Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'....

Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'....

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
iraninternationalla
29 Posts 21 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • nini@oldbytes.spaceN nini@oldbytes.space

    @ChrisMayLA6 Any form of self-defence is seen as an escalation to the aggressor, the bigger boomier version of "he made me do it".

    martinvermeer@fediscience.orgM This user is from outside of this forum
    martinvermeer@fediscience.orgM This user is from outside of this forum
    martinvermeer@fediscience.org
    wrote last edited by
    #15

    @nini @ChrisMayLA6 It's a variant of: to the privileged, equality feels like oppression.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • chrismayla6@zirk.usC chrismayla6@zirk.us

      Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'.... Given Iran is clearly under attack from US/Israeli forces, defending its airspace is not so much an escalation as a perfectly reasonable defensive response (and certainly legal as far as international law is concerned).

      But the narrative remains, whatever the media may think its doing, one that privileges the US's positioning on the 'war'!

      #Iran #InternationalLaw

      heals@indiepocalypse.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
      heals@indiepocalypse.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
      heals@indiepocalypse.social
      wrote last edited by
      #16

      @ChrisMayLA6 it's a personal offence for Trump - how can they shoot things down if their missiles are "destroyed or mostly useless", didn't they read his official communications (aka Truth Social) /s

      /cc @purplepadma

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • eestileib@tech.lgbtE eestileib@tech.lgbt

        @ohir @gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6

        Trump has the rock solid support of conservatives in America.
        This is not a coincidence.

        ohir@social.vivaldi.netO This user is from outside of this forum
        ohir@social.vivaldi.netO This user is from outside of this forum
        ohir@social.vivaldi.net
        wrote last edited by
        #17

        @eestileib @gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6
        > support of conservatives
        Reactionary "conservatives" support he has. He got to the power with broader conservatives support, yes, but the cabal behind the aimed at conservatives propaganda is neither conservative nor christian – at least for someone who remembers and knows the real definienda of either.

        That said, for me and hopefully many others, the core of the contemporary _conservatism_ is not about calcification of the status quo but the careful consideration of changes that _must_ come. On that fundament, maga and trumpists hardly can fit even in the "reactionary" echelon – they are revolutionists. In practice, US conservatives were all conned by fasicst with their well researched firehose use of perverted words.

        pyrogenesis@mefi.socialP gimulnautti@mastodon.greenG 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • ohir@social.vivaldi.netO ohir@social.vivaldi.net

          @eestileib @gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6
          > support of conservatives
          Reactionary "conservatives" support he has. He got to the power with broader conservatives support, yes, but the cabal behind the aimed at conservatives propaganda is neither conservative nor christian – at least for someone who remembers and knows the real definienda of either.

          That said, for me and hopefully many others, the core of the contemporary _conservatism_ is not about calcification of the status quo but the careful consideration of changes that _must_ come. On that fundament, maga and trumpists hardly can fit even in the "reactionary" echelon – they are revolutionists. In practice, US conservatives were all conned by fasicst with their well researched firehose use of perverted words.

          pyrogenesis@mefi.socialP This user is from outside of this forum
          pyrogenesis@mefi.socialP This user is from outside of this forum
          pyrogenesis@mefi.social
          wrote last edited by
          #18

          @ohir US conservatives were not conned. Conservatives support fascists, without exception. They did so in Nazi Germany, in Fascist Italy, in Fascist Spain, in Pinochet's Chile and every other Latin American dictatorship. They support Orban in Hungary, Erdogan in Turkey, Le Pen in France, AfD in Germany, and so on and so on and so on. There is no conservatism without authoritarianism. Your magical "real conservatives" do not exist in reality, and never have.

          1 Reply Last reply
          1
          0
          • chrismayla6@zirk.usC chrismayla6@zirk.us

            Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'.... Given Iran is clearly under attack from US/Israeli forces, defending its airspace is not so much an escalation as a perfectly reasonable defensive response (and certainly legal as far as international law is concerned).

            But the narrative remains, whatever the media may think its doing, one that privileges the US's positioning on the 'war'!

            #Iran #InternationalLaw

            frankfrank@newsie.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
            frankfrank@newsie.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
            frankfrank@newsie.social
            wrote last edited by
            #19

            @ChrisMayLA6

            Why is Iran "bad"? After Operation Ajax, 1953, when two intelligence agencies, MI6 and the CIA, overthrew the popular, democratically elected Persian government, Iranians rejected the U.S.-backed Shah autocrat puppet & their plan to loot Persia’s oil wealth.

            1953 & 2026, "We're taking your oil Deja Vu all over again."

            Aug. 19, 1953: Operation Ajax - Priya Satia | Department of History https://share.google/I5iNpcpRiSf7nocI1

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • ohir@social.vivaldi.netO ohir@social.vivaldi.net

              @gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6
              > conservatism
              Fascism is not conservatism. Nor any other stolen word has suddenly changed meanings in the mind of the free man, because propagandist of supreme leader lies. Please use quotation marks, please, please.

              only_ohm@mas.toO This user is from outside of this forum
              only_ohm@mas.toO This user is from outside of this forum
              only_ohm@mas.to
              wrote last edited by
              #20

              @ChrisMayLA6 @ohir @gimulnautti

              As the old saying goes, conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: that there should be an in-group whom the law protects but does not bind, and an out-group whom the law binds but does not protect. I suggest fascism is what happens when conservatives become confident enough to proceed without bothering to pretend there's still a meaningful rule of law.

              ohir@social.vivaldi.netO 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • ohir@social.vivaldi.netO ohir@social.vivaldi.net

                @eestileib @gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6
                > support of conservatives
                Reactionary "conservatives" support he has. He got to the power with broader conservatives support, yes, but the cabal behind the aimed at conservatives propaganda is neither conservative nor christian – at least for someone who remembers and knows the real definienda of either.

                That said, for me and hopefully many others, the core of the contemporary _conservatism_ is not about calcification of the status quo but the careful consideration of changes that _must_ come. On that fundament, maga and trumpists hardly can fit even in the "reactionary" echelon – they are revolutionists. In practice, US conservatives were all conned by fasicst with their well researched firehose use of perverted words.

                gimulnautti@mastodon.greenG This user is from outside of this forum
                gimulnautti@mastodon.greenG This user is from outside of this forum
                gimulnautti@mastodon.green
                wrote last edited by
                #21

                @ohir @eestileib @ChrisMayLA6 Let's also give ourselves the freedom to define conservatism. Like you're doing now. It is much more interesting than trying to argue which one of us right, eh? 😉

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • only_ohm@mas.toO only_ohm@mas.to

                  @ChrisMayLA6 @ohir @gimulnautti

                  As the old saying goes, conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: that there should be an in-group whom the law protects but does not bind, and an out-group whom the law binds but does not protect. I suggest fascism is what happens when conservatives become confident enough to proceed without bothering to pretend there's still a meaningful rule of law.

                  ohir@social.vivaldi.netO This user is from outside of this forum
                  ohir@social.vivaldi.netO This user is from outside of this forum
                  ohir@social.vivaldi.net
                  wrote last edited by
                  #22

                  @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6 @gimulnautti
                  > old saying goes [...]
                  How old this saying is?

                  I specifically used "for me" qualifier, aware of the different meanings of the "conservative", especially considering how perverted this meaning became for the self-identified or purpoting to be conservatives' deeds of the past decades.

                  For me, the conservative thought is rooted in the Polish Constitution of year 1505:
                  "Whereas general laws and public acts pertain not to an individual but to the Nation at large, wherefore at this General Sejm held at Radom we have, together with all our kingdom's prelates, councils and land deputies, determined it to be fitting and just, and have so resolved, that henceforth for all time to come nothing new shall be resolved by us or our successors, without the common consent of the Senators and the Land Deputies, that shall be prejudicial or onerous to the our Republic or harmful and injurious to anyone, or that would tend to alter the general law and public liberty."...

                  The key phrases "without the common consent", "that shall be prejudicial or onerous to the our Republic or harmful and injurious to anyone".

                  Evolution, not revolution. Consensus, not Dictat. As our ancestors knew well that each revolution afflicts the state by awakening demons in those who fear the freedoms of others the most.

                  Link Preview Image
                  gimulnautti@mastodon.greenG pyrogenesis@mefi.socialP 2 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • ohir@social.vivaldi.netO ohir@social.vivaldi.net

                    @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6 @gimulnautti
                    > old saying goes [...]
                    How old this saying is?

                    I specifically used "for me" qualifier, aware of the different meanings of the "conservative", especially considering how perverted this meaning became for the self-identified or purpoting to be conservatives' deeds of the past decades.

                    For me, the conservative thought is rooted in the Polish Constitution of year 1505:
                    "Whereas general laws and public acts pertain not to an individual but to the Nation at large, wherefore at this General Sejm held at Radom we have, together with all our kingdom's prelates, councils and land deputies, determined it to be fitting and just, and have so resolved, that henceforth for all time to come nothing new shall be resolved by us or our successors, without the common consent of the Senators and the Land Deputies, that shall be prejudicial or onerous to the our Republic or harmful and injurious to anyone, or that would tend to alter the general law and public liberty."...

                    The key phrases "without the common consent", "that shall be prejudicial or onerous to the our Republic or harmful and injurious to anyone".

                    Evolution, not revolution. Consensus, not Dictat. As our ancestors knew well that each revolution afflicts the state by awakening demons in those who fear the freedoms of others the most.

                    Link Preview Image
                    gimulnautti@mastodon.greenG This user is from outside of this forum
                    gimulnautti@mastodon.greenG This user is from outside of this forum
                    gimulnautti@mastodon.green
                    wrote last edited by
                    #23

                    @ohir @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6
                    "As our ancestors knew well that each revolution afflicts the state by awakening demons in those who fear the freedoms of others the most."

                    That's a pretty emotional and value-laden statement, bypassing any burdens of proof. Wouldn't hold up in any court I would attend or support.

                    ohir@social.vivaldi.netO 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • ohir@social.vivaldi.netO ohir@social.vivaldi.net

                      @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6 @gimulnautti
                      > old saying goes [...]
                      How old this saying is?

                      I specifically used "for me" qualifier, aware of the different meanings of the "conservative", especially considering how perverted this meaning became for the self-identified or purpoting to be conservatives' deeds of the past decades.

                      For me, the conservative thought is rooted in the Polish Constitution of year 1505:
                      "Whereas general laws and public acts pertain not to an individual but to the Nation at large, wherefore at this General Sejm held at Radom we have, together with all our kingdom's prelates, councils and land deputies, determined it to be fitting and just, and have so resolved, that henceforth for all time to come nothing new shall be resolved by us or our successors, without the common consent of the Senators and the Land Deputies, that shall be prejudicial or onerous to the our Republic or harmful and injurious to anyone, or that would tend to alter the general law and public liberty."...

                      The key phrases "without the common consent", "that shall be prejudicial or onerous to the our Republic or harmful and injurious to anyone".

                      Evolution, not revolution. Consensus, not Dictat. As our ancestors knew well that each revolution afflicts the state by awakening demons in those who fear the freedoms of others the most.

                      Link Preview Image
                      pyrogenesis@mefi.socialP This user is from outside of this forum
                      pyrogenesis@mefi.socialP This user is from outside of this forum
                      pyrogenesis@mefi.social
                      wrote last edited by
                      #24

                      @ohir @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6 @gimulnautti You are of course free to make up your own meanings of words to your heart's content, but this does not mean it has anything to do with what words are commonly understood to mean. If you have your own private, non-standard definition, don't go about telling others "Please use quotation marks, please, please", as if your idiosyncratic meaning should be accepted by others. It should not, and will not.

                      ohir@social.vivaldi.netO 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • gimulnautti@mastodon.greenG gimulnautti@mastodon.green

                        @ohir @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6
                        "As our ancestors knew well that each revolution afflicts the state by awakening demons in those who fear the freedoms of others the most."

                        That's a pretty emotional and value-laden statement, bypassing any burdens of proof. Wouldn't hold up in any court I would attend or support.

                        ohir@social.vivaldi.netO This user is from outside of this forum
                        ohir@social.vivaldi.netO This user is from outside of this forum
                        ohir@social.vivaldi.net
                        wrote last edited by
                        #25

                        @gimulnautti @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6
                        > That's a pretty emotional and value-laden statement

                        May I ask for an example of a revolution that didn’t awaken reactionary demons?

                        And yes, Constitutions usually are value-laden.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • pyrogenesis@mefi.socialP pyrogenesis@mefi.social

                          @ohir @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6 @gimulnautti You are of course free to make up your own meanings of words to your heart's content, but this does not mean it has anything to do with what words are commonly understood to mean. If you have your own private, non-standard definition, don't go about telling others "Please use quotation marks, please, please", as if your idiosyncratic meaning should be accepted by others. It should not, and will not.

                          ohir@social.vivaldi.netO This user is from outside of this forum
                          ohir@social.vivaldi.netO This user is from outside of this forum
                          ohir@social.vivaldi.net
                          wrote last edited by
                          #26

                          @Pyrogenesis @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6 @gimulnautti
                          > with what words are commonly understood to mean

                          I pointed out in my first reply, that the very "common understanding" has had been perverted, by __fascists__.

                          And now I am being "corrected" by some of my dear interlocutors, implying the very perversion I spot.

                          There is nothing "conservative" in mafia grab of states, nor in __sudden__ trampling on laws and freedoms, nor in anything fascist do. The only valid point is, that self-identified conservatives really are and were enablers for populists.

                          Link Preview Image
                          conservative

                          CONSERVATIVE meaning: 1. not usually liking or trusting change, especially sudden change: 2. If you are conservative in…. Learn more.

                          favicon

                          (dictionary.cambridge.org)

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • chrismayla6@zirk.usC chrismayla6@zirk.us

                            Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'.... Given Iran is clearly under attack from US/Israeli forces, defending its airspace is not so much an escalation as a perfectly reasonable defensive response (and certainly legal as far as international law is concerned).

                            But the narrative remains, whatever the media may think its doing, one that privileges the US's positioning on the 'war'!

                            #Iran #InternationalLaw

                            cauzation@mastodon.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
                            cauzation@mastodon.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
                            cauzation@mastodon.social
                            wrote last edited by
                            #27

                            @ChrisMayLA6 Well, the US may contribute more revenue to just stay afloat as a media, let alone thrive.

                            And this metric may be the most difficult to overcome.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • chrismayla6@zirk.usC chrismayla6@zirk.us

                              Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'.... Given Iran is clearly under attack from US/Israeli forces, defending its airspace is not so much an escalation as a perfectly reasonable defensive response (and certainly legal as far as international law is concerned).

                              But the narrative remains, whatever the media may think its doing, one that privileges the US's positioning on the 'war'!

                              #Iran #InternationalLaw

                              danish_akhtar7@mastodon.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
                              danish_akhtar7@mastodon.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
                              danish_akhtar7@mastodon.social
                              wrote last edited by
                              #28

                              @ChrisMayLA6

                              Remember that Prophet David (Peace be upon him) defeated Goliath with just one stone from a slingshot.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • chrismayla6@zirk.usC chrismayla6@zirk.us

                                Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'.... Given Iran is clearly under attack from US/Israeli forces, defending its airspace is not so much an escalation as a perfectly reasonable defensive response (and certainly legal as far as international law is concerned).

                                But the narrative remains, whatever the media may think its doing, one that privileges the US's positioning on the 'war'!

                                #Iran #InternationalLaw

                                nmba@mstdn.caN This user is from outside of this forum
                                nmba@mstdn.caN This user is from outside of this forum
                                nmba@mstdn.ca
                                wrote last edited by
                                #29

                                @ChrisMayLA6
                                Kinda like the girl that bit the orange microdick, and then trump beat her for defending herself from his attack. The MO of the USA since Vietnam.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                1
                                0
                                • R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
                                Reply
                                • Reply as topic
                                Log in to reply
                                • Oldest to Newest
                                • Newest to Oldest
                                • Most Votes


                                • Login

                                • Login or register to search.
                                • First post
                                  Last post
                                0
                                • Categories
                                • Recent
                                • Tags
                                • Popular
                                • World
                                • Users
                                • Groups