My whataboutismeter is overloading, stop.
People who genuinely believe that invoking the word 'whataboutism' is a serious argument, or that what they call 'whataboutism' (i.e. pointing out hypocrisy) is a fallacy are silly.
My whataboutismeter is overloading, stop.
People who genuinely believe that invoking the word 'whataboutism' is a serious argument, or that what they call 'whataboutism' (i.e. pointing out hypocrisy) is a fallacy are silly.
While you're here, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions:
What do you propose a state do when the most prolific invader in the world tries to amass military personnel and weapons on its border, especially by doing a coup against a neighbouring state.
What criticism of Russia do you have that doesn't apply to the polities that you support?
Weird how you never propose to ban NATO's news platforms. Only the platforms of your empire's designated enemies.
You are proving my point - you can't actually say anything bad about him (without exposing your hipocrisy), and you can't provide an alternative course of action for Russia. You only say that you can.
I invite you to prove me wrong.
Go talk to some people living in moscow if you feel so strongly
What should I ask them? And why specifically Moscow and not, say, Crimea, or the Far East?
It's kind of silly how you people keep complaining about Putin while not being to say anything bad about him (other than what applies to the polities you support).
On that note, I do wonder what you think a state should do when the most prolific invader brings weapons to its borders to attack it, especially when accompanied by attempting coups against its neighbours.
You were trying to excuse a USSian invader going around orders in order to fire explosives at civilians in the comment I replied to:
They shouldn't be there obviously but it's a little different don't you think?
He was a guard at Abu Ghraib, so he was already known for doing what you claim to be unforgivable when western liberals were saying how he should be rewarded with a high position in the most vile state in existence.
If afterwards he says he shouldn't have been there and done that
He says it was an 'excellent experience'. He considered the 'experience' to be good enough to sign up several more times, including as a mercenary, and to then brag about it.
is anti Israel
Well, he isn't. He's even friends with zionists.
and his opponents are pro Israel and in the case of Susan Collins literally voted to send his ass and all the other thousands of troops there
She didn't force him to sign up even once, let alone several times.
He also isn't any better in terms of policies - he wants to strengthen the military.
My reaction is he wasn't killing civilians for his own kicks
He has literally said that he had fun doing it and bragged about it.
He said he was firing at enemy mortar positions. You know, people shooting at them
Him having such enemies is a direct and very expected consequence of him signing up to torture, kill, and otherwise subjugate the people of Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times.
The only way you can think he had any right to retaliate in general is if you think that repeatedly signing up to torture, kill, and otherwise subjugate the people of Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times is perfectly okay.
It's not unreasonable to see a guy who comes away from the military saying "Hey this is bad and we shouldn't do it"
He didn't do that. He bragged about his atrocities as an 'excellent experience'.
Why are you still trying to pretend that he showed any sort of remorse?
Weirdly enough, you don't make such protestations against your empire's propaganda.
Quick question - do you support NATO (including Ukraine) in the war in Ukraine?