In further pursuit of its heroic war against doctors:
Russia is now repeatedly bombing quite intentionally Doctors Without Borders.
Back when the USA did that all of once the hue and outcry was evident and there was much handwaving.
Meanwhile Moscow quite cold-bloodedly pursuits one of the most literal types of terror bombing there is to very muted protest from the people who reliably protest these actions when a Republican in the USA did them.
I suppose civilian lives are only political footballs worth throwing around when the USA does it. Certainly bombing hospitals is only a war crime when the United States does it. I did predict back when this started that it would be a chronic pattern and the so-called anti-war press that's all up in arms over Obama's intention to continue US presence in Afghanistan would be decidedly quiet about it. Well, it's still going on. So where are the protests against Russians blowing up hospitals and civilians as an intentional strategy?
Does pacifism even exist as an actual concept without scruples or is it a nakedly partisan set of blinkers specific to specific ideologies within specific countries?
http://www.interpretermag.com/multiple-russian-airstrikes-hit-doctors-without-borders-hospital-and-refugee-camp-in-syria/#12384
Where were the 10 million people who screamed and protested about Bush when Putin's blowing up doctors as a first resort and deliberately causing the refugee crisis Europe claims to want to end? I fully expect anti-war protestors in the USA like Cindy Sheehan only care about war when a Bush starts it, but where are all the French, British, Spanish, and other protestors in other countries? Why was the mere prospect of a US invasion of Iraq worth so much of an outcry and the evident reality of Russia throwing its weight around, suspending the not-really followed all that well but nominally acknowledged rule against not challenging boundaries by force not?
Surely it couldn't have all been one glorified reaction to a man primarily because of who his father was? Why perish the thought. There is no such thing as partisanship and hypocrisy in pacifism, especially not from a continent that massacred the last group of religious minorities of any real signifiance, has political figures stating the only thing Hitler did wrong with the Romani wasn't killing enough of them, and is witnessing sluggishly progressing revivals of dictatorship outside the former Soviet sphere? As I said, American pacifism is always hypocritical at best. But if pacifism actually exists, surely opposing the evils of warfare is unconditional if anything would be?
http://world.time.com/2013/02/15/viewpoint-why-was-the-biggest-protest-in-world-history-ignored/
Back when the USA did that all of once the hue and outcry was evident and there was much handwaving.
Meanwhile Moscow quite cold-bloodedly pursuits one of the most literal types of terror bombing there is to very muted protest from the people who reliably protest these actions when a Republican in the USA did them.
I suppose civilian lives are only political footballs worth throwing around when the USA does it. Certainly bombing hospitals is only a war crime when the United States does it. I did predict back when this started that it would be a chronic pattern and the so-called anti-war press that's all up in arms over Obama's intention to continue US presence in Afghanistan would be decidedly quiet about it. Well, it's still going on. So where are the protests against Russians blowing up hospitals and civilians as an intentional strategy?
Does pacifism even exist as an actual concept without scruples or is it a nakedly partisan set of blinkers specific to specific ideologies within specific countries?
http://www.interpretermag.com/multiple-russian-airstrikes-hit-doctors-without-borders-hospital-and-refugee-camp-in-syria/#12384
Where were the 10 million people who screamed and protested about Bush when Putin's blowing up doctors as a first resort and deliberately causing the refugee crisis Europe claims to want to end? I fully expect anti-war protestors in the USA like Cindy Sheehan only care about war when a Bush starts it, but where are all the French, British, Spanish, and other protestors in other countries? Why was the mere prospect of a US invasion of Iraq worth so much of an outcry and the evident reality of Russia throwing its weight around, suspending the not-really followed all that well but nominally acknowledged rule against not challenging boundaries by force not?
Surely it couldn't have all been one glorified reaction to a man primarily because of who his father was? Why perish the thought. There is no such thing as partisanship and hypocrisy in pacifism, especially not from a continent that massacred the last group of religious minorities of any real signifiance, has political figures stating the only thing Hitler did wrong with the Romani wasn't killing enough of them, and is witnessing sluggishly progressing revivals of dictatorship outside the former Soviet sphere? As I said, American pacifism is always hypocritical at best. But if pacifism actually exists, surely opposing the evils of warfare is unconditional if anything would be?
http://world.time.com/2013/02/15/viewpoint-why-was-the-biggest-protest-in-world-history-ignored/