@JeSuisCharlie's banner p

JeSuisCharlie

Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2025 October 22 22:56:43 UTC

Some times Charlie was in the trees.


				

User ID: 4009

JeSuisCharlie

Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2025 October 22 22:56:43 UTC

					

Some times Charlie was in the trees.


					

User ID: 4009

If it does turn int years than you will have been right about a vaguely specified something and I will have been wrong, but if it doesn't than you will have been wrong and you will claim to not remember.

No, you are still very much pretending.

We'll see in a few weeks wont we?

I think that your real problem is that we've stopped pretending to be Danes and started acting like Danes, Likewise a proper hegemon.

The idea that "someone ought to do something" was all well and good until someone started doing something.

The Muslim nations surrounding Israel are not saying “Israel shouldn’t exist”,

Excluding Iran right? because that is essentially what this is all about is it not?

No I'm saying that all the "greatest ally" nonsense was always just that, nonsense, and that if you're serious about peace in the middle east the biggest obstacles to that peace will need to be either broken or bypassed

You may view the the expulsion and/or extermination of all Jews and Christians from the middle east as a humane solution to the problem but I do not.

Yes, and I that is why supporting the "moderate" Salafists was a monumental mistake. A "moderate" enemy of western civilization is still still an enemy, and peace will never be attained so long as the the enemy has means to fight.

Yes, I know, and I am asking you what you think that means because I get the feeling that what I think you're saying is very different from what you intend to say

And that would be?

So then we are agreed, the bombing of both Gaza and Iran is justified.

I would rather not speak ill of the dead but I feel like Mueller fundamentally failed to grasp the situation he'd been presented with. He opposed prosecuting people for institutional failures on the grounds that he felt that such prosecutions would erode public trust in our institutions but what he didn't seem to grasp was that a failure to prosecute would erode trust even more.

See @faceh's rant about rewarding failure

I agree, and that is why it was a mistake for Carter, Clinton, Obama Et Al to pay off the Ayatollahs, and why Trump should kill them.

So we should be Danes then.

A Dane does not pay tribute, a Dane extracts it.

Works for who?

John Nolte has a theory about why the left is suddenly so eager to throw Chavez under the bus.

Cesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration every bit as much as Donald J. Trump. Chávez understood that illegal aliens undermined the wages of legal migrant workers and their union bargaining power.
Cesar Chavez was so opposed to illegal immigration that, just like Minuteman Project of 2004, which was widely smeared in the legacy media as racist, Chavez put together his own militia to stop illegals from crossing the border. There are credible reports that violence was used as an example to others.
To form his United Farmworkers Union (UFW), it was Chavez versus the growers, and for obvious reasons, the growers loved the open border.
For just as obvious reasons, Chavez did not.
And there you have it.
That’s why it was time to take Chavez down. The left feared, and not unreasonably, that as Chavez once again entered the public consciousness through these milestone birthday celebrations that New Media would co-opt him as a powerful symbol of the truth: that illegal immigration is devastating to the working class and benefits the rich and powerful.

This is is a worthy question that is difficult answer in detail without effectively doxing myself, but the broad strokes are that I grew up poor but my grandfather was a state representative. I managed to worm my way into the halls of power, only to recognize that "these are not my people" and that I was not theirs.

My point is that if you already have the tools, the difference is mostly how long you let it cook.

What are you trying to say?

Did you intend to imply that "paying the danegeld" is/was the virtuous choice?

The immediate effect of Iran having nukes is that any drone or ballistic missile launched from Iranian territory (or territory controlled by Iranian proxies) must be treated as possibly having a nuke onboard.

...and countries like Israel and the UAE simply do not have the population nor quantity of territory necessary to face-tank a nuclear strike the way the US or Russia might. As such they would be incentivized to react to any launch as though it were an existential threat.

I don't really have anything to add but I wanted to thank you for the write-up.

But those people are not attention-seeking so it is probably a pipe dream.

Has this always been the way of things? Those most worthy of the crown attention are often the least desirous of it.

How would you evaluate the opportunity cost of allowing the IRGC have nukes, or letting Iran continue to arm HAMAS, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Russians, Et Al?

Also what "severely impoverished domestic policy agenda" would you be referring to?

Why crack down on social media if mass movements are not a threat?

Excuse me, but to borrow your own phrasing - who do you think it is that threw the Trump brick through the window?

A coalition of Tea-Partiers, Federalists, and disenfranchised "Bernie-Bro" (economically liberal but socially conservative) working class Democrats.

Also what the fuck did I just watch?

If Trump had run on starting a war with Iran, would he have won the election?

I think a lot depends on what you think "this kind of war" is, as I said down thread I think a lot of people here misunderstand what exactly a lot of republicans (and more moderate Democrats) found objectionable about the establishment's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan.