Never said NATO goes against international law, and i’m no specialist on the matter. Responding to attacks is indeed different from “pre-emptive strikes” which would be the “warmonger bs” i was talking about. I dont know if its pre-emptive or not, still hasnt read the article, only the tagline.
Defend doesn’t mean steal them in return. I hate seeing this confusion between “defending” and “attacking”. A way more fair comparison, whefe you could still defend “attack” while still making sense to only “defend” is : when someone strikes you, do you strike back? Though, as others corrected me, i thought this article was about actual strikes, not cyberfuckery. I admit it kinda applies less here, and my point was about general warmongering i hear about, and not this article.
Did not read it, thx for bringing this to my attention. With all the bs france military fuckers are saying about war, i just assumed it was the same. You can consider my point invalidated there.
Oh yes, Russia is far ahead on warmongering. Fuck their leaders and their military. But because someone does incredible evil shit does not mean you can start doing same kind of shit without being treated as such.
Well that was what happened during Cold War, and anyway it should not legitimate replying to cybershit with army strikes. Fuck Russia military ofc, but also fuck my country military spreading war talks
Sure in cold war, not in open war, which preemptive strikes seems to be.
That’s warmonger bullshit, do the first step in love, not in war Edit : did not read the article, thought it was about actual military strikes.
I didnt know but that’s the first Mickey7 post that i see that only checks the boomer vibes and not the gross or sexist ones, and i’m really impressed!
While i see the theoretical point of “if bad happens to men, it should happen to women too”, i don’t think it applies to heavily bad situations, especially with all the bad things already happening in disadvantage of women, and also especially war and especially from a pacifist perspective. Like no one says “if more women are raped than men, we should rape more men to make it fair”. I know it’s not the same situation its just a abusive comparison to strongly show the pertinence of a stance like “even if it’s not fair, the most people we can get out of horrible situations the better it is”.
I’ve been using makertube.net as a non-posting user for now, and they say they are open for new content creators, though it requires contacting them. I don’t know if it is one of those that remain silent, but i’ve seen quite a bunch of creators on it.
I had no idea who this man is, and reading facts about his life make it look like a bard backstory in DnD
Am i the only one to get a post content that has nothing to do with the headline or the article, or is it a known fact that these posts are sometimes messed up? I see no one talking about it
Shame that it comes to more weapons. Glad France can provide radars and defensive systems though, that’s a very good thing.
Well, that’s precisely the point of view i dislike (which was not the pov of the article actually, it seems). Though the logic behind it is clear, though the legitimacy of self defense makes sense, especially in this case, and especially in the cyberconflict going on, and though i appreciate your straight to the point explanation, i still think that in the case of armed preemptive strikes (and not cyberattacks as in the article), it only makes sense from the point of view of country versus country, and not of peoples governed by more or less autocratic leaders. If your goal is for one side to prevail, then sure, striking first can make sense. If your goal is for the less civilians to get hurt, no matter their side, then it’s way less clear. Striking first could then be a less bad option, if it leads to less violence in the end, but i cannot see it being the best option.