Glenn Shadrake

@1980paz @afneil Murders are committed before being solved.

@GShadrake @afneil more crimes got solved thats why its pretty self explanatory

Last year there were 14,651 murders in America involving guns. Britain? 32 So I suspect even you can see where the problem is. And we’re nowhere near an Islamist abyss.

@BuddyWells1 Read the fine print under ‘Bank of England’.

@GShadrake Exactly. Imagine thinking the Bank of England has no pound.

How do people ever take this guy seriously? The state is the currency issuer. The private sector are currency users. Without state (central bank and govt) spending, you would not have any currency).

@ripinieks @BowesChay Russia was a constituent republic of the Soviet Union. All treaties & international status formerly attributed to the USSR, which had its capital in Moscow, were inherited by Russia, which also is governed from the Kremlin. That is why Russia occupies the USSR’s UN seat.

@GShadrake @BowesChay "Powers have to be able to trust commitments made, or peaceful agreements" agreements (non-signed) were subject to Soviet Union not russia.

36 years ago the Berlin Wall began to come down. 5 years later, Jack Matlock, US Ambassador to the Soviets 1987-1991 revealed the promises made to the Soviets for allowing a Unified Germany to join NATO unhindered. They were lied to, and here we are.

@RezaNasri1 @ClimateAudit Not a fan of the mullahs’ regime but that doesn’t change the fact the arguments made here are well reasoned.

Iran’s legal position regarding the Strait of Hormuz rests on a firm and multi-layered foundation in international law that has been consistently articulated, formally recorded, and never relinquished. First, the applicable treaty framework does not support the imposition of the “transit passage” regime on Iran. The UNCLOS introduced transit passage as a novel legal construct, granting expansive rights—including overflight and submerged navigation—to foreign military assets. However, Iran never ratified UNCLOS and explicitly rejected this regime upon signature. Under general principles of treaty law, a state cannot be bound by provisions of a treaty it has not ratified, particularly where it has expressly objected to those provisions at the time of signature. This position is reinforced by the doctrine of the persistent objector. Even if one assumes, arguendo, that transit passage has evolved into customary international law, Iran has consistently and openly rejected its applicability. As such, it is not bound by that rule. Second, in the absence of a universally binding transit passage regime, the governing law reverts to earlier treaty law and customary principles, most notably the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. Both Iran and key user states such as the United States are not parties to UNCLOS, creating a legal vacuum in which reliance on earlier treaty regimes is not only appropriate but necessary. Under this framework, the right of passage through territorial seas is not unlimited. It is conditioned on innocent passage, a well-established rule allowing coastal states to regulate navigation to protect their security and public order. Crucially, innocent passage excludes activities that threaten the coastal state, including military operations, intelligence gathering, and acts connected to hostile conduct. Third, the geographic reality of the Strait of Hormuz strengthens Iran’s legal position. The navigable channels lie entirely within the overlapping territorial seas of Iran and Oman. This is not a high seas corridor but a maritime space subject to coastal sovereignty, albeit qualified by navigational rights. That sovereignty carries with it the right to adopt and enforce laws necessary to safeguard national security. Fourth, even under UNCLOS itself, the regime of non-suspendable innocent passage remains a legally recognized alternative in certain straits. This regime is more restrictive than transit passage and explicitly allows the coastal state to take necessary steps to prevent passage that is not innocent. Iran’s interpretation is therefore not a legal aberration, but a plausible reading grounded in existing law. Fifth, and most critically in the present context, the law of armed conflict and the UN Charter fundamentally alter the legal landscape. Following an unlawful use of force against it, Iran is entitled to invoke its inherent right of self-defense. In such circumstances, the legal characterization of passage cannot be divorced from the realities of hostilities. Vessels and aircraft associated with belligerent states—or facilitating military operations—cannot claim protected navigational rights while simultaneously contributing to acts of aggression. International law has never required a state to permit its own territorial sea to be used as a conduit for hostile operations. On the contrary, the right of self-defense permits proportionate measures to prevent such exploitation. Conditioning passage on neutrality and non-hostility is therefore not only lawful but necessary to uphold the integrity of that right. Finally, the conduct of other states further undermines any claim that Iran’s position is exceptional. The United States itself is not a party to UNCLOS yet selectively invokes its provisions as customary law when convenient.

@ivan_8848 Nor can Tehran intercept the UK’s nuclear missiles.

Former UK Defence Secretary Wallace stated that the country would not be able to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles if they were to strike. "The Iranians took two rocket stages from their space program, added them to existing missiles, and have now succeeded in creating missiles with a range that could allow them to reach the UK in the future. And even if we're not talking about Iran, the point is that range-increasing technologies are advancing, and missile ranges are increasing." "If such a missile were launched at us, would we be able to intercept it?" "No, we wouldn't be able to—at least not yet."

@BuddyWells1 Economists distinguish between money (an asset that retains its value) versus currency (a debt instrument & unit of account that shrinks in real value precisely because govt can “print” it in unlimited quantity). Currency masquerading as money is legalized counterfeiting.

@GShadrake So how do you explain him saying “govt doesn’t have money”?

@dmbkparker Sopwith Camel, Spitfire, Lancaster, Mosquito, Mustang, P-38 Lightning, F-86 Sabre, Phantom. SR-71 Blackbird.

Two aircraft that should never be retired. 1. A10 2. Chinook What else goes on the list? If you say Blackhawk, I will virtually slap you.

@DX_Alphafg He spent ‘21 planning Ukraine war. Ensured all diplomatic avenues to settling the Donetsk-Luhansk rebellion were closed down, had Zelensky declare he’d retake the oblasts by force, Crimea too. When Z’ moved an army to the border, Putin reacted. Without diplomacy, war inevitable.

Your thoughts?

@Dispropoganda Hamas launched a sneak attack targeted civilians indiscriminately, in heinous fashion. As a crime, it surpassed Pearl Harbor. Hamas knew the response would be massive, so placed their civilians between the IDF & their militia, to maximize civilian casualties, for a media victory.

Gazans didn't murder 15 million innocent people, raped a whole continent and started a world war u sick Nazi fuck.

@Malinowski Since 1946, Congress has taxed Americans on avg ~17% of GDP, most years between 16% & 18%. It has typically spent ~19%. The difference is why the $ loses ~2% of its purchasing power per yr. Congress now spends ~24% of GDP. It boosted spending for Covid & kept doing so after.

If corporations paid the same share of their profits in taxes as they did under Reagan, that alone would eliminate almost half the federal budget deficit (or pay for massively more affordable health and child care, or vastly better infrastructure for every American).

@GShadrake In 1975 the money in everyone’s pocket was sovereign currency, which only got into people’s pockets because the state spent it into existence.

@BuddyWells1 Currency is not money. It is a substitute for money. That is why a British pound note stated “ I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of one pound”. That seems ridiculous unless you understand the note is a note, a debt instrument, settled by money (gold).

@ripinieks @BowesChay The “one inch east” commitment was made by all NATO countries and referred to the then established membership. NATO was not to expand into Warsaw Pact countries.

@GShadrake @BowesChay What does "not one inch east" about Germany have to do with the rest of Europe? Any contract signed (nothing was signed by the way) with non existent entity is null and void! There is NO court in the world that would rule to enforce such agreement.

@BuddyWells1 He stated “government only gets money by putting its hand in your pocket and taking it out.” He was using a metaphor to make a valid point. When the Treasury issues bonds, it creates debt, not money. The Fed buys those bonds when creating $ currency.

@GShadrake He was a very articulate man. If he meant to say what you say he meant, he would have said that. Instead he spoke nonsense.

@BuddyWells1 No. He was pointing out that all wealth is created by the citizenry, not the administrative government. Wealth is accumulated assets. One of those assets is money. Currency is not an asset. It is a liability of the central bank, once upon a time partially backed by gold.

@GShadrake In 1975 when Friedman said that nonsense, govt was spending currency, not commodity money as per your description. So the statement is nonsensical.

@DrNeilStone The probability of a healthy child dying of Covid was lower than being struck dead by lightning.

Millions of unvaccinated people who died were unavailable for comment

@DefiantLs Six billion people are alive with fossil fuels. How many could be supported without?

John Kerry: "Every year now millions of people around this planet are dying because fossil fuel and methane emissions called greenhouse gas pollusion."