Just a smol with big opinions about AFVs and data science. The onlyfans link is a rickroll.
According to the article, the ships turned their AIS on before reaching the straight and didn’t actually transit through the gap. Its posturing yes, but it’s them testing the resolve of the ceasefire not them successfully bullying their way through.
eating =/= licking - but fwiw you’ve eaten plenty of slug slime in your life. While there are slug-borne parasites, the ones which are a threat to humans cannot live in the mucous itself (at least with banana slugs…)
Oh man you have gotta try licking one. True PNW right of passage - the slime is a shockingly effective anesthetic.
Pretty much. It would be nice to know if negotiations had even begun before they fell apart, though I guess I don’t think it would particularly change anything.
I’m not sure why it wouldn’t be the same war - I was remarking that the US and Israel appear to have stopped directly striking Iran, nothing beyond that. In no way am I saying that attacking lebanon isn’t a part of the same war, or wasn’t a violation of the ceasefire.
the 10 points ceasefire WAS this one
Where are you seeing this? I have found nowhere besides some reports (like this one) purporting to quote Iranian state media that claims all sides agreed to those terms - but even trump’s announcement presented the ‘10-point plan’ as the basis for future negotiations, not the terms of the ceasefire, which agrees with this statement from Iran:
So I am very curious where you heard that this was the case.
Yeah, sorry if that was unclear - I was just saying I don’t think they’ve attacked Iran directly during the ceasefire, Israel attacking lebanon is separate to that point.
edit: I have no idea why this is contentious?
Three parts of Iran’s 10-point ceasefire proposal have been violated, Ghalibaf said. The violations are Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon, the entry of a drone into Iranian airspace, and the denial of the Islamic Republic’s right to enrich uranium, he said.
As far as I’m aware, the ceasefire was to negotiate the terms to end the war, which was what the 10-point plan was a part of - nobody has agreed to anything yet beyond a cessation of hostilities pending the reopening of the straight. This is difficult to follow, because Iran’s own reporting has been incredibly inconsistent about the contents of that plan and what they are saying the ceasefire actually entails, and to complicate it further the US/Israel have said barely anything about the negotiations or terms of the ceasefire (including as far as I am aware listing any terms beyond “reopening of the straight”.)
I can’t find any reports of the US or Israel attacking Iran directly during this ceasefire, though - the only mention in the article of a direct slight against Iran is that a drone may have violated Iranian airspace - so… there’s that? It sounds like the US still hasn’t started blowing Iran up again, which is… god…
IDK. To my armchair-geopoliticing-ass, this feels like Iran attempting to force the idea that the US/Israel agreed to their 10-point plan as terms of the ceasefire - something which seems extremely unlikely given that the terms (depending on the source) include “allowing Iranian nuclear enrichment” which seems like something that would be negotiated at a much later part of the process. Which is weird because they already have the whole “Israel still blowing up lebanon” thing to justify this.
Iran apparently also launched multiple barrages against Israel minutes after trump announced the ceasefire. I’ve got no idea what’s going on, but at least the US appears to have temporarily stopped bombing Iran while they try and explain this fuckfuck circus to High Commander Shitbritches… I suppose that’s something.
Iran, meanwhile, has fired several salvos of ballistic missiles at Israel since the ceasefire was reportedly supposed to take effect.
Yeah, did Iran/Israel actually negotiate a ceasefire between each other or was it just an Iran/US ceasefire…
IDK, the protests do seem to be pretty well attended, despite the apparent effort required…
The NRA embezzled themselves into irrelevance half a decade ago - they’re not a meaningful political entity anymore.
Some kind of large gathering of likeminded people, perhaps? That could be workable…
In pretty much every other western country, the populace could reasonably exert force over their national armed forces because those armed forces are reasonably sized. But the entire active duty military of Germany has fewer personnel than the on-base population of a single US military base (JBLM 210k, Germany 185k), and JBLM is only the 4th largest base in the US…
They just filed articles of impeachment - so that’s something…
https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hres1155/BILLS-119hres1155ih.pdf
Nope, think we’re on the same page there too. Cheers!
I’m sorry, I’m slightly confused. I think we agree? In the ~1950s they were actually far less repressive about LGBTQ issues than France (their colonizers) was, to be clear. That’s where the argument comes from that, while the effects of colonialism are responsible for many evils, in this case it appears to be genuine home-grown regression on personal freedoms.
You’re asserting that because a person is a highly respected academic that we should accept their conclusions are relevant here - you are not synthesizing their work with applicability for your claim that the current regression on LGBTQ rights is the result of colonialism.
For an example of what I mean:
We are making the claim that Burkina Faso has been an independent country for 65 years. For most of that time, while LGBTQ people were not broadly loved, there was no outright oppression - arguably (from one [edit: one very important] perspective) they were better about homosexual relationships than many western countries in the same timeframes. This recent shift is a regression primarily from internal pressures - it’s been too long to reasonably claim that this shift in attitude is singly the result of a reaction to having been a colony.
You have not done anything to refute that claim, or present evidence or reasoning that your claim (that this is the result of colonial and imperialistic pressures) is at all applicable, beyond citing a well known and well respected academic who has not talked about this specific situation. You are instead insisting that we cannot argue against your argument because your argument cites the work of a respected academic, and are shifting our criticism of your claims to criticism of Fanon’s claims, which is unfair. I have not addressed Fanon’s thesis here because I am questioning the applicability of that thesis to these events; that is a claim you have made, and which you have not supported.
This is absolutely an appeal to authority - you claim that your argument is based on respected works and therefore has standing on that merit above the claims of others.
I’m glad you agree that the homophobic regression didn’t come from western colonialism?
Hey, we finally have something in common!
But if you read the article, Iran did attack the ships (launched a drone at them).