- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Reuters has an article that doesn’t infer that this was somehow an attack that targeted the US consulate in some way.
cool, mainstream media manufacturing consent to get us directly involved in the Middle East AGAIN
but won’t you think of the poor military industrial complex?
I was wondering if the word ‘near’ was doing some heavy lifting. Thanks.
All these stupid idiots can’t think of anything better than ‘make big boom’. The world has too many dumb shits with too much access to explosives.
Smells like bullshit.
It is, Reuters debunked that they targeted the consulate. I swear why the fuck do the fucking Americans want to drag NATO back into the middle east…again…? There’s a war on the EU’s border rn as we speak
Military industrial complex loves money.
Because fear feeds the clicks that make money, and reporters need to get the story out first and foremost.
Facts be damned.
money.jpg
deleted by creator
The headline says “near”. I’m not sure there’s anything suggesting they targetted them. At the same time targetted doesn’t matter much. If people were killed in the consulate, the result would probably have been the same as if they were targetted.
Iranian imperialism.
More like theocracy.
They are a theocratic government yes, but I meant the act of imperialism as they’re extending their ‘authority’ into Iraq and striking targets without approval from Iraq.
I don’t agree with Iran in the slightest, but this is a retaliatory strike as a counter to Israel’s attack in Syria, without permission. It’s not out of the blue.
They claim they bombed Jewish spy center. That’s a religion related thing.
They violated the sovereignty of a state that follows the same branch of religion as them. This is politically motivated, or else they’d have targeted a synagogue instead of alleged espionage agents.
That’s not a good enough excuse to home Jewish spy center and right next to US embassy.
I imagine that one of the next US presidents would end up invading Iran. Not Trump, nor Biden, but a new face, that’d be remembered for exactly that. It’s pushed in the media as a root of all evil, the end boss, so this can even get some support, especially after some 9\11 moment, but would further polarize an already torn apart world.
The United States government has been pissing and moaning about Iran my entire life. They’ve been “two years away from the bomb” for literally forty years now.
I’m not saying that the United States wouldn’t invade Iran—they are certainly stupid enough—but this saber rattling is nothing new. Iran happens to be a particularly convenient bogeyman for the powers that be to propagandize their citizenry.
Liberate Iran!
You know, this is the weird thing. Go around and ask Iranians if they would like to have their government overthrown, and watch them think really hard on it.
On the one hand: invasion sucks. Business will fail, people will die, whole areas crumbling from the bombing, the power vacuum might make things worse and some other extremist government might take it’s place.
But on the other hand: the Iranian regime sucks, with the morals police, persecution of Iranians, subversion of Iranian culture (because not all middle eastern culture is approved by Islamists), financing all kinds of fuckery around the Middle-East and generally being a bastion of oligarchs and pure evil.
It’s a real fucked situation, that’s for sure.
But let’s say we do the first joint venture between NATO and the Saudis. Call it operation “calm the fuck down bruh”. We dun been building infrastructure for trade, you fucking with the pot, Iran. Simmer down. That would be the whole speech made by some token internet figure beloved by westerners and middle-easterns alike, so maybe Mia Khalifa. Then we all eat ice cream in Dubai after.
deleted by creator
?
