_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
190 points (99.0% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
3619 readers
1470 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Geopolitics are complex, the enemy of your enemy is not your friend but they can be a tool.
Reading one snippet from an email with no context is hardly going to give you the full picture.
Sure. The same can be said for the comment he's replying to saying it's stupid. Either a small thing literally saying they worked with us is enough evidence that they worked with us, or something saying they worked with us has too little context to know the full story. This guy is in the wrong either way. You can decide which way yourself, but you're just trying to defend him for no good reason.
Nothing about his original comment or the highlight about being ‘on the same side’ indicates cooperation.
You can work towards the same goal as another group/faction without providing assistance or cooperation.
Again, there simply isn’t enough information to make the judgement you are leaping to.
None of it in the comment he was contradicting indicates cooperation. It says "relied on" which seems true. He implied cooperation, so, again, he's wrong regardless.