I’m not sure which of the parties you label a loser. I certainly think there are gains in supporting Ukraine. Maybe moreso for the EU than the US which is far away at least geographically and on an isolated continent.
I looked it up and you’re right, the two groups have been getting into gunfights in the streets recently.
How odd, both groups want to expand the power of Islamic Theocratic Rule, and Taliban is a melting pot but they’ve never shown ill will to Sunnī militants before. What’s causing the divide? Leadership dick measuring contest?
both groups want to expand the power of Islamic Theocratic Rule
Sure, but they have pretty significant divergences in their beliefs about Islamic jurisprudence. IS-K (IS Khorasan) is heavily populated by Salafists, who the Taliban (who are mainly Deobandis) suppressed prior to the US invasion. Now that the US is gone, they’re back to beefing.
But also, ISIS-K’s explicit goal is the establishment of a caliphate across the Khorasan region, which includes Afghanistan, and obviously the Taliban isn’t down with handing over power to them.
Just like in any religion, there are many more subdivisions and sects than just the larger overall factions. Within Sunni and Shia, there are extremely diverse ranges of beliefs. Salafism is a sect of Sunnism that believes that only the laws and practices of the era that Mohammad lived in were valid. Deobandism on the other hand is extremely heavy in academic analysis and refinement of Islamic jurisprudence, and is very famous for its scholars wanting to debate other religious scholars on theological grounds. They have a very large body of works that they consider important treatise on Islamic law, and Salafists often accuse them of not being true Muslims because of this. Sort of a Lutheranism (Deobandi) vs Fundamentalism (Salafi) dynamic.
Alright but hear me out, if the Protestants and Fundamentalists were at war with the Catholics and also at risk of being invaded by the world powers then you’d think they’d at least be smart enough to stop killing each other for a few minutes.
I’m going with the Leadership Dick Measuring Contest theory I presented earlier.
The Taliban and Salafi militias (including ISIS, once formed) did stop fighting in order to oppose the US invasion together. It’s only because it’s now over that they’re back to beefing. Afghanistan isn’t at risk of being invaded by anyone right now.
Who could possibly be the loser in this situation? Is it:
Ukraine, All of Europe, the USA, and the rest of NATO?
or
Russia
hmmmmmmm
Such a tossup /sarcasm
It’s Russia. Russia is losing. They’ve got enemies within and all around, the world is closing off trade with them and they don’t have half the local resources that the failed Soviet Union once had. Once this is over, then there is a non-zero chance they spend the next half a century competing with the east as Cheap Labor for China and the USA.
Next year will be a bit dicey, but after that they're done. Europe alone can outspend Russia 100 times without breaking a sweat. They'll bankrupt themselves, again.
This feels more like a publicity stunt than artists actually sticking to their principles. I mean Texas isn’t doing that hot in the human rights category either.
So the average transaction price for a new vehicle is just shy of $48000. It blows my mind that people are buying such expensive vehicles and then complaining they can’t afford them. We bought a new vehicle 3 months ago and its price is only half that amount. Yet it comfortably seats two adults and two kids.
There are plenty of vehicles for sale under $30k. But the people are choosing not to buy them. 🤷♂️
I can’t phantom spending more than $25k on a new car (for myself, I don’t need a family vehicle). I’m in the market for a used car around $15k and even that seems steep. With this article saying average prices are around $40k and 82% of Americans make under $100k, I have to assume people are seriously struggling to afford anything if much of it is going towards car expenses. And that’s just for a car, not to mention housing, food, etc.
Edit: oh…
Manufacturers cite disappointing sales results as primary reasons for discontinuing smaller, more affordable vehicles from their lineup," Yoon explained.
“But car buyers’ preferences have also shifted dramatically to larger trucks and SUVs in the past 10 years or so, and even more towards high-tech and comfort amenities in the form of cameras, sensors, radars and large infotainment screens,” he said.
Yeah, I’d be a-okay with an fm radio and roll down windows in a compact hatchback, thanks. You people with your fancy cars. It’s all going to be trash with the flick of a firmware update.
Yeah, I’d be a-okay with an fm radio and roll down windows in a compact hatchback, thanks. You people with your fancy cars. It’s all going to be trash with the flick of a firmware update.
Nobody makes fun of my wife’s little econobox anymore. 1.2 liter engine, 5 speed, and a radio.
I’ve been seriously considering a 1970’s VW Beetle. My main hesitation / red flag, of all the things that could be a concern with such an old car, is lack of power steering and my need to parallel park in the city.
Speaking as someone who has suffered an original air cooled Beetle, they’re cool but I wouldn’t try to daily it. The lack of power steering would be far, far down your list of issues you will run into.
But for paralell parking a beetle specifically it can be a challenge, because reverse doesn’t work like you expect. You have to push the gear lever down, like straight down toward the ground, and hold it, to put it in reverse. So you have to steer with one hand and hold the shifter with the other.
newsweek.com
Hot