Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the default response that I haven't "engaged or understood" the "other side of this debate"? What's the "other side" here? That I have sympathy for this man? Where is this whole thing going? Is doing research on what he's done and perpetrated and quotes by his own voice not enough? And how does that lead to me not understanding modern day Kissingers? I refuse to give this any more headspace. This sage-like alm…
> That I have sympathy for this man? No. That you understand how it happened. > That I have sympathy for this man? That’s fine. Stay away from geopolitical decision making. Most people shouldn’t have to weigh moral systems.
People here should really stop pretending that reading "both sides" of everything is some form of enlightenment. It is delusional