That's not what anarchism is.

I like to call anarchism as neighborliness extended as a political ideology. Consider it libertarianism with a pinch of collectivism

You do it all the time when you organize a group of friends to go to the movies. There is no elected leader.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, they destroyed a lot of public and military comms infrastructure, so the military ended up teaming up with anarchists because they had a decentralized comms going.

Anarchism is compatible with existing political ideologies, however in my opinion works best at small scales.

I don't think the analogy to Egypt works, because they have a peace treaty.

We all know Israel and Saudi Arabia have a shared adversary in the form of Iran. The US wants them to normalize so they can take care of that front.

As for getting impaled on the stick, I'd say Pakistan got impaled on the stick, because its likely they were the ones hiding Bin Laden.

As for Saddam falling on the stick, that was due to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait over several reasons: a desire to reunify, oil, and Kuwait debt. That's on top of having a history of using chemical weapons for mass murder.

And as we know, the US loves oil, but so does the world. Globalized markets want to be stable, and the US helps with that

A lot of people dont understand US foreign policy. Do not interpret my post as taking a stance.

US foreign policy is all about 3 key issues, carrot and stick diplomacy, containing China and Russia, and protecting the global market.

Carrot and stick diplomacy is using positive reinforcement to make changes in totalitarian governments.

Containing China is all about making friends with countries near China and putting a base there, along with allowing companies, military arms deals, and joint intelligence to happen in that country.

• That is why the US wants Saudi Arabia and Israel to normalize. And do to that, the US turns a blind eye to tons of bullshit done by countries in the Middle East. If they were to normalize, then a solid logistics chain from Europe to the Gulf can be established, and the two countries would bolster the front there. Then the US could pivot its power projection over to Taiwan.
• The US is powerful, but its not tactically sound to manage three fronts at the same time.

If you remember how pissed off the US got when Russia put missiles in Cuba, then you can see why China and Russia will team up with everyone they can to foil this plan to contain them.

Since the world is now globalized, the US has to protect lots of boats carrying oil, chips, and food. If something fucks up, then everyone pays for it. Of course, if youre resisting western imperialism then its in your best interest to make people suffer by blowing up the boats.

Now geopolitics makes sense.

From here, then if youre an idealist, you can make an informed opinion on US foreign policy. Should the US continue its world police campaign at the expense of people suffering under its allies?

Can you achieve US foreign policy goals without suffering?

Will a reversal of US foreign policy lead to more domestic suffering in the West due to economic turmoil?

These questions should be debated and examined thoroughly.

Nope its definitely accurate!

Indycar does not have a constructors championship, and the format encourages each car to operate as its own team, and since all the teams (except McLaren) are owned by one random guy, that encourages them to make each car they field to have more sponsors. And the brand appeal of like, one guy, isn't as powerful as something like McLaren, a famous car company with the color Orange.

Anyone heard of Penske? RLL? Meyer Shank? Dale Coyn? No. Aside from Penske, those other names are only big names within Indycars history, just like Hendricks is only big inside Nascar history.

IndyCar is pretty popular, but because of the company split in the 90s, there was no one to compete with Nascar throughout the 90s and 00s in terms of US popularity. So essentially the entire series is really behind and hasnt built up financial appeal to sponsors.

Thus, in order to keep staying in business, the teams sell ad space on the cars anytime they can, leading to teams running special liveries for one race, a driver bringing a big sponsor so the team changes the car to accomodate, and all the cars look different.

Different enough to warrant a spotters guide for a few races.

IndyCar could change that by enforcing a team liverie, but I bet the teams wouldn't like that.

For an average race, the teams don't really do team orders. It's VERY rare. And teams usually allow their own drivers to fight hard all the time. Since teams as a whole don't affect the race, you don't focus on that much.

Team owners only care if one of their drivers causes another to crash, and they don't care who wins because each driver they field is another chance at a win.

Nah it's because they decided to use cameras instead of LiDAR and then try to make it autonomous instead of driver aid.

AI is at its best when it's opening up productivity and freedom to think critically or leisurely, the same way sticky notes help someone study.

They have an official app LOL. You have to get it from their telegram. (I wouldn't do it tbh)

Some of the sources I wanted to sub to but could never afford it are TIME magazine and The Atlantic.

WSJ I don't believe gives all it's articles to Apple. Could be wrong.

I wish the NYT was still in there, but they pulled out a while back.

I think The Guardian is in there though.

Let it be noted that this is an opinion article.

Editorials and Opinion pieces do contribute to social discourse regarding news, and may be correct, but unlike their normal news, they can say whatever they want about the news from the authors they hire.

Opinion pieces allow news sources to use sensationalist and inflammatory articles to drive engagement without harming their credibility, because of that giant OPINION label.

NYT and WSJ's editorials and opinion pieces tend to be quite left and quite right leaning respectfully, to an almost satirical level. In my opinion, the WSJ's comment section under its editorials are much worse.

I'm not disparaging the article in any way, just saying for those that may not already know.

Al Jazeera had been live streaming and live reporting the entire thing, and there are multiple angles and phone videos from them and other sources that show the entire incident, from the rocket barrage, to the booster failure, to the hospital explosion.

The Associated Press has the complete analysis to your question, including the videos I mentioned, posted yesterday.

Alot of the videos in there were confirmed 8 hours after the incident, this is the first mainstream media outlet that put it all together.

The AP was one of the first to report what the Gaza Health Ministry said, "Israel strikes hospital, killing 500", then edited their article 3 times in 1 hour, with new titles and recharacterizing the report as "they said" to try and cover the increasing uncertainty of the situation. Along with the casualty number dropping. Now some might say "But any death at all is bad, 50 or 500!". That's true, it's still really tragic, but it's also a 90% error, which is a disaster for journalism.

The article covers the JDAM theories, the Israel warned them, the Hamas announcing their launching rockets a little after the incident. All things that would make the situation more murky.

I admit I do sound like I'm defending Israel with this. This particular event is a flashpoint for me personally since I'm heavily invested in the state of journalism in an age where the flood of information can overwhelm news and lead to innaccuracies.

The rocket turning around video is a different video from last year.

Unfortunately I got banned from World News on lemmy.ml because posting this was "War Crime Denial" apparently.

Rightfully so.

I didn't think making fun of terrorists could be controversial until today nyaa~

Well if you are like "hurr durr 3rd parties".

The most ironic part of this is that Al Jazeera happened to live stream 2 angles of the entire incident. You can see the rocket launches, and the failed booster of the specific rocket, synced with phones on the ground already recording because they noticed the launch.

You can see how the rocket booster failed over the hospital, and then the explosion.

The videos were geographically confirmed by Geoconfirmed on Twitter, who only geoconfirms things without more analysis.

US intelligence is corroborating this with satellite imagery.

Hamas doesn't have the firepower to cause that big of an explosion, but Islamic Jihad definitely has more powerful rockets that could have done that. They announced a launch like 4 minutes prior to the strike on their telegram I believe.