guy

Incorrect conclusions about bad actions being bad no matter who does it?

Why not just change it to "imperialism is bad" lmao
Unless there's some good imperialism somewhere..

Exactly! :)

Nazis executing civilians is bad. Partisans executing civilians is bad. A bad action is bad no matter the intention.
Insert some quote about how the history is filled with good intentions.

Tell the 'unlawful' killed that it's ok, it was a growing power who haven't attacked someone for a long time and just tries to lift your country out of poverty that bombed you to bits not the cashking warmongerer, and see if they agree with your reasoning.

See, that's the issue.
Pointing at state A and saying it's bad invokes the response "Well B is by far more bad, if you look at contextualized extent, impact, and level of badness!" thus down playing the bad state A has done.

It's like, A hit X with a fist, but B hit Y with a bat, twice and on the shins, so what A did isn't so bad actually. Instead of just admitting hitting is wrong.

Seems like this post is about you! :)

I think the point is that both are bad. But somehow it always ends up with a competition where the US is more bad than the rest, and the rest is therefore somehow excused when .ml is involved

I chose it as my first instance since I wanted a leftist one. Oh boy did I earn an experience

Yes. One is the amount of music sales, the other the amount of Spotify.

Thanks for the clarification, I assumed you meant that the West had backed HTS, but I understand what you meant now. :)

I don't understand, do you mean that the west should have backed this terrorist group to come out on top or what?

My point exactly