Ah, the classic thought terminators. Add eating babies and pets next while you’re just saying shit. But while we’re on the subject of atrocity: do you think nazis might do those things? To, let’s say roughly 13,000 people in eastern Ukraine? Someone should probably intervene in a situation like that, don’t you think?
None of these mention rape, we all know you just threw that one in there to bolster your “the enemy is animals who cannot be reasoned with” claim. Same as Israel did with Hamas: pretend the other side is made of of mindless monsters so that anything your side does, no matter how fascist, is part of an existential struggle and therefore totally justified.
I appreciate the olive branch, but this is a thought-terminating cliche that serves to obscure understanding rather than advance it. What does wrong mean in the context of a war? A war is the end result of a series of actions and reactions that have no relation to what we think of as right or wrong. When two chemicals react violently with each other, which one is “wrong”?
All I am saying is, you don’t have to pick a side and defend their actions. Which you so often see in comments. “Well this is justified because they did X”
You can and should be critical of both sides.
Both have the power to stop the bloodshed.
Well you see, killing a head of state typically invokes a response, and may itself be seen as “fucking around”
More serious than invading their country, kidnapping their children, and raping their women?
Ah, the classic thought terminators. Add eating babies and pets next while you’re just saying shit. But while we’re on the subject of atrocity: do you think nazis might do those things? To, let’s say roughly 13,000 people in eastern Ukraine? Someone should probably intervene in a situation like that, don’t you think?
deleted by creator
Oh so you’re saying they’ll start eating babies and pets too if they try to strike Putin’s house. Ok got it.
“Independent Legal Analysis of the Russian Federation’s Breaches of the Genocide Convention in Ukraine and the Duty to Prevent”
‘Знищують за те, що українці’. Правники та дипломати наголошують на геноциді в Бучі, " They are being destroyed because they are Ukrainians"
“Russia’s Bucha ‘Facts’ Versus the Evidence”
“Russia/Ukraine: Invasion of Ukraine is an act of aggression and human rights catastrophe”
“War crimes, indiscriminate attacks on infrastructure, systematic and widespread torture show disregard for civilians, says UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine”
None of these mention rape, we all know you just threw that one in there to bolster your “the enemy is animals who cannot be reasoned with” claim. Same as Israel did with Hamas: pretend the other side is made of of mindless monsters so that anything your side does, no matter how fascist, is part of an existential struggle and therefore totally justified.
Chill both sides can be wrong, that is normally the case in war.
I appreciate the olive branch, but this is a thought-terminating cliche that serves to obscure understanding rather than advance it. What does wrong mean in the context of a war? A war is the end result of a series of actions and reactions that have no relation to what we think of as right or wrong. When two chemicals react violently with each other, which one is “wrong”?
All I am saying is, you don’t have to pick a side and defend their actions. Which you so often see in comments. “Well this is justified because they did X” You can and should be critical of both sides. Both have the power to stop the bloodshed.