Here's another blast from the past: a 2015 documentary about the pharmaceutical industry and its rotten business practices. Rather uncanny parallels can be drawn.





The bottomline is, politics, pharmaceutical companies, the science, even the doctors themselves - it's all compromised by lobbyists who are bought and paid for, and has been for years. Not a word from these people can be trusted.

There was a time when institutions had integrity and could be trusted to act in favor of public health. We are no longer living in such times. I wonder when people will wake up to that fact.

Perhaps interesting for you as well. It's from Zembla.

AIPAC hard at work, I see. :lol:

I'm reminded of a documentary I watched a little while ago. It's worth a watch - if I am not mistaken SV40 played a key role in the search for polio vaccines in the '50s and '60s and the link of those vaccines to the emergence of HIV.

If your argument that everything has happened because NATO and if NATO hadn't enlarged, Russia wouldn't have done anything is simply false. — ssu

That's not my argument, though.

My argument, or at least a part of it, is that NATO enlargement worried the Russians, and they expressed that worry over the course of 15 years. They were completely ignored by the West.

Ignoring other nations' security concerns is a highway to war, and NATO (with Uncle Sam at the wheel) took that path knowingly and willingly. That's why they are primarily responsible for the conflict.

And it's simply illogical to assume that you would annex territories if the only issue would preventing NATO enlargement and Ukraine being a bufferzone. — ssu

I think it's completely logical for Russia to annex parts of Ukraine if peace between Russia and the West is made impossible. That's a situation the West knowingly and willingly brought about when they blocked peace negotiations in March/April 2022. Of course the Russians are going to react to that.

A show of force would already done that... — ssu

I disagree.

What the US tried to do was simply turn Ukraine into a de facto US ally on a bilateral basis until circumstances were such that Ukraine could be fully incorporated into NATO.

Of course, Russia invaded before the Ukrainian military was able to provide the kind of resistance that would have made a US intervention feasible, which is why the US hung them out to dry in the end.

A show of force would have done nothing to stop that underlying threat, which is the US. NATO is simply a vessel.

Well what is it? Can Ukraine negotiate or not? — Echarmion

'Officially' probably not, but it should revoke Zelensky's idiotic decree and negotiate if it has any sense of self-preservation.

Your strategy seems to offer little other than the hope you are right about russian intentions. — Echarmion

Starting talks costs nothing.

Don't they? — Echarmion

No, obviously they don't. Does that really require explanation?

Ukraine is being utterly wrecked in every conceivable way. Europe threw its economy down the drain, now has a hostile great power on its doorstep while having completely stripped its military, and it has been turned into the world's laughing stock to boot.

Why exactly though? — Echarmion

I'm not going into the moral argument, because I don't think it's constructive for reasons I have already outlined.

That happened after the West blocked peace talks.

When the West clearly signals that peace is not an option, obviously the Russians are going to react accordingly. How is that in any way surprising?

A terrible strategy on the West's part, because the idea that they were winning and could thus continue to snub the Russians was based on an entirely erroneous idea of how the war was progressing. They basically started to believe their own propaganda.

Well - this is the result, which many of us have been predicting since the start of the war.

The support increases Ukraine's ability to impose costs and thus their position in negotiations. — Echarmion

But you literally just wrote that imposing costs on Russia is the basis of the Ukrainian position in negotiations. So the strategic goal of imposing costs to demonstrate your ability to impose future costs seems entirely sound. — Echarmion

We are far past that point. Zelensky is not moving to negotiate. He even signed a decree to make negotiations with Russia impossible. The absolute fool.

Obviously the support is achieving the opposite of sound strategy, which is why Ukraine is slowly (rapidly?) approaching the edge of the cliff. Quite extraordinary you're unable to see that.

What exactly is the moral argument here? — Echarmion

It's a strategic argument. Neither Ukraine nor Europe benefits from playing into Washington's hand.

From a moral perspective it is of course repugnant too.

It's not unable to resist. It's unable to win militarily.

It can still continue to resist militarily, unconventionally if need be, to impose a cost on Russia. This gives them leverage in negotiations. That leverage is now far lower than in March/April 2022, but it is leverage nonetheless. Furthermore, there is plenty of indication that the Kremlin would prefer a negotiated settlement over having to fight for every inch of Ukraine that they deem important. That can once again be used as a basis for talks.

However, continuing to resist without an actual strategy of what that resistance is supposed to accomplish is remarkably foolish. Imposing a cost on Russia is a sound strategy from an American point of view, not from a Ukrainian point of view, since it would incur a much larger cost on Ukraine itself - it would destroy Ukraine.

Now, that is of course the wet dream of policymakers in Washington: Ukraine fighting itself to the death against Russia, because it would impose the largest cost on Russia. Washington doesn't care at all about what happens to Ukraine in the process.

Neither Europe nor Ukraine should make themselves complicit in such a strategy.

The Russians aren't interested in taking all of Ukraine. They prefer a negotiated settlement that leaves Ukraine filling its role as neutral bufferzone between east and west. First it was the US that blocked such negotiations, now it's Zelensky.

If Russia wants to take all of Ukraine, it can. And neither Europe nor the US would be prepared to do what it takes to stop them, so they should stop pretending towards the Ukrainians.

Ukraine and its military is a shell on life-support. Europe and the US can either wait for a total collapse, or they can pull the plug now while Ukraine still has a chance at negotiations.

“Evil” in a moral sense? — neomac

No, 'evil' in a colloquial sense...

...so why do you think “neocon foreign policy” deserves the title of “primary” cause of this war? — neomac

Because this conflict started when the United States (led by the neocon foreign policy establishment) expressed its desire to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, and they never over the course of some 15 years took Russia's objections seriously.

So states do not enjoy moral rights but they enjoy legal rights like right to self-defence? How so? — neomac

States are not moral actors, so they have no moral rights. Individuals have moral rights.

And states obviously have legal rights because virtually all states on the world have signed the UN charter and thus recognize the legitimacy of international law, which includes a right to national self-defense.

Besides if you acknowledge that Ukraine has a legal right to self-defence and the West is not violating international laws by military supporting Ukraine, what should we do with the “provocation” accusation from Putin which doesn’t look neither moral nor legal, in your views? — neomac

I'm not sure what 'provocation accusation' you're talking about, but what Europe should do is pull the plug on military support for Ukraine. Helping another nation exercise their right to self-defense is only rational if it has a chance of succeeding. There is no such chance in the case of the Ukraine war, and thus Europe should not contribute to the illusion that Ukraine can win this war. Stopping the support will hopefully will bring Ukraine to stop sacrificing its people in vain sooner rather than later.

If Ukraine wants to continue throwing its people's lives away, then that's their right. However, Europe should not make itself complicit in such a senseless waste of life.

Is Putin’s aggression of Ukraine pure “evil” or just “necessary evil”? — neomac

The war in Ukraine is completely pointless and a shining example of the unnecessary evil of states - all states involved, including the state of Ukraine itself.

Why not in the same way? What is the difference? — neomac

The difference is that Russia tried to find a diplomatic solution, but was snubbed by the Americans on every occasion.

Israel on the other hand did everything it could to prevent a diplomatic solution.

The scariest thing (as you so aptly bring up in the third ¶) is how the majority tends to behave like the blob once it becomes mobilized - assimilating anybody it can get a hold of into its mindless mass. — Merkwurdichliebe

Flemish psychology professor Mattias Desmet has written a book about this in 2022, called 'The Psychology of Totalitarianism'. It discusses this exact subject in relation to the pandemic. He was subsequently invited to a lot of podcasts, and you can find plenty of interviews of him on YouTube.

In addition to providing a very lucid take of the whole ordeal, I also thought he was an inspiring human being. It's worth checking out.

And now there are cases of people claiming vaccine injuries all over the world who face an industry that has been protected by law in case of damages due to off label use. It is sickening how corrupt it all is. — Merkwurdichliebe

I would like mass lawsuits to provide justice, but I doubt it.

The industry has covered itself, and will not take responsibility for off label use. To whatever degree states will take responsibility - guess with whose tax money they will be paying the damages?

Ideally, the politicians who for whatever reason chose to completely ignore medical guidelines in both a narrow sense (the vaccines) and broad sense (our general knowledge of epidemics and immunity) should be tried seperately. But I guess the chances of that happening are almost zero.

Authority is a powerful thing and people are simple creatures: the government says it, the institutions say it, the news says it, everybody seems to believe it - it must be true.

Not to mention, all the common information sources I named have teams of experts that advise them on exactly what their messaging should look like to manipulate people into exhibiting the desired behavior or copying the desired beliefs. People who aren't aware of how this type of manipulation works are basically chanceless against it.

Even if you have a natural distrust for the first three, being confronted with an apparent majority of people who speak and act as though what's being presented is truth will seriously test one's trust in their own observations and intuition.

Have you seen this letter from the European Medicines Agency to members of the European Parliament in response to an inquiry?

As all these institutions are scrambling to cover themselves, they're starting to spill the beans.

I foresee more lawsuits in our future, but chances of success are low.

Big pharma and national governments clearly engaged in some sort of unholy pact that made the industry non-liable in case of damages due to off label use, in exchange for rapidly developed vaccines. Rampant off label use is what governments all over the world (including my own) engaged in.

From the letter:

You are indeed correct to point out that COVID-19 vaccines have not been authorised for preventing transmission frome one person to another. The indications are for protecting the vaccinated individual only. — European Medicines Agency

This is diametrically opposed to the story which many governments told their populations, and which they used to justify their actions.

It was not authorized for use to prevent the spread of the virus, and it was not authorized to protect anyone besides the vaccinated individual. In other words, getting vaccinated to "protect grandma" was nothing but emotional blackmail on a national scale.

I think a lot of things came together.

On one hand there are people in high places who probably felt they should "never waste a good crisis" - people like Schwab, Bill Gates, etc. - they've long had some funny ideas about what the world should look like. There's little hard evidence to implicate these people, but I have no doubt they have major influence on politicians on the national level. Schwab famously called the pandemic a "window of opportunity" to roll out his ideas. At that point, hard evidence or no, I know enough.

Then there's big pharma, which clearly had perverse incentives to contribute to the media storm, and did so on a gigantic scale.

Finally there are politicians on the national level, who probably realized at some point that they had made a grave error, but did not want to take the fall politically, and instead doubled down on the narrative.

The people themselves are simply not equipped to deal with this kind of fuckery. Under normal circumstances people are reasonably capable of critical thought, but not when the information landscape is thoroughly poisoned on this scale, from places of authority no less (WHO, national governments, etc.).

A perfect storm of all the worst elements of humanity.

US warns that Israel risks ‘strategic defeat’ unless it protects civilians in Gaza (Financial Times, 2023)

As expected, Israel throwing all caution and humanity by the wayside in pursuit of a punitive campaign and possibly other, even less savory goals will likely come back to bite it.


What Israel needs to do to win is murder or displace two and a half million people. All Hamas needs to do to win is survive.

I've heard several analysts state they believe Israel has barely managed to scratch Hamas' foothold in Gaza.

It makes you wonder what the brigade of US and European stooges were thinking when they gave Israel carte blanche to go to town on the civilian population in Gaza. Fools in charge in Israel, fools in charge in the White House, fools in charge in Brussels - this is what you get.

The small bit of good news; Netanyahu is finished.

That about sums it up. I can safely say that it has changed my outlook on humanity as a whole. Perhaps worst of all is the deafening silence afterwards. As all the lies were exposed and myths dispelled, there is still scarcely a sign of any reflection.

You say sheep, but I'm more reminded of stampeding wildebeest who don't care whom or what they trample in their blind panic.

From a moral standpoint I view states as being fundamentally flawed from the outset. — Tzeentch

Meaning? — neomac

For the sake of not derailing the thread I'm not going to go into detail. I'm a classic liberal in the practical sense, and an anarchist in an idealist sense. For me, states are a 'necessary evil' at their very best, and more often than not just 'evil'.

Do you mean that “those were blocked by the US simply to save Washington's ego” and “how many thousands of lives and billions in damages is Washington's ego worth?” do not express moral evaluations? Neither “my perspective presupposes peaceful coexistence is (or "should be") the goal of nations. Sadly, many nations and certainly the U.S. are not driven by that goal”?

How about the conduct of Putin, Zelensky, Biden, Macron, Scholz, Boris Johnson? Can we assess their political choices morally since they are moral actors? How about “These people are unhinged. The Netanyahu regime has got to go. Can we get regime change in Israel, please?” ? Does it express a moral evaluation? — neomac

We've already had this discussion before.

Picking out a handful of emotionally loaded comments is not very impressive considering this discussion has been going for years.

My arguments vis-á-vis Ukraine are not moral in nature, and the idea that this war is primarily caused by neocon foreign policy is not moral either.

Sometimes the sheer disgust I feel towards some of the clowns that inhabit the spheres of international politics shines through. Sue me.

Here is what I got so far, about your beliefs: Ukraine has a right to defend itself from a standpoint of international law. But not right to defend itself from a standpoint of morality because… it is not a moral actor? — neomac

Now the question: Putin who is a moral actor (right?) can invade Ukraine and violate its right from a standpoint of international law because from a moral point of view Ukraine has no right to self-defence? — neomac

States are abstractions and not moral actors, so they have no moral rights.

As I said, morality is simply not a useful lens through which to evaluate the behavior of states.

Note that in the case of the Israel discussion, Israel has no legal right to self-defense, which is why the discussion shifted to the question of whether it had a moral right.

And no, of course my belief is not that Putin has a moral right to invade Ukraine.

For the purpose of this discussion I've always supposed Ukraine had a legal right to self-defense and that Russia's invasion is illegal, and never claimed otherwise. The basis for that is international law, and not morality.

What you have conveniently removed from this presentation of your views is all your normative claims about what Ukrainian should have done, what the US/Europeans should do, and who is to blame. — neomac

Those aren't moral 'shoulds' though, and attributing blame isn't necessarily moral in nature either. These are questions of cause & effect, strategy, etc.

Let’s do another test, if I claimed: “Russia should stop illegally occupying Ukraine. That's an action that it can and should undertake unilaterally.
They should stop illegally occupying Ukraine, and stop committing human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity. As long as Russia is the occupier and refuses to carry out the relevant UN resolutions, RUSSIA IS THE PROBLEM”.
Would you agree with that? — neomac

No, I don't believe Russia is responsible for the conflict in Ukraine in the same way that Israel is responsible for the war in Gaza.

Russia is part of the problem, and its invasion and occupation are illegal. I can agree to that much.

1. You believe that state do not have the right to fight in self-defence [1] — neomac

You're conflating two different discussions. From a moral standpoint I view states as being fundamentally flawed from the outset.

But my engagement in the discussion about the Ukraine war has never been moral in nature. Morality isn't even a useful lens through which to view the conduct of states, since they are not moral actors.

Ukraine has a right to defend itself from a standpoint of international law, which is something I would never deny.

You have to pay attention to what is said, not fill in the blanks with what you would like to believe "I meant".


As for the rest, I believe Ukraine will achieve nothing by continuing to fight, except for a worse bargaining position and further destruction of Ukraine.

There's nothing 'pro-Russian' about that, even if it's not what cheerleaders want to hear.

Yes, I believe Russia most-likely achieved its primary objectives. Yes, I believe the Ukrainiain bargaining position has only deteriorated since the negotiations of March/April 2022.

And on the topic of trust; it's Ukraine who stands to lose most in this war, so trust or no trust, refusing negotiations will only deteriorate its position further.

Unfortunately for some people, they found out too late that they weren't in fact healthy. — Echarmion

Which is why I stated specifically we should go easy on this group during the first year. Give them a year to get their shit together. If they don't, then that's their responsibility and not mine.

The minority who is chronically at risk can be accomodated.

But this cuts to the heart of the issue: that this is somehow a conflict between the "healthy" and the "unhealthy" rather than a communal problem requiring a communal solution. — Echarmion

No one gave a fuck about healthy people who did not want to take vaccines - at no point during the hysteria were their concerns taken seriously, so I don't buy any allusions to community.

It was 'us vs. them', and healthy people were on the receiving end of it. Critical voices were silenced, people treated as second class citizens, etc. , European leaders went on national television overtly threatening healthy people who refused the vaccines.

There was no community. It was tyrannical one-way traffic and the damage this has done is enormous.

Sure. But does that mean we can ignore whether someone is vaccinated (not just against COVID)? — Echarmion

Yes. Vaccines are there for people who feel unsafe to protect them. This is how vaccines have always functioned. It's a personal choice.

Well as I indicated I think the framing was bad. It seemed to be the framing that came naturally to everyone though. — Echarmion

I can't speak for other countries, but in the Netherlands where I live the framing was one-way traffic. I wish there was more of a platform for critical voices, but this was systemically suppressed, disregarded as 'misinformation' - there were literally cases of the Dutch government communicating with social media platforms to censor certain people. It was their policy.

Of course, in the end it turned out the Dutch government itself was the main peddler of misinformation as almost everything that came out of their mouths turned out to be false.

This has nothing to do with framing on my end. I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me at all. The problem is that there was never any discussion. This is why I call it a hysteria.

Very similar to how the US gun control debate ended up. — Echarmion

I don't agree that the two can in any way be compared.

Why was the realisation that your actions affect others such a problem during COVID? — Echarmion

The vaccines weren't designed to stop the spread. That story used to be perpetuated by politicians who tried to guilt trip their citizens into taking a vaccine that they didn't trust.

Is not refusing a vaccine also "partaking in an unhealthy lifestyle"? — Echarmion

No, of course not. Normal, healthy people didn't have anything to fear from covid.

What is also remarkable, I think, is that both vaccination "camps" adopted a rhetoric that displayed the other side as a threat to their health and freedoms. — Echarmion

The decision to take a vaccine is bound to a human right of bodily autonomy.

To me, that means something. If that means nothing to you, then I have nothing to say to you.

Also, the idea that not taking the vaccine somehow turned one into a health hazard is completely made up.

Our western societies seemed ill equipped to deal with the basic tension of individualism vs collective actions. — Echarmion

Ill-equipped in the sense that it allowed mass hysteria to take hold for several years.

Again easy to retort. You are cheerleading Ukrainian surrender to Russian demands. — neomac

No, I'm not. Quote me if you believe I'm saying that.

Perhaps you take my cynical views of Washington's stake in this war as 'pro-Russian', but that's simply a mischaracterization.

That's why I have no problem to qualify myself as pro-US while you seem to have problems to qualify yourself as pro-Russian. — neomac

Yes, I do have a problem with that. I am trying to understand the conflict, not cheerleading for a side.

What people want to inject into their bodies is none of my business (and what I inject into mine should be none of theirs, but alas the latter was not self-explanatory during covid...)

The weak and the sick should be accomodated in some way, but not by having everybody put their lives on hold. The damage done by this is immense, but it is less visible than covid deaths (the media plays a large role in that, but I digress). "Unexplainable" excess deaths, etc.

In the Netherlands (where I live) it was a political choice, in my opinion. Politicians felt it would reflect badly on them if IC capacity was below what it needed to be as a result of their policies. Better smear it out over the entire population and play coy. By their own estimates, they knowingly accepted as much as threefold the damage by choosing this approach. It was criminal. I have no other word for it.

Also, at what point do the people who voluntarily partake in unhealthy lifestyles get to take responsibility?

Let's be graceful and treat year one of covid as a wake-up call where we don't go too hard on this group. As far as I am concerned, when year two hits they've had a full year to get their shit together and at that point why should I care about their health if they evidently don't care about their own?

Covid could have been a great opportunity to reconsider our relationship with our health.

But no, better grind society to a halt and stake our lives on 'quickfix' experimental vaccines the next time we fear being knocked over by a stiff breeze.

I don't really care how you justify it to yourselves. But it's good to know that the extent of the argument doesn't go beyond "Everyone who disagrees with me is a propagandist." :lol:

A-ha. So when western sources state something you dislike they can also be hand-waved as propaganda?

Seymour Hersh - a propagandist too I assume?

Noam Chomsky - a propagandist, obviously.

Ray McGovern - propagandist.

etc. etc.

Nevermind the track record of these folks. Winning Pulitzer prices, being invited at the UN to speak, etc. That's just the typical stuff propagandists do. :nerd:

A fair assessment, but some effort to expose the dishonesty and propaganda seems warranted. — Echarmion

What dishonesty and propaganda are you talking about?

People like Mearsheimer and Sachs are dishonest or Kremlin propagandists to you?

Well, if Sweden was firmly non-aligned would mean that the situation in the Baltic Sea would be very different... — ssu

Sweden isn't and has never been a firmly non-aligned country. It's completely aligned to the West.

The Baltic Sea is NATO-dominated, with or without Sweden.

Sweden is irrelevant, apart from being another useful idiot to wave the NATO flag (aka the flag of American Europe policy).

They, like Finland, don't think with level heads. By joining NATO, the chance of being dragged into a war with Russia doesn't decrease, but increase.

It must be very nice living in your head, having all the answers for everything without even needing to bother with evidence or logic. The superior mind simply knows instantly everything that happens. — Echarmion

This might come as a surprise to you, but hand-waving arguments doesn't actually make them disappear, so I guess you'll have to try harder than that. :lol:

So just run. Cede to the wicked. Abandon your farmland, homes, and storage centers to them. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. The choice between my soul and my possessions is easily made.

If Sweden hasn't got in, surely Ukraine would have been a problem. — ssu

Again, Sweden is irrelevant. If it wants to join of its own accordance, fine - another useful idiot to wave the flag - or such is the sentiment in Washington.

Ukraine on the other hand is extremely relevant, which is why the US is and has been investing billions of dollars in it.

The only way forward is for the US to make bilateral treaties with Ukraine.

Hardly any stomach for that in the US. — ssu

Post-invasion in the short-term, yes. In the long-term clearly not since the irreversibility of Ukraine's route to NATO membership is written in its constitution.

Pre-invasion, I'd say Ukraine was on the verge of developing a military that would have been able to withstand the Russian invasion, at which point bilateral agreements would definitely be in the cards.

↪Tzeentch, the invading buggers haven't opened negotiations, they've just restated their ultimatum. Negotiation isn't quite the right word here. — jorndoe

That's your view, I guess.

Their 'ultimatum' was surprisingly generous, considering what the western propaganda machines have claimed the Russians' goals in Ukraine were.

The peace deal was all but finished when Boris Johnson flew in to announce Ukraine would not be signing any deals with the Russians.

Funny, that. Imagine having Boris Johnson of all people tell you to continue fighting a war - a political walking corpse and who was obviously sent as an errand boy to take the fall in case things went sour, since his political career was already a train wreck.

What a bad joke this Ukraine debacle is.

Are you at all able to imagine a scenario where e.g. you're the leader of an ancient tribe that is slowly being encircled by a dangerous enemy who is mobilizing around your borders? — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. I'd urge everyone to get out of there.

Sweden is an irrelevant nation. Ukraine, not so much.

Had the US succeeded in creating a fait accompli in Ukraine, it would have pushed for NATO membership and any politician foolish enough to get between the neocons and their project would be disposed of, with lethal force if need be. I'm convinced of that.

I agree that there is such a thing as self-defense. I just don't think it applies to war in general because what is actually being defended is not a person, but an idea of a state, territory, national pride, etc.

When a person is backed into a corner and has no viable alternatives, that is in my view when self-defense appiles.

As long as a person has other options open to them, which includes running away, it is not self-defense.

And it should go without saying that self-defense only ever means the protection of oneself and harm that may befall others whilst protecting oneself can only be excused if it is unavoidable and unintentional.

So I agree with the first example since it clearly states person A has no other options besides protecting themselves or suffering serious harm/death.

The second example I don't agree with.

The first misstep is to believe there is such a thing as a 'just war'.

Once a nation goes to war, and thus commits itself to mass murder, it must accept that it has lost any and all rational ground upon which it might consider itself 'moral'.

The only question is how deep it is willing to sink into depravity in order to attain victory - on the individual level, how much of one's humanity one is willing to sacrifice for survival.

And the mass murder of civilians is used as an example, but this is not a prerequisite. The idea that soldiers are fair game and may be butchered by the thousands without moral cost is philosophically short-sighted, repulsive even.

So I agree with the premise; the only moral option is not to go to war.

1. You have the right to defend yourself. — Hanover

I would note here that war itself is not an act of self-defense, and that self-defense only applies when one has ran out of viable alternatives.

The German tabloids are reporting that Scholz and Biden have come together recently and are cooking up a plan to force Ukraine to negotiate.

The original article is behind a paywall, but Alexander Mercouris discussed the article on his channel.

Zelensky is probably resisting because the West initially spurred him on to fight, even though the Russians and Ukrainians were ready to negotiate.

Anyway, if this is true, and it most-likely is, the war is essentially over and the only question is how long the Ukrainians can continue to refuse negotiations, and how much they will be forced to concede in the end.

I hope the Ukrainians will be able to find a way to pay Washington and Brussels back for dragging Ukraine into this war and subsequently throwing it under the bus.

The craziest thing about this, is how obvious this was from the start. Propaganda is a helluva' drug.

'Neutrality clause' while NATO says it is going to incorporate Ukraine into its ranks and the US is funneling billions of dollars into Ukraine to support a coup d'etat. :monkey:

Some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals believe them. — George Orwell

For a while rumors have gone around about the IDF / IAF itself being responsible for a large amount of civilian casualties during the attacks of October 7th.

A recent Haaretz interview with IAF Colonel Nof Erez now seems to lend credence to that idea, referencing the Hannibal Directive that essentially authorizes the Israeli armed forces to take out Israeli hostages to avoid them being used in bargaining for hostage exchanges. Erez called it a "Mass Hannibal".

Erez was presumably directly involved (the interview seems to imply as much) though the full article by Haaretz does not seem to be available yet.

Worrying, to say the least.