this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
136 points (85.4% liked)

Memes

54828 readers
1458 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social -3 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

But also ... just because something is used by the US as propaganda doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue.

[–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 18 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Look into literally every war they supported, it's always false pretenses. They instigated Kuwait to get in trouble with Iraq, then told Iraq they wouldn't oppose them invading Kuwait, then after Iraq invaded the US media apparatus lied everywhere that Iraqis disconnected hundreds of babies from incubators, killing them.

Still with Iraq, they told the world that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, that they had to be stopped for the safety of all USAmericans. Even though the weapons inspectors said it was patently false. The US invaded, many European countries supported them. After a very painful invasion where it's estimated between hundreds of thousands to a million Iraqis were murdered by the US and their allies (and many, many more when you count those who died from other factors caused by the invasion, such as lack of infrastructure, hospitals, food, etc), after all of this did they find WMDs? Take a guess.

The US told us that Gaddafi was using mass rape against his enemies, and people believed it until after they bombed Libyans to rubble. Turns out, they lied.

Amnesty International curiously enough lied as well, they echoed the claims about Kuwait babies killed by the Iraqi army and the mass rape by Gaddafi's troops until after the US punished those countries and their peoples severely. Then they went back on their word, because as it turns out they were lying. So if even organizations that occasionally do decent work can't be trusted not to amplify imperialism, how can we trust those that are even worse?

Can you trust the same newspapers that have told us for years that no genocide is happening in Gaza? That we should condemn Hamas? That Israel has the most moral army? We saw with our own eyes what they did and still do to children in Gaza. And to this day BBC, NYT and others still frame Israel as victims of aggression, and the real victims as untrustworthy terrorists. We can't trust a word about anything involving politics because even now they lie through framing, through omission.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

True true, and their 'justifications' for war are entirely bogus.

But I just caution against over-correcting. Just because someone is an enemy of the US doesn't mean they're perfect. Or even good.

[–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 hours ago

Sure, but I'll defend any government protecting its people from being bombed by imperialists, after the war is over we can critique again.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 13 points 11 hours ago

It means it's either heavily exaggerated or untrue.

[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 18 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Sure, reasonable: as long as we also apply that standard the next time someone says "Russian propaganda". If we apply this standard universally, then we're in a much better position to understand the world.

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.ml 6 points 15 hours ago

But it's a pretty good indicator