Hey frustrated friend, I’ve been commenting in this thread in your support, trying to give you a more experienced perspective on this community. But as it stands, my instance lemmy.ml has been defederated from your instance infosec.pub, so you’re not able to see any posts or comments from that instance (although it’s the main dev instance).

Here’s a link to your comment thread via the lemmy.world instance where you can see all comments.
Early on I tried to warn you, that you will not get any kind of open or constructive discussion in this community and as it turned out, looking at the ending of your conversation with Wildmimic (which himself has blocked the lemmy.ml instance, so he couldn’t see any of my commentary either), and the tangential discussions I provoked, I think sadly I’ve been proven right.
In my comments I also provided you with some ideas on where to get good information about the geopolitics of this war, explicitly non-communist, as the political thought of Marxism is not needed to deconstruct the dynamics (although, it’s the best approach over all, but that’s just my experience).

Ya, anyway, just wanted to let you know. Doesn’t matter if you care or not, but now you got the full picture of the conversation. Have a nice day and don’t let you get dragged down by these people, you’ve done nothing wrong.

Removed by mod

Ein Mann vom Fach sozusagen!

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

You just had a conversation with an account that specializes in western propaganda against China and Russia, the two big adversaries of the USA.

@Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org as well as several other accounts do exactly that, by only posting explicitly anti-China and anti-Russia articles, often from the most obscure sources. Daily.

As with this post, it‘s US propaganda and financed by the CIA run Voice of Tibet as outlined here.

Not ML, but you mean like that? Glad I could help.

Or, you know, you check the sourcing and realize:

according to a report by the Dharamshala-based independent radio station Voice of Tibet (VoT).

And so you check their about us page and find:

It was founded by three Norwegian NGOs; The Norwegian Human Rights House, The Norwegian Tibet Committee and Worldview Rights. The project has been funded through donations from supportive organizations and private individuals.

… and start to wonder, as this dosn‘t seem very homegrown, why‘s the west involved here? So you check Wikipedia and find:

It receives funds from the United States National Endowment for Democracy.

And you might wonder, oh what‘s that and you check them out and realize, that the NED is a known CIA operation being directly funded by the US government and exists:

with the stated aim of advancing democracy worldwide and countering communist influence abroad by promoting political and economic institutions, such as political groups, business groups, trade unions, and free markets.

🦅 Hurr Durr! Democracy! Freedom! 🦅

Extra source, but be careful, it‘s from the evil Chinese government: Fact Sheet on the National Endowment for Democracy

Ya, you just got rage baited by US propaganda to be more angry at China. GJ, be proud! Keep on hating on the evil leftists from ML, lol.

Maybe, also avoid @RandAlThor@lemmy.ca posts, because they keep posting exactly this kind of shit.

So you never learned basic English? And now you have to refer to your passport in order to be able to distinguish men from women? lol, sure bro.

Man/men, woman/women, people, humans.

Male and female are adjectives to describe sex. Man and woman are cultural gender roles, which would be the right choice here.

Probably a bit complicated in some cases, as all this a a fairly recent cultural topic and some people actively struggle with a changing culture that‘s not strongly patriarchal, but either way, male and female is something you use maybe in more clinical or scientific settings, i.e. a female human.

Using female for woman is a bit like using „Weib“ in German.

Only, that‘s not „one of the reasons“ these people protest. That‘s a dumb culture war talking point, but not based in reality. I‘m sure you can find people that moan about women not having the same rights as men to die for their capitalist nation state, but as I said, that‘s not a protest reason. Inform yourself.

Also, you explicitly chose that non-reason to give as an answer (instead of actual reasons), which would be either ignorant as hell or willful agitation as a divisive tool by the use of half-truths. And I‘m inclined to think you‘re usually doing the latter.

You are the one using derogatory language towards women, calling them „young girls“. This whole whiney bullshit, how women are so privileged when it comes to the hard burdens, that the poor men have to suffer, but women are exempt from is straight up right wing incel yapping. It‘s chauvinist and sexist.

Sure, there is a debate to be had about this, but the societal progressive perspective would certainly not be to also invite women to die at the frontlines, but to actually not reinstate compulsory military service, but get rid of it altogether.
And then maybe open up the service for everyone that‘s willing to participate by their own motivation … oh wait, that‘s already the case …

The basic law dictates compulsory military service, but that has been suspended for a while now, because after the fall of the Soviet Union the need for that went down, the Bundeswehr was of little relevance.

The basic law also grants you the right to refuse the service for conscientious reasons (like not willing to kill, religion). Usually in those cases you‘d end up doing some substitute civilian service, anyway, if otherwise you‘d be fit for military service.

What‘s happening now is, that Germany is gearing up for war against Russia. Militarization is in full swing, money is funneled towards military spending, as well as infrastructure spending that benefits the military (west-east axis to transfer equipment and units), all while spending on social, cultural and educational sectors is being cut.

And with that the state has a renewed interest in human military stock that would be available, if that war actually happened.

So the suspension is cancelled and slowly, but surely, the younger generation will be compelled to join the compulsory military service. And you‘re right, for changes in the basic law, you would need a two thirds majority.

Now here comes the „conscientious reasons“ into play, because the threshold of what counts as such is defined through normal laws and these can be changed more easily (simple majority, I believe).

Basic law defines: „you can refuse for conscientious reasons“; normal law defines: „what actually is a conscientious reason in case of refusal“.

So the problem here is, that citizens are granted the right to refuse, but the state dictates the conditions on what counts and what not.

In practice the state will create the conditions to get the amount of people into the military, they think they need. Against the will of the individual, if need be.

So the youth is protesting against compulsory military service because of gender inequality, that‘s your take here? I wish you‘d just not comment at all, if you have no idea, what you‘re actually talking about. That‘s really the dumbest take I‘ve heard, yet.

Also, if anything: „If you‘re a young girl woman“, because I do hope you‘re not talking about child soldiers, but are merely a sexist dipshit.

Schönen Frauentag.

Point three is just you freestyling thoughts now. I just read of the Laconia Incendent and besides how fucking grim all of this is, ya, there actually are more honorable procedures and lengths to go through, other than straight up and purposely killing everyone. But that‘s just not how the US rolls.

How do you think the museum makes sure you don‘t touch or steal the exhibits, which you don‘t own and never will, but only are there to sell the tickets, clean the floor or walk around in nostalgia?

And how does that affect the nature and/or reality of those violations of basic human rights? Is your point that those violations shall only be prosecuted if there’s no-one else to benefit from it?

Don‘t do this lame ass shit, where I‘m now supposed to argue in favor of human rights violations. That‘s not the point. You‘re shifting the discussion. Bad faith argumentation is for losers.

My points are quite clear:

1. NATO is not the world police, but in contrary acted against international law by bombing a sovereign state. Accusing other countries for not acting or vetoing only works, if you have a western chauvinist perspective (yes, you do seem to have that), that bombing a country and its people is the rightful and just solution. (Only true, if the West does it, right?) (Also what‘s happening in Iran right now)
2. NATO did not bomb Yugoslavia to pacifiy it, but to force regime change, balcanization and to expand their sphere of influence, so for geopolitical reasons, not for moral reasons. It strengthened the hegemonic power of the USA in territories of the former Soviet Union. Possible human rights abuses were an excuse used as a propaganda tool, not the reason, just like every time the US is involved (like right now with Iran).

Either way, NATO was the aggressor with no mandate to bomb a sovereign state. They acted against international law and did some human rights violations themselves, while they‘re at it.

Are you able to agree with (at least some of) these points without reacting with strawmen or whataboutisms?

You’re almost there! In fact (…)

I never said that there are no other bad actors, that‘s bad faith argumentation. I‘m also not going to give you a China bad! Russia bad! nod, just so you can further feel validated in your restricted horizon. That’s coping, you cope, hard. The West is the world‘s cancer.

Organize! This does not need to be a dream or a utopia. Systems fall, changes are always possible. Only, the ultra rich with their frivolous desires won‘t give up their privileges and power because we ask nicely.

The violations of basic human rights (however tangible they might have been) were propagandized and used as a pretense to exert political violence on a sovereign state, in order to advance geopolitical interests. The same as the US is doing now with Iran, has been doing for the past century. You are very much acting through your propagandised ideology by aligning with their narrative.

If NATO or the USA were to care about international law or human rights, they would have acted through the UN Security Council, which they consult and insist on at any time a state of the global south does something they don‘t like. They usually do not apply to themselves, though.

But the US or European states, like Germany, France or Great Britain will hold their own interests above international law and basic human rights at any time these constructs do not align with said interests. The latest examples would be Palestine and Iran, also to an extend Ukraine.

The fact that human rights violations have occurred is not a factor for the global north‘s decision to exert power through violence. If it was, they wouldn‘t extend or explicitly cause more suffering by indiscriminately breaking international law at will, independent from the UN. But that’s what the NATO did by bombing Yugoslavia.

Also not a technicality, lol.

Your argument is the internalised version of reality, that a normal westener grows up to have, through the environment they live in, the media they consume.

But we are not the good guys. And that‘s not an empty phrase, it‘s a fact. We are the baddies. And sadly, you argue for the baddies on the internet.

Edit: lol, if that doesn‘t fit:

Merz: Iran should not be protected by international law

The very premise that NATO, a military alliance consisting of the terrorist state and world hegemon USA and its vassals (the so-called global north, basically), does act on principles regarding human suffering in other countries is not based in material reality, but propagandised ideology.

Fake according the the site ghanafact.com:

False! Burkina Faso has NOT backed Iran in war with Israel, US; circulating video is a deepfake

There‘s also no official statement.

Volant Media is strongly biased towards the west and not a trustworthy source.

The world’s leading news networks on Iran and Afghanistan

From our studios in London and Washington, and supported by a global correspondent network, we deliver editorially independent news and analysis. We cover breaking news, finance, sports, and documentaries, reaching over 100 million viewers.

They‘re also absolutely intransparent in regards to their funding.

The channel is backed by a Saudi-British investor with ties to the Saudi government, According to The Guardian, Saudi Arabia has provided a 250-million-dollar fund for Iran International in 2018, but Iran International’s management claims the independence of its editorial operation and denies a link to any government.