beefprime

Again, other nations in the area participate in all those things including island building and "disruptions to shipping", China's actions are not unique. Escalation including building military bases/airstrips and harassing other claimants vessels is tied more to certain actors in the region intentionally making it impossible to solve these issues diplomatically (specifically the US proxies Taiwan and the Philippines) precisely so that western media can then paint China as uniquely evil even though every state involved is making these same claims, and yes, even taking these same actions.

Taiwan makes almost the exact same claims China is making in the SCS, so your statement is simply false right on its face (hilariously enough they also make more claims over mainland China and its former territories that China itself does, for example Taiwan still claims ownership of Tibet, Xinjiang, etc, but also of Mongolia, which the PRC has given up on decades ago).

A long history of dominating others which they seem to have grown out of, unlike the west. As for the SCS, there is a long standing competition between every state in the region to grab resources in the SCS, including island building and claims to various islands, the US casts this as some kind of one sided imperialist resource grab by China when in fact every state around the SCS is doing these things (for example the Spratley Islands have competing claims from the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and China), these competing claims/borders need to be ironed out as the long standing colonization of SEA is receding, so China's actions and stances in the SCS are not unique here or even particularly imperialist, they are just the basic rights and border definition that every state needs to figure out with their neighbors.

How magnanimous of the west, maybe next after internal freedom of speech the west will stop trying to dominate everyone else to steal their resources, I'm eagerly anticipating that day.

Speaking of ulterior motives, the group these mourners belong to is funded through the NED (national endowment for democracy), a US "NGO" that is commonly connected to US propaganda and misinformation campaigns and associated with various coups/atrocities world-wide. The PRC is under no obligation to allow performative protests and speech that are funded by their geopolitical enemies and will be used by the west (whether they are allowed to actually protest or not, as we see from this article) to further western geopolitical narratives that are ultimately intended to manufacture consent for actions that would seek to return China to subjugation to western imperialism.

Its not really equivalent, since Russia is right next door to Ukraine, the US is on the other side of the world from Iran, but yeah clearly the US isn't as strong as it thinks it is. That's not really new though, see Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Its not confusing at all: US interests and European interests are aligned with having a proxy in the middle east that can be used to disrupt potential local powers that would otherwise prevent imperial domination of middle east resources. And by US interests and European interests I mean the interests of the capitalists that own everything in the west, not the interests of actual citizens.

I think more to the point the west could start with its own political/capitalist class if it really cared about pedophilia, then they could follow that up with its religious institutions, from the Catholic Church to various evangelical denominations across the US, they are rife with pedophiles and institutions that protect them. This article is just here, as you say, to excuse US imperialism, keeping anti-Muslim phobia at a fever pitch justifies anything in the minds of the American voting public.

> the source document Are you looking at a different document?

Here's the real reason for the US attack that started the war, right from the horse's mouth: https://youtu.be/HWJBf66Jjz8?t=50 Has nothing to do with this "assassination attempt" from 2 years ago, keep believing your insane bullshit though.

I just went into a cafe across the street and asked someone to assassinate Khamenei, if I was then arrested by Iran at some point and claimed I did this at the behest of the CIA during questioning (likely with some prompting) do you think that makes it true? Do you think when Iran sends agents to the US they don't have handlers here to direct them? If they wanted to assassinate someone you think they turn to random mafia connected individuals without verifying who those people are and start disclosing their connections and plans (this is literally what happened in the case, he was trying to contact someone in the mafia to arrange a hit)? Its just laughable. And to then say that this case is justifying a war with global effects, again, completely insane.

Convictions happen on false grounds all the time, and this is barely even an attempt at assassination, much less one that is connected to Iran, its like saying someone threatening violence on twitter is an assassin, the plot such as it was was foiled before anything even began to happened. Saying this case is a reason to start a war where thousands of people will die and the global economy will suffer massive, irreparable damage is legitimately insane. Not to mention, again, the US government has been clear what the reasons for this war are already, see my other comment.

2 years ago some random guy was alleged to have tried to set up an assassination of someone political (maybe including Trump but I haven't seen that specifically claimed outside of statements from people like Pam Bondi who are exceptionally unreliable) and alleged to be connected to Iran (not proven) and you think that's the proximal justification for the current war? And I'm disconnected from reality? Got another good laugh out of this one, keep them coming. We know what the actual reason for this war is, by the way, US government officials have openly said it: Israel was going to strike Iran and the US decided to join in on the strike because it thought Iran would retaliate against US assets either way.

Did you reply to my comment twice? Well, whatever, I'm just going to pick out a quote from you here for anyone reading, because I don't think I'm going to convince you, an insane person, of anything: >In a sane reality Iran does not attempt to assassinate Trump" This is the level of disconnect from reality that people have to have to have views like poincares_cook. This person actually believes that Iran attempted to assassinate Donald Trump.

>The war has stated with the Iranian assassination attempts against Trump Are you ok? >proxy strikes against US ships in international waters and their 7 front war against Israel including 200 ballistic missile strikes. So Iran started the war by responding to US and Israeli strikes against Iran? This is some next level psychosis. > The blockade against Iran is 100% legal according to the laws of war. OK, so I don't see the issue then, blockades are legal in wars and, as we know from US actions, seizing these ships is legal if they are attempting to fuck around in the exclusion zones. >Meanwhile IfnIan terrorism against unrelated third part civilian ships in international waters and national waters of third countries is straight up terrorism. Enforcing a blockade isn't terrorism, you've already said blockades are 100% legal. >Terrorism against uninvolved civilian countries is not a reply in kind Seeing as the US started this war by slaughtering over 100 girls in a school, I'm not sure this outrage carries much water. >That's a funny statement since the US blockade is only a late response to the Iranian blockade. And the Iranian blockade was in direct response to US and Israeli strikes on Iran. So I guess I don't get it, is Iran enforcing a blockade 100% legal under the laws of war or is it only legal when the US does it? I just want to say that it is absolutely hilarious that you started your comment with claims about Iran trying to assassinate Trump and closed it with the line "But I guess facts really do not matter to you.", absolute banger of a comment, got a great laugh out of it.

The US has seized multiple tankers recently, and Iran has been clear all along in these US wars of aggression that it will respond in kind to any escalation the US makes. If you don't want a war, don't start a war, if you don't want tankers being boarded and stolen, don't board and steal tankers.

> What I do think though is that the US & Israel will be able to get Iran to slow down its nuclear program. There was no nuclear weapons program, except for civilian applications, the increased enrichment was, is, and hopefully always will be entirely focused at being used as leverage in negotiations with the west. This is not just me talking, its me, the US intelligence apparatus, the IAEA, the US Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard under oath to the US congress, etc. This is an Israeli lie propagated to western powers which adopt the bullshit as propaganda because it gives them yet another "reason" to do what they were already going to do: subjugate Iran and bring it into the US imperial dominance, which has been a US foreign policy goal since ~1953, not for US security, but for the profits of US capitalists.

Oh, sorry, I thought this was a reply to something else, here is the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/key-results-april-2026/

I didn't say this war, I said bombing Iran in general, and polls are clear what the people in the US really don't like about this particular war: 1. economic consequences, and 2. unclear goals from the leadership. Most people in the US would be fine with yet another war with yet another country halfway around the world, the problem is Iran is capable of fighting back and actually harming the US directly (if only economically). THAT is what Americans really are uncomfortable with.

They always have been.

The majority of the US populace believes they are winning the war on Iran, they have a decades long system of propaganda in place and a populace heavily indoctrinated into liberalism, its wearing off for now but boy is it wearing off slow.

What do you mean? This has been the European attitude towards the rest of the world for hundreds of years. Sometimes I think the worst part about the rise of liberalism is that somehow it fooled everyone into forgetting what western countries are all about, colonization, exploitation, dominance, on a global scale.

I have bad news for you about western ties with Ukraine

When has the EU ever cared about Arabic lives?

All it took was people paying attention to a genocide live streamed on tiktok for the establishment to pay attention to "protecting children"

Ok, so confirmed you're suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Nobody mentioned Trump, bro

I consider the rapid degradation of US empire to be a positive

The problem is that nearly every "adult in the room" (certainly every one of them that has a shot in hell of becoming president in our glorious managed democracy) in American politics at this point is a ghoulish zionist who wants to bomb the Middle East.

The Iran-Iraq War is the only instance of which I'm aware, another instance of the US being attacked by a US proxy, funnily enough. They also threatened to close the straits and that ended the last US/Israeli unjustified, illegal attack in the 12 day war. I could be missing some.

Passive voice on ongoing US crimes against humanity, no balance in the quotes, smearing the aid convoy, FUD about the Cuban government and the aid organization, a fine article worthy of the noble traditions of western media, real "Remember the Maine" type stuff. Once the US stops mauling the Middle East its going to need a new chew toy all ready to go, after all.

Once the US disengages from Iran, its very likely they will turn to Cuba and start overt attacks for "regime change", like a bully who failed to beat someone up because they were able to fight back turning to a weaker child to salve their ego. Just a reminder to everyone: Despite a decades long, crippling embargo, the current Cuban government is MEASURABLY better for Cubans than the imperial proxy Batista that came before it, hell in some ways its better for the Cuban people than the US government is for people in the US (for example universal healthcare, literacy, and life expectancy), and it will be better than anything the US would ever install in its place, because the US objective is to exploit the island and its people, not make life better.

Yeah, every body is asking to be genocided, we get it.

The cease fire is not pointless, because it makes people in the west forget that the conflict is happening, gives Israel and the US the appearance of statesmanship, the Lebanese government the appearance of legitimacy as it fails to even appear to protect the Lebanese people, and ultimately will be used to cast the only people fighting to actually keep Lebanon out of the hands of the genocidal ethnostate Israel, Hezbollah, as some kind of unreasonable militants. Meanwhile western propaganda will continue to cast Hezbollah as the problem while the Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing of southern Lebanon in preparation for colonization continues.

> Hitler would not have invaded Poland if the Red Army had come to aid I mean, this is again ahistorical, the Soviets invaded weeks after the invasion from the German side, it was not a coordinated attack between the two, and the Poles were pretty much done by the time the Soviets go on the ground. >To say he worked in any way to curb nazi expansionism, is a sad joke. Completely ahistorical again. He was offering to militarily defend the Czechs if the French were willing to help, they were excluded from Munich where the western allies gave Hitler what he wanted out of central Europe, why do you think that was? If Stalin was friendly to Hitler there would be no reason to exclude him since the appeasement would be just fine for him, hell if he was such a friend might have even helped. Instead he was on the other side, calling for and offering military intervention to stop German expansion. Another question: why do you think the British immediately declared war according to the Polish/British AMA in response to the German invasion but did not do the same for the Soviet invasion? Its because the British knew 100% that whatever cooperation existed between the Soviets and the Germans was not real and was not going to last. The British knew first hand all the things the Soviets tried diplomatically and materially to stop Germany, knew that the Soviets viewed a re-armed and expansionist Germany as an existential threat, and knew that whatever was going on in Poland was not going to last, especially in the context of a major war. >(my comment has one sentence more than yours btw (now 2 (3))) Congratulations. Just to sum up: Hitler and Stalin weren't friends, up until around 1939 Stalin was trying consistently to reign in German expansion and counter German geopolitically, the western allies simply refused to help and left them basically alone to just deal with it, even going so far as to completely exclude them from talks where they capitulated to German demands. At that point the Soviets just said fuck it, we'll play this stupid game, and that's when the Soviet Union started demanding these borderline insane mutual defense pacts with the Baltics and Finland, that's when they started ramping up for invasions of buffering territories. It wasn't some long standing cooperation between Germany and the USSR, it was exactly the opposite, the Soviets were buying time while setting the stage to do what western Europe left them to do: deal with Germany alone and fight a war they now saw as inevitable.

And yet no matter what you say here, Stalin was working harder than any other European leader to curb German expansionism, including supporting for the side opposed to the fascists in the civil war in Spain, opposing appeasement in general, it was only after the western powers just straight up gave Germany chunks of other countries that M-R was negotiated, from the Soviet side to ensure that any aggression eastward from Germany had pre-defined limits to try and ensure there was a buffer for the Soviets. In fact the entire pre-war foreign policy of the Soviets was geared 100% towards preparing for what was seen as an almost inevitable German invasion, with the only question of when the invasion coming. For example the Winter War was fought because the Soviets, right or wrong, wanted to take a chunk of Finland around Leningrad to try and ensure it was defendable, this turned out to be probably unnecessary (and even outright counterproductive) given Finnish behavior during the war, and the Soviet demands aren't something anyone reasonable would accept, but it shows the Soviet intention regardless was its own security in the event of a war with Germany and their expectation of an eventual conflict with Germany.

>I guess proper history is propaganda now. The framing of Molotov-Ribbentrop as a "friendship pact" as if diplomatic language means Stalin was a genuine friend and fan of Hitler when in actuality that agreement came about as a last ditch, stop gap measure by the Soviets after a decade of Stalin trying desperately to get anyone who would listen to help him stop German aggression is pure unfiltered bullshit driven by decades of cold war propaganda, yes.

Man the anti-Soviet/anti-Russian EU propaganda really is a hell of a drug

Its not new at all, its been discussed by Zionists since well before Israel even existed

Well I see the US government conducting unjustified wars of aggression against Iran and supporting genocide in Gaza and I think I know what's better for the US, but I guess maybe I'm the problem.

Its crazy how people think Hezbollah is the problem when they exist specifically because Israel invaded Lebanon, meanwhile the Lebanese government will not fight back against an explicitly genocidal invader who will not stop invading, is committing genocide over in Gaza, and even as Israel ethnically cleanses the West Bank and expands settlements there the Lebanese government still seems to want to become the Lebanese PLO, basically allowing itself to be co-opted by western interests while its territory and people are dismantled and killed by Israel. But yeah its Hezbollah who is the problem.

There was no misunderstanding, the US and Israel knew they would break the cease fire and Iran knew that they would break it but it would prevent whatever apocalyptic war crimes Trump had planned for his deadline for another 2 weeks while demonstrating to the world (for the millionth time) the perfidy of the western world.

>I can't believe the US and Europe are still supporting this apartheid, genocidal state. I just can't believe people still think the US and Europe have any kind of moral consideration at all in what they do. Just look at their history, for hundreds of years they have been colonizing/genociding/exploiting their way across the globe, that has not stopped right up until today, the only difference is that monarchies that glorified empire have transitioned into "democracies" that pretend its not happening.

Its not radical to fight against a genocidal invader.

lol

The reality is its just harder to fight against people who are fighting back.

It does work, for example in Libya

If you don't clear out all the vegetation, how can you claim to "make the desert bloom" later when you move your settlers in?

It makes sense in the context of the geopolitical realities up until now, but you can take that up with OP if you are interested

I'm just interpreting the OP when I said bend the knee to the Iranians, I don't really care about the nationalist vs. internationalist views on this, so if you want to discuss it you should reply to them.