Man, the people in South Korea must have some serious whiplash going on.

During WWII, America shocked the world when they revealed their nuclear capacity by dropping not one, but two atomic bombs on strictly civilian targets. Since then, they have maintained a first strike policy, meaning, their plans for their nuclear arsenal are not defensive, but aggressive and the highest form of escalation.

During the Korean War, Dugless MacArthur asked the joint chiefs of staff for approval to use nuclear weapons on China, to the tune of 30, to 50 nuclear strikes. They approved. MacArthur’s goal was to create a radioactive no-mans land across Russia and China to act as a buffer zone between after the war was “won”.

During the JFK Administration, they drew up plans for nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union if conflict in Berlin turned violent.

The Nixon administration drew up plans to drop nuclear bombs on North Vietnam.

Just this week, news broke that the Biden administration is considering giving Ukraine nukes. “Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union.” You’ll tell me this is strictly defensive, then I beg you to consider reading why the Soviet Union was giving Cuba nuclear weapons during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The only place threatening a Nuclear Holocaust is the United States. They remain today the only country on earth to have dropped not one, but two atomic bombs on war targets (read civilian populations).

How many independent conflicts intersecting with various allied factions need to exist before it constitutes a World War, I wonder.

You do understand this is circular logic right? Why should Russia capitulate to every US or NATO threat?

Maybe the US shouldn’t have made such an obvious and stupid choice to escalate the conflict by allowing Ukraine to use their weapons?

Known for espousing antisemitic tropes,[11][12] Sima’s Weibo channel spread the notion that Jews colluded with the Empire of Japan to establish a Jewish homeland in mainland China during the Second Sino-Japanese War in what has been termed the Fugu Plan.[13]

In August 2022, he admitted to buying a house in California. This made him a target of widespread ridicule, with commentators saying “being anti-American is work, living in America is life” (反美是工作、留美是生活).[14] For unknown reasons, he was blocked in Chinese social media in August 2022.[15] His accounts were later reinstated on 27 August.[15]

On 4 July 2023, he attended the American Independence Day dinner hosted by the US Embassy in China where also met with US Ambassador to China R. Nicholas Burns. Sima’s attendance of the dinner was mocked by Chinese social media users who accused him of being hypocritical, as the day before the event he had criticized the US proposal to provide Ukraine with cluster bombs during the Russian invasion as “an act against humanity.”[16]

I mean, he sounds like a provocateur, probably looking to heighten tensions between the two powers. Antisemitic at that. Also, support for Donald Trump under the guise that he’ll be better for China? The best outcome for China is (somehow) becoming a partner with the US economically and having friendly relations. Problem there is neither party wants that. Under Trump, tensions will continue to be heightened between the two but also internal tensions in the US will also accelerate. Maybe this is what he means when he says Trump is good for China, but that’s a very nationalistic sentiment.

If you want to stop the spread of far right nationalism in your country this is one way you handle it. In America, we put far right nationalism on the same level as every other political thinking, except for left thinking, especially left economic thinking, which we demonize.

Most corporations are not going to do that because they often standardize around products with known solutions for management that come with service guarantees. No one wants to support a small fleet of aging hardware running an os outside the dominant platform.

Man, our enemies sure love keeping stuff underground.

The issue is, however, the largest superpower is backing and supporting the actions of Israel in this regard. “The World” would have to label the United States as an active participant and begin the process of sanctioning and isolating the US. Either way, it wasn’t morals or ethics that ultimately led to turning on Nazi Germany. Before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the United States was very comfortable in keeping itself out of the conflict. At the time, Anti-Semitism was the soup du jour of domestic policy in Europe and America.

The Franks (of Anne Frank fame) attempted to immigrate into the US leading up to World War II, and despite Otto Frank’s connections within the American government, and his connections as a businessman, him and his family were deemed a “security risk” and denied entry. They were one family out of thousands who were turned away by FDR’s State Department. It was clear early on that the Third Reich was facilitating mass oppression against their Jewish population. The problem, ultimately, is that the prevailing opinions about the Jewish people were shared within the western powers. From an American perspective, what the Third Reich was doing with its Nuremberg laws wasn’t too far off from what America was doing with its Jim Crow laws, in fact, the Nuremberg Laws were heavily influenced by the Jim Crow laws of America. Meanwhile, European countries facilitated the emigration of Jews from their borders through the Third Reich’s first solution, which was relocating the Jewish people to “Israel”, of which they covered the majority of the costs to do so.

The United States didn’t enter into the war until after the attack on Pearl Harbor, which was a form of blowback resulting from the British and American embargo on oil heading to the Japanese Empire. Up to that point, the states had been operating Lend-Lease programs for weapons and supplying the Allied powers with material support in an attempt to allow them to deal with the Axis threat. There were great material interests in pushing the Third Reich back, as they had expansionist ambitions, ones that would see them control land and resources that the Allied forces had ready access to. Ambitions of conquest in Africa and Asia, as well as a colonization scheme into Russia. It wasn’t until April 1945 that the Dachau Concentration Camp was discovered and ultimately liberated. The idea that the Allied powers were fighting against the Third Reich on Moral and Ethical grounds rooted in the treatment of the Jews is very much a misunderstanding of the timeline of that war. The European front was effectively finished by May that same year.

So this idea that the world “can find it in themselves to have a single moral or ethic, and then act on it”, as if that was what happened in World War II, is idealism, and a revisionist view of the events of that war. I do not see this conflict playing out as the way you imagine it.

I hate to break it to you, but the people who were told “don’t invade Poland” were eventually exfiltrated into the “international community” at large.

I’m sure America has nothing to do with that. I’m sure America would just sit back and let weapons be delivered into Gaza or Lebanon without reprisal.

Powershell, yeah I said it!

Clearly this is an act of a truly crooked and evil supreme court subverting the will of the people. This kind of thing would never happen in the good old USA. /s

It would be the death of this side of the federated internet. The amount of content it would generate once federated would crush existing servers. You would have to defederate or face near instant storage shortages. The federated que would take years to sync.

Anyway, it wouldn’t happen because they would need to transmit real vote counts instead of fuzzy vote counts. You would be able to see how every single person on reddit voted. Which would simply expose the vote manipulation going on there.

Lol Aw, are the geopolitics to complicated for you? At least your comments are here to show how you really feel about democracy.

I’m a big supporter of Ukraine. But this is not that.

I see your colors. Ukraine, historically, undemocratic due to western interference. Made the Communist Party illegal and disbanded it. Very good democracy there.

They are very much the same, except Venezuela is better at defending itself from said western interference.

You are the one who lacks focus. This chain stared from this comment:

blocks appear to be part of a crackdown on internal dissent in both countries.

Or… you know… at least for Venezuela, the USA constantly fucking around with their elections and politics and local assets using Signal or something. Maybe, I dunno?

Do nation states have the right to defend themselves from foreign interference in their elections? What actions should a nation state take to ensure the security of its elections? What actions should a nation state take to combat misinformation spreading about their elections?

Based on your previous comments it sounds like you believe a nation should do nothing.

When preserving “democracy” is the excuse to not be Democratic, something is wrong.

Ah there it is. Its only Democracy if it comes from the democracy region of the west. Got it. Venezuela has one of the most robust voting systems in the world. Requires voter finger prints, signatures, national ID cards, and has paper ballot verifications. Meanwhile elections in America can be decided by some elite cobal system established in the 18th century by rich property owners for the explicit intention of disregarding the will of its people to favor the property class.

Lol do you know how to migrate a community off one platform to another? Its about disrupting comms, not stopping them. Regular people will find other ways to communicate, as they always have. They have lots of options, as you’ve pointed out. I have no failings in understanding here. I told you already, signal is secure. Its security is backed by it’s western intelligence financing. It has flaws in leaking meta data, just like matrix, proton mail, and any other means of encrypted communication tools. This move is to disrupt organized communication to make it disorganized.

No one needs to mention foreign agents. If you are able to observe and analyze the greater context for a given action you can arrive at an approximate rationale for the action. The west has a history of attempting to destabilize Venezuela, they back right wing dictators as successors, they regularly fund dissident groups who want nothing more then to violently take power in Venezuela.

Its clear that Venezuela is facing external pressure to dismantle their democracy, and are taking actions to disrupt those efforts.

deleted by creator