America’s support for genocide isn’t an accident. It isn’t an anolomy. It’s what America always does. It’s what the system was built on.

Look at the size of America’s military. Look at the size of America’s wealth. Look at who benefits.

If you defend capitalism, you defend that.

  • 5 Posts
  • 582 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2024

help-circle
  • There are no “good guys” in a conflict between religious people.

    Religion does play a role in the conflict, particularly over the question of where the border between an Israeli and Palestian state should go (so that holy sites end up on the appropriate side), but I don’t think it’s very useful to understand this as a religious conflict.

    The Jews who moved to Israel in the early 20th century weren’t pilgrims. They were refugees fleeing political persecution. The founder of Zionism wasn’t even religious.

    And Israel didn’t happen because religious Jews enthusiastically got behind the idea of Zionism. Israel happened because Britain got behind the idea of Zionism.

    Because the Crusdaes of the 11th to 13th centuries still loom large in Western culture (Richard the Lionheart and all that), I think Westerners have a tendency to think that the situation in Israel/Palestine is a continuation of those conflicts. But it’s really not. It’s a 20th century creation.


  • Up until 1967, the bad guys were Britain.

    Britain seized Palestine from the Ottomans during WWI with the help of the local Palestinians, promising the Palestinians sovereignty in exchange for their help overthrowing the Ottomans.

    At the same time, Britain promised to create a homeland for Jews in Palestine (in the Balfour Declaration), and Jewish refugees from Europe began settling in Palestine. Britain did this because they thought they might gain the support of Jewish financiers for their war efforts. l

    The Balfour Declaration was deliberately vague about whether Britain was giving all of the land to the Jews or just some of the land. It was vague because Britain wanted to appeal to Jewish Zionists (who wanted all of Palestine) while not alienating the Palestinians.

    Britain never did divide the land, resulting in two different populations who felt they legally owned the land, one who had always been there, and one who mostly arrived as refugees.

    When Britain left following WWII, a civil war broke out for control of the land. A border was eventually drawn at the line of control (which ran through the middle of Jersusalem), and Israelis declared the new State of Israel, while Palestinian refugees fled to their side of the border or neighbouring states. That was in 1947.

    So, up until then, it’s a messy situation created by Britain, but one which eventually resulted in the land being split (albeit violently), with both Israelis and Palestians having a state, and each having part of Jerusalem. The world accepted this as the new status quo and hoped it would be sustained peacefully.

    That changed in 1967 when Israel annexed the Palestinian lands (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) in the Six Days War. Since then, Palestians have been living under a harsh Israeli occcupation as a stateless people (meaning no citizenship), with their rights and freedoms strictly curtailed. Palestinians have been resisting through a number of resistance movements, usually designated as terrorist groups in the Western media.

    There was a political movement towards peace and repartitioning of the land that peaked in the 1990s, but since then it has been held up by a series of right-wing governments in Israel. Meanwhile, Israel has been aggressively building Jewish neighbourhoods (called settlements) in the formerly Palestinian lands of the West Bank.

    So since 1967, Israel has pretty clearly been the bad guy.

    The terrorist attack that killed 1200 young Israelis was horrific, and we should all hope nothing like that ever happens again. But the root cause of the attack was Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The way to prevent future terror attacks is to end the oppression of the Palestinian people.


  • They aren’t intended to win, they’re intended to do exactly what they’re doing - selecting particular wedge issues to split the Democrat vote and give them a lower total percentage vs Republicans

    But surely that would happen even if someone else like Cornel West was the Greens leader.

    All Putin achieves by (somehow) installing his plant as the Greens presidential candidate is lowering the Greens’ vote share by preventing them from getting the most charismatic and effective candidate.

    If Putin really did subvert the Greens’ selection mechanism and install a less popular candidate with limited appeal, the Democrats should be thanking him.



  • But these accusations don’t even make sense.

    Why would Putin benefit from having a Russian plant as the presidential candidate of the Green Party? Does he mistakenly think the Green Party has some influence in American politics?

    And how could he known his plant would be selected by the party as their presidential candidate? Is he psychic? Is the entire Green Party comprised of Russian plants?

    If his goal was for the Greens to be a spoiler for the Dems, surely they’d be just as much of a spoiler no matter who their candidate was. In fact, without Stein, they could probably find a better candidate and be more of a spoiler.

    I’m not worried about Stein being a Russian plant because it literally would make no difference to anything.




  • the second statement of yours doesn’t work.

    So you’re arguing against self-determination for the inhabitants of the Donbas on the grounds that the territory historically belonged to Ukraine. (Which does seem to be the attitude of the Ukrainian government.)

    I don’t think that’s a good argument against self-determination. And that’s how you end up with separatist violence.




  • (I mean, I get it. We live in a 1984-style dystopia where I can’t question our very questionable government without being accused of being a traitor and secretly loyal to whichever foreign power is considered the enemy this week, and I should consider myself lucky that I don’t end up in Room 101, or Guantanamo Bay, or the Embassy of Ecuador in London. Yeah, I know.)




  • I can’t access the link you posted. So I’ll take your word for it. But I can’t see how many votes it has or what their reasoning is.

    You might have the poster blocked. You can see it if you open the link in an Incognito window. It has 15 upvotes.

    I definitely have you marked as maybe pro-Russia

    First of all, even if I was pro-Russia, that doesn’t mean I’m a Russian asset. Assets operate under instructions and get paid for it (I assume).

    Secondly, I’m not pro-Russia. I mean, I’d like to think I appreciate Russian culture in the same way I appreciate all world cultures, but I have no particular loyalty or sympathy for the Russian government. (And I don’t even know much about Russian culture. I’ve never read Tolstoy or Pushkin. I don’t think I could name a single Russian dish apart from borscht.)

    I think that Ukraine is a puppet of the Western powers, and I think that the US and NATO provoked the war in the Donbas. I don’t think that makes me pro-Russia. If I was pro-Russia, then I would want Russia to win the war, and truth is I don’t care which side wins the war. I just want it to be over. Ideally, I’d like the people of the Donbas to have a referendum about which country they’d like to be a part of, but neither Ukraine or Russia are going to let that happen.

    I also think a lot of the information we’re getting about the war in the Ukraine is blatant propaganda. Like, we’re supposed to believe they killed 10,000 Russian troops last week? Then why are they freaking out about 1,500 troops coming from North Korea? (Even if North Korea sent 10,000 troops, that’s still only one week’s worth, right?) Again, I don’t think that makes me pro-Russia. That makes me pro-truth.

    I am also pro-BRICS, because I support a multi-polar future for our world. I don’t think that makes me pro-Russia anymore than it makes more pro-Brazil or pro-Ethiopia. (I don’t see BRICS as an anti-Western alliance. Also, Brazil is a Western country.)

    I will be upfront about all of this. I am not hiding any of it.


  • "[…] No leftist/proper radical/cool tough guy who is very cool and tough like me would ever accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset, so if you do, I am drawing myself as the Chad Leftist and you as the Soyjack Centrist” It’s the kind of openly silly opinion that, if you say it openly, people laugh at you, so OP simply assumes it

    Are you saying that I’m (sneakily) assuming that’s it’s ridiculous to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset? (I’m not trying to paraphrase you, I’m just genuinely not exactly sure of what you’re saying.)

    I do believe it would be ridiculous to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset. I am not being sneaky about that. I will openly say it. Here, listen to me say it:

    No leftist/proper radical/cool tough guy who is very cool and tough like me would ever accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset.