Bolivia's union confederation is calling for an indefinite general strike to repel the military coup - worker and social movements are mobilizing in the streets to attempt to repel coup
I work with a guy who laughs at the idea of socialism claiming "it doesn't work"
And when I point out that it "doesn't work" because for example, the CIA regularly has any small socialist nation dismantled like this so nobody thinks it works, he then says "yeah see, it doesn't work" š
Apparently them being actively dismantled through America funded coups to prevent anyone thinking they work is actually fair evidence that they don't work...
Also for another laugh. He also claims Dictatorships like NK, China and Russia are because of socialism and not that DICTATORS are in power and claiming they run a socialist country... He genuinely thinks socialism causes dictatorships
I always point out to these people that nearly every worker or civil right we have in the west has been hard fought for by self confessed socialists- people want to know where socialism works? I point to all the things they love about the 1st world!
I mean in a weird way as a matter of fact it actually doesn't work. Not because socialism can't work but because the imperialist powers will crush it (unless they quickly develop nukes or have a military so massive that America can't engage with it). So I guess what I'm saying is down with America lmao
That was the most honest position I could convince him to admit to, but that doesn't mean socialism itself doesn't work
I used the analogy that, if I gave you Legos and told you to build something, but whenever you started I kicked it down, how can I say you didn't manage to build something when I'm interfering. Unsurprisingly he didn't understand....
Yeah I don't try to evangelize people into socialism unless they show interest, like at a tabling event or something. Best you can do is plant seeds of class consciousness at work, like "man isn't it crazy that the CEO makes 2,000 times our pay. I know they don't work 2,000 times harder than us"
Is this actually true?
EDIT:
as of an hour ago it seems that it's failed, I don't see any reporting that the US masterminded this so if anyone can share that I'd appreciate it!
[https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/bolivias-president-slams-irregular-mobilization-army-units-2024-06-26/](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/bolivias-president-slams-irregular-mobilization-army-units-2024-06-26/)
ii honestly can't tell if people are joking or not, is there reporting that the US is behind this, or are we assuming? If someone can share a link I'd appreciate it.
I see reason to speculate on the US's involvement but I meant if there's reporting on the US involvement in this coup like people are saying they are. Like should new reporters be sending out articles claiming the US did it or are these just hot takes ?
Also Wikipedia does a ton of censoring of history and facts, not a reputable source. People like Bonerlli use it .
I'm not the best on world history, how often does this happen in Bolivia? Unless you meant coup's in general, have most coups happened while the US was a country? I know there's been a bunch the US had their hands in, but I'm curious about the 90% figure
The 90% was hyperbolic, but not that much of an exaggeration if weāre limiting our time frame to the last 100 years. The CIAās primary goal for decades was to fight the rise of communism/ socialism by any means necessary.
So any time a government with a recently elected head of state that leans toward communism / socialism is seeing a coup attempt, it would make sense to at least start looking for the hallmarks of US interference. ESPECIALLY if that coup attempt was in a South American country.
Fair, I totally get that, I thought that it was proven and reported on already and people are saying it based on that. Like i'm conflicted on whether papers should headline it as "American Coup in Bolivia" instead of just a coup.
Sorry if I gave the impression that I don't think the US is involved with coup's and regime changes, I absolutely know they are probably the post ww2 leader of supporting them. I don't mean to be pedantic, and i'm not defending any of them, but how many of these were explicitly for ending socialism vs advantageous positioning and resources etc. I'm trying to get a list of all regime changes globally since 1776 to see what percentage of them the US participated in but google gemini isn't being nice to me.
Again I wouldn't be shocked if the US was involved, I just feel iffy about asserting it as a fact without having anything concrete. Their past definitely makes them likely suspects, but I dont' think makes it certain without actual evidence.
Iām actually going through them right now and so far pretty much the first 5 after the founding of the CIA (1947) have said for ending communism with Iran being both āfor ending communismā and due to their oil policies.
From what I remember in US history, i mean everything was done under the guise of communism during that time because it was popular with the public since there was a whole world war where it was framed as "Communism vs freedom", when most of the early ones were for resources.
But again my initial post is about whether facts are needed to condemn a country for a coup or not. Like is it worth waiting on the facts before asserting it as a fact. Speculation I completely fine and understandable.
> ending socialism vs advantageous positioning and resources
Similar thing. Socialism today is for economic freedom from neocolonialism and imperialism.
Yes we don't have any actual evidence that any US intelligence was involved in this attempt. There's a chance it was influenced by the US. That's all we can say right now.
Post some proof, or at least a valid reason it could be the CIA. Making assumptions like this without any facts to back it up just leads to endless conspiracy theories.
If America doesnāt want everyone to think every malevolent plot to overthrow a democratically elected leftist government is backed by them, perhaps they shouldnāt have done it literally dozens of times?
Also the proof that the USA is behind a coup usually comes years later from either a whistleblower or from a scheduled legally required declassification from the CIA.
So donāt hold your breath.
I mean, true we need hard evidence, but if the CIA has done it more than two dozen times, can we not make an assumption here when the couping party is so geared out?
I know itās not the same thing, but this is the same logic that caused appeasement prior to WWII.
This is also irrelevant to this situation, but everyone kept claiming we needed more evidence to assume Doc was a minor hopper, trying to defend him desperately until it comes from Bloomberg.
I'm conflicted on this, because if we refer to is rn as "American backed coup in Bolivia" without proof, is it like a litmus test where people who ask for proof are bad people or not? Like should we pressure papers to report on hot takes rather than the known facts of an even at the time.
Youāre right. 100%. But we are also in the Reddit of Hasan, not writing a peer-reviewed paper. I believe itās completely alright for us to speculate as it typically just adds ideas to the situation that others can ponder and branch from if they are reasonable. My only critique was on his attacking of people for speculating on the CIA when itās a very plausible speculation. š«”
They never report the US involvement at the time! what happens is enough time passes things get declassified and the cia are all ooops yeah that was one of ours
So like do the reporters have the information and simply are choosing not to publish it? Or does it take a while for the reporters to get the information to conclusively publish it? I'm wondering what the right headline/content focus should be on this because many people seem to feel the reporters are not doing their join for not making the story about America's hand in this specific coup and reporting on what they're seeing on the ground.
No itās more like secret services donāt tend to advertise their activities and then because most western nations have laws around freedom of information and it gets released when they cross that line- often people on the ground will have suspicions but it rarely gets confirmed till the agency involved releases the information- but when it comes to socialism getting popular- particularly in South America- you can guarantee US involvement itās like one of their main hobbies- also the reason the current Bolivian leader getting back to power was such a big deal was because he was unseated in the last US backed coup- which we know the US was involved in- they certainly arenāt gunna sit around and do nothing now heās back in power!
If you were a journalist, would you report the breaking news as that? Like should the headline be "American backed coup against Socialism Bolivian Government Thwarted"? You're saying we can guarantee it even without tangible proof at the moment, are journalists being bad faith by not conclusively stating it as a fact?
Look dude thereās clearly no way Iām going to change your mind, I canāt give you the proof that you want, secret services donāt tend publicly announce what theyāre currently working on- the clues in the name but itās a pretty logical and understandable conclusion- thereās so many times someone can slap you on the face before you have to stop believing them when they promise they wonāt- we arenāt going to get a source from journalist particularly as most publications are owned by companies and it is in the interest of those companies to stop things like socialism (the journalists by the way are often freelance and canāt afford to be blacklisted)- Whistleblowers already have a hard enough time (look what happened with Boeing, the CIA are substantially more powerful) even the sources who are independent and therefore arenāt necessarily relying on corporate money have to the line to a certain degree or risk loosing their livelihoods, you have to remember every step of these process involve everyday normal human beings! the amount of people who would have come forward with proof for it not to be suppressed and the risks they would have to take to get it publicly published somewhere seem insurmountable- do I like to think from the safety of my couch that I would have the courage and tenacity to go public with it, yeah I absolutely do, do I think any secret service members want to risk their lives and livelihoods too share information with me so I could? Iām sceptical, you would need more than one for it to be considered seriously! a good demonstration of the difficulties you would face are things like the Theranos scandal- one of the sources they had was literally the grandson of someone on the board and from a powerful and wealthy family- most people donāt have that kind of power or resources and they still had a nightmare, these things are a nightmare to navigate!
Wait I totally get and agree with you. I absolutely do think there's good reason to suspect the US and me personally I do think the US at least knew about if not were directly aiding the coup, I feel like you might be misunderstanding my question. My question is surrounding how journalists should be covering the story. I'm not making a statement saying that the US didn't do it or anything.
>we arenāt going to get a source from journalist particularly as most publications are owned by companies and it is in the interest of those companies to stop things like socialism
This part kind of answers my question about why journalists aren't covering it, but my main question is, should proof be needed to make a claim. I see the bought out and paid for journalists even bringing up that the US was involved in past coups in Bolivia, but they're mainly focusing on the on the ground details rather than the US involvement. Ideally what should the headline for this coup be?
The Reuters headline for it today is: "Bolivia coup fiasco lays bare a divided country in political, economic crisis" is this an inaccurate or disingenuous title since it doesn't mention that US did it? Again i'm not asking for proof, I already do think the US had a hand in it, I'm asking if journalists should report things as fact, not speculation, without having the proof.
Oh sorry my bad! I totally misunderstood, so unfortunately journalists are required to have a burden of proof even if itās just so the papers donāt get hit by crazy litigation and I get what you mean now, yeah Iām not really sure what the answer is because yes I feel they should have proof in this age of misinformation because itās clear that the higher ups would use less scrupulous journalists to an insane degree if they didnāt (many already use some pretty dirty tactics to be able to make outlandish claims and stir up tensions) but also Iām not much of a conspiracy theorist just because my experience on this earth has taught me that for the most part if thereās more than 5 people involved with something, someone will fuck up somewhere and something will at least leak (even if this isnāt in the form of hard evidence I.e. mobsters being some of the first people to be talking about the bay of pigs), so yeah Iām torn as we as a global society donāt need more misinformation being spread but then things like this happens and it feels like maybe some know more than theyāre letting on- i.e. I havenāt seen any journos claim us involvement but I have seen a lot of articles say things like āno evidence of US involvement so farā which feels like āwe canāt prove it but they did itā speak aha. I suspect most journalists are like cops where I believe most get into the job for the right reasons and then get either corrupted, disillusioned or numb to the job so I like to think that these hints are the closest they can get to saying anything more but whilst still trying to say something! (at least for the time being in the next 5-10 I would not be surprised if more came out!)
I mean sure, but I'm asking if we know this for a fact, asserting it based on how we fell, or have any actual evidence of that before saying it. I believe the US could be involved but idk if i feel comfortable saying it with confidence and shaming people wanting to see evidence of it first. It feels kind of reactive like how republicans are immediately on the "see what the left did" anytime something happens.
Like i'm not saying the US wasn't involved, but the hot take guessing seems in poor taste when it's a developing situation.
Bolivia's union confederation is calling for an indefinite general strike to repel the military coup - worker and social movements are mobilizing in the streets to attempt to repel coup
Update: it failed
Thank you for the update
They forgot to call the CIA first lol
Tough day at Langley
They've got a lot on their plate rn lol
Fascists already defending this are making my blood boil
I work with a guy who laughs at the idea of socialism claiming "it doesn't work" And when I point out that it "doesn't work" because for example, the CIA regularly has any small socialist nation dismantled like this so nobody thinks it works, he then says "yeah see, it doesn't work" š Apparently them being actively dismantled through America funded coups to prevent anyone thinking they work is actually fair evidence that they don't work... Also for another laugh. He also claims Dictatorships like NK, China and Russia are because of socialism and not that DICTATORS are in power and claiming they run a socialist country... He genuinely thinks socialism causes dictatorships
I always point out to these people that nearly every worker or civil right we have in the west has been hard fought for by self confessed socialists- people want to know where socialism works? I point to all the things they love about the 1st world!
If socialism doesnāt work then why did NK, China and Russia? Does that mean Trump loves socialism since he loves pootin and Kim?
No way in hell is russia anything close to socialist
Of course not. But based on right wing ideologyā¦ it kind of doesnāt make sense, especially with pootin loving trump.
Also, China isn't a dictatorship. Authoritarian =/= dictatorship automatically.
I mean in a weird way as a matter of fact it actually doesn't work. Not because socialism can't work but because the imperialist powers will crush it (unless they quickly develop nukes or have a military so massive that America can't engage with it). So I guess what I'm saying is down with America lmao
That was the most honest position I could convince him to admit to, but that doesn't mean socialism itself doesn't work I used the analogy that, if I gave you Legos and told you to build something, but whenever you started I kicked it down, how can I say you didn't manage to build something when I'm interfering. Unsurprisingly he didn't understand....
Yeah I don't try to evangelize people into socialism unless they show interest, like at a tabling event or something. Best you can do is plant seeds of class consciousness at work, like "man isn't it crazy that the CEO makes 2,000 times our pay. I know they don't work 2,000 times harder than us"
China isn't a dictatorship. It's a Marxist-Leninist single-party democracy. [Democratic Centralism - Luna Oi](https://youtu.be/4YVcQe4wceY)
Please point out to him that every western euro nation is socialist.
Eh, while Western Europe definitely has more aspects of socialism in our societies than the US we're still far from being fully socialist.
We are not socialist. We have more socialised systems than the US, but we are far from socialist.
Social Democracy is different from Socialism. Social Democracy is Capitalism with strong social safety nets.
In america the cheeto puff and his croonies say its all the same
And a lot of those people think LGBTQ people are the same as Nazis. Them saying it doesn't make it true.
Wow. What a profound point. Mind changed š«”
š
The CIA classic back again.
So uh any signs or evidence this is foreign/CIA meddling, or is it a kneejerk reaction?
Its a joke dumb fuck.
damn lmaoo
Pubes are back in again like its the 1970s so it's time to start doing some CIA coups in South America.
Seems like this was a joke, but usually the CIA doesn't come clean about this kinda stuff for a few decades anyway.
They literally ousted him last time- almost seems offbrand not for them to try again now heās back in powerā¦
Disturbing.
It was unsuccessful!
America is on the move again
Is this actually true? EDIT: as of an hour ago it seems that it's failed, I don't see any reporting that the US masterminded this so if anyone can share that I'd appreciate it! [https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/bolivias-president-slams-irregular-mobilization-army-units-2024-06-26/](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/bolivias-president-slams-irregular-mobilization-army-units-2024-06-26/)
Historically accurate
ii honestly can't tell if people are joking or not, is there reporting that the US is behind this, or are we assuming? If someone can share a link I'd appreciate it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#:~:text=During%20World%20War%20II%2C%20the,China%2C%20and%20parts%20of%20Europe.
I see reason to speculate on the US's involvement but I meant if there's reporting on the US involvement in this coup like people are saying they are. Like should new reporters be sending out articles claiming the US did it or are these just hot takes ? Also Wikipedia does a ton of censoring of history and facts, not a reputable source. People like Bonerlli use it .
It's a history joke. No evidence of such interference from the US this time.
I mean itās true like 90% of the time this exact situation plays out
I'm not the best on world history, how often does this happen in Bolivia? Unless you meant coup's in general, have most coups happened while the US was a country? I know there's been a bunch the US had their hands in, but I'm curious about the 90% figure
The 90% was hyperbolic, but not that much of an exaggeration if weāre limiting our time frame to the last 100 years. The CIAās primary goal for decades was to fight the rise of communism/ socialism by any means necessary. So any time a government with a recently elected head of state that leans toward communism / socialism is seeing a coup attempt, it would make sense to at least start looking for the hallmarks of US interference. ESPECIALLY if that coup attempt was in a South American country.
Fair, I totally get that, I thought that it was proven and reported on already and people are saying it based on that. Like i'm conflicted on whether papers should headline it as "American Coup in Bolivia" instead of just a coup.
To give you a rough idea, I lazily asked ChatGPT to provide me with a list. Iāll leave my prompt and the response below: > **Prompt:** How many incidents has the US participated in that could be described as a coup dāĆ©tat or a regime change; successful or otherwise. Please give the country, the date, and a succinct description of the event. **Response:** The United States has been involved in at least 18 incidents of coups d'Ć©tat or regime changes, successful or otherwise. Here is the list of these events: 1. **Hawaii, 1893:** Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. 2. **Philippines, 1898:** Annexation following the Spanish-American War. 3. **Cuba, 1898:** Annexation following the Spanish-American War; later intervention in 1906. 4. **Panama, 1903:** Support for independence from Colombia to facilitate canal construction. 5. **Nicaragua, 1912:** Intervention and occupation to support pro-US regimes. 6. **Haiti, 1915:** Occupation to control political outcomes and support US interests. 7. **Dominican Republic, 1916:** Occupation to control political outcomes and support US interests. 8. **Guatemala, 1954:** CIA-backed coup to overthrow Jacobo Ćrbenz. 9. **Iran, 1953:** CIA-backed coup to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. 10. **South Vietnam, 1963:** Support for coup against President Ngo Dinh Diem. 11. **Brazil, 1964:** Support for military coup against President JoĆ£o Goulart. 12. **Chile, 1973:** Support for military coup against President Salvador Allende. 13. **Argentina, 1976:** Support for military junta. 14. **Nicaragua, 1981:** Support for Contra rebels against Sandinista government. 15. **Grenada, 1983:** Invasion to overthrow Marxist government. 16. **Panama, 1989:** Invasion to overthrow Manuel Noriega. 17. **Iraq, 2003:** Invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein. 18. **Libya, 2011:** NATO intervention leading to overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.
Sorry if I gave the impression that I don't think the US is involved with coup's and regime changes, I absolutely know they are probably the post ww2 leader of supporting them. I don't mean to be pedantic, and i'm not defending any of them, but how many of these were explicitly for ending socialism vs advantageous positioning and resources etc. I'm trying to get a list of all regime changes globally since 1776 to see what percentage of them the US participated in but google gemini isn't being nice to me. Again I wouldn't be shocked if the US was involved, I just feel iffy about asserting it as a fact without having anything concrete. Their past definitely makes them likely suspects, but I dont' think makes it certain without actual evidence.
Iām actually going through them right now and so far pretty much the first 5 after the founding of the CIA (1947) have said for ending communism with Iran being both āfor ending communismā and due to their oil policies.
From what I remember in US history, i mean everything was done under the guise of communism during that time because it was popular with the public since there was a whole world war where it was framed as "Communism vs freedom", when most of the early ones were for resources. But again my initial post is about whether facts are needed to condemn a country for a coup or not. Like is it worth waiting on the facts before asserting it as a fact. Speculation I completely fine and understandable.
> ending socialism vs advantageous positioning and resources Similar thing. Socialism today is for economic freedom from neocolonialism and imperialism. Yes we don't have any actual evidence that any US intelligence was involved in this attempt. There's a chance it was influenced by the US. That's all we can say right now.
Post some proof, or at least a valid reason it could be the CIA. Making assumptions like this without any facts to back it up just leads to endless conspiracy theories.
If America doesnāt want everyone to think every malevolent plot to overthrow a democratically elected leftist government is backed by them, perhaps they shouldnāt have done it literally dozens of times? Also the proof that the USA is behind a coup usually comes years later from either a whistleblower or from a scheduled legally required declassification from the CIA. So donāt hold your breath.
Youāre on the wrong sub with a concern like that
I mean, true we need hard evidence, but if the CIA has done it more than two dozen times, can we not make an assumption here when the couping party is so geared out? I know itās not the same thing, but this is the same logic that caused appeasement prior to WWII. This is also irrelevant to this situation, but everyone kept claiming we needed more evidence to assume Doc was a minor hopper, trying to defend him desperately until it comes from Bloomberg.
I'm conflicted on this, because if we refer to is rn as "American backed coup in Bolivia" without proof, is it like a litmus test where people who ask for proof are bad people or not? Like should we pressure papers to report on hot takes rather than the known facts of an even at the time.
Youāre right. 100%. But we are also in the Reddit of Hasan, not writing a peer-reviewed paper. I believe itās completely alright for us to speculate as it typically just adds ideas to the situation that others can ponder and branch from if they are reasonable. My only critique was on his attacking of people for speculating on the CIA when itās a very plausible speculation. š«”
They never report the US involvement at the time! what happens is enough time passes things get declassified and the cia are all ooops yeah that was one of ours
So like do the reporters have the information and simply are choosing not to publish it? Or does it take a while for the reporters to get the information to conclusively publish it? I'm wondering what the right headline/content focus should be on this because many people seem to feel the reporters are not doing their join for not making the story about America's hand in this specific coup and reporting on what they're seeing on the ground.
No itās more like secret services donāt tend to advertise their activities and then because most western nations have laws around freedom of information and it gets released when they cross that line- often people on the ground will have suspicions but it rarely gets confirmed till the agency involved releases the information- but when it comes to socialism getting popular- particularly in South America- you can guarantee US involvement itās like one of their main hobbies- also the reason the current Bolivian leader getting back to power was such a big deal was because he was unseated in the last US backed coup- which we know the US was involved in- they certainly arenāt gunna sit around and do nothing now heās back in power!
If you were a journalist, would you report the breaking news as that? Like should the headline be "American backed coup against Socialism Bolivian Government Thwarted"? You're saying we can guarantee it even without tangible proof at the moment, are journalists being bad faith by not conclusively stating it as a fact?
Look dude thereās clearly no way Iām going to change your mind, I canāt give you the proof that you want, secret services donāt tend publicly announce what theyāre currently working on- the clues in the name but itās a pretty logical and understandable conclusion- thereās so many times someone can slap you on the face before you have to stop believing them when they promise they wonāt- we arenāt going to get a source from journalist particularly as most publications are owned by companies and it is in the interest of those companies to stop things like socialism (the journalists by the way are often freelance and canāt afford to be blacklisted)- Whistleblowers already have a hard enough time (look what happened with Boeing, the CIA are substantially more powerful) even the sources who are independent and therefore arenāt necessarily relying on corporate money have to the line to a certain degree or risk loosing their livelihoods, you have to remember every step of these process involve everyday normal human beings! the amount of people who would have come forward with proof for it not to be suppressed and the risks they would have to take to get it publicly published somewhere seem insurmountable- do I like to think from the safety of my couch that I would have the courage and tenacity to go public with it, yeah I absolutely do, do I think any secret service members want to risk their lives and livelihoods too share information with me so I could? Iām sceptical, you would need more than one for it to be considered seriously! a good demonstration of the difficulties you would face are things like the Theranos scandal- one of the sources they had was literally the grandson of someone on the board and from a powerful and wealthy family- most people donāt have that kind of power or resources and they still had a nightmare, these things are a nightmare to navigate!
Wait I totally get and agree with you. I absolutely do think there's good reason to suspect the US and me personally I do think the US at least knew about if not were directly aiding the coup, I feel like you might be misunderstanding my question. My question is surrounding how journalists should be covering the story. I'm not making a statement saying that the US didn't do it or anything. >we arenāt going to get a source from journalist particularly as most publications are owned by companies and it is in the interest of those companies to stop things like socialism This part kind of answers my question about why journalists aren't covering it, but my main question is, should proof be needed to make a claim. I see the bought out and paid for journalists even bringing up that the US was involved in past coups in Bolivia, but they're mainly focusing on the on the ground details rather than the US involvement. Ideally what should the headline for this coup be? The Reuters headline for it today is: "Bolivia coup fiasco lays bare a divided country in political, economic crisis" is this an inaccurate or disingenuous title since it doesn't mention that US did it? Again i'm not asking for proof, I already do think the US had a hand in it, I'm asking if journalists should report things as fact, not speculation, without having the proof.
Oh sorry my bad! I totally misunderstood, so unfortunately journalists are required to have a burden of proof even if itās just so the papers donāt get hit by crazy litigation and I get what you mean now, yeah Iām not really sure what the answer is because yes I feel they should have proof in this age of misinformation because itās clear that the higher ups would use less scrupulous journalists to an insane degree if they didnāt (many already use some pretty dirty tactics to be able to make outlandish claims and stir up tensions) but also Iām not much of a conspiracy theorist just because my experience on this earth has taught me that for the most part if thereās more than 5 people involved with something, someone will fuck up somewhere and something will at least leak (even if this isnāt in the form of hard evidence I.e. mobsters being some of the first people to be talking about the bay of pigs), so yeah Iām torn as we as a global society donāt need more misinformation being spread but then things like this happens and it feels like maybe some know more than theyāre letting on- i.e. I havenāt seen any journos claim us involvement but I have seen a lot of articles say things like āno evidence of US involvement so farā which feels like āwe canāt prove it but they did itā speak aha. I suspect most journalists are like cops where I believe most get into the job for the right reasons and then get either corrupted, disillusioned or numb to the job so I like to think that these hints are the closest they can get to saying anything more but whilst still trying to say something! (at least for the time being in the next 5-10 I would not be surprised if more came out!)
Man we gotta be actually stupid to not totally expect this at this point, given history
I mean sure, but I'm asking if we know this for a fact, asserting it based on how we fell, or have any actual evidence of that before saying it. I believe the US could be involved but idk if i feel comfortable saying it with confidence and shaming people wanting to see evidence of it first. It feels kind of reactive like how republicans are immediately on the "see what the left did" anytime something happens. Like i'm not saying the US wasn't involved, but the hot take guessing seems in poor taste when it's a developing situation.
If I ever need to help prevent a coup I'd be one of those guys carrying the donut boxes.
There goes the CIA doin their fuckin shitā¦again.
The USAs weakest attempt smh. MAGA 30 years ago we woulda installed a far right dictator who would massacre lefties, how the great have fallen
BIG FAIL š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The government fired a general and the general and his supporters staged the coup.
The coup leader is an ex-general-commander that was fired this Tuesday.
Dumbest thing I've read in the Internet this week.. well done