guy

I liked the new one. “We have peace, why prepare for war?”

One of these is potentially dangerous to others, and how do you not “recognize” your currency? Do you pay for food and utilities with wolfskin and eggs?

Sadly, that is sometimes via regime fall.

Which is kinda weird since they’re all NATO buddies with Turkey. Friend of a friend?

You sure about them not wanting to hold territory?
I can imagine the Turks keeping the “safety zone”, not to annex as a part of Turkey, but keep subdued to make sure the Kurds don’t try to come back

Not just nuclear forces, boss for all ABC-troops

Oh yes, but did it stretch outside the apartment? 😄

Insanity, imagine how extraordinary long the telephone cord have to be

Borrow then buy is the way

I don’t understand your logic at all. Being anti-terrorism is not equal to being pro-genocide and vice versa.
It isn’t a black and white world and taking a stance doesn’t require sith lord reasoning.

Saying that you condemn both assault and murder doesn’t make one worse and the other less so. It’s a simple acknowledgement of wrong acts being wrong which is perfectly fine.

But it doesn’t. It perfectly fine to say Hamas terrorist attacks are wrong and at the same town saying the Israeli genocide is wrong.

The problem is that when Russia bombs a children’s hospital and it’s pointed out as a war crime, there’s always some schmuck saying “Oh yeah?! But the US is responsible for hundreds of thousand dead civilians in Afghanistan!”
And yes, that is fucking heineous but it doesn’t make leveling a hospital less severe. 🙄

A bad is a bad.

Not very no. I’m probably not a polical anomaly of any kind, but some of my acquaintances might be surprised as I’m usually attributed to more extreme beliefs by those who don’t know me as well.
Can’t understand why since my voiced opinions aren’t different than what the majority holds.

The whole point is to condemn evil whatever the intensity, scale or who is responsible.
But somehow it always comes to a comparison of evilness (obviously always the US) which somehow excuses (mostly Chinese or Russian) atrocities. And that is the issue.

Incorrect conclusions about bad actions being bad no matter who does it?

Why not just change it to “imperialism is bad” lmao
Unless there’s some good imperialism somewhere…

Exactly! :)

Nazis executing civilians is bad. Partisans executing civilians is bad. A bad action is bad no matter the intention.
Insert some quote about how the history is filled with good intentions.

Tell the ‘unlawful’ killed that it’s ok, it was a growing power who haven’t attacked someone for a long time and just tries to lift your country out of poverty that bombed you to bits not the cashking warmongerer, and see if they agree with your reasoning.

See, that’s the issue.
Pointing at state A and saying it’s bad invokes the response “Well B is by far more bad, if you look at contextualized extent, impact, and level of badness!” thus down playing the bad state A has done.

It’s like, A hit X with a fist, but B hit Y with a bat, twice and on the shins, so what A did isn’t so bad actually. Instead of just admitting hitting is wrong.

Seems like this post is about you! :)

I think the point is that both are bad. But somehow it always ends up with a competition where the US is more bad than the rest, and the rest is therefore somehow excused when .ml is involved