Very true, so long as it begins with the most carbon-emitting people (e.g. western billionaires who own large pollution-emitting corporations) and works its way down

The correctness of an idea is totally independent of how many people believe it, and to believe otherwise is to be some dipshit who says "Idiocracy is a documentary!!!" and invoke Hanlon's Razor instead of having actual good, materialist analysis of the world

Russia, China, and Iran (the last of which isn't even on that image) have hypersonic missiles, which effectively mean that aircraft carriers are now pre-sunk artificial coral reefs in a direct conflict with those countries. America does not have hypersonic missiles and keeps failing their prototype tests.

It was already being razed in slow motion. It was an open air prison in desperate poverty. It was a concentration camp that the demons in charge of Nazi Germany would have given their fullest approval.

Dunking on them, or doing idiotic "play stupid games, win stupid prizes!!!" shit is like watching Jewish people trying to escape the Warsaw ghetto in an uprising and then watching the Nazis exterminate them and then saying "Well! If they didn't want this to happen, the Jews shouldn't have resisted! They should have calmly and peacefully allowed themselves to be taken to the concentration camps!"

Palestine had the choice of a guaranteed slow death by drowning, or a quick end to the conflict - one way or another. Decades have gone by and nobody outside of the Middle East (apart from the DPRK and a couple others) really give a shit about Palestine. All the back and forth of "ohh where should we put our embassies? ohoho, should we acknowledge that Palestine is a state? ohoho!" achieved nothing. Ten million people could have protested across Europe every single day for decades for the liberation of Palestine, and it would have accomplished less than a single Palestinian soldier making a single rocket to be shot down by the Iron Dome. All the diplomatic shit means nothing. It has meant nothing for decades. Even peaceful protest of Israel in the form of BDS is basically outlawed in some places, and largely ineffectual regardless.

Palestinians shouldn't, and almost certainly don't, give a shit about the condemnations of western countries. About what western politicians are saying about them. It means nothing. Their strategies should be independent of "how it looks to outsiders". A Palestinian could throw a pebble in the vague direction of an Israeli soldier and receive more condemnation from the media than Israel murdering a hundred thousand Palestinian civilians in bombing raids in retaliation. "If you didn't want the bombing raid, you fucking stupid idiot, then MAYBE you shouldn't have thrown that pebble! Play stupid games!" Who gives a shit about "how it looks" anymore.

I do have a question for you: let's say Russia takes, say, Kramatorsk, surrounding it such that no civilians could escape. Imagine those civilians resisted, made Molotovs, fired improvised explosions at the Russians, and the Russians responded by carpetbombing Kramatorsk. Hundreds of civilians dead every single day. I then say "Well, looks like the civilians have guaranteed their own deaths, then. Well done, fucking idiots. Shouldn't have fired those rockets at the Russian military if you wanted to live." Would you be in my position, angry that you could possibly think that about a group of people valiantly resisting? How you could possibly look at the buildings being toppled by Russian bombs and think that was justified?

To demoralize Israel. Which it has been, severely.

Alright, cool! What is your strategy for the Palestinians to get their land back?

They peacefully protest - they get shot. They don't even protest at all - they get shot. Do you want them to vote? Should the Palestinians call their representatives in Tel Aviv and say that they won't be voting for them if they don't end the occupation? Oh, I know - they should try to elect a third party to the government!

There haven't really been that many famines throughout history (at the very least in the last few centuries) that have been caused by there not being enough food to eat per se. Most of them are caused by food being distributed away (either directly via railroads or "indirectly" by market forces and speculation) towards places that already have enough food.

Oh my god, he's being such a petty little shit about it.

Ali Sekou Ramadan, an aide to Niger’s deposed President Mohamed Bazoum, told The Associated Press that Bazoum requested that Macron withdraw the French ambassador, Sylvain Itte, “in order to reduce tension.”

In an interview with the France-2 and TF1 television networks, Macron said he spoke to Bazoum on Sunday and told him that “France has decided to bring back its ambassador, and in the coming hours our ambassador and several diplomats will return to France.”

He added, “And we will put an end to our military cooperation with the Niger authorities because they don’t want to fight against terrorism anymore.”

Mom said I have to stop punching you while we play. So I don't want to play with you anymore! Get out of the Awesome Club treehouse!

The extent to which France exploits several African countries is just unbelievable. France literally issue their fucking currencies, and more:

At independence, former France’s colonies in Africa were forced to sign humiliating agreements which effectively tied independence to continued economic and political dependence on France. Those agreements reserved strategic resources like hydrocarbons, uranium, and other minerals for France. Additionally, France gained privileged access to African markets, ensuring its companies had priority for exports and were exempt from customs duties. Prime Minister Michel Debré underlined those policies on July 15, 1960, addressing the future President of the Gabonese State: “Independence is granted on condition that the State undertakes, once independent, to respect the cooperation agreements signed previously. Two systems come into effect simultaneously: independence and cooperation agreements. One does not go without the other.”

the walls are closing in

What, the guy that Putin just killed? sounds like he has a better track record of killing Nazis than you give him credit for

imperialism isn't "when a country goes into another country", it's a specific relationship of domination and resource extraction and impoverishment of the people living in that country in order to exploit it for the benefit of the imperial core (more often, its bourgeoisie).

it's really disgusting to see people using the language of the left to describe the USSR abolishing homelessness and poverty in their constituent states, and building schools and homes and providing jobs and extremely low costs of living, as if this is even remotely comparable to the horrors that the Europeans and United States have wrought in developing countries around the world, including sweatshop and plantation slavery, forced starvations, and genocides.

"but they did those good things authoritarianly!" a) literally who gives a shit, and b) every government does everything authoritarianly, it's the definition of authoritarian. ripping away resources from the rich landowners and distributing them to the poor is extremely authoritarian and I definitely support doing that

Showing that China is doing similar things to the US doesn’t seem like a strong argument if the thing the US is doing (in this case indefinite detention without trial in a horrible prison) is bad. Is the idea that post-federation there’s users who don’t view the US as doing bad things?

The problem is that liberals are operating on "Our country (the US, UK, a European country, etc) is better than China because of these reasons, China bad, 100 million dead" and so the idea is to first go "Actually, China isn't doing anything worse than the United States is doing" and then later on go "...and, in fact, the United States is the one that's by far the worst." Basically to cushion the blow of having their worldview swept out from under them.

So the first step is to go "Oh, is China bad because they imprison people for revealing state secrets? Then look at all these people in your own countries that have done the same."

And then the second step is to go "And, in fact, China has a lower number of incarcerated people than the United States despite having almost five times more people."

of course, then they start blubbering about "buh buh buh, they're lying and a-actually have trillions in prison and they're killing them and xi is personally beating them because he's evil and a monster and the CCP they're bad and they--" but the seed of doubt has still been established