Jason Keebler @KeeblerJason

okay I guess I have to talk about Péter Magyar here. Let me just start with saying, in a very unladylike way, that you guys seem to have zero clue what happened in Hungary in the last two years, you completely miss the point, and you're a disappointing bunch. Let's go.

Trump's counter-blockade gambit coupled with his threat to “Venezuelaize” Iran, reveals that the real obstacle in these negotiations isn’t that Iran and the US have different demands, nor even that Washington still believes it can impose its own terms, and certainly not that Iran "overplayed its hand" — a framing that implies it doesn’t objectively hold the stronger cards. It’s the US’ detachment from reality itself; in other words, its inability to perceive changed material conditions except through the lens of its own hegemonic self-image. That is why the fundamental mismatch here is between two radically different strategic identities rooted in two radically different relationships to reality. Iran enters these talks with · A counter-hegemonic, justice-seeking, resistance-informed, sovereign identity · a strategic framework of “honour/dignity wisdom, and expediency” that informs all aspects of its foreign policy, from military to diplomatic · a self-understanding grounded in concrete military and political achievements In contrast, the US enters the talks with · a hegemonic, primacy-obsessed, peace-aversive, imperial identity · a strategic doctrine of domination, sovereignty-denial and preservation of imperial hierarchy that permeates its entire foreign policy, from military to diplomatic realms · a self-perception detached from (and resistant to) concrete military and political realities Iran thus faces the near-herculean task of forcing reality onto a party fundamentally resistant to recognising it. The US will not internalise altered power relations through dialogue alone, but only through the combined and sustained pressure of war and diplomacy. This is the only means by which Iran can help break the US’ imperial self-delusion and pathological addiction to war, which in turn, will help it to unlearn the hegemonic assumptions that keep it insulated from reality. If Iran succeeds in this, even partially, it will have done more than secure itself; it will have rendered a historic service to humanity as a whole.

Abbas Araghci "Neden uranyum zenginleştirmede ısrar ettik?" Okumanızı tavsiye ederim: - "Neden zenginleştirme (uranyum) konusunda bu kadar ısrar ettik ve ediyoruz? Neden üzerimize savaş dayatılsa bile bundan vazgeçmeye razı değiliz? Çünkü kimsenin bize neye sahip olmamız veya olmamamız gerektiğini söylemeye hakkı yok. Bu, tahakkümü reddetme (nefy-i sulte) ilkesine dayanmaktadır. ​Yasalara göre zenginleştirme yapmak benim hakkımdır ve bu hakkı kullanıp kullanmamak sadece beni ilgilendirir. Yıllardır bize söylenen ve hala söylenmeye devam eden 'Zenginleştirme yapmaya hakkınız yok, zenginleştirme sıfır olmalı' söylemi... Neden? 'Çünkü endişeliyiz.' diyorlar. ​Eğer endişeliyseniz, biz bu endişeleri gidermeye hazırız. Bir soru mu var? Cevap veririz. Güven mi yok? Güven inşa ederiz. Ama kimsenin bize 'Ben öyle istediğim için sen buna sahip olamazsın' demeye hakkı yoktur. ​Yıllardır süregelen hareketimizin sırrı budur; kendi hakkımızda ısrarcı olduk. Zenginleştirme önemlidir, ancak bunun yanında daha önemli olan şey, İran İslam Cumhuriyeti'nin kimseden talimat almadığını ve hiçbir tahakküm altına girmediğini kanıtlamasıdır. ​İran'ın barışçıl nükleer programının hedeflerine ilişkin herhangi bir soru veya belirsizlik varsa, cevap vermeye ve bu belirsizliği gidermeye hazırız. Bunun yolu da sadece diplomasiden geçer. Diğer yolları denediler ve bir sonuç alamadılar. ​Müzakere, ancak İran halkının hakları teslim edildiğinde, saygı duyulduğunda ve biz hakkımızı kullanabildiğimizde bir sonuca ulaşacaktır. Biz kimseden hakkımızı tanımasını beklemiyoruz; hakkımız zaten kendi içinde meşrudur, hakkımız mevcuttur. Bizim istediğimiz, hakkımıza saygı duyulmasıdır." Abbas Araghci'nin bu açıklaması bence sadece ABD'ye değil onların temsil ettiği zihniyetin yaklaşık bir yüz yıldır biz Müslümanlara üstten bakışçı zihniyetlerine verilmiş izzetli bir cevaptır. Bu cevap artık sizin zorba ve değerlerinizi dikte etme döneminin kapandığının beyanıdır. İran bu savaştan alnının akıyla çıkacarsa artık ABD eski ABD olacak ne de Müslümanlar eski Müslümanlar olacaktır inşallah.

Amazing how the media can tell you all about human rights abuses in Iran, but when the US is causing people on ventilators to die in Cuba, there is radio silence. Apparently, human rights only matter when we need an excuse to start a war.

We are appalled by the selective humanity, the double standards, and the selective outrage that continue to shape and define Canadian foreign policy. As Canadian citizens, we refuse to accept a system where human lives are valued differently based on geography, politics, or identity. Citizenship is not passive it carries a responsibility to speak, to question, and to hold our government accountable. Justice cannot be conditional. Compassion cannot be selective. When silence is chosen for some victims and outrage for others, it exposes not only hypocrisy but a profound moral failure. Canada must uphold the principles it claims to stand for. A foreign policy rooted in selective human rights is not principled it is complicit. As citizens, we reject this hierarchy of human worth. We stand for equal dignity, consistent justice, and accountability for all people, everywhere without exception. #CanPoli #IranWar‌

Anita Anand @AnitaAnandMP

3 months ago

Canada is appalled by the Iranian Government’s execution of a Swedish citizen in Iran. We offer our deepest condolences to the family and express our full solidarity with Sweden. Canada continues to call on the Iranian regime to respect human rights and uphold their

987 151 674 290K 44

Bombing school kids: zero response Bombing gas and oil: global task force This is why capitalism as a governing ideology is incompatible with our basic humanity

Sorry, there’s no justification for a police chief from Edmonton flying 10,000 km to learn from a genocidal country’s police force. Doesn’t matter how many paragraphs you type on a post with closed comments, nothing will ever make it acceptable.

Edmonton Police @edmontonpolice

3 months ago

In mid-February, I joined police Chiefs from Canada and the United States, on a visit to Israel where we met police and community leaders in several cities. I spent time with police officers from Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Druze faiths representing a wide range of cultural and

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

0 378 3K 430K 114

I am a US citizen & Surgeon who took care of the Boston Maraton Bombing victims in 2013. I paid for 7 years to own a small apartment in downtown #Beirut for my 3 kids to enjoy summers there. Today, #Israel reduced my dream home to rubble, with american weapons, paid by my taxes.

One of the most atrocious international crimes being committed right now is the US blockade on Cuba. The US government is doing everything it can to strangle Cuba’s economy, especially by ramping up the oil blockade. No electricity, no oil, no fuel. Barely any food. A severe health crisis has erupted. Why is the US doing this? For no reason other than its dislike of the Cuban regime. Cuba poses no threat to the US. There is overwhelming global opposition to the US blockade. UN human rights experts have condemned it as a serious violation of international law. Now, Trump wants to take over Cuba, saying: “I can do anything I want with it.” This is one of the most grotesque crimes of our time.

One thing not getting enough attention now that the U.S. has admitted to exterminating hundreds of elementary school girls is that many very powerful people lied about it. They knew it was on the target list, they knew they had launched the missiles, they knew the school had been hit multiple times. And they tried to hide it and deflect blame to boost support for the early days of the illegal war. In any reasonable society—as opposed to a deeply sick one where there is no pretense to caring about truth or accountability or law or justice—a lie of this magnitude would mark the end of a person’s public life and extensive public proceedings to uncover everyone involved and to eradicate the institutional arrangements capable of such crimes and corruption. It’s similar to the complete rejection of truth and accountability that I have seen in police and prison corruption/violence. In the most fascist corners of our society, the only principle is who has—and is willing to ruthlessly deploy—power over others. Once a society tolerates this kind of thing, it’s like a cancer that spreads and cannot be stopped.

"We’re heading to World War III..." Professor Jeffrey Sachs describes the war on Iran as 'Armageddon.' “This is a disaster that's not likely to go away... the consequences for the world will be awful." Watch more👇 📺 youtu.be/nygFADn09sw @piersmorgan | @JeffreyASachs

An unarmed Iranian ship was invited to take part in an Indian naval exercise alongside the United States. Its sailors were welcomed on land and paraded before the president as a gesture of cooperation. Then, at the last moment, the United States abruptly withdrew from the exercise,only to turn around and torpedo the very ship it had just stood beside. What followed was even more grotesque. After attacking an unarmed vessel, the US refused to rescue the sailors it had thrown into the sea, abandoning them to drown. The grim work of recovering bodies was left to the Sri Lankan Navy. This wasn’t warfare,it was treachery of the most disgraceful kind: an ambush carried out under the pretense of diplomacy, followed by a cold refusal to show even the most basic human decency to the dying. It would represent a collapse of every norm that supposedly governs civilized conduct at sea. And yet, instead of outrage, much of the American media response has been indifference or rationalization. The bombing of a girls’ school is brushed aside; talk of carpet-bombing Tehran is floated as if it were just another policy option. When atrocities are normalized and cruelty is laundered into “strategy,” the line between reporting and complicity begins to disappear.

Very powerful and sobering piece by Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the magazine Russia in Global Politics, on how we have entered the most dangerous age in human history: “The Iranian head of state was not only liquidated by a precision strike — this act was also hailed as a triumphant achievement and a blessing for future conflict resolution. Ali Khamenei was, according to his country’s laws, the legitimate supreme authority of a UN member state that is internationally recognised almost universally and participates as a full-fledged actor in world affairs — including political negotiations with the very states that brought about his death. The fact that one state deliberately assassinates the head of another state and does so according to the same scheme used to eliminate leaders of terrorist cells or drug cartels gives world politics a completely new, dangerous dimension. This is true even in comparison to previous regime changes and their violent endpoints, such as the lynching of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya or the execution of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Although both events resulted from external military interventions, Gaddafi died at the hands of Libyan adversaries amid internal unrest. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, came to an end through a ruling by an Iraqi court — despite legitimate doubts about the objectivity of this procedure. The case of Iran marks the transition to a method that Israel has so far practiced primarily against the leadership of Hezbollah and Hamas. The United States now fully supports this approach. This process dismantles the last stabilising elements that had survived from previous eras of international relations. The actors now make the recognition of state legitimacy dependent on current political circumstances or personal inclinations and dislikes. This transforms world politics into a form of ‘Russian roulette’ and deprives it of its fundamental set of rules. It is not the case that in the past all actors always acted according to law and morality — especially since the latter is interpreted differently depending on the culture anyway. But framework conditions did exist. These are now being torn down. As this process progressed consistently and almost fluidly, many political elites do not seem to have yet grasped the seriousness of the situation in all its drama. In these circles, the events are considered merely drastic but explainable excesses of current contradictions. But not everyone shares this view. The conclusions that the US opponents now inevitably draw are obvious: - Diplomacy as a dead end: negotiations with the Americans seem almost pointless. The end result always demands surrender or exposes itself as a diplomatic simulation that merely prepares the violent solution. - Last resort: in a situation without a way of retreat and without the prospect of preserving what already exists, any remaining argument — i.e., any available form of the ‘red button’ — becomes legitimate, whether literally or figuratively. These findings will stand, regardless of what happens in Iran. Even if a form of ‘social engineering’ based on the Venezuelan model were to succeed there — for example through a backroom agreement on a transfer of power acceptable to all sides (which currently seems unlikely) — this would not reassure other US-critical states. The mechanism of violent submission is now established. This is a much tougher option than even the ‘color revolutions’ of the 2000s. Resistance to this will be more determined and desperate in the future — with consequences that, in the worst case, will develop a fatal dynamic of their own. [...] The general conclusion is as sobering as it is unoriginal: world politics is increasingly relying on naked violence and forced submission. Everything else descends into a trivial matter. Even hypocritical moral or ideological pretexts are rarely used anymore. The evaluation of this development is the responsibility of the individual. But ignorance of these facts is no longer possible”. Full article in Russian: rg.ru/2026/03/01/vyh…

"The mechanism of violent submission is now established. This is a much tougher option than even the ‘color revolutions’ of the 2000s."

Thomas Fazi @battleforeurope

3 months ago

Very powerful and sobering piece by Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the magazine Russia in Global Politics, on how we have entered the most dangerous age in human history: “The Iranian head of state was not only liquidated by a precision strike — this act was also hailed as

163 1K 4K 624K 2K

The most enlightening, consequential discussion of the US-Israel attack on Iran that i've seen. Which is why you won't see anything like this on mainstream media. youtube.com/watch?v=OvuXah…

Before Fidel, Cuba was not some balanced, diversified "free market" farm paradise. It was a U.S. sugar monoculture with land concentrated in latifundia, serving one buyer, in one currency, for one purpose. Sugar for the empire. Tourism for the empire. Mafias, casinos, and brothels for the empire. That was your "economic fundamentals." When you turn a country into a plantation, it will import a lot of its food. Because the best land is reserved for export crops that serve foreign profit, not local nutrition. The revolution inherited that structure. Cuba did not start from "normal economy" and then ruin it with Marxism. It started from a gangster client state, where Washington and a tiny local elite owned the soil. What did Fidel do? He broke the plantations. He redistributed land. He sent literacy brigades into the countryside. He turned a semi-feudal island into a society where peasants could become doctors, engineers, and teachers. Then the United States answered that audacity with: Bay of Pigs. Economic embargo. Terror campaigns. Permanent attempts to isolate and starve the island. You act as if the USSR "feeding" Cuba was proof of Fidel’s incompetence. In reality, it was the only major power willing to trade with a country Washington was trying to strangle. Cuba sent sugar, citrus, nickel, and workers. The USSR sent oil, machinery, grain, and yes, food. That is called trade and specialization. Japan, the Gulf monarchies, Singapore, South Korea, many European states import large portions of their food. Nobody calls that a failure of "economic fundamentals." They call it comparative advantage. It only becomes "proof of incompetence" when a socialist country does it under siege. You say, "In the end, this folklore hero achieved nada." Nothing? He took a U.S. playground of casinos and child prostitution and turned it into a country with: Universal literacy. Life expectancy comparable to rich countries. Infant mortality rates lower than many U.S. cities. One of the highest doctor-per-capita ratios in the world. Medical brigades that went to Africa, Latin America, even to Western countries during crises. Under embargo. Under permanent sabotage. Ninety miles from a state that spends more on its military than most of the planet combined. If that is "nada," what do you call a superpower that spends trillions on war and still has people rationing insulin, drowning in student debt, and sleeping under bridges? You reduce six decades of resistance to a meme about "importing two-thirds of its food." I look at the same history and see this: A small island that refused to be a plantation. A people who were told, "Surrender and we will feed you properly." A leadership that answered, "We would rather be poor with a spine than rich on our knees." You want to score a cheap point about Fidel’s "folklore." But the real folklore is the story you are selling: That a country under embargo, sabotage, terror, and economic siege should be judged by the same metrics as the empire that besieged it, and if it is not equally rich, the problem must be "communist incompetence." Cuba’s real "crime" was not bad economics. Its crime was proving that a small, Black and brown island could kick the United States out and still refuse to crawl back for forgiveness. That is why people like you need to keep repeating that it "achieved nothing." Because if you ever admitted what it actually achieved under those conditions, you would have to ask a much more uncomfortable question: What would Cuba have become without the boot on its neck?

S.L. Kanthan @Kanthan2030

4 months ago

Under Fidel Castro’s dictatorship, Cuba imported two-thirds of its food (!) — from the USSR. This man was too busy with his “Revolución Cubana” and “Antiimperialismo” that he forgot economic fundamentals like agriculture. In the end, this folklore hero achieved nada.

1 10 47 418K 22

We need all eyes on Cuba. They are being strangled. The embargo must be lifted.

This video should unsettle anyone who takes the United States seriously as a nation. Because it exposes something dangerous: the trivialization of the world's most consequential office. It shows how carelessly the power, credibility, and accumulated moral authority of a superpower can be squandered for a few seconds of viral attention. In any other major democracy, this behavior from a head of state would trigger a constitutional crisis. Paris would burn. Berlin would convene emergency sessions. In the Nordic countries, resignation would follow within hours. Across functioning democracies, the public, institutions, and political class would recognize this for what it is: an assault on the dignity of the state itself. Leaders are not free to perform as entertainers without consequence. National honor is not personal property, it's held in trust. But the United States is not just another country with a provocateur in charge. It is the linchpin of global order. It maintains formal alliances and security guarantees with forty to fifty nations. It underwrites the financial architecture, trade systems, and diplomatic frameworks that billions of people depend on daily. When the American president speaks—or posts—it doesn't land as satire, meme, or personal whim. It reads as a signal about what the country is becoming. American power has never relied solely on carrier strike groups or economic output. It has rested on something more fragile and more valuable: trust. The belief that beneath domestic turbulence lies institutional seriousness, predictability, and a baseline commitment to dignity. That belief is now disintegrating in real time. Millions of American companies operate globally. They negotiate multibillion-dollar contracts in environments where reputation is currency. Boardrooms in Frankfurt, Singapore, and Dubai aren't debating whether a post was clever—they're asking whether the United States remains a reliable partner. Whether agreements signed today will be honored tomorrow. Whether American leadership has devolved from institutional to purely theatrical. Consider tourism, which sustains millions of American jobs—airlines, hotels, restaurants, museums, entire regional economies. Soft power isn't an abstraction. It materializes in flight bookings, conference locations, study-abroad programs, and decades of accumulated goodwill. A quiet, decentralized boycott doesn't require government action—only a collective sense that a nation no longer respects itself. Now picture this image being studied by foreign ministers, central bank governors, defense strategists, and sovereign wealth fund managers. Picture them asking a coldly rational question: How do we write binding thirty-year agreements with a country whose public face will be this, relentlessly, for years to come? How do we plan for the long term when the tone is impulsive, mocking, and unbound by the gravity of office? This is where the real calculus begins. Trillions in foreign capital depend on confidence that America is stable, credible, and rule-governed. That confidence is now being traded for what, exactly? Applause from an online mob? A dopamine rush from manufactured outrage? Content designed to dominate the news cycle rather than serve the national interest? Every serious nation eventually confronts this choice: burn long-term credibility for short-term spectacle, or safeguard the reputation previous generations bled to build. The United States spent eighty years constructing an image of reliability, restraint, and leadership under pressure. That image wasn't born from perfection—it came from a visible commitment to standards that transcended impulse. This isn't a partisan issue. Europeans who value democratic norms recognize something ominously familiar here. Americans—Democrat and Republican alike—who believe in responsibility and restraint should see it too. Power attracts scrutiny. Leadership demands discipline. A superpower cannot behave like a reality TV contestant without paying a price. The presidency is not a personal broadcast channel. It's a symbol carried on behalf of 330 million people and countless international partners who never voted but whose lives are shaped by American decisions anyway. Every post either reinforces or erodes the idea that America can be counted on when it matters most. So the question is no longer whether this is offensive. The question is whether this is who America chooses to be: a nation that trades a century of hard-won reputation for viral moments. A country that replaces statecraft with content creation. A republic governed like a season of reality television. History offers a harsh lesson here. Great powers don't fall because enemies mock them. They collapse when they begin mocking themselves—publicly, proudly, and without grasping the cost until it's far too late. Stay connected, Follow Gandalv @Microinteracti1

@alaconventure @mikemcintyrewpg Learn how to spell.

Quite surreal to hear the argument that the problem with Venezuela was that it was selling oil to US adversaries given that it was the US that decided in 2019 to stop buying Venezuelan oil.