It doesn’t need to be spelled out. You just keep misspelling it intentionally.
Attacking first strike detection isn’t the provocation, it’s the response. Amazing this needs to be spelled out, except we all know it doesn’t because we all know you understand perfectly well.
Russia could end it, but won’t, so who is courting nuclear war?
Which invasion mission was “self-determination” code for again?
Or Russia could stop annexing sovereign shit.
Funny to read people carrying Russia’s dirty pisswater, pretending to wring their hands in fear about a response to fucking aggression. We aren’t happening to Russia, Russia is happening to us.
Well, at the very least f’real.
Er, not too anthropomorphic, if you don’t mind.
I feel like I’m so close to understanding this community.
He could have been a troll on the internet, for example.
Thank for taking the time to write these thoughts. I found them very insightful and thought-provoking. I asked some pretty mundane questions and you have rewarded me with high effort responses a lot to think about.
It’s difficult to tell if you believe it or not because you’ve referenced it within a larger point about how much confusion there is, but it seems like you believe it enough to repeat it. If so, what about the article makes you believe it or not?
(although we should be careful not to be tricked into thinking all militants, including those giving orders, are religious extremists - reportedly Hamas’ campaign on the 7th was ordered to take hostages and not kill civilians, and that the IDF basically implemented the Hannibal Doctrine against it’s own civilians leading to significant friendly fire casualties [even as reported by an Israeli who was held hostage and later interviewed on Israeli news]; you can see how murky the waters get in a propaganda war).
Can you share some of the reporting behind this use of ‘reportedly’. I have never seen this reported before though I am admittedly not reading everything.
Thank you! Have a good one.