You’re acting like North Korea and South Korea existed as separate, established entities prior to the Korean War. That’s nonsense. It’s projecting the modern state of affairs back into the past. The Korean War is when those entities were established as such. The were communists and anti-communists distributed throughout the whole of Korea, and neither side was interested in setting up a partition that would carve the country in two, until a compromise was negotiated effectively ending the war.

The Republic of Korea had governed the whole of the country, and the leadership was made up of compradors who had been propped up by fascist Japanese invaders and who had switched teams to being running dogs of the US as soon as it became convenient. The revolutionaries rose up against them, first attacking in the north and establishing a foothold before moving south. At this point, the US, seeking to assert dominance over a country thousands of miles away, intervened with one of the deadliest bombing campaigns in history, with an extremely high ratio of civilian deaths, many killed by biological and chemical weapons.

Even if the US hadn’t been so brutal towards Korean civilians, it still had no business getting involved. This whole argument of “defensive” wars thousands of miles away is nonsense. It’s the same argument the fucking Roman Empire used to justify conquering Europe:

There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome’s allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest—why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing space. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, and it was manifestly Rome’s duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs. They were enemies who only waited to fall on the Roman people.

-Joseph Schumpeter

Yes, I’d say it’s very obvious that you prefer to spew bullshit everywhere, thank you for admitting it.

I don’t “consume” your bullshit tho, I reject and refute it, despite your attempts to smear it everywhere.

Maybe you shouldn’t hang your bullshit so low, then.

Yes, and the American Revolutionary War could have been avoided had the colonists simply accepted British rule.

I already did. The part where you took offense and accused someone of “bootlicking” for identifying lies and propaganda.

Again, sorry there are people here who disrupt your 5 minutes hate of circulating lies and propaganda about the people we’re told to hate. Seethe.

You could post, “you’ve been running around like a chicken with its head cut off” while calling the other sides argument a “word salad” in response to literally anything. Instantly win any argument, no matter who said what or what it’s about.

Sure, the North attacked the South. In fact, the North also attacked the North. That’s generally how revolutions work, after all.

None of this really pertains to foreigners coming in and levelling the country and dropping chemical weapons everywhere and slaughtering a ton of civilians.

The campaign was Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s first invasion of the North.

From the Confederacy’s perspective, the Union was a separate country.

Yes, I don’t have to go through your comment history, I can just cite the part where you accused the person in this thread of “bootlicking,” despite just refuting misinformation. Already did cite that, in fact.

I’m sorry people push back against propaganda on here, must be rough for you 😔

This is like an antivaxxer trying to be generous by saying that maybe pro-vaccine people are only “accidentally falling into the trap” of supporting Bill Gates’ demon army or whatever.

I’ve already established that you included the person you responded to as being part of this group of North Korea defenders for simply refuting misinformation. Rather than saying that people like that “accidentally falling into a trap,” how about considering the possibility that they’re right and have good reason for saying what they do?

Now you’re even backpedaling, like “maybe” they’re accidentally falling for a trap, maybe they’re outright foreign agents, which we can tell because they had the audacity to refute misinformation. I ask again, “what fucking trap?”

I’m just going off what has happened historically every time you people have tried this shit. What happened when y’all tried to “liberate” Vietnam? What happened when y’all tried to “liberate” Afghanistan?

I hope you suffer as those who seek freedom from that shithole do. Shame on you.

I hope you get exactly what you want and get to experience foreigners coming to “liberate” you through mass bombing campaigns. Maybe you’ll even get a front row seat to Agent Orange from your “liberators.” Shame on you.

“Not killing each other” seems like a good place to start with that.

You can’t really “invade” your own country. North and South Korea were two sides in a civil war, with both sides claiming each other’s territory and aiming towards unification. It’s like saying that George Washington “invaded” Yorktown or that Lincoln “invaded” Virginia.

Saying that people are licking boots “accidentally” by calling out and refuting misinformation is not notably better than saying that they’re licking boots intentionally. “I should be able to say whatever I want about this country, true or not, and if people push back, they’re accidentally licking boots” doesn’t become ok because it includes the qualifier “accidentally.”

If I’ve misinterpreted you, you’re welcome to explain how or what you meant. Or to drop it in favor of my other points, which you seem to be evading.

The Ghorman massacre was referenced

Ghorman has been a part of Star Wars lore for ages, yes. There is nothing about the word “Ghorman” that connects it to Gaza. The things that connect it to Gaza are mainly twofold, first, the specific phrase “Ghorman Plaza,” (which did not exist in the lore prior to Andor, to my knowledge) and second, the intentional use of the word “genocide” in connection to it, especially in Mon Mothma’s speech. Just “Ghorman” vs “The genocide in Ghorman Plaza” is a huge difference.What the writers did was to take an existing, largely undefined part of Star Wars lore, and flesh it out in a way that ties in to current events.

I have no clue why you think I’m saying the word “Ghorman” has anything to do with Gaza, on it’s own or as it existed in the lore.

Which country do you think the people masscred in Tiananmen square were from? Were the people massacred there people known for making silk?

This is incredibly dumb, and I’m just highlighting this part of your comment as an example to others of how far a brain is capable of stretching something to make it be about what the person wants it to be about. Obviously, there’s no reasoning with that, but the whole plot regarding Ghorman revolves around a foreign, occupying force planning to exterminate or drive out a population in order to seize resources. There is zero connection to China, apart from silk.

Yeah they referenced silk thinking “I’m sure people will get get the connection from silk to textiles to Palestinians.”

People in the Star Wars universe probably don’t really remember Ghorman as “the place that makes silk” in the same way people from our universe don’t think of Palestine as “the place that makes textiles.” But it’s important to be included to illustrate that Ghorman had an economy and culture before it became known as the site of a massacre, regardless of the Empire’s attempts to erase it, in the same way that it’s important to remember Palestinian culture despite Zionist attempts to reduce them to animals. I doubt the audience was expected to specifically to make the connection, but even if you’re unaware of Gaza’s history with textiles (and even if it wasn’t intentional), it still conveys the message in broad strokes.

Obviously, this wouldn’t convey anything meaningful if it were about China. But then, that’s the level on which reactionaries understand art.

Ctrl+F plaza

Phrase not found.

See, again, people like this are exactly why we need the protagonist to look directly at the camera and explain things to them. Because the average Westerner’s worldview is so propagandized that when they see a work critiquing their own government, they assume that it must be about foreigners, because obviously we’re number one and everyone else is worse than us. If you make a US allegory look bad, they assume it couldn’t possibly be about the US. Combination of media illiteracy and a delusional, chauvinistic worldview.

I’m pretty sure the Israel Gaza war kicked off with terrorists masscring people in villages and taking hostages, but it wasn’t the IDF doing that shit. Did Andor portray that at all?

Well, the show kicks off with Andor shooting two corporate security guards, after they tried to rob him. Does that count? I mean, it’s not like Palestinian resistance to Israeli colonization and apartheid is unprovoked.

Anyway, which silk producing country massacred peaceful protesters in a public square?

The silk producing planet did not massacre peaceful protesters in a public square. The Empire, an occupying force in Ghorman, massacred Ghormans. I guess if Ghormans had massacred Imperials, your China comparison might make a certain amount of sense. But that’s the complete opposite of what happened in the show, where the “silk producing planet” was the victim of genocide, not the perpetrator.

Incidentally, Gaza is also famous for textiles, or at least, it was, before the dark times. Before the Empire.

Next you’re going to tell me that the original trilogy wasn’t about the Vietnam War

Did I or did I not add the tongue-in-cheek qualifier “accidentally” to licking boots to signify the benefit of the doubt of the people falling into this trap?

What “trap”?? The “trap” of correctly refuting misinformation? How generous of you!

Not so distant if we’re going to be fighting a proxy war against them.

Oh, well that’s very simple. Don’t fight a proxy war against them. I think I may not have expressed my position properly: there are no foreign threats anywhere that are anywhere near as important and dangerous as the ones here at home.

Let’s do a quick quiz. Question 1: I can’t afford health insurance. The people primarily responsible for me not having access to healthcare live in which city?

• A. Pyongyang
• B. Moscow
• C. Beijing
• D. Tehran
• E. Washington D.C.

Question 2: Which country’s government poses the greatest threat to my safety and has the greatest ability to imprison/kill/harm me, as an American?

• A. North Korea
• B. Russia
• C. China
• D. Iran
• E. US

Now, would you kindly explain to me why I should rally behind the people who are most likely to harm me and who are the reason I don’t have healthcare against people thousands of miles away?

Can I not talk about a pitfall that I often see with people defending NK, as an “inb4” if you will? Because I hope you reread the sentence that way.

The problem is that even if there are people like that, the criticism gets directed at people with much milder takes. And in this case, you replied to someone with .ml saying “why do .ml’s…” and “y’all…” You were clearly including them, even though all they’d done was to identify some things that are objectively misinformation.

Why so eager to jump in like that about a known violator of human rights that has voiced unconditional support for Russia, a country actively picking a fight with the entire West side of the world?

Because of… the truth? Does being a “known violator of human rights” make it ok for people to spread lies? Does it make someone a bad person to refute things that are objectively false? At that point, how could we even determine if anything said about them is true, if their critics are happy to lie, and to attack anyone who calls out lies?

I don’t care who you’re talking about, whether it’s North Korea, Iran, Trump, fucking, Nazi Germany, whatever, if people say false things about them, then I’m going to correct those falsehoods. There’s this whole social disease that correcting misinformation about something inherently means you support it. If someone says “In North Korea, they kill you for having the wrong haircut” and you say, “No, they don’t,” then congratulations, you are now “defending North Korea,” you are now a “North Korea apologist,” or, as some would say, a “tankie.” And then you ask why there’s so many “North Korea apologists.”

Some of us value truth and integrity more than we value bashing whoever the news tells us to hate. And because we have the audacity to interrupt the whole Orwellian “Five Minutes Hate” thing, that makes us traitors if not foreign agents or bots.

If North Korea is my “enemy,” it’s certainly a very small and distant one that’s not really worth messing with. Speaking as an American, my biggest existential threats are all domestic, like the rise of fascism and exploitation by the rich. I can see no reason why I would support my domestic enemies meddling in the affairs of other countries for their own benefit, and if I don’t support my government taking hostile action towards North Korea, then there’s pretty much fuck-all I could do about it in any case, is there? So what difference does it even make what anybody’s stance is on it, what’s the big deal if some people take it too far? The only relevant question with North Korea is “Should our government fuck with them or not” and the answer is obviously “not.”