If your point is to clarify anything, don’t just point out the potential contradiction, it doesnt clarify anything.

If your point is to get people to clarify it for you, then either accept the logical approach that could solve the contradiction in theory, either, if you don’t want a “maybe/maybe not” answer, ask for an answer about the actual case, and don’t satisfy yourself with your own guesses.

Or, as you say, go look for more information and credible sources.

To sum up, i just point out that what you feel as a contradiction may not be one in some cases, so lazy people like me may just assume it’s one of those cases.

If you’re unsatisfied with that, and that’s legitimate, you’ll have to switch from what could have happened to what seemed to happened, drop the theoretical side for the practical context of this case.

Yeah, anything is possible, that’s the point.

If you’re ok with that, no point talking about it at all.

If you’re not okay with that, and you don’t like things appearing incoherent, dig a bit more to find what its about, don’t just point out to two statements that could be or could bot be self-excluding depending on the context.

I dont know the exact meaning of alleged, so technically speaking you’re probably right. But because a court says you did something does not mean you did it, we have plethora of examples for this.

And sure it makes perfect sense for Russia to be seeking and finding terrorists and saboteurs rn. It also makes perfect sense for them to punish and imprison anyone that might potentially become a threat, political or terrorist. So it doesn’t really help to convince one way or the other.

(to be clear, i’m not saying those guys are innocent, just that the two statements you picked are not necessarily opposed logically speaking)

The important part here is “allegedly”. I know that here in France, militants can be accused and condemned for plotting and stuff like that, even when it’s quite doubtful (i remember anarchists being sentenced to prison for playing airsoft and making firecracker).

I have 0 knowledge of this case, have not read the article, i’m just replying to the logical aspect of the comment.

Dans le style de la playlist, je vais faire une série de mp3 pour ma daronne, pour pouvoir lui partager des musiques que j’aime bien. Sinon, toujours en dématérialisé, je retombe souvent sur offrir des jeux vidéos : ça marche pas pour tout le monde, mais ça peut être un moyen pas trop cher de partager quelque chose qu’on aime bien avec quelqu’un. Ça peut aussi se décliner en jeu de société au besoin, mais à moins de le faire maison, il faut sortir dans un magasin. Et tant qu’on est dans les jeux, je sais que je peux offrir n’importe quoi en lien avec le jeu de rôle à maon copaine et que ça lui fera plaisir !

Plus they probably wouldn’t have forgotten to change them before production if they were quick and bad drawings

Could be a simple disagreement on what is a leader.

If it is a single or very limited number of persons, stable through time, who has/have power or authority over others, then there are leaderless organizations, i’ve seen them.

If it is anyone who is slightly more implicated than others and temporarily “takes the lead”, then yeah, but i wouldnt call that leadership.

I’ll also leave a citation from Bakounin “God and State” (roughly translated from french) about his views on authority and especially authority in anarchist groups : “There is no constant and fixed authority, but a continuous exchange of authorities and submissions, which are mutual, temporary and most importantly voluntary”

Well beyond the meme or the tankie attempt at propaganda or anything, those are not at all exclusive. What Bob says has nothing to do with showing Patrick was wrong. Or am i missing the point here?

Je réfléchissais à tester à l’occasion, merci de partager l’avertissement :D juste petite question, c’est quoi un brouteur?

I only watched half of BellsHells previously, so i dont know much, but i can see what you’re saying. I’m enjoying it, and i find that there is some humor, but maybe less than before. But i guess it’s partly related to the start of this campaign, there’s a lot of things to setup, new world, new players, new DM, so i bet humor will slowly grow as everyone gets comfortable. Also, the last episode was quite fun actually!

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.

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”.