It’s really not that simple.

What the hell is the point of reporting this?

Where have you seen confirmed killed higher? BTW confirmed killed is always lower than the actual number killed because confirming deaths and reporting them takes time and resources.

You’re including wounded in the “casualty” number. Russia has seen more than 20,000 soldiers confirmed killed. Ukraine has seen about 10,000. And the trend for Ukraine is stable. The trend for Russia is ever increasing.

Oh it’s nowhere close to 50/50. It’s not 99/1 like Reddit makes it seem but it’s nowhere close to 50/50. The reason Ukraine isn’t advancing is not because they’re taking super heavy casualties. It’s because Russia is successfully throwing meat shields in their way and Ukraine is unwilling to show a similar disregard for their soldier’s lives in order to advance.

How does any of that justify violence? Pile on the charges to your hearts content, but “he isn’t respecting our authority” does not justify violence.

More pointless slaughter. Awesome.

What are they gonna do? What is the purpose of threatening violence? Are we actually willing to go to war with China?

…Which is what my point was all about. Just because both are instances of invading sovereign territory doesn’t mean they’re comparable at all.

It’s a very simple question you can’t answer. A rhetorical question meant to make what point? To attempt it make the Us look hypocritical for criticizing turkey here.

A rhetorical question meant to make what point? To attempt it make the Us look hypocritical for criticizing turkey here.

What is the question? Was their sovereignty violated in both cases? Who’s asking that question? Who is of the mind that nobody’s sovereignty was violated? Nobody. That’s why it’s obvious that your only goal is cheap whataboutism.

It’s cheap whataboutism. There is no question that is a violation of sovereignty to conduct a strike inside someone else’s borders. The issue is whether or not that violation is justified.

No it’s not a question of sovereignty. It’s cheap whataboutism. Don’t backtrack now. There is no question that is a violation of sovereignty to conduct a strike inside someone else’s borders. The issue is whether or not that violation is justified. In the case of going after the most wanted man on the planet, whose presence Pakistan has no good excuse for not knowing, that’s justified. In the case of a displaced ethnic group whose fighting to not be genocided, and who’s only crime is being near the Turkish border, that is NOT justified.

Al qaeda is a terrorist organization. We killed their leader whom Pakistan had no business harboring. Kurds are not terrorists. They are in their ancestral territory. This is nothing like Bin Laden. Take your bullshit elsewhere.

I’d rather be attacked with a knife than with a gun. I can run from a knife attack. I cannot run from a gun attack. If I have a puffy coat, I am protected from a knife wound. No such luck with a bullet.

Seriously did you not even think about your sentence for 2 seconds?

This is so pedantic.

Lula —> significant net reduction in deforestation.

Bolsenaro —> significant net increase in deforestation.

If mayor A managed to reduce the murder rate from 1000 per year to 100 per year, and then mayor B comes in and changes things to where the rate goes up to 500 per year, it would be unequivocally asinine to try to argue that mayor B did a better job at dealing with murder because “more murders happened under mayor A” even if murders initially jumped to 110 per year for the first two years of mayor A’s tenure.

>in his second year deforestation increased in comparison to his first year

This is an inane and pedantic point. I did not literally mean that deforestation started to drop on 1 January 2004. This distinction you’re trying to make changes absolutely nothing about my point.

>Numbers don't lie !

The numbers show that deforestation fell by 75% while he was president. Why on earth are you only focusing on when he was initially in office and totally ignoring his entire tenure?

>In fact first 4 years of deforestation of Lula's term is more than double of 4 years of Bolsonaro deforestation

Only because bolsenaro had such a low staring point to start from…thanks to his predecessors.

If mayor A managed to reduce the murder rate from 1000 per year to 100 per year, and then mayor B comes in and changes things to where the rate goes up to 500 per year, it would be unequivocally asinine to try to argue that mayor B did a better job at dealing with murder because “more murders happened under mayor A.”

>By that logic , how do you hold Bolsonaro responsible of deforestation as a president but not Lula as a president?

Now you’re conflating two different ideas. I didn’t say Lula could not change the logging industry. I said he couldn’t totally turn it around in one year.

On that note, removing restrictions and letting the logging companies do whatever they want is A LOT easier than reining them in.

>The ones don't have any argument are being crushed by the facts

I’ve been through your comment history. You haven’t crushed one person with facts. YOU have gotten crushed left and right by irrefutable evidence that you’re wrong.

He isn’t in direct control over those companies. He isn’t a king.

Aren’t you sick of getting annihilated? Every argument you make gets crushed.

So by “countless witnesses and tapes” he meant “one single witness who retracted their testimony under scrutiny”?

> countless witnesses and tapes and money trail

Source

You know full well it’s perfectly reasonable for the massive logging trade in Brazil to take a year or more to turn around like that.