If you had actually bothered to link the specific instances where he sources those claims, we would have read them.
But you didn't, because you probably didn't read a book you want us to go on a wild goose chase for. Eyewitness accounts from anglos are only good enough to wipe your ass with and even then there's better alternatives.
You don't have to like their domestic policies, but they've been more than reasonable in their relationship to the international community. That can't be said about any government in Western Europe or their rabid dog occupying Palestine.
Not two comments ago you were saying the soviets accelerated the Tsarist policies of forced russification. Either you know fuck all about Tsarist Russia and it's pogroms (and thus you're doing genocide apologia) or you don't know shit about the Soviet Union. Either way you should stop commenting on it and replying like you're aware of everything and that's just the thing you meant.
Really telling on yourselves that yet another liberation movement reclaiming land that was stolen and an occupied and exploited to enrich empire is framed as the ultimate evil.
That's not what it says. Your refusal to engage with evidence has you pretending you found a gotcha because you assume anything that disagrees with you has to be based on a flawed premise.
You're literally ignoring the facts he presented (maidan was a coup, Donbas collectively decided to secede in a referendum). The people of the Donbas were resisting an attempted genocide as much as Gazans, you can listen to Poroshenko's statements about bombing their hospitals, having their women and children hiding in basements, you can see the indiscriminate shelling of civilian centers. Both of them were propped up by your government (the lapdog of the only empire on earth rn), and by you personally, from your stupid refusal to acknowledge actual imperialism and pretending the enemies of the State Department must be the enemies of all of us everywhere.
The fact that he can do all of this and face zero opposition within government and didn't even get punished once he was out of office (despite popular demand) kind of proves you didn't have a democracy to begin with.
Where was democracy when Bush's brother stole the election for him?
Only once violent resistance had forced the Brits away they went "oh by the way it was totally the guy who would have laid down in the street to be flattened by our tanks, in case anyone else wants to try it"
Well that's settled then, politicians would never lie to provide cover for companies. Nothing else that happened that week could have explained it, the government has done this so often (without even announcing it to the people they want votes from) that this is for sure the only explanation.
They didn't kill 100k civilians, they killed millions. Just because they didn't personally shoot each and every one doesn't mean they didn't willfully create the conditions to starve them or deny them access to essential services.
Grapho @ Grapho @lemmy.ml Posts 20Comments 859Joined 9 mo. ago
If you had actually bothered to link the specific instances where he sources those claims, we would have read them.
But you didn't, because you probably didn't read a book you want us to go on a wild goose chase for. Eyewitness accounts from anglos are only good enough to wipe your ass with and even then there's better alternatives.
No facts then? Cool, I thought so.