this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024

834 points (96.2% liked)

MeanwhileOnGrad

meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works

2,301 readers

585 active

2 users here now

"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"

Welcome to MoG!

Meanwhile On Grad

Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!

What is a Tankie?

Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.

(caution of biased source)

Basic Rules:

Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.

Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.

Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether it be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.

Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users, as it handwaves their extremism.

Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post, rather than engaging in arguments that lack mutual agreement.

Brigading/Trolling — If you're here because this community was linked in another thread, please refrain from maliciously voting, commenting, or manipulating the post in any way. This includes alt accounts. All votes are public, and if you are found to be brigading, you will be banned. Good-faith and honest communication is an exception.

Tankies can explain their views, but may be criticised or challenged for them. Any minor infraction of the rules may result in a warning and possibly a temporary ban.

You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically last only 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction doubles the duration. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.

founded 3 years ago

moderators

goat@sh.itjust.works

goat@reddthat.com

PugJesus@piefed.social

NATO apologism (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 years ago by bigboismith@lemmy.world to c/meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works

390 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Incase anyone tells you that lemmy.ml is not a tankie instance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] aleph@lemm.ee -29 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

Except there is strong evidence that Western powers (predominantly France, the UK and US) created the fiction of Gaddafi being a global supervillain and then used NATO forces to enact regime change in Libya, under the pretext of "preventing civilian casualties". In fact, the real objective was to secure Libyan oil reserves and open the country up to western markets.

NATO is often used an extension of Western foreign policy. To pretend it is solely a benevolent peace keeper is just as simplistic and naïve as saying that everything the West does is pure evil.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] frezik@midwest.social 39 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

Gaddafi was a supervillian. Almost literally:

.

It also wasn't NATO who directly killed him. His own citizens did, and they weren't kind about how they did it.

NATO also wants stable oil reserves. Both these things can be true.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyz 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Gaddafi was so popular among Libyans that in the end they dragged him to the street and raped him with a sword. Allegedly.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social -24 points 2 years ago (1 child)

You think that couldn't happen with Biden?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

No. He might get assassinated by an individual or a small group of conspirators. He won't get paraded through the streets while being raped with a sword until he dies. But nice try.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

It's weird that some random German thinks they know what American hillbillies are capable of or actively talk about doing when their memory doesn't even go back more than three years and they have literally zero knowledge of history or the nature of angry mobs.

Oh, no, wait, that's not weird, I always forget some people are just average.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] goat@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Your comment has been restored. @imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works removed it for no reason.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

I removed it because it was an unnecessary insult on the other person's intelligence. If you feel like restoring it 2 weeks later, that's fine by me.

Oh, no, wait, that’s not weird, I always forget some people are just average.

That's why it was removed.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] goat@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

I'd prefer it if you lot don't touch this community. I've asked all of you multiple times not to, and you keep doing it.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

This community is on my server. I have a responsibility to moderate it.

I will continue to try to let you handle the moderation here as much as possible, but that's a courtesy that I'm extending to you. The community is not independent from the server, and you will have to live with the fact that admins can and will remove content that they deem in violation of instance rules.

I think we are doing a good job of being hands-off. This community seems to be doing well. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] goat@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Removing comments that didn't violate any rule using "smh" is not good moderation.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] goat@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

Fair enough, continue then. But please warn them before hand.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago

Ok, I can do that.

parent

[+] goat@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago*

[deleted]

parent

[+] aleph@lemm.ee -25 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

He certainly played up to the role, presumably for egotistical reasons, but most of it was sabre rattling bravado. He wasn't seen as a genuine threat by Western intelligence agencies.

Also, NATO forces didn't have to kill Gaddafi directly in order to be instrumental to his deposition. Their air strikes were highly effective in destabilizing the regime and empowering opposition forces within Libya. Besides, you only have to look at the history of US intervention in Latin America for many examples of how regime change can be carried out via proxies and rebel groups.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 32 points 2 years ago (1 child)

He certainly played up to the role, presumably for egotistical reasons, but most of it was sabre rattling bravado.

My dude, this ignores like 40 years of him being the most unhinged leader in North Africa. He's always been a wild card on the global political stage, swinging wildly from befriending revolutionary leftist, and then immediately dumping them for right winged dictators.

The man literally tried to sell surface-to-air missiles to a street gang in Chicago...... No one had to make him seem crazy, he was crazy.

Now that doesn't mean I think the US should have intervened, but I don't think anyone had to really do any work to make him seem like an insane supervillain.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] aleph@lemm.ee -17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

That also overlooks all the times western powers were friendly with Gaddafi. They didn't mind him following his ascent to power, nor in the post 9-11 period when the U.S. and European countries restored diplomatic ties with Libya, and Western oil companies re-entered the Libyan oil sector.

In 2007, the UK's Tony Blair visited Libya to strike up energy deals, and France's Sarkozy met with Gaddafi for military and economic agreements.

Was Gaddafi a supervillain then too, or did he only become one when his interests were no longer aligned with the Western powers?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

That also overlooks all the times western powers were friendly with Gaddafi. They didn't mind him following his ascent to power, nor in the post 9-11 period when the U.S. and European countries restored diplomatic ties with Libya, and Western oil companies re-entered the Libyan oil sector.

That was my point about him swapping out friends sporadically. Gaddafi had massive swings in political alignment throughout his time as leader of Libya. The reason nato/un could actually make a move on his government without greater political ramifications is because he's burned every bridge across the political spectrum.

Was Gaddafi a supervillain then too, or did he only become one when his interests were no longer aligned with the Western powers?

Literally yes...... Is it that surprising the west would work with a crazy despot that has a bunch of oil?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] aleph@lemm.ee -10 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

It seems we're largely in agreement then - that 1) NATO did, in fact, make a move on Gaddafi and 2) the West supported him when it was beneficial but turned on a dime the minute he stopped cooperating.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 19 points 2 years ago (1 child)

that 1) NATO did, in fact, make a move on Gaddafi

Not something I ever disputed? Would be kinda hard for a rebel force to get a cruise missile.

the West supported him when it was beneficial but turned on a dime the minute he stopped cooperating.

This I don't really agree with as it's a bit of a reductionist mischaracterization. Gaddafi literally funded terrorist attacks on the US in the 80s, which led to about 15-20 years of political disruptions between the two countries. They normalized relations again in the early 00s, with the US eventually going as far as to delist them from the state sponsored terror list in 08.

It would be hard to describe that as "turned on a dime the minute he stopped cooperating". There's a reason why no one in the UN, including Russia and China UN vetoed the resolution.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] aleph@lemm.ee -9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

Gaddafi literally funded terrorist attacks on the US in the 80s, which led to about 15-20 years of political disruptions between the two countries.

According to the Regan administration perhaps, but not according to intelligence agencies from several European countries. There was a concerted effort to link Gaddafi to individual terrorist attacks, like the Lockerbie bombing, although there was no hard evidence to support that.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago

According to the Regan administration perhaps, but not according to intelligence agencies from several European countries.

Again, a reductionist interpretation. There's been a lot of conspiracies over the years due to so many groups initially claiming responsibility. However the trial held in the UK and a recent one in 2020 both point to the same culprit.

I think you may be talking about the bombing in Germany.

Either way, the point is that Gaddafi has sponsored over 15 violent paramilitary groups in other people's countries. Not exactly going to be winning a lot of friends on the global stage by doing that.

This is not what stable leadership looks like ...

parent

[+] workerONE@lemmy.world -9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

US involvement in South America has been brutal- murder, terrorism, starting civil wars...Societies were torn apart in ways they may never recover from. How can you consider this an option and publicly advocate for it? That's fucked up

Edit: ITT people downvoting me who don't want to hear about US operations in South America and also people who like US operations in South America.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Cause it's whataboutism, not cause it's wrong.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] _bac@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Yey USA tankies!

parent

[–] squid_slime@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

calling something whataboutism is such a cop-out. what has the user said that distracts from the greater debate?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

Cause the USA could leave NATO tomorrow and the discussion of NATO vs Russia wouldn't change. So the USA is irrelevant in this conversation. Plus, those were USA/CIA actions, not NATO actions. And NATO isn't ruled by the USA, no matter how much some people around here like insisting.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] squid_slime@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago*

the conversation had mentioned the US, western powers and derailed to an extent from the original post.

parent

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 10 points 2 years ago

there is strong ~~evidence~~ propaganda.

parent

[–] mods_mum@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

You people seriously hate history and facts, don't you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] aleph@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

And what is dropping this wikipedia link supposed to prove?

Does it contradict the scholarly article I cited which supports everything I said?

P.S. who is "you people"?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] mods_mum@lemmy.today 7 points 2 years ago

The article was supposed to educate you on what type of person and leader Kadaffi was but something tells me education is not your strongest suit.

"You people" are teenage armchair communists with zero life experience and disdain for history books.

parent

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago

During Arab Spring, the West was (naively) hoping that Libyans would rise against Gaddafi and create a democraty. When he saw what was happening, he threatened to a) flood Europe with migrants and b) expose Sarkozy's illegal campaign funds.

a) made him a political adversary, b) made them launch a military campaign to topple him

parent

[–] Blaze@feddit.org -4 points 2 years ago

Interesting, thanks

parent