5 ms·

I guess 9/11 was a just direct consequence of the US government's cruelty and intransigence given that OBL's stated reason for the attacks were the sanctions. T

I guess 9/11 was a just direct consequence of the US government's cruelty and intransigence given that OBL's stated reason for the attacks were the sanctions. That's a hot take, not one you'd want to say out loud around NYC. In any case, performing literal siege against a group -- exclusively chosen for political reasons -- and then blaming powerless besieged people for their own suffering is a special type of reasoning that only seems to pop up whenever brown people are mentioned.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mistrial9 5y ago
- Forgeties79 5y ago
  Just because race is part of a subject doesn't mean it's racebaiting. You can't just remove race when its inconvenient or makes you uncomfortable, any more than you can separate WWII from a discussion about the Germany economy during the Third Reich.
  - ozborn 5y ago
    You made race a part of the subject when discussing Albright. You were likely called out for disingenuous "race-baiting" since you don't provide any evidence for her animus against "brown people", a questionable claim because even if true it's not clear that Iraqis identify as "brown people" or Madeleine thinks in those terms. Moreover, you ignore the the actual war she was more famous for and had a bigger role in, "Madeleine's War" (https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/05/10/albright.html https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/05/10/albright...). This involved her advocating (successfully) to bomb Serbia, a nation of nominally white Christian people she argued were committing genocide against a Muslim (also white) population. This was also against the UN charter due to Russian and Chinese veto. This war, more so than the Iraq war, has much more relevance in discussing her legacy today given the invasion of Ukraine but you appear to ignore it intentionally or are perhaps unaware of it entirely. I'm not arguing that racism isn't important in understanding the Iraq war (or other wars), but it is one factor among many. Some of the most brutal wars are actually between groups of people that to outsiders appear to be be very similar (Ukraine/Russia, Serb/Croat, various civil wars, etc...)
    - Forgeties79 5y ago
      No I did not. I am not the original person making the comment. Just because she bombed white people to protect white people doesn’t mean she was somehow completely objective and unaffected by questions of race in her decision making. That is absolutely ridiculous. No one is.
pvg 5y ago
The 'political reasons' in question were the unprovoked attack on a sovereign state. The responses were, again, approved through the global legal framework we have for adjudicating such matters - one that typically has so many checks it's almost never used. None of this can be said of either terrorism or the responses to that so I don't really follow this analogy at all.
- trasz 5y ago
  If your framework enables you to kill million random civilians, I’d say it’s a shitty framework.
  - pvg 5y ago
    Yes, it would be if it had done that. But it didn't.
- dundarious 5y ago
  What global legal approval was granted for the Iraq war in 2003, or even the Afghanistan war in 2001? Can you clarify what "responses" you're talking about in these clauses? > The responses were, again, approved through the global legal framework [...]. None of this can be said of either terrorism or the responses [...] Edit: I think I understand now, the first responses are the sanctions post-Kuwait invasion, the second responses are the Afghan and Iraq wars.
  - pvg 5y ago
    Madeline Albright was US Secretary of State from 1997 to January 2001. Previously she was US Ambassador to the UN, starting in 1993.
    - dundarious 5y ago
      I know that. Are you implying that my "Edit" is incorrect, and you weren't referring to those events? If so, what were you referring to? I don't get the sense that this conversation is locked down to the specifics of Albright, as plenty of people (and according to my understanding in the "Edit", you yourself) have made reasonable reference and analogies to events outside her time in office.
b112 5y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mistrial9 5y ago

Forgeties79 5y ago
Just because race is part of a subject doesn't mean it's racebaiting. You can't just remove race when its inconvenient or makes you uncomfortable, any more than you can separate WWII from a discussion about the Germany economy during the Third Reich.
- ozborn 5y ago
  You made race a part of the subject when discussing Albright. You were likely called out for disingenuous "race-baiting" since you don't provide any evidence for her animus against "brown people", a questionable claim because even if true it's not clear that Iraqis identify as "brown people" or Madeleine thinks in those terms. Moreover, you ignore the the actual war she was more famous for and had a bigger role in, "Madeleine's War" (https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/05/10/albright.html https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/05/10/albright...). This involved her advocating (successfully) to bomb Serbia, a nation of nominally white Christian people she argued were committing genocide against a Muslim (also white) population. This was also against the UN charter due to Russian and Chinese veto. This war, more so than the Iraq war, has much more relevance in discussing her legacy today given the invasion of Ukraine but you appear to ignore it intentionally or are perhaps unaware of it entirely. I'm not arguing that racism isn't important in understanding the Iraq war (or other wars), but it is one factor among many. Some of the most brutal wars are actually between groups of people that to outsiders appear to be be very similar (Ukraine/Russia, Serb/Croat, various civil wars, etc...)
  - Forgeties79 5y ago
    No I did not. I am not the original person making the comment. Just because she bombed white people to protect white people doesn’t mean she was somehow completely objective and unaffected by questions of race in her decision making. That is absolutely ridiculous. No one is.

pvg 5y ago

The 'political reasons' in question were the unprovoked attack on a sovereign state. The responses were, again, approved through the global legal framework we have for adjudicating such matters - one that typically has so many checks it's almost never used. None of this can be said of either terrorism or the responses to that so I don't really follow this analogy at all.

trasz 5y ago
If your framework enables you to kill million random civilians, I’d say it’s a shitty framework.
- pvg 5y ago
  Yes, it would be if it had done that. But it didn't.
dundarious 5y ago
What global legal approval was granted for the Iraq war in 2003, or even the Afghanistan war in 2001? Can you clarify what "responses" you're talking about in these clauses? > The responses were, again, approved through the global legal framework [...]. None of this can be said of either terrorism or the responses [...] Edit: I think I understand now, the first responses are the sanctions post-Kuwait invasion, the second responses are the Afghan and Iraq wars.
- pvg 5y ago
  Madeline Albright was US Secretary of State from 1997 to January 2001. Previously she was US Ambassador to the UN, starting in 1993.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    I know that. Are you implying that my "Edit" is incorrect, and you weren't referring to those events? If so, what were you referring to? I don't get the sense that this conversation is locked down to the specifics of Albright, as plenty of people (and according to my understanding in the "Edit", you yourself) have made reasonable reference and analogies to events outside her time in office.

b112 5y ago

[flagged]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]