let's be real, there is nothing simple about the claim that Suleimani was a terrorist, particularly as justification for killing him. Everyone can verify it: this dude killed a plenty of ISIS, probably more than he did Americans, maybe his designs killed more ISIS than Americans did. Further he was killed acting in a diplomatic capacity. I just don't get what definition of terrorism you're going off of that isn't in some sense hypocritical when we Americans just offed this dude while he was going to a diplomatic thing. I just feel like it's such a projection. Like, yeah this dude and his people kill protestors, no doubt, but America isn't this utopia where ordinary citizens are immune to state violence, we got like millions of people locked up over here in our prisons, more than anywhere in the world. Not to mention police brutality. This may seem like what aboutism, but it becomes relevant when assessing the worthiness of the application of labels of 'terrorist' to people and regimes by other interested actors. So you know, as I said in a previous posts, these types of moments where we deploy the discourse of terrorism against representatives of a state seem to cover up the extreme cognitive dissonance generated by the haunting familiarity of the truth of the identical 'other', America is far more like Iran in 2020 than different.
The whole idea that all these entities Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, ISIS etc are all the same is some ignorant shit to be on imo and just needs to be said that
Americans can't sit around and say this and that and call every regime in the middle east is a terrorist regime forever while giving bombs to the Saudi Monarchy. At least other states pretend to be democratic. It's way too convenient to give arms to Saudi while assassinating the Iranian #2, and imo it's not clear how any Islamists are losing here with the loss of a military leader at the top of the Iranian regime. I feel like the mullahs didn't come away so bad form it, but who knows.
Like so go back to december 29th when 'Hezbollah Iraq' (read some militia that got some guns from hezbollah maybe, who really knows) is 'seizing' an American embassy in Iraq.
Thousands of 'militia supporters' (
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...80cb34-2c9e-11ea-9b60-817cc18cf173_story.html) were involved in the 'seige'. Where do thousands of people, not called 'militants', just 'militia supporters' come from? wtf is that? that sounds like a protest. srsly someone break it down for me. Our response is to kill the Iranian #2 due to some tenuous connection to the militia and its 'supporters'? and anyone is swallowing that? thats so flimsy to me, but do your own research, and if you find something please tell the class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_the_United_States_embassy_in_Baghdad
and we give bombs and other aide to the Saudis and you know they kill protestors too, so i just don't see it. anyone making these claims about how Suleimani was a terrorist who had it coming should be really careful that they aren't just repeating some jingoistic label.
