Spoken like a true racist, grouping up “middle east conflicts” as if it was a single entity.
Pretty easy actually, Palestinians were there living their lives and having a sense of nationality as Palestinians since the latter years of the Ottoman Empire. Zionists decided they didn’t care about that, decided they deserved their ancestral homeland, and western countries helped them militarily to relocate hundreds of thousands of people and murder tens of thousands on top. It’s almost quite literally that easy.
I’m Iranian, and there’s no hope of going home any time soon. It’s perfectly acceptable to lump the middle east in that statement. Show me one conflict in that region that’s not black and white.
Show me one conflict in that region that’s not black and white.
I assume you mean the opposite. I’ll bring you one about your own country.
In the Mosaddegh era, a democratically elected, secular, progressive, leftist leader was well on the way of successful policy for Iranians through the nationalization of the oil industry which, up until then, as you probably know better than I do, was extracted by the British Petroleum with the knowledge and approval of the Shah (thanks to some juicy “contributions” to his personal fortune paid by the British), leaving almost no profit from the Iranian oil to the Iranian people. The British blockaded Iran militarily, and through MI6, with help of CIA, staged false-flag attacks on private businesses through paid actors who pretended to be communists (the party was in Mosaddegh’s coalition). They literally bribed local mafias and gave them loudspeakers to pretend they were popular protests to prime people. And the poverty induced by the military economical blockade, summed up with all this shit and much more, made it so that the Mosaddegh government was deposed and the status-quo was more or less restored, and British Petroleum was happy.
That isn’t how racism works…is racist turning into the left version of “woke”? His comment wasn’t even out of ignorance, that is what that area is referred to, and nothing about conflicts in that area (including the topic at hand) is black and white…
Grouping up a whole set of countries, ethnicities, histories and conflicts into a “middle east” category and call treating it all as a homogenous “non-black and white” issue is racist, sorry.
nothing about conflicts in that area (including the topic at hand) is black and white
Thank you for ignoring the inconvenient part of my previous comment. Please tell me how the first Nakba isn’t black and white.
It is the name of that region and conflicts within it are still conflicts in the Middle East. Still not racist, sorry.
You get this worked up over people mentioning Europe or “The West”?
If people grouped up every single geopolitical conflict within Europe under a single category of equally non-black and whiteness, they’d be ignorant to do so. When western people do that with the middle east, it’s just an excuse to keep their minds free of it and dismiss it all and the responsibility of their governments.
Funnily enough, you know where in middle east there weren’t these “non-black and white” issues until three decades ago? Kazakhstan. Uzbekistan. Turkmenistan. Tajikistan. Azerbaijan. Kyrgyzstan. I wonder if there’s something black and white about the whole thing now…
Spoken like a true racist, grouping up “middle east conflicts” as if it was a single entity.
most people would do the same for general geographic regions though.
If it were a war between germany and france for example, it would be referred to as a “western” war. Russia vs China would be eastern for example.
Most of these wars are culturally related, especially in the middle east where they seem to have a particular style of warfare, it only seems fair to refer to it as “middle eastern” arguably, the only one that isn’t really doing this style of warfare here is israel. Though they clearly have reservations on morals.
Wow, funny, I didn’t hear the bombing of Yugoslavia and its disintegration, the invasion of Ukraine, and similar conflicts in Europe ever called altogether “European issues”, but separated very well individually.
well technically, semantically it would be “eastern european” even though it’s not really a thing. And it is generally considered to be a “european” problem, if you look into the matters from a more global perspective, it’s entirely fair to state that.
My main point though was that it’s not “racist” to exclaim that, it’s just incredibly broad and referential. Which in current times is probably reasonable.
My point is that extremely broad claims about extremely different and unrelated issues, and painting them all “oh so difficult”, is a tool used by western media to make people think the problems are too complicated to be solved and there’s just nothing to do about violence in “the middle east”, as US and its allies weren’t responsible for more than half of it.
Spoken like a true racist, grouping up “middle east conflicts” as if it was a single entity.
Pretty easy actually, Palestinians were there living their lives and having a sense of nationality as Palestinians since the latter years of the Ottoman Empire. Zionists decided they didn’t care about that, decided they deserved their ancestral homeland, and western countries helped them militarily to relocate hundreds of thousands of people and murder tens of thousands on top. It’s almost quite literally that easy.
I’m Iranian, and there’s no hope of going home any time soon. It’s perfectly acceptable to lump the middle east in that statement. Show me one conflict in that region that’s not black and white.
I assume you mean the opposite. I’ll bring you one about your own country.
In the Mosaddegh era, a democratically elected, secular, progressive, leftist leader was well on the way of successful policy for Iranians through the nationalization of the oil industry which, up until then, as you probably know better than I do, was extracted by the British Petroleum with the knowledge and approval of the Shah (thanks to some juicy “contributions” to his personal fortune paid by the British), leaving almost no profit from the Iranian oil to the Iranian people. The British blockaded Iran militarily, and through MI6, with help of CIA, staged false-flag attacks on private businesses through paid actors who pretended to be communists (the party was in Mosaddegh’s coalition). They literally bribed local mafias and gave them loudspeakers to pretend they were popular protests to prime people. And the poverty induced by the military economical blockade, summed up with all this shit and much more, made it so that the Mosaddegh government was deposed and the status-quo was more or less restored, and British Petroleum was happy.
Tell me how that’s not black and white.
That isn’t how racism works…is racist turning into the left version of “woke”? His comment wasn’t even out of ignorance, that is what that area is referred to, and nothing about conflicts in that area (including the topic at hand) is black and white…
Grouping up a whole set of countries, ethnicities, histories and conflicts into a “middle east” category and call treating it all as a homogenous “non-black and white” issue is racist, sorry.
Thank you for ignoring the inconvenient part of my previous comment. Please tell me how the first Nakba isn’t black and white.
It is the name of that region and conflicts within it are still conflicts in the Middle East. Still not racist, sorry. You get this worked up over people mentioning Europe or “The West”?
If people grouped up every single geopolitical conflict within Europe under a single category of equally non-black and whiteness, they’d be ignorant to do so. When western people do that with the middle east, it’s just an excuse to keep their minds free of it and dismiss it all and the responsibility of their governments.
Funnily enough, you know where in middle east there weren’t these “non-black and white” issues until three decades ago? Kazakhstan. Uzbekistan. Turkmenistan. Tajikistan. Azerbaijan. Kyrgyzstan. I wonder if there’s something black and white about the whole thing now…
most people would do the same for general geographic regions though.
If it were a war between germany and france for example, it would be referred to as a “western” war. Russia vs China would be eastern for example.
Most of these wars are culturally related, especially in the middle east where they seem to have a particular style of warfare, it only seems fair to refer to it as “middle eastern” arguably, the only one that isn’t really doing this style of warfare here is israel. Though they clearly have reservations on morals.
Wow, funny, I didn’t hear the bombing of Yugoslavia and its disintegration, the invasion of Ukraine, and similar conflicts in Europe ever called altogether “European issues”, but separated very well individually.
well technically, semantically it would be “eastern european” even though it’s not really a thing. And it is generally considered to be a “european” problem, if you look into the matters from a more global perspective, it’s entirely fair to state that.
My main point though was that it’s not “racist” to exclaim that, it’s just incredibly broad and referential. Which in current times is probably reasonable.
My point is that extremely broad claims about extremely different and unrelated issues, and painting them all “oh so difficult”, is a tool used by western media to make people think the problems are too complicated to be solved and there’s just nothing to do about violence in “the middle east”, as US and its allies weren’t responsible for more than half of it.