#blowback operation

[historyofguns]

The article, written by Tom Laemlein for The Armory Life, discusses Japan's development and deployment of the Type 100 submachine gun during World War II. Initially, the Japanese military showed little interest in submachine guns in the 1930s, but began development late into the war. Influenced by European models like the Thompson submachine gun and the German MP 18, Japan's early experimentation led to the creation of the Type 100 by Nambu Arms, which was adopted by the military in 1942. Despite its practical design aimed at increased firepower in urban battles, the production was limited and delayed, resulting in only about 10,000 units by the end of the war and failing to significantly impact the Japanese military's capabilities. The Type 100 had notable variants including a folding stock model for paratroopers. However, with the lack of a powerful cartridge and production challenges, the Type 100 was ultimately considered inferior to other contemporary SMGs in terms of effectiveness and production ease. Despite this, it had a unique design and served a specialized role during its limited use in the war.

[alanshemper]

learned about a new CIA covert operation today

[vacuouslyfalse]

Anyway. I've said this before but while I am generally critical of communism and the USSR, anticommunism is a far more bleak and disturbing ideology. There is an oft-repeated lie that the Cold War was a conflict between democratic capitalism and authoritarian communism, but you really don't have to look that hard to see how that narrative falls apart - the people the US supported as bulwarks against communism were consistently antidemocratic.

The cognitive dissonance induced by anticommunism was staggering - you have all these US government officials talking about the loathed enemy, unable to really articulate what they were fighting and why, and why they thought the people they were supporting were better, besides their shared opposition to communism.

A particularly stark example of this comes up in this season of Blowback when the CIA director was flirting with a plan to try and get Soviet soldiers to defect. To shoot down the plan, other CIA operatives showed him evidence of Mujaheddin sexual violence against Soviet prisoners, which elicited a response along the lines of "I see your point, there's no way any of the Soviets would ever ally with those subhuman monsters." But those were the same people the CIA were funding, training, and arming!

Even some concept of pro-US campism (support people who are pro-US!) or shared interest in capitalist profits (support people who make the US money!) doesn't hold up - the Islamic fundamentalists were completely uninterested in what the US was selling, except that it furthered their immediate aims!

[greatworldwar2]

• M50 Reising Submachine Gun

The .45 Reising submachine gun was manufactured by Harrington & Richardson (H&R) Arms Company in Worcester, Massachusetts, USA, and was designed and patented by Eugene Reising in 1940. The three versions of the weapon were the Model 50, the folding stock Model 55, and the semiautomatic Model 60 rifle. Over 100,000 Reisings were ordered during World War II, and were initially used by the United States, though some were shipped to Canadian, Soviet, and other allied forces.

Reising was an assistant to firearm inventor John M. Browning. In this role, Reising contributed to the final design of the US .45 ACP M1911 pistol. Reising then designed a number of commercial rifles and pistols on his own, when in 1938, he turned his attention to designing a submachine gun as threats of war rapidly grew in Europe. Two years later he submitted his completed design to the Harrington & Richardson Arms Company (H&R) in Worcester, Massachusetts. It was accepted, and in March 1941, H&R started manufacturing the Model 50 submachine gun. H&R promoted the submachine guns for police and military use, and the Model 60 for security guards. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 the US was suddenly in desperate need of thousands of modern automatic weapons. Reising's only competitor was the .45 ACP Thompson submachine gun. The US Army first tested the Reising in November 1941 at Fort Benning, Georgia. During this test, several parts failed due to poor construction. Once this was corrected, a second test was made in 1942 at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. In that test, 3,500 rounds were fired, resulting in two malfunctions: one from the ammunition, the other from a bolt malfunction. As a result, the Army didn't adopt the Reising, but the Navy and Marines did, due to insufficient supply of Thompsons.

The Reising submachine gun was innovative for its time. In comparison to its main rival, the famous Thompson, it possessed similar firepower, better accuracy, excellent balance, a lighter weight, a much lower cost, and greater ease of manufacture. Despite these achievements, the poor combat performance of the Reising contrasted with favorable combat and law enforcement use of the Thompson mired the weapon in controversy. The Reising was far less costly ($62) compared to the Thompson ($200). It was much lighter (seven vs. eleven pounds). The Model 55 was also more compact (about twenty-two vs. thirty-three inches in length). The M50 Reising's delayed blowback operation, often classified as hesitation lock, works as follows: as the cartridge is chambered, the rear end of the bolt is pushed up into a recess, in a manner similar to tilting-bolt locked breech guns; but whereas such weapons rely on an additional mechanism to unlock them, in the case of the Reising the end of the bolt that pushes against the back wall of this recess, is subtly rounded, while the wall is correspondingly curved. On firing, the extreme pressure from the propellant gases is thereby able to force the bolt-end down, back to the horizontal. From here the bolt can move to the rear removing the cartridge from the chamber; but the combination of mechanical disadvantage and friction the force of the gases must overcome to push the end of the bolt down has achieved a delay of a fraction of a second, allowing pressure in the barrel to drop to a level sufficiently low for safe and efficient cartridge extraction. The Reising was made in selective fire versions that could be switched between semi-automatic or full-automatic fire as needed and in semi-auto only versions to be used for marksmanship training and police and guard use. The Reising had a designed full-auto cyclic rate of 450–600 rounds per minute but it was reported that the true full-auto rate was closer to 750–850 rounds per minute.

The U.S. Marines adopted the Reising in 1941 with 4,200 authorized per division with approximately 500 authorized per each infantry regiment. Most Reisings were originally issued to Marine officers and NCOs in lieu of a compact and light carbine, since the newly introduced M1 carbine was not yet being issued to the Marines. Although the Thompson submachine gun was available, this weapon frequently proved too heavy and bulky for jungle patrols, and initially it, too, was in short supply. During World War II, the Reising first saw action on August 7th, 1942, exactly eight months to the day after Pearl Harbor, when 11,000 men from the 1st Marine Division stormed the beaches of Guadalcanal, in the Solomon Islands. The same date of Guadalcanal's invasion, the Model 50 and 55 saw action with the 1st Marine Raiders on the small outlying islands of Tulagi and Tanambogo to the north. Serious shortcomings in both guns were becoming apparent. The reality was that the Reising was designed as a civilian police weapon and was not suited to the stresses of harsh battle conditions encountered in the Solomon Islands—namely, sand, saltwater that easily rusted the commercial blued finish, and the difficulty in keeping the weapon clean enough to function properly. Tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground and at Fort Benning, Georgia, had found difficulties in blindfold reassembly of the Reising, indicating the design was complicated and difficult to maintain. The producer, H&R, had not yet mastered mass-production technologies in 1940-1941, and many of the parts were hand fitted at the factory just like the company did with their commercial firearms. While more accurate than the Thompson, particularly in semi-automatic mode, the Reising had a tendency to jam. The Reising earned a dismal reputation for reliability in the combat conditions of Guadalcanal. The M1 carbine eventually became available and was often chosen over both the Reising and the Thompson in the wet tropical conditions.

In late 1943 following numerous complaints, the Reising was withdrawn from Fleet Marine Force (FMF) units and assigned to Stateside guard detachments and ship detachments. After the Marines proved reluctant to accept more Reisings, and with the increased issue of the .30-caliber M1 carbine, the U.S. government passed some Reising submachine guns to the OSS and to various foreign governments (as Lend-Lease aid). Both the Soviets and Canada purchased some Model 50 SMGs, others were given to various anti-Axis resistance forces operating around the world. Many Reisings (particularly the semiautomatic M60 rifle) were issued to State Guards for guarding war plants, bridges, and other strategic resources. After the war, thousands of Reising Model 50 submachine guns were acquired by state, county, and local U.S. law enforcement agencies. The weapon proved much more successful in this role, in contrast to its wartime reputation. Production of the Model 50 and 55 submachine guns ceased in 1945 at the end of World War II. Nearly 120,000 submachine guns were made of which two-thirds went to the Marines. H&R continued production of the Model 60 semiautomatic rifle in hopes of domestic sales, but with little demand, production of the Model 60 stopped in 1949 with over 3,000 manufactured. H&R sold their remaining inventory of submachine guns to police and correctional agencies across America. Decades later, in 1986, H&R closed their doors and Numrich Arms (aka Gun Parts Corporation) purchased their entire inventory.

[frogblast-the-ventcore]

From clockwise right, we have:

Hellreigel 9mm submachine gun (text via IMFDB: "As of current knowledge, there was only ever one example of the Hellriegel and it did not survive the war. Its caliber, capacity, operating method, and whether or not it was even a functional weapon are conjecture based on analysis of the photographs and historical context. It is assumed to have been blowback operated with the projections at the rear being a pair of recoil springs, and the large structure over the barrel is thought to have been a leather-wrapped water or oil jacket for cooling. From what little could be known about the weapon from the three images, it appears that the Hellriegel is a large-capacity submachine gun, firing what seems to be a 9mm cartridge. It would make the Hellriegel one of the first submachine guns made in the world by definition of a submachine gun. It wouldn't be referred as a submachine gun at the time, as the term "submachine gun" was first coined in 1921 to advertise the Thompson Submachine Gun; the Hellriegel was referred to as a machine gun (Maschinengewehr) on the image caption. It could feed from straight box magazines, or from a large drum magazine which was not actually connected to the weapon and instead fed the cartridges through a flexible chute. The unusual appearance of this drum magazine led to some assumptions that it was belt fed, however this is not the case with the rounds being unconnected from one another and are propelled along the drum and feed chute by a spring in a similar manner to the Trommelmagazin snail drum used by the Luger pistol. The drum magazine is believed to be able to hold up to 160 rounds while the box mag is limited to 20 or so. It seems to be crew-served, as one image depicts an ammo bearer with a backpack for drum magazines, and its seeming intention to be used as a stationary weapon given its weighted base for the drum and its machine gun name (making it a "heavy" submachine gun of sorts). The provision for a drum but not a bipod however, means it is unclear what exactly the weapon was intended to be used for. All three pictures were taken from the right side of the gun, so what the left side looked like is a complete mystery."

Tsar tank (absolutely bonkers Russian experimental wheeled tank):

Hand-dropped bomb runs (commonplace during the war until bomb racks were invented for small aircraft):

German cavalry with pikes (note the horse gas masks).

Also this happened:

[inkandguns]

Val Kilmer’s pistol from Heat

$369!

[pattern-recognition]

the 124cc motorcycle engine, the blowback-operated submachine gun, the zippo lighter, the floatplane, the d-shaped carabiner; just a selection of god’s favored objects

[eveledoze]

which md character do you like to draw the most?

the Uzi ( /ˈuːzi/ ⓘ; Hebrew: עוזי, romanized: Ūzi; officially cased as UZI) is a family of Israeli open-bolt, blowback-operated submachine guns and machine pistols first designed by Major Uziel "Uzi" Gal in the late 1940s, shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel. It is one of the first weapons to incorporate a telescoping bolt design, which allows the magazine to be housed in the pistol grip for a shorter weapon.

[ladyloveandjustice]

Speaking of MAWS, I think it would be extremely funny of the show if Alex the intern is Lex and he just consistently keeps showing up as the intern or second-in-command to rich super tech criminals who are goddamn idiots, the voice of reason that is never listened to (and probably long term planning to depose them and take over their operation), only to always be caught in the blowback when Superman, Lois and Jimmy foil him. I also want Lois to have to punch him out every single time.

Every time, the grudge grows deeper, not just against Superman, but Lois and Jimmy (and Clark). (He hates them in the comics since they foil his plans there too ofc and because of their connection to Superman, but it's never AS big as the hateboner for Superman. In this version, I want him to hate them JUST AS MUCH if not MORE.)

When he eventually does turn supervillain, I want him to have confrontations and plans targeting Lois and Jimmy too- not to get to Superman, no, but because he considers them equal threats and is also extremely petty. And whenever he rants about how they ruined his life, it will never occur to him that he could have stopped interning for stupid criminals at any point. If it's ever pointed out he'll be like "well. anyway."

[eretzyisrael]

by Seth Mandel

As we consider the nature of the astonishing events both in Gaza and in Lebanon over the past month, we should recognize this one clear fact: Israel spent the last year not only fighting a two-front war in real time but learning from its every step and every move how to win the war that had been thrust upon it. And now it is.

I don’t need to rehearse it all for you, but I will, because it’s just so…exhilarating. The elimination of Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah since 1992, brought to a climax a period of daring Israeli actions that included, but are not limited to:

—the assassination in the spring of leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Tehran’s most elite military unit, in a building in Syria.

—Israel’s use of some kind of science-fictional weapon we normies still don’t have a bead on against an Iranian site after the ineffectual missile attack Iran launched in response to the Syria killing—a clear message to the mullahs that Israel possesses terrifying capabilities Tehran cannot predict and that therefore Iran would be wise not to try and find out. And it hasn’t.

—the assassination inside Tehran in an apartment complex owned and run by the mullahs of Hamas’s leader, Ismail Haniyeh—a plan so daring and melodramatically implausible it seemed to have been lifted from the pages of one of Daniel Silva’s glorious Gabriel Allon novels.

—the trapping of senior Hamas leadership in a corner of the city of Rafah following a months-long halt outside this southernmost point in Gaza—a pause largely due to the historically embarrassing pressure exerted by an increasingly pusillanimous and morally impotent Biden administration and its fear of an electoral blowback in one state out of 50 in a country generally extremely supportive of Israel’s efforts.

—the relentless grinding down of Hamas to the point that in the past week Israel is now openly declaring that Hamas no longer functions as a military but has been downgraded into some kind of counterinsurgency at best.

—Operation Grim Beeper, in which Israel wounded or took off the fighting map literally thousands of Hezbollah operatives in a single second, followed a day later by the same attack on the secondary communications devices Hezbollah resorted to with their pagers blown up.

—Operation Northern Arrows, a series of Israeli strikes that did more damage to Hezbollah’s colossal missile stash in six hours than it had done in the 34 days Israel had fought Hezbollah in a conventional war in 2006. In a day’s time, the Israeli airforce hit 1,600 sites in Southern Lebanon and the Bekaa valley.

—The picking-off of Hezbollah leaders systematically wherever and whenever they have been accessible for such elimination, beginning with military commander Fuad Shukr and reaching its apex on Friday with 83 tons dropped directly on the head of Hamas’s command-and-control superbunker—killing Hassan Nasrallah, the world’s most destructive terrorist over the past 32 years, thus decapitating Hezbollah, an enemy of Israel, the United States, and the Jewish people worldwide for four decades.

—the continuing elimination of Hezbollah leaders following Nasrallah’s death, three so far, demonstrating that the decapitation of Hezbollah is not going to be followed any time soon with any kind of regeneration.

And after I finish writing this and before you begin reading it, more will have happened to boost Israel’s side of the war-fighting ledger. And if you had told me just a month ago at the end of August that I would be writing these words at the end of September, I would have thought you mad.

Just one month ago, Israel had plunged into a despair deeper than it had experienced at any time after October 7 when the nation learned that six hostages, including the Israeli-American Hersh Goldberg-Polin, had been murdered just minutes before they might have been rescued. Throughout Israel and the Jewish world, even some hawks found themselves all but ready to give up the fight because the continued plight of the hostages had just become too great to bear. A ceasefire was needed. Bring them home now.

The problem wasn’t an Israeli unwillingness to achieve a ceasefire. The Netanyahu government and its negotiators  accepted general ceasefire terms at multiple moments over the summer. Rather it was Hamas that would not proffer any kind of hostage return that even the United States, which wanted the ceasefire desperately, could view as minimally acceptable. But Israelis and Jews around the world had, without even knowing it really, been surviving on a kind of desperate optimism that things were really going to work out in a movie-ending sort of way. The loss of that optimism was soul-crushing and once again threatened to turn Israel inside out against itself even as the war was not won.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah was firing rockets, killing Druze children, and keeping the North depopulated. Israeli military leaders and Israelis have long known they would not be spared from directly engaging in this war on the northern border. But a country in mourning and a Jewish people worldwide overwhelmed by a degree of open hostility toward us most of us had never known could hardly bear the thought of that second front. Not to mention Yemen. Not to mention Iran.

Which is why September 2024 may go down in the annals of Jewish history as the time our people looked despair in the face and refused to submit to it. Israel said, through the proper democratic vehicle of the Jewish state’s duly elected government, that it would no longer hold itself back in hopes of a deal that would not emerge or tie an arm behind its back to manage a relationship with the United States when the U.S.’s position in all these matters had become all but inexplicable in its inconstancy.

The Netanyahu government acted, and with a kind of determination and confidence that has breathed new strength and a new sense of resolve into the Jewish people. Whatever the divisions and concerns and cautions inside the corridors of power about the astonishing onslaught of Israel against the Iran Axis of Evil, the fact is Israel stared into the abyss and said, “Not today. Not this week. Not this month. Not ever.”

[thepoliticalvulcan]

Early DS9 Garak would not recognize himself as the baddie in this meme.

If you post stuff about the Paradox of (In)Tolerance or memes like this in order to inform the vulnerable that you see them and consider their concerns to be your concerns, this does not really pertain to you. Different people have different understandings of the function of a meme or a pithy saying and that is part of what makes communication in this medium so bedeviling.

However, there is a sort of "In this house we..." type of poster who I believe understands themselves as doing an act of communication with the explicit intent to shame bigots and to inform bigotry curious normies that its not okay.

I am extremely pro-discourse with anyone who is acting in goodfaith on an interpersonal level and I am still pro-discourse with people who are acting in badfaith if done with the express purpose to try to provide a better representation of the ideas the badfaith actor routinely strawmans. Meme wars ain't that. Or at least shallow memes.

And this? This is a shallow meme. I'm sorry, but it is. Its a weak form of engagement that feels good to share, may reassure some allies, but if reassurance isn't the point, then its almost entirely a waste of bandwidth. And let me state again: reassurance is a valid use of bandwidth, I just don't think most people sharing this stuff have that as their primary motive.

Let me unpack this using Garak as a case study.

Among the majority of Star Trek fans whose complaints about Discovery don't begin or end with "identity politics" it ought not to be controversial to call early DS9 Garak a fascist. Heck, depending on your feelings about his actions in "In the Pale Moonlight" Garak may very well still be a fascist, albeit one who is questioning, until late into DS9.

He's not a fascist in the sense that he checks every silly little box that would describe a German who has bought into an Aryan fantastical reimagining of malignant Italian nostalgia for the "good old days" of the Roman Empire. Rather Garak appears to be believe in the innate desirability of a strong paternalistic state that advances the interests of its people, as defined by its oligarchy, through expansionary violence abroad while using hefty amounts of coercion backed by threat of violence to ensure order at home.

This is fascism not as a specific historic belief system, but rather the colloquial fascism. A thermostatic measurement of how fast the average citizen can be exposed to state violence, how narrow their civil liberties are, and how fast those liberties can be suspended if authorities within the state deem it necessary. Rights are far from inalienable in the face of the collective good, as dictated by a narrow elite whose only accountability is censure or murder by a peer.

Colonization, assassination, and disinformation are tools without intrinsic moral weight detached from their aims. Murder isn't wrong because murder is wrong in Garak's world, murder is either an effective means to an end or it isn't. In Garak's moral universe, if murder is useful then murder is good. There's really never any sense from Garak that he is burning his decency to build a paradise he will never see - ala Andor's Luthen Rael or The Operative from Serenity. Garak lives easily with the things he's done, even enjoying throwing the way that Sisko benefited from the way that Garak did what Sisko himself understood was necessary but could not morally bring himself to do when it came to the murder of the Romulan Ambassador.

It might register on some level to Garak, especially later, that he's been conditioned by his society broadly and by his Obsidian Order training specifically to be far from unbiased when considering violence as a tool and thus he gives less weight than he probably ought to the downsides like blowback, unintended consequences, or just the risks of becoming too reliant on violence relative to other options. But ultimately it takes several seasons of exposure to Federation moral and practical arguments about the plurality and nonviolence to wear Garak down.

One could even argue he doesn't truly become a convert to something resembling Federation secular humanism until he is forced to watch proud Cardassia become a barely tolerated vassal to the Dominion and its these people that he, Quark and others have sneered at as soft, too trusting rubes who are willing to die to protect Garak from his own people. To be sure, its the Dominion that bombs Cardassia, but I think we can safely say that Garak understands by the end that its generations of self serving Legates, Obsidian Order directors including his own father, and their ruinous ideology with its unchecked ambition and stifling of imagination that set that particular historical Rube Goldberg machine in motion.

But for early Garak, his ruthless cultural chauvinism wasn't bigotry as he would understand it. The system produced unequal results by design but to him it wouldn't appear to be personal. Garak lived inside a zero sum ideology and thus it was necessary for his people to sabotage and loot other peoples. It was necessary for Garak personally to lie, torture, assassinate, and massacre. He didn't hate other races and cultures, he just preferred Cardassians be the ones to be the masters in a universe of dominator and dominated.

This is the archetypal reader who I most imagine as needing to see themselves as targeted in this meme but instead would gloss over it and find nothing controversial. At best, the reader who needs to see themselves in this meme would be irked by the meta signaling that their lib friends think they're racist and tolerate overt racism in their midst.

Still, they don't see themselves as the baddie because most of them are not Nick Fuentes or Nick Fuentes adjacent. There's only ever been a few thousand Proud Boys and that's according to the Proud Boys who have every reason to exaggerate. Instead what the average reader of concern is is comfortable with unequal outcomes, comfortable with social orders ordered by the stick rather than the carrot because they assume it creates meritocracy and even if it doesn't, a system that is more likely to issue a loan to people like themselves and less likely to gun them down in a routine traffic stop ensures their status and comfort are unlikely to be challenged in a world of scarcity.

Garak probably even thought Cardassians are biologically more intelligent than Klingons or Nausicaans because he thought the cultural products of Cardassia were intrinsically superior to those of the Klingons and the power and prosperity of the Cardassians relative to the Nausicaans were evidence of innate superiority. As for the Federation's dominance, most of the Federation's enemies rationalize it as a house of cards that will fall apart if enough pressure is applied to a pain point, while Garak and Quark would come to have a more nuanced view. They saw the Federation as a Human Empire hiding within a web of co-dependency, acquired favors, and cultural exports like root beer that erode out the foundations of enemies and result in assimilation if they're not careful to police their cultures.

It's not a stretch to think that the secular Cardassians told themselves they were civilizing the religiously stringent Bajorans and liberating them from their rigid caste structure by replacing it with a new, meritocratic hierarchy in which merit was defined as loyal and effective service to the Cardassians. Meanwhile slavery was a natural condition of those who could not be trusted to serve directly below the Cardassian overseers who were "reparenting" the Bajorans and redirecting natural resources back to Cardassia as payment for "services rendered."

The occupation of Bajor through Garak's eyes would not be an act of hate, far from it, but rather because the Cardassians were empirically superior so how could that be bigotry? The Bajorans could complain and kill all they wanted in the mistaken belief they deserved sovereignty but facts don't care about your feelings.

Gul Dukat on the other hand knows he's your villain and while he would prefer you recognize his superiority and love him for his magnanimity in being a less harsh master than some or the "supreme act of generosity" that is granting the Bajorans their freedom; a part of him would be tickled to know he lives rent free on your Promenade.

So what does this have to do with non-fiction? Think carefully about whether you think there are more Gul Dukats or Elim Garaks in the world and communicate appropriately. Communicate effectively.

Damned if I know what effectively even is, we've had ten years to figure this out and have demonstrably and spectacularly failed. I suspect a lot of it has to do with communicating better offline or 1:1 with people who already know us as more than just a witty handle and an avatar and thus can see as more fully human with hopes, dreams, fears, and feelings. I'm not unaware of the irony of this message coming at the end of a lengthy social media diatribe.

[sketching-shark]

🔥 on Sun Wukong

Well @cryzyimp at the risk of sounding like a grimdark edgelord, they should let him be more evil.*

*AS IN & AS PER MY PREVIOUS RANTS, one of the things that really launched the Monkey King into being one of my favorite characters of all time is that while an important part of his whole thing is being a violent little shit, for me the thing that really stands out is that he's a self-aware and brutally honest violent little shit.

He casually talks about having killed more people that he can remember, wields his power to steal whatever he wants for himself and for his monkey family, and we KNOW he ruled as something akin to a warlord for ~20 years. And even after everything that goes down in the Havoc in Heaven and his entrapment under the Five Elements Mountain, he isn't sorry about any of it at all! But it's exactly this which is one of the elements that makes JTTW so interesting! As we go through the book every other figure in authority, from the Tang Emperor to other yaoguai walords, make it pretty clear that they're operating on a very similar wavelength to the Monkey King himself, i.e. they're willing to kill countless people if it helps them establish their rule and/or protect their loved ones. Hell, I'd argue that their free admissions of all kinds of atrocities is to the point where it compels a reader to ask if the Monkey King received the punishment he did less because of the ethics involved and more because he had the power to keep escalating his challenges until he faced someone he couldn't match!

So in this context, for me, the most interesting potential of SWK's arc isn't about having to learn that what he did was bad because he was just that naive; it's all about how he knew exactly what he did and the journey is about showing why he should recontextualize his actions, see how the violence he inflicted on others eventually came back to bite him and his loved ones in their collective ass, and thus learn why he should have compassion for others outside of his very select circle.

So yea big pet peeve that JTTW itself highlights him being impulsive and thus opened up the door for the endless "stupid idiot monkey a-hole" interpretations of the Monkey King, when at least for me it's far more interesting to go with the embedded interpretation that SWK was evil in the sense that he freely wielded violence in full understanding of the consequences for others and did it anyway, sincerely believing that his power could keep any blowback from hitting him or his loved ones until the Buddha himself proved the monkey wrong.

[warsofasoiaf]

On ceasefire negotiations related to how Israel-Hamas is operating. Israel demanded to know how many hostages remain and who is alive, and apparently Hamas is refusing to provide the names and count. Is this a normal thing to argue over and is it normal for a country to sacrifice military campaigns for a comparatively small number of civilians? For example would the United States act similarly if it were in Israel's situation? Would another Western country?

This is actually something I can talk a great deal about, because it deals with negotiations, game theory, and applying economic concepts to non-economic subjects. This will be pretty clinically heartless, so I'm going to throw a cut down.

A hostage negotiation is, at its core, taking prisoners to extract some form of compensation for their safe return. The hostage taker wants something, and trades in human lives to get it. This can be money (ransom), an exchange of prisoners (a prisoner swap), or to exert pressure to enact political change (terrorism). The negotiation is largely an argument over price - how much is it worth to return the hostages safely. We'll get back to this in a bit.

It is typically standard practice to declare the name, number, and status of hostages for a few reasons. One is verification, to prove that the organization has the hostages in question. The second is to establish good faith that the negotiations can be conducted, that the hostages won't be immediately executed. If there is no good faith, the other side does not negotiate and instead attempts rescue (or in Russia's case, just mows them down indiscriminately). That's the same reason why hostage takers can release hostages as a show of good faith that further negotiations are fruitful.

At the end of the day, a hostage negotiation is an argument over the price of the hostages' lives. In any negotiation, information asymmetry is the name of the day, and the more advantages you have in that category, the better price you can command. Hamas is incentivized not to declare the name and status of the hostages for both benign (relatively) and malign reasons. By refusing to name the number and status of the hostages, it forces uncertainty into the Israeli negotiations. If Israel doesn't know how many hostages it's "buying" then it's liable to offer more than Hamas is willing to settle for, which makes Hamas come out ahead in the exchange. If Israel offers too low an amount, Hamas can simply demand more - there are no downsides unless Israel refuses to negotiate.

Of course, the malign reason is that the hostages are not in the best shape - they're either the victims of torture or are already dead. In this case, Hamas is disguising the status to up the price of the negotiations. Typically, negotiators don't pay for dead hostages, so in the event you have dead hostages, it's advantageous to disguise that status to extract something for them (typically money because once you have it in your hand, it's tough to go backsies). It's not good business in the long run, because no one does business with you again, but Hamas likely doesn't believe it's going to be in a position to negotiate again so that threat is less prescient. Similarly, Hamas likely believes it's insulated from the inevitable blowback that it would bring. Support for Hamas, either from their Iranian backers or Western groups, doesn't typically go down even in response to perfidy, torture, or other crimes. So in that sense, being a habitual bad-faith actor doesn't hold the same animus - they're still going to enjoy support from their backers regardless of what they do, which are prime conditions for reinforcing bad behavior. It's similar in Israel, where the Netanyahu government largely doesn't care about foreign political pressure - their reaction typically to international condemnation is to close ranks and accuse their critics of wanting them dead, or at least not caring whether they live or die.

Typically, governments don't like to negotiate ransoms for hostage taking for the all-too-logical reason, it incentivizes other hostage taking attempts. Private citizens often pay ransoms because for them, it is a singular iteration of game theory - there typically isn't a second instance of hostage taking unless the individual is quite unlucky. Governments however, frequently interact with terror groups and are thus less likely to negotiate directly save in the event that the hostage in question is extremely important.

In that sense, hostage taking is usually an attempt to force private citizens to enact domestic pressure on a government, not to pressure the government directly. In the sense of the United States or any other Western countries, this is more effective than in autocracies such as Russia or China, which both are relatively resistant to domestic criticism and are more willing to accept civilian casualties. So to answer your question of what would the United States or another Western nation do, the answer is "it depends on the willingness of the public to place domestic pressure on the government to free the hostages versus their desire to punish the perpetrators."

Thanks for the question, Cle-Guy.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Oliver Willis at Oliver Willis Explains:

The media industry, in particular, thrived during Trump’s time. Instead of sleep-inducing policy wonkery as they had to contend with during President Barack Obama’s two-terms, Trump lurched from drama to drama and crisis to crisis. When he wasn’t feuding with celebrities or Saturday Night Live, he was pissing off NATO allies, mismanaging a pandemic, or bowing to North Korea’s dictatorial regime. And of course there was the steady stream of racism and misogyny.

Four years into President Joe Biden’s time in office, it is clear to anyone with open eyes that the mainstream press desperately wants to go back to the good old days. They want easy stories and a torrent of clicks to their websites and eyeballs on their broadcasts. They want to be able to churn out a series of bestsellers, compiling information they should have been reporting in newspapers and broadcasts, packaged as buzzworthy scoops to juice book sales. Like Zaslav, the mainstream media - the New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, the networks and the rest — tipped their hands as they took part in the post-debate media orgy. Biden’s performance was putrid, as he has admitted, but the coverage went above and beyond with the press beating the drumbeat for Biden to drop out of the race louder than a Taylor Swift concert extravaganza. The press misses Donald, their meal ticket, their path to riches and an easy day at the office. He makes a big show of speaking negatively about his coverage, but like a wrestler working a gimmick to get the audience out of their seats, everyone in this pantomime is playing a role.

[...] The press does not like criticism from the left. The left is supposed to just suck it up and take it and bow before them. Simply because the left side of the aisle does not share Trump’s position that the free press is the “enemy of the people,” that is supposed to be carte blanche for lies, unfair coverage, and agenda-based reporting against Democrats. Nonsense. Biden was well within bounds to push back on the media’s reprehensible behavior and in fact he should have been more forceful. Because in this election — as in past elections — the Republican Party isn’t his only opposition.

The people who continually carry water for specious and debunked right-wing attacks, like the Swift Boat lies of 2004 or the Willie Horton smears of 1988 or the email faux scandal of 2016 are all the same people: The media. The Republican Party and conservatives have a steadfast ally in the mainstream press that amplifies their bad faith attacks without context, who abdicate their roles as journalists or fact checkers to operate as stenographers for whatever dumb thing Republicans come up with. When George W. Bush and his team wanted to sell lies about weapons of mass destruction, they didn’t go to Fox News. The went to the New York Times. Of course the press should investigate and press back on claims from Democrats, and when Democrats lie or massage the facts, the news media should take them to the rhetorical woodshed. That is their job. But for too long they have operated with two sets of standards for the two parties. What is merely a faux pas by Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Trump is seized upon as a major crisis and scandal if the perpetrator is Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden (along with Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton). This cannot continue to stand, not without some blowback.

Oliver Willis wrote a solid piece on why Joe Biden was right to call out the bothsiderist MSM in a Monday interview with NBC’s Lester Holt.

[gunzlotzofgunz]

FAMAE SAF

FAMAE SAF is blowback-operated; firing from a closed bolt. It is based on the Swiss SIG SG 540 rifle which is produced under license by FAMAE.The SAF has a bolt hold-open catch that engages after the final shot.

Caliber: 9mm Effective Range: 150m Method of Operation: Blowback Length with Stock Extended: 640mm Length with Stock Folded: 410mm Barrel Length: 200mm Weight, Empty: 2970g

[frogblast-the-ventcore]

Fusil automático Bogotá 556 - aka FaB 556

The Fusil automático Bogotá is a 5.56x45mm NATO caliber automatic rifle fed from 30 round STANAG magazines. It uses a form of simple blowback operation with the opening delayed by a heavy bolt as a substitute for a locked breech, To ease the gas pressure, the weapon comes with a carbine length barrel. The receiver of the Fusil automático Bogotá is a round section receiver made from a large tube to house the telescoping bolt covering the whole barrel. The barrel is held in a trunnion at the front of the receiver acting as the muzzle. The cocking handle is on the right side angled upwards. Sights are copied to an extent from the M16 as well as its fixed tube stock. The weapon fires from an open bolt in full auto only.