Certain precautions were taken 😁

From transnational surveillance (or digital TNR as some might call it) all other forms of transnational repression flow. It is not sine qua non but most states as far as we can tell build their transnational repression on digital foundations—just as they do other forms of administration/governance

Maybe you're corvophilic more than dyslexic :P

The cost for less capable aircraft being higher, anything as capable would be even more expensive. It's a matter of how much capability is required/expected of aircraft these days. And unlike what Musk et al think, drones won't solve that issue, yet.

The unit cost has steadily come down as production numbers increased however, to the point where, with some differences depending on variant, the F-35 is cheaper than less capable --though effective-- platforms like the Rafale or Eurofighter.

Yep. But no administration before Erdogan dabbled in interventionism to this extent, or fanned the flames of irredentism to the point of attempting a self fulfilling prophecy.

It's possible that he meant elements of the dome that were updated during the Ottoman period, but given the history of architectural preservation and restoration in Turkey, I am concerned about this project as a whole, to put it mildly.

(I hate typos)

I hope this will offer some interesting reading for people who are curious about the history and mindset of such characters, and help connect the dots of propaganda by the deed over a timespan of a centuries:

www.academia.edu/1917347/The_...

As the title of my dissertation suggests, the era of the "Disreputable Phoenix" has come back (as I argued it would). All the indicators in the 90s to the 00s were there--I traced the 150-year span of this fascinating, albeit tragic thread from the 19th to the 21st century.

But looking at the widespread public reaction to the "deed," the way it was done, the way it has been built in the public imagination, and the way its central actor is perceived, I know that if Galleani was alive today, he would immediately recognize elements of his legacy.

I don't claim to know Mr. Mangione's ideology, psychological profile, or which books he has read. I don't know if he read his namesake, Luigi Galleani, or Errico Malatesta, or any of the more recent literature that connects a thread over a hundred years.

These bandits weren't heroes in the traditional sense. Going back centuries, they represented the antihero, characters who were not black & white, symbols of rebellion and autonomy, romanticized by the public as folk heroes even though they were sometimes involved in bad deeds.

the only means of individual empowerment in an era where they felt they had no recourse to change the power relationships that oppressed them. In a way, they also connect to the older "bandit" archetype (Eric Hobsbawm's Bandits is still a great read after all these years).

have precise formulations for a revolution, or a precise formula for a social organization. They were not utopians by any means, however. I've argued that their thoughts and actions, often misunderstood or relegated to analytically dead conceptualizations of terrorism, presented

but not in the sense of their collectivist cousins, the socialists. They were individualists and anti-collectivists with a deep mistrust of masses and where socialist revolutions could lead (they weren't wrong, for the most part). Unlike socialists or syndicalists, they did not

Propaganda by the deed anarchists, a branch of one of the most fragmented & varied political movements in history, believed that the right ACT, at the right time, could ignite the pent-up frustration & anger in society, and trigger a transformation. They called this a revolution,