volodya_ilich
@volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
- Comment on Oh jeez 3 months ago:
Whataboutism? Sure, fuck the illegal invasion, but why the need for whataboutism?
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
My point is that extremely broad claims about extremely different and unrelated issues, and painting them all “oh so difficult”, is a tool used by western media to make people think the problems are too complicated to be solved and there’s just nothing to do about violence in “the middle east”, as US and its allies weren’t responsible for more than half of it.
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
Some reporters being racist, doesn’t mean that sensibilities of people aren’t moved when it’s non-white people, this was very patent during China’s oppressive policies against Uyghur in Xinjiang. There were years of condemnation and of people calling it genocide, and there was massive outcry here on Reddit. Would you say Uyghur are white, or is it just convenient to remember them and being concerned because the whole thing paints China in a bad light? I didn’t see nearly the same level of outrage during the actual genocide against Rohingya Muslims in south-east Asia.
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
Wow, funny, I didn’t hear the bombing of Yugoslavia and its disintegration, the invasion of Ukraine, and similar conflicts in Europe ever called altogether “European issues”, but separated very well individually.
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
If Jewish people in Nazi Germany had started a series of terrorist attacks against civilians, would you be comparing them to Nazis and telling that “both have a fair share of blood in their hands”? Because it’s THAT black and white.
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
If people grouped up every single geopolitical conflict within Europe under a single category of equally non-black and whiteness, they’d be ignorant to do so. When western people do that with the middle east, it’s just an excuse to keep their minds free of it and dismiss it all and the responsibility of their governments.
Funnily enough, you know where in middle east there weren’t these “non-black and white” issues until three decades ago? Kazakhstan. Uzbekistan. Turkmenistan. Tajikistan. Azerbaijan. Kyrgyzstan. I wonder if there’s something black and white about the whole thing now…
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
Ukraine is targeting Russian troops
They also started sending unmanned air vehicles with explosives to Russian infrastructure such as oil. Which I’m not against. Because they’re defending themselves against an invasion. As Palestine is doing. The situation of Palestinians is much, MUCH more dire than that of Ukrainians, so it’s only to be expected (not to be confused with justified) that their response is also more violent.
uses civilians as human shields
Sorry, but that’s strictly false, and propagating that shit is heinous. I’ll paste here what someone else said in the comments:
So this piece doesn’t source any evidence that it was used and ignores the literal fact that later investigations by Amnesty didn’t find credible evidence of use as a military base and the massive Israeli misinformation campaign on that front: …wikipedia.org/…/Alleged_military_use_of_al-Shifa….
But yeah let’s justify Israel bombing away access to medical care to people forced into a small, war torn area because fuck Palestinians I guess.
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
Show me one conflict in that region that’s not black and white.
I assume you mean the opposite. I’ll bring you one about your own country.
In the Mosaddegh era, a democratically elected, secular, progressive, leftist leader was well on the way of successful policy for Iranians through the nationalization of the oil industry which, up until then, as you probably know better than I do, was extracted by the British Petroleum with the knowledge and approval of the Shah (thanks to some juicy “contributions” to his personal fortune paid by the British), leaving almost no profit from the Iranian oil to the Iranian people. The British blockaded Iran militarily, and through MI6, with help of CIA, staged false-flag attacks on private businesses through paid actors who pretended to be communists (the party was in Mosaddegh’s coalition). They literally bribed local mafias and gave them loudspeakers to pretend they were popular protests to prime people. And the poverty induced by the military economical blockade, summed up with all this shit and much more, made it so that the Mosaddegh government was deposed and the status-quo was more or less restored, and British Petroleum was happy.
Tell me how that’s not black and white.
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
Hamas attacked first
Palestinians was there before Israel was even conceived, and the first Nakba, in 1948, which marks the hard line of the invasion, in which 750k+ Palestinians were forcibly relocated, was started by Israel. History didn’t start on October 7th
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
Grouping up a whole set of countries, ethnicities, histories and conflicts into a “middle east” category and call treating it all as a homogenous “non-black and white” issue is racist, sorry.
nothing about conflicts in that area (including the topic at hand) is black and white
Thank you for ignoring the inconvenient part of my previous comment. Please tell me how the first Nakba isn’t black and white.
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
When the victims aren’t strategic to US interests*
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
Netanyahu is just the latest in a long list of demons, the invasion of Palestine didn’t start on October 7th.
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
Simple:
The whole “so difficult conflict which goes so far back that it’s impossible to know who’s guilty at this point”, starts in the late 40s with the invasion of Palestinian land by Zionist settlers, and the violent displacement of 750.000+ locals.
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
Ukraine has also been attacking russian troops since the beginning of the invasion, what’s your point?
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
Dude they have been fighting for the whole time and for every bad thing Isreal has done Hamas has done one back.
Damn, that’s disgusting. I’ll rephrase it in terms that hopefully will make you understand why it’s disgusting: “Ukraine has been fighting back the invasion the whole time, and for every bad thing Russia has done, Ukraine has done one back”
Ever heard of the saying “and eye for an eye and the whole world is blind”. Well both sides are blind now.
What are Palestinians supposed to do? Peacefully accept being relocated and murdered by the hundreds of thousands? Should Ukrainians just have given up? Is Ukraine wrong for targeting infrastructure inside Russia with explosive unmanned air vehicles now?
The only correct take is that both sides suck and the palastenian people are the ones who suffer. To take a side in this conflict is uninformed, as both sides have way too much blood on their hands. This is very far from black and white and simple.
One side has blood on their hands because it’s the invader, the other has blood on their hands because it’s the invaded. This is the most stupid take I’ve seen.
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
Nothing about middle east conflicts
Spoken like a true racist, grouping up “middle east conflicts” as if it was a single entity.
Pretty easy actually, Palestinians were there living their lives and having a sense of nationality as Palestinians since the latter years of the Ottoman Empire. Zionists decided they didn’t care about that, decided they deserved their ancestral homeland, and western countries helped them militarily to relocate hundreds of thousands of people and murder tens of thousands on top. It’s almost quite literally that easy.
- Comment on Headlines 4 months ago:
is it possible that more people died in the Ukrainian hospital?
No, it’s not. Al-Jazeera reports 2 deaths in the Ukrainian hospital, The Guardian reports 4. IDF reports 200 Palestinian casualties in Al-Shifa, Palestinian authorities report 400+.
- Comment on Casual reminder 4 months ago:
Gaddafi actively turned his country from a backwards, exploited, standard north-african country, into the country in Africa with the highest living standards… I’m sorry but you can’t compare him with Trump.
- Comment on Casual reminder 4 months ago:
Tell me one I’m defending
- Comment on Casual reminder 4 months ago:
My point is it should be
- Comment on Casual reminder 4 months ago:
What’s your point? Every rape is to be condemned and prosecuted. What isn’t fair is making up claims about the amount of rapes by a certain demographic and not backing that up with extensive evidence. That exactly what racist people do against immigrants, and that’s what Nazis did against soviets.
- Comment on Casual reminder 4 months ago:
Good job evading the uncomfortable 90% of my comment. Since we’re at that point, I will proceed to evade 100% of yours, seeing how you’re not interested in discussing actual facts such as the reasons for the USSR to make a non aggression treaty with the Nazis after a decade of systematic rejection of military alliances by Poland, England and France.
- Comment on Casual reminder 4 months ago:
- Comment on Casual reminder 4 months ago:
Got it bro, the actual Nazis aren’t the Nazis, neither the ones who eliminated the most radical oppositors to Nazism, but actually the ones that died 26+mn of trying to fight them. God, you anti-communist revisionists are exhausting.
The Bolsheviks actively collaborated with Hitler and the Nazis, right up until Operation Barbarossa
Ugh, not this Nazi talking point again… The Soviet Union pursued for all the 30s a policy called “collective security”, in which it desperately tried to achieve mutual-defense pacts with England, France and Poland because the soviets knew that their 15-year-old nation which had only just started industrializing since the end of the feudal and backwards Russian Empire, didn’t have a chance alone against the Nazis with their 150 year long history of industry (as would be seen later with the USSR suffering 26+mn deaths during the war, in places like Belarus 1 in 4 people died). The USSR wanted these mutual defense agreements to the point of offering to send 1 million soldiers to France and England if they agreed to mutual defense… which France, England and Poland denied because they thought Nazis would attempt their declared goal of eliminating communisnm and massacring the “slavic untermenschen”. After this was denied and it was obvious that the west would rather see the USSR invaded than reach a mutual defense agreement, they did the only possible course of action: delaying the war as much as possible to prepare for it and industrialize a bit more. That’s where the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact takes place, not before a decade of exhausting every possible negotiation route with France and England in opposition to Nazism.
The fact that the USSR then proceeded to (rather bloodlessly, around 50k deaths overall, very comparable to the oppression within the USSR itself) invade Poland, has to do with the USSR not trusting the Polish government. Why? In 1917, the Bolshevik revolution drafted an unprecedentedly progressive constitution which granted the right to self-determination and lawful secession to all peoples of the former Russian Empire. That’s how many countries such as Finland or Poland suddenly gained independence lawfully and peacefully in a never-before-seen act of respect of the right of self-determination. What did Poland immediately proceed to do? Become fully nationalist, ignore the right to self-determination of other peoples, and invade Ukraine (and later the USSR) in an attempt to gain territories they considered theirs by historical right. When they had conquered a good chunk of modern Ukraine and Belarus, the Polish Government decided it was a good idea to start a war against the USSR, since the USSR was plunged deep into a civil war and didn’t have many resources or troops to defend itself, and some conquests and victories could grant them a positive peace agreement which granted the territories the Polish Nationalists considered theirs (while ignoring the right to self-determination that the Bolsheviks had granted them less than two years earlier). Poland was also happy to make peace and appeasement treaties with Nazi Germany as long as they could also get some territorial gains from Czechoslovak land.
Similarly, Finland in 1917 after gaining independence, was plunged into a civil war between communists and whites, which the latter won and proceeded to imprison communists in Finland who had supported the Reds, around 80k of which some 12k died (funny how nobody talks about that). The USSR had reasons to suspect of a possible alliance between the Finnish government and the Nazis, and proceeded to invade Finland. After the failure of the invasion, as you said, Finland joined the Nazis.
Blaming the USSR for entering a non-aggression treaty with the Nazis, when all western nations had done it, and after 10 years of the USSR trying to make mutual defense agreement with Poland, England and France, is at best ignorant, and at worst purposefully misinforming with an agenda. The USSR had reasons to suspect of Poland and Finland (especially given its history of constant betrayals by all European powers since the October Revolution, with 14 countries sending troops to aid the Tsarist loyalists against the Bolsheviks) and, while outright invasions may not be justified, it could all have been prevented if the western powers had actually agreed to fight nazism. It’s absolutely nuts to blame the USSR and call them “collaborators with Nazis” given the historical background of the two decades before the war, especially the latter.
- Comment on Casual reminder 4 months ago:
Wow, so the released KGB archives show the tapes. I wonder what would happen if the Americans or the English did that too!
Hatred of Russians by eastern Europeans is due to 30+ years of anti-communist propaganda. The fact that poles hate the USSR which liberated more than the very Nazis who genocided millions of them, shows this. And it wasn’t the case 40 years ago.
Polls in France after WW2 showed 70%+ of people saying it was the USSR who saved them from Nazism. Nowadays, it’s 70% Americans. That’s what Hollywood and propaganda do.
- Comment on Casual reminder 4 months ago:
So we both agree that the Stalinist Sovietunion and the KPD, which allied themselves with them arent left?
One country ended up with Nazis. The other ended up defeating the Nazis. I’d say the Bolsheviks did a better job, didn’t they? The fact that there was oppression against Mensheviks and SRs in the context of a civil war, doesn’t mean they’re anticommunists, they didn’t quite literally enable the Nazis in order to murder the ones who were more communist than them, but defeat them instead.
Want to find the blame for Nazism in Germany? The fault is primarily of Nazis, and then of Nazi enablers, and then of anti-communist leftists.
- Comment on Casual reminder 4 months ago:
As did everyone. There’s no study showing that the amount of rapes per soldier by the soviets is higher than that of other nations.
- Comment on Casual reminder 4 months ago:
Nice whataboutism
- Comment on Casual reminder 4 months ago:
Trump is a Gaddafi? Trump wants to nationalize the main sources of wealth of the country, to redirect the profits towards the majority of the population, towards education and healthcare and infrastructure? Trump is a weird form of socialist who believes in something analogous in America to the Pana-Africanism and Pan-Arabism that Gaddafi promoted?
What the hell is that comparison?
- Comment on Casual reminder 4 months ago:
The problem with the left everywhere is they don’t have the balls to actually take action
Wait, I thought the problem is that the communists are oppressive tankies. What’s the conclusion then, the left goes too far or it doesn’t go far enough?
They all talk about tolerance and how dialogue should make people change and be the politicians language. No. Certain things shouldn’t be tolerated. Fascism and nazism are two of those
Please tell me, which ideology do the famous and vilified “antifa”, the ones who actually go and punch Nazis, espouse? Are they lukewarm Dems, are they republicans? Or are they actual leftists, both anarchists and communists?
The problem is that the left is afraid of being seen as “authoritarian” so when a fascist comes and openly says they want to fuck democracy until it becomes a dictatorship, leftists just say “hey now, let’s sit down and talk”.
This is true in some cases, not in others. You can argue this is true for Salvador Allende in Chile, you can maybe even argue for pre-spanish civil war Second Republic, but you can’t argue this about Maoists or Marxist-Leninists. Those are as far to the left as it gets, isn’t it?
Maybe the problem isn’t with “the left not being active enough”, but with democrats in the US and socialdemocrats in Europe co-opting the left thanks to the power of mass media? Maybe the problem is the century of anti-communist propaganda that we’ve suffered?
