They have alcohol at airports? That’s so weird.

Well that’s what I get for not checking my info!

Thanks for the correction.

They got paranoid about nuclear and closed down all their nuclear plants. They intensified fossil fuel power production because they didn’t have enough renewable power. Then prices went up due to the war end they had an oh shit moment.

I suspect they have something to gain by fueling a climate of geopolitical tension. Maybe they hope someone will turn to them because they’re scared?

I’m not sure what exactly but I’ve got a feeling we’re underestimating their intelligence when we say they’re just posturing or being silly.

But then again, several years ago people thought Trump and Musk had a plan and were just posturing as idiots while playing 4D chess. How wrong they were.

I may just be giving the Chinese government too much credit… But I’m leaning towards no.

My understanding of Afghanistan’s complex situation isn’t sufficient to confirm or deny, sorry.

“This document not only violates Afghanistan’s domestic laws but also broadly contravenes all 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

They didn’t think it could be done, but I knew I could do it. All 30 articles in one law!

— A Taliban, probably

Not sure how right or wrong that is when taking into account the more moderate sections of it, but in this particular case, as the article says, it’s not really about Islam. The holy texts don’t really call for any of this.

I’m talking about things that are possible. There wasn’t any physically unavoidable reason the colonization of North America had to turn into the mess it did.

It was sparsely populated. It would have been possible for Europeans to negotiate in good faith, not kick people out of where they lived, and fairly compensate for any harm caused.

And in fact, while overall the result was overall pretty damn deplorable, you can dig in history and find some examples where it went well, at least for a while.

My point is that it’s not that settling is not inherently borderline an act of war. It can easily, and it often does, turn out badly, no one’s arguing against that.

But even though that’s the case, there are degrees to these things. Between literal genocide and cultural harm, for instance.

Am I arguing that anyone SHOULD settle any area? Not really. But I’m also not willing to put literally every case in the same basket.

Well you can send settlers to an empty desert. You can also send settlers to a sparsely inhabited land and have them get along with the locals. It’s not like it’s physically impossible.

I see the concept of settler as someone who goes live somewhere where there aren’t many people, not a role where conflict is a major part of the thing.

West Bank settlers sent by Israel were already highly questionable, but if they start doing things like this, they’re just soldiers with extra steps.

What.

Yeesh. The past, ladies and gentlemen. I prefer when people leave it way back then.

That’s because of religion?!