> The newspaper also reported, citing another unidentified official, that not all of the undisclosed deaths were directly tied to the months-long conflict but involved US personnel who were in the Middle East amid ongoing hostilities.
If someone dies near a war, but not due to the war, is it really fair to count them as a war fatality?
To get more specific this often means 'suicide' which absolutely is a casualty of war given the strain of war conditions, especially given the logistics concerns and duration of tours that they are forcing right now.
It's routinely written and recounted that for most wars in history more people died from disease than combat. But we still count them all as war deaths.
Notably, the US is on precisely the opposite side of the conflict in 2026 compared to 2006.
To put it differently: its stated allies are direct lineal political and military descendants of the parties who were ostensibly its enemies in 2006, including Al-Qaeda / Jabhat Al-Nusra.
That’s… hilariously not exactly new either. It can be said that our enemies and allies in 2006 were the almost exact opposite of the conflict in the 1980’s when we were funding the afghan mujahideen to fight the soviets.
So theoretically in another 20-30 years we can take a guess at who we’ll be fighting.
This is par for the course for US foreign policy in the region.
There's even (disputed) allegations that Bush Sr funneled money and weapons to bin Laden in opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If true, the big 2006 enemy was a 1986 ally.
-isms of all kind are powerful. But the most powerful are those that give the believer a distant group of people for them to blame for all their troubles, which are often self-inflicted.
People tend to vote with their wallets in mind more than anything. I think that's why it ping ponged(inflation), and why they're getting destroyed in the midterm polling. The next president will likely have a D next to their name(more inflation).
Trump himself only happened because Ds abandoned the working class for grievance politics circa 2010 — forming “public private partnerships” to tear open old wounds while screwing the working class on behalf of corporations.
Most of Trump's public statements are done through a company that he owns. That same company charges a modest $100,000 per month for early access to his posts; just straight up facilitating insider trading for the President's personal profit. Plus people might find the administration making decision in their favor while paying the $100,000 a month.
There's also Trumpcoin through which people can transfer money to the President. This just happens in the open. Remember when Trump had personal 1-on-1 meetings with the top Trumpcoin holders? I remember.
I've barely scratched the surface here. Trump's personal worth has increased $3,000,000,000 during his second term, so far.
Corruption has existed before, but it's never been this out in the open.
Which can only probably be a benefit. If the corruption is this blatant and bad maybe the next swing around the pendulum there is less because people realize how much it's bad.
"Among the agreed provisions is one stating the deal would not expire even if Greenland became an independent country in the future.
The official added that under the deal, the US has unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark. It includes "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," the official said.
It also bans non-Nato countries from building bases in Greenland, and "bans adversaries from making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States".
The official added that under the current status quo, adversaries have been allowed to invest in Greenland's "sensitive sectors without investment screening".
The official specifically referenced Russia and China, saying it blocks them from deploying troops or making investments in "sensitive sectors".
Without the official text being released, it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland."
Because they are flailing? Fuel prices will decide the midterms. There are pockets of die hards but after asking plenty of trump voters, they aren't happy. As long as the democrats in the US keep the identity shit to a minimum and make gains on actual issues likr housing and healthcare they can't lose.
You think those "losses" aren't (to a degree) calculated? They are going to try their damnedest to win enough seats to do what they want, without winning so many that they'd have to do what they must.
During conflict, which side is winning or losing is usually counted in number of body bags sent home. These tend to influence voters tremendously. Anything to tell a good story on that front.
Roy Cohn, one of young Trump's "educators" (also tied to McCarthy's Red Scare)
He taught Trump to always take credit for the good things and blame someone else for the failures. When there is no one to blame, hide it and/or deny it loudly
If someone dies near a war, but not due to the war, is it really fair to count them as a war fatality?
If someone on a military base with no attacks going on, got a heart attack by watching the news, probably not a war fatality.
But we don't know, so any concrete speculation is probably not very helpful.
It’s 2026. The President has embroiled us in an unpopular war in the Middle East and has lied about it.
To put it differently: its stated allies are direct lineal political and military descendants of the parties who were ostensibly its enemies in 2006, including Al-Qaeda / Jabhat Al-Nusra.
So theoretically in another 20-30 years we can take a guess at who we’ll be fighting.
There's even (disputed) allegations that Bush Sr funneled money and weapons to bin Laden in opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If true, the big 2006 enemy was a 1986 ally.
“Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken”[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
I also recommend the book “The Great War for Civilisation” by Robert Fisk
All my life I have had faith in the governments reports and statistics for the most part. This admin has torn everything down and for what?
*by "they" I mean the voters... the people that were elected were, and are well informed
To keep the grift going, of course.
Most of Trump's public statements are done through a company that he owns. That same company charges a modest $100,000 per month for early access to his posts; just straight up facilitating insider trading for the President's personal profit. Plus people might find the administration making decision in their favor while paying the $100,000 a month.
There's also Trumpcoin through which people can transfer money to the President. This just happens in the open. Remember when Trump had personal 1-on-1 meetings with the top Trumpcoin holders? I remember.
I've barely scratched the surface here. Trump's personal worth has increased $3,000,000,000 during his second term, so far.
Corruption has existed before, but it's never been this out in the open.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/18/us/politics/trump-greenla...
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denm...
The official added that under the deal, the US has unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark. It includes "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," the official said.
It also bans non-Nato countries from building bases in Greenland, and "bans adversaries from making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States".
The official added that under the current status quo, adversaries have been allowed to invest in Greenland's "sensitive sectors without investment screening".
The official specifically referenced Russia and China, saying it blocks them from deploying troops or making investments in "sensitive sectors".
Without the official text being released, it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o
we're no strangers to troops dying due to ongoing conflict pretty much everywhere
so why are they seemingly hiding a small number like this?
Thanks for the laugh. The Dems have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
They deny everything, no matter how low the stakes. See, for example, the reflecting pool fuss.
Because they claimed a "flawless victory".
He taught Trump to always take credit for the good things and blame someone else for the failures. When there is no one to blame, hide it and/or deny it loudly