That’s not what anarchism is.

I like to call anarchism as neighborliness extended as a political ideology. Consider it libertarianism with a pinch of collectivism

You do it all the time when you organize a group of friends to go to the movies. There is no elected leader.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, they destroyed a lot of public and military comms infrastructure, so the military ended up teaming up with anarchists because they had a decentralized comms going.

Anarchism is compatible with existing political ideologies, however in my opinion works best at small scales.

I don’t think the analogy to Egypt works, because they have a peace treaty.

We all know Israel and Saudi Arabia have a shared adversary in the form of Iran. The US wants them to normalize so they can take care of that front.

As for getting impaled on the stick, I’d say Pakistan got impaled on the stick, because its likely they were the ones hiding Bin Laden.

As for Saddam falling on the stick, that was due to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait over several reasons: a desire to reunify, oil, and Kuwait debt. That’s on top of having a history of using chemical weapons for mass murder.

And as we know, the US loves oil, but so does the world. Globalized markets want to be stable, and the US helps with that

A lot of people dont understand US foreign policy. Do not interpret my post as taking a stance.

US foreign policy is all about 3 key issues, carrot and stick diplomacy, containing China and Russia, and protecting the global market.

Carrot and stick diplomacy is using positive reinforcement to make changes in totalitarian governments.

Containing China is all about making friends with countries near China and putting a base there, along with allowing companies, military arms deals, and joint intelligence to happen in that country.

• That is why the US wants Saudi Arabia and Israel to normalize. And do to that, the US turns a blind eye to tons of bullshit done by countries in the Middle East. If they were to normalize, then a solid logistics chain from Europe to the Gulf can be established, and the two countries would bolster the front there. Then the US could pivot its power projection over to Taiwan.
• The US is powerful, but its not tactically sound to manage three fronts at the same time.

If you remember how pissed off the US got when Russia put missiles in Cuba, then you can see why China and Russia will team up with everyone they can to foil this plan to contain them.

Since the world is now globalized, the US has to protect lots of boats carrying oil, chips, and food. If something fucks up, then everyone pays for it. Of course, if youre resisting western imperialism then its in your best interest to make people suffer by blowing up the boats.

Now geopolitics makes sense.

From here, then if youre an idealist, you can make an informed opinion on US foreign policy. Should the US continue its world police campaign at the expense of people suffering under its allies?

Can you achieve US foreign policy goals without suffering?

Will a reversal of US foreign policy lead to more domestic suffering in the West due to economic turmoil?

These questions should be debated and examined thoroughly.

Nope its definitely accurate!

Indycar does not have a constructors championship, and the format encourages each car to operate as its own team, and since all the teams (except McLaren) are owned by one random guy, that encourages them to make each car they field to have more sponsors. And the brand appeal of like, one guy, isn’t as powerful as something like McLaren, a famous car company with the color Orange.

Anyone heard of Penske? RLL? Meyer Shank? Dale Coyn? No. Aside from Penske, those other names are only big names within Indycars history, just like Hendricks is only big inside Nascar history.

IndyCar is pretty popular, but because of the company split in the 90s, there was no one to compete with Nascar throughout the 90s and 00s in terms of US popularity. So essentially the entire series is really behind and hasnt built up financial appeal to sponsors.

Thus, in order to keep staying in business, the teams sell ad space on the cars anytime they can, leading to teams running special liveries for one race, a driver bringing a big sponsor so the team changes the car to accomodate, and all the cars look different.

Different enough to warrant a spotters guide for a few races.

IndyCar could change that by enforcing a team liverie, but I bet the teams wouldn’t like that.

For an average race, the teams don’t really do team orders. It’s VERY rare. And teams usually allow their own drivers to fight hard all the time. Since teams as a whole don’t affect the race, you don’t focus on that much.

Team owners only care if one of their drivers causes another to crash, and they don’t care who wins because each driver they field is another chance at a win.

Nah it’s because they decided to use cameras instead of LiDAR and then try to make it autonomous instead of driver aid.

AI is at its best when it’s opening up productivity and freedom to think critically or leisurely, the same way sticky notes help someone study.

They have an official app LOL. You have to get it from their telegram. (I wouldn’t do it tbh)

Some of the sources I wanted to sub to but could never afford it are TIME magazine and The Atlantic.

WSJ I don’t believe gives all it’s articles to Apple. Could be wrong.

I wish the NYT was still in there, but they pulled out a while back.

I think The Guardian is in there though.

Let it be noted that this is an opinion article.

Editorials and Opinion pieces do contribute to social discourse regarding news, and may be correct, but unlike their normal news, they can say whatever they want about the news from the authors they hire.

Opinion pieces allow news sources to use sensationalist and inflammatory articles to drive engagement without harming their credibility, because of that giant OPINION label.

NYT and WSJ’s editorials and opinion pieces tend to be quite left and quite right leaning respectfully, to an almost satirical level. In my opinion, the WSJ’s comment section under its editorials are much worse.

I’m not disparaging the article in any way, just saying for those that may not already know.

A PBS poll recently showed that the divide on Israel-Palestine is 60-ish% in favor, but for the youth its split 48% for Israel and 52% for Palestine. That is quite the even split.

This has got to be one of the most divisive issues among people my age, which is ages 18-25.

Holy shit, that’s a big stamp of the foot. That’s the first country to ban Pro-Palestinian demonstrations isn’t it?

“Not-for-profit” usually makes them more trustworthy, plus they were the first to report what the Gaza Health Ministry said about the hospital, prematurely too.

The most credible sources report truth and update stories if they are incorrect.

Yeah there is a thread put out by Geoconfirmed on Twitter, he only geographically locates where footage is, so he’s pretty unbiased.

By basically confirming where and when footage is, putting all the videos of this event together paints a pretty clear picture on its own, even without considering the other evidence.

I can give you other sources, like the Al Jazeera stream, and the analysis provided by Geoconfirmed.

This is publicly available information.

The reason I chose the AP is because they were the first to report what the Gaza Health Ministry said, and reported it as “Israel strikes Hospital, killing 500”.

They do in fact pursue truth and update stories accordingly, to my relief.

I would like to explain some more context in the comments before people say things like “I’m denying war crimes”

This was reported a day ago, but open source intelligence had confirmed these reports 8 hours after the attack. All which has been covered in this article, even the Al Jazeera stream that caught the whole thing on camera. (Interestingly, Al Jazeera still reported that it was still caused by Israel I believe based on the same evidence.)

AP was one of the first to report the Gaza Health Ministry said, with the article titled, “Israel strikes hospital, killing 500.” Over the next hours, they edited the article title 3 times, and had to emphasize that it was just a statement by the Gaza Health Ministry.

By then, it had been reported across the media landscape as an Israeli airstrike. Now, considering the past actions of Israel, like that reporter they shot a year or so ago, it’s quite easy to assume that Israel bombed it and tried to cover it up. But, news organizations are not supposed to assume. Instead, we learned that the Gaza Health Ministry, an organization controlled by Hamas, should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Casualties turn out to be far less than 500, more like 50-100. I am in no way minimizing the loss of life. But from a journalistic standpoint, this is a 90% error, a total disaster in reporting.

The NYTimes put out this Editorial reflecting on the error of the Gaza Hospital, comparing it to the error in the 2002 Jenin massacre.

The rush to judgment on Tuesday night will continue to haunt us all.

I’m inclined to agree, especially upon being banned from worldnews on the lemmy.ml instance for “denying war crimes and genocide” by posting this article FROM THE NYTIMES which was reported about a day after the incident.

I’m not trying to report “Pro-Israel” Propoganda, but this should make everyone take a seat back and be very careful when reading news. This conflict is extremely divisive and it’s challenging the status quo in journalism and global politics.

Additionally, news media can get it wrong, but credibility can be gained just as it can be lost, so they should be given a second chance, especially if they admit it, like the AP or the NYTimes did.

Rightfully so.

Israel used the Jewish Space Lasers to make those IJ rocket boosters fail right over the hospital parking lot to make Hamas look bad!!1!1 😱

I didn’t think making fun of terrorists could be controversial until today nyaa~

Well if you are like “hurr durr 3rd parties”.

The most ironic part of this is that Al Jazeera happened to live stream 2 angles of the entire incident. You can see the rocket launches, and the failed booster of the specific rocket, synced with phones on the ground already recording because they noticed the launch.

You can see how the rocket booster failed over the hospital, and then the explosion.

The videos were geographically confirmed by Geoconfirmed on Twitter, who only geoconfirms things without more analysis.

US intelligence is corroborating this with satellite imagery.

Hamas doesn’t have the firepower to cause that big of an explosion, but Islamic Jihad definitely has more powerful rockets that could have done that. They announced a launch like 4 minutes prior to the strike on their telegram I believe.

Context:

NYT, WSJ, and other news media have started to report that US Intel confirms it was a failed militant rocket through infrared imagery.

Downvotes are legitimately, copium.

Absolutely not, at first I thought it was infact an Israeli airstrike, but upon pouring over multiple angles of video that has been geographically confirmed, it’s fairly damning, and fairly convincing that it was not in fact, an Israeli airstrike.

The incident had been broadcasted live by Al Jazeera too, so even if you have a bias in favor of Hamas and Palestinian struggles, all signs point to a self-inflicted tragedy.

Despite that, its far too late since everyone already started protesting at embassies in greater numbers. PA president and Jordan leader cancelled meetings with Biden.

The situation is deteriorating rapidly.