Good to see someone with the balls to stand up to genocide
Removed by mod
Terrorists is just code for Arabs attacking civilians. Non-arabs attacking Arab civilians, it’s called “the U.S. military” or “IDF”.
Removed by mod
Only one side gets called “terrorist” though.
Why do you think that is?
Does that make it ok? Answer: no. It doesn’t.
Listen, its their Gulf of Adan, they can do what they want. Its called National Sovereignty.
Do you see anyone telling Americans what they can do in their Gulf of Mexico? Of course not. Invade Haiti. Bomb Grenada. Embargo Cuba for 60 years. That’s called 2nd Amendment Rights, bucko. Maybe learn to read a copy of the US motherfucking Constitution.
But a couple of Arabs want to fire off a few bottle rockets in their backyard and suddenly the Liberal Nanny State has to pull up on the coast and tell them to cut it out? Get lost Grandpa Biden. You’re not the boss here. You can’t even find Mecca on a map.
Did I say any of the things you listed were ok either? Its not “bottle rockets”. Innocent people lost their lives.
You’re lucky you’re priveleged enough to be able to maintain such a heartless worldview. I hope nothing so awful ever happens to you or those you love.
And yes, I do know where Mecca is. Its in Saudi Arabia next to the Red Sea. If you want to fight strawmen, then turn off the computer and go outside.
“Terrorists”
The Palestinians have a right to struggle against their occupiers by all available means, including armed struggle.
Hey now, when they’re attacking Evil Russian Soviets in the mountains of Afghanistan, I like to call those Princes of the House of Saud my friends.
This Post Is Dedicated To The Brave Mujaheddin Fighters of Afghanistan
In case you’re confused this is a reference to a Rambo movie that had this lovely dedication.
Its funny, because it actually didn’t have this. (Or, literally this)
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/28476/have-the-ending-credits-of-rambo-iii-been-changed
Original sources from the time of the movie’s release, 1988, state that the film is dedicated to the “gallant people of Afghanistan”.
The edited end-card was made as a joke, back in 2004, and circulated so many times online that it eventually became headcannon.
That’s an interesting fact, but honestly it might as well really have had this endcard, since the movie openly glorifies the mujahedeen anyways.
The US has no chance of winning against Yemen. It should just call for a ceasefire.
Yemen’s stand against empire will go down as one of the main events of the 21st century, seldom has there been more heroic peoples before than those of Gaza and Yemen.
Based.
Love that we’re using RT and Odysee as reputable sources on this.
On a Houthi statement? With video?
Removed by mod
NYT is more factually correct than Russia Today, yes. Most news is more factually correct than Russia Today. RT is a kremlin propaganda network. Was that a real question?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Americans with boots on the ground for 20 years in Afghanistan and could not beat the Taliban. But sure, this time will be different.
As the Taliban say:
“The Americans have the clock, but we have the time”
I hear this a lot, but what would beating the Taliban involve? While the US was there, the Taliban was at best in hiding, it was not holding territory. If you mean removing the very idea of the Taliban from the world? That is both hard to do and arguably also a genocide, at least a cultural one. The US has been good at that, but it’s also frowned on in the current world - see Gaza headlines.
This is also why I’d suggest it’s kind of impossible to both not be the worst of the colonialist systems and stop terrorism (and it’s kind of unclear that even the colonial cultural suppression / conversion / excesses / crimes actually would stop terrorism).
what would beating the Taliban involve?
What about taking more than 5 minutes to the Taliban to come back in power after the us left?
That seems a strange definition to me - so if a boxer gets back up after losing the match, well his opponent didn’t beat him in that fight?
Are you under the impression that the US military and the Taliban were engaged in friendly competition for no reason whatsoever, just a bit of international banter?
stop terrorism
When the US is the biggest purveyor?
How long did you spend in Afghanistan in the last 24 years?
In this context, being “completely wiped off the face of the planet”.
We don’t have healthcare because there’s profits to be made by exploiting our needs. It honestly has nothing to do with the military.
Consequently, they will find out soon why Americans don’t have universal healthcare…
And why do you think that is?
The MIC takes the money to make bombs. At least I assume that’s the inference.
That would be what I assumed they were getting at too, but it doesn’t really pass the sniff test. The US spends more on healthcare (both per capita and as a percentage of GDP) than any country with universal healthcare-- by switching to a universal single-payer system, they could free up more money to spend on war.
Americans don’t have universal healthcare because that would mean insurance companies make less money.
bombs wedding, Osprey bricks into the ocean, Navy SEAL starts dealing meth
“So basically it’s like that but with hospitals.”
