Also its utterly baby brained to judge who is the agressor in a situation like this and who is initiating a conflict by who fires the first shot.
"It is utterly baby brained to say that 1 equals 1. 1 does not equal one. The aggressor of a conflict cannot be determined by the person who first acted with aggression."
I can't deal with these replies. Once the topic becomes China all of the critical thinking on this website seems to evaporate into billowing fumes of ideology
There is a difference between positioning yourself for a conflict and starting a conflict. Or I guess there isn't if :zizek-preference:
The aggressor of a conflict cannot be determined by the person who first acted with aggression
The aggressor of an extremely compex geopolitical and historical conflict that has existed and perpetrated only throught the imperialist presence and intervention of the great satan dozens of thousands of miles from its shores cannot be determined by the person GEOPOLITICAL ENTITY who first fires the first shot with ammo yes. From the chinese POV and the pov of anyone with half a materialist analysis the US has been the aggressor on this conflict through the very befining when their military agression and intervention created it to now where they are unilaterlay pursue a break of the status quo. Even if you narrow down the scope to where China is the one that first kills someone that still doenst make them the agressors if you arent a lib. Just as if the DPRK was the one that fired the first shot in the Korean war (they didnt) they would still be in their right to do so and justifiable agressors in the definition of the world that just includes this actions. Its insanity to asign blame for the starting of a conflict to the person first pulling a trigger in a field no matter how many decades of brutal interventionism and agression exists on all levels . But thats just "staging a conflict" according to some weird liberal view of the world so its ok i guess
Also the US has blew up a plane to kill even more important Chinese politician than Pelosi within living memory as well as bombing their embassies in multiple countries. Can we extend the US -china proxy confict and generalize it a bit and have multiple actions of death inducing agression by the US and none by China ?
The aggressor of an extremely compex geopolitical and historical conflict
What convenient complexity that arises from "The guy who shot the gun" needing not to be the aggressor. Oh please tell me what the materialist would say. Because these are not simply words to indicate you're on the right side of an opinion. These are words that actually represent meaning.
Surely the rest of the paragraph isn't simply restating your premise over and over. Surely any allusions towards the other side being aggressive would implicate threats to down a diplomatic aircraft. Or at least be substantive enough to respond to in any way.
Can we extend the US -china proxy confict and generalize it a bit and have multiple actions of death inducing agression by the US and none by China ?
If you want to make yourself feel better, you can do as you wish. But we're talking here about China threatening to murder a diplomatic attache.
??
"It is utterly baby brained to say that 1 equals 1. 1 does not equal one. The aggressor of a conflict cannot be determined by the person who first acted with aggression."
I can't deal with these replies. Once the topic becomes China all of the critical thinking on this website seems to evaporate into billowing fumes of ideology
There is a difference between positioning yourself for a conflict and starting a conflict. Or I guess there isn't if :zizek-preference:
The aggressor of an extremely compex geopolitical and historical conflict that has existed and perpetrated only throught the imperialist presence and intervention of the great satan dozens of thousands of miles from its shores cannot be determined by the
personGEOPOLITICAL ENTITY who first fires the first shot with ammo yes. From the chinese POV and the pov of anyone with half a materialist analysis the US has been the aggressor on this conflict through the very befining when their military agression and intervention created it to now where they are unilaterlay pursue a break of the status quo. Even if you narrow down the scope to where China is the one that first kills someone that still doenst make them the agressors if you arent a lib. Just as if the DPRK was the one that fired the first shot in the Korean war (they didnt) they would still be in their right to do so and justifiable agressors in the definition of the world that just includes this actions. Its insanity to asign blame for the starting of a conflict to the person first pulling a trigger in a field no matter how many decades of brutal interventionism and agression exists on all levels . But thats just "staging a conflict" according to some weird liberal view of the world so its ok i guessAlso the US has blew up a plane to kill even more important Chinese politician than Pelosi within living memory as well as bombing their embassies in multiple countries. Can we extend the US -china proxy confict and generalize it a bit and have multiple actions of death inducing agression by the US and none by China ?
What convenient complexity that arises from "The guy who shot the gun" needing not to be the aggressor. Oh please tell me what the materialist would say. Because these are not simply words to indicate you're on the right side of an opinion. These are words that actually represent meaning.
Surely the rest of the paragraph isn't simply restating your premise over and over. Surely any allusions towards the other side being aggressive would implicate threats to down a diplomatic aircraft. Or at least be substantive enough to respond to in any way.
If you want to make yourself feel better, you can do as you wish. But we're talking here about China threatening to murder a diplomatic attache.