I’ve come across many a users here who don’t know VOA is US State Department propaganda.

In the literal sense, it is an organization funded fully by the US government with the purpose of publishing information that is helpful towards their policy objectives.

That doesn’t mean they’re spreading lies, or somehow equivalent to RT, it’s just a statement of fact. It is the organization’s purpose.

As to your question, maybe they intentionally degraded the quality or substituted a synthetic image for counterintelligence purposes, or maybe it’s just a bad photo, I don’t know.

Yes

I’ve heard it both ways.

People here get really uppity when you point out that Ukraine’s enemy lossss and casualty reports are likely inflated, because that’s what all militaries do in all conflicts. It doesn’t even always have to do with wartime propaganda, but because it’s hard to accurately tally enemy losses during active conflict.

Anyways, when you point that out the usual responses to point out the patently ridiculous reports on Ukrainian losses that the Russian MoD puts out, as if somehow that means Ukraine’s are accurate.

The best I can say is that Ukrainian reports are almost certainly exponentially closer to reality than Russia’s comically absurd and fantastical figures.

I will finish it up by saying that there are good independent sources who open source intelligence to track verified losses, and air on the conservative side.

That of course means their loss reports aren’t accurate either, but they provide a good figures to be used as a floor for any estimate ranges.

Casualties are not the same as KIA, and not all WIA are permanently combat ineffective.

Someone who got shrapnel in the leg or abdomen and requires 6-8 weeks of recovery, before returning to combat, is a single casualty.

That same soldier can return to combat, catch a bullet in their arm, and be a casualty again.

That same soldier can return to service three months later, etc.

If after returning to service a 3rd time, they’re eventually KIA, then they would have been counted as a casualty three times.

Not saying this is typical, or that this is indicative of the normal WIA casualty. Just pointing out that a single soldier can be counted as a casualty more than once, and it’s not uncommon.

No, I’m referring to back channel reports where Iran was relaying something along the lines of the “acceptable targets” where they would not retaliate, or at least not escalate. Including certain types of military bases and facilities.

I don’t believe the IRGC headquarters was included on that list, but as it’s “proportional” to targeting Mossad HQ, I think it’s possible they could lump it in with the other acceptable strikes.

That is, assuming that reporting was even accurate, and if it was, that they’ll extend additional restraint for the IRGC strike.

Again, if that reporting was correct, and if this attack was more or less in line with it, I think it’s extremely likely that the reasoning would be that the US government applied real pressure for the first time during this conflict.

However, that is a lot of what ifs, and assumptions, and it’s probably just as likely, if not more likely, that they’re all shit.

Guess we’ll see.

That might indicate that this really is a proportional response, the kind that Iran has already signaled they would not retaliate against.

By giving the market the weekend to confirm that Israel has not significantly escalated over Iran’s attack, it could very well temper market movement. Especially if it’s confirmed they did not strike any energy infrastructure.

Of course this is israel, so unless America behind the scenes is actually applying pressure for once, they could decide to strike all of their oil facilities tomorrow.

I guess we’ll see soon enough.

The situation in Haiti is directly attributable to Western powers, specifically France and America…

You don’t have to pretend the gangs and their violence aren’t real, in order to acknowledge the historical realities of how Western powers have fucked that country up beyond belief. A tradition that has continued into the modern era.

The YPG is not the same as the PKK. Kurds and Kurdish militias aren’t a monolith…

Unfortunately the USA has classified the PKK as a terrorist organization, so no, it is highly unlikely they coordinate much, especially involving Turkey.

I agree that the person you’re responding to is wrong, and pretty dim, but that doesn’t mean you should counter their bad takes, with possibly even worse ones.

Of course, I never said otherwise. But there is a big difference, politically speaking, between providing K2 tanks and anti-personnel drones, then ballistic missiles intended for strikes deep inside of Russia.

This has nothing to do with South Korean capabilities. I’m well aware that they are a premium first world arms exporter, and high tech weapons manufacturer.

As Americans we like to joke about Russian threats of retaliation, and how we aren’t worried about it. There is truth to that, at least enough truth that I think restrictions on our weapons platforms should be lifted, or at least eased.

That’s what I mean when I say South Korea is not America. They do have to consider the ramifications and implications about how they approach something like enabling deep strikes into Russia. For that reason, I am skeptical they would provide weapons for use inside Russia.

I never said they wouldn’t provide weapons to be used inside Ukraine, but that is different than providing weapons to strike deep inside of Russia.

South Korea is not the United States.

South Korea is highly unlikely to provide weapons for deep strikes into Russia.

For that matter, the only countries that would likely provide that weaponry would be the USA, UK, and maybe France.

But probably just the USA, as both the UK and France have significantly less secure and defensively sound positions relative to the United States, both physically and militarily.

But you could see capital flow from any number of countries purposed, or repurposed, for what Ukraine is requesting.

The cartels have a long and storied history of not just employing former soldiers, but even being formed by former soldiers.

But yes, if this was really 19 KIA narcos, and zero casualties for Mexican military, there was clearly some lopsided aspect to the engagement. Whether it was luck, training, or tactical competence, I don’t know.

Part of me is envisioning the narcos were all relatively close together and attacked some military convoy or vehicle that either had an M2 mounted, or armored vehicles with gun slits, and they just got mowed down.

Putting aside the wide range of political considerations and subjectivity that goes into the decision-making process that each country has when they decide who to consider terrorists, or not, I’m not sure I understand what your point is.

Are you saying that because Russia doesn’t list the PKK as a terrorist organization, that means Russia is behind this attack?

Not really, because it involves condensing a lot of white papers on the topic of nuclear strategy.

The policy itself is referred to, at least colloquially, as Israeli Nuclear Ambiguity. While that covers a lot of aspects of Israeli nuclear strategy, you probably want to look for papers that deal with how Israeli Nuclear Ambiguity and the US Nuclear Umbrella work together to impact nonproliferation in the wider region.

The WWII allied strategic bombing campaigns are nothing close to what occurred here. The comparison is at best, ilconceived, but at worst, intentionally disingenuous.

This company manufactures weapons to sell to their government for a profit, which are then used to kill a particular ethnic group. That means it’s a part of their military industry, and as such is a legitimate target.

Terrorism does not require a non-state actor, I don’t where you got that definition from. Terrorism is any attack that is strictly against civilian non-combatants, for the express purpose of achieving a ideological or political objective. This was an attack on a military contractor who is actively profiting and engaged in this specific conflict.

A very lopsided conflict that Turkey has been engaged in for decades, so for Turkey to cry foul about this, and decry it as terrorism, is particularly loathsome.

Legitimate military target. It’s a military contractor and weapons manufacturer, whose systems are used to kill members of the group who likely attacked it.

Considering this company manufacturers military platforms that are used to spy on and kill Kurds, it was probably the PKK.

Is it terrorism to attack military facilities and military contractors…?

This company manufactures drones and aerial platforms that are used to to kill Kurds, or at minimum, members of Kurdish militias.

If the Kurds had the capability to launch an aerial bombardment of their production facilities, we would recognize that as a legitimate military strike, of a legitimate target, but they don’t have those advanced capabilities.

If they followed executives home and murdered their families, okay, terrorism… But you can’t call this terrorism, while cheering on Ukrainian drones strikes on Russian industries, inside of Russia.