It’s fitting because at the end of that episode, they learn that the US was in fact the alien invaders declaring war on other planets.
Anyway, the San Diego Naval Amphibious Base Coronado shows the american dream
So much freaking parking space, what a waste.
Yo what
The Navy has promised to alter the design of one of the buildings on site, which from above clearly resembles a Nazi swastika pitched at the correct 45-degree angle the Nazis used. A report by SFGATE suggests that top officials in the Navy knew what the design of the building would look like prior to the installation.[8][9]
Is it really a surprise?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/09/us-military-marines-nazi-ss-flag-photo
https://www.vice.com/en/article/marines-neo-nazis-military/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/14/us-military-extremism-the-baseAnd I’ve only looked for 30 seconds.
no, it isn’t. after all hitler was inspired by US racism. leave it to a fucking hack of an artist to find inspiration in the worst things
There’s always a tweet:
NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!
Irony truly is dead.
deleted by creator
He ends a bunch of his tweets that way, he’s very strange.
And then he eats his hamberder too.
Thank you for attention to hamberder
Getting these vibes
Wanna take a trip to the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum and liberate this banner for the memes?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
This statement from Trump is unsurprisingly disinformation. Most people interpret “nuclear sites” as nuclear bombs instead of completely legal power stations for civilian infrastructure.
Please don’t recite this disinformation uncritically. That’s just recycling propaganda.
Instead it’s worth emphasizing that the zio regime actually has rogue nukes and is using them to threaten the planet with a nuclear holocaust. That’s the actual problem.
I mean, most of it is enriching, by the sound of it, and they’ve been doing that far beyond any civilian application. As a negotiating tactic, to date, per America’s own intelligence.
“Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is anything enriched above 20% and weapon-grade uranium is commonly considered to have been enriched above 90% U-235. However, some research reactors use 90% enriched U-235 to produce medical isotopes, so there are civilian applications for this fuel too.”
https://armscontrolcenter.org/uranium-enrichment-for-peace-or-for-weapons/
I stand corrected. It’s less clear which ones definitely need it, exactly. Wikipedia mentions that even Tc-99m generator designs can use low-enriched uranium. You don’t need large quantities in that case, either, since a little radioisotope goes a long way and there’s only so many people that need treatment.
To be fair, Iran wants a nuke down the line, and civilian uranium enrichment is a huge stepping stone. There’s lots of technical alternatives they could pursue if they really just want civilian power.
…And that’s kinda understandable. They have a neighbor that randomly bombs their civilians.
Fuck it, let them have one.
Heck, they should get a tiny bit of old Soviet+US stock in some kind of international deal, so they have credible deterrence with the guaranteed stability+security mechanisms (and oversight?) of their weapons.
(To be more specific, Cold War nukes typically have elaborate tiggers and failsafes meant to stop unauthorized parties from detonating them with any nuclear yield, and the old school Soviet and US systems are pretty good. Better for them to have that than an “insecure” home cooked design they waste money on, like the North Koreans allegedly have, IMO. On top of that, they’d have “known” detonation signatures, so if they ever go off everyone would know it’s Iran (defeating the fear of them “losing” a nuke to another party, or a false flag op against Iran)).
If that was true, they wouldn’t have cooperated with IAEA for years, and it was ne US that destroyed any chances for a peaceful deal.
Yes, and that was a cruel, stupid move on the US’s part.
…But even if cooperation continued, it still would have given Iran expertise. Further enrichment is not a huge step, especially behind the cover of real civilian power programs, and given the rhetoric the state broadcasts and their neighbor’s hostility, it seems likely.
And that’s fine IMO.
I’m hugely afraid of proliferation, but going to these lengths to worry about it while the rest of the world burns seems ridiculous.
I’ve watched an hour long video on uranium enrichment once (one of the many times Satanyahoo cried wolf on Iran almost having nukes).
It is most definitely a huge step and there are many other factors.
It’s really complicated matter.
I wish for them it wasn’t and that they get one.
Why would I fight? I’ll just dodge the draft and fasttrack my presidential campaign.
My platform is ABWA: America Becomes West Again. Everyone does horses, cowboy hats, and guns again. You wanna travel further than 3 towns over? Train.
Please also make it wild as well, I really liked west world and that animation where Johnny depp is a chameleon in case you want some examples of what I’d vote for.
All US Marshalls will be androids, so you feel ok shooting them while living as an outlaw.
You will need a Bachelor’s in some liberal arts degree to qualify for the outlaw profession. Outlaws pay taxes only every other year, and are categorized as “self-employed” so you have to track your own taxes.
What it costed Israel to make you do it and also announce it? A promised land of gazan golf courses or another Trump Tower there? I can’t get how he is still breathing with everything that he did in his life.
Henry Kissinger lived to 100.
Henry was clever and sneaky in his malice, like today’s Thiel. The cheeto guy though pulls all the levers but dodges shit like he had 10 LUCK or something.
Hopefully Iran keeps to its promise to bomb every US military installation in the Middle East if the US intervened.
Congress?? Hello?
They’re too busy changing their pants after their wishes finally came true
“So we still get paid and we don’t have to do anything? That’s amazing! Haha, but why do I have to face the wall for this part?”
We killed a bunch of people but now I want peace…
I punched you but please don’t hit me back or I’ll cry.
There are theories online that say it was a symbolic attack and that they even warned Iran where and when they would strike.
First some technical stuff and facts:
There is much doubt even bunker busters would do significant dammage to Iranian facilities.
At an estimated 90 -120 meters depth they are well below the range of their capabilities (60 meters).
And they are heavily protected by various layers and nobody knows where they are exactly.
Only the entrance and building on the surface is visible.
The US have only used them once against Yemen and claim they could go deeper by doing double taps.
This has obviously never been tested.Now some speculation:
The Americans knew they only had a small chance of success (despite the reported mission success propaganda) and 100% certainty of committing an act of war.
Then why would they do it?
Fact is the genocide state is getting hit harder and harder, as Iran announced they would.
There is huge devastation and the situation is untenable.
They realise they have bitten off more than they can chew and already showed signs of weakness.The US ‘taking out’ the imaginary threat and casus belli would solve that problem and give the genociders a way out of the war without losing face.
As the Iranians said they would stop attacking if they did.For Trump it would OC be a huge media victory showing how powerful they are and how they saved the poor genociders.
Too soon to tell what is true for now.
We’ll have to see what the actual dammage is, if Iran strikes back and if the war ends.Reports are that there is no increase in radioactivity at the bombed sites, so there either was no radioactive material, it was stored somewhere else, or it remained contained.
I believe they removed everything of value and movable.
They also filled the entrances with truckloads of sand.
They were prepared.
Also no noticable seismic activity apparently on IRIS (didn’t check), which is strange since they work by creating a mini earthquake.
When Bush got the US into a war in the middle east, he at least did it after a terrorist attack on the US (which had nothing to do with Iraq, but he was able to fudge that part), and as a result of the stupidity of Americans, he had a 60+% approval rating at the time.
Trump didn’t even manage a false flag or anything, as a result, a lot of conservatives are pissed off about this. Probably not enough to crack the MAGA coalition, but every little bit chipped away from it helps. With margins in the senate and house so close, it’s actually possible that he could be stopped by congress and the US doesn’t become a failed state, instead merely becoming an illiberal democracy.
But, what I wonder is if this will actually win him any converts from the Democratic side. I bet there are ultra pro-Israel people who were formerly Democrats who actually think this is a good idea, and will now start supporting Trump. Still, I think he’s going to lose 90 MAGAs for every 10 Democrats he gains.
60+%
It was 90%. Only 10% of Americans were capable of resisting the massive propaganda apparatus that manufactures consent at the start of every war of aggression. Vietnam was also very popular at the start.
But you are right that he’s doing this without a strong justification. From what I’ve seen, mainstream media is still on his side, they love war, great for business. Whether enough Americans have learned anything from the disaster of the War on Terror to make any sort of lasting dent in the number capable of resisting propaganda remains to be seen, you’d think Vietnam would have but it’s always “different this time,” and people are frequently “anti-war, except the current one.”
I don’t think the media is necessarily “on his side”. When the media sticks to just reporting the facts, people interpret it as the media taking the other side.
Also, his approval rating never got up to 90%. It was in the 80s in the days after 9/11 (which was sickening) but it dropped pretty quickly, and by the time the Iraq war began it was back down to almost 50%. It briefly went up after the war started, but then kept going down and down until he finally left office.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2008/12/18/bush-and-public-opinion/
Your source says a peak of 86%, Gallup got 90% but either way it was an overwhelming majority.
The media told all sorts of lies to justify the war in Iraq, more recently, the New York Times published a false story about Hamas committing mass rape, if you want to go further back they lied to get us into Vietnam, and in every case it takes time for the lies to be exposed and by the time they are, fewer people see the retractions and it’s usually too late to do anything about it anyway. Even when they aren’t lying, they’re using biased language and framing to push their agenda, and their agenda is, as I said, always pro-war, because war sells papers and if they’re hostile to the White House (especially with Trump in there) then they’ll get press passes revoked and won’t be privy to information they would otherwise receive. Never in my life have I seen widespread media condemnation of any military action (unless you count the withdrawal from Afghanistan), and I believe you’ll see the same thing if you look in the past, in conflicts like Vietnam. When Trump launched an unprovoked missile strike on Syria, during his first term, these people jumped over each other to praise him, to say that “that was the moment he became presidential,” even publications that had been very critical of him before.
None of the media people (just like none of the politicians) were ever held accountable in any way for lying the public into a war, which set a clear precedent that they can do so freely going forward. Worse yet, it’s often the very same people in similar positions of power. If you think that they’re trustworthy and not biased, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
The media told all sorts of lies to justify the war in Iraq
A lie is something they were aware was not true and published it anyhow. What sources do you have that the media was publishing stories it knew weren’t true about Iraq? What examples do you have?
more recently, the New York Times published a false story about Hamas committing mass rape
What story are you talking about, and what specific allegations do you think it got wrong?
if you want to go further back they lied to get us into Vietnam
You’re saying the media knowingly made up stories because they wanted to trick the US into going to war in Vietnam? What specific examples do you have of that? Again, if this is your claim, it isn’t enough to show that they got some reports wrong. It’s not even enough to show that they printed some things that in hindsight they should have known were wrong. Your bar is to prove that they knew ahead of time that they were publishing things they knew were untrue and did it for the express purpose of trying to get the US into war in Vietnam.
Do you think they’re so incompetent as to leave evidence laying around that they had advance knowledge? I wonder, if that’s the bar you set for US media, do you also set the bar there for, say, Chinese media? If Chinese state media publishes something that’s untrue, would you dispute someone calling it a lie if you didn’t have access to some official document openly confessing to advance knowledge? Even if such records did exist, it’s not as if I, a private citizen, could get a warrant to raid their offices for it. You’re setting the standard unreasonably high, you’re just trying to shut down reasonable skepticism and legitimate criticism in favor of blind trust. I mean, what kind of idiot would write down “I know this story is false but I want you to publish it anyway,” and then leave it lying around where someone could find it, when there’s absolutely no reason to?
Here is an Intercept article about the fake news story published by the NYT to justify Israeli aggression in Gaza.
You’re saying the media knowingly made up stories because they wanted to trick the US into going to war in Vietnam? What specific examples do you have of that?
That’s not what I said at all. The US government wanted to go to war with Vietnam, the media simply wanted to win favor with the government and sell papers.
Were you aware that, in the aftermath of the Kent State Massacre, the vast majority of Americans placed more blame on the students for getting shot than on the National Guard for shooting them? Were you aware that, leading up to the shooting, there were all kinds of fake news stories on TV about how, for example, the protesters were putting LSD into the water supply? Stories that they conveniently retracted, after the moment had passed and the chance for a backlash was gone?
Anyway, the fact that they lie frequently isn’t even the main point. The main currency of propaganda is not lies, it’s emphasis. Biased framing and leading language are perfectly capable of shaping public opinion towards their agenda. Historical events that would justify or explain hostile actions of other countries are very rarely deemed relevant, and the same with internal politics that might show that only certain factions supported it. Our own crimes and acts of aggression are downplayed or ignored, so that when the other side retaliates, it seems to come out of nowhere.
For example, the 1953 coup in Iran, which was conducted by the CIA and successfully covered up for decades, demonstrates that even if Iran had a peaceful, democratic government, it would still likely be subject to US aggression so long as they tried to assert control over their own oil. The breakdown of relations in the 1979 revolution occurred when the revolutionaries took hostages at the US embassy, but what provoked that action was the US granting refuge to the deposed shah - the very same man who they had previously installed as a dictator in 1953. I think both of those events are very important to understanding US-Iranian relations, but you won’t hear the news mention them, the hostage crisis is always presented as this unprovoked act of aggression.
This is just basic media literacy, really. You should always be skeptical and aware of bias and conflicts of interests with anything you read. Unfortunately, there’s a tendency some people have to put certain sources on a pedestal as if critical thinking and skepticism isn’t necessary when reading them.
I’m still waiting for a single example of a lie. It’s a very simple request, and if you can’t find one, you claim that the media lies is wrong.
Ridiculous double standard. Has Putin ever lied, once in his life? Yes or no please, and be prepared to meet your own standard of evidence.
I see what you’re saying here: if the media prints lies from a government it’s not the media lying, it’s the government. If Israel says Hamas beheaded 40 babies and that’s found out to be a lie, it wasn’t the media lying about Hamas beheading 40 babies and so the media is entirely innocent of printing the lies fed to it by a government like Israel.
Here’s the thing: if a government lies all the fucking time and the media keeps printing what the government claims anyway, then that makes them complicit in spreading the government’s lies. We all know Israel’s government spreads lies, so printing the lies it spread about Hamas is just doing the government’s work for them. The media doesn’t get to wash its hands of the things it prints just because it puts “Israel says” before the headline.
I see what you’re saying here: if the media prints lies from a government it’s not the media lying, it’s the government
If the government manages to fool the media, yeah. If the government says to the media “the truth is X, but we’re going to pretend that it’s Y, so you print Y, ok?” and then the media goes along with it, then you can blame the media. In many cases, the media isn’t able to fact check the things the government tells them. But, relaying what the government is saying is still important. Similarly, even though the media can’t independently fact check the numbers that the Gaza Health Ministry reports, it’s still valuable to have those numbers released too.
If the media is lazy about their fact checking you can call them lazy, but you can’t call them liars, because lying requires knowing the truth and intentionally saying something untrue.
Here’s the thing: if a government lies all the fucking time and the media keeps printing what the government claims anyway, then that makes them complicit in spreading the government’s lies.
If the government says “the truth is X” and then the media says “X is true” then sure, you’re right. But, if the media says “the government said that the truth is X”, then it’s up to readers / viewers to understand that the media isn’t endorsing what the government said as being true, the media is simply telling you what was said.
The media doesn’t get to wash its hands of the things it prints just because it puts “Israel says” before the headline.
Why should it need to wash its hands? That is exactly what Israel said. Because Israel has a complete ban on reporters in Gaza, for example, there’s no way to corroborate or refute what Israel said. It’s newsworthy to repeat what Israel said, but you can’t blame the media when someone reads that and assumes that the government is telling the truth. As you said yourself, the government lies all the time, so why would you assume that “the government said X happened” means that “X happened”.
Because Israel has a complete ban on reporters in Gaza, for example, there’s no way to corroborate or refute what Israel said. It’s newsworthy to repeat what Israel said, but you can’t blame the media when someone reads that and assumes that the government is telling the truth
If there’s no way to corroborate or refute what Israel said, don’t print what Israel said. Lies aren’t newsworthy, except as a way to report on the lies themselves for the purpose of debunking them.
Remember when Israel first started bombing hospitals and blamed Islamic Jihad for it? They still don’t claim responsibility for Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, but after a year of targeting hospitals and doctors it’s ridiculous to deny it at this point.
Yet there were few retractions or corrections. As far as CNN and The Guardian are concerned, Israel didn’t bomb that hospital. What a joke.
As you said yourself, the government lies all the time, so why would you assume that “the government said X happened” means that “X happened”.
I don’t think people make that assumption anymore, but that’s because people stopped trusting the media. They published and promoted so many government lies that they’ve destroyed their own credibility.
People expect the media to investigate government claims and to publish the truth, not just parrot the lies they’re fed. When the media doesn’t do that, when all the major news outlets become court stenographers, people lose faith in the media.
Maybe people are expecting too much, but that’s what people have been taught to expect. They were taught that journalists find the truth and report on it. They’re finding out that journalists basically just print what their sources say and they can’t just trust things because they’re in the news anymore.
And it’s going to get worse forever.
The Senate and the House need to do something for margins to matter though.
The whole reason they’re not doing anything is that the democrats (who might do something) are in the minority in both the house and senate, so what they can do (without breaking rules and norms) is very limited. The Republicans either don’t want to do something because they support what Trump is doing, or they’re scared to go against him.
If you get a dozen Republicans who are willing to go against Trump, suddenly the anti-Trump side has a majority, which gives them a massive amount of power to do something.
I think we can expect Iran to just keep on fighting back, but who I’m REALLY looking at now is Pakistan. They said that if anyone attacked Iran besides Israel, they would enter the war on the side of Iran. Even if America’s participation in the war stopped here (not fucking likely) if Pakistan follows through with their threat then this escalation really, honest to God, could be the start of WW3.
Because here’s the thing: India has been trying to goad Pakistan into their own war for a few months now. So here’s my prediction, although be warned it gets a little crazy after the first 5 points:
- Pakistan attacks Israel as an ally of Iran
- India attacks Pakistan as an ally of Israel
- Afghanistan supports Pakistan with supplies and possibly troops, out of fear of India
- Israel continues to pressure Trump, who supports Israel the way the USA (used to) support Ukraine. But direct action is possible, as seen today.
- European support for Israel disintegrates, and they focus on Ukraine.
- Russia declares support for Israel. Now Afghanistan has aggressors to the North (Russia) and India (South) albeit with a buffer country in both directions. They’re highly motivated to support both buffer countries, but also wary of the USA coming after them (again).
- Europe can no longer simply ignore Israel as it has become a second front in the war for Ukraine.
- Kazakhstan declares allyship with Afghanistan because they understand that Russia has to go through them to get to Afghanistan and they really really don’t want that.
- Russian allies (Turkey, Belarús, Hungary) hamper the EU response.
- Trump takes advantage and makes a play for Greenland and Panama.
- NATO invokes Article 5 against the USA, uses this to justify attacking Russia (who is now aligned with the USA via Israel) directly IF they didn’t decide to focus on America first (likely).
- Canada is part of NATO, talks Mexico into joining against the USA because it’s the only way they stand a chance.
- China grasps at the opportunity to seize Taiwan and cement its claim to South China Sea.
- Japan, South Korea, and most is Southeast Asia and the South Pacific band together against China to drive them out of the South China Sea and Taiwan.
- Egypt and neighboring countries take strict control of the Red Sea, denying passage to ships belonging to Israel/Russia/China/et allies.
Ultimately, the two sides:
THE AGGRESSORS
- Israel
- Russia
- India
- America
- Hungary
- Turkey
- Belarús
- North Korea
- China
THE RESPONSE
- Iran
- Pakistan
- Afghanistan
- The EU (and the UK)
- Egypt and neighbors
- Canada
- Mexico
- Japan
- South Korea
- Most/all of Southeast Asia and the South Pacific
- South Africa
Oddly I see Australia sitting this one out, as their politics are far enough right to not want to go to war with their traditional allies (eg, the USA) but not left enough to support the response in any meaningful way. Something would have to force their involvement.
As for Central and South America, it’s a mixed bag. Obviously some countries like El Salvador will support Trump, but I think most of them will defend Panama if they get involved at all. I certainly can’t see Argentina and Chile being ok with just letting anybody pass Cape Horn.
Africa I just have no fucking clue. China has been involved in a lot of African countries in very big ways that the African countries aren’t entirely happy about. They could take advantage of the circumstances to seize and nationalize Chinese assets within their borders, which puts them at odds with China/Russia/Israel/et allies and I think they would be pretty ok with that. South Africa in particular I think may take a more active role against the aggressors, given their position controlling the Cape of Good Hope.
Tldr if this plays out anything even remotely like what I’ve written here, and I really REALLY how it doesn’t, we’re all VERY FUCKED.
(This is a work of total conjecture, I’m probably wrong, so don’t waste your breath telling me I’m wrong. That said some of my logic may not be obvious, so I’m happy to answer questions to clarify my thoughts)
Placing the US, Russia and China as allies during a hypothetical WWIII? That’s a VERY bold claim.
Also, really doubt the EU could use NATO to declare war on the US, as the US are still the vast majority of NATO’s firepower and command.
Yeah and I just saw (after writing all that!) that Russia and China had warned the USA to not attack Iran, so I could absolutely be way off base there.
Edit: the logic had more to do with Russia’s ambitions to reform their lost empire. Afaik it’s widely believed that after Ukraine, Russia will go for Kazakhstan and possibly Afghanistan. It’s less that I see Russia siding with the USA and Israel, and more that I think Russia will be opportunistic in its military expansion.
it’s widely believed
Whenever you see this phrase, it’s going to followed by nonsense nobody serious believes.
the logic
The logic is that you went “oh, China and Russia are bad guy countries, so they’ll go on the bad guy team, just like in the comic books!”
It’s not a meme, it’s real
