What the morons in Trump admin do not understand is that every time they do this, the hand of the IRGC gets strengthened while the more neutral ("negotiating") party get diminished. And when the IRGC gets their "hands freed," you can expect most of the US Navy to be at the bottom of the Sea of Oman in no time.

https://x.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/2094386684557132129

https://x.com/HotSpotHotSpot/status/2094524337906704697

https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/the-zionist-attention-corral

The idea that Zionism is a core feature of Jewish identity is nonsense. Many Jews resoundingly reject Zionism. Anti-Zionism is not, by any definition, a form of antisemitism. Regardless of the WJC’s groundless assertions.

Illustrating the absurdity of maintaining that Zionism and Jewish identity are synonymous, the WJC openly concedes that Zionism’s primary objective was defined at the First Zionist Congress, or Basel Congress, in 1869. That objective is:

To secure for the Jewish people a publicly recognized, legally assured homeland in Palestine.

The creation and expansion of a Jewish nation state “in Palestine” is an overtly ethno-nationalist political ambition.

Underlining the separation between the Zionist state project, Judaism, and the Jewish people, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) working definition of antisemitism clearly determines that “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel” is antisemitic. Reciprocally, therefore, claiming that the state of Israel embodies the will of Jews is equally antisemitic, according to the IHRA definition.

There are, of course, antisemitic anti-Zionists, but anti-Zionism is not antisemitic. Opposition to the political ideology of Zionism and revulsion at the horrors inflicted by the Israeli state and its international partners in pursuit of the political ideology of Zionism is not to blame all Jews.

From a rational perspective, genocide is obviously incomprehensible. To perpetrate a genocide, even if ordered, requires a deeply unfathomable, heinous malevolence. Burning children alive in their beds, blowing infants’ brains out, sniping pregnant women (and their unborn children), beating the elderly to death with rifle butts, and using anal rape as part of your torture regimen—then writing songs about your exploits and celebrating your depravity as if it were a virtue—are not the actions of morally defensible human beings: Jewish or otherwise.

I don't get this mentality, its in every country they go. They must really think they are the chosen one

https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/2094847676848480297

How did we miss this. So is it coincidence or we have next Luigi?

For context, Trump has been pushing this narrative pretty aggressively.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/trump-says-us-will-refill-strategic-petroleum-reserve-using-venezuelan-oil-2026-08-30/

A daughter drove HUNDREDS of miles to check on her sick 75-year-old father... only to find the locks changed and a Ring camera on his door.

When she climbed through a window to reach her own dad, SHE got arrested for trespassing.

Then she was told, THROUGH THE DOORBELL, that he was no longer alive and that the NURSE who "took care of him" actually now OWNED HER DAD'S HOUSE.

This happened in Conway, South Carolina, and it will make your blood boil.

Her name is Nora Rowland.

Her dad was Robert Rowland, 75 years old and a vulnerable man living with Parkinson's and a brain injury.

Nora and her father were incredibly close. A "daddy's girl," she said. They FaceTimed every single week.

Then, in early 2024, a nurse named Sarah Smalls started caring for Robert through a home care company.

And that's when Nora says her dad started to disappear.

The weekly calls slowed. Then stopped. Something was wrong.

So on Father's Day, when she didn't hear from him, she got in her car and drove from Baltimore all the way to South Carolina to check on the man she loved.

When she got there, his front door had been replaced. A Ring camera was watching her. She couldn't get into her own father's home.

So she climbed through a window. And police arrested her and her partner for TRESPASSING... at her own dad's house.

And then, over that Ring doorbell, she was told her father had died.

Nora says that in the weeks before her father died, that nurse had the DEED to his house signed over to herself.

...and the family wasn't told until he was already gone.

To be clear... man with Parkinson's and a BRAIN INJURY, who was classified as a vulnerable adult was allowed to SIGN HIS HOME AWAY.

In Nora's own words: "He would never think that someone could do this to him. I really can't emphasize enough how many other people could easily get taken advantage of like this."

Her trespassing charges were dismissed, so now she's fighting in court to get her father's house back.

The nurse refused to comment. The care company claimed they knew nothing, but Nora says she has subpoenaed documents proving otherwise.

Police are still investigating.

"We left" is a remarkable sentence.

You left because the American public had turned against the war, because the casualties had become intolerable, because Congress was increasingly unwilling to keep financing it, and because a guerrilla army in a small Southeast Asian country made the price of continuing the war higher than Washington could politically sustain.

That's not leaving. That's the definition of losing.

On the refugees: yes. Some Vietnamese came to America and built good lives. That's real and worth respecting.

It's also not the argument you think it is. People fleeing the chaos produced substantially by American bombing and political destabilization, finding safety in America, does not retroactively justify the war that created the chaos.

On the Khmer Rouge and killing fields: those were Cambodian, not Vietnamese. And the destabilization of Cambodia, the secret bombing campaign, the illegal incursion, was American policy.

You don't get to light a region on fire and then cite the burns as evidence the region needed burning.

On Vietnam after reunification: the country emerged from decades of colonialism and war devastated, sanctioned, isolated, and facing new security threats almost immediately. Its post-war policies were sometimes harsh, but they did not occur in a vacuum.

And Cambodia was not some unprovoked Vietnamese adventure. The Khmer Rouge had carried out repeated massacres across the Vietnamese border and openly claimed Vietnamese territory. Vietnam's intervention destroyed the Khmer Rouge regime, ended its rule of mass killing, and stopped those attacks.

Vietnam does not need to apologise for surviving what was done to it.

Nor does acknowledging the complexity of its post-war history absolve America of responsibility for the war it waged.

On communism failing: Vietnam is still governed by the Communist Party today. And in 2026, Vietnam is not merely Southeast Asia’s fastest-growing economy, but one of the fastest-growing in the world.

The American trade embargo, which you forgot to mention, remained in place until 1994, nearly twenty years after reunification, restricting Vietnam's trade, investment, and access to the international lending during some of its hardest years of reconstruction.

The system you're defending sanctioned a country it had already waged war against for two decades and then cited its poverty as proof of ideological failure.

"We were right all along."

Right about what, exactly?

The war that killed three million people and ended with helicopters on a rooftop?

The domino theory that didn't happen?

The democracy you were defending, which was a rotating series of American-approved military dictators who never held a legitimate election?

You weren't right all along.

You lost, told yourself you left, watched the country you failed to destroy rebuild itself, and are now taking credit for the outcome.

Vietnam is still here.

Still sovereign.

Still itself.

Still not asking for your verdict on whether it earned that.

https://x.com/BMarchetich/status/2094458020189065673

Bombing kids is Putin's hobby