I can’t care enough to explain contradictions in your comment. It’s dumb and dishonest, also speculative.

Again, really straightforward stuff.

First, the whole matter of some country being able to affect political groups in another country being normal, as you’re saying about it, is more than lousy to say the least. Israel did not create hamas. Israel could not know how it will act over the years. Israel could not know who will win the elections.

Second, proposing the idea that a modern non-jihad government would put their own population at risk of terrorist attacks in order to have a chance to do genocide of other population is ridiculous.

Third, if the “second” thing above is incorrect, they would instead fiddle with the iron dome. More specifically, there would be no iron dome in the first place - they would take all the rocket hits they could in order to show the world how aggressive terrorists are and invade Gaza asap.

you use Nazi-tier logic to defend Nazi-tier actions.

I don’t know what to say here. What nazi-tier even means is beyond me. But you here basically operate with extremes like every actor does exactly what they are programmed to do. It seems to me that even if some investigation will conclude that Israel, in fact, did not intent to fund any specific group, you’ll still find new twists in order to make Israel guilty of what hamas did.

What did you not understand in my comments?

Decolonization is violent

This is like saying nuclear bomb kills a lot of people. I agree. But is it happening in current reality?

Israel propped up Hamas to label their aggressive tactics as “terrorism”

Can’t seem to identify the bad actor here. Would you help out?

The US propped up the Taliban and other right-wing terrorist groups

You mean Taliban good, USA bad?

“Terrorist” tactics (or anything really) used for the sake of driving out a settler colonial ethnostate (a good thing) - like Hamas are doing and Viet Cong did - is good, while those tactics when used to oppress and commit genocide on a native population (a bad thing) - like Israel is doing - is bad. This isn’t that hard to understand.

I understand that you think hamas will succeed in driving Israel out. Since all the current events are the result of hamas’ actions and the expected process of driving Israel out, I don’t see why wouldn’t we just sit and watch it till the end. Since terrorism is excusable, all the casualties are the price of Palestine getting real independence.

So you’re telling that hamas didn’t do anything wrong and they will succeed?

It’s interesting how some people blame Israel for being oppressors while others blame it for establishing hamas.

It’s also interesting how some people say terrorism is not useless because there is “some” history, but others are upset by how Israel is doing it too, apparently.

Israel put a terrorist org

What?

it’s with them funding a terrorist group to put them in power

And I thought it was Palestinians who chose hamas during elections. The other candidate was also a terrorist group if I’m not mistaken though, so really don’t see how complicated the plan of Israel should’ve been for everything to play out exactly as it had.

so they could justify the genocide they’ve been loudly telegraphing they want to commit.

So basically the plan was “Kill us, so we could kill you” all along, huh? This is some flat earth level conspiracy.

You think they will still be at it if they are given every hamas member?

What you propose:

“Terrorists might’ve done something good actually. In some foreseeable future we might see changes in the world that would actually benefit them in the result, making their terrorism not useless”

What I propose:

“No human can see the future. But hamas could perfectly see what would happen if they launched such a violent attack - invasion with the purpose of removing hamas as an entity. If I can’t blame them for not surrendering by now, I will blame them for not making anything to defend their citizens.”

I’d say it’s not loaded framing on my side, but convoluted assumptions (and possibly clairvoyance) on the other.

I may not have the explanation of why “Israel funded hamas”, but I know that half the world funded Palestine for years, and that most of that help naturally must’ve went through hamas.

Simply put, it doesn’t seem like Israel could avoid funding Palestine. Hamas could’ve put that money in improving lives of citizens.

Deep down we know that doing terrorism will not solve any problems.

Funding might be true. But do we have real evidence that it was done precisely for what you described? Did someone specific decided “let’s give them money, so they would build rockets to bomb us, then invade to kill our citizens in an attack we’ll be unprepared for and then have all the right to obliterate them and nobody would stop us”?

It goes a long way that you are avoiding.

You basically refuse to explain what could happen that would constitute for “bad” or “unwanted” if Navalny is supported.

You refuse to explain what exactly do you mean by right wing (exact bad stuff about it) and instead rely on your readers’ own interpretation to convince them that person should not be supported.

By providing exact example you could be more specific. And I could find some stream piece with Navalny’s point of view on something exact to show you that he would not actually do what you think he would do.

If you still want to avoid exact examples and only rely on those old clips about immigrants then you have no chance of proving me wrong. In his presidential program there was a proposition to require visa from them, and this can’t be viewed as bad. Else you’d have to tell me countries like US/EU are controlled by right wing shitheads already. It’s like telling your readers “hey don’t forget, this guy seems to be at least as bad as your own government, don’t support him”.

didn’t come from Westerners, but rather from Russians who complained

If you read the article and do some research it really comes from either Kremlin propaganda or people not knowing who Navalny really is.

his anti immigrant stance, equating immigrants to „cockroaches“ or dressing as a dentist and making a metaphor that immigrants were a pain that needs to be removed

And? You don’t know that about 70% of Russian population use much more cruel words about immigrants every day? You don’t know that there is a real problem with salaries in Russia that could be affected if Russia required proper visa from immigrants (something that a lot of other countries already do but you seem to not complanin about their immigrant stance)?

If you assume a politician who did and said that much as Navalny towards immigrants will do some real unimaginable shit towards them if he gets power… I think any Russian will tell you that you are wrong.

You pretend like nationalist authoritarianism is a phenomenon exclusive to Russia

Excuse me what? Where did I?

Your situation is not unique and if you support a fascist you get fascism.

1. I know Russia’s situation is not unique. That said, Navalny is unique as a political person still.

2. Surprise, you already have fascism in Russia even without Navalny. And there will be much more as long as Putin (at least) is in power.

Not that I hope that Navalny will at some point will get any power to do anything. But people lose too much when they judge others by single episodes from their past (that aren’t even getting interpreted properly, heh).

And that is how I interpreted it.

Okay let me try it differently. Imagine a perfect clone of Navalny gained full power in your country. You know he is a right wing shithead and will inevitably do what you expect and afraid him to do. Can you list a few things that he will do?

Someone calling you a shithead doesn’t make you a shithead, simple as that.

People not having a slightest idea about what people in Russia would think about what they assume by “right wing” won’t help Russian people at all, they would only confuse themselves.

The reason, though, is that by telling other people who has no idea about how Russia works to note how another Russian person is bad by their standards (also doing no work to actually research and confirm that) will only make it much less likely for any Russian person to be liked or accepted by the rest of the world. Not because they are really that bad or stuff, but because of only high probability of people getting misled by crap articles and Kremlin propaganda and then refusing to do proper research.

That’s not true and it wouldn’t matter even if it was true. You got to know a lot about Russian current culture to understand the specifics.

It’s useless to apply current standards of developed countries on Russia in order to approve some politician. Russia needs to change before that could even work. I imagine Navalny could’ve been one of drivers of that process.

Also Amnesty reversed that decision since. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/05/statement-on-alexei-navalnys-status-as-prisoner-of-conscience-2/

So there is a side if good here?

When Lithuanians tell them to go to Russia if they love it so much, they get really quiet though.

Thanks. I think they need to be reminded of that more frequently.

The Russians from Russia who afford to travel are also notorious for being annoying and disrespectful tourists throughout Southeast Asia and various other places. Even in online games they stick to each other instead of playing with people from various countries.

Yes. I’m not sure what can be done about this though, except proper education.

I disagree about the Russians in Russia, I think the blame is on Russians, they are the ones who have kept Putin in power for so long.

I could agree but this is different from the imperialism in my book. At least one big reason for that happening is how well constructed the state propaganda was from the very beginning. It’s like most actors are acting out of fear mostly, while not really being obligated to follow the narrative. And the education problem, of course.

For the web apps, I disagree, as I personally would never consider a desktop electron app a good case. That is one of main reasons I prefer telegram. Good to see Whatsapp also moved this way recently, somewhat. Can’t expect google to do the same.

By questioning why would apple do that you are missing that it never really did anything like that, and therefore it’s unlikely to be the case anyway. This time, apple didn’t really need to spend any resources to allow some integration and it spent them anyway, to try and block so called unauthorized albeit fully capable clients.

It’s foolish to assume apple would adopt anything like that instead of coming up with a product of its own. You ask “why apple would adopt some bad protocol” but not “why would apple not let a good protocol used by others”. “Why would google not create something that others would adopt” but not “why would apple not create something that others would adopt”. This is kind of apple centric, a bias I’d say.