Murdered by Words

2568 readers

224 users here now

Responses that completely destroy the original argument in a way that leaves little to no room for reply - a targeted, well-placed response to another person, organization, or group of people.

The following things are not grounds for murder:

Personal appearance ("You're fat", "You're ugly")
Posts with little-to-no context
Posts based on a grammar/spelling error
Dick jokes, "Yo mama", "No, you" type responses and other low effort insults
"Your values are bad" without any logcal or factual ways of showing that they are wrong ("I believe in capitalism" - "Well, then you must be evil" or "Fuck you you ignorant asshole")

Rules:

Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone else.
Discussion is encouraged but arguments are not. Don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
No bigotry of any kind.
Censor the person info of anyone not in the public eye.
If you break the rules you’ll get one warning before you’re banned.
Enjoy the community in the light hearted way it’s intended.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

SomeoneElseMod@feddit.uk

SomeoneElse@lemmy.world

SomeoneElse@lemmy.ca

485

he somehow negotiated a deal that allows the USA to keep doing what they've been doing (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 day ago by Karmanopoly@lemmy.world to c/murderedbywords@feddit.uk

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] VonReposti@feddit.dk 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Everything Trump has been bragging about is what was also part of the 1951 deal. No one has mentioned minerals yet. It's of course not set in stone before the final text is signed and published, but I'm pretty sure if minerals were part of it, Trump would have mentioned it. And I think minerals were one of the red lines our foreign minister (implicitly) mentioned. It would take way some of the sovereignty since the majority of the elected officials in Greenland is against extraction of minerals.

[–] lath@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, it's all my presumption at this time. This example of an article is what leads my mind towards it.

The text of the agreement has not been published. The BBC has contacted the Danish Embassy in the US and the White House.

However, an unnamed US State Department official outlined the deal without providing specifics.

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.

Rare mineral exploitation for military purposes would fall under "unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark" as those resources are needed for electronics used by military equipment such as AA defenses for that dumbass golden dome of his.

[–] VonReposti@feddit.dk 2 points 1 day ago

No, that's quite a stretch to call mineral exploitation a military purpose. It would at most be a strategic independence from other sources of minerals like China.

The other parts "permanent access" with "no approval needed" was part of the 1951 agreement. While I don't know the specifics on the independence of Greenland and what the old agreement said, I think Greenland didn't have the influence back then and it wasn't a matter to be discussed, so it might have been void in that case. But if Greenland goes independent they're basically up for grabs and Trump would be first in line.