this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2025
836 points (96.7% liked)
Political Memes
11506 readers
1225 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's exactly the point: we'll probably never really know how much the CIA "helped".
So it could be that they didn't help much at all, and there isn't anything to be upset about?
Still no reason to condone coups by the CIA.
But you just said you don't know if this was done by CIA, if CIA helped in the coup the people were doing or if they had no effect at all.
I condemn any coup by the CIA. Simple as that.
And you just said you don't know if this was a coup by CIA
The original statement was:
I took issue with that stance. It doesn't matter whether or not Euromaidan was a coup to do that.
Condoning CIA coups if "the people" wanted it basically gives the CIA carte blanche to coup whoever they want, as long as they manufacture consent enough.
You talked about a coup by the CIA. They're talking about CIA helping. Two different things. Like you said, we don't know the extent of their involvement
So it's also ok to condone the FBI murdering people if we don't know that the FBI killed MLK?
I don't see the connection between the this and the topic at hand
They said that it would have been ok if they helped. That conditional statement doesn't depend on whether or not they did intervene.
Right but I don't see the connection between the two things you are talking about
Why don't yousee the connection. Both are instances of covert violence by the US. One is a foreign affair, the other domnestic.
We don't know if CIA was involved in any sort or violence in ousting of Yanukovych
That doesn't matter for this original statement:
We also don't know if the FBI killed MLK. Does that mean that we can't condemn them if they did it?
They're saying it's okay if they helped but not saying to what extent it is okay to them, does murdering people count as helping etc. By asking you might get a feel what sort of actions they're okay with.
It is imperialism either way. No matter the degree.
Depends on who you ask. Both imperialism and covert murder by the state are done in the interest of the enacting nation. And I refuse to confuse these interests with my own (or those of "the people").
I just don't think it counts as covert violence you mentioned earlier if CIA isn't party to or in some degree involved in the violence
But we're talking hypotheticals here. Of course it's not violence if it didn't occur.
Let's say I say the statement: "It's ok if I kick puppies!" Is that stance ok to have, if I've never kicked a puppy?
But they weren't explicitly condoning violence as you are doing in your example. So again it's not the same
They're condoning hypothetical imperialism.
They're condoning helping to oust Yanukovych. If that counts as imperialism then yes they seem to be condoning at least that specific action, though we don't know the extent of the help they're condoning. But you were talking about covert violence, I don't think they said anything about that
Imperialism includes covert violence.
Do you think the Euromaidan was completely violence free? Ukrainian military has bombed eastern Ukraine for years after Euromaidan.
We don't know if CIA was involved or party to any of that violence though. That's why condoning CIA help doesn't mean they're immediately condoning covert murders or kicking puppies (hah) or other things you compared it to.
If you want to know what they are specifically condoning, you could try to achieve that by asking them. Now we're just talking about what they could have meant.
It's still imperialism. I've stated that they condone imperialism. Nothing more (kicking puppies), nothing less (political violence).
But that's why the comparison to explicitly condoning violence doesn't work
I don't think that there's much of a difference between one (imperialism) and the other (political violence).
I'm condemning imperialism not because of the violence, but rather because I'm anti-state.
I think for most people there's a line between them helping the Yanukovych ousting succeed in non-violent ways and CIA using or being party to violence to achieve that. But everyone has their own line, you drew it at helping at all.
With all due respect: I drew jack shit of a line.
Projecting your poliyical power to your political favour outside your own state's territory is the definition of imperialism.
I called it imperialism, because it is imperialism. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think you misunderstood. Not drawing a line would mean you condone everything. Nothing would be too much. You're drawing a line at any sort of help CIA might've given, with the reasoning that it is imperialism. So that's your line
Ok. You might have a point that I condemn imperialism.
However, that was not my initial point. My initial point was how easily imperialism is overlooked if the "good guys" are doing it. Pure James Bond shit.