[trimethylpurine]

This is because civil rights are a Western ideology. They certainly didn't come from ISIS' views on women. Nor from Russia and China, who supported them.

Snowden defected to Russia, see above about supporting ISIS. Assange and Manning's exposure literally cost the lives of Afghan families who were working against AQ, another regime that openly oppresses its people's civil rights.

I think you might need to have a hard look at what you think peace is.

So far, the most civil rights a person can experience is under Western governance, flawed as it is.

[user3939382]

> Snowden defected to Russia

To add context, Snowden became trapped in Russia when the US State Department decided to cancel his passport while he was at an airport there on the way out of Russia.

> Assange and Manning's exposure literally cost the lives of Afghan families

Exposure like the footage they revealed of US drones killing innocent civilians?

> The U.S. post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of September 2021, an estimated 432,093 civilians in these countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars.

Right, Assange is the problem, not the US military operations he exposed.

[trimethylpurine]

>Right, Assange is the problem, not the US military operations he exposed.

It's only clear that civilians were intentionally targeted by ISIS and AQ. It's also true that civilians who opposed Western military forces were killed. That's expected, because opposing a military force is an official enlistment.

Assange is the problem. You don't get a peace prize for aiding in civil rights oppression.

[muniq]

The Soviet Union provided more material support against colonialism and apartheid than the United States. Ask Mandela.

[trimethylpurine]

That might be true, but it's largely irrelevant. When SA embraced civil rights, it became Western.

[AnonCoward42]

> This is because civil rights are a Western ideology. They certainly didn't come from ISIS' views on women. Nor from Russia and China, who supported them.

How do you come to the conclusion that Russia and China support ISIS?

[trimethylpurine]

The insurgency was armed with Russian and Chinese equipment that was given to Iraq between 2003 and 2009.

You can read about the Iraqi Insurgency for more information.

But more generally, US, China, Russia have all been fighting/arming proxy wars over there for around 50 years.

[AnonCoward42]

They "use the equipment" and actual support are not the same. Did they arm ISIS directly or did the weapons end up there a different way?

> But more generally, US, China, Russia have all been fighting/arming proxy wars over there for around 50 years.

But supporting terrorist groups is not something Russia nor China does on this level.

[trimethylpurine]

Yes, they armed them directly.

Yes they supported terrorist groups. As did the US. No one is innocent. But the US has always supported democracy and civil rights. That includes civil rights activism deemed "terrorist" by China and Russia.

The West represents civil rights. That's just as fact. Ask yourself, are people enjoying civil rights in China or Russia living with a quality of life far below Western nations? Obviously not.

[AnonCoward42]

> Yes, they armed them directly.

Of course I want a source for that.

> Yes they supported terrorist groups. As did the US. No one is innocent.

How are "we" supposed to be better then?

> But the US has always supported democracy and civil rights. That includes civil rights activism deemed "terrorist" by China and Russia.

Al Qaida, Al Nusra, Taliban etc are civil rights activits for the US (sold as "moderate rebels" in Syria by German media at least). Of course they are deemed terrorists in other countries. I find the civil right activism of the US questionable to say the least.

> Ask yourself, are people enjoying civil rights in China or Russia living with a quality of life far below Western nations?

I ask myself if I do enjoy civil rights if I hold dissident opinions in western countries. Am I supposed to feel better that it is supposedly worse in other countries, while it's obvious that we target 3rd world country standards for human rights?

[trimethylpurine]

>Of course I want a source for that.

This makes me feel like you didn't read my replies. If you read even a little bit about the Iraqi Insurgency you wouldn't be asking for a source. It's on Wikipedia, a bunch of sources at the bottom. It's on other encyclopedia pages. Plenty of articles. Etc. I don't believe that you didn't find it.

>How are "we" supposed to be better then?

Who said anything about being better? I said the US has always supported civil rights. When the US helped AQ it was under the premise that they would support civil rights. When they didn't, the West labeled them terrorists.

>I find the civil right activism of the US questionable to say the least.

I see, but ISIS and AQ are deserving of awards in that department? That's laughable. These are groups that televise beheadings, and treat women worse than the West treats animals. And this is glamorized. Is anti civil rights behavior glamorized in the US? Of course not. The very definition of civil rights is at odds with non Western society. And that's true whether or not you believe that the US is committing acts outside those values. The point is, if it's done, then it's done in secret, which is at the least preventing its promotion in society.

>Am I supposed to feel better that it is supposedly worse in other countries...

Obviously. Less worse = better. Why would you want it to be worse? What did you mean by "supposedly?" Are you trying to sell me that AQ and ISIS treat women better than the US government treats its citizens? That's ridiculous. Does the US stone women for adultery? Jail women for showing their body? Amputate limbs for theft? You can't be seriously pushing for that to be called civil rights. Those are blatantly in opposition of civil rights. Those 100% are anti Western ideals.