286437714's recent activity
-
Comment on European governments see a threatening Russian campaign of covert and deniable actions aimed at unsettling Ukraine's allies and eroding Western unity in ~society
-
Comment on European governments see a threatening Russian campaign of covert and deniable actions aimed at unsettling Ukraine's allies and eroding Western unity in ~society
286437714 Link ParentIn 2022, the talk around what might trigger Article 5 was things like breaches of Polish borders or airspace, Russian assassinations on NATO soil, attacks on NATO critical infrastructure, and...In 2022, the talk around what might trigger Article 5 was things like breaches of Polish borders or airspace, Russian assassinations on NATO soil, attacks on NATO critical infrastructure, and drones 'accidentally' even landing inert within NATO member state borders.
All of that's happened since then.
Now the consensus over what would trigger an Article 5 invocation is deeply unclear. In the last four years, the solidity of 'attack on one is an attack on all' has been shattered.
We have member states debating what constitutes an attack. Russian-backed far-right politicians are making surging gains. As is often said, either Trump is acting for Russia, or he's taking actions that further Putin's agenda by sheer stupidity.
The US nuclear umbrella for non-armed states has disappeared, and the combination of drone probing, information warfare, and the blurring of once-clear lines has made the triggering of Europe's most powerful deterrent much weaker.
Like @Eric_the_Cerise said, there is no way Russia will be drawn into a conventional conflict with NATO, even with the US on the sidelines. But the Russian definition of war is not a binary, and they've been successfully winning 'unfair' fights against European nations for the past decade.
And as you said, I think it's unlikely major players will stir for a part of Estonia, or Latvia, or Lithuania. Unless Putin develops a severe cognitive impairment and commits conventional forces over a border again.
I really hope I'm wrong.
-
Comment on Interview: Firefox’s chief on why he hopes a redesign will help win users from Chrome in ~tech
286437714 Link ParentDefinitely. There was a huge spike of bugs when they were trying to use the Liquid Glass UI a few months ago. They then switched over to their own, MacOS-themed UI in version 1.1, released in...Definitely. There was a huge spike of bugs when they were trying to use the Liquid Glass UI a few months ago. They then switched over to their own, MacOS-themed UI in version 1.1, released in June, which has really increased performance and decreased bugs. I've found the dev team responsive and they tend to prioritize the important issues with quick fixes
Being able to customise the menu bar far more than Chrome or other Chromium forks on MacOS is really nice. Mostly, when I have website rendering issues in Orion now, they're also present in Safari.
-
Comment on Men arrested on suspicion of explosives offences near US air base in Britain following "major incident" in ~news
286437714 Link ParentIt can be pretty confusing, but if you're up for some jargon, here it is (I always enjoy learning about US university systems from you, so hopefully this isn't very boring): Exercise: This is the...It can be pretty confusing, but if you're up for some jargon, here it is (I always enjoy learning about US university systems from you, so hopefully this isn't very boring):
Exercise: This is the parent category. From NATO Glossary: 'Military manoeuvre or simulated wartime operation involving planning, preparation, execution. Purpose: training and evaluation.'
But then there are different types of exercise.
LIVEX: NATO term for Live Exercise. Forces and participants actually deploy and act in the field under simulated conditions. Real equipment, real movement, real command elements employed. Highest resource cost, and takes a lot of planning. Calendars for LIVEX activities are usually planned years in advance, unless it's to bolster deterrence (like, Danish and German troops going to Greenland to 'exercise together and increase interoperability' when Trump was threatening invasion). The main point is to test how stuff actually works in the real world, especially new operational plans or warfighting concepts. Can be as small as a few people or as big as a giant multinational multiweek event, like RIMPAC. Americans call this a field training exercise, or FTX.
TTX: NATO term for table top exercise. They're discussion-based. Participants walk through a scenario around a table or map, with no forces deployed. There's no simulation of forces beyond a narrative, and 'injects' ('Holy shit this just happened, what do you do?') by the exercise planners. These test plans, procedures, and especially senior decision-making. They cost very little and are very important. Now that I think about it, it's like military DnD. As fun as it is to be in the field trying to achieve objectives and practicing different kinda attacks and riding in helicopters and all that cool stuff, past a certain age, it's nice to have a comfy room and catering.
Wargaming: This is the one the media gets wrong the most. Wargaming is scenario-based warfare, and is much more structured than a tabletop exercise. The outcome and sequence of events affect, and are affected by, player decisions. These are adjudicated to see if a certain 'move' is actually possible given the forces a player has at their disposal, so people can't just say 'I deploy my secret quantum-navigated hypersonic weapon I've been researching these last three turns' (someone did this in one I was in once, it was so stupid). The purpose is to explore concepts, analyse different capabilities (normally platforms, like, which ship/plane/tank should we consider?), or educate the audience in new or future aspects of warfare. Unlike the other two, wargaming does not certify a unit, a group of units, or a country as being Ready for use in a real-world operation.
What the hell is an operation anyway?: operation: military, security agency or specialist policing action to achieve an overarching strategic end state. For example the UK probably has an overarching national 'stop terrorism' mission, and this was probably a discrete operation as part of it. An operation is taking forces that are certified to do certain things and using them to achieve the desired outcome.
What's interesting is the way this has been twisted by the Trump regime, and by Bush and Obama before them. Operations used to be either part of standing military or intelligence tasking (like, Operation Hands Off Our Fish or something, to monitor and intercept illegal fishing). During declared wars, the operational level of war was used to advance victory in a war - Operation Neptune was D-Day, Operation Olympic was the planned invasion of the south of Japan, Operation Coronet was the follow-on force to capture Tokyo and the plains around it.
Nowadays, the operational level of warfare (which has a defined military meaning) seems to be used by politicians to say 'hey, we're not at war!' For example, the war against the Islamic State - a self-declared and somewhat recognisable state with a political structure, a finance system, and a monopoly on the use of force - was Operation Inherent Resolve, to the Americans, anyway. The invasion of Iraq was Operation Iraqi Freedom, the war against Iran is... Operation Epic Fury.
In the US context, this twisting of the words seems to be used to avoid getting congressional approval to do stuff. Whereas military operations (or intelligence, or policing) used to tend to be time-bound, goal-specific, and contribute to a larger national objective, calling a war an operation means that the Combatant Command (in this case, Central Command, or CENTCOM) only needs approval from the Secretary of Defense to launch it. Convenient, huh?
My country (and most other NATO nations) still tends to use operation in the doctrinal sense: something that is done in a specific time frame, to achieve something, and once that's achieved, job done and everybody gets a little medal. But my country isn't a superpower and wouldn't and can't unilaterally declare war on major powers anyway, so maybe we'd use the same twisty language if we were big assholes too.
You could look at the Orangemen's lawfare and planned marches as an operation to further a strategic objective. Their goal is to piss off nationalists and Catholics and delay unification. They march every July - in the military that'd be called a Planned Presence Operation, or Routine Visible Deployment, to show the adversary we're still around and still capable. This dumbass one in Portadown would be called a Show of Force or, in the US, a Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOPS, done most commonly in the South China Sea). The point is to show an adversary that, even though you don't want us on your turf, we can do it, and we will. It's an intentionally dick move to discomfort and frighten an adversary, and change their decision calculus - 'Oh shit, we didn't think they'd do it, so we're gonna have to either confront them or just let it happen...'
Luckily, the Orangemen aren't a military, and they're just dumbass bullies, and their operation to Show Force has been met with massive and fast-mobilised resistance. That's an example of a Contingency Response on behalf of the counter-protestors, or what's colloquially known as Crash Deployment - crashing through all impediments to get there as quickly as possible and do what you can with what you have. And they're achieving their strategic objective of countering the Orange Order's intent to create community fear and discomfort. So well done to them
SecUnit end message :)
-
Comment on Interview: Firefox’s chief on why he hopes a redesign will help win users from Chrome in ~tech
286437714 Link ParentI use Kagi's Orion browser and I'm very happy with it. It's webkit based, like Safari. MacOS and iOS only, however.I use Kagi's Orion browser and I'm very happy with it. It's webkit based, like Safari. MacOS and iOS only, however.
-
Comment on Men arrested on suspicion of explosives offences near US air base in Britain following "major incident" in ~news
286437714 Link ParentI was about to put it forward as a suggestion in this thread! I'm glad you've seen it, it's one of my favouritesI was about to put it forward as a suggestion in this thread!
I'm glad you've seen it, it's one of my favourites
-
Comment on Men arrested on suspicion of explosives offences near US air base in Britain following "major incident" in ~news
286437714 Link ParentMy suggestion (based on just what information is public) is that there seems to have been a genuine belief that these guys were planning some kind of operation against the RAF base. The...My suggestion (based on just what information is public) is that there seems to have been a genuine belief that these guys were planning some kind of operation against the RAF base.
The pre-positioning of covert forces and direct action (shoot to kill) counter terrorism teams, with air assets (drones and helicopters), as well as using gear from the UK Armed Forces would be hugely expensive for a 'eh, maybe.'
I really don't think it was an exercise. Firstly, organising big, joint, interagency exercises takes years of planning. Secondly, covert operatives seem to have been in the area for a few days, which indicates to me that there was credible intelligence that caused the deployment of so many in-demand resources. Thirdly, the speed of the response as well as government statements that they'd been tracking the vehicles indicates that they were waiting for something.
If I had to put forward a non-dogging theory, my paranoid side says this was a well-orchestrated diversion and something else may have happened elsewhere in the country while the nation's CT capability was tied up on an intentional distraction.
My bureaucracies-are-stupid side is inclined to go with what @mat has heard - people saw brown guys doing petty crime in a rural area, conclusions were jumped to because of the proximity of US air assets, and someone might have to give a very embarrassing testimony to an enquiry.
It's weird, but there's also a lot of explanations between 'Genius misdirect by Iran' or 'Diesel thieves accidentally treated as hyper-ninja-terrorists'.
I still really, really hope it was a dogging session being watched by satellites, high altitude Full Motion Video drones, covert surveillance operatives, and COBRA. It'd make for an amazing Armando Iannucci movie
-
Comment on Men arrested on suspicion of explosives offences near US air base in Britain following "major incident" in ~news
286437714 (edited )Link ParentThe Guardian reported today that no explosives material was found in the vans. Wes Streeting, Defence Secretary, heavily implied that the woman who made the 999 call 'didn't have the full picture'...The Guardian reported today that no explosives material was found in the vans.
Wes Streeting, Defence Secretary, heavily implied that the woman who made the 999 call 'didn't have the full picture' and this was being tracked by the security services.
Tristan Wilkinson, a cabinet member for Cotswold district council and councillor for the Lechlade, Kempsford and Fairford South ward, which covers Whelford, said: “The American president indicated last night in front of journalists that there was some intelligence and that these individuals were under surveillance.
“If that was to be true, that they would have been allowed to get so close to the base and drive what was, at the time, believed to be bombs into residential areas of a small village, I can’t imagine the security services allowing that to happen.
“I would have expected them to have done a hard stop on the van before they got to people’s homes. So that that doesn’t feel right.
“It seems insane that this appears to have been a tipoff from a member of the public, and the security services are claiming that there was a level of intelligence involved as well. I don’t see how those two things can both come through at the same time.”
The account of the farmer who called it in would seem (from her perspective, and people not in the world of security) to lend further credence to the likelihood that this was a mad scramble emergency response, not something that was being actively monitored.
With respect to the farmer and the Councillor, the story of 'a member of the public, had to call this in and it was only then that police acted' doesn't make sense. The speed of the response indicates that counter terrorist assets (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms; direct action armed CT police; air assets) had been pre-positioned for emergency response. That's the biggest thing that stands out to me, as there are not generally helos full of commando ninja cops flying around the Cotswolds. Partly due to the insane cost that would incur the government, partly because it's a posh area and it'd generate noise complaints.
So, the story started as 'five men nearly blow up a RAF base used by strategic bombers from the United States in an attack likely backed by Iran.' But there were no viable explosives (no info on explosive precursors), and the men have been released on bail. Given the UK's broad powers in terrorist incidents, this indicates they are not viewed as a threat to the base or the community at large based on the information available.
The hypothesis I think would be the funniest would be a three van dogging expedition being spun as a Major Incident terrorist threat.
And just as I was writing that, I found an open source summary to back the above this-feels-like-a-planned-operation assessment up:
The farmer acknowledged there had been “activity” by what she “assumed were plain-clothed police officers” in the area in recent days. Another local told the BBC that while walking their dog early on Saturday evening they were stopped by armed police and told to return home.
Gloucestershire constabulary said they were first alerted to the suspicious vans at 12.45am on Sunday – almost an hour before the farmer’s 999 call. Counter-terror police have confirmed the three vehicles had been travelling overnight and been subject to extensive examination, with the support of military assets and forensic experts. It is now understood that the material found inside them was not viable explosives, but police have said the investigation is continuing.
And then there’s the expeditious nature of the response: the speed with which armed officers and police helicopters arrived at a rural location in the middle of the night appears improbable.
I really hope it's dogging. No matter what it turns out to be, this is one of the strangest series of events I've seen in CT
-
Comment on Men arrested on suspicion of explosives offences near US air base in Britain following "major incident" in ~news
286437714 Link ParentNo, none taken. I put that in my bio because, in happier threads, I pretend to be a SecUnit from the Murderbot diaries. I very much relate to the contradictions between shutting up and doing the...No, none taken. I put that in my bio because, in happier threads, I pretend to be a SecUnit from the Murderbot diaries. I very much relate to the contradictions between shutting up and doing the job and forcing down the emotions that come with it.
I think the series has a really unique ability to capture the confusion and weirdness about transitioning from a military or security career into regular old life
‘It’s normal to feel conflict. You were part of something for a long time. You hate it, and it was a terrible thing. But it created you, and you were part of it.’ (Network Effect, by Martha Wells)
The latest book has the SecUnit performing regular emotion checks when it's doing its job, to try and integrate the cold, analytical side with the side that feels emotions and wants to repress them.
I've been working on that with my therapist, but after years and years of expertly designed indoctrination, it's not easy!
-
Comment on Men arrested on suspicion of explosives offences near US air base in Britain following "major incident" in ~news
286437714 Link ParentUhhh... I am definitely not a robot. @DefinitelyNotAFae can back me up. I'm just a regular human with taxes and sadness!Uhhh... I am definitely not a robot.
@DefinitelyNotAFae can back me up. I'm just a regular human with taxes and sadness!
-
Comment on Men arrested on suspicion of explosives offences near US air base in Britain following "major incident" in ~news
286437714 Link ParentI'm very sorry for coming off cold. I feel similarly to you, and am also in the region of 'ongoing operations'. I am very unlikely to be called up to participate in a very stupid allied support...I'm very sorry for coming off cold.
I feel similarly to you, and am also in the region of 'ongoing operations'. I am very unlikely to be called up to participate in a very stupid allied support role to a war of aggression, but the chances aren't zero.
For context, the majority of my operational history was spent in the fight against ISIS. I could obviously recognise the fact that, without American invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, and lack of American assistance during the Arab spring, ISIS would not have come into existence in such a huge way.
But at the same time, I saw atrocity after atrocity being committed by ISIS and ISIS-affiliated groups. I didn't think that killing every member of the organisation would suddenly bring peace to the Middle East, but it was easy for me to see how eliminated that group would stop the killing of civilians, the use of noncombattants as human shields, and so many other crimes against humanity that I cannot list here.
It may be hard to believe, but even the Americans were meticulous about rules of engagement and the laws of armed conflict during that time. The strategic point was to be cold, clinical, and not get baited into attacks of revenge or commit similar atrocities.
I was convinced that this approach would serve as a future deterrent to others by general officers from my own country who I respected as ethical people. It made me feel okay about being part of a mostly-US led coalition, because the focus was on showing how we were different, and all member nations would uphold international humanitarian law.
In the span of less than a decade, that is all gone now. It could definitely be argued that the US pretended to care when it was strategically beneficial to them, but they don't even bother anymore.
I've been thinking a lot about this quote from Andor recently. I am very glad my country said no to joining this madness, but I am not convinced America will not find a way to drag us in.
I hope you are safe, you and your loved ones know peace, and the war stays on the other side of the border <3
Re-reading this, even this sounds cold! I promise I am human, it is just very hard for me to write about these things without breaking the emotional dam and sobbing over everything that has been lost
-
Comment on Men arrested on suspicion of explosives offences near US air base in Britain following "major incident" in ~news
286437714 Link ParentI would treat with extreme suspicion anyone who wasn't angry, upset, hurt, sad, and frustrated with the state of the world. We're collectively being asked to ignore the collapse of a world order...I would treat with extreme suspicion anyone who wasn't angry, upset, hurt, sad, and frustrated with the state of the world.
We're collectively being asked to ignore the collapse of a world order that was never fair, but functionally contained mass slaughter at the scale that's currently being committed.
There are at least three agreed ongoing genocides with no external intervention, despite the many promises made after Rwanda and the Balkans and Darfur (the first time).
The Israeli genocide against Palestinians is being used to suppress the opinion 'I am opposed to children being targeted for death', around the world. People have lost jobs, friends, and their lives in trying to peacefully protest a truly evil campaing of calculated extermination.
You don't have to see yourself out, and I'm sorry if I came off confrontational. My writing sounds cold and analytical because I would like to try and help people understand what is going on, and if I decomparmentalise my feelings of rage, hopelessness, and utter despair, I can't do that very well.
Wherever you are in the world, I hope you're safe, and I am sending you good wishes. I am sorry again if I came off as rude.
-
Comment on Men arrested on suspicion of explosives offences near US air base in Britain following "major incident" in ~news
286437714 Link ParentThe definitions of these terms is heavily contested in security studies academia and amongst military/security/intelligence professionals, let alone common usage. Let alone common usage that's...The definitions of these terms is heavily contested in security studies academia and amongst military/security/intelligence professionals, let alone common usage. Let alone common usage that's intentionally diluted and twisted by political agendas in countries with extremely concentrated media ownership.
When I went through military education for my masters, most academics in the field defined Israel's treatment of Palestinians and the US's campaign of capture/kill raid missions in Afghanistan and Iraq as state terrorism. This was at a military university that was in alliances with the United States.
This contrasts with state-sponsored terrorism, which is seemingly how this attack attempt is being framed.
I was using security studies definitions that I learned, to differentiate between the UK's definition of terrorism before and after Keir Starmer's government's changes.
If your belief is that attacking military equipment/personnel is not terrorism, there are plenty of people that would support that view. It is not settled.
It's worth noting that these terms have lost their clear utility since the decline of states formally declaring war against each other. The concept was far more useful when describing violent acts outside of wartime, and arguably before total industrial mobilisation.
Given that Russia maintains its war and invasion of Ukraine is a special military operation. The US war against Iran is not defined by the US as a war. It gets confusing when technical terminology is obfuscated in order to evade international sanctions or domestic constraints.
I'm not sure how you got the impression that I thought Iran was somehow unique or notable for state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism. The list for the United States is long.
It's very difficult to discuss this topic without choosing some kind of definition, so I went with the one I felt was best supported by those who study the topic professionally. Like many things in academia, there is a huge delta between the commonly understood understanding amongst researchers and profesionals in this field and the common understanding in English.
For this particular incident, the shift in definitions and focus in the United Kingdom from 2020 to now is significant.
Me attempting to describe this changed and diluted understanding of terrorism in the UK does not mean I endorse their definitions, or how the concept is framed in multilateral fora, by the main global powers destabilising the world at the moment, and especially by states currently in the process of committing genocide.
-
Comment on Men arrested on suspicion of explosives offences near US air base in Britain following "major incident" in ~news
286437714 Link ParentI didn't know that. Thank you for the information, provides better contextI didn't know that. Thank you for the information, provides better context
-
Comment on Men arrested on suspicion of explosives offences near US air base in Britain following "major incident" in ~news
286437714 (edited )Link ParentThank you for picking that up. Seeing that in my own comment is scary. I was trying to use the language that I've seen in the context of the debates in the United Kingdom and it is frightening, to...Thank you for picking that up.
Seeing that in my own comment is scary. I was trying to use the language that I've seen in the context of the debates in the United Kingdom and it is frightening, to me, that this slipped through into my own writing.
To be clear, I don't think that this is a far-left position. That framing is ridiculous. It is just a logical conclusion to come to based on historical data, as well as the experiences of other nations.
Supporting an active genocide makes a country more exposed to attack by opponents of genocide. Even more so when debate about whether support of the genocide is wise or ethical or correct is suppressed so fully.
Asking people to send polite letters to their MP or just suck it up builds a domestic pressure-cooker. It is plain as day that countries supporting Israel militarily through arms sales and military logistics are at far greater risk of sabotage, infiltration, and attack by anti-genocide figures who have given up on any chance of a peaceful solution arrived at by multilateral institutions expressing concern.
Whether the threat is coming through the actions of domestic actors or an international network is a matter for the security services to deal with. The policy creates the risk environment for the threat to exist.
Thanks again. I'm not being sarcastic, I genuinely appreciate it, and it's a good reminder of how the twisting of language and active campaigning by the Israeli government causes a chilling effect globally.
-
Comment on Men arrested on suspicion of explosives offences near US air base in Britain following "major incident" in ~news
286437714 (edited )Link ParentI do get what you're saying, and I don't necessarily disagree. I think it provides a particularly difficult environment for UK-based security professionals to be working in. For those that don't...- Exemplary
I do get what you're saying, and I don't necessarily disagree. I think it provides a particularly difficult environment for UK-based security professionals to be working in.
For those that don't know, the UK's Labour government has broadened the definition of terrorism since Israel's genocide in Gaza became obvious, and dissent started picking up serious momentum.
Practically, this meant that acts that previously would have been classified as criminal damage (splashing red paint on RAF fast jets) or normal protest have now been charged as terrorism. Belonging to one particular anti-genocide group was, briefly, a criminal offence, as that group was sectioned as a terrorist organisation, until the ruling was overturned.
What this has done, in my view, has severely diluted the popularly understood meaning of the term terrorism, as well as making it far more difficult for UK security services (hello! Hope you're well, genuinely) to do their jobs.
What is happening here is far more likely to be terrorism in the traditional definition than the broader sense. Given the RAF base was supporting long rang bombing missions for America's war against Iran, and given Iran's long history of sponsoring attacks in other countries to inflict violence to further their political goals, that seems to be what's happening here. (NB: It is very early days, this could be completely incorrect.)
I have no special insight into the strain on the UK's security and policing apparatus at a given moment, but the broadening of the defition of terrorism implies the broadening of the use of niche, limited capabilities for surveillance, investigation, and direct action to be used for purposes other than which they were designed and trained.
The fact that this major incident was noticed by a motorist on their way home who called the police could certainly be perceived to be an extremely near miss for what would have been the most serious act of terrorism - political violence, using explosives, potentially state-sponsored - since the 7 July bombings in 2005.
Even the use of the word terrorism has, in my view, creating a more febrile security situation in the UK over the past two years. Right wing figures have been calling for investigations, arrests, and the use of state resources over protest groups.
Left wing figures have been asking why this same level of attention hasn't been given to far-right protests. Right-wing protest groups seems to have a freedom of action denied to left wing groups. This has included severe political violence, such as the fire bombing of refugee accomodation, and the recent blocking of Royal National Lifeboat Institution launch jetties to stop rescues of drowning refugees in the channel.
What this does in practice is, I think, stretch security services beyond their designed limit and scope. What it does in the information domain in which the UK is engaged in hybrid conflict against Russia is create even more confusion and polarisation when an act of definitive, dictionary definition, 'I know it when I see it' terrorism is nearly carried out.
It seems likely that this attack was aimed at the UK and the specific RAF base because of previous Iranian statements about providing air base support for the US's war. This particular airbase was home to long-range strategic bombers. If the UK authorities come to the conclusion that this was an Iranian-backed attack attempt, the broadened legal and colloquial definition of terrorism allows several gaps for adversaries to exploit.
Far-right figures may blame anti-genocide protestors, or, as has been common, Muslims in general, and immigrants to Britain specifically, regardless of ties to Iran or global jihadi ideology. One of their frequent talking points is that more protesting for human rights in Gaza means attracting more attention from Islamist extremists. Open source reporting indicates that Russia has amplified this line against several democracies in Europe.
Far-left figures may focus instead on how this is a natural evolution of providing logistics support and arms to Israel. That, again, could be easily amplified by a state actor.
And in between those two extremes, there is a large patch of ground open to exploitation to adversaries of the UK, NATO, and the EU to exploit. This woould increase societal divides and make the UK less resilient to future attacks.
Language matters, especially when driven by national leaders. I think your point about 'does the term even have meaning anymore?' actually has real-world implications for the UK's national preparedness for terrorist attacks, as well as completely deadening the public debate that might have arisen from this (thankfully) near-miss.
Because dissent has been highlighted and defined as an act of terrorism, those who may have voiced concerns over continued basing support of the US's war against Iran may pre-emptively silence themselves. They have seen what happens to people that speak out.
There is obviously a very legitimate conversation to be had in the United Kingdom about whether supporting the US in this war is worth the potential cost. There's an even bigger conversation to be had about Keir Starmer's position that the US could use UK facilities for 'defensive operations' being interpreted by America as a green light to use Britain as the launching point for B-1 and B-52 bomber missions. I think it would be intellectually dishonest in the extreme to argue these sorties can be defined as defensive in any way.
Starmer is out of power and has been replaced by Andy Burnham, from the same party with roughly the same policy positions. This could have served as a national moment for reset, renegotiation of basing agreements, or a Canada-style break from the US. However, the same centrist figures in the UK who pushed for the broadened definition of terrorism may now find it impossible to have a conversation around genuine terrorist risk to their country, or spend political capital on an issue they find much more central to their own national interests.
The whole thing reminds me of a quote from Jeri Taylor, who wrote the Star Trek TNG episode The Drumhead, delivered by Sir Patrick Stewart:
With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied. It chains us all irrevocably.
-
Comment on Babylon 5 S02E04: "A Distant Star" - Episode Discussion in ~tv
286437714 LinkI was about to link to the NYT list of the 100 Best TV Shows, because I was surprised Babylon 5 scored so highly. It turns out I have been confusing Babylon 5 with Battlestar Galactica my entire...I was about to link to the NYT list of the 100 Best TV Shows, because I was surprised Babylon 5 scored so highly.
It turns out I have been confusing Babylon 5 with Battlestar Galactica my entire life.
I feel like a sci fi failure
-
Comment on The literary world’s DEI checklist in ~books
286437714 Link ParentKagi Orion, which is a WebKit-based Safari like browser. It can install extensions for either Firefox or Chrome, but compatibility can be an issue. Please don't go to all this effort just on my...Kagi Orion, which is a WebKit-based Safari like browser. It can install extensions for either Firefox or Chrome, but compatibility can be an issue.
Please don't go to all this effort just on my account. I think there was a uBlock rule posted a while ago that might do the same thing
-
Comment on The literary world’s DEI checklist in ~books
-
Comment on The literary world’s DEI checklist in ~books
286437714 Link ParentThe ability to flag threads that aren't likely to lead to productive discussion was a conversation had on Tildes a few months ago, and the feature's not coming as development has ceased. I've...The ability to flag threads that aren't likely to lead to productive discussion was a conversation had on Tildes a few months ago, and the feature's not coming as development has ceased.
I've found tags work well for the frequent topics that cause upset and anger (Gamergate, politics.usa, and certain authors). I hadn't actually noticed the 'Ignore' button on submissions before, so I feel a bit silly. Thanks for pointing out it's an option!
I think without American intervention in 2022, Ukraine would have been over in a year. They had best-in-the-world diplomatic heft, information warfare capability, and extraordinary soft power.
Without that in a future Russian special military operation, I honestly don't know what will happen.
There was a phrase I liked from a course I did - nations have no permanent allies or foes, only permanent interests. An English diplomat said it.
It is one of the many reasons I don't hang out with diplomats.