_djo_

14 ms·

211.
by _djo_ 2y ago
There's more to this than just googling for a basic definition. When he provided tools and direct guidance to Chelsea Manning to access classified information and when he and others breached the Congressional Research Service to leak d
212.
by _djo_ 2y ago
As the ICC statement makes clear, the bombing of power plants and other energy infrastructure in and of itself is not a crime. It only reaches that level if the strikes are committed with the intent to cause civilian harm and suffering and
213.
ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Shoigu and Gerasimov(icc-cpi.int)
49 points by _djo_ 2y ago|27 comments
214.
by _djo_ 2y ago
It's not really accurate to call him a whistleblower. He was acting as a conduit of information for whistleblowers, though he exercised his own discretion to decide which whistleblowers to release for. The reason he was charged by the
215.
by _djo_ 2y ago
No problem at all. I can imagine so. For context, OTH sites are generally massive with hundreds of large antenna elements. This article has some pictures of one of the JORN sites as an example: https://www.australiandefence.com.a
216.
by _djo_ 2y ago
At this scale: 1) Electricity usage 2) Staffing costs, both for operational control and ongoing maintenance and support 3) Parts replacement costs. The more you use the radar the faster its components wear out
217.
by _djo_ 2y ago
> Given their strategic advantage, you can bet the military will have prioritised steerable. This is not something you can really prioritise. OTH radar designs are a trade-off between range, angular resolution, frequency, and mobility. F
218.
by _djo_ 2y ago
Exactly. As you're pointing out there's also a big difference between 'staged' as understood by the public, which basically means 'fake', and 'posed'. While posed photographs may not be spontaneous, t
219.
by _djo_ 2y ago
Appreciate the correction, I meant thousands. Yes, that’s the JORN system. The western sector might’ve picked it up if it went near western Australia as presumed, but it wasn’t operating.
220.
by _djo_ 2y ago
Only if there’s enough forewarning, the radar is operational, the aircraft is within its range given prevailing space weather conditions, and that it’s pointing in the right direction. The latter is important because OTH radars are almost a
221.
by _djo_ 2y ago
OTH radars are not operating all of the time, given the cost to operate them, and are not just covering large areas of ocean all over. They're typically focused specifically on areas of most importance which, for Diego Garcia, would be
222.
by _djo_ 2y ago
“Nearby” is doing a lot of work there. The presumed flight path of MH370 went tens of thousands of kilometres from Diego Garcia, certainly outside the range of even the latest over-the-horizon radars. Meanwhile the tracking stations on that
223.
by _djo_ 2y ago
> Let’s set asside the fact that the document wasn’t written by the CIA. What do you mean? The CIA has publicly stated that the document was written by the OSS, its wartime predecessor. [0] [0] https://www.cia.gov/stories
224.
by _djo_ 2y ago
I’ll save you from taking that attempted profiling any further: I’m not American. I’m from a rather boring part of the world, from where it’s clear to see the meddling and machinations of all the world’s powers, big and small, if you want t
225.
by _djo_ 2y ago
US-centric doesn’t mean that you like the US, it means you speak and act like the US is the sole or primary cause of everything that happens in the world, is the only country with grand plans, and that other countries have no agency and c
226.
by _djo_ 2y ago
Again, that’s quite absurd. You’re acting as though Bin Laden was solely responsible for the attack, rather than being the head of an organisation that carried it out. Afghanistan under the Taliban were hosting Al-Qaeda, protecting it, supp
227.
by _djo_ 2y ago
Again, such an arrogant US-centric view. You do realise that other countries have agency too, right? The idea that the US drove the Saudis to lobby the Soviets is absurd: The Saudis were independently lobbying everyone they could because al
228.
by _djo_ 2y ago
Not for group chats.
229.
by _djo_ 2y ago
It’s a remarkably insular and US-centric view to believe that that story was the reason the United Nations Security Council voted to eject Iraq from Kuwait. It was a piece of propaganda that merely had some air play in the US and which, whi
230.
by _djo_ 2y ago
Which part was a lie? Here's the UN Security Council resolution that authorised the invasion. It's quite clear on the reasoning, the justification, and the mechanisms. https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbo
231.
by _djo_ 2y ago
You're mixing up cause and response, once again, and ignoring the timeline of events. > There has been order-of-magnitude 100 billion dollars worth of NATO gear provided to Ukraine with the express purpose of killing as many Russian
232.
by _djo_ 2y ago
> That 1) is full of holes. It is 2024, only 2 years later, and Ukraine is awash with NATO gear and as mentioned the official position of the US State Department is saying they're going to be part of NATO. They were clearly on the v
233.
by _djo_ 2y ago
No, that's not an accurate characterisation. You're confusing the cause and the response. That the support to Ukraine has been predominantly US-led, in no small part because it had stockpiles that Europe does not, does not tell us
234.
by _djo_ 2y ago
NATO isn’t the only supplier to Ukraine, and NATO has no command authority over Ukraine and its forces. The idea that this is a ‘NATO’ proxy war is ridiculous and denies the agency of a democratic nation. The US could only green light strik
235.
by _djo_ 2y ago
You can’t seriously believe that. First, the Taliban ‘offer’ was so full of caveats as to be worthless and, most importantly, they refused to do anything about the rest of the Al-Qaeda organisation that they hosted and shared power with and
236.
by _djo_ 2y ago
The Serbian campaign was ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, forcefully and methodically expelling over a million Kosovar Albanians from the area by the time they were stopped by NATO’s intervention. That does, arguably, rise to the level
237.
by _djo_ 2y ago
In what sense was it not self defence under international law?
238.
by _djo_ 2y ago
See my other reply. In any case, that you can refer to these as ‘aggressive imperialist power plays’ shows you’re both not to be taken seriously and are not willing to engage in a good faith and informed discussion.
239.
by _djo_ 2y ago
> I don't disagree with any of that. But you didn't deal with the "why is there an active land war in Eastern Europe?" question; which is what Chomsky was picking at to get to the NATO expansion point. Fair enough. To
240.
by _djo_ 2y ago
> * Intervention in the violent breakup of Yugoslavia, invited to do so by the UN in response to the genocide going on there. Indeed. So not an aggressive invasion but a humanitarian intervention. > * Invasion of Afghanistan, followin

More ›