You mean because of the specific word “homo” in the sentence? Curious, because English isn’t my native language and I haven’t really been able to grasp in what contexts it’s usable. Pretty much only seen it used derogatorily. But as a shortening of the opposite of hetero, I could see it being like recaptured or something idk

Or, before you western marxist doomer babies keep crying, maybe consider how the talks could be a strategy to achieve the goals? Instead of acting like you’re smarter and more committed than the people doing the fighting, just consider any option other than whining?

Let’s look at a couple of the options for why this could be how it goes: 1. Iran thinks it can get the US to stop the zionist entity attacks on lebanon by entering the talks and stating they will leave without the US stopping isntreal. This could work because the US may feel the pressure form Iran but not yet have acted against isntreal at this moment. Giving them the chance to, with Iranians there, make that decision, is a very human way to approach it. 2. Iran sees it as wasting the US time and sees that any oath forward will result in the eventual buckling as long as the military stays vigilant. So going to peace talks is setting up a future for after this war. So, making a real demand, looking nice for accepting less to start discussion, etc makes Iran the adult in the room. 3. Lebanon and Iran are talking behind the scenes and strategizing together, and you just don’t happen to be in the room? This buys some time to discuss while the world continues supporting Iran more and the economies start hurting.

And any of these is more believable than that Iran is just giving up and backstabbing its allies (upon whom they are significantly dependent for regional security) during a war it’s currently fighting with them!

Well yeah, it was explicitly part of the ceasefire that they retained the rights to toll it, so it seems pretty well according the all the unspoken rules that they closed it once it was broken!

I’ve read this 4 times and cannot parse what you are trying to say or how it relates to my statement. The DPRK had to fight a long time to even get the ceasefire and its territorial integrity, and it took a long and difficult utilization of its strategic positioning to do it, that’s all I was saying with that. That Iran is taking a while isn’t surprising nor something to doom about. It still has complete strategic dominance of the situation

As qunshihuangshlong said, your grasp of the situation is loose, at best. I see no reason that any of your ‘losses’, exist in the real world. Materially nothing changed at all and Iran hasn’t changed anything. They sent a huge amount of missiles just before the ceasefire and took a small pause to test the ceasefire. They are now stating that they will restart and you can’t wait a fucking day to see their response? Instant gratification ate your patience

Jesus christ are all of you feds or something? I feel like half of hexbear has lost the ability to rationalize this stuff. Hezbollah was being attacked before and continued to be attacked, what did it lose because of this ceasefire? Iran didn’t lie, they negotiated with Pakistan not with the US. The US publicly accepted Iran’s terms of ending the war which were more comparable to surrender terms. Now they go back on it, but Iran has literally changed nothing about their strategy from this. There’s not a single extra downside added here from this saga for the axis of resistance and hexbear doomers can’t get that through their western chauvinist skulls?

How long did it take for the DPRK to win? And Vietnam? And back then the hegemon was even less hegemonic than now. Dooming constantly is useless and demeaning to those actually putting themselves on the line to win strategically in the long term. Fucking ridiculous for a bunch of westerners to act like we can critique that fight for not being swift enough or not sacrificing quick enough

It’s bullshit of mistaking operational losses for strategic losses. Gaza has been enduring genocide but is still on the path to strategic long term victory. Same with Hezbollah.

Iranian libs make these huge errors, for sure, but they are not the reason for this ceasefire. This ceasefire attempt was absurdly beneficial in strategic ways to the Iranian resistance. It reinforces their position above the libs and gives them an even broader mandate. It has showed a paper tiger for what it is and showed itself as the much more rational actor. It’s a long game, which is why hexbear bullshit doomerism about operational and tactical losses is ridiculous.

Of course the definition of ‘region’ will be different than ‘the entirety of west asia’ until the zionist entity is buried with Rhodesia, but Iran knows that. That has no bearing on Iran’s support for its allies. I’m fact, any definition which is further than Iran’s current borders means that assisting its allies becomes easier than now! They don’t need to rely on China because they have a population now wanting revenge and justice as well as all strategic advantage (except nukes, but its debatable how good those are for strategy for the west). So who enforces the REAL ceasefire that will inevitably come? Easy, Iran. By controlling the strait. These are a bunch of capitalist nations more concerned with trade than their allies’ welfare, and will eventually capitulate to some extent for that reason.

< When Iran does not retailiate against Israel directly until this Day is past , but only closes the Homuz again. then i have reason to belive that Hezbollah and Lebanon where offered to the Wolfs… >

No you don’t, this is the doomer bullshit that Hexbear keeps falling for. Of course Iran is going to have to interpret the ‘region’ in some non-maximalist way, but right now those libs have little to no influence because of the Iranian people being incensed to war by the zionist American and entity aggression. So the interpretation which stops somewhere between Iran and Paleatine will not suddenly make Iran give up on allies, it will bring them physically closer again to being able to support those allies better.

Plus the strait closing is literally the most powerful tool Iran has, even more powerful strategically than retaliatory strike on the zionist entity. So even if they only close it and don’t bomb back, they’re still in a more strategic position to win the long war with their allies!

Stop the fucking doomering, hexbear. “Bad compromises”–we have no reason at all to believe Iran is going to stop without reaching the vast majority of its goals. It’s that or nukes fly, but even after nukes I’m unconvinced that Iran will just lay down. I’ll eat my hat if I’m wrong and Iran just lays down, but there’s literally no reason to believe that right now

I’m very scared that they won’t and will accept ceasefire violations, but I’m pretty hopeful they will respond harshly to the inevitable violation

We agree, I just wanted to put it into those words lol

Yeah exactly, I was agreeing just putting it into funny words

In terms of the calculation up to making it a percentage change: it doesn’t matter. At the last stop of comparing them, it makes a humongous difference. Units only ever matter when you divide it by itself to get rid of them. Before that you can do whatever you want with em lol

Do the goddamn integrals you bastard /j

Integrate (surface integral) temp over the surface of earth at each moment to find total temp at each moment, then integrate that value over time for a year. Then divide by amount of days per year times amount of earth surface. Should give a good number. Then compare per year. They probably did nothing like this calculation but it’d be fun to try anyways.

Actually earth’s surface is a constant so it has no impact on a percentage. Days is also that way so the second half is unnecessary

I bet Rubio is in that bunny costume because trump wanted to embarrass him

I agree for sure, and saw this info elsewhere too, but my question is if this has been systematically organized in an article somewhere? Like the redsails XinJiang article but for Iranian protests. Or anything really where the evidence is given a proper treatment and position to lay out the argument.