crushedoranges
Russia and Ukraine are two butch lesbians fighting over a condom
No bio...
User ID: 111
Yes, I know what jihad and religious martyrdom is. I also think it's stupid. Making the other dumb bastard die for his country has been the American warfighting strategy for over a century now, and if the Iranians want to indulge in dumb sand people strategies they're more than welcome to.
Also... what the hell gives you that impression? If they have Russian/Chinese communication tech, they're not using them. They're meeting in person, for God's sake. They're so thoroughly infiltrated by Mossad they've given up on communication technology altogether.
But those contingencies are contingencies for a reason. Obviously it is not an ideal state of affairs for your entire civilian and military upper ranks to be decapitated! Now the former Ayatollah was an old man getting up in the years, dying of cancer and willing to martyr himself. But his wife? His son's wife? All of his subordinates, too? It's not like Israel or the Americans are stopping with just them. They're going down the entire chain of command, killing anyone who even has a whisper of command authority.
How can you plan for that? You can't. Planning for a war where there is no central leadership and your state is degenerated into regional warlords is a shit plan.
And there is degrees of international pariah: there's being on American's shit list, and there's 'bombing the Strait of Hormuz and being treated as a rogue state by everyone'. The Gulf State Arabs were neutral before this. Now, they're in a coalition that INCLUDES Israel in shooting down missiles and drones. That's a sea change! Iran had no friends before this war. Now, it doesn't even have business partners. (Not that they could pay for anything now.)
Iran casually discarded all that remained of its international clout and recognition to strike a doubtful blow against American hegemony. It will take their neighbors a long time to forget about those attacks, and China and Russia are in no rush to bail them out. All to spike oil prices for about a day before the market settled back down. It wasn't worth it.
Come on. Epstein Fury? There's a bar of civility on the Motte (of which I, admittedly, fail at times to meet) but you're not even trying.
I could go to the effort of telling you why the drop-off in ballistic missiles is actually a bad thing, or what JDAMs are, or how the IRGC isn't the Taliban and actually does have the responsibility of managing ninety million people, but why should I? You didn't put any effort into your post. If you used AI to generate your post, it would be far more coherent and have an actual point, rather than skimmed points from third worldist tiktoks and tweets. Maybe you should request an exemption for yourself because you clearly need it.
I'm not going to defend the occupation or the American foreign policy of the time, but Iraqi Freedom was objectively a sweep: Saddam's conventional forces were destroyed in little less than a week. The black eye came from the attempt at nation-building, not the military operation. Turns out the US military is good at blowing things up. Who would have thought?
The Americans can actually learn lessons. They're not going to commit to a pointless ground occupation where mujahadeen can shoot at them. Iran isn't a insurgency which passes off responsibility of statehood onto an occupying power - it's a nation of ninety million people. If Iran is a smoking, sectarian shithole like Syria with collapsed central authority, that good enough. They can hate the Americans, but if they do so impotently, that's a win.
No country plans to have their entire leadership killed, become an international pariah by firing missiles at every neighbor, and then finish it off by obliterating the country's only export of value. It's cope. Pure cope. If the Americans are being humiliated, then they can put on the clown suit and honk their horns as all of their enemies die. Third Worldists have internalized 'if you kill your enemies, they win' mentality, and I hope they cling onto it as long as they can.
Gabbard seems to have the personal esteem of Trump, but not his court. If she was more belligerent publically, she would have been let go, but reducing her to sinecure to award a loyalist while keeping her out of power is a compromise. If it becomes advantageous to be dovish, she can be promoted forward.
"MAGA is HITLER and STALIN! WORSE than NAZISM! CRUEL! CULT OF PERSONALITY!"
Persian exiles and expatriates are overrepresented in academia in the West. They're an ancient culture-civilization dating back to antiquity, of which courtly culture has been exported to both Ottoman and Mughal empires. They got through colonialism without the humiliation of direct annexation and build drones and run nuclear reactors despite pretty severe sanctions. I don't doubt their IQ.
The main factor holding them back is geopolitics: mountainous nations have a hard time centralizing. Since the days of Alexander Persia has always been more of a coalition of culturally-associated governates and with the decapitation of Iran's leadership, the country is essentially now being run by provincial IRGC warlords. And being a warlord doesn't necessarily select for intellect. Their elites may be dumber than the people they're oppressing.
It's my opinion that strategic ambiguity - ie, not knowing what the hell you want - can work if you're the monopole hegemon. It's up to the people you're messing with to come to you with an offer that gets you to stop. The bull in the china shop may not know why he's inside, but the shopkeeper definitely has an interest in leading him out. Not that any of this is well-considered or wise, but the question of 'what are we doing here?' can be answered by 'I don't know, but we're sure to find out if we break enough plates.'
So as long as I see feminists being fellow travellers for Hamas and for Iran, for Pakistani grooming gangs and Moroccan pickpockets, for shooters at the Bataclan and truck drivers at Christmas markets - it is a distinction without a difference. I have never heard a mea culpa from a feminist, about the Southport stabbings at a Taylor Swift concert. Even when girls are being killed and raped, they don't care because their overgrown mothering instinct sees brown people as babies who don't know what they're doing.
It's frankly insulting that you think that wordcel games like even matter in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.
It's always 'but think on how it will affect the poor, innocent Muslims'. Norm Macdonald parodied this attitude thirty years ago, and your posture is exactly the thing he skewered. I don't know if you know this, but 'moderate' Islam is a spook. 'fundamentalist' Islam is just Islam, a liberal cope. We know it from the Muslims themselves that there is only one correct interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah. The fact that feminists uncritically swallow lies about this is proof that no one should take them seriously.
Here is my mea culpa to you, SecureSignals. If you had told me that a US Ambassador would talk up a greater Israel on TV, I would have dismissed you as a crank. I had underestimated the insanity of the Christian zionists - who I feel are not even Christian at this point, but crypto-Jews of a strange and bizarre breed. I fell on the normie side of not believing incredibly ridiculous things that were nevertheless true and I apologize to you for previous impolitenesses.
You were more directionally correct than I was and I must humbly update my priors.
SNAP benefits are about a thousand dollars a household per month: commercially, a 12-pack of MREs is $150. Let's assume we can get a bulk discount and get 12 meals for $125. That's 96 meals per month - 3 per day for four people, plus 3-6 extra for variety. It's not the most cost efficient, but it's shelf-stable, doesn't require utensils or a stove, and non-transferable. The paternal autocrat in me also likes the synergy with military production. What's not to like?
Edit: gack, I'm stupid don't mind me.
History become a lot less useful and evocative when it became about archaeology, primary sources, and nationalism. Herodotus, Plutarch, and the writers of the bible would weep at the astonishingly bad culture-mythos the modern day brings. Take WW2, for instance. Let's look into a history book where we kept the old way of historizing intact.
God sent a cruel and wicked ruler to the Germans, to punish the Jewish people for their impiousness, to once again bring them into captivity, as it was in the days of Pharoah. By wicked caprice and divine providence did he rise to power over the kings of the land. His name was Fuhrer.
And then God sent unto him a messenger, who warned him of God's wrath: that unless the Jews were allowed free, he would send upon them a plague of Americans, of Russians, of Turks, Arabs and Frenchmen. Of whose fury would blacken the sky and scorch the earth, of which every son would be sent to the grave, every daughter injured and outraged.
But God hardened the Fuhrer's heart, and so he rejected God's prophet, and thus calamity was upon him: and his kingdom was pulled down in each and every stone. Those who lived in his lands cursed his name and were divided, as Judea and Israel were divided in the days of Persian kings: and his lands were peopled by strangers. Such is the wrath of the Lord.
History: messy, complicated, no clear narrative.
Mythology: clean-cut, simple, evocative narrative.
Ahistorical insertions of contemporary themes is nothing new: the only difference is that the current writers are so inept at it that it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Imposing the liberal mythology onto historical events is threadbare and spiritually hollow and mostly amounts to the authoress self-inserting herself as a girlboss princess.
It boils my piss when people throw out accusations at people in the Motte in the general sense. If you're going to smear a 'not insignificant' fraction of his fellow partisans in this community as misogynists, you better have everything cut and dry or I'm going to assume you're talking shit. Name names.
If the value of your house is literally one dollar and you have a 3k mortgage, you walk away from it and the bank can have your worthless house. This happened a lot in the 2008 crash. They call it being underwater in a mortgage. Obviously the value of your house is very important!
You're being a bit silly, aren't you? Do you use this logic for cars? Would you be okay me taking a sledgehammer to your vehicle's body work? Maybe I could go to your house and shit in the chimney. You wouldn't feel poorer, would you? You still have 7k a month to spend!
Ah, whoops! My bad.
People who own houses often have it as their primary asset. Reducing the value of real estate is, in a very real sense, making them poorer. And people who own homes vote.
The American Dream is basically 'what if everyone was part of the land-owning class?' and then people are surprised that as a newly endowed member of that class, they are opposed to the renting class and new buyers. Well, no shit! You've spent a great amount of government subsidy to align their interests in that way.
Trump is just being honest in that he is siding with the landowners. Anyone who is an advocate for reducing the price of housing but isn't for building new construction is a liar who is a part of the problem. Their best ideas for reducing the price are to subsidize the demand and this is why structural reform is impossible.
Yes, of course. I won't bring it up again. Just wanted to get it off my chest.
I feel like I'm back in high school where both parties are punished, irrespective of actual fault. Obviously he was being deliberately obtuse, back then. Several commentors (yourself included) spoke out about it!
If there is a different read for 'So are you saying you're a Nazi then?', magickittycat hasn't explained themselves. They flounced. And now they come back, calling the Motte full of overtly online people. What ground does he have to stand on? The pot calling the kettle black? Isn't he making a generalized statement about a group that is an insult to everyone here? That really gets my goat. It violates multiple site rules on good faith, generalizations, and just manners in general. It's sour grapes from people who lose arguments.
I'll drop it, but it really annoys me that I can get dinged for personal attacks but anyone - even moderators! - can go 'yeah, this site is full of terminally onlines/partisan hacks/trolls' etc. It's sneering. If I called magickittycat terminally online, that would be a personal attack. But if they call everyone talking here terminally online, they can get away with it. Because they didn't single out anyone specific. He can be lazy and slur my entire partisan side as Nazis and I have to sit here and take it. Because ha ha, zinger. Just a joke. Why can't you take a joke?
No. Either Nazis are a serious subject out of the Overton Window, or I can break out the Nazi jokes, and believe me: my arsenal is great and terrible. I know you just want to end the argument and get it out the moderation queue, but that is specifically what set me off.
No, the average American will laugh at you because leftists have been calling every conservative a Nazi since approximately forever.
Your shrill shrieking has no more power. You are still crying wolf, and no ones hears it. Go on. Call me a Nazi some more. What should be done with 'Nazis', oh dark hinter? You didn't answer that question last time.
I make a commitment now: to continually remind the Motte of your complete lack of credibility, honesty, and good faith because you deserve it. I will hold you to account for what you have said because it is easy and you are ridiculous.
"Ha ha, I was only calling you a Nazi as a joke!"
Oh, so it's okay to joke about Nazis now. I will keep this in mind.
I will quote Amadan:
saying you understand why someone feels the way they do does not necessarily mean you feel the same way. That is in fact one of the purposes of the Motte, to explicate your viewpoint in a way that people who don't share it can understand why you hold it.
And you still don't seem to understand that. Nothing has changed. I know you're coping and seething and still calling everyone that disagrees with you a Nazi. I bring it up just in case anyone accidentally takes you seriously.
I wasn't going to say anything, but you're the one who called me a Nazi, and I want to get ahead of your pedantry and say that you pretending to be a moderate is a pretense no one believes. Your condescending argument is an insincere tactic. You would never make an appeal to moderation for any of the left's sacred cows.
And then you insult the users of the Motte. You really saying that the people around here are worse than Reddit? Than Facebook? Than X, than 4chan? Where is this mythical bar of virtue that we fall short of? Aren't you in this picture, Mr. Calls Other People Nazis? Aren't you equally shitting up discourse?
Get off your high horse, man.
- Prev
- Next

But going into the mountains and fighting in the hills is fundamentally incompatible with being a functional state. They would essentially abdicate sovereign control of their own country to whoever cared to take it. They wouldn't be glorious freedom fighters, fighting the good fight against the Big Satan: they'd be cowards running away from a war they started and leaving the people they were ruling out to dry. If the IRGC wants to leave the cities and live like the Taliban, how will they control said cities? How will they keep up missile production?
All of those soldiers need to be paid and fed. Jihad doesn't pay the bills. Who is covering the tab of salaries and material?
More options
Context Copy link