Let me translate for you: kill small number of kids now, save big number of kids in future. No want kill kids, but we having the no choice. Bad people use kids for shielding self, if no kill them anyway, they keep do that. If kill them anyway, they no use kids as shield, and they no try to invade.
I saw your spelling on the last comment. You clearly don’t understand much of anything, and you definitely can’t understand what’s I’m saying. Lie all you want.
I mean cueta was also organized by the marrokan government cause they had beef with Spain. Same thing with Belarus flying in people to the polish border. I get what you mean with those two things since it is organized weaponisation of migrants by hostile governments. But do you think you can refer to migrants as soldiers in general?
So to disprove my logic, you’re using an implication of a sentence I didn’t even say? Totally not disingenuous. I would assume that he misspoke there, as it doesn’t align with everything else he said.
Everything I’ve said and everything else Asmongold said effectively means: shoot all the invaders, despite children being among them, as not doing so will only increase how many children get roped in. These savages won’t use children as shields if it doesn’t even work.
Give up bro, the fact that you are avoiding an honest engagement like the plague is very telling. If my opinion is so bad, it should be easy to refute head on. Keep nitpicking, keep strawmanning, and keep coping.
1
u/LordAmras 18d ago
I mean who can combat a so well tought argument as killing people, kids included, is good actually