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

[PurpleTree]

15 minutes ago, zazen said:

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

I think you’re either from Pakistan or Muslim from India 👍

16 minutes ago, zazen said:

@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 a imperial move from Spain to force Ibiza’s neutrality if they wanted Chinese missiles and there was a historic beef between China and Spain?

Not a fan of hypotheticals.

17 minutes ago, zazen said:

@PurpleTree

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.

 

I think 🤔 but never really thought about it. Yea the Spanish government was quite harsh. Uncalled for imo. 
But for a dictatorship it needs other stuff too. Like no freedom of speech, no freedom to criticise the government, press freedom etc.

[zazen]

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

I think you’re either from Pakistan or Muslim from India 👍

Not a fan of hypotheticals.

What about the Cuban missile crisis which isn’t a hypothetical.

The US acted with force and coercion undermining Cuba’s sovereignty - but its actions weren’t imperial because the intent was preservation of the countries security, not accumulation or domination. This occurred despite them still being a imperial nation, but in this specific context their action was clearly done out of security logic.

Had it been Mexico and not Cuba it would have been even more threatening as Mexico and the US share a lengthy border with flat terrain = easy for troops and tanks to roll through and conquer the US from. Just like Ukraine and Russia today. It would be totally understandable yet simultaneously condemnable for the violence and suffering.

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

I think 🤔 but never really thought about it. Yea the Spanish government was quite harsh. Uncalled for imo. 
But for a dictatorship it needs other stuff too. Like no freedom of speech, no freedom to criticise the government, press freedom etc.

True, you do need other things. In the same way, you need other things to make something imperial or not - such as intent and context.

On the surface - violence, territory capture and civilian death can all occur - but those behaviours alone don’t make a war imperial, just like how the crack down alone doesn’t make Spain dictatorial.

Those things can happen under tragic, defensive or reactive circumstances. Like in WW2 against Hitler. There was mass violence. But the allies weren’t trying to gain something (imperial), but more so preserve something (defend) against an imperial expansionist force (Hitler’s Nazi Germany).

To name a non-Western example of imperialism for example: what the UAE is doing in Sudan (backing RSF) is imperial as it has no defensive context in which it can exist.

Edited August 20 by zazen

[PurpleTree]

11 minutes ago, zazen said:

What about the Cuban missile crisis which isn’t a hypothetical.

It‘s too long ago to really compare imo. 1962 it was a different world.

[zazen]

23 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

It‘s too long ago to really compare imo. 1962 it was a different world.

The principle is timeless in what it revels: a great power reacts forcefully to a rival power placing a military installation or foothold near its core security perimeter.

It doesn’t matter if its 1962 or 2062. The logic of security dilemmas, red lines, and existential threat perception hasn’t changed and will never change unless some paradigm breaking shift in technology or consciousness happens.

First you gloss over the nuance of what I’m saying, then you dodge dealing with a hypothetical, then the real example is “outdated”. You’re conveniently avoiding where the questions are leading to broski.

Edited August 20 by zazen

[PurpleTree]

31 minutes ago, zazen said:

The principle is timeless in what it revels: a great power reacts forcefully to a rival power placing a military installation or foothold near its core security perimeter.

It doesn’t matter if its 1962 or 2062. The logic of security dilemmas, red lines, and existential threat perception hasn’t changed and will never change unless some paradigm breaking shift in technology or consciousness happens.

First you gloss over the nuance of what I’m saying, then you dodge dealing with a hypothetical, then the real example is “outdated”. You’re conveniently avoiding where the questions are leading to broski.

 

Ok it’s fine. Are there valid security concerns for Russia sure, and for the Ukraine? Sure. 

 

But tell me this. You called the Eurostuds, Eurocons as in warmongering while Russia is literally attacking, killing, grabbing land, wanting regime chnge and so on. They say Ukrainians aren’t a real country and so on. They are out producing everyone in terms of weapons.
Do you think that’s true and cool?

I think Macron stated pretty well why they want security guarantees and a good Unrianian army for a long standing peace here.

You know Macron (Eurostud) was talking to Putin frequently before the brutal invasion. He tried to talk Putin out of it. And Putin just lied (Gollum) (wants his precious)  and said he won’t do it.

 

[Karmadhi]

I will give me 5 cents why:

1. Scale

The death toll of civilians and especially childreen in Gaza is magnitute higher than in Ukraine if we take into account the populations of each entity. In Ukraine there have been around 700 or so childreen killed meanwhile in Gaza close to 20.000. Overall the civilian death toll is also higher in Gaza as well (at least 50.000 compared to 12.000-20.000 in Ukraine)

We need to take into account the war in Ukraine has been going on for 1 year more and Ukraine has around 20 times Gaza population. 

Regarding Mauripol, the Human rights Watch did a detailed study which estimated around 8000 deaths. Which is why I said 12.000-20.000

2. Footage

This is huge. In Gaza we are bombared every day with horrible footage of injured and dead childreen and adults. In Ukraine all we see is destroyed buildings. Friends of mine have told me "In Ukraine I only saw some destroyed building so it is not that bad". If people do not see death, it means things are not bad as if there was death, they would see it. Just like they do in Gaza. This may be the most important reason why people think Ukraine is not causing much suffering to civilians, like Gaza war is.

3. Intensity

In Israel whenever there is a strike or a bombing campaign, it leads to dozens if not hundreds of deaths. A single missle strike often has killed close to 100 people (mostly civilians). Meanwhile in Ukraine we often see in the news that Russia launched 100 missles and 300 drones and from all these maybe 2-3 people were killed. This gives the impression that these attacks are not designed to mass murder civilians because of this simple reasoning. "1 missle in Gaza killed 50 people and 20 missles in Ukraine killed 3 people, so Russia is not trying to mass kill civilains like Israel. So it is not that bad". This is how people think.

4. Feeling of complicity

While people in the West have sanctioned Russia (via their governments) to the detriment of their own economies, they still trade and have relations with Israel. This causes people from these countries to feel guilty, complict and angry at their governments. There is no reason to be angry with Western governments regarding Ukraine where they have done everything they can to support them (Trump administration being a potential exception)

5. White priviledge bias

There is a general view in many countries that white people are priviledged and therefore they do not suffer as much as other more oppressed groups. Therefore, a war where whites only are involved is not as bad as a war where whites kill non whites.

6. Intent

The Israeli government has made endless genocidal statements towards Gaza. The same has not been said in Russia. They are much more discrete and in general do not reveal as much. At least, it does not reach Western medias. 

The same goes with ordinary citizens in Israel openly supporting and cheering on when civilians die in Gaza. You have endless videos of Israeli regual citizens saying they want to kill all Gazans. Such videos do not happen from Russian citizens cheering on Ukranians being wiped out. Or if they do, they do not reach the West. 

7. Actual destruction

The scale of destruction in Gaza makes anything in Ukraine look like nothing, especially when it comes to major cities. I have seen footage of Mauripol and it seems 10x better than Gaza does today.

8. Missunderstanding

People tend to think that Russia is given a free pass to do what they want morally by Western liberals but that is false. Nobody here says it is ok what Russia is doing. But due to the reasons I wrote above they choose to focus their anger at Israel instead. There is only so much anger someone can have. I am sure if the Gaza war had not happened, people would be much more angry at Russia. 

Ok guys, here are some of the reasons why I think we have this phenomenon

I have noticed it as well and sometimes I mention it to people I know who seem to fall for it.

Both wars are horrible and neither is acceptable

Edited August 21 by Karmadhi

[Basman]

@zazen Your fundamentally misinformed about Russias motive, willfull or not. It is only defensive war ideologically and for regime security purposes. It's really Putin's war. Not Russias and has little to do with actual national security but influence and political control.

You can only think it's a defensive war if your a Russian authoritarian or misinformed on the cause. Ideology doesn't change the fact that it is an offensive war however. Ukraine is democratic and culturally close to Russia, which is a unique threat to Putin's regime security. He is paranoid of a Qaddafi incident happening to him. A bunch of NATO country border with Russia but that never turns out to be a significant issue. NATO is only a threat to Russian authoritarianism. The issue isn't national security but regime security.

The issue with you "balancers" is because you are misinformed of the cause, willfull or not, you advocate for handing Ukraine over to Russia on a silver platter essentially, salt, pepper and all. You are advocating for authoritarianism and political control through violence. It is intensely hypocritical coming from someone who obsesses over US imperialism. It makes you look like a shill. When Russia does it, call me communist fredo. You criticize US for invading a small country but when Russia does it you come up with ever excuse why it is defensive and we should just leave the Russians to themselves, etc. Your a phony. 

[Karmadhi]

6 hours ago, Basman said:

Your fundamentally misinformed about Russias motive, willfull or not. It is only defensive war ideologically and for regime security purposes. It's really Putin's war. Not Russias and has little to do with actual national security but influence and political control.

You can only think it's a defensive war if your a Russian authoritarian or misinformed on the cause. Ideology doesn't change the fact that it is an offensive war however. Ukraine is democratic and culturally close to Russia, which is a unique threat to Putin's regime security. He is paranoid of a Qaddafi incident happening to him. A bunch of NATO country border with Russia but that never turns out to be a significant issue. NATO is only a threat to Russian authoritarianism. The issue isn't national security but regime security.

The issue with you "balancers" is because you are misinformed of the cause, willfull or not, you advocate for handing Ukraine over to Russia on a silver platter essentially, salt, pepper and all. You are advocating for authoritarianism and political control through violence. It is intensely hypocritical coming from someone who obsesses over US imperialism. It makes you look like a shill. When Russia does it, call me communist fredo. You criticize US for invading a small country but when Russia does it you come up with ever excuse why it is defensive and we should just leave the Russians to themselves, etc. Your a phony. 

Maybe he thinks Ukraine is not a democracy? A lot say that

Also, why does the fact that a country is a democracy or not matter even?

Invasion is wrong regarldess

You have a democracy bias as if invading democracies is somewhat worse when in the end people die nonetheless

 

[Basman]

5 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

Maybe he thinks Ukraine is not a democracy? A lot say that

Also, why does the fact that a country is a democracy or not matter even?

Invasion is wrong regarldess

You have a democracy bias as if invading democracies is somewhat worse when in the end people die nonetheless

 

I never said that. 

What I meant is that Russia's invasion is about political control.

[Karmadhi]

9 minutes ago, Basman said:

What I meant is that Russia's invasion is about political control.

Such as all invasions are

Nobody here says it is ok what they did, so I do not know why you are talking about it

The difference between Russia and Iraq for example is that Russia has a lot of reasons, which are legitimate in their eyes to carry out this invasion

USA had no legitimate reasons, they were just lying

Deluded reasons which are legitimate to the invador are better than pure lies

I am sure Russia geniounly believes their crap

And I have not seen a single person in this forum defend it or say it is a good action

This whole forum is pretty aligned with that issue

What changes here in opinions are the motivations behind the action, not the action being good or not.

 

Edited August 25 by Karmadhi

[PurpleTree]

42 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

Such as all invasions are

Nobody here says it is ok what they did, so I do not know why you are talking about it

zazen thinks it’s ok i think although i don’t know. He thinks it’s necessary. And Gollum (Putler) is sticking it to the colonialist white evil mansplaining west. Which you could make the argument that he is. I think he thinks Ukraine is just a buffery collateral damage kind of thing. 

 

[Basman]

2 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

Such as all invasions are

You can have a just invasion. WW2 is a prime example.

2 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

Nobody here says it is ok what they did, so I do not know why you are talking about it

The difference between Russia and Iraq for example is that Russia has a lot of reasons, which are legitimate in their eyes to carry out this invasion

USA had no legitimate reasons, they were just lying

Deluded reasons which are legitimate to the invador are better than pure lies

I am sure Russia geniounly believes their crap

And I have not seen a single person in this forum defend it or say it is a good action

This whole forum is pretty aligned with that issue

What changes here in opinions are the motivations behind the action, not the action being good or not.

 

Zazen's whole argument hinges on the Ukraine war being about national security, which I rebuke to be about regime security and ideology. It's a fatal flaw in his whole perspective because it is so fundamental to understanding the war. That position is being used to muddy and legitimize Russia as a violent aggressor with an unjust cause. It legitimizes authoritarianism, hence the democracy angle. When I say democracy, what I really mean is checks and balances of power and political sovereignty. That is worth protecting. The average Russian doesn't have political sovereignty. But you balancers don't even recognize that as a factor in the equation.

The reason for the invasion is authoritarianism. Interesting that you think that is a legitimate reason to attack a small country.

 

[PurpleTree]

18 minutes ago, Basman said:

The reason for the invasion is authoritarianism. Interesting that you think that is a legitimate reason to attack a small country.

A reason is also not wanting to be part of a system which is mostly led by the US. And with BRICS getting stronger/richer and China eyeing Taiwan. And Russia demographics getting worse and Putin getting older and dying. And Trump in the white house who is questioning Nato and allies. I guess this was the time to attack.

Edited August 25 by PurpleTree

[Nivsch]

Both the current Israeli government's strategy and Putin's one are deeply wrong.

Russia attacks are between far less to non selective and far more barbaric and potentially much more harmful in their outcome, but the giant area of Ukraine help its citizens to mobilize easily and be relatively protected.

Whereas in Gaza, even selective attacks (though not smart or careful even when the price of the attack is obvious) similarly to US and European coalition operations, will cause huge damage due to the exeptional density of the area.

Edited August 25 by Nivsch

[PurpleTree]

14 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Both the current Israeli government's strategy and Putin's one are deeply wrong.

Russia attacks are between far less to non selective and far more barbaric and potentially much more harmful in their outcome, but the giant area of Ukraine help its citizens to mobilize easily and be relatively protected.

Whereas in Gaza, even selective attacks (though not smart or careful even when the price of the attack is obvious) similarly to US and European coalition operations, will cause huge damage due to the exeptional density of the area.

Well yea isn’t it Israels fault to make the Gaza territory so small? If Gazans/Palestinians decided they probably would want a bigger area. 
 

[Raze]

1 hour ago, Nivsch said:

Both the current Israeli government's strategy and Putin's one are deeply wrong.

Russia attacks are between far less to non selective and far more barbaric and potentially much more harmful in their outcome, but the giant area of Ukraine help its citizens to mobilize easily and be relatively protected.

Whereas in Gaza, even selective attacks (though not smart or careful even when the price of the attack is obvious) similarly to US and European coalition operations, will cause huge damage due to the exeptional density of the area.

No, Russias attacks are far more selective than Israel.

Russia hasn’t been regularly using 2,000 lb bombs on civilian areas. Russia hasn’t destroyed or damaged 90% of residential buildings, Russia hasn’t repeatedly struck areas it told civilians to flee, Israel did all of the above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fP-J8m-BF0

https://frames.forensic-architecture.org/gaza/updates/attacks-following-evacuation-orders-in-areas-where-civilians-were-directed-to

Israel is purposefully targeting schools, hospitals, water infrastructure, and even paying civilians to use bulldozers to flatten what’s left of cities. They’ve also killed exponentially more doctors and journalists  than Russia.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/09/bulldzoer-gaza-genocide-idf-meta

IDF reports find they can only confirm 17% of those killed are confirmed combatants in Gaza.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21/revealed-israeli-militarys-own-data-indicates-civilian-death-rate-of-83-in-gaza-war

When the US coalition was invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, a majority of those they confirmed killed were confirmed combatants.

Israel also purposely induced famine in Gaza, Russia didn’t do this in ukraine

https://archive.ph/GTAqI

Edited August 25 by Raze

[zazen]

8 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

I am sure Russia geniounly believes their crap

And I have not seen a single person in this forum defend it or say it is a good action

This whole forum is pretty aligned with that issue

What changes here in opinions are the motivations behind the action, not the action being good or not.

@Basman Agree with Karmadhi here. No one’s said it’s a good thing - you guys conflate understanding with justification. It’s similar to understanding the context behind October 7th and the same way Zionists would conflate that with condoning the brutal act. The point is to understand the conditions that eventually lead to such blatant acts of aggression or violence / terrorism - in order to prevent them. I’ve literally said there are legitimate causes (security concerns) gone about in illegitimate ways (invasion, October 7th).

About the cause - you’re saying it’s regime security and ideology, rather than security logic. Putin can definitely benefit domestically by framing NATO expansion as a threat, but that’s not a primary cause - perhaps not even secondary, but can be opportunistically used sure. What you name as ideology is really identity - which acts as a really powerful accelerant to the core cause I agree.

All Russia leaders have said NATO in Ukraine would be a red line. It’s not unique to Putin. Putins approval tanked after Crimea in fact - so why would he do another invasion knowing it put his popularity at risk before, thus the regimes security at risk.

Former Director of the CIA Bill Burns in his 2008 memos (Nyet means nyet) said:

“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Ideology doesn’t erase geography and security concerns. US didn’t blockade Cuba primarily because of ideology or to secure its Democracy from a commie utopian island next door that may have been. It was primarily a security concern of having missiles from a rival power stationed that close to you.

If all parties involved (Russia-Ukraine-US) shared the same ideology (liberalism) and political system (democracy) - would Russia still react to security concerns on its periphery in a historical invasion corridor? Or would Russia say no it’s cool they’re a liberal Democracy just like us? Security concerns exist regardless of ideology or political systems - and are acted upon.

On the identity point: you bring up the cultural similarity between Ukraine and Russia which is where I think theres an added element of bitterness and betrayal. But it isn’t ideology like of the Soviet times being pushed out. Ukraine/Kiev is the cultural/civilisational heart of Russia - that being turned against you is literally vodka on the wound.

What would just ordinarily be a cold (logical) security concern becomes a hot (emotional) burning concern.  It’s like if a hostile rival to Saudi Arabia - such as Iran - were to turn Mecca against Saudi Arabia. The entire Sunni Muslim world would be fuming because it’s a civilization spit in the face - beside also being an existential threat to Saudi.

The root cause that is structurally driving a response is security, with the cultural/civilizational aspect being a powerful accelerant. That intensifies the security concern and makes it a easy sell to domestic Russians to rally around. It’s not only that the West is parking missiles on their doorstep, but that it’s in their childhood home - the cradle of their civilisation.  

The core logic of security would exist even if Ukraine were as foreign as Mexico. Power plus proximity equals panic for any power - and is responded to every time.

I recommend the latest Lex Fridman and Scott Horton podcast - the last segment on Ukraine. That covers the core cause very well in a way that doesn’t glaze authoritarianism or Putin.

Edited August 26 by zazen

[Nivsch]

6 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Well yea isn’t it Israels fault to make the Gaza territory so small? If Gazans/Palestinians decided they probably would want a bigger area. 
 

Israel was wrong to take this area from Egypt's (Egyptian martial law) in 1967. From then until today Gaza is a problem neither of the sides know how to solve.

Edited August 26 by Nivsch

[Inliytened1]

On 8/19/2025 at 7:26 AM, PurpleTree said:

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.

Who is doing that exactly?

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Israel was wrong to take this area from Egypt in 1967. From then until today Gaza is a problem neither of the sides know how to solve.

Bro all this is is a way to hate on Israel. Stop saying how wrong your country is is and believe in them.