aphantastic

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?

Absolutely wild mentality.

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.

^ 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?

> Have you ever actually

Every day of my life, actually. It’s clear you don’t, and I don’t particularly care. Good day.

Yes. I can’t edit unfortunately.

Synecdoche.

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 of his invasion of Ukraine.

And of course you can assume all of Netenyahoo’s decisions are made in a vacuum too, or you can open your eyes.

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 reached millions yet? Will it?

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.

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.

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? To date all you’ve done is list rule proving exceptions.

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 america.

Yes, it wouldn’t. You haven’t provided any evidence to refute that.

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 guns that are the problem for any israeli’s wellbeing.

You are sorely misinformed. https://www.ajc.org/news/what-every-american-should-know-abo...

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 has made for American gun money.

That’s what we would call “the exception that proves the rule”.

True. The court is immaterial, the guns are the only authority. As I said.

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”.

Yes. And?

Do we have many examples of cases where countries have held US soldiers or commanders of allied nations captive without repercussion?

Israel wouldn’t exist.

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.

I wonder who you think in the US political sphere would treat them any differently.

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.

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 throughout both the new and old testaments. Regardless, your case is more fitting the other thread than this one. That’s about folks who call themselves Christian despite not being particularly interested in Christ. This is about the claim that somehow being a “good guy” makes one Christian. (Or even is Christianity)

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 clearly argue it means everything!”

Suit yourself but I find this reasoning cyclically brain-dead.

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 be a disciple of Christ (the group of people first ever referred to as “Christians”), not whether they have a particular interpretation of “God as depicted in the bible”.

It is, for instance, rather common to believe Genesis 1 is more of an allegory than an explicit recounting of God’s work, but that does not preclude someone from accepting Christ as their Lord and choosing to live as His disciple.

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. Some of them may happen to be Christian, others may not.

But to observe that some Christians are part of the Kumbaya Collective and then go on to imply that being part of the collective is a “simple form” of Christianity is a categorical error.

Behaviour does not imply Faith.

> 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 form” of it.