aphantastic

6 ms·

31.
by aphantastic 2y ago
They’re after you, are they? Those people who you’ve never met, never once interacted with? Who have never made any attack on US soil? Who instead are facing attacks from US weapon systems onto their soil? Those guys , are “after” you
32.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Ah, anon downvotes but no vocal support. Aka: that sentiment looks awful and I won’t put my name to it, but also fuck you, you aren’t toeing the liberal party line if you question it. Disgusting.
33.
by aphantastic 2y ago
^ great example of the evil-Biden mentality I described above. I wonder, do the folks who are opposed to my viewpoint generally support this narrative?
34.
by aphantastic 2y ago
> Have you ever actually Every day of my life, actually. It’s clear you don’t, and I don’t particularly care. Good day.
35.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Yes. I can’t edit unfortunately.
36.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Synecdoche.
37.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Nothing, if you assume Putins decisions are made in a vacuum. If on the other hand you grant that he might observe the leaders of world super powers, you’ll notice a striking connection between the change of power in America and the launch
38.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Bidens approval of the latest missiles has to be the most bone headed — nay, straight evil — actions committed by a US Chief of Staff since Bush. January can’t come soon enough. How many humans have died from this administration? Has it rea
39.
by aphantastic 2y ago
I still don’t know what your point is. I’ve been consistent since the beginning. UK and France are quite weak indeed, nuclear is a separate plane that is irrelevant in this thread.
40.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Have to wonder what compelled folks to do a drive by on the “I disagree” button. I wouldn’t have thought anything I said to be controversial amongst geopolitically aware individuals.
41.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Sure, going back to the main point North Korea has guns and this helps to hem get their way. And if we restrict ourselves to those countries which are relevant to the main point (ICC member states), they don’t, and don’t. What’s your point?
42.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Listing examples of chinese nationals captured in a time when 85% of Americans today weren’t even alive isn’t proving the point you seem to think it is. The simple fact of the matter is that modern countries simply don’t want to mess with a
43.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Yes, it wouldn’t. You haven’t provided any evidence to refute that.
44.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Ha. “more than double”. So, a third? If I needed government welfare to pay half my salary in order to get by, I’d consider myself pretty damn dependent. A far cry from getting a free meal at costco to be sure. But I agree it’s not the ICCs
45.
by aphantastic 2y ago
You are sorely misinformed. https://www.ajc.org/news/what-every-american-should-know-abo...
46.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Guns don’t exist in a vacuum. They need constant financial support. US provides that support. Without US, they have no support. Without support, they have no guns. Don’t just take my word for it, look at all the published requests Israel ha
47.
by aphantastic 2y ago
That’s what we would call “the exception that proves the rule”.
48.
by aphantastic 2y ago
True. The court is immaterial, the guns are the only authority. As I said.
49.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Right. Your opening paragraph made it seem like you thought this was administration dependent. Few things bother me more than people who try to claim Biden/Harris was “good for ukraine” or “good for palestine”.
50.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Yes. And?
51.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Do we have many examples of cases where countries have held US soldiers or commanders of allied nations captive without repercussion?
52.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Israel wouldn’t exist.
53.
by aphantastic 2y ago
It’s really rather simple. Anyone on this planet only has as much authority as their guns provide them. The people who operate these courts have fewer guns than the US, so they don’t get authority over US interests.
54.
by aphantastic 2y ago
I wonder who you think in the US political sphere would treat them any differently.
55.
by aphantastic 2y ago
Saying it’s diluted is one thing - I actually agree there. Saying that because it’s diluted, it actually means specifically “X” is totally different and indefensible.
56.
by aphantastic 2y ago
A better word is Disciple, this was the original usage of the term and a description which your group would seem to match. Of course, all of the original disciples considered Jesus to be their Lord and this terminology was used extensively
57.
by aphantastic 2y ago
What a ridiculous argument. By this “logic” anyone could claim anything at all is “a simple for of Christianity” and you’d jump in to say “why yes, you see some people don’t view Christianity as meaning much of anything, therefore we can cl
58.
by aphantastic 2y ago
That’s a rather Euro-centric view of things (you’ll find the corresponding articles for the american continents are very different), but even still it’s missing the point. The question is whether this “critical mass” you speak of seeks to b
59.
by aphantastic 2y ago
You are conflating belief systems and behavioral patterns. Christianity is a belief system populated by folks who follow Christ as Lord. Full stop. This Kumbaya Collective you describe is a behavioral pattern that many folks take part in.
60.
by aphantastic 2y ago
> The same can be considered a simple form of Christianity as well though. To an uninformed external observer perhaps. But to be Christian means to accept Christ as your Lord. There is no Christianity without Christ. Not even a “simple f

More ›