> If anyone has a working way to let Android web-browsers access the full geolocation EXIF metadata of photos uploaded on the web, please drop a comment in the box.
No. I don't want people like you unknowingly spying on me when I upload a picture. GrapheneOS patched that insane behavior long ago, but not including leaky metadata should be the default, sane behavior.
It's not a solution, it is a defense. A solution would not require the action in the first place. It is a shitty thing that we have to act this way and we shouldn't be complacent with our defenses. The solution is to make a world where we don't need to constantly defend.
It's probably just DNS (port 53). It's the way Europeans tend to implement their censorship, with the ISPs as executors. It's trivial to bypass, but most non-technical users don't know how, so it's good enough to comply.
If this is done at the DNS level, run your own DNS. If not, use a VPN. Taking this to the courts is a long term solution, but in the short term you want to act on your own to evade censorship and oppression.
If it's purely DNS blocking (no IP redirection or blocking), your own recursive resolver (eg, unbound) shouldn't be affected, assuming the ISP doesn't also intercept unencrypted DNS queries. If there's also interception, encrypted DNS upstream might help (assuming they're not blocked entirely, repressive countries do this, so far not in EU)
I don't think any of them will help in Spain case though, I believe the ISP/court choose to block the IP range entirely, which hit Cloudflare customers. DNS hijinks won't solve those.
> Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile and failed to open the Strait of Hormuz militarily
The U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily. When a country had most of its air force and navy destroyed, it is not in a position to demand anything. The Iranians have some missiles and drones left, but they are increasingly isolated and on their last legs economically. These "talks" have to be understood as a negotiated surrender that would leave what is left of the regime in place in exchange for complete disarmament.
It is heavily speculated that the rescue op on the downed pilot was a cover for a failed op regarding HEU extraction in that area. The info available on it online makes no sense for it to have just been a rescue op.
What legitimate reports detail their military losses? Practically every single thing the US is pushing out is pure untrustworthy propaganda on the subject. Even if those specific elements are destroyed, it doesn't mean much. Planes and boats are for forward aggression. They have primarily been wrecking havoc with missiles and drones, which they supposedly have plenty more of.
Iran is China and Russia's pivot point into the West. China isn't going to let such a massive intelligence and military asset go to waste. I'd just about guarantee they were involved in strong arming Pakistan into pushing for peace talks last week to avoid the threatened total destruction. Short of a nuke being dropped or the entire country being bombed to shreds, Iran isn't going anywhere any time soon.
> Iran is China and Russia's pivot point into the West
Yeah, Iran is just front face, this is Russia and China’s war. Latter entity gets to test all their technology, ammunition without actually being in the war. They did the same thing by using Pakistan while they were fighting India.
Insane reasoning after threatening genocide, the "no quarter" comment, previous bad faith negotiations, then further bombing the people trying to negotiate in previous attempts.
This isn't just about the current regime wanting to stay in power, do you think the average Iranian is going to trust the side that literally threatened to end their civilization overnight? That goes far beyond calling for regime change.
How does that justify threatening genocide and the end of their civilization?
Having previously lived in Iran for 4 years, I know that the Iranian regime is very oppressive and cruel, but all the US has done is fuel them. They thought that bombing Iran and killing Khamenei would lead to civil war and a collapse of the regime. It did none of that and invited retaliation. In return, the US just made all of the regime's claims true by making the very threats the regime had been saying were the US's intentions for the Iranian people.
Being precise and consistent in messaging that the goal was regime change would've been the absolute bare minimum bar for lending credibility to this war.
They still certainly are doing that. But the movement against the regime is organic going back years now. Iron fisted ultra conservative theocrats suck
LMAO ok, I mean that's bad but if we're referencing history to contextualize a situation let's start with the USA and UK deciding that "sovereign country" isn't a real thing if they vote to nationalize their oil industry. We're heading toward decade 8 of FAFO here with zero lessons learned.
Whoever told you this was lying to you. Trump released a statement on the first night of the war explicitly stating that regime change was the goal. Disarmament is the new goal he fabricated when the first one didn't work.
I don't think there's any point in digging into soil to implant the goal posts anymore, because they'll be moved in 6 hours. Best to just use a couple of shills to hold them up.
> When a country had most of its air force and navy destroyed, it is not in a position to demand anything
If they can keep Hormuz closed, they are absolutely in a position to demand things from a president whose party will be toast if gas prices rise too much.
Iran has showed it's neighbors something powerful which is US military can not protect you. The damage Iran did to us military bases is under reported.
FWIW, the whole conflict is a study on how much wars have changed. Information was always a part of it, but I have never seen it at a point, where I am entirely unsure on what is actually happening. Granted, some of the confusion appears to be by design courtesy of our president, who considers flailing some sort of grand strategy ( which may well work in real estate, but is ill-suited for something like this ). I can only speak for myself, but I find myself hesitating hard. I have zero doubt everyone is lying, but I have never seen such a wide chasm between two versions of the world we all occupy.
With respect, I think it's extremely clear what's actually happening, and the idea that it's confusing is a defense mechanism. The US and Israel launched a series of decapitation strikes, with the explicit and repeatedly stated expectation that this would lead to the overthrow of the Iranian government.
Then it didn't work, so they started a strategic bombing campaign.
Then that campaign proved ineffective at keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, leading to a sustained oil crisis.
So now here we are, with the entire world in a worse position than the status quo, and yet neither the US nor Iran feeling so defeated that they're willing to accept a conclusion worse than the status quo.
What you say might be true, but what you are saying this with some benefit of hindsight ( and even that is incomplete as we will likely learn more in years to come ).
<< So now here we are, with the entire world in a worse position than the status quo, and yet neither the US nor Iran feeling so defeated that they're willing to accept a conclusion worse than the status quo.
And this is exactly what I am referring to. The physical reality is what it is and won't care much for propaganda ( even soviet Russia eventually learned you can't sustain that forever ). But, to your point, I don't see both sides showing much hesitation.
If it helps, I am not saying you are wrong, but you may be already too entrenched in your worldview if you see fog of war as 'defense mechanism' and not a designed feature now supercharged by AI ( with some fascinating examples too ).
> The U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily.
That's true, but also irrelavent.
USA probably could do these things if they tried, given enough time and resources. It seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't want to spend the resources (and lives) required to do so. Hence negotiations. Iran probably sees that the war is incredibly unpopular in USA and figures trump lacks the political capital to continue, so they are probably trying to drive a hard bargain. In turn, Trump might in turn decide continuing is cheaper than the onerous terms iran wants and continue the war.
I predict more war, since as much as this war is politically bad for trump, he also hates "losing".
> It seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't want to spend the resources (and lives) required to do so.
Events so far suggest the opposite. This is the first president in decades that took decisive action against Iran. Iran is weaker than ever, and this is perhaps a once in a century opportunity to end the Islamic threat once and for all. If Iran folds, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others will quickly follow and the region will be at peace.
>this is perhaps a once in a century opportunity to end the Islamic threat once and for all. If Iran folds, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others will quickly follow and the region will be at peace.
Israel would have been now at permanent peace if they had not murdered Yitzhak Rabin, or if Ariel Sharon had not succeeded to sabotage the government of Ehud Barak and to restart the hostilities with the Palestinians.
No matter how much they succeed to destroy in Iran, that will never bring peace any closer. By going on this path, there is only one way to achieve "peace": kill every Iranian, man, woman and child, and kill every descendant of Palestinians, man, woman and child and also kill any other Arabs or Muslims who may feel solidarity with genocide victims. Until the "final solution" is achieved, any human who is killed makes peace less likely, not more likely. Therefore any supporter of the idea that the Iran war means "progress towards peace" is a supporter of the "final solution".
The reason why there is no peace is because a part of the elites of Israel do not want peace, because the permanent state of war in Israel has been extremely profitable for them. In no other country is it possible to exploit the employees so hard as in Israel, because those who would attempt to have a better balance between work and personal life would be labeled as non-patriotic traitors, who want their country to be defeated by its enemies. This permanent war economy is perfect for Israeli business owners and for the Israeli government.
This is silly, plenty of wars, even vicious ones, have ended in peace without killing everyone on one of the sides.
> This permanent war economy is perfect for Israeli business owners and for the Israeli government.
This is obviously not true when the IDF is primarily a conscript army. Conscription is bad for business. It is very difficult to run a business when your employees are being conscripted.
Not to mention how much of a disaster all of this has been for Israel's reputation in the world. Trade, not to mention tourism is based on reputation, and other then the defense industry, Israel is not doing well PR wise at the moment.
I have worked for many years in Israel, so what I say is from first hand knowledge, not from hearsay.
You are right that conscription is bad for business.
Nevertheless, in most businesses the employees lost to conscription are a small fraction of the workforce. Much more is gained from the pressure that can be applied on all the other employees, due to the permanent war economy. I pitied my Israeli colleagues, most of whom were very nice people, but who were powerless against the system that exploited them.
You are right about the reputation, but it appears that the power is held by those who do not care about reputation.
I have lived in Israel both before and after Ariel Sharon and his accomplices seized the power. The differences in tourism were huge, because before that you could walk safely anywhere through Israel, while after that you had to avoid carefully any place inhabited by Arabs, unless you had appropriate weapons with you, for any emergency.
I agree with most of what you wrote other than the first sentence. Iran is weak right now, relative to the past. That is probably why the war is happening now as opposed to in the past.
Nonetheless, Trump has been utterly incompetent on the political side of things. There is low support for the war in USA, which directly translates to being risk averse when it comes to casualities (or even short term oil prices!). Trump is happy to bomb iran from planes. He does not seem willing to put american soldiers at risk in a significant way or be in it for the long haul. I'm pretty sure Iran has noticed this and it informs their strategy.
But why hasn't the US come close to trying given their overwhelming advantages in firepower? To me, and I suspect to Iran, it seems clear that it's because the Trump regime fears the domestic costs of doing so. He's already feuding with formerly loyal cronies in the media over a dozen military deaths and $4 gas; can he really afford to risk what the response might be to hundreds or thousands of dead American soldiers with little to show for it but an extended oil crisis?
While civilian casualties are unavoidable in any conflict, the idea here is that if the regime falls, the face of the Middle East will completely change. Just look at Iran pre-1979 and imagine what it would be today had the theocracy not mercilessly oppressed the population for half a century. Perhaps this creator should use AI to generate a video of the IRGC killing an estimated 30,000 of their own people[0].
There is a certain leap between "civilian casualties are unavoidable" and "a civilization Is going to be destroyed and sent back to the stone age through war crimes"
Trump's comments are quite obviously saber-rattling. Until now at least, the U.S. hasn't executed 30,000+ Iranians in a short period of time, and countless more over the past five decades.
Regime change isn't the real goal here, is it? Haven't followed closely, but to me it seems the goal is to just destroy Iran as a regional power, with dire consequences for its population.
Iran under the Shah was hardly a bastion of liberty:
“In a 1976 document, Amnesty International detailed some of SAVAK's torture practices and stated that the shah's regime was one of the worst human rights violators in the world.”
Some argue the excessive repression is what caused the reactionary backlash of the Islamic Revolution (which initially was also supported by liberal democratic and leftist parties as well).
This is a pointless complaint if the person who has ended up in charge is worse. There's no point in imagining what could have been. The world is dealing with what exist now.
The only thing any of that has to do with the US is that the US backed that theocracy! We cannot unilaterally violate all international law and sovereignty without Congress and our allies… that’s obvious though so what are you talking about?
Except that the effect here has not been to overturn the regime, but rather to put a hardliner into absolute power while also murdering his entire family in the middle of diplomatic negotations. And then murdering plenty of innocent people, like that school full of literal children, to ensure that the country rallies around him.
It's quite clear in view of recent events that the mullahs aren't interested in negotiating for the good of their people. It is obvious to anyone that if Iran put all the resources they poured into secret nuclear facilities and missiles into economic development, infrastructure, and education, Iran would be in a completely different place today. Sadly, the regime's primary objective is self-preservation, and the only language it understands is violence.
The issue isn’t the amount of spending; they could spend nothing and would still get bombed because they are antagonistic to the US and its allies/vassals.
They are a theocratic regime which is not supported by 80% of its population. Being gay is punishable by death. They employ surveillance from China to ensure hijabs are worn by women at all times. They ban access to the internet. Chants of "Death to America" are their government's routine greeting for 50 years. They place military equipment in schools and hospitals deliberately, viewing US compassion as a weakness. They recruit child soldiers and have them publicly stationed at military targets.
There is definitely "antagonism," but to act as if the Iranian people would not bomb their own government if they could... it's a bit much.
> All of which is confirming my point.
No. It refutes your point "They employ surveillance from China to ensure hijabs are worn by women at all times." In addition I would contest other aspects of your statement as well, but that isn't my main point.
> The original person's implication that the "antagonism" towards the IRGC is novel to America is simply false.
You seem to not have understood what my point. What is most determinative of a countries fate in the Middle East isn't domestic policy, but obedience to the United States. Iran's problems are due to the fact that it is an enemy of the United States and hence sanctioned heavily, leading to severe economic problems. There are many other nations headed by regimes that are some combination of socially regressive, highly unpopular, and politically repressive that are counted as US allies and don't face the same set of difficulties (e.g. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain).
Eh, it's also clear that nations without nuclear arms exist at the whims of great powers, particularly now. "behave and we'll let you have some prosperity unless you need defense in which case good luck" isn't exactly a strong argument.
And the people in power in Iran actively are not in favor of the good of their people, a large proportion of which want nothing to do with their religious fundamentalism.
How do you convince oppressive zealots to play nice for peace when their whole existence rests on having enemies? "death to America!" being the popular chant at political rallies.
> It is obvious to anyone that if Iran put all the resources they poured into secret nuclear facilities and missiles into economic development, infrastructure, and education, Iran would be in a completely different place today
> if it spent more money on education and less on missiles
Wait, isn't the US has literally the highest spending on education in the world? And it is precisely the highest spending in the world on missiles that make it possible. So less money on missiles would mean less money on education.
So, it's performative. While they complain about American hegemony, Europeans buy iPhones (or Android), drink Coke, scroll Instagram, and listen to Taylor Swift. And while they might object to NATO spending, decades of inadequate military spending have left Europe with no real alternative to buying protection from America.
Okay genius now go look at the gdp of your European states compared with Texas alone. No one cares how many people you manage when your economic policy is so hilariously incompetent you’ve had 2+ decades of total stagnation during one of the biggest economic tech booms ever.
It's a typical indication of an American centric world view based on two fallacies: that only the winner counts and that the only thing that matters is money.
This world view is based on the ultracapitalist system that the US still considers the one and only way but that we in Europe don't subscribe to.
But even the American geopolitical position wasn't all about money. It was about trust and alliances too. Now that these are all set on fire and the moral high ground is given up, the geopolitical status is no longer a given. See how America's allies came running to the unnecessary second Iraq war, and now shrug about Iran.
I wonder what are we going to sell to Mercosur. German cars? They'll buy from China. French wine? They already have their own and it's quite good. Spsnish and Greek olive oil? That could work.
Wishful to the point of delusion. Europe is a stagnant backwater in a deep energy crisis that's about to get significantly deeper, and comforts itself on an completely unearned sense of moral superiority that it can't feed itself with.
This is also a self-inflicted wound. There's no reason that Europe should be in the situation that it is in other than it is run by elites that are, like everyone else, invested in the success of US companies, and have no particular loyalty to Europe. When they retire, they move to the US and get board seats, advisory positions, lobbyist jobs, and cushy university spots.
Europeans need to start engaging in rational thinking and to stop letting their politics revolve around zombie US institutions (like NATO) and electing functionaries from tiny little countries who have made an industry of covertly advocating for US interests in Europe. They also need to seriously rethink their relationships with Russia and China, and realize that when it comes to Russia, they were the bad guys so destroying their economies and futures over manufactured grudges and fantasies of invasion is an indulgence that their children can't afford.
Independence from the US means getting rid of their elites that work for the US, and getting rid of victimhood narratives about Russia (who at least occupied part of Europe) and China (who have never done a thing to them.) They should make BRICS EBRICS. If Europe doesn't wise up, they're just going to start killing each other. Thank God that France has nukes and can't be invaded again.
No. I don't want people like you unknowingly spying on me when I upload a picture. GrapheneOS patched that insane behavior long ago, but not including leaky metadata should be the default, sane behavior.
reply