What does that mean? Do they actually want Charlie Hebdos, as in people that aren’t scared to make irreverent cartoons of Mohammed? Or they want people like Charlie Hebdo to get the same response from the Muslim community? There’s a difference.
I too am intrigued why tankies would support islamic fundamentalists murdering leftist french journalists… Doesn’t add up… My only guess (beyond the general mental illness tankies display) is that French colonialism fucked up cultures around the world for centuries — across south America, Africa, and Asia — and they still hold political and military control over a few of them… But why cheer islamic terrorism? Why cheer the murder of leftist journos?
This sub should require links to the offending thread, so users can view in context. Otherwise this could’ve been posted anywhere. I’d expect this screenshot from the likes of Truth Social.
Tankies are very simple things. They operate by US bad
If something, like jihadists, says the US is bad, then the Tankies will support them.
until…
BWARK 🔪🐔
This sub should require links to the offending thread, so users can view in context. Otherwise this could’ve been posted anywhere. I’d expect this screenshot from the likes of Truth Social.
I also am not allowed to link to the content. I also don’t link to it because then they can edit or change the content.
Ha, that is funny though. Sad on those people saying the caartoonist should be murdered for it
On a sidenote: after one year of fighting, most residents of Gaza now believe that the Holy Attack was not worth it. I think that this cartoon rightly mocks the idea of a ‘Holy War’, even if some of its victims never made that choice
This conflict is as related to religion as a doughnut is related to the cultivation of sugar cane. Impossible to exist as it does without it, but could (and probably would) have arisen under different circumstances and with slight differences without it.
Reducing this conflict into its religious factions conveniently ignores the cascading history and various material interests that allied imperial states have within the region. It also happens to be an easy way to ideologically frame the conflict about out-of-touch religious fanatics, even though it never would have happened at this scale or on this timeline without the vested contributions of secular liberal states.
I hope you’re not one of those reactionary evangelists who believe the rapture will come once Israel is destroyed and are therefore aroused by the boundless death of innocent people.
The ‘scale of this conflict’ is still very small if you compare it to, say, the Syrian, Yemeni or Sudanese civil wars.
Of course you’re one of those reactionary evangelists who’ll claim none of these have anything to do with religion and the people in the region are just puppets waiting for the secularist liberals to pull their strings.
Of course you’re one of those reactionary evangelists who’ll claim none of these have anything to do with religion and the people in the region are just puppets waiting for the secularist liberals to pull their strings.
Religion is only the rationalization of universal self-importance and a justification for unjustifiable violence, but the desire for violent domination is always rooted in an intense desire for material security and liberation.
compare it to, say, the Syrian, Yemeni or Sudanese civil wars
And yet they each were still ultimately fighting over the control of land, water, and the material production of their countries. The justification may have been couched in religious symbols and significance, but the outcome was still definitively material.
Edit:
I’ll also add - the existence of secularist liberal states investing in the conflict isn’t an attempt to frame it as an ‘evil secular proxy war’, it is to show that secularist liberals have reason to involve themselves even without a religious justification. It’s a counterexample to the assertion that this conflict is a religious one: if that were true then it leaves more than half the involved parties without any apparent rational to engage in the bloodshed.
They want to kill – Or rather, like classic rich college kids, they want others to kill for them. They will thankfully never do anything violent, all bark.
(Well, actually, watch out for them IRL on a smaller level. They very well may be violent, abusive people that will hurt you, or participate in SLA style politicial violence, it’s just that no “revolution” is ever going to happen.
And before someone says it, no I didn’t say they all are, just that they can be.)
What does that mean? Do they actually want Charlie Hebdos, as in people that aren’t scared to make irreverent cartoons of Mohammed? Or they want people like Charlie Hebdo to get the same response from the Muslim community? There’s a difference.
I too am intrigued why tankies would support islamic fundamentalists murdering leftist french journalists… Doesn’t add up… My only guess (beyond the general mental illness tankies display) is that French colonialism fucked up cultures around the world for centuries — across south America, Africa, and Asia — and they still hold political and military control over a few of them… But why cheer islamic terrorism? Why cheer the murder of leftist journos?
This sub should require links to the offending thread, so users can view in context. Otherwise this could’ve been posted anywhere. I’d expect this screenshot from the likes of Truth Social.
They’re leftists but not the right kind of leftists. That makes them deserving of being murdered in the tankies’ eyes.
Tankies are very simple things. They operate by US bad
If something, like jihadists, says the US is bad, then the Tankies will support them.
until…
BWARK 🔪🐔
I also am not allowed to link to the content. I also don’t link to it because then they can edit or change the content.
I was going to reply but yeah you said it
Gradbears would see a group of Taliban gangraping a 6 year old and say it’s all on US voters for not breaking the status quo
They are reacting to this comic from ‘Liberation’ newspaper last year about the genocide in Gaza during Ramadan:
The woman in a hijab is slapping the hand of an emaciated Gazan chasing after a rat, presumably to catch and eat it, and saying “Not before sunset”
Ha, that is funny though. Sad on those people saying the caartoonist should be murdered for it
On a sidenote: after one year of fighting, most residents of Gaza now believe that the Holy Attack was not worth it. I think that this cartoon rightly mocks the idea of a ‘Holy War’, even if some of its victims never made that choice
Funny that they’re mocking muslims for their faith while they starve during the Israeli-manufactured famine?
This war/famine is a religious construct
Israelis (in general) are no better or worse in this regard
This conflict is as related to religion as a doughnut is related to the cultivation of sugar cane. Impossible to exist as it does without it, but could (and probably would) have arisen under different circumstances and with slight differences without it.
Reducing this conflict into its religious factions conveniently ignores the cascading history and various material interests that allied imperial states have within the region. It also happens to be an easy way to ideologically frame the conflict about out-of-touch religious fanatics, even though it never would have happened at this scale or on this timeline without the vested contributions of secular liberal states.
I hope you’re not one of those reactionary evangelists who believe the rapture will come once Israel is destroyed and are therefore aroused by the boundless death of innocent people.
The ‘scale of this conflict’ is still very small if you compare it to, say, the Syrian, Yemeni or Sudanese civil wars.
Of course you’re one of those reactionary evangelists who’ll claim none of these have anything to do with religion and the people in the region are just puppets waiting for the secularist liberals to pull their strings.
Or maybe they’re just donuts
Religion is only the rationalization of universal self-importance and a justification for unjustifiable violence, but the desire for violent domination is always rooted in an intense desire for material security and liberation.
And yet they each were still ultimately fighting over the control of land, water, and the material production of their countries. The justification may have been couched in religious symbols and significance, but the outcome was still definitively material.
Edit:
I’ll also add - the existence of secularist liberal states investing in the conflict isn’t an attempt to frame it as an ‘evil secular proxy war’, it is to show that secularist liberals have reason to involve themselves even without a religious justification. It’s a counterexample to the assertion that this conflict is a religious one: if that were true then it leaves more than half the involved parties without any apparent rational to engage in the bloodshed.
1000 pretentious leftist magazines would be WAY too many
They want to kill – Or rather, like classic rich college kids, they want others to kill for them. They will thankfully never do anything violent, all bark.
(Well, actually, watch out for them IRL on a smaller level. They very well may be violent, abusive people that will hurt you, or participate in SLA style politicial violence, it’s just that no “revolution” is ever going to happen.
And before someone says it, no I didn’t say they all are, just that they can be.)
I’ve seen what they look like. They’re not particularly strong men, really flimsy, actually. Riddled with anxiety and insecurity.
Usually. Every now and again they kill Marcus Foster.