How can you say Israel bombing civilians bad but Russia is ok..?

[PurpleTree]

How can you say Israel bombing civilians and grabbing land is bad and in the same time root for Russia against Ukraine?

It’s vile.

At least i’m consistent and condemning every attack on civilians, and land grabbing. Whether it be Russia, Israel, Saudi, US etc.

You don’t care about human rights.

And you’re falling for Russian etc. propaganda which was to be expected.

[Lyubov]

it’s a very weird and warped world view. 

[Raze]

It’s not right, but it is a lesser crime. Russia isn’t en masse targeting civilians like Israel, and Russia is trying to annex Ukraine and make Ukrainians Russian. Israel is trying to exterminate Palestinians.

[Kid A]

The function of this attitude is to scare people away from supporting/sympathizing with Palestinians, and to make the far too few who do support them question whether they're on the right side. It's really shitting on Palestinians.

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, Raze said:

It’s not right, but it is a lesser crime. Russia isn’t en masse targeting civilians like Israel, and Russia is trying to annex Ukraine and make Ukrainians Russian. Israel is trying to exterminate Palestinians.

Israel is not intentionally targetting civilians, whereas Russia actually is. Look up "Human Safari", russian drone operators have orders to literally hunt civilians in cities with drones. They themselves prouldy upload the footage on their social media and people cheer it on.

Russia literally has been talking about exterminating Ukrainians and ukrainian identity for years now, it's all over Russian media. People regularily call for literal genocide and eradication.

Edited August 19 by Scholar

[Raze]

5 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Israel is not intentionally targetting civilians, whereas Russia actually is. Look up "Human Safari", russian drone operators have orders to literally hunt civilians in cities with drones. They themselves prouldy upload the footage on their social media and people cheer it on.

Russia literally has been talking about exterminating Ukrainians and ukrainian identity for years now, it's all over Russian media. People regularily call for literal genocide and eradication.

Israel has killed more children in Gaza in 1.5 years than all Ukrainian civilians killed by Russia in 3 years.

This is despite Ukraine having a population of 40 million compared to Gazas 2 million.

I’m not saying Russia never targets civilians, but the difference is with Israel it is a matter of policy and far more wide spread.

Russia isn’t exterminating Ukrainians, it does want to destroy Ukrainian identity, like I said they want to absorb Ukrainians into Russia and make them Russian. Israel wants to actually exterminate the Palestinians and either kill them all or make them all leave. As a comparison, Russia took in 1.3 million Ukrainians fleeing and is trying to get more, Israel has not taken in any Palestinians and is infact to expel others in the West Bank.

Edited August 19 by Raze

[Scholar]

19 minutes ago, Raze said:

Israel has killed more children in Gaza in 1.5 years than all Ukrainian civilians killed by Russia in 3 years.

This is despite Ukraine having a population of 40 million compared to Gazas 2 million.

I’m not saying Russia never targets civilians, but the difference is with Israel it is a matter of policy and far more wide spread.

Russia isn’t exterminating Ukrainians, it does want to destroy Ukrainian identity, like I said they want to absorb Ukrainians into Russia and make them Russian. Israel wants to actually exterminate the Palestinians and either kill them all or make them all leave. As a comparison, Russia took in 1.3 million Ukrainians fleeing and is trying to get more, Israel has not taken in any Palestinians and is infact to expel others in the West Bank.

That's not true, mariupol alone might have more civilian causalities than the entire gaza conflict. The total civilian death count might be around 40.000 - 100.000 civilians. The confirmed death numbers you see do not include the regions that had the highest death tolls, namely cities that are occupied by Russia as we speak.

 

There is also several asymmetries between the I/P conflict and U/R conflict. Most military conflicts in Ukraine occur in open fields or mostly abandoned city, while the I/P conflict has Hamas employing strategies (officially, by their own account) that maximize civilian deaths on their side. 

Hamas specifically does not allow civilians to use bomb shelters and have their military infrastructure integrated into civilian infrastructure. Hamas controls civilian movements and often times forced civilians to remain in conflict zones to maximize civilian death or to gain a military advantage.

 

Given the population density, the combatant to civilian death ratio is better than in most other comparable conflicts in the region, including military campaigns by US and various western countries in which insurgents did not attempt to maximize civilian deaths on their side. If you compare them to actors of the region like Saudi Arabia or Syria, the civilian to combatant death ratio is significantly better.

 

While Israel is engaging in war crimes and possibly ethnic cleansing campaigns, it is delusional to claim they are engaging in an attempt to eradicate the palestinian people.

[Raze]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

That's not true, mariupol alone might have more civilian causalities than the entire gaza conflict. The total civilian death count might be around 40.000 - 100.000 civilians. The confirmed death numbers you see do not include the regions that had the highest death tolls, namely cities that are occupied by Russia as we speak.

No they didn’t. The UN said they confirmed 1.3K civilians killed but suspected thousands more were killed. 

https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/06/high-commissioner-updates-human-rights-council-mariupol-ukraine

And the count does include Russian occupied territories 

Quote

By 31 July 2025, OHCHR had recorded 49,431 civilian casualties in Ukraine since February 24, 2022: 13,883 killed and 35,548 injured, but said they believe the real number is higher. This included 42,256 (11,164 killed and 31,092 injured) occurred on territory covered by the government of Ukraine and 7,175 (2,719 killed and 4,456 injured) on territory controlled by Russian armed forces or their affiliates.

https://ukraine.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2025-08/Ukraine - protection of civilians in armed conflict (July 2025)_ENG.pdf

Also, the Gaza death count is also an undercount by close to 40% according to independent analysis 

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

There is also several asymmetries between the I/P conflict and U/R conflict. Most military conflicts in Ukraine occur in open fields or mostly abandoned city, while the I/P conflict has Hamas employing strategies (officially, by their own account) that maximize civilian deaths on their side. 

Hamas specifically does not allow civilians to use bomb shelters and have their military infrastructure integrated into civilian infrastructure. Hamas controls civilian movements and often times forced civilians to remain in conflict zones to maximize civilian death or to gain a military advantage.

This is false and not the explanation for the high casualties.

Israel isn’t targeting Hamas within civilian infrastructure, it is purposefully destroying civilian infrastructure. 

They destroyed 90% of residential buildings, that’s not “targeting Hamas”.

Israel has provided no evidence hamas was forcing civilians to stay in war zones. We have seen clips of hamas fighting and they are usually hiding in tunnels and rubble. idf admitted they purposefully wait for Hamas to leave combat and use AI to strike them in civilian infrastructure. Infact IDF soldiers even testified to media they are being forced to use civilian Palestinians as human shields and are firing on unarmed civilians carrying white flags.

Israel has also repeatedly dropped massive 2000 lb bombs where it told civilians to flee. One former US official admitted to 60 minutes israel dropped a bomb to destroy a tunnel killing 70 civilians when they weren’t even targeting a combatant. 

They also shot and killed nearly 2,000 unarmed civilians seeking aid

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

Given the population density, the combatant to civilian death ratio is better than in most other comparable conflicts in the region, including military campaigns by US and various western countries in which insurgents did not attempt to maximize civilian deaths on their side. If you compare them to actors of the region like Saudi Arabia or Syria, the civilian to combatant death ratio is significantly better.

This is false. 
The average civilian to combatant ratio is 1 to 1, in the US operations in Afghanistan and Iraq it was 3-5 combatants per civilian killed.

For comparison, in Syria 70% of all killed were combat aged men, and it’s believed the ratio there was 2-3 civilians killed per combatant. Which was horrible and considered one of the worst in recent history.

In Gaza, 45% of all killed were combat aged men, the majority killed are elderly men, women, and children. 

Israel’s ratio is much worse than the Syrian civil war ratio, which was already a crime against humanity.

Israel is engaging in a campaign to eradicate the Palestinian people as seen by how they publicly declare they plan to make Gaza unlivable and expel them multiple times, and have used starvation as a weapon and destroyed every school and almost every hospital. Ethnic cleansing is part of an extermination of the population.

Israels own former minister of defense and former prime minister have admitted they are doing ethnic cleansing and extermination.

Edited August 19 by Raze

[Basman]

It is honestly quiet baffling and what gets to me is how inconsistent and hypocritical it comes off as because these people seem broadly liberal on a personal level. 

I think it is a mix of anti-western sentiment, seeing Russia as an alternative to western capitalism (which is not true, Russia is more libertarian than the US), Russian propaganda and being communists. They might also just be ideologically authoritarian to a certain degree (might makes right) but through a socialist lens. I don't know.

It seems like particularity middle-eastern bros and other people who aren't culturally western are more likely to have these opinions. It's a bit copey. They have a lot to say about the short-comings of America, especially when it comes to US foreign policy, which is funny because Russia and China aren't exactly angels either but you don't see the same energy for them.

4 hours ago, Kid A said:

The function of this attitude is to scare people away from supporting/sympathizing with Palestinians, and to make the far too few who do support them question whether they're on the right side. It's really shitting on Palestinians.

What is this cope LOL? How? 

You have to admit, it is weirdly hypocritical to both support a people who's being ethnically cleansed and at the same time support an authoritarian regime assaulting a minor country for political control. If you say it is because Ukrainians are white then you are at least being consistent. 

You can't be against a government killing and displacing a people in one instance but be in support of it in another and be ideologically consistent at the same time. 

[BlueOak]

15 hours ago, Raze said:

It’s not right, but it is a lesser crime. Russia isn’t en masse targeting civilians like Israel, and Russia is trying to annex Ukraine and make Ukrainians Russian. Israel is trying to exterminate Palestinians.

Your justification of targeting civilians answers the question people ask me time to time.

Why do you think we are pro Russia?

Because largely raze you appeal to a moral center in people, and do it in a way people listen. This is a morally skewed position you are taking.

Just say it, just come out and say, bombing civilians in war is abhorrent. No justification, no threading a needle, just that. Its really simple and it brings every atrocity into focus. Otherwise, the moral argument is cut into sides and nothing improves because you are just arguing details. 

If you are moving to a different non-moral argument, Russia's actions to retake 20% of something they held 100% of have been a strategic failure and a complete waste of a million+ lives and a country that had an 'okay' economic outlook, bad demographics but it was in a good place. Now its not.

 

Edited August 20 by BlueOak

[Ajay0]

US aided by several of its nato allies engaged in a shock and awe strategy leading to heavy civilian casualties during their invasion of Iraq.

Noam Chomsky highlighted this fact and stated that Russia was fighting more humanely than the US and its allies.

https://www.newstatesman.com/the-weekend-interview/2023/04/noam-chomsky-interview-ukraine-free-actor-united-states-determines

Quote

 

According to Chomsky, Russia is acting with restraint and moderation. He compares Russia’s way of fighting with the US’s during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, arguing that large-scale destruction of infrastructure seen in that conflict “hasn’t happened in Ukraine”. He adds: “Undoubtedly Russia could do it, presumably with conventional weapons. [Russia] could make Kyiv as unliveable as Baghdad was, could move in to attacking supply lines in western Ukraine.”

When I asked him to clarify whether he was implying that Russia is fighting more humanely in Ukraine than the US did in Iraq, Chomsky replies, “I’m not implying it, it’s obvious.” Delegations of UN inspectors had to be withdrawn once the invasion of Iraq began, he says, “because the attack was so severe and extreme… That’s the US and British style of war.” Chomsky adds: “Take a look at casualties. All I know is the official numbers… the official UN numbers are about 8,000 civilian casualties [in Ukraine]. How many civilian casualties were there when the US and Britain attacked Iraq?”

The number of foreign dignitaries who have travelled to Kyiv since the war broke out is proof of Russia’s restraint, Chomsky says, in stark contrast with Iraq. “When the US and Britain were smashing Baghdad to pieces, did any foreign leaders go to visit Baghdad? No, because when the US and Britain go to war, they go for the jugular. They destroy everything: communications, transportation, energy, shock and awe – anything that makes society function.”

 

 

[Basman]

The more I think about it and see of this people, the more I think it is just because they hate the US THAT much. They are so anti-US that they'll demonize assaulting a country in one instance but support it in another when it's NATO adjacent.

Like, just the post above me is a great example. It's completely besides the point how the US fights wars compared to Russia, but that point is being made as a justification for their political views, even though it still makes no sense. 

Edited August 20 by Basman

[PurpleTree]

57 minutes ago, Basman said:

The more I think about it and see of this people, the more I think it is just because they hate the US THAT much. They are so anti-US that they'll demonize assaulting a country in one instance but support it in another when it's NATO adjacent.

Like, just the post above me is a great example. It's completely besides the point how the US fights wars compared to Russia, but that point is being made as a justification for their political views, even though it still makes no sense. 

The West in general for example i just watched a few minutes of this guy Pepe Escobar.

He lives in France yet he hates Europe and the West it seems. After a while i had to turn it off because it is so silly and full on propaganda. 
 

I think it’s absolutely fair and necessary to criticise western governments and so on.

But living in the west but fan and root for Russia and Putin? An authoritarian murderous regime killing civilians and grabbing land?

I think it’s basically treason.

Edited August 20 by PurpleTree

[zazen]

Who is saying Russia bombing civilians is okay on this forum? I think your conflating understanding a war (and what caused it) to condoning it. I've never seen Raze justify any such thing or root for Russia. I am rooting against anti-imperialism, not necessarily the aggressive methods used by those resisting it. The same way people can root for the Palestinian cause, not necessarily the methods (October 7th) used in the name of that cause. 

The moral consistency is in opposing imperialism and all suffering. The inconsistency is in misdiagnosing what is and isn't imperial, and what is the cause of that suffering. The inconsistency is in not understanding the distinction between security logic (state security) and domination logic (imperialism)

There are parallel similarities on the surface - such as both involve violence, civilian death and land grabbing. But their are different contexts and motives behind each - security vs domination. It's not double standards as much as it is the same standards being applied to different contexts.

A stateless people don't threaten the security of a advanced nuclear state backed by a world super power. Meanwhile, a global nuclear super power that's been naughty for many decades and who you have a cold war history with does threaten your security if it were to be on your doorstep in a historically vulnerable corridor.

People can understand the threat perception Russia has - it's comprehensible within a geopolitical security logic. But not the one Israel has - Israel has to magnify it into something its not to justify their behaviour under the banner of security - when it's domination dressed up as security.

Russia / Ukraine is a interstate war, Israel / Palestine is a occupying force subjugating any resistance and uprising to that occupation. Russia can live with a state of Ukraine that remains neutral, Israel is denying a Palestinian state existence entirely. Ukrainian civilian death is a tragic byproduct of war, Palestinian civilian death is a horrific result of occupation that is based upon domination. Both horrible.

Israeli "security" can only be achieved through Palestinian elimination. Russian security can be achieved through Ukrainian neutrality.

Russia says: You can be sovereign but within the limitation that you don't use that sovereignty to threaten our existence. Be like Finland (neutral).

Israel says: You can't be sovereign at all. Cleanse yourselves and any remaining Palestinians should exists like Native Americans on reservations.

On 8/10/2025 at 6:14 PM, zazen said:

@BlueOak The difference is that Russia see’s a superpowers imperial reach coming through a neighbour as a threat, while Israel sees the neighbour themselves (who is stateless and powerless) as a threat.

A proper threat assessment has to be made to distinguish between an existential threat, a national security threat, or a threat to empire and imperial domination. Otherwise situations are misdiagnosed and what is defensive is framed as domination or vice versa.

You can have a legitimate security concern, gone about in an illegitimate (yet understandable) way. Or an illegitimate or inflated security concern, gone about in an illegitimate way ie Israel or a unipolar hegemon maintaining its primacy in a multipolar reality.

Israel frames what is a national security concern (October 7th - non state actors) as an existential concern. In fact the far right frame Palestinian existence itself as an existential threat - recoiling at even the mention of the word Palestine.

The US frames a threat to their uni-polar hegemony as a national security threat. A illegitimate concern (maintaining global primacy in a multi-polar world ) + inflated concern (treating developments in far off continents as existential), handled in illegitimate ways (wars of choice, regime change, sanctions etc).

Understanding why a state feels threatened isn’t excusing what they do about it or how they go about it - in bad ways. But the main reason to distinguish it is because security concerns can usually be dealt with diplomatically whereas a power looking to dominate can’t be reasoned with.

Every territorial expansion or war isn’t imperial driven and based on domination - they can be security driven. The gains in territory are incidental and secondary not primary. It’s like saying all water is wet - on the surface it’s true but it oversimplifies and misses important distinctions.

Most of the cases you listed start with a proximity based security logic ie their not acting for dominations sake - that doesn’t justify their methods or make them clean. A unipolar hegemon skips proximity logic and treats developments in places thousands of miles away as existential threats.

Even their abuses of power are above law. The US literally has a law that allows it to be lawless - The Hague Act legalises them storming The Hague if one of their own are in the hot seat. But legal doesn’t always mean legitimate. Just now they’ve put a $50mill bounty on another head of states - Maduro of Venezuela. This is empire logic not security.

I put my those examples into Chat GPT with those distinctions:

Here you asked about how isn't Russia behaving imperially against Chechnya.

On 8/10/2025 at 11:20 PM, zazen said:

@PurpleTree

Palestinians are trying to succeed at the self-determination of a state, not seceding from an already existing one. So it’s not about territorial integrity of an already existing state but denying a group the sovereignty of having one their already entitled to.

Balochistan is similar to Chechyna - already part of an existing state (Pakistan) but with a separatist movement. They’re dealt with aggressively which is authoritarian but not imperial. Different states deal with separatists differently, some more aggressive than others - but generally no state just willingly gives up territory as it can set off a domino affect for others to separate.

We were talking on another thread about Uyghurs and I responded regarding their treatment and how states act to preserve themselves.

Spain for example cracked down on Catalonian officials leading the separatist referendum. That can’t be classified as imperialism just because it’s aggressive or authoritarian - there are distinct differences. A country can be authoritarian without being imperial - North Korea for example.

Many people misdiagnose security logic and motive for imperialism and domination - which implies there’s no legitimate concerns to be solved diplomatically, thus the only solution is to deal with the “evil Hitler” militarily.

A unipolar hegemon like the US is blind to other nations security concerns because they believe they are the exception (American exceptionalism). They’re also the exception from international law and war crime persecution from the ICJ (Hague invasion act). They believe the entire globe is their sphere of influence but another powerful nation having one is imperialism.

Its the same underlying mentality Israel has towards Palestinians - arrogance and exceptionalism fuelling domination. It’s this same mentality that flips other countries reactions to imperialism and calls it imperialism itself. That’s how we get US officials calling the South China Sea a national security threat .. all the way in Chyna 😂 Ok boomer.

 

 

[PurpleTree]

4 minutes ago, zazen said:

Who is saying Russia bombing civilians is okay on this forum? I think your conflating understanding a war (and what caused it) to condoning it. I've never seen Raze justify any such thing or root for Russia. I am rooting against anti-imperialism

 

Dude isn’t Russia « doing » neo imperialism?

Isn’t it funny that Russian gollums and you paint the Europeans as "Eurocons" warhungry, hawkish etc.  

while Russia is literally attacking an other country, killing civilians, destroying it, grabbing land? 
 

 

[zazen]

3 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Dude isn’t Russia « doing » neo imperialism?

Isn’t it funny that Russian gollums and you paint the Europeans as "Eurocons" warhungry, hawkish etc.  

while Russia is literally attacking an other country, killing civilians, destroying it, grabbing land? 
 

 

Yeah, their *doing* imperialism in form but not in function. Russia is "doing" things that look imperial - violence, territory capture, civilian death. But "doing imperial-looking things" isn't the same as "being imperial" if the driving logic is defensive rather than domination based. That's a surface level application of the word. Like saying ''all liquid is wet'', but is it coconut water or acid?  It's like saying ''all violence and suffering is bad'' - just stating the obvious trying to sound morally goody goody but providing no nuance that could help solve the root cause of that suffering and violence.

Everyone knows violence is bad. The question is: why did it happen, how do you prevent more of it, and what are the underlying dynamics that created the conditions for it? In this case - a uni-polar hegemon not accepting the red lines of another power or sphere existing in a multi-polar reality. That's why you can still get people on this forum asking why we should care about Russia's red line or sphere, or that we should push back against their sphere - which is what caused the issue to begin with.

- Imperial logic seeks domination and accumulation - to get or maintain power, profits and primacy by force.

- Defensive logic seeks protection and preservation - to maintain territorial integrity via strategic depth or buffer zones from a rival power - and yes, they use aggression and force also.

For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis - did the US act imperially? On the surface sure. But was the motive imperial in that very situation? No. I can agree that it was done out of security logic even though the US was a imperial power at the time. That scenario it acted within was not for gain but preservation. I can totally understand it from a security lens - and comprehend any state acting in such a way if put in the same position.

There has to be an actual defensive logic, where a country's existential safety is put at risk. When it acts upon that risk, it might display the surface level behaviour of an imperial power (violence, force, coercion etc) but it can be understood not to be imperial in intent and instead be comprehended through the strategic lens of security.

That's why a super majority of the world detest Israel and it's actions, whilst simultaneously a much of the world seem to understand (not necessarily condone) Russia's actions. Majority of the world (Global South) who've experienced colonialism and imperialism can identify the difference between imperial expansion and a security response to encirclement and encroachment, even if both involve violence. Another question is: who's been coming to who's borders? Which direction of travel has been tippy toeing to who?

 

Edited August 20 by zazen

[PurpleTree]

20 minutes ago, zazen said:

Yeah, their *doing* imperialism in form but not in function. Russia is "doing" things that look imperial - violence, territory capture, civilian death.

That’s very nice. And very convenient. It just looks like it. But it isn’t it. 🤯 mind blown.

21 minutes ago, zazen said:

That's why a super majority of the world detest Israel and it's actions, whilst simultaneously a much of the world seem to understand (not necessarily condone) Russia's actions.

I think it’s partly because of Russian propaganda. And then partly because they’re tired of seeing the West on top. And sure for example the US has done a lot of horrible stuff after WW2. But so did Russia, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Syria etc.

[zazen]

41 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

That’s very nice. And very convenient. It just looks like it. But it isn’t it. 🤯 mind blown

You completely gloss over the nuance man. Must be the purple you smokin. Like I said above:

1 hour ago, zazen said:

- Imperial logic seeks domination and accumulation - to get or maintain power, profits and primacy by force.

- Defensive logic seeks protection and preservation - to maintain territorial integrity via strategic depth or buffer zones from a rival power - and yes, they use aggression and force also.

For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis - did the US act imperially? On the surface sure. But was the motive imperial in that very situation? No. I can agree that it was done out of security logic even though the US was a imperial power at the time. That scenario it acted within was not for gain but preservation. I can totally understand it from a security lens - and comprehend any state acting in such a way if put in the same position.

If it feels wet is must be water, it can't possibly be sparkling or coke?

Spain cracked down on Catalonian separatists, jailed democratically elected officials, stomped on referendums with a jackboot, and silenced political expression. Looks like a dictatorship, so it must be? But we all know it’s not. Because form isn’t function.

Imagine if the Chinese just started getting really into House music and fell in love with the mecca of house music - Ibiza. Ibizan's had their own distinct identity to mainland Spain and wanted to to be independent - the Chinese, wanting to protect their new found love for the island started talking of aiding them in this separation and even sporting Chinese missiles and defense infrastructure. Would Spain cracking down on this with force and violence be imperial?

Remember the distinction above - imperialism is for gain not preservation of a state.  But you'll see Spains use of violence and force and conclude imperial.

Edited August 20 by zazen

[PurpleTree]

Hi zazen. So are you some kind of Russian fifth column in London?

How’s the salary? Can i get monnies if i stop saying Putin looks like a downie syndy gollumy bloke and if i start saying he’s hawt and slaying the evil colonial mansplaining west with his bald face?

Edited August 20 by PurpleTree

[zazen]

@PurpleTree You can’t decide whether I’m a Chinese, Russian or Indian agent 😂 no rupees, yuan or rubles here.

So what about that hypothetical for Ibiza and Spain - would it be an imperial move for Spain to force Ibiza’s neutrality if they wanted Chinese or Russian missiles and there was a historic beef between China / Russia and Spain? Or perhaps in Andorra wedged between France and Spain. Would France or Spain be imperial for stopping this by force?

Does Spain cracking down on Catalonians make it a dictatorship because its surface actions mimic that of a dictatorship? You know, it looks like that so must just be that.

Guardian: “Speaking to the Guardian at the end of a turbulent week that has seen 14 senior Catalan officials arrested, almost 10m ballot papers seized and thousands more police ordered to the region, Carles Puigdemont said he feared Spain was returning to the repressive practices of the Franco era.”

Edited August 20 by zazen