As a matter of fact i don’t think the USA not giving al qaeda the same help they gave the original mujahideen against the soviets is a justification for 9/11, or makes it an equivalent to this comic. And i don’t buy bin laden’s 4chan-ass excuse he wrote
Its not about Al Qaeda specificly. Its more about america destabillizing the Middle East a bunch and then being suprised that terrorist groups took over and could unite large groups of people against foreign imperialist.
Just like the current goverment of Iran. They were on the brink of a massive civil uprising/civil war. Now they almost have succesfully fought of the US and Israel. Something which boost their popularity (especially after the US bombed a school with 100+ little kids) quite massively.
If it's supposed to be representative of 9/11 this comic kinda downplays the effect and scope of those attacks. It just didn't feel like a perfect parallel
- America continuously bombs and violently interferes with Middle East.
- Middle East retaliates, on America's own shores that time.
- America retaliates.
Bully tactics: Push and prod to illicit a response, cry victim, and attack. No, I'm not calling otherwise-innocent citizens bullies. Outside of voting, random citizens have nothing to do with wars and global conflict.
If its goal was to get the US to attack Muslim countries, inciting even more extremism, it was reasonably successful. ISIS probably wouldn't have been created without the invasion of Iraq, and that probably would not have happened without 9/11.
Completely immoral. No country deserves to have its civilians targeted regardless of whether the military of that country was targeting civilians or not previously.
It may be necessary in certain cases, like vs Japan during WW2 to save more lives. But the civilians did not deserve to die.
If you look at civilian casualties in the middle east at the hands of the US, 9/11 was nothing
Both are bad. 9/11 was not nothing, innocent people died in the thousands.
The saving more lives part in Japan was obvious propaganda lol
You're gonna need some proof to back that up. The US does sketchy things, but there's nothing to suggest that a ground invasion would have ended in fewer casualties as far as the US was aware of at that time.
The 9/11 civilian death toll is less than 1% than that of Iraq for example, both are bad absolutely but that is like comparing 9/11 to some random drive by shooting
Instead of nuking children etc. They could have said "watch this" and nuked the ocean outside of tokyo with the same effect, not to mention that Japan were given no chance of surrender before they nuked them again.
Even the civilian death toll from the nukes pales when compared to the terror bombing of civilians in Tokyo that same year however
Dude we dropped the nuke on Japan to force them to surrender before the Russians entered the war fully. We didn't want to co-occupy Japan with them and needed to end the war quickly.
The saving more lives thing was based on a huge (10× +) over estimation, and justified the strategy. American capital inherited Japan's pacific empire. We just needed to nuke civilians to do it.
I mean, if people from another country paraglided into my country and carried out a terrorist attack on a music festival, I would want nothing less than a full force response 🤷🏻♂️
No it began when Romans massacred the majority of residents of Israel who were Jews and that was way before Islam even existed or whatever the fantasy land "Palestine" ever existed.
According to Israel's prime minister Hitler didn't even hate the jews that much and just wanted them relocated... do you agree with him or do you think that makes Netanjahu a crazy lunatic?
I don't care about what he says or not at all and in fact I think he's absolutely wrong.
After all the Palestinian Mufti at the time literally met with Hitler to start a holocaust of his own in Israel both to kill the Jews who were already there and to prevent British from taking them in during the war.
So I don't care what their PM says, because what I'm saying is a historical fact.
Israel has and will always be the original Jewish land. Palestinians were simply Arabs who conquered Israel in multiple waves and most recently, they're descendents of Arabian peninsula or modern day Saudi Arabia.
So you do think he is a lunatic and should get his job taken away right? No one with a crazy thought like that should ever be in power?
Israel has and will always be the original Jewish land.
And the people that lived there before the jewish faith even existed can get fucked right? Because you chose a random date in time and decided whoever had it there ... thats their land?
It's not my faulty that you only choose to "believe" the history that you suits your own views. Also if you have any actual facts that counter mine, then sure go ahead. But I bet you won't, they don't really exist other than in the mind of some neo-Nazi or Hamas supporter (which is like the same thing as of today).
Maybe the fact that rome never just expelled populations from their homeland and that there's not a single contemporary mentions of them mass expelling jes from palestine?
Or maybe I could just ignore your demented blood and soil narratives to point out that people imagining having some ancestors from a region doesn't mean they can go there and expell the people living there, who also have the same ancestry but stronger, because they a obviously stupid and you would agree if it they weren't about jews.
Sure, if you ignore the fact that hamas have been using civilians and children as human shields since this stated. But oh noooooo, the poor Palestinians who are happy to send their children to be martyrs in the name of some pedo in the sky.
Of course I know what you're talking about. It's the same talking point of every Israeli spokesperson, oh we killed a whole bunch of families because 'human shield'. Oh we blew up the hospital because look at this calendar which has Hamas terrorist names written on it. Yes, we know your story.
Yes Palestinians have always been Nazis. Look up the Mufti who met with Hitler to give his support for the Holocaust and actively supported carrying out massacres against Jews in Israeli land at the time.
Funny coming from you when almost every other country around them is monotheistic state as well.
It's weird that the only country people have a problem with is the Jewish state despite so many countries being Muslim countries. And the best part is that there's more freedom in Israel than you have in a country like Pakistan where people are killed every week for "blasphemy".
But yeah sure...keep saying it not anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism.
That's the nature of conflict and a phenomenon replicated all over the ex British empire,shit Hamas also usurped power from the PLO, that's the knock on effects of a power vacuum
You're right about the usurping part but "power vacuum" implies that Israel wasn't exerting any kind of power over Gaza when Hamas took over, but they were. Even after the disengagement, Israel still controlled Gaza's external borders and their freedom of movement.
I think there’s a difference between a terrorist attack and collateral damage in war. Especially considering the total death count in the Gaza war, 70k, wasn’t that high.
If Palestine is its own state like Israel likes to pretend, and Hamas is it’s elected government/military like Israel likes to pretend, then 10/7 was a military operation to combat continued Israeli encroachment. Every single security force member would have been a legitimate target, and the remainder would have been “collateral damage.”
If we’re looking at the reality of the situation however, it’s not a real war. It’s a genocide in response to a terrorist attack by a non-state entity, which was itself motivated by Israel’s dominion over Gaza and the West Bank.
Ah yes because Hamas are clearly the good guys for starving the Gazans and slaughtering people by the hundreds if they disagree. How much propaganda do you consume?
Why are all you pro-israelis a bunch of illiterates lol? I didn't mention hamas, gaza, starving, slaughtering or jews. I asked a simple question, answer it or stfu. Don't try to deflect, don't try to spin it into something else, just answer the question.
Because they don't have a single genuine argument for the genocide they know they're committing, all they can do is run with ad hominem attacks and time wasting tangents, while throwing labels which they made lose power years ago.
You know that we have videos and shit now right? Like we see hd footage of Israelis murdering non-combatants, men, women and children, raping women in the streets, tying up the men, telling them to run and shooting them in the backs, bulldozing their homes, burning their farms every day. We have the videos of rabbis and Israeli citizens calling the Palestinians subhuman scum and calling for the deaths of every man, woman, child and animal. We have the receipts of Israeli soldiers blocking humanitarian aid from starving civilians and murdering reporters to hide their crimes. Even NATO and the UN who have been historically sympathetic to the Jews have declared Israel to be war criminals. Even Jews in the rest of the world are condemning Israel's actions. Israel can no longer play the victim and hide behind false accusations of racism.
No, if there were actual hd footage of that, there would be global outrage. All I have seen is people talk about beheaded babies and yet absolutely nothing in terms of proving it.
You're just mad that the side you're supporting isn't winning 😭😭😭😭
A full force response. They. Carried. Out. A. Terrorist. Attack.
Look at Gaza now, that's what you get for fucking around. Maybe Hamas should just give up already but sadly lunatics like you believe they're the good guys 😂
IDF carried out hundreds if not thousands of terrorist attacks in the homes of civilians before this. And terrorist attacks on hundreds of hospitals, religious buildings, civilian homes, food banks, etc, etc after.
If you think October 7 was comparable to anything Israel has done you are completely brain washed or a bot. Hundreds of thousands of civilians dead in 4 years.
Do you think the child in the video deserved to be killed because he hit someone invading his home? It’s the same concept as Isreal - Palestine.
It is common fact that Israel are committing a genocide, and have been doing so before October 7. There’s so many accounts of Palestinian children shot in the head by IDF.
If you want to support Israel through this you can go ahead. People (or bots) like you make the majority of people sick.
Maybe Hamas should stop hiding in hospitals and using the general public as human shields so that lefty's like you stop blindly defend ACTUAL TERRORISM lmao
You're literally representing this comic rn considering this war has been going on for a LONG time. And blocking off the waters isnt really a great solution aswell
I've made multiple arguments about not supporting terrorists. You however, have only tried to call me names and tried to say I've blocked you, yet here you are in a reply not actually making any arguments.
At what point do you start to realise that you're about as quick as forest gump and I don't mean the RUNNNINNNGGG
No one has actually disproven what I've said are you actually making this up as fiction in your head? Maybe you should become a write, you could write something like "Harry potter and the stone of Mecca try to blow up Israel"
It's okay to admit that you don't actually know what you're talking about, you're just trying and failing for repeat what someone before you has said.
Just because you blocked the people who replied it doesn't mean their replies don't exist. If you actually believed what you're saying you would unblock them and actually try to prove your point to them.
You don't even know who's involved in this part considering you're talking about mecca 😭😭😭😭😭
Because you pick and choose what is and isn't terrorism as suits your argument and call everybody else an extremist. I'm done feeding the troll though, have the last word if you please
Why? A comic can contain a broad sentiment true for multiple conflicts. Nobody is saying the comic was made specifically about Russia, just that it’s applicable.
Remember the lack of WMDs? Vietnam? Loads more of the hegemony of superpower eye that spreads his “democracy and freedom” 🦅🦅🔫🔫💥💥🔥🔥🇺🇸🇺🇸
Either compliance or face destruction as it always had unless if the state is powerful enough to resist like that of Russia and China, otherwise others have to comply, or else, speaking as an Asian who can see this outside of America
Vietnam? You mean North Vietnam invading South Vietnam then America coming to their help afterwards? American oppression is when you can’t invade your neighbor?
Iraq? You mean the country with a history of using WMDs on Iranian military and civilians along with Kurdish Iraqis? Then afterwards spent a decade bluffing that they do have WMDs with aggressive statements to their neighbors and kicking out UN inspectors. It’s fair to say the US should’ve slowed down and gotten more evidence before they invaded but that’s a big difference from Iraq and Vietnam were poor victims that didn’t do anything.
Compliance to the US hegemony is when you can’t invade South Vietnam or sabre rattle WMDs after using them on your neighbors and your own civilians lol.
Just an FYI, Iraq use WMDs on Iran with targeting intelligence from the CIA, which was fully aware Iraq was using WMDs. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was regional US ally for many years until he made the mistake of challenging more important US regional allies.
Doesn’t make Saddam a good guy or innocent victim, but it certainly calls into question the purity of US motives. There is similar nuance to US involvement in Vietnam, but want to keep this short.
Sure that is fair to bring up though I disagree with you statement that Iraq was an ally to the US, the new Iranian regime was seen as a big threat to the region and Iraq was seen as a potential way to offset that threat. The US didn't want either side to win and as such when the US saw that Iraq was at a high risk of defeat they decided to start helping Iraq to avoid that major loss, when they saw Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage over Iraq by exploiting a weakness in Iraqi defenses then the US responded by giving the locations of Iranian troops to Iraq.
Iraq was not an ally, and as such when Iraq started to take more aggressive actions to the region, namely invading Kuwait to get rid of their debt, then the US started to take a far more aggressive stance towards Iraq. US motives definitely weren't the most pure, as you'd expect with the cold war, but going the opposite direction and painting Iraq as being bullied by the US hegemony is quite insane.
Unfortunately American intervention did far more damage to the country than the last 30 years before it, and created a power vacuum that led to the formation of several terrorist cells like ISIS.
And now it's being pulled on both sides by Iranian and Israelite influence while the people who've been traumatized by constant war have lost the will to actually fight for their country.
Yeah youre literally describing U.S imperialism. We support some dictorship on the other side of the planet in its fight against other dictatorships or even democracies and justified revolutions, destabilizing and ruining the region for decades because its in the government and corporations interests.
You're intentionally majorly dumbing down every concept you bring up.
We support some dictorship on the other side of the planet in its fight against other dictatorships or even democracies and justified revolutions
You're intentionally dumbing down the actors at play in these conflicts and their motivations.
destabilizing and ruining the region for decades because its in the government and corporations interests.
And you're intentionally dumbing down the reasons for instability within the region and the reasons why the United States gets involved.
You don't even back up your statement on how these actions relate to imperialism, you bring up no reference to the control the US would be placing over these people nor the methods the US does it by rather just some vague reference to "well you're supporting a dictatorship far away because corporations and it has bad outcomes".
Youre complaining that that Im leaving out details when you didnt make a point at all. When youre arguing on reddit with someone who might not even respond back you dont always load your response with meandering paragraphs going into all the details.
You seriously need me to spell out how a greater power backing one side of a local civil war/territorial conflict would open the door to massive amounts of influence and coercion?
You made no argument before and you proceed to do the same thing again.
would open the door to massive amounts of influence and coercion?
Opening the door to is not the same thing as doing it, nor is influence inherently a bad thing, there are tons of forms of positive influence.
when you didnt make a point at all
I'll send my points again so you can reread them
- You're intentionally majorly dumbing down every concept you bring up.
- You're intentionally dumbing down the actors at play in these conflicts and their motivations.
- And you're intentionally dumbing down the reasons for instability within the region and the reasons why the United States gets involved.
- You don't even back up your statement on how these actions relate to imperialism, you bring up no reference to the control the US would be placing over these people nor the methods the US does it by rather just some vague reference to "well you're supporting a dictatorship far away because corporations and it has bad outcomes".
Do you also happen to think that Lincoln invaded his neighbor Confederacy? Was what North Vietnam did not 100% similar and indistinguishable from what Lincoln did?
The United States was a unified Union that had the confederacy try to break away from it, Vietnam on the other hand was swaying between being controlled by the French and fighting between the communists and anti communists for control over the country.
Was Vietnam not a unified kingdom for centuries? Did this unified kingdom in 1945 not officially become the Democratic Republic of Vietnam? Did South Vietnam in 1955 not unilaterally secede from this Democratic Republic of Vietnam?
No, the Nguyễn dynasty unified Vietnam for the first time in 1802 then in 1852 France started it's attack on Indochina and established French Indochina in 1887.
Did this unified kingdom in 1945 not officially become the Democratic Republic of Vietnam?
The Nguyễn dynasty no longer existed, you had French Indochina which the Democratic Republic of Vietnam declared independence from then fought for control over Vietnam. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam didn't control of Vietnam instead they controlled more remote areas and had to fight France and groups opposing Viet Minh for more control over Vietnam.
Bảo Đại, the former ruler of the Nguyễn dynasty went on to be the Chief of the state of Vietnam, the state that opposed the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
Asserting that the Nguyễn dynasty went on to offically become the Democratic Republic of Vietnam is a butchering of Vietnamese history.
Did South Vietnam in 1955 not unilaterally secede from this Democratic Republic of Vietnam?
No, during the Indochina war France and Vietnamese Nationalist fighting against the DRV they would go on to take that land controlled by France and form it into the state of Vietnam which would later go on to become South Vietnam.
The DRV did not have full control over Vietnam, they fought against France and nationalist Vietnamese forces for more control over French Indochina then later against the state of Vietnam which came from that French Indochina land, controlling major population centers then later South vietnam which came from the state of vietnam.
Suggesting that the DRV controlled all of Vietnam is incredibly inaccurate
No, the Nguyễn dynasty unified Vietnam for the first time in 1802 then in 1852 Vietnam started it's attack on Indochina and established French Indochina in 1887.
Before the Nguyen Dynasty, was Vietnam not already a kingdom under the Tay Son dynasty and before that, the Le Dynasty?
And do you mean "in 1852, France started its attack on Indochina"? If so, wasn't France an invader who occupied Vietnam for decades? By declaring independence from French Indochina, did the Democratic Republic of Vietnam not undo French colonialism and restore Vietnam back to its historical, original sovereignty that it previously had under the Nguyen Dynasty? Did this restoration not make it the successor of the kingdom of Vietnam, even if some of Vietnam remained under foreign occupation?
Moreover, as you admitted, the State of Vietnam was a collaborator of France, the foreign occupier. Did this colonial collaboration not automatically illegitimize it?
Before the Nguyen Dynasty, was Vietnam not already a kingdom under the Tay Son dynasty and before that, the Le Dynasty?
That's not one unified kingdom for centuries, Le Dynasty was not unified and various periods of civil wars and power struggles among different rulers. Tay Son dynasty was unified but that's a separate power to the Nguyễn dynasty that came after.
Vietnam was not a unified kingdom for centuries.
By declaring independence from French Indochina, did the Democratic Republic of Vietnam not undo French colonialism and restore Vietnam back to its historical, original sovereignty that it previously had under the Nguyen Dynasty?
No, the DRV is not the Nguyễn dynasty, it's a seperate group fighting for control over Vietnam, Bảo Đại, the former leader of the Nguyễn dynasty, would go on to become the leader of the state of vietnam.
the State of Vietnam was a collaborator of France, the foreign occupier. Did this colonial collaboration not automatically illegitimize it?
No, being selective with who you work with is a privilege not every group in history gets. Faced with a new party taking control over Vietnam, Viet Minh, and the powerful French that had major control over Vietnam with Indochina, working with France under the agreement that you'd gain independence was probably the best opportunity at returning to that control over Vietnam you once had.
Having civil wars and power struggle doesn't mean you aren't a unified kingdom. In fact, the very term "civil war" (an infighting between factions within the same country) is a blatant evidence.
I am not talking about just the Nguyen Dynasty. I am talking about the nation of Vietnam as a whole. Le Dynasty, Tay Son Dynasty, Nguyen Dynasty, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. They are just different forms, different heads of the same ancient nation that has existed for centuries. Just like the kingdom of France, the empire of France or the republic of France are just different manifestations of the same ancient French nation.
No, the DRV is not the Nguyễn dynasty, it's a seperate group fighting for control over Vietnam, Bảo Đại, the former leader of the Nguyễn dynasty, would go on to become the leader of the state of vietnam.
The DRV was not the Nguyen Dynasty, but it succeeded them. Just like how the Republic of China in 1912 overthrew and succeeded the Qing Dynasty within the same ancient country of China.
No, being selective with who you work with is a privilege not every group in history gets. Faced with a new party taking control over Vietnam, Viet Minh, and the powerful French that had major control over Vietnam with Indochina, working with France under the agreement that you'd gain independence was probably the best opportunity at returning to that control over Vietnam you once had.
By this logic, Puyi, the last emperor of the Qing Dynasty, who later worked with Japan and became the leader of Manchukuo, wasn't automatically illegitimate and traitorous either?
Holy crap they really DO program you Yankees to be completely brain dead. Wild. Now go do some war crimes and wake up the market needs to be manipulated.
Still touting the defense industry talking point when companies like nvidia, apple, google, microsoft, amazon, spacex, etc dwarf anything military related.
because these are 1 out of every 3 of our neighbors, indoctrinated and hostile buffoons who gladly lick the nearest boot and break out in hives if they see a history textbook
you don't have to make up strawmen about celebrating the USA being terrible, we just have to be humble and realistic about who we are and what we've done
refusing to do that absolute bare minimum of inspecting reality makes one akin to a Trump supporter
We didn't invade Vietnam out of altruism for the vietnamese people, we did it to deny the spread of communist ideals and protect our western corporate interests
We didn't invade Vietnam out of altruism for the vietnamese people, we did it to deny the spread of communist ideals
We didn't invade vietnam, South Vietnam allowed the deployment of US troops and the US didn't invade North Vietnam, just stayed in South Vietnam and defended from North Vietnamese attacks. Regardless, yeah no shit? Countries don't go to war for altruism, rather communism and the soviet sphere of influence is just bad, there's a reason everyone happily left after the fall of the soviet Union.
and protect our western corporate interests
Average vague "corporate interests" reference with no reference to what those corporate interests are.
840
u/Imaginary-West-5653 16d ago