1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran, with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME! Orders have already been given, and the U.S. Military is ready, willing, and able, for a one year period of time, subject to extension, to completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran - PRAISE BE TO ALLAH! President DONALD J. TRUMP

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116899176820572671

https://nitter.net/RapidResponse47/status/2075782782974885899#m

  • SwagliacciTheBadClown [comrade/them, null/void]@hexbear.netEnglish
    42·
    18 days ago

    AP had a headline about how the funeral revealed a “divided Iran” or someone nonsense. Idk bruh they look pretty united to me; that’s like the level of unity you’d see in the us if “alleged” assassins could actually do their one goddamn job

    • Hexamerous [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
      47·
      18 days ago

      parenti-hands

      If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regimes atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom.

        • Hexamerous [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
          8·
          17 days ago

          It’s from Michael Parentis book Blackshirts and Reds. Really good read, if you haven’t already. Here’s the full quote:

          spoiler

          “During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

          If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”

    • SerialExperimentsGay [she/her, she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
      30·
      18 days ago

      Carpet bombing always unites its victims through a common threat. Whatever divisions and tensions existed in Iranian society before the war got pushed to the sideline when the yanqui devils smothered the nation under black rain. This has been well-studied since the bomb raids of WW2, where it could be observed extensively in both the UK, Germany and Japan. That was the first time mass bombing civilians was a military tactic and it immediately proved a failure. Yet it has been done over and over again in Korea, in Vietnam, several times in Iraq and Afghanistan, now in Iran, and so on and so on, and the result is always the same: Bombing that does not strictly focus on military targets only serves to boost the morale of those that get bombed.

      But taking the correct lesson from that would diminish the importance of the Air Force and it would lead to the MIC selling less bombs, so this course of action can’t be taken and millions of innocent people all over the world have paid with their lifes for that.

    • SevenSkalls [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      7·
      18 days ago

      The only division I’ve seen was between the comprador Iranian diaspora/Iranian redditors who were cheering for the US to bomb their family members and the actual Iranians who had to take actually take those bombs.