Marbles

That was from his Fox news days.

Tucker zinda baad! For a long time I held him in contempt. Never thought one day I would praise him. The guy has surely transformed. !

This is exactly what Yahu wants. The author assumes that Iran has the capacity and the means to take on multiple powerful enemy entities all at the same time, which is very much in doubt. If Iran chooses to go down this road, it will ensure complete destruction of the country and the eventual toppling of the political system. The consequences of something like this hapenning would be many times worse than Libya or Iraq. Not to mention the fall-out from an all-out war on the wider world. Iran should seek ways to de-escalate and preserve what they have left of their military capability and live to tell the tale.

For me the most astonishing part of the current saga is Zionist regime's degree of penetration into Iranian security apparatus. To conduct multiple strikes with such precision so as to assassinate top military leaders and nuclear scientists present at different locations is astounding. High officials and VIPs apparently keep moving from place to place for security reaosns, but still the enemy knew their whereabouts to pin-point accuracy. It means the enemay has substantial number of agents and informers within in highest echelons of Iranian security establshment. Iran has failed to secure its top leadership and human resources. They should have fixed their house on war footing after the humiliation of Haniyeh's assassination in Tehran about a year ago but whatever actions the Iranians took seems to have failed.

This sums up pretty well

The excerpt from the speech talks about the goals of the invasion. It says nothing about how it would be carried out. Even then, only naïve people take at face value words that come out of the mouths of rulers. In any case, the first few weeks made it pretty clear what the Russians had wanted out of their so called military operation. You don't attack Kiev and run it over with missiles and tanks if the purpose of the invasion was solely to protect ethnic Russians in Donbass. The purpose was regime change and return of the country back to the Russian fold. I'm sympathetic to the Russian concerns regarding NATO's expansion but the Russians have failed spectacularly in stopping NATO from building bases next to their country.

This war was meant to prove Russia's military might but, several months on, it has only shown that Russian military is rubbish and their generals are useless. The plan was to strike terror into the hearts of the Ukrainians. Putin hoped that the Ukrainian army units will melt away and run for dear life after the initial volley of air strikes and that the joker president would flee the country. A new (or old) pro-Russian government would then take charge and Ukraine would return into the Russian fold. On the contrary everything has gone wrong for Russians. Everything.

They were happy to outsource everything to China as long as it remained a toothless autocracy which offered cheap labour/products. But as soon as China became self-reliant and rich, it suddenly became a "security threat." The US only likes vassals and client states.

The light-skinned rulers came long before the Mughals. The colourism also predates the Mughals. I identified the Sultanate Period from which we've ample evidence of discrimination based on origin and/or colour of skin. For the rest I don't understand what you're trying to say. Sorry.

Yes, this is a pertinent observation. Even one of the epithets of Krishna is the Dark Lord (dark-skinned one). I suppose it developed later on with waves of migration of the light-skinned people from the East who then became wealthy rulers. This predates Islamic conquests of India but colourism was already entrenched by the time of the Sultanate Period. I'm not talking about the Persians' attitudes towards Indians as a whole but of the light-skinned rulers who came to rule the north and northwest India. Most of those rulers were Afghans or of Turkic origins.

"Don't play in the sun too much or you'll become dark/black." Every South Asian mother has at one time or another said those words to their kids. I have never really quite believed that colourism originated or even became more pronounced due to the British colonial rule. There are multiple reports from the Sultanate period where the light-skinned Muslims who had roots in Afghanistan, Persia and Turkey looked down upon the local Indian Muslims because of the colour of their skin as well as their facial features (which they believed were less attractive than people from the Eastern Muslim heartlands). This could be the genesis of colourism that became so ingrained later on. The light skinned ones were rich and they ruled. The dark-skinned ones, either Muslim converts or Hindus, were the common people. So with time light skin came to denote wealth and prosperity.

Atomic Terrorist Agency

Yair Lapid: Lo, even our enemies who don't officially recognise us had done a deal with us. That is a huge victory. Netanyahu: How can Israel make a deal with a country that doesn't even recognise us. That's illegal.

Sorry to barge in, but I want to point out that the above can happen purely on the basis of a combination of historical socio-economic and political factors, which doesn't have anything to do with biological wiring or anything like that. To take just the example of European Jews, for much of history they were barred from taking part in public life feely. At the same time the Church prohibited Christian faithfuls from engaging in moneylending that involved any kind of usurious practices but allowed the Jews to get their hands dirty, so to speak, because by popular belief they were destined to hell anyway. Since there was no competition, European Jews over the centuries perfected the one thing they were allowed to do, especially in a rapidly changing times that had begun in the 16th C. And this was a kind of business for which there were (and are) a lot of willing customers. This led to the development of a subset of very wealthy European Jews whom people resented for their money and material success. This did not happen with the Mizrahi Jews who lived in the Eastern countries for centuries because of the absence of the conditions mentioned above. Although they found their niche in moneylending in the East too, but that was because their religious law permits them to engage in usurious practices with the gentiles, which was a factor also in play in Europe.