The glaring inconsistency lies in the fact that terrorists are not states against which one can wage war. This means that there are no regular armies fighting each other, but only one (usually vastly superior) army that arbitrarily decides which targets to attack and who to kill, which is not warfare, but the killing of arbitrary targets with arbitrary justification. This fundamentally flawed thinking was normalized during the occupation of Afghanistan under this pretext. It means nothing more than the right of the stronger party to do whatever it wants because it is supposedly fighting evil, which does not wear uniforms but hides among the civilian population, who are thus always under general suspicion of also being terrorists.
You say it’s okay when the US does it, but when anyone else does it, it’s an atrocity? You also say that the extreme disproportion between the victims of such an asymmetrical conflict would be acceptable. You do realize that Russia is justifying its invasion of Ukraine in the same way, right? And you really don’t see how absurd that is?
The only thing that could possibly top that is claiming that a country has weapons of mass destruction in order to destroy it, even though that country has no weapons of mass destruction at all - remember that US invasion? What I’m getting at is this: finding reasons for war that obscure the true intentions and coming up with justifications for extremely brutal actions is a specialty of the US. Another current example: the cold blooded murder of Venezuelan citizens in violation of international law – this time not on the grounds that they were allegedly terrorists, but on the grounds that they were allegedly drug dealers.
And yet you sat there and accused the OC of saying that the killing of ‘terrorists’ was justified and 9/11 was not. You either believe awful shit or you need to take more time to articulate yourself beyond just emotionally vomiting on the keyboard.
Yes, I think the US’s response after 9/11 was fundamentally wrong. Incidentally, that was the first and only NATO alliance case in history btw (under Article 5). Now, however, the situation is completely different: the US regime has alienated all its allies and now finds itself completely alone, and rightly so. I cannot understand how anyone can still approve of the past misdeeds of a corrupt government when you are actually ruled by organized crime -in person, even by an obvious pedophile whose terrible crimes are also very obviously covered up by your system, and even made possible by that very system in the first place. If you believe that it is still possible for the US to sell itself as “the good guys,” you are completely wrong. Your orange head of state has made sure of that. So please spare me this bullshit. No one but you believes that anymore. And you shouldn’t believe it either, because it goes against your interests if you are not a billionair.
Accusing me of somehow being on the same intellectual level as MAGA supporters is surely not one of them. And the fact that you have nothing to reply to my comment but remain on your opinion just as MAGA folk would do is surely just a coincidence.
The glaring inconsistency lies in the fact that terrorists are not states against which one can wage war. This means that there are no regular armies fighting each other, but only one (usually vastly superior) army that arbitrarily decides which targets to attack and who to kill, which is not warfare, but the killing of arbitrary targets with arbitrary justification. This fundamentally flawed thinking was normalized during the occupation of Afghanistan under this pretext. It means nothing more than the right of the stronger party to do whatever it wants because it is supposedly fighting evil, which does not wear uniforms but hides among the civilian population, who are thus always under general suspicion of also being terrorists.
You say it’s okay when the US does it, but when anyone else does it, it’s an atrocity? You also say that the extreme disproportion between the victims of such an asymmetrical conflict would be acceptable. You do realize that Russia is justifying its invasion of Ukraine in the same way, right? And you really don’t see how absurd that is?
The only thing that could possibly top that is claiming that a country has weapons of mass destruction in order to destroy it, even though that country has no weapons of mass destruction at all - remember that US invasion? What I’m getting at is this: finding reasons for war that obscure the true intentions and coming up with justifications for extremely brutal actions is a specialty of the US. Another current example: the cold blooded murder of Venezuelan citizens in violation of international law – this time not on the grounds that they were allegedly terrorists, but on the grounds that they were allegedly drug dealers.
Uh, no. I’m not. Learn to read.
You’re speaking to someone that likely thinks 9/11 was justified.
There is no speaking nuance to someone like this, very similarly to your average MAGAt.
Leftist try not to defend atrocities committed against America and its allies challenge (very difficult)
You couldn’t be more wrong.
And yet you sat there and accused the OC of saying that the killing of ‘terrorists’ was justified and 9/11 was not. You either believe awful shit or you need to take more time to articulate yourself beyond just emotionally vomiting on the keyboard.
Yes, I think the US’s response after 9/11 was fundamentally wrong. Incidentally, that was the first and only NATO alliance case in history btw (under Article 5). Now, however, the situation is completely different: the US regime has alienated all its allies and now finds itself completely alone, and rightly so. I cannot understand how anyone can still approve of the past misdeeds of a corrupt government when you are actually ruled by organized crime -in person, even by an obvious pedophile whose terrible crimes are also very obviously covered up by your system, and even made possible by that very system in the first place. If you believe that it is still possible for the US to sell itself as “the good guys,” you are completely wrong. Your orange head of state has made sure of that. So please spare me this bullshit. No one but you believes that anymore. And you shouldn’t believe it either, because it goes against your interests if you are not a billionair.
Ok dude, repeat after me:
Two wrongs does not make a right. Both things can be wrong.
You seem to have missed this point entirely in favor of going on a tirade. I’m thinking my worst suspicions have been confirmed.
What is your point?
Accusing me of somehow being on the same intellectual level as MAGA supporters is surely not one of them. And the fact that you have nothing to reply to my comment but remain on your opinion just as MAGA folk would do is surely just a coincidence.
No no, keep proving how you’re much different from MAGA by going to a complete opposite extreme. I’m sure this will be productive.