![](/static/66c60d9/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
No wonder they think we’re all commies. They can’t read a map.
No wonder they think we’re all commies. They can’t read a map.
This is the effect of having an authoritarian in charge. The propaganda that gets produced is done to convey a sense of power of the person/party, its popularity, and the scale of the internal and external “enemy threat.”
I think a lot of people have their fingers crossed on this one.
I really think there are two different aspects to the classification of the threat. It’s actually pretty analogous to the Afghanistan War.
First, neither Al Quaeda nor Hamas represent an existential threat to their opponents. The US hasn’t really faced a believable existential threat since the collapse of the USSR, Israel hasn’t really faced one since the 80s. Countries in Eastern Europe face an existential threat from Russia. And so on. Killing 1200 (or 3000) people, no matter how brutally or unjustified or evil it seems, it does not threaten to destroy the state of Israel. It is, of course, now an existential threat to Netanyahu, which is one reason why it’s being pursued with such enthusiasm.
The second aspect builds from the first and questions whether the solution pursued by Israel (and the US) were both efficient (ie proportional to the threat so as not to divert attention and resources from other threats) and effective. They have to be expected to achieve specific and measurable goals and timelines.
The ability to pull off an Oct 7th might have been equally well but more efficiently and effectively with intelligence and commando units, and Israel would have been given free rein by most of the planet to do so.
Hamas never posed an existential threat to Israel.
Supporters say the new law aims to stop men from poisoning pregnant partners in order to induce abortion without consent.
Any time they make up this kind of excuse for passing onerous and unnecessary legislation - whether it’s abortion medication or drag shows or bathroom bills - we have to ask two questions:
If they can’t answer that, they should face having their legislation blocked as failing to establish an evidence-based argument.
“I’m going to ban electric vehicle sales and also appoint Elon Musk as a White House advisor.”
-TFG
Nothing that you’re saying about INR is remotely true. They’re academics and specialists who produce long form research and in depth studies. They’re not “in charge” of anyone.
Up until the post-9/11 shuffle, the US intelligence community (IC) was led by the director of the CIA, and the IC comprised CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO, INR, defense branch agencies, and others. CIA and DoD were the ones with operational branches alongside analysts, the rest were pretty much analysis-oriented or technical (eg cryptography). Although there is some overlap, the individual agencies largely have complementary missions.
Foreign actors were already at work in the Palestinian elections. Netanyahu spoke about how his administration was supporting Hamas as the best way possible to avoid having to establish a two state solution with a stable Palestinian government in Gaza and the West Bank.
Instead of arguing why you seemingly want to lay all of this at the feet of INR, due to some hatred towards Hillary Clinton you’re trying to get out of defending your assertion by criticizing IS foreign policy as a whole. That’s not arguing in good faith, and you’d be better off just acknowledging that you didn’t read the article and have no idea what you’re talking about.
And then?
On the other hand, the US is fairly well allied with Jordan, KSA, and states in the gulf.
The problem is that the US has become inseparable from Israel on foreign policy. I think the war on Gaza should never have begun and that its prosecution will become the current high watermark for absolute brutality.
I don’t want any single religious ethnostate running from the river to the sea. I want to have a two state solution. It is impossible with Netanyahu in power - and Netanyahu worked to secure and supply Hamas for exactly that reason. He knows that if the PA or another organization were to come to the table, he wouldn’t be able to push back.
Is that supposed to be a gotcha? I’m asking because you entirely dodged the fact that he’s grifting the republicans, which calls your point into question.
It would be stupid if the Dems didn’t also fund third party candidates. That doesn’t change the fact that Kennedy and Stein are grifting Republican money to try to run as spoilers. You’re so all in on the line about democrats being evil I really have to question whether you’re arguing in good faith.
He’s gotten tens of millions of dollars from large money RNC donors, my peaceful friend.
No, like Jill Stein he’s just grifting. He’s gotten tens of millions of dollars donated.
Ironically, New Hope PA is a small town well known for its LGBT scene. It’s a great day trip.
Come on Brian, cheer up!
I mean, what have you got to lose? You know, you come from nothing You’re going back to nothing What have you lost? Nothing!
Always look on the bright side of life!
I’m sure John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and the victims of Veritas and the regular Fox and the other right wing propagandists would have loved to use this one simple trick.
So does this get brought up in debates? Does the press force him to justify his two-faced stance? Or does this just disappear down the memory hole with an AP article?
Can we get an ad from the “Bobby Newport has never worked a real job in his life!” guy?
This is something that the CIA actively engages in. It’s not quite at the covfefe level of “we meant to get caught,” but they do occasionally put out the word that they like it when they’re perceived as ham-fisted bunglers as it makes it easier to get away with stuff.
That’s pretty much what all of the site aggregators were. I ran a couple of communities on yahoo and some other sites. There were also services like Archie, gopher, and wais, and I am pretty sure my Usenet client had some searching on it (it might have been emacs - I can’t remember anymore). I remember when Google debuted on Stanford.edu/google and realized that everything was about to change.
I believe that’s not the law though. The law outlines the conditions under which a person has an “expectation of privacy.” If you’re inside your house, you have an expectation of privacy and so should not be filmed. If you’re on the sidewalk in public, you have no expectation of privacy. If you’re in a private establishment (restaurant or store for instance), the owner or their representatives can ask you not to record and you have to comply.
All of street photography depends on this kind of legal framework.