Zoraptor

If you're wondering why I cannot be bothered arguing with you, this is the reason. Happens every time. It's obvious to anyone that isn't being willfully obtuse that you've decided to take that, well, out of context, as a single line. Big difference, in this case it's as a deliberate effort to obfuscate. To remind you, and far more effort than you deserve: This was the post I made immediately beforehand, and which you took issue with. The context of the list is establishing a pattern, the quotes were taken from what every source agrees is where the authors' 'important facts' (/opinions) are located and thus establish that. All you have done is suggest I do things that actually would be stupid. Like do a general search- iran + protests, lest we forget- for establishing a pattern about a specific person. Literally the only reason you want me to do that is because it would be stupid and let you 'win'. Firefighter, extinguish thine own pants. Literal lol. No, merely getting coverage doesn't mean he's getting embiggened. It's the disproportionately positive coverage that shows the embiggening. Hence the quotes you've spent the past week objecting to. Sheesh man. If you're wondering why I cannot be bothered expending any actual effort on you, this is the reason. Happens every time. (for extra lol, the al jazeera article I originally linked to did mention a bunch of other Iranian opposition figures. ho hum)

It's more of an inevitable than a predictable. Doesn't even really need to be conservative though, at least as a political designation. To whit: centrist darling Emmanuel Macron and his approach after the 2024 French elections. He pretty clearly would have preferred to work with the far right over the left, if he had to work with one.

You were given the context. Saying you weren't doesn't change that. Again, that is how you indicate a trend; it's not by cherry picking results nor by doing a general search for, lol, iran + protests. The trend about Pahlavi's coverage is clear as it's also clear that he's the only Iranian opposition leader that has had any appreciable coverage at all. I cannot say I'm surprised that you don't know how to indicate a trend though, given our previous interactions. It's not particularly rigorous but it's easily replicable- and to be blunt, you simply aren't worth the effort required for proper rigour nor for quoting of ten fricking articles. Whatever is provided I know you'd just go off on a tangent and end up repeating the same thing over and over in the hope I'll give up; so it's a waste of time.

Nah. We both know my search wasn't a misrepresentation, and we both know that the quotes were genuine, and from the start of the articles where the author puts their essential facts- or if you prefer, summary opinions. It's spectacularly easy to prove otherwise if they weren't, since I provided the methodology for it. If you have difficulty with advanced search features ask an AI to do it for you. Personally, I have no doubt you put the quotes into google (or asked an AI to do it for you) and found they were genuine, and from where I stated too. If you're looking for articles about Reza Pahlavi- essentially biographicals and not general articles- then including him in the search terms is, well, kind of a requirement. That you'd want me to do the most general search possible- iran protests, absolute lol- instead is very much indicative that you don't have a leg to stand on and know it. We both know every article on Venezuela doesn't mention Machado prominently, every article on Afghanistan didn't mention Karzai prominently, every article on Iraq didn't mention Chalabi prominently, every article on Syria didn't mention al-Jolani prominently, etc, etc. Providing methodology is perfectly acceptable in lieu of providing links, and is essential when trying to show a trend- it is the fundamental difference between anecdote and data. If you're trying to show a trend about a specific person, you include their name. This is very basic stuff. I've also told you you are not a high effort response and that you insults just prove to me you don't have an actual argument but are just throwing a tanty. Funny, given your sheer volume of repetitive verbiage.

You were told how they were found, it's easily replicable by anyone with the most basic internet skills. It literally literally takes five seconds. Fact. We both know it isn't misrepresentation, and the quotes are real. Again, that's not opinion, it's fact. From the later parts it appears you don't actually know how to use a search engine properly though (<--this is opinion). There are a shedload of Pahlavi stories about the TV hacking. Took me 5s to find them. Fact; fact. Just repeating stuff ad nauseum when you've lost is most definitely yours, as is posting multiple theses length replies in the hope of boring people to death. Quoting what the purpose of a lede is, then insisting that actually the quotes I took weren't the author's main points or part of a summary is certainly one of your more... interesting takes. As a matter of fact, you're wrong about that; and it's a bit sad that that is just one of your more... unique takes rather than the most.

It would have partly redeemed the Board of Peace if they'd livestreamed Netanyahu's reaction to Turkey/ UAE/ Pakistan and Qatar being members. One suspects they're happy to have an excuse to decline more than anything. I suspect the Prime Minister here for one wishes he had such an excuse, or that the White House map had left us off it so no decision would have to be made.

This seems pretty likely from circumstantial evidence; Gigabyte has already released new AM4 motherboards, which suggests they don't see the socket as dead. You'd expect them to just do a new manufacturing run of the old designs under normal circumstances to save on costs.

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.