this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
137 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13933 readers
736 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

They were late smh my head

all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SorosFootSoldier@hexbear.net 59 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This shit is going to get swept under the rug like the nordstream pipeline isn't it?

[–] RedWizard@hexbear.net 49 points 1 year ago

Listen, that rug really ties the room together.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 24 points 1 year ago

It's a load bearing rug.

[–] Findom_DeLuise@hexbear.net 47 points 1 year ago

US State Department literally pulling a "you guys seem cool, don't come to school tomorrow"

[–] Rojo27@hexbear.net 42 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Didn't ISIS also claim responsibility for an attack in Iran in the early days of the Gaza genocide? Very convienent for the US, Israel, and Ukraine.

[–] zed_proclaimer@hexbear.net 37 points 1 year ago

So weird how ISIS-K attacked the Taliban and tried to get the US to stay in Afghanistan too. How interesting that ISIS attacks always pop up against American enemies at very convenient times for America

[–] MolotovHalfEmpty@hexbear.net 31 points 1 year ago

Don't forget attacks in Afghanistan targeting Chinese businesspeople and diplomats, including hotel bombings, in an effort to disrupt trade deals.

[–] Nomisslehere@hexbear.net 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There was also an attack in Afghanistan after the US left

[–] zed_proclaimer@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago

It was as they were leaving, and it was an attempt to get the US to stay

[–] JohnBrownNote@hexbear.net 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

maybe i shouldn't be but i'm less suspicious about the ISIS-K thing there, some splinter groups aren't gonna like the taliban for local splitter reasons

[–] zed_proclaimer@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yet they wait until the day the US is withdrawing to do it? Come on

[–] JohnBrownNote@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

no that kinda makes sense to me too, taliban is busy filling the vacuum so if you want some territory grab it while they're busy and when you're not going to get third-partied by an airstrike.

[–] zed_proclaimer@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

ISIS-K is not capable of holding territory, they're a tiny tiny splinter faction. If they wanted a vacuum, they should have waited until US was gone. Instead, they attack as US was still there. They are only capable of terrorist attacks but not capable of holding territory. They never did any major attacks until the day America is leaving, then they attack an airport with both Taliban and US present to try and drag US back into Afghanistan for "counter-terrorism". This is the ISIS-CIA playbook, and I think you're a fool if you deny it. If you didn't pay painstaking attention to detail in the Syrian War, I would advise you not to speak where you are not educated.

[–] JohnBrownNote@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i'm just saying it's operationally plausible to act on that day from the perspective of a local belligerent, not that it definitely wasn't the CIA.

[–] zed_proclaimer@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If they wanted to exploit a vacuum and avoid US airstrikes they would have waited a day or two and not struck right when they did. The only plausible reason for the strike was desperation to keep their allies around. This was a common and repeated tactic in Syria to allow US to get a foothold

[–] invo_rt@hexbear.net 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ryan Grim has been showing a bit of a power level lately. I've heard him twice in the past month or so sit across the table from chuds in discussions around US foreign policy and tell them unironically, the worst thing to happen for the world is the collapse of the Soviet Union because it allowed the US to do whatever the hell it wanted and it has all been bad. Not a radical take, but not one I hear from libs.

[–] notthenameiwant@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago

He's still a Warren Democrat, but he does cover many foreign policy things from a decent angle. I remember him talking about the Ratlines awhile ago for example. Seeing him go to bat so hard for Imran Khan is pretty refreshing, when the Intercept's previous editor was attempting to take it in a "progressive Democrat" direction.

[–] CommCat@hexbear.net 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ISIS-K also bombed a Suleinmani memorial in Iran in January. Odd how ISIS targets seems to align with the US-Empire....

[–] Galli@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Russia and Iran both provided material support to Syria in fighting ISIS, with Soleimani being one of the most individually responsible figures for the defeat of ISIS.

Reflexive US-contrarianism is not a useful framework even it if is right much more often than it is wrong.

[–] Tachanka@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

even it if is right much more often than it is wrong.

a framework that is right more often than not sounds pretty useful to me. Imagine if a gambler had such a framework to work with think-about-it

[–] Galli@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago

I don't have to imagine it, such frameworks for gamblers occur all the time; from people I've known personally with "a system" for winning roulette to those who consistently made money buying bitcoins or NFTs etc. Usually these things crumple early enough to not cause too much damage, other times the "has always worked before" heuristic leads people to bet their life savings based on very false assumptions.

The US-contrarianism framework may work for most revolutionary groups but if you do not consider the specific conditions of each will also lead you to supporting ISIS or opposing vaccines.

[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 29 points 1 year ago (5 children)

This is just so weird, I still find it odd it wasn't Ukrainian Neo Nazis

[–] zed_proclaimer@hexbear.net 29 points 1 year ago

Russia has not announced any information of the terrorists or their funders, and the FSB used Ukraine 3 times in their only official statement. I would wait before credulously swallowing the western narrative that it was ISIS all on their own. Ukraine was likely involved

[–] Tunnelvision@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If what Russia is saying is true it technically was. It’s just an isis fighter who is also a citizen/fighter for Ukraine lmfao.

[–] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a rather unique combo

[–] Tunnelvision@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

Only way it makes sense is ISIS is a CIA asset

That could risk an escalation in Ukraine, I think the US wants Ukraine to fizzle out so having Russian nationalists on an Islamophobia tear would help redirect regional anger.

[–] allthetimesivedied@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago

Remember, no G*mers freeze-gamer gunpoint-alt

[–] Kaplya@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think Russia’s crackdown on neo-Nazism over the past 2 years have made it much harder to coordinate an attack.

Not that they have been eradicated, but clearly the flow of movement especially across borders are under much closer scrutiny than before, especially since they often couldn’t help themselves with having certain tattoos on their skins.

[–] LesbianLiberty@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago

ISIS is the new Anonymous lmao