Lobo

@nypost Tattoos used to be something that like a criminals or servicemen would get, but now they’re so common, and most look like some cliche drawing on a Pinterest gallery. I’m glad I never got one.

Pete Davidson shows off nearly bare arms in Las Vegas after dropping $200K to remove his tattoos trib.al/k8UilQZ

@TallDave7 @gummibear737 That quote does not say Iran has zero money. It says Treasury is targeting illicit networks. IT IS A CONFIRMATION OF WHAT IM SAYING. Iran still has shadow revenue through oil smuggling, shadow banking, and sanctions evasion shipping. You are making my point for me!

@gnosticlobo @gummibear737 lol you are certainly entertaining in your nonsense in your magical world, Iran can rebuild everything without any oil money because that's what they have now: zero this is probably not the best use of my time so enjoy the last word :)

The "we opened the strait that was open before the war" is a retarded talking point The war's objectives were: nukes, missiles, terror proxies The only purpose it serves is to deflect from the fact that the war has achieved all these goals So many people mad the US won a war🤡

LMAOOOOO a blockade is not a magic wand you fool. It can degrade, delay, and make rebuilding more expensive yes. It does not turn a large sanctioned state into a corpse overnight. Iran built much of its missile and evasion infrastructure under sanctions, still moves oil through shadow networks, and even now has enough storage and resilience to keep going for a while. If you don’t believe me, Reuters reported this week that even under the current blockade, Iran could continue without oil exports for weeks to months by using onshore storage and floating storage. You have become just the liberals you claim to despise, blind to data and absolutely no forward thinking. Just milquetoast millennial memes lol.

@gnosticlobo @gummibear737 lol you don't even understand basic math how do you think they paid for all that? you do know how a blockade works... right?

You’re an ahistorical retard with no comprehension on this issue. Iran’s network has taken major hits before and still regenerated capability. Hezbollah survived 2006 and remained a major armed force for years afterward. Even after the far heavier blows within the last two years, most analysts still describe Iran as capable of reconfiguring and rebuilding parts of its proxy system rather than losing the capacity forever. Same with missiles. Iran built its missile force precisely because sanctions and arms embargoes pushed it toward domestic production and self reliance, not because it had secure foreign supply. CSIS and Brookings both describe the missile program as a core indigenous capability developed under pressure, which is why strikes can degrade it but not magically erase the underlying industrial base. And on nukes, even the IAEA’s Rafael Grossi has said military strikes do not truly eliminate the program because knowledge, industrial capacity, and at least part of the enrichment capability survive. HE LITERALLY SAID Iran could resume enrichment on a more limited scale within months, and later that “a lot has survived.” You would know any of this if you actually read anything that didn’t fit your small media appetite, but you don’t. And “at little cost” is just as flawed. You don’t run a campaign like this in a vacuum. It strains trust with allies, especially if they’re not aligned on strategy, and it creates openings for others. Russia benefits from prolonged instability through higher energy revenues and shifting global focus, which directly affects European allies already dealing with energy and security pressures. Calling that “no cost” ignores the broader strategic tradeoffs. You are retarded.

@gnosticlobo @gummibear737 nukes, missiles, proxies which of these can IRGC develop under current conditions? answer: none of them meanwhile the blockades starves them of material and revenue total US victory at little cost "good faith" lol

sigh...It’s disheartening to see an account I once respected for its intellectual integrity fall into such propagandized and lazy takes. I doubt he will take the time to respond even though I will engage in good faith but oh well. What you’re calling “victory” is just a list of targets hit with no clear political end state. "We destroyed their nukes, missiles, navy & Supreme Leader" Iran is a large, complex state. It behaves less like a machine that fails when one part breaks and more like living tissue that scars over and keeps going. They absorb damage, replace lost personnel, reroute authority, and continue functioning. So killing the aging supreme leader or even other key individuals does not by itself make the system collapse. To actually overwhelm it, you would need to kill a very large number of people very quickly. This is why *actual* regime change hasn't occurred in Iran, despite Trump saying otherwise. Iran’s goal FROM THE BEGINNING was to endure, keep the system running, and impose enough casualties that pressure builds. Both from Gulf countries and the American public to force a halt. They've succeeded. Trump has said multiple times on record that he wanted to do more with this war, such as take full control of the oil, but that the pressure from the American people has affected his strategy. So the core question is not how many launchers, ships, mines, factories, or facilities were destroyed. The question is: what durable political condition was this war supposed to create? What was Iran supposed to be forced to do? That was never stated consistently, because the administration kept changing the answer. The aims moved from imminent-threat prevention, to freedom for Iranians, to regime change, to destroying missiles, to unconditional surrender, to “dominance,” and then back to narrower military goals. That is why “We forced them to open the strait AGAIN after we bombed them”, is not some knockdown proof of success. If after all this, Iran still has leverage over Hormuz, negotiations are unresolved, and Tehran is still bargaining over enrichment, sanctions relief, frozen assets, ceasefire guarantees, and continued control of the strait, then this was not a case of imposing terms on a defeated enemy. It was a case of destroying a lot of things without producing a stable political settlement. You already said in the past that you got the Iraq war wrong and you're making the same mistake once again. Confusing tactical success with strategic success. A ledger of destroyed assets is not the same thing as victory. Tactical excellence is NOT strategy. If the regime is still in power, if Iran still retains coercive leverage, if the nuclear issue is still unresolved, and if the U.S. is still trying to negotiate an end state after weeks of bombing, then no serious person can just point at the body count of equipment and say “that’s called victory." And it has come with real strategic costs beyond Iran itself. It's shocking watching someone like yourself, who has been mostly correct on Ukraine, and understands the importance of the global security framework we currently have in place "Team Western-Civilization", have no problem with how this administration has alienated our allies, blemishing our global standing in the world as a result. Washington has warned some European countries, including in the Baltics and Scandinavia, to expect delays in contracted arms deliveries. The Iran war has had a rabidly negative effect on our Ukrainian allies. Supply chain issues, and higher oil prices have also helped refill Russia’s coffers. So even on a purely strategic level, this war has weakened the position of one of America’s most important partners in an active European war. Trump is publicly blasting NATO over this war in Iran, calling the alliance a “paper tiger,” (which makes us look weak to Russia and the rest of the world obviously). Don't forget the subtle threats of how the U.S. is going to “remember” allied unwillingness to help in the operation. Our allies in Asia are OPENLY discussing how they feel the U.S. is an unreliable ally and they're starting to look elsewhere for Defense. In the UK, both the Prime Minister and leader of the opposition have publicly shared the same sentiment. So no, this is not “we destroyed their stuff, the strait reopened, therefore victory.” That is just confusing violence with strategy. Victory would mean a better and durable political reality. What we actually have is an unresolved conflict, a still-functioning adversary which has shown that it can rebuild, strained alliances, delayed arms for Europe, and a weaker position for Ukraine. A war that leaves allies less reassured, less supplied, and more skeptical is not a clean strategic win, even if the tactical execution was good.

@RichardBSpencer Vance is a ghoul. When it all falls apart for him, and that’ll be soon, it couldn’t happen to a more fitting person.

The destruction of the “Vance Right” is devoutly to be wished.

@BasilianThought I’m actually speechless. The amount of receipts I have of this nerd acting theatrically cruel, just the most obscene and childish racial pandering one can fucking fathom. We went from “they all have to go” to this lmaoo.

These same "people" 2 years ago would chastise their audience for anything short of hitler worship and emphatic belief that Basil is getting sent back. but now, as we approach the 2028 Vance-push, they need to start seeding realistic expectations - which will also, most assuredly, be reneged on following a hypothetical election where their guy wins.

@DogFromHalfLife @BasilianThought Exactly right. A blue wave is coming, and Democrats are only shifting more and more toward an anti Israel stance, pushing out the center. And most of the GOP cannot stand her. She’ll end up with absolutely no influence. She will literally become another Radio Genoa account.

@gnosticlobo @BasilianThought Laura Loomer will have literally nothing after Trump leaves. This isn’t an exaggeration: she’ll probably kill herself

Full on Scientology, "suppressive-person" level cult shit.

2000s vibe

how it feels talking to someone on your same wavelength

@Gnosisinformant @creation247 To be fair, most people nowadays who claim to love Nietzsche have never actually read his work, especially earnestly. In that sense, they’re not so different from many Christians.

@creation247 Because they read his books.

Facts about Nietzsche > No kids > No legacy > Atheist > 120 IQ (at best) > Died poor > Hated Christianity > Rejected by women > Encouraged Pride Why do people like this guy?

El pibe que vio Juego de Tronos y siguió con Canción de Hielo y Fuego

@quinnthegm Looks comfy!

a good evening :)

@BasilianThought I hope Fuentes promotes you more so that there’s finally a prominent, yet astute Muslim calling out this low iq Brown ™ slop.

>>Friendship with Sneako ended >>Basil is Nick's new gay Muslim best friend.

@frivolousmints Noveria is so special though, such a unique aesthetic and mood.

we are never leaving Noveria at this rate oh my god

@de3dsoul I remember blasting this soundtrack on the way to school when I was 12, and I still do it to this day. Some things really never change.

There are no words.

@bernardbulletin Another undiscussed reason they want these markets banned is they can’t control leaks from within their own administration. There have been so many war insiders, so instead of fixing that failure, they want to blow up the whole thing. It’s not even about morality for them.

putting aside the real moral questions surrounding war markets, it seems to me that if average people understood the actuarial risks of waging these pointless wars, they would be less likely to support them