Miscellaneous News

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
The rebels were SDF, some other ones did join ISIS and Al-Qaeda or work with them and some members were apart of it. but they never helped ISIS or Al-Qaeda. The US did bomb ISIS and Al-Qaeda and helped support rebels who ended up capturing ISIS held land. The US wasn’t upset at Russia fighting ISIS that is Russian propaganda. The reason why was Russia went into Syria to help Assad and they often targeted SDF what the US supported. And the US doesn’t owe anyone reparations for terrorist attacks because the US didn’t do them and the US led an entire war that helped weaken many terrorists
And you know this with certainty because? The western MSM told you along with their bazillion network of think tanks that has their tentacles literally all-over the world? And you're not a bleeping child?
 

neutralobserver

Junior Member
Registered Member
A little historical correction. It was the Saudis who funded the real loonies in the anti-Soviet Afghan resistance. But both the Saudi and US funds were disbursed through Pakistan's ISI (and no doubt funded a pretty lavish lifestyle for some higher ups there). Incidentally a lot of Mujahedeen armaments came from China (who also made out like bandits, charging $80 for AKs which cost $30 to make). Many Mujahedeen were actually trained in China.
An interesting video of Chinese Foreign Minister meeting Mujahedeen in Pakistan (starts at 7 Minutes 11 seconds) and video of Chinese Language Courses in Pakistan back in 1980's...It was vitally important to kick out Soviets from Afghanistan for US, China and most importantly Pakistan as they would have invaded us next.

 

xyz4321

Junior Member
Registered Member
Taliban didn't formally exist, but Osama Bin Laden as well as the leaders of the Taliban did. Same leaders, same people, same ideology, just different name.didn't. Both the Taliban and al-Queda emerged from the Afghan resistance movement.
Afghan Deobandi (Hanafi derived) versus Saudi OBL Wahhabi (Hanbali derived) are very, very different ideologies. Wahhabism and Hanbali have never been popular outside peninsular Arabia. Taliban has always been Afghan or Pakistani; never Arab.

Western interpretation = they all the same, just like Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc all the same. If you really wanna understand these people and their doctrines, I suggest not to rely on Western sources. When you know how much blatant nonsense the West produces about China, why would you rely on them for understanding the rest of the world?

Core aim of Taliban has always been LOCAL resistance against foreign invaders; while AQ was all about GLOBAL strategic plays.
 

pmc

Colonel
Registered Member
The fact it’s an oppressive regime who doesn’t allow internet or their citizens to leave the country. They are also quite threatening country externally with nukes. Their useful for China but the matter of the fact is it is an oppressive regime who doesn’t allow their citizens to leave and allow the internet among other stuff.
They certainly can leave there country but obviously to selected countries. Just one construction developer in Russia Far East mentioned 153,000 applications from North Korean. now add the factories , services and the students in Russian institutions. military will be separate.
This resort built for 20K people and one week is $2k per person from Russia side. not many countries have skills to built such thing
 

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
Why should they do that? Should the US give up any American citizen if a foreign country designates him as a terrorist and demands him to be sent over? This shows your pro-Western bias masquarading as some kind of bleeding heart garbage.

Oh that's the precise definition of oppressive? What professor told you that it was this narrow? Did s/he (maybe zee? LOL) say that locking people up over wearing pro-Russian t-shirts is NOT oppressive? Did your professor tell you that banning Pro-Palestinian protests on campus while allowing Pro-Iraeli protests is NOT oppressive?

When a Western country tries to ban people from accessing TikTok, is that part of the internet? Is that oppressive?

It doesn't matter what you mean by "oppressive," child. It matters what the word actually means and it encompasses all of these.

He's also a disgusting hypocrite. It's only oppression when a foreign institution stops (or punishes) people from doing things he approves of abroad. When his own institutions stops (or punishes) people from doing things he disapproves of, it's law enforcement. In other words, he's a natural imperialist as he believes his own society or government's views and judgements should be enforced globally. No other values, laws, or judgements from others abroad carry any legitimacy or weight in his eyes, unless they align with his own society/government.
 

dirtyid

New Member
Registered Member
New China is IUU overfishing innumeracy from DC think tank just dropped. Expect this to get repeated by MSM in coming days and I suppose more US coast guard deployments.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Last years lol estimate of PRC DWF fleet was 18000... now 32000 kek. It's hilarious to see PRC DWF inflation from 3000 in 2020 to 6000 to 18000 and now 32000 in 5 years. PRC ship building is incredible, but damn /s. PRC wild catch was like 12m in 2020... and 15m in 2024... but somehow catching that extra 3m required DWF to grow from 3000 to 32000. 950% / 29000 new boats to DWF fleet to catch... 25% / 3m tons more fish in 5 years. Truely lie flat behaviour from PRC fishermen.

Quick observation, can clearly see from empty perimeter in the heat map PRC fishing largely stays clear of SKR, JP EEZ. Reason DC thinktank "report" try to play up 12m hours in SKR is likely that hotspot just south of SKR peninsula, aka disputed Socotra rock EEZ. And I surmise majority of JP 1.5m "hours" are over disputed Senkaku EEZ. 4.5m TW hours, obviously PRC considers TW waters part of her territorial/EEZ waters. About another 1m hours from SCS EEZ disputes. AKA 18/21m hours are basically DC think tank doing customary China bad funny stats from disputed maritime delimitations. Incidentally using said delimitations to extrapolate 3000k PRC distant fishing fleet into 30k+ in 5 years... somehow.

PRC has largest absolute DWF fleet size, but per capita she's underfishing, especially relative to TW, SKR, JP, who're at only 30-50% aquaculture vs PRC 70-80%. Spain and Russia also up there. Also fraction of SKR/TW subsidies per capita, about on par with JP. For PRC's DWF fleet to match other top DWF fleet's capita fishing efforts, PRC would have to fish something like 3-9x+ more. Ecuador & Peru, two countries with ~1/30th population of PRC, together captures about about ~1/2 of PRC, who also has 1/2 the EEZ of these countries, which incidentally means PRC has to fish more in international waters.

Again, let's stress how absolutely batshit stupid these new numbers are:

  • SKR, ~500-700 DWF fleet, 300-400k metric tons per year.
  • JP ~1200-1500 DWF fleet, 600-900k metric tons per year.
  • TW ~1000 DWF fleet, 400-600k metric tons per year.
AVG 400-800 tons per ship.

  • PRC... 32000 DWF fleet, 3000k metric tons per year.
AVG 90 tons per ship.

Or... avg 400-800 tons per ship

  • PRC ~3750-7500 DWF fleet.

PRC official report is like ~2700 in ~2020, add 25% for 25% by 2025 increase catch and you get ~3400. It's underestimation (and while PRC wanted to cap to 3000 in last 5 year plan), but it's underestimate by 100s, not over estimation by 10000s. Like tag on highest maritime militia estimates of ~10k, and it's still almost ~20k over.

Or just look at estimates of global seafood market growth... ~5% CAGR, ~+50B over past 5 years. Like 35B of that from PRC aquaculture growth. What's the 29000 new DWF doing? Global DWF size for major fishing nations is like 6000... so PRC adds... 500% that and somehow global fishing market grows by... 30%.

Placing bet estimate of PRC DWF will be 40k next year.
 
Top