BREAKING NEWS: ICE shoots and kills woman

[Elliott]

13 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

The irony of course is that it's actually the US with the most amount of retards, according to the statistics. And it's only gonna get worse😂

Also the irony of calling out Europe for not defending itself whilst yall never did shit for Ukraine during Russian attack either, not even during the sleepy Biden administration. Just sent some money and weapons just like the Europeans. And now yall lick Russian ass during this administration😂

In case you haven't noticed, Russia also is a muclear power. Nuclear weaponry is not a viable option because of the tiresome reasons we all already know, therefore only conventional means of defence are on the table. And it's much harder for Europe to develop those due to it's non federal organization, and also because during the whole second half of the 20th century untill Trump was elected second time, United Gays of America had always been the biggest opponent to EU developing it's own souvereign military cause yall wanted to play the world cop. Now that some orange fatass is in power, yall want us to suddenly get militarized

I worry most about Canada rather than Ukraine. Once the u.s. takes Greenland, if Canada doesn't start paying the u.s., Republicans will start bombing them(Canada has no nukes). That's the only reason they want Greenland, we have Alaska already. Europe won't be able to help Canada, once we have Greenland(going to happen)

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Salvijus said:

Talking will always remain the most concious and humane way of solving conflict. It's only when one or more sides are not willing to listen and talk anymore that war and ugly behavior becomes the only option. You have to get the context right as to why I'm saying this. I wrote my response in regards to DocWatts saying that we should no longer entertain any discussions at the table with people of different opinions. That's a bad attitude imo. A low concious one. 

Yes you made it in reponse to DocWatts who brought up the nazis. 

You are being dishonest , lets get the context right - his point wasnt that one shouldnt have a talk with anyone who has a different opinion, his point was that if someone has fundamentally different values, then there is not just no point in having a discussion ,but it is actually damaging to entertain a discussion with someone who wants to eliminate and or take your rights away.

 

A low conscious response is the one, where you pretend that not having a discussion with a fascist is the move that destroys democracy and not the fact that the fascist doesnt give a fuck about democracy in the firstplace and that he is engaging in a behavior thats non-democratic. 

 

Mr conscious guy -  Spell out a meta-game that actually solves these issues (in a way where you dont contribute to these issues in any way and you dont escalate in any way) without pretending that letting your ass to get gaped over and over again is conscious politics.

Edited 2 hours ago by zurew

[BlueOak]

@Elliott

Where do we get our energy from then, thin air? Industry runs on things like gas or oil, yours too.

There is the devil in the east or the devil in the west. The devil in the east keeps threatening to nuke us and is actively trying to destabalise our countries, the devil in the west is mostly all talk on foreign policy, until relatively recently anyway.

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Salvijus said:

I doubt you understand the depth of the question. Your approach is no different than that of a nazi. Yet you believe you're far more concious than them. 

Some words are less conscious or appropriate than violence.

[Salvijus]

57 minutes ago, Nercohype said:

@Salvijus I have to say that I am sorry for being too hard.. That is my mistake. I do regonize your wisdom too. I would agree on you 100% in any other case.. But this is has gone far beyond talking. At least that is my POV. But I don't hate you or want to bring any nastyness on you for speaking your mind. 

🙏

[Nercohype]

https://youtu.be/8XMMDgtb87o?si=278kkAVkQJoOAzQg

[Elliott]

58 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

@Elliott

Where do we get our energy from then, thin air? Industry runs on things like gas or oil, yours too.

There is the devil in the east or the devil in the west. The devil in the east keeps threatening to nuke us and is actively trying to destabalise our countries, the devil in the west is mostly all talk on foreign policy, until relatively recently anyway.

Europe, North Africa, Middle East, Venezuela. And use less energy. And yes, "THIN AIR"(Wind power)

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Salvijus]

 

1 hour ago, zurew said:

You are being dishonest , lets get the context right - his point wasnt that one shouldnt have a talk with anyone who has a different opinion, his point was that if someone has fundamentally different values, then there is not just no point in having a discussion ,but it is actually damaging to entertain a discussion with someone who wants to eliminate and or take your rights away.

The more you understand about the other's point of view the better. The willingness to hear their side of the story helps you to make the best decision towards peace, and yes the aftermath could still be violence. But this attitude that I'm not going to listen to other views no matter what is not a concious one imo. I still stand by that. 

The comment was not a suggestion to all of worlds problems. Nor was it a defense tactic against a rapist. It was a mere highlight in the general flaw of thinking as per my view. If you think about it what I'm saying is very common sense. There's no need to get so defensive about it. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Salvijus

[BlueOak]

3 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Europe, Africa, Middle East. And use less energy.

Not near as simple as that, discounting shipping, which we really shouldn't but i'll start with the basics:
 

GPT 5.2
Me: Please list the major companies that supply LNG and their nationality. Someone is arguing Europe can just avoid american or russian companies and go direct to africa, europe and the middle east.

Below is a fact-based map of the global LNG supply structure, listing the major LNG-supplying companies, their nationality, and where the gas actually comes from. This directly addresses the claim that Europe can simply avoid American or Russian companies and buy “directly” from Africa, Europe, or the Middle East.

Key point up front (important)

Europe cannot buy LNG “from regions” — it buys LNG from companies.
Those companies are usually national champions or Western multinationals, often with cross-ownership, joint ventures, long-term contracts, and dollar-denominated trade.

Avoiding US or Russian molecules is not the same as avoiding US or Russian companies, and avoiding both simultaneously is structurally very difficult.

🇺🇸 United States (largest LNG exporter globally)

Major suppliers:

• Cheniere Energy — United States
• ExxonMobil — United States
• Chevron — United States

Reality

US LNG dominates the spot market Europe relies on.

Even “non-US” cargoes often trade through US-based financial and shipping systems.

🇷🇺 Russia

Major suppliers:

• Novatek — Russia
• Gazprom — Russia

Reality

Russian LNG (especially Yamal) remains competitive and legally distinct from pipeline gas in many sanctions regimes.

🇶🇦 Qatar (Middle East’s LNG superpower)

Major supplier:

• QatarEnergy — Qatar

Reality

Supplies are mostly locked into long-term Asian contracts.

Expansion helps Europe, but volumes are not fully flexible.

Pricing often indexed to oil, not ideal for Europe’s spot-market preference.

🇳🇴 Norway (Europe’s main gas producer — but not LNG-dominant)

Major supplier:

• Equinor — Norway

Reality

Mostly pipeline gas, not LNG.

LNG volumes are limited and already heavily utilized.

🇫🇷 / 🇬🇧 / 🇮🇹 Europe-based multinationals

(Important: these are European companies, but gas is global)

Major suppliers:

• TotalEnergies — France
• Shell — United Kingdom
• Eni — Italy

Reality

These firms produce LNG in:

Qatar

Nigeria

Mozambique

US

Buying from them does not mean avoiding US or Russian gas molecules.

🌍 Africa (often misunderstood)

Major suppliers:

• Nigeria LNG — Nigeria
• Sonatrach — Algeria

Ownership reality

• Nigeria LNG includes Shell, TotalEnergies, and Eni.
• Algeria’s LNG is constrained by aging infrastructure and domestic demand.

Africa cannot:

Rapidly scale volumes

Replace US LNG

Avoid Western corporate involvement

🇦🇺 Australia (major exporter — limited relevance to Europe)

Major suppliers:

• Woodside Energy — Australia
• Santos — Australia

Reality

Most volumes are contractually tied to Asia.

Freight distance makes Europe uneconomic except in crises.

The structural constraint (this is decisive)

❌ “Just buy from Africa / Middle East / Europe” — why this fails

Claim and Objective reality

• Buy from Africa  - African LNG is small, constrained, and Western-operated
• Buy from Middle East - Qatar LNG is contract-locked and oil-indexed
• Buy from Europe- Europe does not produce enough LNG
• Avoid US companies - Spot LNG markets are US-anchored
• Avoid Russian gas - Requires paying higher prices or signing long contracts

Bottom line (objective, no ideology)

Europe cannot selectively bypass US and Russian LNG while maintaining price stability, supply security, and flexibility.

What Europe can do is:

• Reduce exposure gradually
• Diversify marginal volumes
• Accept higher costs and longer contracts
• Trade flexibility for political insulation

That is a trade-off, not a free choice.

 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

I worry most about Canada rather than Ukraine. Once the u.s. takes Greenland, if Canada doesn't start paying the u.s., Republicans will start bombing them(Canada has no nukes). That's the only reason they want Greenland, we have Alaska already. Europe won't be able to help Canada, once we have Greenland(going to happen)

Pretty sure it's about direct access to rare earth minerals and other strayegic resources when it comes to Greenland instead about Canada, we'll see how it goes but US wouldn't need to occupy entire Greenland only those specific mining sites and facilities. That's the appeal anyway I believe; that it's an easy target which it is because the goal is small and reachable, they wouldn't need to fight in populated areas cause noone lives near these sites. The only thing that would happen is US forces securing these sites, yall military doesn't have it in them to wage prolonged attritional war as was proven in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam

[Elliott]

4 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Not near as simple as that, discounting shipping, which we really shouldn't but i'll start with the basics:
 

GPT 5.2
Me: Please list the major companies that supply LNG and their nationality. Someone is arguing Europe can just avoid american or russian companies and go direct to africa, europe and the middle east.

Below is a fact-based map of the global LNG supply structure, listing the major LNG-supplying companies, their nationality, and where the gas actually comes from. This directly addresses the claim that Europe can simply avoid American or Russian companies and buy “directly” from Africa, Europe, or the Middle East.

Key point up front (important)

Europe cannot buy LNG “from regions” — it buys LNG from companies.
Those companies are usually national champions or Western multinationals, often with cross-ownership, joint ventures, long-term contracts, and dollar-denominated trade.

Avoiding US or Russian molecules is not the same as avoiding US or Russian companies, and avoiding both simultaneously is structurally very difficult.

🇺🇸 United States (largest LNG exporter globally)

Major suppliers:

• Cheniere Energy — United States
• ExxonMobil — United States
• Chevron — United States

Reality

US LNG dominates the spot market Europe relies on.

Even “non-US” cargoes often trade through US-based financial and shipping systems.

🇷🇺 Russia

Major suppliers:

• Novatek — Russia
• Gazprom — Russia

Reality

Russian LNG (especially Yamal) remains competitive and legally distinct from pipeline gas in many sanctions regimes.

🇶🇦 Qatar (Middle East’s LNG superpower)

Major supplier:

• QatarEnergy — Qatar

Reality

Supplies are mostly locked into long-term Asian contracts.

Expansion helps Europe, but volumes are not fully flexible.

Pricing often indexed to oil, not ideal for Europe’s spot-market preference.

🇳🇴 Norway (Europe’s main gas producer — but not LNG-dominant)

Major supplier:

• Equinor — Norway

Reality

Mostly pipeline gas, not LNG.

LNG volumes are limited and already heavily utilized.

🇫🇷 / 🇬🇧 / 🇮🇹 Europe-based multinationals

(Important: these are European companies, but gas is global)

Major suppliers:

• TotalEnergies — France
• Shell — United Kingdom
• Eni — Italy

Reality

These firms produce LNG in:

Qatar

Nigeria

Mozambique

US

Buying from them does not mean avoiding US or Russian gas molecules.

🌍 Africa (often misunderstood)

Major suppliers:

• Nigeria LNG — Nigeria
• Sonatrach — Algeria

Ownership reality

• Nigeria LNG includes Shell, TotalEnergies, and Eni.
• Algeria’s LNG is constrained by aging infrastructure and domestic demand.

Africa cannot:

Rapidly scale volumes

Replace US LNG

Avoid Western corporate involvement

🇦🇺 Australia (major exporter — limited relevance to Europe)

Major suppliers:

• Woodside Energy — Australia
• Santos — Australia

Reality

Most volumes are contractually tied to Asia.

Freight distance makes Europe uneconomic except in crises.

The structural constraint (this is decisive)

❌ “Just buy from Africa / Middle East / Europe” — why this fails

Claim and Objective reality

• Buy from Africa  - African LNG is small, constrained, and Western-operated
• Buy from Middle East - Qatar LNG is contract-locked and oil-indexed
• Buy from Europe- Europe does not produce enough LNG
• Avoid US companies - Spot LNG markets are US-anchored
• Avoid Russian gas - Requires paying higher prices or signing long contracts

Bottom line (objective, no ideology)

Europe cannot selectively bypass US and Russian LNG while maintaining price stability, supply security, and flexibility.

What Europe can do is:

• Reduce exposure gradually
• Diversify marginal volumes
• Accept higher costs and longer contracts
• Trade flexibility for political insulation

That is a trade-off, not a free choice.

 

You've had 4 years. Europe doesn't care about Ukrainians. Nationalists, all of you. Drink your hot tea and point at the u.s..

 

Interesting Engineering

https://interestingengineering.com

France hits hydrogen jackpot: World's largest reserve valued $92 billion found

Mar 22, 2025 — France has uncovered 46 million tons of natural hydrogen beneath the soil of Folschviller, potentially revolutionizing clean energy 

 

 

energy-pedia

https://www.energy-pedia.com

Equinor reports highest natural gas production ever from a Norwegian field

Jan 6, 2025 — The Troll field in the North Sea has set a historic production record, delivering 42.5 billion standard cubic metres of natural gas in 2024

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[DocWatts]

14 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

But this attitude that I'm not going to listen to other views no matter what is not a concious one imo. I still stand by that. 

That is 100% not my point.

This is about rejecting malicious viewpoints that are enabling real world violence, not about rejecting debate altogether.

I regularly interact with people to both the Left and the Right of me in my advocacy work. That's not what this is about.

If you knock down my door and point a gun at my face, whatever discussion we might have had is effectively over.

Likewise, when a Secret Police force is given carte blanche to shoot civilians in the face, we're well past the point of civil discussion. To be frank, I don't give a flying fuck how ICE and its sympathisers rationalize it - the only thing I care about at this point is stopping it.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by DocWatts

[Elliott]

3 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

Pretty sure it's about direct access to rare earth minerals and other strayegic resources when it comes to Greenland instead about Canada, we'll see how it goes but US wouldn't need to occupy entire Greenland only those specific mining sites and facilities. That's the appeal anyway I believe; that it's an easy target which it is because the goal is small and reachable, they wouldn't need to fight in populated areas cause noone lives near these sites. The only thing that would happen is US forces securing these sites, yall military doesn't have it in them to wage prolonged attritional war as was proven in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam

The u.s. isn't a mining company....

[Salvijus]

7 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

when a Secret Police force is given carte blanche to shooting civilians in the face, the discussion is dead and buried. I don't give a flying fuck how they rationalize it.

 

See. I see that as a problem in attitude. As per my view you should always be willing to hear them out no matter how crazy it seems at first. And then draw a conclusion. It's just a much wiser approach. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Salvijus

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

The u.s. isn't a mining company....

LMFAO at that. Yall take one whiff of oil and get a hard on, what you talkin about looooool you defintely are a mining company. And if you understood anything about the significance of these minerals to military tech we wouldn't be having this discussion

[Elliott]

7 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

LMFAO at that. Yall take one whiff of oil and get a hard on, what you talkin about looooool you defintely are a mining company. And if you understood anything about the significance of these minerals to military tech we wouldn't be having this discussion

1. We can already mine greenland

 

Mining.com

https://www.mining.com

Greenland miner Amaroq soars on report of US gov't investment

6 days ago — Toronto-based Amaroq currently operates the Nalunaq gold mine in southern Greenland, a historic site that it brought back into production

 

 

2. The u.s. already has enough rare earth's available here. Rare earths are not actually rare, it's just intensive to process and extract(anywhere).

 

 

3.the u.s. does not steal oil, we control the oil market, that's all we care about(restricting supply).

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[zurew]

47 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

If you think about it what I'm saying is very common sense.

No its not, because you are pushing it as if there wouldn't be exceptions to it and you are pretending that if someone has instances where he/she doesn't want to use this rule - then he/she is wrong for it no matter how fucking crazy the proposition is.

You are pretending that you get pushback because you are suggesting some normal casual thing - but you are not my dude. You are saying that if someone comes to you and tells you that he wants to sell your daugther to be a publicly used flashlight, you should sit down and entertain that discussion.

[Salvijus]

10 minutes ago, zurew said:

No its not, because you are pushing it as if there wouldn't be exceptions to it

The claim: "the more you understand other person's perspective, the better your response will be" is always true without exceptions imo. And so you should never close the willingness to hear the other perspective because it's always in your favor to know it. 

Not that you can always afford to have a discussion in every situation. Sometimes you just have to act on the spot based on a limited data. 

Edited 37 minutes ago by Salvijus

[zurew]

13 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

The claim: "the more you understand other person's perspective, the better your response will be" is always true without exceptions imo.

Not sitting down to talk with them is compatible with what you just wrote there. 

You can get a better understanding of them without any talks. And getting a better understanding only relevant in certain circumstances where that additional understanding can directly change your response. And you are ignoring all the negative aspects that can come from giving a platform to dishonest actors or to your enemy.

But now we are moving the goalpost from "We have a shared value structure, we should have a discussion, democracy is about understanding each other and hearing each other out" to "We have fundamentally different values, and you are my enemy. I will hear you out so that I can improve my war-tactics against you".

 

[Salvijus]

7 minutes ago, zurew said:

Not sitting down to talk with them is compatible with what you just wrote there. 

You can get a better understanding of them without any talks. And getting a better understanding only relevant in certain circumstances where that additional understanding can directly change your response. And you are ignoring all the negative aspects that can come from giving a platform to dishonest actors or to your enemy.

But now we are moving the goalpost from "We have a shared value structure, we should have a discussion, democracy is about understanding each other and hearing each other out" to "We have fundamentally different values, and you are my enemy. I will hear you out so that I can improve my war-tactics against you".

 

Okay, okay. You win. Congrats. 👍

Tcare. 🤝

Edited 5 minutes ago by Salvijus