Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bertiebasit t1_ix3tes9 wrote

Reply to comment by CheesecakeMedium8500 in Turkish air strikes destroy 89 Kurdish militant targets in Syria, Iraq, ministry says by john217

The principle being discussed was sovereignty. The reason is irrelevant.

2

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_ix3uh1x wrote

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.

−6

bertiebasit t1_ix4h3l1 wrote

Nonsense. Your trying to shoehorn your sympathy into a generic question.

6

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_ix4i1ok wrote

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.

0

bertiebasit t1_ix4ipse wrote

It was a rhetorical question with a statement. You tried to shoehorn an argument based on your sympathies. It’s irrelevant. Stop getting so hostile about it.

5

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_ix4o9kc wrote

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

2

bertiebasit t1_ix51im6 wrote

Take a walk, you’re overthinking

1

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_ix5448s wrote

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.

1

bertiebasit t1_ix5appy wrote

That the US had set a precedent.

0

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_ix5kmlk wrote

…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.

1

BirdlawIsBestLaw t1_ix4s6vz wrote

>You tried to shoehorn an argument based on your sympathies.

That is not a valid criticism or rounds to dismiss his argument. You are avoiding his distinction because it destroys your argument.

−1