DandomRude

Of course it is tragic, heartbreaking even. But what bothers me about the term tragic in this context is that it makes it sound as if the deaths of these innocent girls were inevitable, as if they had been killed in a natural disaster for which no one is responsible.

However, that is not the case here at all: these girls were murdered by ruthless criminals.

This is not tragic, but a war crime - and this war is itself a crime, simply because it is completely contrary to international law.

Only a complete idiot like the orange pedo in the White House would believe that a autocratic regime that has been in power for decades and has also been engaged in a “cold war” with many of its neighboring countries for decades would fall immediately because its 86-year-old leader was killed.

But hey, it speaks volumes how the US is acting together with its genocidal allies: Congratulations on the murder of an aging despot in violation of international law, and my expression of utter contempt for the murder of the many innocent little girls that these two criminal states committed as if it were not the most despicable war crime.

Fuck off with your self-righteous remarks, you goddamn monsters. Nobody except your Nazi henchmen wants to hear that.

The whole point is to distract attention from the Epstein files. So…

Thank you very much for the explanation :)

Can someone explain this to me? I’m out of the loop when it comes to mainstream social media, and I suspect that’s what this is about…

The German philosopher Hannah Arendt asked herself a very similar question when, during the trial of Nazi official and war criminal Adolf Eichmann, she attempted to understand how a human being could be capable of such monstrous atrocities. In this context, she coined the expression “banality of evil.”

It is worth taking a look at her book “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,” because her observations in it are, unfortunately, once again highly relevant today.