They train on tons of public data and I'm the first to say that training is not copying the content: but, this is ok as long as the training you do is not used against the same culture that allowed you to create what you created. We need to oppose to all that.
One of the most horrific scenes in human history has been revealed.
The moment a small child carrying a water jug to her besieged and thirsty family was bombed, killing her and shattering her body.
A video the world must never forget.
At least 1,530 people have been killed and 4,812 injured in Israeli attacks on Lebanon. The toll includes 130 children, while medical workers and emergency services have also been heavily impacted.
#Infograph
B-2 BOMBERS DECIDE INTERNATIONAL LAW
This exchange exposes a deeper truth about today’s global order: international law exists, but it is not applied equally.
In a sharp debate, Dr George Szamuely points to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which clearly allows countries like Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Civilian enrichment at low levels is not a weapons program, a fact widely understood within nuclear science.
But Will Chamberlain's response cuts through the legal argument entirely. His justification is not based on treaties or evidence, but on force: “The B-2 bomber decides.” The message is clear: the authority to decide does not come from international agreements, but from military dominance and the willingness to use it.
This is not a rules-based order. It is enforcement rooted in imperial hierarchy.
The contradiction becomes even sharper when you look at who is inside and outside the system. Nearly every country in the world is part of the NPT — except Israel, a nuclear-armed state and close U.S. ally that has never signed the treaty and faces no comparable scrutiny.
At the same time, Iran — a signatory — is accused of pursuing nuclear weapons despite repeated assessments that it has not built one, not even close to building one, while being denied rights explicitly outlined in the treaty.
What emerges is a familiar pattern: rules that apply to some, but not to others.
From sanctions to military threats, to cold-blooded murder, the justification often shifts, but the outcome remains consistent — pressure, isolation, and the assertion of control over states that attempt to act independently within the system.
And in this moment, the debate reveals something deeper than policy disagreement. It shows a crisis of credibility. When international law can be openly dismissed, and enforcement is selective, the question is no longer what the rules are — but who gets to ignore them.
The US is saying it loud and clear: we are your masters, we will come after you if you do not obey, and we do not respect or follow international law. This is a war for empire against sovereignty.
@venanalysis@VoxUmmah@qiaocollective@ProgIntl @blkagendareport @OrinocoTribune@KawsachunNews