Cripple. History Major. Irritable and in constant pain. Vaguely Left-Wing.

  • 223 Posts
  • 488 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 21st, 2023

help-circle




  • and fixate instead on a handful of retaliatory strikes against US interests.

    Downplaying 9/11 as one of ‘a handful of retaliatory strikes against US interests.’

    The Battle of Mogadeshu, which involved Black Hawk helicopters obliterating Somali mosques with hellfire missiles.

    Not even vaguely what fucking happened.

    The brutal occupation of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, from 1992 to 2001 as a US-backed narco-state.

    Fucking all of this.

    The entire Iran-Iraq War, sponsored by US arms dealers and double-dealing diplomats, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Arab and Persian young people.

    That we sold to both sides of the Iran-Iraq War is undeniable; the idea that the war itself was our fault and that 9/11 is just ‘blowback’ for that is fucking insane.

    The occupation of Saudi Arabia by a western-backed military dictatorship going back nearly a century.

    Christ, I don’t even know where to begin.

    The violent overthrow of democracies from Indonesia to Egypt in pursuit of neoliberal international trade policy.

    We were involved in the violent overthrow of many democracies throughout the years, this I agree on. But funny enough, Egypt isn’t one of them. So this had potential to be a good point, but failed by being posted by someone utterly detached from reality.

    9/11 didn’t happen in a vacuum any more than the Brian Thompson assassination or the aborted coup in South Korea. These have long historical tails that trace back to a geopolitical policy that’s racked up a staggering death toll.

    'Whatabout’ing 9/11 by implicitly arguing against it as a ‘violent act of terrorism’ as originally quoted, and then trying to justify it by the implicit comparison of 9/11 with the French fucking Revolution of the oppressed lower classes finally striking back against their oppressor.

    Do you really not see any of these as objectionable.







  • Funny enough, heads started rolling in the French Revolution right after an idiotic manchild at the head of the country who was very popular a short time before attempted to sell his nation out to foreign powers to maintain the death-grip of the aristocracy on the public.

    Just an innocent observation.













  • What’s that old JFK quote? Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable?

    The state draws its legitimacy from the social contract. When people no longer feel like the social contract is beneficial to them or to society - ie as one might feel with a healthcare system that is 100+ years out of date and has received one (1) bandaid for normal folk in the past 50 years - the state can no longer expect individuals to uphold their end of the social contract (adherence to laws, norms, and peaceable conduct).

    This doesn’t mean “the overthrow of the government is coming tomorrow”, but rather means that the social contract is beginning to fray, and a failure of those in power to recognize and accede to that fact (by making major concessions) will result in this sort of incident continually intensifying until… well, until the social contract is gone to a large swathe of people, and then at that point, the overthrow of the government will be imminent, for better or worse.

    All interactions between state and citizen are implicitly negotiated. Negotiations require leverage. Violence has always been a form of leverage. But assassinations are far more powerful leverage than riots.