Yet, it is entirely true that the US helped stage a coup that took a legitimately elected leader out of power in a foreign country, a tactic they used over and again across Latin America to horrifying consequences.
9 Likes
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
8 Likes
Changes exactly nothing. The chain of responsibility is quite clear, and we’re holding one end of it.
I didn’t mean to suggest that “we” were not responsible, only that you were wrong about exactly what “we” did.
2 Likes
Uh-oh. Doubleplusungoodthink.
1 Like
Quite a few of the Sunni jihadists have a problematics list that goes back as far as the Spanish reconquista.
Inasmuch as it’s too late to ban Charles Martel or El Cid from Twitter, what can be done to redress that grievance?
1 Like
We could address the concerns of millions of people living under dictatorship, which is what the more ideologically driven jihadists have done. Part of the reason why the Muslim brotherhood was able to win the Egyptian election is because liberals ignored the Egyptian countryside for decades while the Brotherhood spent time and money in the hinterlands, actually listening to and helping the Egyptian working classes. And what did we do with the Arab Spring? Did we listen to the Arab street? Fuck no, we leaned into our support of brutality, because of our generally bigoted belief that Arabs “aren’t ready for democracy and are better served by being tightly controlled by strong men.”
There are direct, material concerns that people in the region have, and jihadist groups have actually addressed these issues in some cases (even if in many cases, this was done cynically and very much cosmetically). We seem incapable of learning lessons from the past century of history in the middle east. Most people there aren’t concerned with the “old days” but are very concerned about the effects of colonialism in the region, which they are dealing with on a daily basis.
6 Likes
In that case, thank you for the correction =).
2 Likes
This kind of rhetoric not only supports US and Iranian jingoism but justifies State suppression of dissent e.g. throwing people like Kylie in prison.
Apparently she’s an Iranian citizen. Lots of countries prosecute their citizens for offenses committed outside their territory, including the us.
My statements clearly do not support war nor imprisoning people unjustly. The whole situation is fucked up. I’ll translate it for you: yea, nobody is surprised, it’s fuck up, but what can you do.
If only there were an international organization that could investigate and condemn rogue nations like the US & UK.
Terrorist cells aren’t going to get the West to change their colonial ways. It’s just going to piss them off and raise a new generation of xenophobic nationalists.
I misread the same Wikipedia article. However, a Shia majority in neighboring Iraq is a larger pool to draw foreign Shia militants from.
For the Sunnis, I’m not suggesting they give a shit about the Iranian government. I’m suggesting that they’re not exactly fond of Americans, who will be invading yet another Muslim country and there will be foreign jihadis who can put aside their differences with the Shia until the Americans are driven out. And even if they can’t that’s still not going to help an American invasion.
1 Like
“New”? That’s been the case for… oh since WWII, if not longer.
Beyond lip service, how would we do that exactly?
When given the chance, religious militants have so far only shown a capability to install other, often more virulent forms of dictatorship, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Taliban and ISIL being the most recent examples.
This is akin to observing that the Mafia and other organized crime syndicates here and abroad often did/do the exact same thing. Doesn’t validate their ruthless ideology by any stretch.
Depends on what you mean by “we”. I seem to remember that Obama was fairly vocal in his support of the pro-democracy movement in the Middle East at the time. Didn’t “we” provide material and military aid in the cases of both Libya and Syria? Pretty much a damned if you do damned if you don’t state of affairs however…
Eek. And where exactly would this be? Under Taliban rule in Afghanistan? You do realize they stone women there for adultery right? ISIL? Your statement flies in the face of every objective thing we know about life under militant Islamic rule.
Finally! We agree on something!
1 Like
Actually, no. That failed famously in Vietnam. And World War II for that matter; aerial bombardment served for the most part only to increase resolve on the part of the combatants. The Japanese refused to surrender even after the total devastation of Tokyo by fire bombing, in which 120,000 died. Until Hiroshima that is, but unless you’re talking about nukes, nope history doesn’t bear out what you are saying.
2 Likes
Actually, no. That failed famously in Vietnam.
Actually, yes. That was a different kind of war. It failed in Vietnam because the public was involved on the US side. And it was involved because the forces were not made of faceless professionals. And WW2 absolutely proved that bombing everything into oblivion weakens the other side to the point of losing the war. I think you are misunderstanding what my point was - there are hawks in the US administration that will be emboldened by the advances in warfare and will be ready to go after everything and everybody because “our” side won’t suffer many (if any) casualties. With the ignorance of the public towards a war without emotional investment, they (the hawks) could be able to pretty much do whatever they want, no matter the number of casualties on the other side.
1 Like
There are plenty of war historians that would disagree with you on that. Again, notwithstanding nukes.
Well “the hawks” famously told that story before they invaded Iraq, and sure, an easily-duped media and public bought the fairytale to some degree. But it didn’t turn out like that and I think that hard lesson has been learned at least for the foreseeable future. Would the American public support another such murderous venture? It appears that is highly unlikely, in that both major political parties are disinclined toward interventionism. That said one would never want to underestimate the incompetence and hubris of the present administration. I think what we might see is limited air strikes but nothing more.
Your assumption is then that the American public has learned the lesson? I doubt it. I am also not sure why are we arguing over this in the first place. If you read my comments, you will see that my point has nothing to do with whether or not you think that it’s possible. I am raising a concern that with the automation of the warfare, it will be easier to attack countries like Iran without any consequences to the USA.
Also, I am glad that some war historians would disagree with me. It is their right to do so. You are assuming that my knowledge of warfare is theoretical and not practical.
