Iran caused more extensive damage to U.S. military bases than publicly known

Russia, for example.

Forgot? That's assuming the people who ordered the black-out even knew that.

They didn't forget. Controlling information is not about preventing absolutely everything from getting out. Just trying to reduce the volume.

Or Iran's own spy satellites. They have launched multiple spy satellites on their own rockets from Iran itself over the years. We have a lot of downplaying in western media of Irans capabilities in general so it's not surprising people don't know this although they are satellites so you can look up and literally see them passing across the sky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_2_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soraya_(satellite) etc.

> Iran has access to Russian and Chinese spy satellites. Iran has it's own satellite.

During Iraq and Afghanistan, the US gov required private satellite companies to have a 3-7 day delay on imagery. Lots of journalists used these resources to confirm information during those conflicts. This is new.

Yeah I mean. This worked when we had all the satellites. The only people you are keeping in the dark are the people funding this shit show. Us. The tax payers.

>Anyone would do it This is not a valid justification for keeping secrets from people who have a right to vote on who leads and thus are entitled to the information they need to make those choices. Saying "any government would do this" is fair if you are comparing national governments -- for instance, if someone claims a national government is particularly bad because they did something *all* national governments do, then it is valid to dismiss that claim on that basis (national governments are generally pretty shitty organizations because nation-states are kind of a bad way to organize society, so all of them will have some level of violence and horror inherent to them). But if you are a free citizen of a country, and someone tries to tell you it's fine that your government is lying to you about what they are doing in your name, then that is *not* a valid reason to dismiss the claim that they are lying. If any government would lie to cover up its mistakes from its voters, then the US government is just as shitty as any other, and as someone who lives in the US I have an interest in combatting the shiftiness of the national government that surveils me and holds the threat of violence over me. >That's just decent opsec during a conflict I don't think "opsec" means what you think it means. Opsec means preventing an adversary from gaining an advantage by observing your operations. Sometimes that means concealing information or keeping it secret...but the mere fact that a government keeps something secret doesn't mean that opsec concerns justify them doing so. Especially when the alleged adversary already knows this information -- like, Iran and China and Russia know how badly US bases were damaged. As do any foreign governments with satellite imagery access. The only people who *don't* know are US voters considering their midterm options. So either this secrecy is not justified by opsec concerns, or the US government and military considers US voters to be an adversary... And if the US government is my adversary, then I have no interest in giving them *any* slack -- I want to know everything about them so I can defeat them and make them no longer an adversary.

Not really. Literally the only people they're hiding information from is the general public. Iran gets that info from other enemies of ours.

Remember embedded reporters in Iraq/Afghanistan? This is new.

Need a modernized fairness doctrine that applies to anything that calls themselves 'news'

The legalization of domestic propaganda was *horrible*, too, and should *never* have been legalized.

Good thing he did nothing about it while he was president even tho everyone was yelling at him to do something.  We need progressives and we don't stop losing until we get there. 

> How else are they going to track you? Age verification laws.

Lmao what in the Black Mirror. Wouldn't even surprise me if this is real or is going to be.

Even more reason for sane people to read it

I’ve translated him into Spanish and it legit makes me feel like I have a disability while i do it

I took a class once on the philosophy of language, and one of my major takeaways is that everything Americans know about Hitler, Hussein, Bin Laden, and so forth is because Americans never "hear" them talk. We hear the foreign tongue, and we read the subtitles, but unless we're fluent in German or Arabic, and understand the regional nuances, we're getting a garbled message. Hitler could sound like a German version of Ned Flanders for all we know; we don't understand German enough to tell the difference. Instead, all we get is a stage prompt: a scary man is speaking. And our subconscious fills in the gray area. We believe this is an imposing message by an intimidating man to be feared. But with Trump, his slurring, fatigued, word salad method of speech betrays him. Americans know what an old man sounds like; we hear that kind of speech all the time. Americans readily hear him and understand what he's saying specifically of how he's saying it. As such, the only way those in support of Trump can effectively cover his manner of speech is if they treat him as if he's speaking a foreign language. Deliver the message and the rhetoric, make the actual words and cadence unknowable.

Anytime I hear the "media is too biased" thing, I say i only trust news straight from the president on his social media company. Then I pull it up and read whatever his most recent comments. So if someone asks me about the war in Iran I just start by reading the news from the horses mouth. Its usually some incredibly cringe commentary about something absolutely insane. Then I just say "oh idk I guess Iran isnt important, president wants me to know about .

This is so true. When I'm speaking to coworkers about trumps latest ramblings they are so quick to spew the talking points they hear from their propaganda outlets. Yet they never watch trump's live engagements or press conferences so they never see how pathetic his speech has become.

Read the English language version of a French national newspaper like Le Monde. They don’t really care about American politics so they present it in a fairly neutral way.

I worked in news over there and a part of my job was to monitor news sources from everywhere. My recommendation is sheer volume. AP and Reuters, el espectador, CNN, CNÑ, el país, el país [country], RCN, some of those people are going to say are right wing and it’s true. The idea is that most are controlled by money interests and if you don’t focus on one and take them all into account with a bit of reservation the image. The guardián, PBS, just look at as many as possible while also trying to filter out pure propaganda like fox News. I saw a CIA agent describe RT as a good news source 90% of the time so that the 10% they lie you believe them. Think about it all like that

Reuters. They are certainly not perfect but are generally more focused on reporting on actual news rather than editorialising

The CBC from Canada is probably a good choice that no one seems to be mentioning, and probably quite relevant to you being from the neighbouring country.  I've also heard France24 and DW are pretty good, and NHK from Japan also has an English stream that has some pretty different perspectives. Al Jazeera may still be good for non Middle East stuff, although it seems their reputation is being questioned a lot these days.

Ground News is a great app too, it amalgamates multiple sources and tells you if the sources are left, center, right, and pulls them globally.

BBC, France24, DW, Reuters, AP news

I dunno if this is as much of a recommendation of foreign media, rather it's an indictment of American media..

I mean, people use to have a newspaper subscription to get access to the news... though that was relatively c****, and places like at diners you a bunch of customers might end up sharing a newspaper during their meal.

It has something to do with decency laws on broadcasts. We never show anything remotely graphic on news television.

[deleted]

The Guardian has rock solid coverage and they are a nonprofit that was funded by a trust.  The Guardian is one of the few major newspapers not owned by a billionaire or corporation — its trust structure is specifically designed to keep it independent, with the endowment fund subsidizing its journalism when revenues fall short.  https://www.theguardian.com/us E D I T :  https://www.independent.co.uk/us https://www.motherjones.com/ https://www.propublica.org/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ https://www.economist.com/ For a brief update of major headline news: https://www.axios.com/

In addition to The Guardian, The Intercept is also worth checking out. On youtube there's DW news english, France 24 english, Democracy Now, and Al Jazeera english. The first two had panelists and anchors regularly using the term 'when trump wins' many months before the election. Which in hindsight was good reporting given [Harris' internal polling] (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/27/kamala-harris-advisers-internal-polling/76626278007/).

For the Mideast crisis, I’ve been following Al Jazeera (Qatar) and the Times of Israel. They take it more seriously when it’s local. IranIntl has had some good stories too, but note that it’s a British publication from an Iranian expat that is very anti-regime. Other good international news sites include the BBC (UK), the Guardian (UK), Der Spiegel (Germany), Pravda.ua (Ukraine), NewsFromRussia.com (the English-language version of Russia’s Pravda), the South China morning post (Hong Kong), Xinhua (China), and the Japan Times. Understand, all news is propaganda. The thing about state media is that it’s usually propaganda *directed at its own citizens*. So if you’re reading say Pravda (either the Ukraine or Russian version), a lot of it will seem ridiculous as an American, but you’re less likely to fall for the propaganda bits because you don’t share the same emotive triggers as someone living in the region.

How many weeks on?

Actually there's been a 900% decrease in bad math.

I was told we would decimate their military by at least 600% on day one!

Vibe-mathed the absolute shit outta this one

After Trump's first term it should have been obvious that he was not qualified for the job. Nonetheless, the American electorate still voted for him again (he even got the popular vote). Sorry, voting (and non-voting) has consequences. This one is on the American people.

Operation Epstein Distraction was successful at it's core mission.

*"When a child gets behind the wheel of a car and runs into a tree, You don’t blame the child. He didn’t know any better. You blame the 30-year-old woman who got in the passenger seat and said, ‘Drive kid, I trust you.’"* It's totally fair to blame "Most Americans" for this. That's how elections work. None of this should've come as a surprise to anybody. He was always *very obviously* a complete lunatic. And "Most Americans" looked at that, they looked at the absolute shitshow the first term was, and said, "Drive kid, I trust you."

This has not been a US base since 2011. It's clear even from the drone footage in your links that there is no US military presence. https://www.cnn.com/2011/12/02/world/meast/iraq-camp-victory

Could you give us a source?

Bruh, it wasn’t an American base. A lot of Iranian propaganda is pushed on Listnook, so you and others fall for it. The U.S. base was handed over to Iraq in 2011, which Iraq still holds and operates to this day.

Na that increase is because Eric Trump is now, apparently, in the drone industry and has just acquired his first contract from the Pentagon for $24M. Now that they have began leaching off the military industrial complex, they'll increase the funding in order to steal more.

I'm assuming he was badly injured and they didn't want to show that on TV to the MAGA cult. Also, airmen shot down are losers, or something like that

The fact he wasn't being paraded around the whitehouse a week after that happened should be sending red flags to you. It's either as you said a cover for a failed raid, or the pilot was found dead and well you generally don't want to parade a corpse around the white house.