Thread

🛡️
Almost 20 years ago and nothing has changed and everything this man said has been proven true over and over again. “We bomb them endlessly and then wonder why they are mad at us.” It’s funny, I’ve had a few friends and family members who are legitimately concerned now that we could be in danger. That “what if we get bombed?” And all I can think is that entire generations in the Middle East have grown up with this fear as a permanent part of their lives. They never knew a time, in a dozen countries, in which they didn’t have to wonder “what if we get bombed?” What do you think that does to a culture? What do you think that does to their view of the west and Israel? After 50 years how could you *not* think that the US deserved to be destroyed? What else do they even know? None of this is confusing. These are the stupidly obvious and self evident results of the bullshit our govts have been engaged in.

Replies (15)

Given how targeted and ostracized I am, how nobody defends me, how nobody defends human rights in general while we keep slipping deeper into unconstitutional fascism - I've been worried about this in the US for a few years myself, and you should be, too. We don't get to just do this to the middle east while we're magically protected from it turning around on us.
🛡️
Here's a very interesting reply from an anon I read on X... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As an Iranian, I can tell you the situation is no longer just political—it's existential. We are trapped between two collapsing structures: one internal, one external. On one hand, we face a deeply dysfunctional government, led by the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Republic’s unelected institutions. Decades of economic mismanagement, suppression of dissent, and brutal ideological control have alienated multiple generations. No one believes in reform anymore—because every attempt has either been co-opted or crushed. But here's the paradox: We are also terrified of regime collapse—because we've watched the aftermath of Western intervention in countries like Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. Each was promised freedom; each descended into chaos, civil war, or foreign occupation. So no, we don't trust the U.S. or Israel. Not because we support our regime—but because we know how imperial powers treat ‘liberated’ nations in the Middle East. Freedom, in their language, often means vacuum, fire, and permanent instability. Right now, many Iranians live with three truths at once: The Islamic Republic is morally and politically bankrupt. The alternatives offered by foreign actors are not liberation—they’re collapse. A bad government is survivable. No government is not. We are not silent because we agree. We are cautious because we’ve learned—too well—what happens when superpowers decide to "help." In a sentence: Iran is a nation held hostage by its own regime, but haunted by the fate of its neighbors. We are stuck in a house we hate, surrounded by fires we fear more.
Ron Paul, the Mises Institute et al have done a lot to spread the ideas of Liberty around the world, precisely, accurately and consistently. The American government and its cronies on the other hand has contributed a great deal in making people around the world distrust, misunderstand and hate the idea of Liberty. It's the State that people ought to be hating. Not the ideas it falsely claims to support. The government is not its people. And the people are not their government. Freedom has very little to do with democracy and everything to do with natural rights, self-ownership, natural justice and the non-aggression principle. To think otherwise is brainwashed doublethink. Liberty is not an American idea. Neither is it Christian or Western. It can be understood and embraced by any reasoning individual. I can comfortably embrace my own religion and culture while being a libertarian. Because unlike socialism or nationalism, libertarianism is not an ideology that requires the creation of an ideal 'libertarian man'. It's just a legal theory about where violence is appropriate and not appropriate in social relations. It doesn't require the spread of a state's 'soft power' or 'hard power'. It doesn't require a power vacuum to be filled by an entity that contradicts its principles. It does not require bombing millions of innocent civilians. View quoted note →