have nothing to do with anything to do just that, so fucking get with it, spanky

So, I - the person who started the conversation - discussed of the opinions I have, about the topic I chose to discuss. You came here telling me what I think, and I am the one who talked about nothing.

You want to force dumb, dangerous, evil shit down our throats and then backtrack like a coward when you’re called on it?

I literally explained my point of view. Unfortunately in doing so I had to dismiss a lot of your made-up arguments. Apparently you are incapable of discussing what I actually say, so you apparently like to discuss what you think I said, or what people you generally disagree with say. Something that might be a nice exercise, but it's futile, since I don't think a good 90% of the things you suggest are my position. Unfortunately, for the bullshit asymmetry principle I am here wasting time dismissing claims, despite the fact that you will ignore all of these and in the next comment you will come up with more, which is a much cheaper activity.

Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt with you, is it?

Claims without arguments can be denied without arguments. You were using an argument that "not talking about Russian crimes" in a totally specific conversation constitute some kind of 'proof' that I am siding with Russia. I literally said that I don't feel like making a disclaimer every comment and saying "despite this does not even begin to compare with the atrocities in Izyum, Mariupol, [...]". Denial?

Yes, that is your position

Excuse me if I, the person with that position, know better what my goddamn fucking position is. The fucking arrogance.

You are actively arguing that Ukraine using a drone on a fucking airport building is a war crime because attacking civilians is always a war crime regardless of circumstances

And there you go. The clear example you completely misunderstood. I literally said IN MY FIRST COMMENT that attacks on infrastructure are justified? I am talking about attacks on civilians, not that an attack on airport is a war crime because is an attack on civilians. In this specific case, the attack ended up on a building. Ok, it seems that this was not the intended target, so we can discard this particular example because we don't know, but I still wanted to discuss the attitude of people towards these kind of events, assuming that the building not the airport was the target. Note that all this conversation happened before your first comment even arrived. This means you didn't even bother reading the same conversation you jumped in, and now you have the arrogance to claim what my argument is when you completely misrepresented it.

Look here, this is my first comment:

I **understand bridges and other infrastructure with military value, military targets in general **etc., but this is a basically random building.

At 07:10 UTC someone already mentioned that we don't know what the target was, to which I responded:

Good point. I suppose my point still stands in terms of how people welcome such events, rather than the events themselves. A similar statement could be done for the missile in Taganrog few days ago. Assuming they were not the intended targets, it still seems that a good chunk of the people participating in the discourse justifies this type of attacks anyway.

Your first comment came hours after this conversation happened, and yet you are now saying

You are actively arguing that Ukraine using a drone on a fucking airport building is a war crime because attacking civilians is always a war crime regardless of circumstances

Which means you understood nothing of the whole argument, you didn't read the conversation nor the sibling comments.

Implying Ukraine is committing a war crime by attacking an airport

Implying nothing, this is your conclusion. My intention is exactly what's written, I wouldn't support Ukraine committing war crimes, I'd rather have Russia be the only one. This is because with some people the conversation moved to the abstract question of the "limits" or "restrictions" in defending oneself. This sentence is in my first comment, and you can see that this has a generic value simply reading it in context:

I feel like we should not cross the line where we justify attacks on civilians, and let Russia be the only one committing war crimes by doing that (and hopefully paying the price).

I am the first that supports attacking airports and other infrastructure within Russian territory, because they are -by definition- military targets. This concept is expressed in the paragraph above this citation, and therefore your conclusion is wrong.

Russia’s citizens are suffering the very real consequences of their own actions in supporting said genocide.

Your interpretation lies on the collective responsibility (i.e., the whole Russian population is responsible for Russian actions), principle that I don't agree with.

Ukraine does not have to care about Russia because Russia is threatening Ukraine’s ability to live and Ukraine has the unilateral, natural right to use every means available to protect its life, including drone attacks on airports. EVERY country has that right.

See where we reach, when you made up arguments? I agree with what you think is a statement opposed to my claim.

If they didn’t want to be attacked then they wouldn’t have been dumb enough to support a regime trying to invoke genocide and nuclear war.

Here you fall back into the collective responsibility, everyone is supporting the war, everyone is guilty. Sorry, I don't agree. From a practical standpoint, because there are minorities that we should nurture and consider allies in Russia that want a better country, and this stance doesn't do anything than isolate them and expose them even more to government repression.

We in the U.S. deserved [...]

I don't think terrorist attacks on people are justified, not even against US citizens, not even against the republicans and filo-Bush.

By insinuating those people have no agency or [...] of Russia’s stances and actions

"those people" are millions of people made by all kind of populations, from Putin's fans to dissidents, to illiterate in remote villages.

categorically demanding Ukraine surrender and submit to genocide

This you completely made it up. You really can't resist.

You falsely frame that drone attack as unnecessary and cruel and you haven’t considered that that drone attack and several others that went down over the past year are either attempts to assassinate Putin or setting the groundwork to invade Moscow

First of all, I did not mention unnecessary nor cruel. Second of all, no, I did not consider that one attack with a drone in a Moscow district which is half a city away from the Cremlin (which is anyway not where Putin probably is) a way to assassinate Putin (something which I welcome very much). I didn't because it doesn't make any sense, and it seems a post-factum made up justification. I make my opinion clearer, just not to be misunderstood. If tomorrow Ukraine would start bombing Moscow residential areas with the "objective" to prepare for assassinating Putin, I would still consider these actions wrong, despite agreeing with the general goal.

Now Zaphorzhiza’s plant is rigged with bombs.

You continue to repeat this. Thankfully, we don't know that yet. As you know, IEAE still did not have access to the roof and the reactor 3 and 4 (if I remember correctly), but so far no traces of explosives aimed to blow up the central were found. This does not mean that it's not possible, it just means it's not a fact just yet.

Now one of Ukraine’s biggest dams was blown up

And what do you think my stance is about that? Cheering up?

This is a fucking war and Ukraine’s survival is far more important than anyone in Russia’s, period, full stop.

If you demonstrate to me that potentially killing civilians in Russia will help the survival of Ukraine, I might agree with you.

We’re certainly not perverse enough to equivocate a drone attack on an airport in a war with a nuclear power that has literally raped Ukraine’s people en masse with a bullying victim raping his bully’s mom.

So, you make a simile to explain the point, I change the simile to be more aligned with what I think, and now you think I made a comparison to the fact, not just used it as a model to explain a concept. OK. But I got your opinion about this, and I fundamentally disagree with it. You think:

Ukraine’s survival is far more important than anyone in Russia’s, period, full stop.

Which in your simile means you don't make any distinction between the actual bully, his sister, or the neighbor. I make a distinction, and therefore I disagree with the bullied kid dropping a bomb on the whole neighborhood.

And here you are, telling the nerdy Black kid down the street that he can’t launch a drone to blow them [...]

Who is "them"?

rather Ukraine do it to ensure their own survival

Again you need to argument this cause-effect relationship. I honestly don't see it, I don't see how few civilians dead in Moscow, Taganrog or wherever else will help ensure Ukraine survival. To me is detrimental from multiple point of views, but since you seem to base a lot of your reasoning on this, maybe you can explain it to me.

You’re HURTING Ukraine and victims everywhere by arguing this.

This is your interpretation, which honestly, judging from your understanding skills, doesn't worry me too much.