Is Merkel losing her perspective? Israel’s actions clearly aim to erase the Palestinian presence—only the willfully blind can deny it. Whether or not Russia’s attacks are legal, supporting Israel is a mistake. Angela, you’re smarter than this. Sometimes, silence is wiser than misguided statements.
Free Palestine
I don’t fully agree that Israel is violating international law. When a country’s existence is being questioned by Iran or Hamas, it’s not so easy to respond strictly within the framework of international law,
So if you read international law strictly, it is a violation of it she just disagrees with? She was imo better than our current ICC-ignoring Merz, but come on.
People should reflect how they reacted to this article of Germany’s options to develop nukes from 3 months ago. While seen as “scummy”, I doubt anyone would accept a preemptive strike on countries doing what the article calls “nuclear hedging”.
Imagine instead of asking a lawyer or a judge or a jury in court we would go and ask politicians whether they think someone did or did not break the law. Would be a very different world than the one we have now. And not in a good way.
Everyone saying Ukraine was less a threat to Russia than Iran is to Isreal is 100% right. That is a valid point. Thing is, just being a threat is not a valid reason to bomb another country. What Merkel fails to do is provide a legal argument for Isreal and US bombing Irans nuclear facilties.
It is just more of the ‘Germany should stand behind Israel because of what Germans did to Jews in WW2’. I’d much rather see her ‘stand behind victims of Genocide because of what Germans did to earlier victims of genocide’. German politicians are morally wrong with these arguments.
International law is neutral. It is obvious Iran did not start this war. Iran breaking agreements does not give anyone carte-blanche for bombing them, nor does Iran supplying weapons to Russia. Israel bypassed the UN as well. Netanyahu needs to be brought to The Hague. Trump and Khominei too while we’re at it, but I guess those would be separate cases.
Also, the opposite is true. Israel is a big threat to Iran. Would Iran have been justified in bombing Israel first?
Notably, Iran did not break any agreements. America did and Europe toed the party line.
By working on nuclear weapons Iran very much broke the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Iran did not work on nuclear weapons since 2003 as has been maintained by the US intelligence community as late as this year.
This. Claiming Iran has or has worked on WMD is the same fake casus belli as was given with Iraq.
To be fair to Trump, he hasn’t invaded Iran, like Dubya and Papa Bush invaded Iraq: he more like Clinton in that he lobs some missiles to get people minds off of how he’s fouling things up otherwise in the US and world.
he hasn’t invaded Iran
Not yet.
and I doubt it will happen.
IIUC, Iran would be harder to invade and occupy than Iraq: it’s over 2x the size, has about 2x the population, it’s more mountainous, and the regime now might be twice the age, and presumably twice as entrenched, than Saddam’s was in 1991.
Granted, it’s GDP is lower than Iraq’s (now and perhaps before 1991) and IIUC, its arguably more heterogeneous, and Saddam before June 1990 was less antagonistic to the US than Khomeini or Khamenei, so maybe you have a point.
To be fair to Trump
I get what you’re saying but there would have been so many better ways to start that sentence…
IAEA, which has confirmed 60% and above enriched uranium in Iran. There is no reason besides nuclear weapons to enrich uranium to that level. Nuclear reactors are mostly run on 3-5% enriched uranium and 20% is pretty high.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf
WASHINGTON (AP) — Tulsi Gabbard left no doubt when she testified to Congress about Iran’s nuclear program earlier this year.
The country was not building a nuclear weapon, the national intelligence director told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels.
Iran enriched Uranium to higher levels likely as a mean to get to reopen negotiations. Still enriching is not equal to building a bomb. And if the CIA, who love going to war everywhere in the world, can make that distinction publicly, we shouldnt fall behind that.
It is just working on producing the explosives for that bomb. Honestly it ends up being semantics, if not planning to finish something, but working towards that goal, is working towards that goal.
This moment is when I realised the great loss of the closure of lemee, as we no longer can look at how c/Europe reacted to the article “Nuclear bomb for Germany” 3 months ago.
If I remember correctly, like the article claims, “nuclear hedging” was seen as scummy way around the NPT, not a direct violation of it.
Please don’t see me as arguing “He didn’t, and if he did it wasn’t that bad”- I’m simply a different person from the one you argued before.
Another “Iraq has WMDs” dumbass
They’re not working on nuclear weapons. They’re enriching uranium, which can be used for nuclear weapons, but they’re not building a nuke.
To run an nuclear reactor you need uranium enriched to 3-5%. The ONLY reason to enrich to above 20% in any sort of large quantities is to built nuclear weapons. The IAEA a UN agency has confirmed that Iran has produced uranium enriched to 60%.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf
Yet they were still not building nuclear weapons. You claimed they were building nuclear bombs, not that they were doing something that would plausibly maybe indicate they’re building nuclear bombs. Enriching uranium isn’t a violation of the NPT.
You claimed they were building nuclear bombs,
Where did wt:thon claim that?
Besides, IIUC, the actual nuclear bomb making is the relatively easy part: the technology is about 80 years old.
They claimed Iran was violating the NPT, which can only mean one thing.
Iran is the only non nuclear weapon state to produce highly enriched uranium.
Yet there were still no findings that Iran indeed was working towards nuclear weapons. Just having the means to do it isn’t the same as actually doing it.
(that we know of)
To be perfectly clear: at no point has Iran (a non nuclear power) actually existentially threatened Israel (a nuclear power). Netanyahu’s and the Israeli far right’s opportunistically alarmist rhetoric is not fact.
Merkel is just parroting Israeli far-right talking points with no basis in fact.
This is yet another example of the German political establishment taking extremist pro-israeli positions. Contemptible, shameful fucks.
A nuclear-armed Iran would become an existential threat to Israel.
The Israeli apartheid regime’s genocidal policies and its reckless adventuring are far more dangerous generators of existential threats. This war all but guarantees nuclear proliferation in the middle east. Every potential rival of Israel from the Saudis and the Turks to Iranians themselves have just gotten a big red flashing warning in their inboxes that the Jewish-supremacist Israeli apartheid regime and its Jewish-supremacist allies in the West are not rational actors that can be negotiated with. The Westerners and Israel will break deals (like the deal Iran had actually signed), will negotiate in bad faith, will initiate first strikes and will bomb your civilian population following the insane Dahiya doctrine. The only thing they understand is mutually assured destruction (nobody touches the rocket-man in North Korea!). So why the fuck shouldn’t all of the other regional powers race for nuclear weapons at this point?
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Edit: clarified ambiguous “they”.
The Israeli apartheid regime’s genocidal policies and its reckless adventuring are far more dangerous generators of existential threats.
I don’t think so.
I think that the rise of political Islam is a far greater threat from the Middle East.
This war all but guarantees nuclear proliferation in the middle east.
No it doesn’t.
Why would any Middle Eastern country, besides Israel, want to procure nukes? Aside from nuking Israel, why would Iran need them? To repel invasion? Who would invade them besides a lethargic US that miserably failed in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Pete Hegseth or Donald Rumsfeld: which of these SoSs do you think was/is the bigger idiot?
Every potential rival of Israel from the Saudis and the Turks to Iranians themselves have just gotten a big red flashing warning in their inboxes that the Jewish-supremacist Israeli apartheid regime and its Jewish-supremacist allies in the West are not rational actors that can be negotiated with.
Turkey has diplomatic relations with Israel and IIUC, Saudi Arabia was close to it until Putin’s 71st birthday and Israel’s response to events of that day, though IMO, it’s been only postponed a few years. Neither Turkey nor SA are on great terms with Iran, and IIUC, Pakistan has nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
They will break deals (like the deal Iran had actually signed), they will negotiate in bad faith, they will initiate first strike and they will bomb your civilian population following the insane Dahiya doctrine. The only thing they understand is mutually assured destruction (nobody touches the rocket-man in North Korea!). So why the fuck shouldn’t all of them race for nuclear weapons at this point?
Whose “they”?
Even with nukes, I doubt North Korea could destroy the US, but the US could destroy North Korea. Indeed, the US might be able to destroy North Korea without nukes.
Just because the Kim gang slipped through the cracks (IIUC Papa Bush and Dubya were too busy with Iraq; Clinton made deals with NK; and during Obama’s presidency, the occupation of Afghanistan and attempted nation-building there continued, Arab Spring fizzled, Islamic State rose, Russia invaded Ukraine and occupied chunks of it, and after 2010, Congress became even more antagonistic) doesn’t mean that the US will allow Iran to develop nukes.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Indeed. Allāh Akbar.
Your response is just a mix of historical inaccuracies, strategic misreadings, and ideological bias. Calling the US “lethargic” in Iraq and Afghanistan ignores the brutal reality of two decades of military intervention, not a lack of willpower. Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons isn’t some irrational hatred of Israel; it’s a classic deterrence strategy, shaped by watching the US topple regimes in Iraq and Libya. You dismiss this with a shrug while ignoring IAEA reports and decades of nuclear hedging.
You also misrepresent diplomatic dynamics. Turkey-Israel relations have been rocky for over a decade, especially after the Gaza flotilla raid. Saudi-Israeli normalization has stalled due to overwhelming regional anger over Gaza. If (when?) Israel moves forward with ethnically cleansing Gaza and the West Bank as the Israeli right and centre want, it will make things even worse. Saying no one besides Israel wants nukes in the region is false. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have made public statements on the matter. Even Turkey has hinted it won’t be left behind. Downplaying North Korea’s deterrent as something the US could wipe out without nukes is reckless fantasy. Seoul would be in ruins before the second wave of bombers took off.
If you’re going to talk strategy, bring facts, not slogans. I said “live by the sword, die by the sword” to point out that violent actions have consequences. You replied with “Allahu Akbar” like I’m some kind of fanatic. That’s not debate, it’s just trolling and deflection. If your instinct is to hear a moral warning and turn it into a caricature, that says more about you than it does about me.
Ps. I edited my previous post to clarify who’s “they”.
Calling the US “lethargic” in Iraq and Afghanistan ignores the brutal reality of two decades of military intervention, not a lack of willpower.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear: by lethargic, I mean since Dubya left office and more so post-2021.
Many Americans, even many MAGAts, would rather the US stay out of the Middle East.
Granted, the wishes of many Americans, even many MAGAts, are probably of little concern to Trump, but thinking of such intrudes on his precious time he spends on golf games, flogging paraphernalia, micro-blogging, and masturbatory rallies.
Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons isn’t some irrational hatred of Israel; it’s a classic deterrence strategy, shaped by watching the US topple regimes in Iraq and Libya.
Their interest is understandable, given the examples you cited, but how would nukes benefit Iran against the US?
Iran is over 3x the population and over 12x the area of North Korea. Crossing over to Iran would not be as easy as crossing the DMZ of a non-nuclear North Korea. Tehran is perhaps over 400 km from the Iran-Iraq border, across the Zagros mountains, whereas Pyongyang is less than 100 km from the sea and less than 150 km from Seoul, much of it at an elevation less than 500 meters. (Though, granted it’s also less than 150 km from the PRC, which, along with Russia, supports it). Any future Douglas MacArthurs (an FDR appointee) would have quite a challenge in Iran even without nukes.
Nukes enhances North Korea’s defences in a way I don’t think it would Iran’s.
Again how would US treatment of Iran-with-nukes be much different than Iran-with-nukes—aside from probably not bombing nuclear-related or ICBM-related sites in Iran?
What if the US assassinated another Iranian general in Baghdad? Would Iran nuke the US?
What if Iran, in solidarity with Gazans and other Palestinians, attacked Israel with missiles and drones, and Israel counterattacked with a little more force? Would they nuke Jerusalem? Tel Aviv? Both?
Libya, while bigger, is, IIUC, mostly desert, with a capital on the Mediterranean cost.
Kadaffy would also have benefit more with having nukes than Iran, though I doubt he would have nuked his protesters.
You also misrepresent diplomatic dynamics. Turkey-Israel relations have been rocky for over a decade, especially after the Gaza flotilla raid.
which was over 15 years ago. Yet, presumably, the embassies in Ankara and Tel Aviv remain open.
Saudi-Israeli normalization has stalled due to overwhelming regional anger over Gaza.
Yes.
If Israel moves forward with ethnically cleansing Gaza and the West Bank as the Israeli right and centre want, will make things even worse.
Which is why they might wait until diplomatic relations with the Kingdom are (well) established.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have made public statements on the matter.
Perhaps, though neither really need nukes as they are essentially American protectorates.
Even Turkey has hinted it won’t be left behind.
They’re in NATO.
Downplaying North Korea’s deterrent as something the US could wipe out without nukes is reckless fantasy.
No, just improbable.
Seoul would be in ruins before the second wave of bombers took off.
Seoul is not an American city, nor is it the only city in South Korea (albeit it is the biggest and the capital); and by bombers, I assume you mean American ones, as North Korea perhaps doesn’t have much in the way of bombers.
If you’re going to talk strategy, bring facts, not slogans.
good advice.
I said “live by the sword, die by the sword” to point out that violent actions have consequences. You replied with “Allahu Akbar” like I’m some kind of fanatic. That’s not debate, it’s just trolling and deflection. If your instinct is to hear a moral warning and turn it into a caricature, that says more about you than it does about me.
What I was getting at is that Iran and some other opponents of the US, particularly the commies and Isalmacists, can also be pretty violent and warlike.
Why?
Since its inception by overthrowing the US and Israel installed Shah dictator the Islamic Republic has been under attack and threat by the US and Israel. Most notably the US encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Iran right away, leading to an 8 year war with a million Iranians killed. In that time Saddam Husseins chemical warfare program was built by mainly Germany and a significant amount of precursors provided by NATO countries. Saddam used those chemical weapons agains Iran but also against the Kurdish minority.
The US and Israel have aimed at destroying Iran since the past 46 years, except for Obama. They are the existential threat.
Meanwhile Iran has sought a deal and upheld the JCPOA until Trump broke it and the Western allies rallied around the US instead of seriously upholding the deal themselves. Despite all of this Iran was seeking diplomacy again.
In order to prevent any chance of diplomacy Israel is bombing Iran since 9 days and noe Trump joined in.
The existential threats are Israel and the US.
Do you think this theocracy, this mullahchy, is better than the Shah?
As bad as he was—and he was bad—at least he didn’t try to get nukes.
Had Saddam stayed out of Kuwait, he might still be around.
My sympathies for any of these regimes is limited.
(Modern) Israel exists because most of Europe was an antisemitic shithole, and that includes Russia and the UK; guys like Netanyahu are a product of this, and Hamas are a bunch of jihadi punks who have been used by both Iran and Israel.
Hamas and Hezbollah are a product of Israeli invasion and occupation. The goals of Hamas are national goals, not religious goals. They have nothing to do with Al-Quaeda or ISIS. Ironically Israel has treated ISIS fighters in Syria and Israeli weapons made it into ISIS camps. Now Israeli is arming and protecting lowlife criminals in Gaza with links to ISIS to plunder UN aid convoys.
Meanwhile Iran wasn’t seeking a nuke since 2003 as has been maintained by the US intelligence, in particular CIA well into this year
Instead Iran had negotiated the JCPOA with Obamas government and upheld it until Trump broke it, with the EU allies following suit to the US. Still Iran was seeking to get back to diplomacy even as Israel is now bombing Iran. But evidently neither Israel nor the US can ever be trusted with diplomacy. They will just turn around and bomb you whenever they feel like it.
Hamas and Hezbollah are a product of Israeli invasion and occupation.
IIUC, Hezbollah are, while Hamas was useful to Israel in dividing Fatah/PLO, and on Putin’s 71st birthday, giving Netanyahu the excuse he needed to do what he’s been doing in Gaza.
The goals of Hamas are national goals, not religious goals.
Perhaps.
FWIW,
(my bold)
Hamas is an acronym of the Arabic phrase حركة المقاومة الإسلامية or Ḥarakah al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, meaning “Islamic Resistance Movement”. This acronym, HMS, was glossed in the 1988 Hamas Covenant[66] by the Arabic word ḥamās (حماس) which itself means “zeal”, “strength”, or “bravery”.[67]
They have nothing to do with Al-Quaeda or ISIS. Ironically Israel has treated ISIS fighters in Syria and Israeli weapons made it into ISIS camps. Now Israeli is arming and protecting lowlife criminals in Gaza with links to ISIS to plunder UN aid convoys.
Divide and rule: yep, that sounds like something Israel would do.
Meanwhile Iran wasn’t seeking a nuke since 2003 as has been maintained by the US intelligence, in particular CIA well into this year
Perhaps.
I still don’t trust them anymore than the US.
Instead Iran had negotiated the JCPOA with Obamas government and upheld it until Trump broke it, with the EU allies following suit to the US. Still Iran was seeking to get back to diplomacy even as Israel is now bombing Iran. But evidently neither Israel nor the US can ever be trusted with diplomacy. They will just turn around and bomb you whenever they feel like it.
Hasanabi rules:
People tend to become an existential threat when you try to violently overthrow them for decades, I’m very smerprised.
When state-sponsored rent-a-crowds chant “Death to America!”, “Death to Israel!”, (and perhaps) “Kill for Allāh!”, and “Allāh Akbar!”, the US and Israel might take such seriously.
And that justifies… what, exactly?
I’m not sure.
The anarchist part of me says leave Iran alone, let Israel deal with them, and if Israel doesn’t, but instead gives up its land to Palestinians and tries to go back to Europe or the parts of the Middle East they left, that might be interesting.
Fuck you merkle, you genocide denialist
Didn’t Germany under her take about 1 million refugees at some point?
She’s still supporting a genocidal israel
The PRC is committing genocide against the Uighurs. If you, say, defended Xi on a particular issue or bought something made in the PRC, would you be supporting genocide?
You’re strawmanning. She’s specifically speaking about Israel’s genocide towards palestine. Arguably however, yes buying stuff made in China supports the regime committing genocide against the Uyghurs.
And what does that have to do with the topic or this comment?
I’m not so quick to curse her.
A million refugees don’t change that she is denying genocides. The million refugees are only special because her party is so racist, anyway.
Does the article saying anything about what she might or might not have said about Gaza?
deleted by creator
If you are talking about 2016/27 then your statement is missing a “in the span of just about 3 months”.
Nonetheless, kudos to Germany and Sweden, IMO she and whoever ran Sweden showed (relatively at least) good leadership on this issue.
take about 1 million refugees
To weaken Assad, to take over Syria, to isolate Lebanon, to eliminate the threat of a retaliating all out Shiite uprising over the entire Middle East, to attack an isolated Iran.
And Iran is most likely not the end of that chain.
To weaken Assad,
which would be good.
to take over Syria, to isolate Lebanon,
Was Germany going to do that?
to eliminate the threat of a retaliating all out Shiite uprising over the entire Middle East, to attack an isolated Iran.
huh?
Was Germany going to do that?
This is a team effort.
huh?
Huh what?
Downvoters, what is the huh about?
Maybe this helps:
Was Germany going to do that?
This is a team effort.
What team? and if it was a team effort, Germany seems to be a bit player in it.
huh?
Huh what?
I didn’t understand what you were saying in your previous post.
Maybe this helps:
It doesn’t, though now I know a little bit more about the distribution of the Shiites.
IIUC, I don’t think Merkel, or any credible German leader, was too concerned about Syria, aside from human rights abuses which she probably, like many Western leaders, wagged her finger about. That and how if affected Israel—because Israel is a Jewish state, doncha know, with lots of Jewish people, doncha know, and Germany has had a unique history with Jewish people, doncha know, which Germany is in the process of reconciling—a reconciliation that might take centuries—and Merkel, who is presumably at least a bit of an attentive German leader, probably thought about such from to time to time; but again, on a typical day, when she first woke up in the morning, or walked to her office, her first thoughts were probably not often on Syria; so I don’t see how Germany, under her, would be some prominent member of some grand coalition to depose the Assad gang.
If anything, change in Syria could be disruptive to Europe—as it did.
Which makes Germany’s actions look even better.
The Assad gang wasn’t Germany’s problem—it wasn’t Germany’s issue—yet she let those million in.
I mean that the German far-right/alt-right/ADF went into fits over it, IMO, was part of the attraction—I suppose triggering Nazis may be even more fun when your close to retirement.
Why do heroes such as Merkel (and whoever was running Sweden) do what they did?
IMO it’s less important than that they did it.
I think it was Churchill who said that bravery is the basis of morality.
Merkel was brave.
I suppose many on the German Left would be even more brave and generous, and perhaps their time in the chancellery will come.
What team?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
I didn’t understand what you were saying in your previous post.
I figured. But which part? The steps themselves or their connection?
It doesn’t, though now I know a little bit more about the distribution of the Shiites.
Have you read it all? This is the threat:
In 2014, Qods Force Chief Qassem Suleimani outlined Ali Khamenei’s strategy of toppling the Arab governments, through military insurgencies waged by Iran-backed Khomeinist militants. Explaining that Iran’s goal was to occupy "
With Syria under control, Iran cannot do that.
her first thoughts were probably not often on Syria
Not first thought but second
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar–Turkey_pipeline
Syria was allied with Russia and opposed the pipeline to maintain Russian influence.
Merkel was outplayed because the industry that needs the gas is moving abroad. She wanted both pipelines and now there are none.
I suppose many on the German Left would be even more brave and generous, and perhaps their time in the chancellery will come.
She was not brave. The increase in crime is used to introduce the Palantir surveillance state. The culturally split society will be unable to oppose the dismantling of the welfare state. Using left policies to achieve right objectives.
Look closely why Iran has an Islamic regime. There will never be a left party in power in Germany.
What team?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
In a quick glance I find only one mention of Germany:
On 18 August 2011, Barack Obama issued a written statement echoed by the leaders of the UK, France, and Germany, that inter alia said: “The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. His calls for dialogue and reform have rung hollow while he is imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people. We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside."[80][82]
So Obama wrote something—essentially an opinion—that Merkel agreed with.
I didn’t understand what you were saying in your previous post.
I figured. But which part? The steps themselves or their connection?
Let’s say the connection: what significant role did Merkel, play in the fall of Assad?
If anything, she indirectly helped it by helping to drain some of the Sunnis away from Syria.
It doesn’t, though now I know a little bit more about the distribution of the Shiites.
Have you read it all? This is the threat:
No: the article is long, and I’ve already spent much time replying to replies ITT: it’s summer, and here in Toronto, it’s about 1:50 PM (EDT) (and currently 33°C), and there’s some grass that I might want to see. Maybe later.
In 2014, Qods Force Chief Qassem Suleimani outlined Ali Khamenei’s strategy of toppling the Arab governments, through military insurgencies waged by Iran-backed Khomeinist militants. Explaining that Iran’s goal was to occupy "
I don’t see that in the linked article.
With Syria under control, Iran cannot do that.
Why would Iran want Assad overthrown? I thought they were friends.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar–Turkey_pipeline
Syria was allied with Russia and opposed the pipeline to maintain Russian influence.
Isn’t this (or at least was) the same Russia that exported natural gas to Germany?
Was this the same Assad regime that made deals with Islamic State regarding petroleum, even though they fought each other?
Is this the same Turkey that could probably use this pipeline as another source of natural gas, even if they would have to deal with the Assad gang?
Merkel was outplayed because the industry that needs the gas is moving abroad. She wanted both pipelines and now there are none.
If so, then at least it’s not her problem anymore.
Btw, kudos to Germany on developing alternatives such as solar and wind. 😁🙂
I suppose many on the German Left would be even more brave and generous, and perhaps their time in the chancellery will come.
She was not brave.
Braver than Orbán, Obama, or Canada’s Harper at any rate.
The increase in crime is used to introduce the Palantir surveillance state.
Hasn’t the crime gone down?
FWIW,
wp:Immigration and crime in Germany
The Independent reported that in 2017 crime in Germany was at its lowest for 30 years, and that crimes by non-Germans had fallen by 23% to just over 700,000.[27] At the same time, there was a significant increase in politically and racially motivated crime. Out of 462 right-wing offenders with outstanding warrants identified by Germany’s Interior Ministry, 104 were wanted for crimes classified as violent and 106 were wanted for crimes classified as politically motivated.[7]
The culturally split society will be unable to oppose the dismantling of the welfare state.
even if all the splinters oppose that?
Using left policies to achieve right objectives.
It happens. It might have been largely what made Elon Musk, the richest Nazi in history, rich.
Look closely why Iran has an Islamic regime.
IIUC, pro-West and pro-Soviet forces were kind of played out in revolutionary Iran.
Merkel really needed another Mossad paycheck?
I am ashamed my country has to rely on people like these to keep existing. We aren’t really in a position to turn down the help, though
Do you know about Ukrainian soldiers in Africa and Syria? Your country is very close to becoming part of those people like these.
No, just about the Russian ones.
a painful part of thinking you were a leftists, but we’re actually a liberal, reading and becoming an actual leftists, is learning that those I thought were “good” were not, they just weren’t as bad as others.
don’t criticise me, I already said I was wrong, and I’m glad to have changed.
deleted by creator
Please, everyone who supported the “ReArm Europe” initiative with the 800bn€ yearly to military: THIS IS WHAT SUCH WEAPONS WILL BE USED FOR. They tell you they’re to “fight the evil dictators”, but they’re used to bomb the people standing against Israel and Europe. Europe is a genocide-supporting empire and we should all assume a pacifist stance.
