In addition, have democrats explained why they haven’t executed him for stealing nuclear secrets yet?

Do you actually believe this or are you intentionally lying about what their political goals are?

The DPRK is pretty food stable? What bad decisions do you think the DPRK has been making?

Have you read anything on what imperialism actually is?

I would suggest reading Lenin’s “Imperialism”

So your argument is the geographical boundaries mean when a country is split it is imperialism to unite it again?

Imagine if the confederacy retreated to the keys islands, that’s sort of the level of ridiculous here. The right wing losers of a civil war retreated to an island that was and is considered part of the country.

Capitalism has a foothold there but the British no longer rule there. Justifying imperialism with imperialism also doesn’t magically make it okay

No they just installed a friendly neocolonial government. Jesus Christ do some basic investigation. If the British invaded part of your hometown and installed a puppet government, would you call it imperialism for it to be taken back by your town?

You do understand the whole fascism thing relied on getting new colonies, right? They even did the whole manifest destiny thing.

And the point was it doesn’t matter in relation to other attrocities.

The point is that they’re in the same bucket as other colonial atrocities

Russia was also a colonial power, and one of the last which is still one, ask a Yakut guy or someone from the northern Caucasus. So it should be also added there?

Weren’t you the one complaining about whataboutism? Also yes, we can view the Russian empire and the Russian federation as imperialist projects.

Imperialism much?

It is imperialism to let proxy governments for the UK and US maintain a colonial foothold in China actually.

Whataboutism is only sometimes tu quoque.

And you are using it again. Because the term was coined by English oppressors, than it shouldn’t true…

Christ- this is deeply unserious. Do you understand how the British used it to deflect from the idea that IRA violence and British colonialism were connected? The British were saying “it is a logical fallacy to talk about our violence that creates the resistance, we are talkng about how the resistance is using violence and how that means they’re bad”

Always the same answer to everything, my beloved dictator/political system/whatever is not really terrible, because I can point to something even worse

Do you see all violence as divorced from other violence?

Let’s see, “colonials are not as terrible, because what the Nazis did, and Jews were white people” Same as your reasoning.

The Nazis were a colonial power, Jesus Christ, Mary, and Joseph, did you learn nothing about fascism in school?

Oh, i liked this section

According to lexicographer Ben Zimmer,[13] the term originated in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. Zimmer cites a 1974 letter by history teacher Sean O’Conaill which was published in The Irish Times where he complained about “the Whatabouts”, people who defended the IRA by pointing out supposed wrongdoings of their enemy:

I would not suggest such a thing were it not for the Whatabouts. These are the people who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the “enemy”, and therefore the justice of the Provisionals’ cause: “What about Bloody Sunday, internment, torture, force-feeding, army intimidation?”. Every call to stop is answered in the same way: “What about the Treaty of Limerick; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921; Lenadoon?”. Neither is the Church immune: “The Catholic Church has never supported the national cause. What about Papal sanction for the Norman invasion; condemnation of the Fenians by Moriarty; Parnell?”

— Sean O’Conaill, “Letter to Editor”, The Irish Times, 30 Jan 1974

Good example of how claims of whataboutism are used to try to remove actual important context from a discussion.

Sorry, I often fail at snark perception

Staying ignorant is cool, you heard it here first folks.

What do you mean lash out again?

And should everyone, including the women, face starvation because they’re controlled by misogynists?

Oh, or should they spontaneously develop feminism without the material basis for the formation of a feminist movement?

I actually support the side which is magnitudes less violent. And there is a difference between killing fascists like the Soviets did and killing anti-colonial freedom fighters but mostly civilians like the colonial powers did.

You can only oppose everyone if your opposition doesn’t actually do anything. If you’re actually affecting things your opposition of one will strengthen the other. You have to be against the US empire and for multipolarity or against multipolarity and for the US empire. There isn’t a third option.

“Both sides” is when you equivocate two things which are not equal, you’re looking for “whataboutism” which is not an actual fallacy, claiming “you’re doing whataboutism” was a PR tactic first used by British colonizers when Irish people brought up British violence in response to anti-IRA propaganda.

Online? No. Online disorganized leftists aren’t actually leftists, they’re leftist sympathizers. You need to be in a leftist org to actually be a leftist.

You’re not a threat unless you’re actually doing stuff.

https://i0.wp.com/geopoliticaleconomy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Ukraine-borders-historical-map-expansion.jpg?resize=880%2C592&ssl=1

Edit: did you downvote before you confirmed the image is historically accurate or after you confirmed the image is historically accurate?

A better analogy would be handing magazines to a mass shooter whenever he ran out of ammo

what they then choose to do with it is on them, not us.

Why do you believe this? Don’t people have a responsibility to not give weapons to people knowing they will be used for genocide?

Also, us? Are you part of the Biden admin?