66
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 1 year ago

If they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't, then that really only highlights the need for Bazoum's disposal. Beats letting him run around and foment more terror via a Guaidó-esque escape.

[-] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, in these circumstances inaction usually is the worst action. I just hope they manage to navigate this well because it's a very dicey and complex situation to be in. For example, if going forward with the trial and execution, it'd be cool if they made significant portions of the proceedings public (and maybe even with official translations) to counter how they're going to be automatically discredited by the fr*nch and their norman allies. That way they'd at least be able to count on more neutral third parties, like other unrelated third world countries, to stave off intervention.

[-] knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 year ago

As to making the proceedings public, even that may not work. I speed scrolled through the Wikipedia page on Sankara the other day and it had a bit about public "show trials."

Something something Parenti quote...

[-] ParentiBot@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago

The quote

In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

-- Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.

this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
66 points (100.0% liked)

World News

2300 readers
125 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS