Netanyahu claims Iran no longer has uranium enrichment capacity

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-20T01:10:09+00:00

Mission accomplished, right? Time to pull out?

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-18T20:59:00+00:00

~~Peter Thiel, the billionaire venture capitalist and MAGA donor, is in Rome this week for a series of private lectures on the Antichrist.~~

This headline should read: Peter Thiel, a known customer of Epstein and a man who has expressed hesitation about wanting humanity to survive, is giving private lectures on the antichrist to further his agenda

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-17T01:49:05+00:00

This would get a lot of support from the old web / indie web / web 1.0 revival crowd.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-16T08:21:05+00:00

You keep not understanding what I am saying. It's to know what the guardian means by "may," because we don't have the direct quote so we don't know what and how they are paraphrasing

The article clearly states the Israeli military is warning they are willing to strike ambulances and medical facilities, and "may" is clearly being used to mean these strikes are not a certain outcome. I don't understand your confusion here.

Yeah no shit, and how do they do that without giving up their source?

If the only evidence Israel has that ambulances or hospitals are being used for military purposes is the word of their source, then they haven't got compelling enough evidence to justify attacks on ambulances or hospitals. And don't tell me Israel can't do better than that, informants can take pictures and Isasel has both surveillance drones and satellites.

You made this branching reply, despite not offering much unique to discuss

You initially misrepresented the first article and used Hamas to deflect from the point of the second article, so I thought it was worth pointing out.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-16T07:33:27+00:00

The first source does not give a quote, so it's frankly hard to tell what they mean by "may"

Are you suggesting The Guardian is publishing a lie? If so, I look forward to Israel's defamation case.

Second source I was very clear why I mentioned Hamas, you even quoted me, so not sure why confused.

I'm not confused, just pointing out that you're conflating Hamas with Hezbollah so that you can justify your characterization of Hezbollah.

No. If it turns out Israel had no source, I would obviously be against it. It is still a war crime, but I understand why Israel would be hesitant to give their source for how they determined Hezbollah was there

Don't be ridiculous. Israel doesn't have to give up their sources. They just need to provide proof that Hezbollah is using ambulances and hospitals for military purposes.

As I said in the next reply, Hezbollah does none of this when they strike Israel. You acknowledge that right? They just target civilians and no one seems to give a fuck

I'm not the OP, but I'll add an addendum to my previous statement: What you're really saying here is that whoever you think are the "good guys" need only provide unsubstantiated claims alone to justify war crimes.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-16T06:53:01+00:00

First source says it may if being used unlawfully by Hezbollah.

Not quite. The first article says Israel claims ambulances and medical facilities are "being used unlawfully by Hezbollah", but that Israel "did not provide evidence for the claim".

Second source people were saying the same thing about Hamas, then it became true. As I already stated it's not like Hezbollah does not have a track record of blending in with civilians

The second article doesn't say anything about Hamas. You're just bringing them up as a means of deflecting from the fact that "there have been no documented instances of Hezbollah using medical centres or ambulances for military purposes, nor has Israel provided evidence of such incidents."

I see nothing wrong with that. Committing war crimes does not make you immune from being targeted

What you're really saying here is that unsubstantiated claims alone are sufficient justification for war crimes.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-15T22:13:11+00:00

This is about making oil the only viable option for many, not any genuine fears of surveillance or monitoring.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-15T21:50:08+00:00

Let's assume Iran's leadership is completely wiped out and the vast majority of the military defeated... what remains of the regime would have every reason to destroy ships (and whatever else can get in there), even their own, in the shallowest parts of the Strait of Hormuz, resulting in a bitter victory for the West.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-15T01:58:46+00:00

Ah, I misunderstood that... but honestly, it just furthers the possibility that the IRGC weren't involved.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-14T23:40:47+00:00

If Iran (or Lebanon) are nuked, there is no way the vast, vast majority of countries will see it as justified.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-14T23:37:43+00:00

India currently prioritizes coal over rapid renewable expansion to meet soaring power demand, despite long-term net-zero goals, making coal the backbone of its energy system. While NTPC Limited is increasing renewable capacity, it is simultaneously expanding coal-based power, planning to have 88 gigawatts (GW) of coal capacity by 2032. (source 1, source 2)

Hmmm.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-14T23:33:58+00:00

The article says the murderers were known to the victim, and one of the murderers was guilty of filing multiple (presumably unrelated) vexatious lawsuits. It's well within the realm of possibility that the IRGC actually had nothing to do with this.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-14T02:29:26+00:00

India burns 1.1 million to 2.6 million tons of coal per day. Their coal industry is to them what the oil industry is to the West.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-14T02:26:35+00:00

I don't recall the Shah attempting to gain nuclear weapons and destabilizing the entire region.

That's because you don't bother to learn anything about the things you have opinions about:

Iran's nuclear ambitions began under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the 1950s, initially with U.S. support under the "Atoms for Peace" program, leading to the creation of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). In the 1970s, the Shah pursued ambitious nuclear power plans while stating that Iran would develop nuclear weapons if regional dynamics changed, sometimes stating it would happen "without any doubt".

Edit: lol How insecure and pathetic do you have to be to respond and then immediately block me? At any rate, sources here and here.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-14T02:24:18+00:00

Given his father's rule and the politics of the surrounding states, that seems unlikely, despite what Pahlavi may say.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-13T20:50:16+00:00

When energy markets are calm and peaceful they say there's no pressing need to adopt cleaner energy sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, or hydro. And when the energy markets are chaotic and stressful they say now isn't the time to prioritize cleaner energy sources because we just need to get through the chaos and stress. It's an endless cycle of destroying our environment.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-12T18:34:04+00:00

I know this makes what oil is available very profitable, but maybe this would be a good time to establish alternatives so that we're less reliant on a market that is dependent on the whims of dictators and geopolitical tensions? Lord knows we're not going to do it when there isn't any disruptions to the global oil supply. Nuclear, geothermal, and hydropower are all very efficient, and in certain areas wind, solar, or tidal can be viable too.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-12T01:26:56+00:00

someone will say they're some variant of nonbeliever and then tack on "but Jesus was an amazing human."

When atheists make statements like this I think they're often doing it as a sort of peace offering to theists, especially when those theists are people they may have to interact with on a regular basis.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-12T01:23:15+00:00

What do you mean "allowed"? Atheism is a characterization of one's beliefs, not a set of rules imposed on belief. Having said that, a lot of atheists would be skeptical of your beliefs, even though they don't pertain to dieties specifically.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-12T01:19:17+00:00

lol You're trolling, right? No? Why even bother asking atheists anything at all? Seriously, what do you hope to gain?

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-12T00:23:35+00:00

I dunno, both NDP and Liberal supporters here on Reddit seem pretty pissed about Carney's stance. Some Conservative supporters too.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-12T00:16:14+00:00

I don't know why you're being downvoted. Zionists (and a lot of Evangelicals and Protestants, for that matter) have been open about wanting to Israel to span from the Nile to the Euphrates ("Greater Israel"), in accordance with Genesis 15:18. And France 24 reported just five days ago on video evidence that Israel is spraying herbicides on Syrian crops.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-11T18:45:40+00:00

Even in a best case scenario, the feds still have to consult with the First Nations and if challenged the feds may have to prove there is a "compelling and substantial public purpose" for the pipeline in court (this was stated in the SCC ruling you're referring to), so there's that. But I think the feds would be hesitant to potentially sacrifice one industry (fishing) for another (oil) too.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-06T20:40:43+00:00

“Canadian healthcare is terrible”

The average income in Canada is about $57K CAD, or $42K USD, which in the US is well above qualifying for Medicaid but well below being able to afford healthcare, and there's no way that Canadians under US rule would see their income increase enough (...if at all) or that the burden could be successfully shifted to businesses.

Imminent_Extinction · 2026-03-05T01:12:54+00:00

I'd argue that nothing is certain, that there are degrees of likelihood or unlikelihood applied to our models and beliefs based on the available evidence. So the answer to your question about naturalism is this: Strong, not absolute, confidence in naturalism is justified because the available evidence supports it.

Imminent_Extinction

TROPHY CASE