Sadly, that is sometimes via regime fall.
guy
joined 1 month ago
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
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..
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.
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?