[gordian-not]

I’m not sure where I said you shouldn’t criticize both.

What I’m saying is that international “morales” are extremely relative. One day Israel is criticized for bombing houses in Gaza by the US, another day the US bombs weddings in Afghanistan largely unnoticed.

Are they both bad? sure. Is it fair? irrelevant.

However, if you are making an argument for example that asymmetric warfare requires attacking targets in dense civilian population and sometimes mistakes happen, then it is absolutely essential to compare to other countries.

And people that shout “whataboutism” on knee jerk are not helping anyone

[iab]

Happy to see this reach it's natural conclusion, in terms of subscribing to moral relativism. I think if this is one's worldview, it's hard to not use a "whataboutism" style of argument whenever questions of morals or ethics arise. Without a strong internal grounding, it's challenging not to resort to comparisons, I agree with you.

[gordian-not]

it seems that when you’re arguing with someone you assume a lot of things about your counterpart

i didn’t subscribe to moral relativism. I didn’t say that there is no moral truth, I said in international politics morality is often used cynically to project power.

However, let’s disengage from this argument as I can sense aggressiveness and insincerity in your style of discussion

[iab]

Notice how I said "one", not "you"? Also at the end of the post, when I said:

> I agree with you

where that is "you", and not "one"?

I find it fascinating that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of, where you are assuming things that are not true. This generally happens (in my experience) where people are unable to disassociate their opinions from their "self", and here I am making a direct inference that this applies to you as well.

Happy to continue the discussion, although it seems you might be unable to split emotions from logic.