Social Media / News Video Megathread

 
 
Roses In The Vineyard said:
Click to expand...
The US has said it wasn't intercontinental but I believe that is just a manipulation of the words. The missile had all of the characteristics it just wasn't fired across continents.

The real issue is that the missile does in fact have the range and speed and that creates a potential reactionary effect. When Russia fires this missile at Ukraine there is no way to know the actual destination and because of it's speed and distance it could be misconstrued as a nuclear attack on another country. Under those conditions, if France (9 mins away with that missile) believes the weapon has been fired at them, they could actually fire a nuke back at Russia. This in turn could trigger everyone firing missiles and the end to all of us. As you can see from the map below, it could be difficult to tell, depending on where [in Russia] the weapon was launched.

Since this weapon was not an active nuke, it's obvious this was a bluff by Russia to create fear of the potential attack. They crossed a line that makes it impossible to go back. I wouldn't be surprised to hear this become a major talking point by nation states followed by a pronouncement of what they will do if this happens again. At the same time, Biden (or his puppet masters) has been intensifying this war at a time when he's about to leave office, by authorizing weapons that can strike long range from within Ukraine. The rules of engagement [in war] are clear, and when one side changes the rules, then they risk the threat of the other side doing the same thing. If Biden really wanted to do this, he could have done it years ago, and that brings the question of, "why now?" Someone needs to take his fingers off the button(s).

1732243371046.webp
 

The best way to protect children is to make sure they never go to the library, or read. Way to go, Idaho. So caught up in a moral panic, they never stopped to consider they had been seduced, and so became Servants of Darkness and Ignorance.
 

From Reddit:

When people say ‘violence isn’t the answer’ my response is always ‘no, violence *shouldn’t* be the answer but it is’. When you look at the history of rights and benefits for everyday people, almost all significant progress is earned in blood.

People who hold power and who are unwilling to use it morally aren’t persuaded by arguments of fairness. They aren’t persuaded by ethics. They aren’t persuaded by the law. That’s all their own choice. What that means is that the only thing that moves the needle is the eminent threat of personal harm.

Look at healthcare companies suddenly forgiving medical debt the last few days. Do you think that’s because they all had a dream about being nice and decided to redistribute wealth? Fuck no, it’s because they’re suddenly terrified of being killed.

Women got voting through violence. Slavery was ended through violence. We have a weekend because labourers made their bosses choose between that and being killed. All of that was because no other form of change worked.

It’s not pro violence. It’s just that you cannot avoid any form of non violent responsibility, respond only to violence, and then be shocked when violence happens.

Cheers,
Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top