Weep as a (former) Maoist-turned-Green-turned-SPD party hack surrenders his intellect calling for NATO to kick out the Russians without as much as an afterthought (to say nothing about a forethought…)
Ha! There it is, the "Russian war of aggression" (der Russische Angriffskrieg).
Here's a case with similar symptoms (in German: https://cm27874.jimdofree.com/). Joachim Gauck, former Bundespräsident and Lutheran pastor, is arguing pro war, and has of course been pro vaccine mandate.
Oh yes (and also in response, sort of, to you comment to yesterday's posting): it's part and parcel of an altogether none-too-subtle way of rendering Germany's Original Sin of starting WW2 by invading Poland (which kinda leaves the Soviets for doing the same 17 days later off the hook) as something that can be weaponised against Russia today:
See, if Russia does the same today ('der Angriffskrieg'), then Germany is fully rehabilitated for its past transgressions of the sensitive bourgeois feelings espoused so forcefully by the collective West.
Small problem is, though, that in doing so, while understandable politically, today's Germans are contradicting the special nature of their past assumed (or alleged) uniqueness of Hitler's deeds.
And that problem, while admittedly kinda small now, will cause *huge* problems further down the road: if 'Putin's War' is essentially the same as 'Hitler's War', then EITHER both are fundamentally evil and must be destroyed by all means necessary, incl. obviously suicide (but then Germany's Nazi past isn't that unique anymore) OR 'Putin's War' isn't the same as 'Hitler's War', and then all the hyperbole will be revealed as nothing more than cheap media gaslighting and, yes, propaganda.
Either way, it's a lose-lose for Germany: render Putin = Hitler, Germany's idiosyncratic post-1945 identity is gone while otherwise Berlin will lose much of what it built so carefully during the past 30 years: domination over the EU by willing prostitution of its member-states.
Be careful what you wish for, Germany.
Also: Gauck was a spectacular failure as President, but his recent stance on 'Putin's War' and the harassmant and defilement of 'the unvaccinated' is a stain on his record, if not on the conscience of this despicable pastor.
Thoughts, apart from being thankful and impressed by you doing so much work:
Knapp's text can largely be summed up as "Russia doesn't conform to our moral and societal standards so therefore we ar morally obligated to attack them", a very unmodern sentiment and the rallying cry of crusaders and jihadis and puritans of all sorts throughtout time. I much prefer people like Attila, Genghis Khan and Ragnar Lodbrok: "Those people over there have ricjes what they can't defend, so let's go tax them!" Brutally honest and upright, not the slimy smarmy contortions of right-thinking gutmenschen.
Actually, the text in taz can also be summed up, if one focuses on the bit about Putin using the cracks in the West's facade (and foundations...) to exert political pressure, as "Dolchstoss". I'm not sure Knapp would apporve of being likened to Julius Streicher, but it feels similar in style and tone, possibly even intent - the slavic nations were after all to become farmland and areas for resource exploitation once the slavs were done away with.
Now, Knapp isn't advocating that as such, nor is any german - but that is what it lookslike to Russia, an just as it is Knapp's words and emotions that are the only valid points ofreference when understanding Knapp, so is Russia's when it comes to understanding why they act the way they do. It's no use trying to understand Russia as "should behave like us but won't so they must be stupid or evil". Besides being inherently racist (or culturally racist I guess one would say nowadays) it also means any analysis will come out wrong.
Far better for the Knapps of the world if they accepted that Russia's stance is valid to Russia, if not to others, and straight out said: "We say what Russia is doing is wrong, so we are going to stop them and force them to do right according to us".
Perhaps one of the reasons for all the new-speak and doublethink is, that such statements in both press and by politicos would have quite sharp reactions from certain african, arabian, and asian nations... Problem is of course that engage in doublespeak and new-think long enough and you might just start believe in it for real.
I, too, tend to prefer integrity and honesty over disingenuity and hypocrisy.
As to Knapp's piece, well, it's perfect for those who espouse intersectional virtue-signalling (itself a form of hate, if you'd ask me), but then again: the 'stab-in-the-back' notion is excellent: I didn't think about it, but upon reading your comment, I went like 'of course!'--our Western decay and degeneracy is actually Putin's fault, which neatly absolves our Western leaders from anything even remotely smelling like 'responsibility'.
At least it's a change from the old tune of blaming "the jews".
Anyone with more than mass-media knowledge of Israel and judaism knows they are just as fractured and prone to infighting as their neighbouring tribes. Listening to other arabs, they speak about palestinians the way people spoke about gypsies 100 years ago.
My guess is "the lazy unemployed" is going to be the next big group to be the designated target in the Union, when this russian deal is forgotten and un-happened next year or so. The "useless eaters" who "destroy the planet" with their "over-consumtion".
Don't be too surprised when you see the suggestions of two-tiered general welfare, with those accepting voluntary sterilisation getting a bigger check. It fits perfectly with all the industrialist-modernist-futurist themes from the period of 1880-1930 we are currently re-living.
Remembrance--like opinions--can't obscure the fact that, under international law (via the UN Charter), these acts: preparation of aggression, conduct of a war of aggression, are illegal.
Legal niceties aside, here's the extract from the Yugoslav response:
3. Agreement was not reached because the separatist-terrorist delegation of ethnic Albanians avoided direct talks as it did not give up its separatist goals: to use autonomy as a means for establishing a "state within a state"; to secure occupation of Serbia through the implementation of the political agreement; to create an ethnically pure Kosovo-Metohija under the pretext of protecting human rights and democracy; and to secure the secession of Kosovo-Metohija from Serbia with the help of their patrons and through an international protectorate and referendum.
4. Agreement was not reached also because the Contact Group insisted on proposals nullifying the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, thus violating its own fundamental principles defined on January 29, 1999, bringing confusion to the talks through undefined procedure for the work and decision-taking, thus creating the conditions for fraud and falsifying documents that were not discussed at any time or adopted by the Contact Group as a whole. By encouraging pressures and threats of aggression on our country, it provided an incentive to separatists and terrorists, thus contributing to the creation of an atmosphere unfavorable for reaching a political agreement on resolving problems in Kosovo-Metohija in a peaceful manner.
Now, I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but the point I was trying to convey above is that listening to both sides is actually helpful. I'm not on this or the other side, rather I try to point out the hypocrisy and empty rhethoric of either side, which is prevalent as long as one listens only to one side.
Is the Serbian account all truthful? Well, in terms of the quote from Chris Clark's volume, I think it is. Would that render moot what happened in 1997-99 in Kosovo (as opposed to Srebrenica, which I didn't refer to in my piece in that particular context: the Srebrenice atrocity occurred in the context of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovia a few years earlier).
Yes, there were continuities: Serbia, much like 'Russia', was the boogeyman since at least before WWI, as so vividly recounted by Mr. Clark in his volume.
And, yes, Yugoslavia rejected the 1998 NATO demand of stationing troops on its soil, hence the attacks--which, I think, qualify quite unambiguously as 'aggression'.
The problem here, legally speaking, may be that NATO isn't a state, which renders acute the problem of NATO's status under international law (which confers the right to conduct 'war' to states, not associations of states), but that's an entirely different question, I'd argue.
P.S.: I've spoken to a lot of refugees, including family relations, but these are personal matters (i.e., of opinion), which is quite different from facts. This doesn't mean that these accounts are wrong or not fact-based, it's just that anecdotes don't (can't substitute) for the bigger picture.
in 1995 some 8000 muslims men were murdered by serbs.
in 1999 serbs complain that ethnic albanians want to create an ethnically pure Kosovo-Metohija under the pretext of protecting human rights and democracy. ( shall we read " muslim " for ethnic albanians?)
and now you are, though implicitly , " boogeyman", defending the serbs for doing so, thereby chosing sides....
that is he result of what you call " listening to both sides" ?
so the muslims, and the european states should have just forgotten about the srebrenica slaughter, and the lesson it had taught them, and wait for the serbs to create their very own " Endloesung"?
hey, i know you shot my husband and my son, but welcome back neighbour!
hey, you took and killed some 8000 people that were under our UN protection , but of course we will stay out of your way this next time!
The Srebrenica massacre was organized by a Serbian paramilitary group (you can think of them as a rough equivalent of the Azov battalion). Anyway, Yugoslavia/Serbia made some stupid moves, and it lost some wars, and it's been dealing with the consequences ever since. That said, according to "international law" (ha!), it had every right to protect its own territory. That's what the Russian elites thought. They were wrong. They have since woken up, and what we see in the Ukraine is one consequence of their awakening. In international politics, might makes right. It's all about what you can get away with. Quite a lot of Europeans have yet to realize this, and by the time they do, they are likely to be a lot poorer than they were before.
On that note... You sometimes read that Nazi Germany was defeated because it was "evil." Bullcrap. It was defeated because it bothered two of its rival empires badly enough that they formed a strategic alliance against it and jointly defeated it (granted, one of those two empires, namely the USSR, contributed a lot more than the other). And then once they defeated it, the alliance between those two empires was quickly dismantled, and they proceeded to fight half a century of Cold War. Then one of the rivals collapsed under its own weight, which left the other one free to do more or less as it pleased (the bombing of Yugoslavia being just one of its many adventures), without suffering any serious consequences. But history never sleeps. Now the American empire is faced with two rival empires (Russia and China), and it's stupidly pushed them to form a strategic alliance against it. How long will that alliance last? Until the American empire collapses, I would imagine. And then what? ::shrug:: History never sleeps. Maybe they'll go to war (hot or cold) against each other after that. I'm likely to be dead by then.
And Europe? Well, when historians write about this period a century or two from now, Germany and its minor allies are likely to be relegated to footnotes.
You're welcome to tell stories to yourself. I can tell you one thing, though: Russians aren't going to go cold or hungry this winter.
Europe's problem is that it hasn't quite figured out just how irrelevant it's become. It's made up of former empires, which haven't yet figured out that they have to be *very* careful whom they make enemies with, because that's what their prosperity depends on. Sadly, too many Europeans are idealists, and so Europe will pay a price. I see little prospect for benefits.
Serbia had no plans to kill off the Albanian population. That's in your head.
It's possible that Mladic called himself a supreme commander of the Serbs or something like that (I'd have to check; people call themselves all sorts of things), but no, he was definitely not the head of Yugoslav army. He was greatly respected by a great many Serbs, though (just as Azov is greatly respected by a great many Ukrainians), which is why it was politically difficult to extradite him.
Story has it that Milosevic was furious when he heard about Srebrenica. I can easily believe that: I'm no fan of Milosevic, but that massacre was certainly not in his interest, and he didn't order it.
Epimetheus: "The problem here, legally speaking, may be that NATO isn't a state, which renders acute the problem of NATO's status under international law (which confers the right to conduct 'war' to states, not associations of states), but that's an entirely different question, I'd argue."
Ah, dear Epimetheus, law is irrelevant in international affairs. The big and powerful do as they like, and the weak accommodate them or suffer the consequences. That's the way it is, and that's the way it's always been.
As I see it, the most important consequence of the NATO bombing campaign in what was then Yugoslavia is that it finally woke Russia up from its difficult-to-explain slumber. For a brief period after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian elites bought into faery tales about law and liberalism and yadda-yadda-yadda. And then they woke up. And they have not gone back to sleep. Some Europeans still believe the story, but that's largely to their (our) own detriment.
"X did Y to Z, so therefore we may use any and all measures against X"
Because there are quite a few historical examples of that, as I'm sure you well know. Say the attack on Charlie Hebdo for instance, or Bataclan. The christian french besmirhed the prohpet of islam, thus in the eyes of 2 000 000 000 moslems justifiying the attacks.
Serbian militia committed atrocities. Which was your initial point as to the right of the US to give Serbia the option of unconditional surrender of all national sovereignity (go on the web, look up the actual text of the "agreement" offered) or get bombed.
Want a list of other atrocities not leading to anything but business-deals with the perpetrators?
And as for those rules, I agree in full. But you don't know the real rules.
Here's another (tactical) rule: do your level best to stay out of conflicts that you are unlikely to win. And don't do someone else's fighting for them unless you've carefully determined that it's in *your* best interest to do so, and that you're likely to win.
Those are some rules that EUrocrats haven't learned. EUrocrats are not very bright (to put it politely).
Ha! There it is, the "Russian war of aggression" (der Russische Angriffskrieg).
Here's a case with similar symptoms (in German: https://cm27874.jimdofree.com/). Joachim Gauck, former Bundespräsident and Lutheran pastor, is arguing pro war, and has of course been pro vaccine mandate.
Oh yes (and also in response, sort of, to you comment to yesterday's posting): it's part and parcel of an altogether none-too-subtle way of rendering Germany's Original Sin of starting WW2 by invading Poland (which kinda leaves the Soviets for doing the same 17 days later off the hook) as something that can be weaponised against Russia today:
See, if Russia does the same today ('der Angriffskrieg'), then Germany is fully rehabilitated for its past transgressions of the sensitive bourgeois feelings espoused so forcefully by the collective West.
Small problem is, though, that in doing so, while understandable politically, today's Germans are contradicting the special nature of their past assumed (or alleged) uniqueness of Hitler's deeds.
And that problem, while admittedly kinda small now, will cause *huge* problems further down the road: if 'Putin's War' is essentially the same as 'Hitler's War', then EITHER both are fundamentally evil and must be destroyed by all means necessary, incl. obviously suicide (but then Germany's Nazi past isn't that unique anymore) OR 'Putin's War' isn't the same as 'Hitler's War', and then all the hyperbole will be revealed as nothing more than cheap media gaslighting and, yes, propaganda.
Either way, it's a lose-lose for Germany: render Putin = Hitler, Germany's idiosyncratic post-1945 identity is gone while otherwise Berlin will lose much of what it built so carefully during the past 30 years: domination over the EU by willing prostitution of its member-states.
Be careful what you wish for, Germany.
Also: Gauck was a spectacular failure as President, but his recent stance on 'Putin's War' and the harassmant and defilement of 'the unvaccinated' is a stain on his record, if not on the conscience of this despicable pastor.
Thoughts, apart from being thankful and impressed by you doing so much work:
Knapp's text can largely be summed up as "Russia doesn't conform to our moral and societal standards so therefore we ar morally obligated to attack them", a very unmodern sentiment and the rallying cry of crusaders and jihadis and puritans of all sorts throughtout time. I much prefer people like Attila, Genghis Khan and Ragnar Lodbrok: "Those people over there have ricjes what they can't defend, so let's go tax them!" Brutally honest and upright, not the slimy smarmy contortions of right-thinking gutmenschen.
Actually, the text in taz can also be summed up, if one focuses on the bit about Putin using the cracks in the West's facade (and foundations...) to exert political pressure, as "Dolchstoss". I'm not sure Knapp would apporve of being likened to Julius Streicher, but it feels similar in style and tone, possibly even intent - the slavic nations were after all to become farmland and areas for resource exploitation once the slavs were done away with.
Now, Knapp isn't advocating that as such, nor is any german - but that is what it lookslike to Russia, an just as it is Knapp's words and emotions that are the only valid points ofreference when understanding Knapp, so is Russia's when it comes to understanding why they act the way they do. It's no use trying to understand Russia as "should behave like us but won't so they must be stupid or evil". Besides being inherently racist (or culturally racist I guess one would say nowadays) it also means any analysis will come out wrong.
Far better for the Knapps of the world if they accepted that Russia's stance is valid to Russia, if not to others, and straight out said: "We say what Russia is doing is wrong, so we are going to stop them and force them to do right according to us".
Perhaps one of the reasons for all the new-speak and doublethink is, that such statements in both press and by politicos would have quite sharp reactions from certain african, arabian, and asian nations... Problem is of course that engage in doublespeak and new-think long enough and you might just start believe in it for real.
You're very much welcome.
I, too, tend to prefer integrity and honesty over disingenuity and hypocrisy.
As to Knapp's piece, well, it's perfect for those who espouse intersectional virtue-signalling (itself a form of hate, if you'd ask me), but then again: the 'stab-in-the-back' notion is excellent: I didn't think about it, but upon reading your comment, I went like 'of course!'--our Western decay and degeneracy is actually Putin's fault, which neatly absolves our Western leaders from anything even remotely smelling like 'responsibility'.
At least it's a change from the old tune of blaming "the jews".
Anyone with more than mass-media knowledge of Israel and judaism knows they are just as fractured and prone to infighting as their neighbouring tribes. Listening to other arabs, they speak about palestinians the way people spoke about gypsies 100 years ago.
My guess is "the lazy unemployed" is going to be the next big group to be the designated target in the Union, when this russian deal is forgotten and un-happened next year or so. The "useless eaters" who "destroy the planet" with their "over-consumtion".
Don't be too surprised when you see the suggestions of two-tiered general welfare, with those accepting voluntary sterilisation getting a bigger check. It fits perfectly with all the industrialist-modernist-futurist themes from the period of 1880-1930 we are currently re-living.
" NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia in 1998/99"
really?
i seem to remember it quite differently.
maybe the fact that i actually have spoken to fugitives over the years makes a difference?
ethnic cleansing is a thing maybe?
remember srebrenica?
I remember all of it.
Remembrance--like opinions--can't obscure the fact that, under international law (via the UN Charter), these acts: preparation of aggression, conduct of a war of aggression, are illegal.
Legal niceties aside, here's the extract from the Yugoslav response:
https://serbia-info.com/news/1999-03/24/10030.html
I point you to Section IV:
3. Agreement was not reached because the separatist-terrorist delegation of ethnic Albanians avoided direct talks as it did not give up its separatist goals: to use autonomy as a means for establishing a "state within a state"; to secure occupation of Serbia through the implementation of the political agreement; to create an ethnically pure Kosovo-Metohija under the pretext of protecting human rights and democracy; and to secure the secession of Kosovo-Metohija from Serbia with the help of their patrons and through an international protectorate and referendum.
4. Agreement was not reached also because the Contact Group insisted on proposals nullifying the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, thus violating its own fundamental principles defined on January 29, 1999, bringing confusion to the talks through undefined procedure for the work and decision-taking, thus creating the conditions for fraud and falsifying documents that were not discussed at any time or adopted by the Contact Group as a whole. By encouraging pressures and threats of aggression on our country, it provided an incentive to separatists and terrorists, thus contributing to the creation of an atmosphere unfavorable for reaching a political agreement on resolving problems in Kosovo-Metohija in a peaceful manner.
Now, I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but the point I was trying to convey above is that listening to both sides is actually helpful. I'm not on this or the other side, rather I try to point out the hypocrisy and empty rhethoric of either side, which is prevalent as long as one listens only to one side.
Is the Serbian account all truthful? Well, in terms of the quote from Chris Clark's volume, I think it is. Would that render moot what happened in 1997-99 in Kosovo (as opposed to Srebrenica, which I didn't refer to in my piece in that particular context: the Srebrenice atrocity occurred in the context of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovia a few years earlier).
Yes, there were continuities: Serbia, much like 'Russia', was the boogeyman since at least before WWI, as so vividly recounted by Mr. Clark in his volume.
And, yes, Yugoslavia rejected the 1998 NATO demand of stationing troops on its soil, hence the attacks--which, I think, qualify quite unambiguously as 'aggression'.
The problem here, legally speaking, may be that NATO isn't a state, which renders acute the problem of NATO's status under international law (which confers the right to conduct 'war' to states, not associations of states), but that's an entirely different question, I'd argue.
P.S.: I've spoken to a lot of refugees, including family relations, but these are personal matters (i.e., of opinion), which is quite different from facts. This doesn't mean that these accounts are wrong or not fact-based, it's just that anecdotes don't (can't substitute) for the bigger picture.
let' s see.
in 1995 some 8000 muslims men were murdered by serbs.
in 1999 serbs complain that ethnic albanians want to create an ethnically pure Kosovo-Metohija under the pretext of protecting human rights and democracy. ( shall we read " muslim " for ethnic albanians?)
and now you are, though implicitly , " boogeyman", defending the serbs for doing so, thereby chosing sides....
that is he result of what you call " listening to both sides" ?
so the muslims, and the european states should have just forgotten about the srebrenica slaughter, and the lesson it had taught them, and wait for the serbs to create their very own " Endloesung"?
hey, i know you shot my husband and my son, but welcome back neighbour!
hey, you took and killed some 8000 people that were under our UN protection , but of course we will stay out of your way this next time!
really"
i mean REALLY?
The Srebrenica massacre was organized by a Serbian paramilitary group (you can think of them as a rough equivalent of the Azov battalion). Anyway, Yugoslavia/Serbia made some stupid moves, and it lost some wars, and it's been dealing with the consequences ever since. That said, according to "international law" (ha!), it had every right to protect its own territory. That's what the Russian elites thought. They were wrong. They have since woken up, and what we see in the Ukraine is one consequence of their awakening. In international politics, might makes right. It's all about what you can get away with. Quite a lot of Europeans have yet to realize this, and by the time they do, they are likely to be a lot poorer than they were before.
On that note... You sometimes read that Nazi Germany was defeated because it was "evil." Bullcrap. It was defeated because it bothered two of its rival empires badly enough that they formed a strategic alliance against it and jointly defeated it (granted, one of those two empires, namely the USSR, contributed a lot more than the other). And then once they defeated it, the alliance between those two empires was quickly dismantled, and they proceeded to fight half a century of Cold War. Then one of the rivals collapsed under its own weight, which left the other one free to do more or less as it pleased (the bombing of Yugoslavia being just one of its many adventures), without suffering any serious consequences. But history never sleeps. Now the American empire is faced with two rival empires (Russia and China), and it's stupidly pushed them to form a strategic alliance against it. How long will that alliance last? Until the American empire collapses, I would imagine. And then what? ::shrug:: History never sleeps. Maybe they'll go to war (hot or cold) against each other after that. I'm likely to be dead by then.
And Europe? Well, when historians write about this period a century or two from now, Germany and its minor allies are likely to be relegated to footnotes.
russia an empire?
hardly so.
russia is, and has always been, a giant on clay feet.
russia did contribute more than the usa?
in the number of dead they sure did.
and that is about the only thing they were number one.
the russian army would have literally starved without the lend/lease.
You're welcome to tell stories to yourself. I can tell you one thing, though: Russians aren't going to go cold or hungry this winter.
Europe's problem is that it hasn't quite figured out just how irrelevant it's become. It's made up of former empires, which haven't yet figured out that they have to be *very* careful whom they make enemies with, because that's what their prosperity depends on. Sadly, too many Europeans are idealists, and so Europe will pay a price. I see little prospect for benefits.
so mladic was not supreme commander of the serb army?
and he was protected from the international warcrimes tribunal by the milosovic government up to moment the latter was arrested himself in 2001?
and the serbs did not protect him until he was finally arrested in 2011?
no, he was just a leader of some group of men that did in no way form the mirror of serb society....
are you quite sure that international law states that a country can protect its territory by systematically killing a major part of its population?
so genocide is only genocide if the victims are from another country?
really?
Serbia had no plans to kill off the Albanian population. That's in your head.
It's possible that Mladic called himself a supreme commander of the Serbs or something like that (I'd have to check; people call themselves all sorts of things), but no, he was definitely not the head of Yugoslav army. He was greatly respected by a great many Serbs, though (just as Azov is greatly respected by a great many Ukrainians), which is why it was politically difficult to extradite him.
Story has it that Milosevic was furious when he heard about Srebrenica. I can easily believe that: I'm no fan of Milosevic, but that massacre was certainly not in his interest, and he didn't order it.
no plans to kill off the albanian population? i guess you mean muslim population?
sure, there was no plan, it just happened.....
really?
and what had milosevic and tudman in mind when they secretly conspired to divide bosnia between them?
it was not only mladic that called himself supreme commander, it also was milosevic.
surely you remember him, the president of the serbs, who escaped conviction for his part in the kosovo war crimes by conveniently dying.
how is the weather in sint petersburg?
Epimetheus: "The problem here, legally speaking, may be that NATO isn't a state, which renders acute the problem of NATO's status under international law (which confers the right to conduct 'war' to states, not associations of states), but that's an entirely different question, I'd argue."
Ah, dear Epimetheus, law is irrelevant in international affairs. The big and powerful do as they like, and the weak accommodate them or suffer the consequences. That's the way it is, and that's the way it's always been.
As I see it, the most important consequence of the NATO bombing campaign in what was then Yugoslavia is that it finally woke Russia up from its difficult-to-explain slumber. For a brief period after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian elites bought into faery tales about law and liberalism and yadda-yadda-yadda. And then they woke up. And they have not gone back to sleep. Some Europeans still believe the story, but that's largely to their (our) own detriment.
Does everyone get to use that excuse?
"X did Y to Z, so therefore we may use any and all measures against X"
Because there are quite a few historical examples of that, as I'm sure you well know. Say the attack on Charlie Hebdo for instance, or Bataclan. The christian french besmirhed the prohpet of islam, thus in the eyes of 2 000 000 000 moslems justifiying the attacks.
Care to play again?
the rules are simple.
you kill my father, i get to kill you and your entire family.
you hit my son, i get to kill you and your entire family.
you besmirch my prophet, i get to besmirch yours.
you enter my home without my permission, i get to crack your skull with my baseball bat.
you invade my country, i get to bomb you back to the stone age.
now with the rules being perfectly clear: how about you come to my place uninvited, hit my son while doing so, and try to kill my father?
and you can besmirch my prophet all you like...
What rules?
Serbian militia committed atrocities. Which was your initial point as to the right of the US to give Serbia the option of unconditional surrender of all national sovereignity (go on the web, look up the actual text of the "agreement" offered) or get bombed.
Want a list of other atrocities not leading to anything but business-deals with the perpetrators?
And as for those rules, I agree in full. But you don't know the real rules.
Might is right.
There's always someone more powerful.
Never warn your opponent: never issue threats.
Victory forgives all.
Those are the real rules.
Here's another (tactical) rule: do your level best to stay out of conflicts that you are unlikely to win. And don't do someone else's fighting for them unless you've carefully determined that it's in *your* best interest to do so, and that you're likely to win.
Those are some rules that EUrocrats haven't learned. EUrocrats are not very bright (to put it politely).
The only difference , now, is the Left have a festish to control people more than the Right.
True, and the Right may or may not speak the Left's language (but they don't mean it).