Because it’s not quoting a specific tankie, or because using a specific example to demonstrate the absurdity of general unqualified ‘critical support’ is unacceptable?
I mean, fuck’s sake, on this very site you can find tankies simping for the fucking Taliban.
I just came across a comment from a Hexbear user criticizing Walz’s record on calling in the National Guard during the BLM protests as state-sanctioned violence against Black people. And I kind of agree with their point tbh.
But, if opposing state-sanctioned violence is a firm principle of ML political ideology, like it is for Anarchism, then how come nearly ever tankie I’ve ever talked to seems perfectly ok with state-sanctioned violence when it’s being carried out by Maduro, Putin, Xi, or any number of authoritarian leftists? They only ever seem to have objections when the West employs state-sanctioned violence, funnily enough.
I just came across a comment from a Hexbear user criticizing Walz’s record on calling in the National Guard during the BLM protests as state-sanctioned violence against Black people. And I kind of agree with their point tbh.
I mean, I agree that Walz’s record on policing is a valid angle of criticism, but they immediately escalate everything from anyone in the out-group to “No principles and literal genocide” and downplay everything from anyone in their in-group to “Necessary for AES”.
Not accusing you of disagreeing with that, just musing, I suppose.
But, if opposing state-sanctioned violence is a firm principle of ML political ideology, like it is for Anarchism, then how come nearly ever tankie I’ve ever talked to seems perfectly ok with state-sanctioned violence when it’s being carried out by Maduro, Putin, Xi, or any number of authoritarian leftists? They only ever seem to have objections when the West employs state-sanctioned violence, funnily enough.
Mood. I may not always be on the same side as anarchists, but I respect their principles. MLs, who rarely have done even a cursory read of Lenin, ironically, are just… exasperating.
God, I’m glad my instance isn’t federated with Hexbear. What a bunch of tiresome twats.
Comparing the Taliban and the Confederacy are apples and oranges. I don’t support or like either, death to the Taliban, but the Taliban were (for worse) the dominant army in the area after the USA armed and financed their precursor mujahideen. So, unfortunately, they were the only group practically capable of preventing the USA invading them from the other side of the world to seize the Afghani resources. It wasn’t an invasion over slavery laws. It was for oil and trade routes, and so many people will side with the Afghani state over the imperial Western alliance despite the Taliban being a disgusting regime. And remember, the Taliban were only in power because of the Western foreign interference, so it’s not like there was a real Lincoln trying to free Afghanistan from the Taliban. History of the region shows that there was never a sincere attempt to ‘install democracy’ there, it’s pure Public Relations propaganda.
Comparing the Taliban and the Confederacy are apples and oranges. I don’t support or like either, death to the Taliban, but the Taliban were (for worse) the dominant army in the area after the USA armed and financed their precursor mujahideen.
Jesus fucking Christ, man, did you forget that the Taliban overthrew the mujahideen government in the early 90s? Does the term “Northern Alliance” mean anything to you?
So, unfortunately, they were the only group practically capable of preventing the USA invading them from the other side of the world to seize the Afghani resources.
What resources did the US seize in Afghanistan again?
It wasn’t an invasion over slavery laws. It was for oil and trade routes,
Oil.
In Afghanistan.
The invasion was over political concerns, not ‘slavery laws’, I’ve never even heard that put forward before. The impetus for the invasion was that the Taliban were sheltering Bin Laden after 9/11.
and so many people will side with the Afghani state over the imperial Western alliance despite the Taliban being a disgusting regime
Just disgusted enough to side with the explicitly antidemocratic Islamists banning women from appearing in public, not disgusted enough to side with the nominally democratic Afghan government. Okay. That’s not really refuting my point that tankies are vile bootlicking fascists who’ll back anyone so long as you say “Anti-Imperialist” before their name, like a magic spell.
And remember, the Taliban were only in power because of the Western foreign interference, so it’s not like there was a real Lincoln trying to free Afghanistan from the Taliban.
There was a Lincoln; his name was Ahmad Shah Massoud, and the Taliban assassinated him in 2001.
Because it’s not quoting a specific tankie, or because using a specific example to demonstrate the absurdity of general unqualified ‘critical support’ is unacceptable?
I mean, fuck’s sake, on this very site you can find tankies simping for the fucking Taliban.
I just came across a comment from a Hexbear user criticizing Walz’s record on calling in the National Guard during the BLM protests as state-sanctioned violence against Black people. And I kind of agree with their point tbh.
But, if opposing state-sanctioned violence is a firm principle of ML political ideology, like it is for Anarchism, then how come nearly ever tankie I’ve ever talked to seems perfectly ok with state-sanctioned violence when it’s being carried out by Maduro, Putin, Xi, or any number of authoritarian leftists? They only ever seem to have objections when the West employs state-sanctioned violence, funnily enough.
I mean, I agree that Walz’s record on policing is a valid angle of criticism, but they immediately escalate everything from anyone in the out-group to “No principles and literal genocide” and downplay everything from anyone in their in-group to “Necessary for AES”.
Not accusing you of disagreeing with that, just musing, I suppose.
Mood. I may not always be on the same side as anarchists, but I respect their principles. MLs, who rarely have done even a cursory read of Lenin, ironically, are just… exasperating.
God, I’m glad my instance isn’t federated with Hexbear. What a bunch of tiresome twats.
Putin “authoritarian leftists” - Are you sure? He’s an oil baron.
Comparing the Taliban and the Confederacy are apples and oranges. I don’t support or like either, death to the Taliban, but the Taliban were (for worse) the dominant army in the area after the USA armed and financed their precursor mujahideen. So, unfortunately, they were the only group practically capable of preventing the USA invading them from the other side of the world to seize the Afghani resources. It wasn’t an invasion over slavery laws. It was for oil and trade routes, and so many people will side with the Afghani state over the imperial Western alliance despite the Taliban being a disgusting regime. And remember, the Taliban were only in power because of the Western foreign interference, so it’s not like there was a real Lincoln trying to free Afghanistan from the Taliban. History of the region shows that there was never a sincere attempt to ‘install democracy’ there, it’s pure Public Relations propaganda.
Jesus fucking Christ, man, did you forget that the Taliban overthrew the mujahideen government in the early 90s? Does the term “Northern Alliance” mean anything to you?
What resources did the US seize in Afghanistan again?
Oil.
In Afghanistan.
The invasion was over political concerns, not ‘slavery laws’, I’ve never even heard that put forward before. The impetus for the invasion was that the Taliban were sheltering Bin Laden after 9/11.
Just disgusted enough to side with the explicitly antidemocratic Islamists banning women from appearing in public, not disgusted enough to side with the nominally democratic Afghan government. Okay. That’s not really refuting my point that tankies are vile bootlicking fascists who’ll back anyone so long as you say “Anti-Imperialist” before their name, like a magic spell.
There was a Lincoln; his name was Ahmad Shah Massoud, and the Taliban assassinated him in 2001.