Nostr Web Client

Ah, the old ‘what if they kill their own people’ routine. Cute. Let’s review what you call stopping murder:

Iraq (2003): No WMDs. Half a million civilians dead. The regime? Gone. The chaos? Permanent.

Libya (2011): NATO bombs under the pretext of ‘protecting civilians.’ Gaddafi gone. Now it's slave markets and warlords.

Vietnam (1965–75): Millions dead. Napalm on villages. All to stop “communist tyranny.”

Syria (2010s): Armed rebels, covert ops, proxy war. Millions displaced. All under ‘moral obligation.’

Chile (1973), Congo (1961), Iran (1953): Regimes killed? Sure. But installed by the West. So who's the killer here?

You don’t protect civilians by bombing them. You don’t rescue people by flattening cities.

Stop pretending airstrikes are humanitarian hugs.

This got boring the moment you started quoting the Pentagon like it's a philosophy textbook. Come back when you’ve read history, not just headlines.

I asked you hypothetical question. Why you quote history to me?

If a regime kill its own citizens, is it ok to bomb the regime itself (without killing any civilians in the way somehow)?

Please Login to reply.

What if you colonize it with a democracy? Will it be ok?

Oh I get it now — you want a clean, magical bombing fantasy where evil is surgically removed and freedom parachutes in.

No civilians harmed. No blowback. No oil deals.

Just bombs with halos.

But here’s the truth, Vincent:

Every regime kills its own citizens.

Yours did it with slavery. With Jim Crow. With COINTELPRO. With opioid pipelines. With cops. With drones.

So if that’s your standard —

You’d better start with DC.

Until then, spare me the hypotheticals and fuck off to hell with your empire’s dead logic.

G'Day Sir, Now FUCK OFF 🖕