardly was because they were not targeting Iran's economy explicitly? Well then, who bombed the Pars gas field first, Iran or Israel? Was that to cause economic chaos or not? The US and Israel definitely attacked a country weaker than them, without a declaration of war etc. But not cowardly because they didn't attack economic targets? Until they did, and most of Trump's rhetoric in the past week has been explicitly about economic/ civilian targets. Anyway, Iran's President has released a speech I'm sure everyone will appreciate. Source (Maybe not quite the Pearl Harbour reference Trump was going for with Takaichi)

'Cowardly' usually means you don't like the person/ group involved, and nothing more. Sitting in the Nevada desert or the Negev with a PS5 controller blowing up people thousands of km away on a video screen knowing you'll never face any consequences is hardly the height of bravery in any conventional sense yet people tend to label that as 'sensible tactics' and 'not giving a sucker an even break' instead. At this point I'm just assuming anything positive that comes out of Trump's mouth means he's doing market manipulation again. Whether the markets are really really dumb or just want him to be telling the truth so much that they still believe him who knows. (I wouldn't be overly surprised if someone is telling Trump they're talking as a way to at least delay him doing something monumentally stupid until his allies have some time to prepare)

Strange as it may seem oil may not actually be the biggest potential target or threat. Most of its infrastructure is fixable in weeks to months, some of it quicker. Qatari gas with a years long estimate is an outlier. OTOH, some of the Gulf countries have 90%+ drinking water from desalinisation. It's high for Israel as well. You simply don't have weeks or months to fix that, and having 7 million people in Riyadh without water would collapse Confidence almost instantly because there would be no chance of things going back to how they were. Absolutely a war crime to target it, but it's not like either side cares about that- given destroying power plants without a good military reason to do so would also be a war crime.

It isn't, that's the purpose of the military censor in the first place, and always has been everywhere it's been implemented. The state controls the flow of information to stop its own people and the enemy know what damage has been done. When that is not applied they either think it's in their best interests not to, or it's too big to suppress. What do you think they were censoring in those 2000+ articles, Bibi's receding hairline? 131 journalists killed in Gaza since 2024 out of a total of 204, so a shade off 2/3s. That is excluding those killed outside Israel and Palestine by Israel though; add those in and it's over 2/3. To put it in perspective, the number of journalists killed in Ukraine over that time was 4 (four).

Wasn't really a debate, you were simply told what the situation was. On average Israel censors more than 2000 (!) articles per year. That hasn't changed. Or if you prefer, and from the last couple of weeks: "Every reporter in Israel — and every member of the public — is subject to a military censor" Their actual censorship is more harsh than that of Russia. Maybe not quite as bad as Ukraine, since at least you won't get forcibly enlisted for breaking the rules.

The contrast of Trump insisting that the Iranians are begging for a ceasefire due to their military being 2000% killed while 186% of their missile launchers have been destroyed and near simultaneously threatening to blow up all their power plants if they don't reopen the Straits of Hormuz is even more telling than usual. It's very, very obvious that he wants someone, anyone on the Iranian side to start talking to him. That he thinks they will having torn up one agreement than started wars with them twice, during negotiations, is perhaps the definition of hubris. Or stupidity. Maybe both? The Iranians, of course, have a long list of targets to hit in response. Which will really stuff up the region long term. No drinking water for Riyadh would be quite interesting, in a very Chinese (well, 'Chinese') curse sense. Would certainly be interesting to see the European reaction to the US blowing up power plants. While presumably not a war crime due to rules 1 and 2* differentiating it from Russia hitting Ukrainian power plants might be a tad difficult to get through to other people. *(1) someone we like cannot commit a war crime (2) someone we don't like cannot be the victim of a war crime