JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
Compare with the upwards of 40K dead Gazans.
While doing so, remember that the 40K number is provided by Hamas, which is extremely motivated to inflate the number and is known to lie about pretty much everything. There's absolutely no possibility of independent verification of these numbers, so they can not be compared with verified and documented numbers like IDF casualties. Here: https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/HJS-Questionable-Counting-%E2%80%93-Hamas-Report-web.pdf is some analysis of the Hamas numbers. Again, it is probably impossible to know the real numbers. IDF estimates they killed about 17 thousands Hamas (and whatever smaller fractions there are, like Islamic Jihad or PFLP) operatives. Probably not a very accurate number either as I doubt they bothered to search and identify every single killed combatant. Beyond that, I am not sure how can one make any supportable numbers.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Palestine: a year in review.
I suppose there should be a link somewhere for it? Right now it doesn't link to anything.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
I am not sure what exactly Russia is constructing (a fascist empire would be a good general description but it lacks specific details) but it has very little to do with what we understand as Western civilization, and it is ideologically opposed to it. You can call it "civilization-state" in the meaning of its own, peculiar to that state, civilization which is built on the principles alien to the Western one, and that's exactly my point.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Could be just some bot farm closing this year's budget.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
And the reason they don't because it's only needed when you can't use iCloud, and you can't use iCloud when your country is debanked for starting a war. I don't know how Apple's internal project management works, but I suspect a task "make data migration work if my country is under sanctions" is not very high on the list.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
using them apparently interchangeably with "anti/pro American strategic interests"
That's nonsense. Having war in the middle of Europe is not German or Polish or British or Spanish or Greek or any other European interest. Russian imperial plans is not "American" problem, it's the problem for everybody who is part of what we call "Western civilization".
That's not the same thing really as being 'pro Western civilisation'.
True. They are allies. That was my point.
Putin actually leans into a lot of Christian elements
Of course, Russia's ideology has always been that they are the "true" Christians and all the non-eastern-orthodox Christians are heretics, and thus taking over Byzantine inheritance and serving as sole protector of the Christian faith is the Russian destiny, thus it's called the "third Rome". Putin invented nothing here, he just reheated the policies of Russian Empire. Of course, this implies inherent conflict with the West, who also considers itself the continuation of Greko-Roman civilization - they are the fakes, and Russia is the true heir, so until they recognize this fact, there can be no peace (though there could be some temporary tactic armistices and alliances, of course).
"Russia is the enemy of American-led global supremacy"
Again, nonsense. Russia is the enemy of the EU as much - likely more - as America. Of course, if you want to go back to the Holy Roman Empire, maybe Russia isn't the enemy of that, but it's the enemy of everything the Western civilization is now, and not just tactically, but strategically - at least until it abandons the "third Rome" ideology, which definitely won't happen while Putin is alive.
I personally believe they assisted or overlooked Ukraine in destroying the Nord stream pipelines and therefore participated directly in crippling "western civilisation" for the foreseeable future.
You can believe whatever you like, but some German politicos being bought by Putin is not really a sign that Europe wants to submit to the glorious Russian empire. Some politicians, sure, would like a share of Gazprom billions, no doubt about it. But those politicians don't represent much beyond their own greed.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Saudi Arabia (I mean the royal family) are huge friends of Western civilization. That's like their entire survival strategy, has been for decades. They took major part in US-USSR proxy war if Afghanistan, for example (on the US side), and many other projects too. They may have very distinct customs internally, but they never positioned themselves as being in active existential opposition, quite the reverse. As for Rwanda and Zimbabwe, I have no idea what works there and probably nobody cares either.
America leverages its technology and its economy to destroy those it disapproves of.
"Disapproves of" is the big lie here. America may disapprove of a lot of things, but the problems with Russia are way, way beyond "disapproval". That's the country that a) started a hot war in Europe and b) pretty much declared itself as an the eternal strategic enemy of the Western civilization. I think they don't have much platform to complain some Western things are working less than smoothly there. And no, not being able to easily copy information from one American iphone (which you can still buy) to another American iphone (which you can still buy) so that you can use an application created by American company, is not properly described as "being destroyed by America". In no world, in no universe, in no circumstance it is.
it doesn’t give much of a damn what the rest of us in ‘Western civilisation’ think.
Most of Europe, except some folks being directly paid by Russia and some folks who proclaim their love of Russia out of stupid contrarianism, aren't exactly in love with Russia either. Those who border it very much aren't. And, the position in existential opposition to the West is the official Russian doctrine, so there's no matter what Luxembourg really thinks about it, it's what it is.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
No, never. I don't thank my stove or my car, why would I do that?
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
We did this. No regrets.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
because you can't pay for iCloud in Russia
Here's the source of the problem. If you live in an anti-civilization country, don't be surprised some Western civilization things are not working for you. It may be not your personal fault and you may not have another choice, but that's the problem and everything else is downstream from it. Apple and Meta products aren't built to cater for users that live in anti-civilization countries and never will be, and it's not reasonable to expect them to. Your choice is using R-Fon and Vkontakte or suffer what you must.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Looks like Ukrainians also starting to do something about the Russian fleet: https://maritime-executive.com/article/sanctioned-russian-ship-was-sunk-by-terrorist-attack-owner-claims
If so, we can expect more Russian-connected ships developing sudden mechanical problems and going under on high seas.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Yes, they have been denied emergency landing in every Russian airport.
The reason why it has been shot is likely that when it was about to land in Grozny, there was an attack by Ukrainian drones (not on the civilian airport itself, AFAIK, and Ukrainians probably had no idea what if anything was flying there). Since the previous drone attack on Grozny, which infuriated Russians and Chechens beyond description, they installed a number of air-defense systems, and they were running them in the "shoot everything in sight" mode once they learned about the new attack. Of course, they neglected to warn the civilian dispatchers in advance, because nobody bothered to think about it, so when the plane has been about to land, there was a kind of "oh shit!" moment, and they denied landing to it at the last moment, but it was too late, the plane already have been hit. Since it was an anti-drone missile, it did not destroy the plane, so if they shot the system down and allowed it to land right there it likely would have survived. But they did not, since nobody ordered that. And then they switched into the common Russian coverup mode, in which dropping the plane into the sea and claiming it probably hit some birds or Ukrainian drone destroyed it would be the best solution. Unfortunately, the pilots managed to land it - so there's an proof it has been hit by a Russian missile.
I wonder what Azerbaijanis are going to do about it? Are they going to just say "shit happens" and let it go, or there would be some consequences to their relations with Russia?
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
It's not about lying. People routinely interpret events the way that fits their convictions, and routinely dismiss things that may disagree with those convictions, often even without realizing it. That's why, for example, peer review in science exist. If somebody does some research which they believe is true, but then some reviewers point out the original researcher omitted or misinterpreted some facts and the conclusions are unwarranted, would it be correct to call the original researcher a "devious liar"? I don't think so.
I think we can safely assume Saul genuinely believed all he was preaching, and was convinced his Christianity is exactly what Jesus would want to happen. I can not know that for a fact, but I have no objection to assuming it. That does not contradict the fact that what we know as "Christianity" has been largely built by him and the veracity of all the claims ultimately goes back to him.
As a martial arts practitioner, I often encounter people claiming that they continue certain traditions - often claiming the same tradition coming from the same sources. Nevertheless, many of those people adopt radically different approaches and practices. How can that be? Are some of them - or all of them - liars to claim the traditional roots? I do not think so. Traditions are complex and changing with time, and different people take different things and develop them in different directions. Some directions flourish, some wither. Same tradition can be developed and embodied in many different ways.
Saul created his own embodiment of what he saw as a (quite young by then) Christian tradition, and that's largely what we know as "Christianity" now. For better or worse, there's no other. Even if there were, I think it'd be quite hard to claim one of them is more "true" than the other. But having none - at least none that is not traced back to Saul - what do we have to stand on comparing to Saul's Christianity?
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
What do you think the early Christians were even doing, if they didn't think there was a resurrection?
The same thing other Jewish sects were doing, following their Rabbi. Surely, the earliest Christians - who probably haven't called themselves "Christians" yet - couldn't think there was a resurrection since Jesus was alive then. After his execution, the narrative of Jesus' resurrection (which is completely different from Jesus being Jewish Messiah who is not supposed to neither die - either for anybody's sins or at all - nor be resurrected) appeared and Saul of Tarsus was one of the people who endorsed and promoted it. Before those events, there could be early followers of Jesus, but there couldn't really be "Christianity" as we understand it now.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Do you really think that those three figures were gathering knowledge in the same way?
No, probably not - each religion's foundation it a rare and complex event which surely has its own peculiarities. My point is rather that the founding of the religion traceable to a person is not some exceptional event - it happens and it's possible. My other point is that foundational concepts of Christianity - such as the sacrifice and the resurrection of Jesus - originated with Saul and thus essentially he couldn't "corrupt" the "true" Christianity any more than Homer could "corrupt" the "true" Iliad.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Interestingly, Southwest has the best default service package now - free checked bags, no change fees, etc.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Where Muhammad got Islam from? Where Siddhartha Gautama got Buddhism from?
Saul confirmed with them that what he was saying was accurate
I'm sure he did, otherwise we'd know nothing about him but instead would know about some other guy that did.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
I literally saw people argue in 2024 that since Republicans in 2020 didn't have "convincing evidence" of Biden's senility, the current revelations is just a blind luck and not because of Republicans possessing any kind of insight. Of course, by "convincing evidence" they mean the evidence that would convince them, which was impossible. These people are not going to admit they were wrong (or lying).
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
From what I understand, Christianity - at least what we understand now by it - more or less is what Saul created. It's like saying Homer has "cucked" the Iliad - if there were some version of Iliad that is so much better than Homer's and more "true", we certainly don't have it, so what choice is there?
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Yeah, I don't think US has a lot of those nickel-and-dime airlines - United has some attempt at it with "Basic" but that has many exceptions.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Other travelers fussing with their ridiculous oversized carry-on is one of the most infuriating parts of air travel.
While the size of the allowed carry-on is officially limited (and, to be fun, different for different airlines, in theory), in all my years of travel I have never seen anybody actually check that. If it fits the compartment (however much force and effort and time it'd require to make it), it's ok. Yes, delaying boarding to stuff your oversized luggage into the undersized storage compartment is an asshole move, but I have never seen anybody deboarded or even forced to check in the bag (unless it completely failed to fit) for that.
The whole concept of carry-on should be abolished.
With properly run airports, I'd go for it. In some airports, my bag got to the baggage claim the same minute I got there, so why would I object to that? My only reservations are: some airports are shit at this (among other things) and you have to wait for like 20 minutes for your bag, and b) United breaks guitars. And suitcases - it broke one of mine, and managed to put a huge dent of the size of my fist in the corner of the other (which is supposed to be the most resilient place of the whole structure, so maybe they were just flexing). But my local airport is small, so I can check in the bag literally in minutes. In some mega-airport it can turn into a hour-long adventure, so I can get why people don't want to deal with it.
Also, you are not allowed to put laptops there, but that's no big deal since I have a separate under-the-seat backpack for that.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Typical mistake. To show the correlation, you would have to demonstrate that accidents do not happen when US is not involved in a battle.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
As I understand, shooting F-18 out of the sky requires either unbelievably good luck, or advanced anti-air equipment which if Houthis had it should be the first thing that gets destroyed (actually months ago when the whole thing started). And it should be quite hard to shoot down something like F-18 with lighter systems or MANPADs. So I'd rather believe somebody screwed up and accidentally turned their air defenses on a departing aircraft, which would be extremely vulnerable in such scenario.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Training/deployment accidents happen absolutely regularly. Especially in any active army - US, Israel, etc. If you pay attention to it, there are a lot of them. Attributing them to "casualty laundering" would require some very strong proof - or at least evidence of a large statistical anomaly. Otherwise it just pointless posturing pretending to know more than the rubes, while not actually knowing anything.
Bridges and tunnels are definitely legit military targets and always have been, same for railways, depots, ports, etc. Power plants are trickier since many of them serve predominantly civilian population, but e.g. in Yemen they were attacked (of course, Yemen has targeted Israel civilian targets many times, so they do not have much standing to complain). In general, since the advent of the total war concept, the industry - power, manufacturing, warehouses, supply routes, etc. - has been consistently targeted as part of the war. Russia's war in Ukraine is a bit unique as they are trying to pretend they are not waging a real war but just "special operation" to "liberate" their Ukrainian brothers from the clutches of the Nazis who they elected, but if we don't take this bullshit seriously, targeting manufacturing and energy infrastructure seem to be a pretty common thing in war. And certainly in the event of "real" war there's no surprise they have plans for that, any serious army would.
More options
Context Copy link