|
getting some major mussolini vibes tbh
|
#
¿
May 3, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Dawncloack posted:From whom? well i mean the usa is clearly hitler in the Yemen situation, bailing out the less competent military ally after a botched invasion
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
also, the rest of the world will go /batshit/ if the us invades iran on behalf of saudi arabia and israel, particularly following this series of fairly blatant provocations like, 2003 is going to look tame and the anti-war left will see a legit renaissance all over europe
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
ought to start actively arming fatah imo can only make that situation better
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2018 10:40
|
|
|
svetlana alekseievich has a really good book about the war in afghanistan whose norwegian title translates to "zinc coffins"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
doesn't erdogan seriously loathe assad? i recall that being received wisdom a while ago
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I agree with this assessment. Turkey's military is large, relatively modern, and also has a ton of experience from decades of fighting PKK's forces in tough terrain. It would absolutely crush Assad, and could stave off Russia if it came to an open confrontation with them. it's also been the subject of extensive purges fairly recently, so it might just choke completely and roll over
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
Sergg posted:So Idlib just became the new Gaza Strip? i'd say that idlib is landlocked and gaza isn't, but lol blockade
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
there's a solid case to be made, i feel, for governments being really bad at assessing the potency of revolutionary sentiment at any rate, the us has hosed up everything it's touched in the arab spring, so this honestly isn't that surprising
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Shockingly, random people with no money and no support don't get straight to Senate seats from nothing. most civilised countries have systems restricting spending or making party apparatuses more powerful, allowing people with little to no financial pull to enter politics one of the guys representing the region where i live in parliament was a student when he got elected
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
the point being, there are ways to limit the bizarre excess of influence that money has on politics in america, or at least make personal access to wealthy donors less of a barrier to entry
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
lol jk the point is death to america
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
i think perhaps if you read that post with a slightly more generous eye, another meaning might emerge
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
imo it is not hypocritical to say 'these people probably murdered your coworker you have to stop moonlighting for them' after not condemning the general horrific abuses done to other, unrelated people over a period of time it's not very nice, but 'show a shred of solidarity with your literal colleagues' is a perfectly coherent maxim
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2018 15:49
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:I just remembered that Hosni Mubarak is still kicking at 90. there is no justice
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
mostly worried about modi here tbh
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
genocide is murder of a people, attacking their identity and suppressing their language etc you could genocide a minority simply by stealing all their children at birth and banning anyone from learning the language, for example - after a generation, that people is no more. it's kind of old-fashioned nowadays because it's much easier to just chase people off and let them so their thing Somewhere Else hence why the holocaust was a genocide, and hence why some people quibble about whether the armenian massacres technically constitute an attempt at genocide(they do)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2019 12:03
|
|
|
cebrail posted:The main story is obviously that the CHP won Ankara and Istanbul, but it should be noted that the AKP didn't lose overall, they even slightly improved, compared to the last local elections. The fascist MHP fell from 17 to 7% though. honestly that seems even better from an outside point of view what happened to precipitate that disintegration?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The AKP has started claiming that the municipal elections are a terrorist conspiracy of the Gulenists. i mean, i appreciate that local elections are boring but this seems to be taking it all a bit far
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:In unprecedented move for the U.S., Trump administration declares elite Iranian military unit a terrorist organization
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
a big part of trumpism is that it's american power politics without the mask the mask wasn't nothing, but trump's politics, bizarrely, seem basically honest; when he says he wants to build a wall, he tries very hard to build the wall, against all reason likewise it seems like he just doesn't get why he should be careful about the framing of foreign policy; that just seems like pointless hypocrisy to him, i think
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
in a hosed up way, trump is probably the most honest president america's had in a very long time in terms of policy. this is objectively hilarious
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
one might say that that's actually a good thing, because it means that you could argue against those bad things on their own terms and effectively refute them, as opposed to the ridiculous song and dance that happens whenever e.g. the NHS is discussed in the UK, where one mustn't question the tories' sincere commitment to the basic institution no matter how hard they try to undermine it it's harder to argue in principle for the NHS when the other guys also claim to be for the NHS, "but..."
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
imo it's a singular symptom of bourgeois narrowmindedness to see a reactionary doing reactionary things and say 'oh how i miss the days when they pretended to be less reactionary'
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It's a symptom of leftist philosophical navel gazing to see an evil person doing evil things and not think there was any benefit in his predecessors at least making tentative steps toward accountability for human rights as opposed to handing dictatorships licenses to kill anyone who opposes their regime. Congrats, you identified that they were all flawed people who enabled evil in some way while failing to see that things can always get worse. i can both think trump is very bad and that his badness is pretty much of the same character as that of his predecessors do keep in mind that you're directly defending bush's foreign policy legacy here, and i'd say that iraq very handily beats anything trump has gotten up to. in fact, on a purely empire perspective i think trump is a good match to e.g. obama; where trump has yemen, obama had egypt, libya and the massive expansion of the drone programme &c. trump's main sin is being awfully vulgar about it all, but don't forget that obama was also pathetically friendly to the israeli fascists and to various america-aligned strongmen is trump worse? possibly. but he's still just a manifestation of the same underlying policy regime, no matter how abrasive his communications, and as he states it frankly and openly, being too stupid to realise the value of deceit, we can directly engage with it and hopefully take the fight directly to that policy regime
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:the part where trump has exercised no oversight except to occasionally exhort the US military to be more careless and brutal is worse. yes, i agree that this part is worse, but obama actively and intelligently helping in the quashing of democratic movements in e.g. egypt is also worse. the lack of serious follow-up on the snowden leaks, for instance, makes obama also worse. obama was much better re: detente with certain traditional enemies; trump seems, bizarrely, better with regards to certain other traditional enemies. the point is, they're both bad for a lot of the same reasons, with trump's main distinguishing mark being that he's being awfully gauche about it but also kind of an idiot which limits the damage he does. the problem isn't so much what distinguishes trump from his predecessors, but what they have in common, which is most of the things i can actually grant you obama if it matters to you and consent to comparing trump to clinton and the bushes without it affecting my (or, as i understand it, helsing's) point to any significant degree
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Grape posted:Yeah that's a good way of describing what would happened (god forbid). so, about ur foreign policy players atm
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
idk if one sees assad's victory as inevitable at this point it doesn't seem as though it should be a negative that the assad regime can provide certain basic services, even if this means that they can also deny said services because they're pricks if one does not see assad's victory as inevitable i suppose that calculus changes, but it's not clear to me how not having electricity is a good thing, as even if that did weaken the assad regime they still seem to me to have overwhelming military might compared to the other factions that they could just replace such legitimacy with firepower
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 07:11
|
|
|
tbh if i were a conspiratorial type i'd rather suspect saudi arabia than israel in this case documented interest in ridiculous schemes, hate iran with a blistering passion, like it when oil price go up
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
if this is an iranian op (which seems unlikely) it's probably some wacko hardline faction of the Guards who want to keep up tensions with the USA to shore up domestic support. that might also explain the reticence of the iranians in coming up with an explanation, because until they've quashed these maniacs any lie they feed might be undermined by a leak, and admitting that your armed forces are going around doing their own ops is a big no-no still think a saudi or random terrorist group is more likely culpable though
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 11:32
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I could see it as a warning for what escalated tensions mean, and lashing out at the current state of rhetoric and sanctions. It doesn't take much plausible deniability to paralyze the west when it comes to politicized attacks like this, so there's a grey area there where all signs could point to Iran for those observing all of the evidence, but in the general public perception, and therefore in government policy, they would not seen as responsible or held accountable. If they did do it, I'd imagine it would be out of a sense of "don't forget what we're capable of, and what the consequences can be if you decide to gently caress with us/don't cut this poo poo out." That being said, in lieu of more evidence, I'm not convinced they did it either. We'll see what the next few days bring. i really don't think that iran of all countries is going to get much benefit of the doubt tbh, banking on that seems completely demented - i can see iranian hardline military types doing this, but this would be insanely risky at a time where the US has been very pointedly rattling sabers in their direction and has an unpopular and unscrupulous president seeking reelection, and neither rouhani nor khamenei are insane
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 12:15
|
|
|
yeaaaah i think you're enormously overestimating the political impact of skepticism towards american motives - the invasion of iraq on entirely specious grounds should have put paid to that much of NATO would join simply out of inertia, like they did in afghanistan or libya
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 12:38
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Nah. It was European countries that dragged the US into Libya, and Afghanistan was considerably different because the US invoked Article 5. France famously sat out Iraq, and the UK voting to sit out of any conflict with Syria was part of why Obama didn't attack the regime after they used chemical weapons. Maybe we could get some countries to send token forces, but Trump isn't the most persuasive American leader, the Europeans blame us for withdrawing from the Iran deal, and the UK is even more bogged down with their own domestic bullshit now, so it's hard to imagine them jumping into another unpopular war they'd mostly think is our fault on top of all that. libya was a french pet op to start with, and yet mysteriously countries like norway and denmark got on board once the americans took over ownership of it also iraq was conducted on the basis of outright and transparent falsehood and still dragged half of europe in with it, if anything it demonstrates how possible it is for the US to mobilise for war even on entirely specious grounds
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 13:26
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Iraq is why we can't do that anymore. Yeah, we conned a bunch of people into our stupid war we lost, and nobody wants to do that again. Also UN authorization had a lot to do with why European countries got on board in Libya, even if the campaign obviously ended up going well beyond the cover that authorization was meant to provide. Russia and China aren't approving a war with Iran. our participation (norway) was framed at the time explicitly in terms of being a 'good ally' and the UN mandate was used mostly to quash leftist objections to the intervention rather than a justification in itself; this from a country that sat iraq out, with the left in government it's still framed as being a good ally in terms of what we actually achieved. nobody much likes talking about it the point being, NATO is not much weakened and its junior members are still as spineless as ever. go to war with a semi-plausible cause and they'd fall in line, if not to the point of active participation then at least tolerating it with token objections and logistics support
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
imo it's legitimate to criticise that article for failing to adequately address the textual context of the video - a US effort to pin the blame on iran. the problem isn't really the information analysis itself, which seems idk fine i guess i really couldn't comment, but the lack of presenting any form of real motivational analysis leaves a sort of iffy impression you start off with a gulf of tonkin comparison, which is good, but then you sort of whiff the conclusion due to what i assume is an attempt to remain rational and objective. the problem with this is that simply being rational and objective when examining possibly fabricated propaganda is not really critically engaging with propaganda, it's helping propagate it people will read the byline and think 'oh ok some inconsistencies with the data but the main thrust is probably right' which i doubt is what you wanted to achieve with that article
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2019 12:50
|
|
|
basically the critique is a critique of bourgeois-liberal journalism as a project, not really of bellingcat in particular
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2019 12:52
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:My feeling was if there was actually something about the US claims that was contradicted by the avaliable evidence then it would have been possible to make a stronger conclusion than the publicly available evidence for the US claims or the incident was a false flag was at best inconclusive. But it wasn't, so I didn't. yah, that's sort of the rub - i absolutely understand the impulse to treat a government push as basically sincere, but this leaves one exposed to what amounts to trolling by state actors effectively, you're setting rules for yourself which are trivial to game if one is a bad-faith actor with a decent amount of resources. this is, again, not a problem particular to you or your project, but a more general issue with contemporary journalism after russia stepped up the level of state misinformation a challenge was launched to which which it seems as though liberal journalism has no answer
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2019 13:01
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I have noticed everyone who is mad about the article has strong left and right wing political ideologies. The pro-US MAGA crowd are equally as mad about it as the lefties on this thread, how dare I question the word of the US Navy and Trump? Personally I'd rather write an article informed by evidence than political ideology, not much I can do about people disagreeing with that. the issue isn't really about evidence or political ideology, it's that journalism cannot stick merely to the 'factual' (what does this mean, specifically? it's a difficult term), it must integrate an agent analysis of some sort. holding power to account actually requires one to question the basic premises of a question. effectively, this means that when you have something circumstancial which indicates that power is full of poo poo, it should be included journalism always has an agenda. it generates truth, it doesn't describe some objective reality. a journalistic statement always exists in a political context - once it's written it's going to be used by every reader for their own ends. being insensitive to such context is effectively the same as being an instrument of whichever establishment is running things in science, if there is no empirical support for a statement, that statement is generally taken to be wrong. science is not, i'm sure you'll agree, terribly politically motivated
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I think this is something the reaction to the article has demonstrated clearly, those with strong political ideologies, left or right, are annoyed about its content because it doesn't support their conclusions based on their own political ideologies, because my intention wasn't to project my own political ideology onto the evidence. Intent is key, if you want to read some talking head explaining why it's clearly a false flag/definitely Iran responsible you have Fox News and Russia Today to watch for that. I just wanted to show that the evidence presented so far is inconclusive for either viewpoint, but apparently that's a rabidly pro-war/anti-American position, depending on your ideology. you also have a strong political ideology brown moses if you think otherwise you've literally just not examined it
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:But I don't have that override my opinion of the evidence, which is the main complaint of people, left and right, about that article. it's not the evidence that's the problem, it's the presentation and what's not included in the analysis, so yeah you clearly have ideas about what is or what isn't relevant to factor into an analysis, or as you'd say, a strong ideology
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2019 14:17
|
|