Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'....
-
Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'.... Given Iran is clearly under attack from US/Israeli forces, defending its airspace is not so much an escalation as a perfectly reasonable defensive response (and certainly legal as far as international law is concerned).
But the narrative remains, whatever the media may think its doing, one that privileges the US's positioning on the 'war'!
@ChrisMayLA6 It’s the same as Russia/Ukraine & Israel/Palestine: ”How dare they defend themselves?!”
Authoritarian conservatism has become the dominant narrative of our time.
-
Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'.... Given Iran is clearly under attack from US/Israeli forces, defending its airspace is not so much an escalation as a perfectly reasonable defensive response (and certainly legal as far as international law is concerned).
But the narrative remains, whatever the media may think its doing, one that privileges the US's positioning on the 'war'!
@ChrisMayLA6 It’s also interesting that they managed to seeing as the Great Orange One claimed Iran’s air defences had been obliterated! Dumpf was apparently initially only being fed good news by is toadies so he has no idea what was actually happening.
-
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
-
Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'.... Given Iran is clearly under attack from US/Israeli forces, defending its airspace is not so much an escalation as a perfectly reasonable defensive response (and certainly legal as far as international law is concerned).
But the narrative remains, whatever the media may think its doing, one that privileges the US's positioning on the 'war'!
The illegal thing is that the US and its rogue leader started this war…
Bypassing Congress and the UN… -
Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'.... Given Iran is clearly under attack from US/Israeli forces, defending its airspace is not so much an escalation as a perfectly reasonable defensive response (and certainly legal as far as international law is concerned).
But the narrative remains, whatever the media may think its doing, one that privileges the US's positioning on the 'war'!
@ChrisMayLA6 Any form of self-defence is seen as an escalation to the aggressor, the bigger boomier version of "he made me do it".
-
Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'.... Given Iran is clearly under attack from US/Israeli forces, defending its airspace is not so much an escalation as a perfectly reasonable defensive response (and certainly legal as far as international law is concerned).
But the narrative remains, whatever the media may think its doing, one that privileges the US's positioning on the 'war'!
War propagandists gonna war propagandize.
It is funny how statements like this are always followed up with comments deflecting and trying to shift the topic to some other 'enemy' of the US empire.
-
@ChrisMayLA6 It’s the same as Russia/Ukraine & Israel/Palestine: ”How dare they defend themselves?!”
Authoritarian conservatism has become the dominant narrative of our time.
@gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6
> conservatism
Fascism is not conservatism. Nor any other stolen word has suddenly changed meanings in the mind of the free man, because propagandist of supreme leader lies. Please use quotation marks, please, please. -
Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'.... Given Iran is clearly under attack from US/Israeli forces, defending its airspace is not so much an escalation as a perfectly reasonable defensive response (and certainly legal as far as international law is concerned).
But the narrative remains, whatever the media may think its doing, one that privileges the US's positioning on the 'war'!
Western propaganda like it is 1991 again with "precision bombing" and the mysterious enemy with "weapons of mass destruction". WMD for which the bully USA appears to have a monopoly (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). I'll never forget 1991 lies.
A lot of Western mainstream media will very often self-censor, and obey to the Western status quo. Whether that status quo is not democractic or even full fascist does not matter. And since the decline of paper newspaper numbers being sold it is mouse clicks that have become very important for newspaper management. For example, two column writers in two different Dutch newspapers were laid off after more than forty years because of mouse clicks despite a lot of protest by people writing paper letter to the newspapers. The sad thing is that with readers reading paper newspaper there is no such thing as mouse-clicks that can be counted. People like Trump, Farage, Wilders, and others swinging towards far right, fascism are like gold for newspaper clicks. How else can one explain the daily photos of Trump and Trump's spaghetti sentences on the frontpages. Anyway, the big question right now is how do we get journalists back to doing their jobs ? Which includes to defend democracy rather than helping to be part of the erosion of it.
-
@gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6
> conservatism
Fascism is not conservatism. Nor any other stolen word has suddenly changed meanings in the mind of the free man, because propagandist of supreme leader lies. Please use quotation marks, please, please.@ohir @gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6
Trump has the rock solid support of conservatives in America.
This is not a coincidence. -
@gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6
> conservatism
Fascism is not conservatism. Nor any other stolen word has suddenly changed meanings in the mind of the free man, because propagandist of supreme leader lies. Please use quotation marks, please, please.@ohir @gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6 fascism is where conservatism goes when it starts losing to progressives. Every fucking time.
-
@ChrisMayLA6 the fact that the stock market reacts to Iran gouvernement announcements nearly as much as US ones seems to shows that traders are more critical than the US media.
@thias @ChrisMayLA6 Self-interest is a powerful teacher, even to folks slow and unwilling to learn.
-
@ChrisMayLA6 Any form of self-defence is seen as an escalation to the aggressor, the bigger boomier version of "he made me do it".
@nini @ChrisMayLA6 It's a variant of: to the privileged, equality feels like oppression.
-
Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'.... Given Iran is clearly under attack from US/Israeli forces, defending its airspace is not so much an escalation as a perfectly reasonable defensive response (and certainly legal as far as international law is concerned).
But the narrative remains, whatever the media may think its doing, one that privileges the US's positioning on the 'war'!
@ChrisMayLA6 it's a personal offence for Trump - how can they shoot things down if their missiles are "destroyed or mostly useless", didn't they read his official communications (aka Truth Social) /s
/cc @purplepadma
-
@ohir @gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6
Trump has the rock solid support of conservatives in America.
This is not a coincidence.@eestileib @gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6
> support of conservatives
Reactionary "conservatives" support he has. He got to the power with broader conservatives support, yes, but the cabal behind the aimed at conservatives propaganda is neither conservative nor christian – at least for someone who remembers and knows the real definienda of either.That said, for me and hopefully many others, the core of the contemporary _conservatism_ is not about calcification of the status quo but the careful consideration of changes that _must_ come. On that fundament, maga and trumpists hardly can fit even in the "reactionary" echelon – they are revolutionists. In practice, US conservatives were all conned by fasicst with their well researched firehose use of perverted words.
-
@eestileib @gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6
> support of conservatives
Reactionary "conservatives" support he has. He got to the power with broader conservatives support, yes, but the cabal behind the aimed at conservatives propaganda is neither conservative nor christian – at least for someone who remembers and knows the real definienda of either.That said, for me and hopefully many others, the core of the contemporary _conservatism_ is not about calcification of the status quo but the careful consideration of changes that _must_ come. On that fundament, maga and trumpists hardly can fit even in the "reactionary" echelon – they are revolutionists. In practice, US conservatives were all conned by fasicst with their well researched firehose use of perverted words.
@ohir US conservatives were not conned. Conservatives support fascists, without exception. They did so in Nazi Germany, in Fascist Italy, in Fascist Spain, in Pinochet's Chile and every other Latin American dictatorship. They support Orban in Hungary, Erdogan in Turkey, Le Pen in France, AfD in Germany, and so on and so on and so on. There is no conservatism without authoritarianism. Your magical "real conservatives" do not exist in reality, and never have.
-
Its interesting that Iran shooting down one (or possibly two) US aircraft in its airspace is being treated as an 'escalation'.... Given Iran is clearly under attack from US/Israeli forces, defending its airspace is not so much an escalation as a perfectly reasonable defensive response (and certainly legal as far as international law is concerned).
But the narrative remains, whatever the media may think its doing, one that privileges the US's positioning on the 'war'!
Why is Iran "bad"? After Operation Ajax, 1953, when two intelligence agencies, MI6 and the CIA, overthrew the popular, democratically elected Persian government, Iranians rejected the U.S.-backed Shah autocrat puppet & their plan to loot Persia’s oil wealth.
1953 & 2026, "We're taking your oil Deja Vu all over again."
Aug. 19, 1953: Operation Ajax - Priya Satia | Department of History https://share.google/I5iNpcpRiSf7nocI1
-
@gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6
> conservatism
Fascism is not conservatism. Nor any other stolen word has suddenly changed meanings in the mind of the free man, because propagandist of supreme leader lies. Please use quotation marks, please, please.@ChrisMayLA6 @ohir @gimulnautti
As the old saying goes, conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: that there should be an in-group whom the law protects but does not bind, and an out-group whom the law binds but does not protect. I suggest fascism is what happens when conservatives become confident enough to proceed without bothering to pretend there's still a meaningful rule of law.
-
@eestileib @gimulnautti @ChrisMayLA6
> support of conservatives
Reactionary "conservatives" support he has. He got to the power with broader conservatives support, yes, but the cabal behind the aimed at conservatives propaganda is neither conservative nor christian – at least for someone who remembers and knows the real definienda of either.That said, for me and hopefully many others, the core of the contemporary _conservatism_ is not about calcification of the status quo but the careful consideration of changes that _must_ come. On that fundament, maga and trumpists hardly can fit even in the "reactionary" echelon – they are revolutionists. In practice, US conservatives were all conned by fasicst with their well researched firehose use of perverted words.
@ohir @eestileib @ChrisMayLA6 Let's also give ourselves the freedom to define conservatism. Like you're doing now. It is much more interesting than trying to argue which one of us right, eh?
-
@ChrisMayLA6 @ohir @gimulnautti
As the old saying goes, conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: that there should be an in-group whom the law protects but does not bind, and an out-group whom the law binds but does not protect. I suggest fascism is what happens when conservatives become confident enough to proceed without bothering to pretend there's still a meaningful rule of law.
@only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6 @gimulnautti
> old saying goes [...]
How old this saying is?I specifically used "for me" qualifier, aware of the different meanings of the "conservative", especially considering how perverted this meaning became for the self-identified or purpoting to be conservatives' deeds of the past decades.
For me, the conservative thought is rooted in the Polish Constitution of year 1505:
"Whereas general laws and public acts pertain not to an individual but to the Nation at large, wherefore at this General Sejm held at Radom we have, together with all our kingdom's prelates, councils and land deputies, determined it to be fitting and just, and have so resolved, that henceforth for all time to come nothing new shall be resolved by us or our successors, without the common consent of the Senators and the Land Deputies, that shall be prejudicial or onerous to the our Republic or harmful and injurious to anyone, or that would tend to alter the general law and public liberty."...The key phrases "without the common consent", "that shall be prejudicial or onerous to the our Republic or harmful and injurious to anyone".
Evolution, not revolution. Consensus, not Dictat. As our ancestors knew well that each revolution afflicts the state by awakening demons in those who fear the freedoms of others the most.
-
@only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6 @gimulnautti
> old saying goes [...]
How old this saying is?I specifically used "for me" qualifier, aware of the different meanings of the "conservative", especially considering how perverted this meaning became for the self-identified or purpoting to be conservatives' deeds of the past decades.
For me, the conservative thought is rooted in the Polish Constitution of year 1505:
"Whereas general laws and public acts pertain not to an individual but to the Nation at large, wherefore at this General Sejm held at Radom we have, together with all our kingdom's prelates, councils and land deputies, determined it to be fitting and just, and have so resolved, that henceforth for all time to come nothing new shall be resolved by us or our successors, without the common consent of the Senators and the Land Deputies, that shall be prejudicial or onerous to the our Republic or harmful and injurious to anyone, or that would tend to alter the general law and public liberty."...The key phrases "without the common consent", "that shall be prejudicial or onerous to the our Republic or harmful and injurious to anyone".
Evolution, not revolution. Consensus, not Dictat. As our ancestors knew well that each revolution afflicts the state by awakening demons in those who fear the freedoms of others the most.
@ohir @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6
"As our ancestors knew well that each revolution afflicts the state by awakening demons in those who fear the freedoms of others the most."That's a pretty emotional and value-laden statement, bypassing any burdens of proof. Wouldn't hold up in any court I would attend or support.
-
@only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6 @gimulnautti
> old saying goes [...]
How old this saying is?I specifically used "for me" qualifier, aware of the different meanings of the "conservative", especially considering how perverted this meaning became for the self-identified or purpoting to be conservatives' deeds of the past decades.
For me, the conservative thought is rooted in the Polish Constitution of year 1505:
"Whereas general laws and public acts pertain not to an individual but to the Nation at large, wherefore at this General Sejm held at Radom we have, together with all our kingdom's prelates, councils and land deputies, determined it to be fitting and just, and have so resolved, that henceforth for all time to come nothing new shall be resolved by us or our successors, without the common consent of the Senators and the Land Deputies, that shall be prejudicial or onerous to the our Republic or harmful and injurious to anyone, or that would tend to alter the general law and public liberty."...The key phrases "without the common consent", "that shall be prejudicial or onerous to the our Republic or harmful and injurious to anyone".
Evolution, not revolution. Consensus, not Dictat. As our ancestors knew well that each revolution afflicts the state by awakening demons in those who fear the freedoms of others the most.
@ohir @only_ohm @ChrisMayLA6 @gimulnautti You are of course free to make up your own meanings of words to your heart's content, but this does not mean it has anything to do with what words are commonly understood to mean. If you have your own private, non-standard definition, don't go about telling others "Please use quotation marks, please, please", as if your idiosyncratic meaning should be accepted by others. It should not, and will not.
