How many are there now? I didn't know there was more than like two (maybe three?) movies, is there more?
thebestaquaman
joined 2 years ago
They don't address any of that. It's essentially an "every person for themselves" situation, where those that can afford it hole up in highly secured homes, while people living on the streets are hunted for sport.
The do mention crime within households when this one guy sneaks into his girlfriends home and tries to shoot her father though. However, nothing like what you're mentioning.
Not only are there warnings: Around a month ago, a fund that has funded some students at top US universities quite literally evacuated several of the students they were funding.
We're talking about Norwegian students in the US getting a call telling them to "get your passport, and get on the first possible flight home, don't worry, we're paying." This was just around when people with certain skin colours, political opinions, or sexual preferences started getting snatched off the streets.
That's when I realised how absolutely fucked shit has gotten over there. When Norwegian citizens on student visas were literally told to evacuate the country.
Still remember the first time I saw this. It was the last time I touched YouTube for a looong time.
It would cost them absolutely nothing to show a feed of hot/high rated/popular videos. Throwing in some entropy such that it doesn't only show the most viewed videos globally wouldn't be hard at all either. They're just openly stating that they don't want you there at all if they can't track your viewership.
Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. I'll also agree that Iran definitely should not have nuclear weapons, especially when keeping in mind that they've openly stated that they want to wipe Israel off the map (implicitly saying it could or should be done in a violent way).
However, two wrongs don't make a right, and these attacks remain blatant violations of international law and the UN charter. If "we" want to maintain any semblance of supporting a rule-based world order, as opposed to just "right of the strongest", we can't accept these kind of violations of international law.
This is where you're dead wrong. A country amassing weapons is not a justification for preemptively attacking them. Much less so when there's not even consensus that they're amassing the weapons you say they are.
This is just absurd to claim. It's like saying russia was justified in attacking Ukraine because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. It's like saying that you're justified in shooting someone because you think they are going to buy a gun. Just ask yourself: When was the last time Iran launched "preemptive" strikes on Israel, or conducted "preemptive" assassinations on Israeli soil?
If anything, these strikes prove to Iran that unless they acquire nuclear weapons, they will never be able to deter Israel and the US from conducting "preemptive" strikes and assassinations on their soil. I can completely understand the Iranian regime for reasoning that "Whelp, we had a deal, and the US withdrew from it. Then we were actively holding negotiations and they bombed us. It looks like the only way we can ensure they leave us alone is acquiring MAD capabilities."
Saying Israel has no right to exist is covered in an isolated sense in every EU country I can think of. It only becomes a problem if you say or imply that committing genocide against Israelis is a "solution", or otherwise advocate for violence or hate crimes.
Saying that "a two state solution can never work, Israel should be absorbed by Palestine and other neighbouring countries" is a legitimate political opinion that is protected by free speech.
Latest news (Sorry its in Norwegian) says that several Iranian sources say they have agreed to a ceasefire. However, some of the top leaders in Iran have apparently said that there is no deal about a ceasefire, but that they "will not continue their response if Israel stops its illegal attacks on them", which is essentially agreeing to a ceasefire by saying "we won't shoot anymore as long as you don't".
However, it seems a bit unclear when this was supposed to go into effect. Some Iranian sources said 0400 (Iran time), while other sources have said 0200 and 0600 (unclear what time zone).
Iran was attacked here. No amount of "what about the WMD's" makes the attacks on them by the US and Israel legal under international law.
Iran had a deal that allowed other countries to control their nuclear sector. The US left that deal. Iran was taking part in negotiations about a new deal. The US bombed them. What has been done to Iran here is a terrible violation of international law, and a terrible violation of their sovereignty.
I've read that the UN atomic energy commission has also said that they haven't measured any increases in radiation, so it doesn't look likely to me that Iran is hiding anything.
I also saw an article where they showed satellite images indicating that Iran may have evacuated a lot of materiel from Fordow shortly before the strikes.
Yellow card for faking injuries
Make it red, and add a multi-match ban for repeat offenders. This is a culture problem in the sport that should have been dealt with years ago. I can only imagine how effective it would be to just send off a player for simulating. No questions asked. I would love to see the look on their face when they flop down and are immediately escorted off the pitch.
I don't really know if this fits in this community, if not just take it down. The map is from the BlackBird group.
Regarding the recent strikes on the Seim river crossings, I've been speculating what Ukraines plans are. Not too long ago, the Ukranian advance around Korenevo slowed a bit. Then they started systematically hitting the Seim river crossings, of which ISW assesses there is only one left.
If the goal was to encircle and trap Russian units, I would assume that Ukraine would make a hard push through Korenevo to the river. As it looks now, it seems like they are leaving a small corridor open. Whether that is due to Russian resistance or Ukrainian planning I have no idea.
This makes me wonder whether they are intentionally leaving a small opening (See: Sun Tzu) to try to make Russian forces low on resources funnel through the opening where they can inflict heavy casualties, or whether they are trying to force the Russians to expend resources trying to prevent being cut off before they close the net.
In any case, I can see Ukraine wanting to secure another major road towards Korenevo that they can use to supply the offensive.
Of course, I don't want anyone to reveal anything that could violate OPSEC, everything I read is based on OSINT. I'm just interested and would like to hear other peoples speculations.
view more: next ›
Aha! I can tell I am totally unqualified to speak on what they do and do not address. Thanks for informing me :)