Greenleaf

joined 2 years ago
[–] Greenleaf@hexbear.net 46 points 1 year ago (9 children)

France to supply Mirage warplanes to Ukraine

On Thursday evening, Presidente Emmanuel Macron confirmed that France will supply Mirage warplanes to Ukraine and train their soldiers.

“We will launch a new cooperation and transfer Mirage 2000-5s,” he said, promising to train a whole Ukrainian battalion of 4,500 troops to be deployed on the battlefield.

He said the delivery of French fighter jets “is not a factor of escalation” and promised “these weapons will not be used to bomb civilians.” Mirage 2000 is a French multi-role, single-engine, fourth-generation jet fighter, manufactured by Dassault Aviation.

Additionally, the French president did not exclude the possibility of sending military instructors to Ukraine. “There should be no taboo on this subject,” he said.

[–] Greenleaf@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not only did the USSR do the most to defeat the Nazis, and not only did they lose the most… Hitler’s real focus was on the USSR. The Nazis opened the western front in part for revenge for Versailles, but mainly just to knock them out so Hitler could focus on the eastern front. Hell, Hess tried to make a bargain with Britain to keep them from getting involved.

Not to mention, “conquering” France and Britain was never the goal. Had the Nazis won the war, those nations would probably have to make significant economic concessions and “bend the knee” to Germany’s dominant position on the continent; but I believe their sovereignty and their borders would largely have been intact.

Not so for the USSR. Lebensraum was all about recreating what the US did to the native population of North America: annexing their land, killing the majority and enslaving the rest or driving them out past the Urals, and German settlers moving in. The war was existential for the USSR in a way it was not for France, Britain, or certainly for the USA.

[–] Greenleaf@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

Yes. I’m actually gonna push back on the assumptions in this thread that’s there’s a significant amount of young people who are not religious or were raised without religion and are somehow turning against legal abortion. Support for banning legal abortion tracks very strongly with certain religious persuasions. I have never seen anyone under 40 - IRL or online - who has espoused anti-abortion views who wasn’t already religious.

And young people ARE increasingly less religious, the statistics are pretty stark. That doesn’t lessen the risk of rising fascism of course. But young people are either not raised with religion or turning away from the one they were raised with in droves. There is no statistically significant number of young, irreligious Americans who are all of the sudden turning to religion, especially more conservative versions like Traditional Catholicism or White Evangelicalism.

[–] Greenleaf@hexbear.net 19 points 1 year ago

Not just why only Ukraine, but Putin has been at the head of Russia for over 25 years. Before Ukraine the only military interventions Putin got Russia involved in were in places that were in Russia (Chechnya and Dagestan). I guess there’s Syria but even libs don’t see that one beyond just aiding Assad.

If Putin wants to conquer Europe he sure is taking his sweet time.

[–] Greenleaf@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

Nice to see some Taheen representation.

[–] Greenleaf@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He has a humiliation fetish, because Israel is obviously going to tell him to shove the proposal up his ass. Because there won’t be any consequences for them rejecting it.

[–] Greenleaf@hexbear.net 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is the "non-white people could not have possibly stacked rocks this big!" thing

I honestly think it’s mostly just this.

[–] Greenleaf@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I’ve been told the origin of the word “gringo” comes from somewhere in Latin America, the people telling US soldiers to leave: “green” (the color of the uniforms), and “go”. That one seems topical but it’s unlikely many Americans will get in a huff over it, not really seen as a “bad” word.

Since I’m an American, I’m trying to think of words that the typical trooper would get offended at (but also not problematic). “Bubba” kinda works. Soldiers are also suuuper sensitive about the possibility that some other guy is screwing their wife back in the US, so maybe some Norwegian word that plays off that could work.

Edit: Also, American soldiers really get off on the idea that they are superior to normal Americans. Only natural, given how deeply Americans lick their boots. Maybe you can pick the most boring, normal “American” name you can think of like “Kevin” and call all of them that. I think that would get under their skin.

[–] Greenleaf@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Losurdo’s Stalin book does provide some useful context, not that Zionists actually care:

First, al-Husseini only engaged Hitler after Hitler made a deal with German Zionists to transport 20,000 Jews to Israel. Hitler was clear about his plans for creating a Jewish “homeland” (more like country-size prison, but still). I think al-Husseini was reasonably concerned about how he sensed the winds were blowing. Everyone at some point made deals with or tried to make deals with Hitler, so to clutch pearls over al-Husseini (or Stalin) doing it is disingenuous.

But more importantly, Stalin’s attempt at a popular front strategy by first courting Britain and France to ally against Germany before Molotov-Ribbentrop cost him dearly in the colonies of those countries. A lot of his allies there were pretty angry about that strategy. To someone waging an anti-colonial struggle in India, Palestine, Vietnam, or Algeria… what did they care about a country that, evil as they may be, posed no threat to them? Their “Hitlers” were in London and Paris (Gandhi literally said this very thing). Same can be said for the IRA, too. I think that’s useful context - I think it’s only natural to focus on your most immediate enemy, the one who has the boot firmly on your neck. But again, not that Zionists care about that context.

[–] Greenleaf@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I try and keep tabs on white evangelical conservatives, both via social media and IRL, which means almost entirely people in that group under 40 or so. And even I was shocked to see attitudes in that group. While there’s very little actual “pro-Palestine” sentiment, I also haven’t seen hardly anyone support Israel either. Some condemnations and a lot of “we shouldn’t be sending them any money” attitudes. Outright Zionism has very little support among the under 40 crowd in America, among any group of people IMO.

[–] Greenleaf@hexbear.net 44 points 1 year ago

This is the sort of thing we need more of from the global community, good on them. Keep making Israelis feel more and more isolated.

[–] Greenleaf@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago

Zionists are Nazis. And just like the Nazis, the problem with her question is that they want her to die, though they might settle (for now) for ethnically cleansing them into Egypt.

view more: ‹ prev next ›