robinnn [he/him]

like “NATO is inherently escalatory”, with no further explanation on why banding together against an aggressor to preserve everyone’s peace is somehow “escalation” while publicly plotting attacks against all your European neighbours

Operation Gladio (support for Nazis and other far-right groups in Turkey, West Germany, Greece, etc., use of false-flag terrorism and propaganda to rig elections in Italy to prevent the rise of communist countries that would align with the Soviets), Libya (bombing of innocents and destruction of the country, support for racist mercenaries who later brought back the open slave trade), participation in the brutal imperialist bombing of Afghanistan, this is the history of NATO’s “preservation of peace.” NATO is an organization created to maintain Western supremacy, and to act like it’s simply a “defensive alliance” “banding together against an aggressor” is fundamentally dishonest nonsense. Who is not thinking (let alone critically)?

As others in the comments have shown, Angela Merkel already admitted peace agreements were made to stall and arm Ukraine against Russia, so who is “publicly plotting attacks against European neighbors”?

When were they damaging paintings prior?

You’re a fucking idiot, and show us your haircut

“No longer”?

Woah so sigma

Man, why are there so many Nazis in Ukraine?

The same way Ukraine forgot to ask the families of Jewish people killed in the Holocaust if they could put up statues and monuments commemorating Nazi collaborators including OUN members who participated in carrying out the Holocaust?

Ukraine is bombing the country that invaded them

Wait Russia invaded Ukraine? Why would they do that? And Ukrainian bombing came second, right, and the invasion first?

:)

Reading the rules very loudly in front of everyone to let them know the evil person is breaking them (I won’t do anything about it).

Holy corny nonsense

If your country was suddenly invaded and had 1200 mostly civilian, including women and children gunned down in one of your cities, including shooting up a concert, and your country had the means to stop it from happening again, would they?

Ignoring that your country is a settler-colony built upon the land of the displaced people resisting, and that this concert was right next to the fence of a concentration camp housing the repressed native population, that Hamas exists because of Israel, and that Israel’s own helicopters shot up the crowds and their own forces blew up houses killing many of the total, and everything else, I hate this framing.

So that’s the reason. Isreal was attacked with no regard by a country that ran by a group of people after the goal of completely eliminating Isreals existence.

“It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people.

Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? …the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there”

— Uri Elitzur, former chief of staff and advisor to PM Benjamin Netanyahu; shared by Ayelet Shaked, Israel’s Minister of Justice (2015-2019) and Minister of Interior (2021-2022), in 2015

Read up on the open admissions of Israeli leaders and Zionists. Israel itself exists as a country by eradicating the native population and it will continue to do so to its ability.

But what would you feel your country would be justified to do if they were invaded by surprise like that? Would they make sure it couldn’t happen again? Would you feel it was justified? It may not be a clear yes or no answer, or where a line should be drawn.

If my country were a brutal genocidal state built on the repression of the native population? I’m not denying the Zionist entity is doing everything to keep their state afloat and expand it; their motives are not unknown. But to put me in their shoes as if that justifies anything is ridiculous nonsense that could be applied to numerous scenarios you wouldn’t like.

The term “civilian” has been actively stripped of all meaning when people willfully occupying native land and displacing the population as those natives are slaughtered are included.

Even ignoring that these people are mandatorily required to serve in the IOF, there are very few settler-colonial civilians (children, others without agency, and anyways these civilians are only here by the will of the settlers). It’s ridiculous to equate Palestinian civilians with “Israelis” not actively in the IOF when the latter chooses to occupy Palestinian land and displace the natives in the brutal practice that is settler-colonialism.

Imperialist puppet vetoes fundamentally correct law

Are we not talking about how American leaders are ignoring climate change?

“The Department of State fully recognizes that it may be necessary at some stage for the United States to take military action if [Taiwan] is to be denied to the communists… Such intervention should be publicly based not on obvious American strategic interests but on principles which are likely to have support in the international community, mainly the principle of self-determination of the [Taiwanese] people” — “Memorandum by the Acting Secretary of State to President Truman”

China claims democratically governed Taiwan as its own territory, which the island strongly rejects.

The UN and even the United States also formally recognize Taiwan as a part of the PRC.* There are only a few small countries that recognize Taiwan as a separate entity, and not just a separate entity—there is no “Taiwan” when it comes to governance, but the “Republic of China” with claims to roughly the same territory as the PRC (Reuters acts especially egregiously when they talk about “Taiwan’s navy chief” rather than the chief of the ROC Navy), and so you cannot recognize the governance of Taiwan and the PRC but must accept one over the other, and the PRC has proven its legitimacy at every turn. That’s why this is never mentioned. The West wants a story of China encroaching on an innocent foreign country and the valiant defense of this country by the West.

*They admit this later and allude to the PRC/ROC conflict, and yet write:

Washington[…] is bound by law to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself and is the island’s most important international backer

Bound by what law? The Taiwan Relations Act passed by US Congress? The article should read: Washington is bound by their own law to provide Taiwan…" It’s like how US leaders constantly talk about the obligation of American leadership in the world as if it wasn’t them that created this “obligation.” Genuine nonsense. For contradictions:

First there’s their word (although it’s been established that the word of the US means nothing): “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan.”

And second, their signing of the Cairo Declaration (and Potsdam Proclamation which reaffirms this) in which the U.S. and U.K. (and the Soviet Union) recognized that Japan had “stolen from the Chinese" areas including Taiwan, and agreed to ensure that it was liberated and returned to its former status within China—this is also, some would argue, their word and not legally binding, although the US would still have gone back on their word (in this case with the flourish of a signature).

Taipei says the Chinese territorial claims are void as the People’s Republic of China has never governed the island.

This is just tautological drivel.