Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** Official Putin Started Shootin' Thread ***

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 300 of 715
  1. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    I mean I don't really want to get in a debate with a guy who doesn't know who fought on which side when in most wars...
    I mean I don't even know what you're getting at here, but you're right, I'm not a historian.

    I also know about 70% of it is tundra and frozen forests. You don't win a war by holding onto tundra.
    This is exactly how to win a war if it's the only option you have left. And if there's any people on the planet more capable of living in frozen forests and tundra, it's the Russians. It's pretty much how they won the 1812 war with France. The Russians will outlast any occupiers in such conditions. And they'll nuke their own cities if they have to.

    If the Russians retreat to the tundra, they'll survive, bank it.

    Germany came close to taking the USSR's three biggest cities in WWII. They seiged Leningrad for three years, they got to the outskirts of Moscow, they occupied 90% of Stalingrand.
    You're not going to win a war against Russia taking their cities. All you can do is get bogged down into an occupation that is slowly going to kill your men. Eventually you have to retreat, and the Russians emerge from the frozen forest. This is what having such a large and inhospitable country can do for you. This is why Russia will never be defeated. They can only be subdued for a period of time.

    Japan was the second greatest naval power in WWII after the USA,
    Nonsense. At the start of the war, the Royal Navy was the greatest naval power in the world. By the end of the war, it was the Americans. The Japanese were always a distant third. This is a matter of fact, based on the size of the navies in question In terms of merchant tonnage, our navy was five times bigger than Japan's. Five.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_...f_World_War_II

    [Insert list of mountainous countries Germany rolled over in days in WWII.]
    Like Switzerland, right?

    Every country has mountains, even we have them. The difference with countries like France and Japan is that France's mountains aren't quite as strategic. Japan's mountains cover, I believe, 70% on the land area. Maybe that's just Honshu, not sure. Oh, and they're also an island, unlike mainland Europe.

    Hitler didn't take the one large country in Europe that is so well protected by mountains that it's practically impossible to occupy. He didn't need to of course, they were neutral, but he took neutral Belgium because he needed it to get to France.

    And that's because the mountains of France did protect them from invasion from the south. The way to invade France is through Belgium, the flatlands.

    Mountains are important.

    What is a "crucifiction"
    Thanks for the spelling correction.

    But you're saying we shouldn't try to defend those interests "because nazis."
    Well actually I'm saying let's not pretend we have moral high ground. We're playing the same game they are.

    I didn't even think he would invade because he only had a fraction of his army on their border. He did anyways. It hasn't gone well, and either he should have known that but is crazy, or he did know that and doesn't care.
    I agree with you here. I was surprised he attempted an invasion with the troops he had, and it certainly doesn't look to me like it's going to plan. Not sure why. My best guess is the Russian fighters aren't as motivated as the Ukrainians. Or maybe they're just ballsing it right up. I read somewhere, citation needed, that the Russians blew up a 5G tower, which killed their own communications. But I've also read opinions that think Putin is deliberately holding back because he hoped to win it with minimal bloodshed. Who knows why Russia are failing. I'm sure they're capable of much more.

    I have. The amount i spend on gas has gone from £60 to £70 a fill. I may have to sell my house.
    Next time it'll probably be £80.

    This time next year it could be £250.

    How long is this going to go on for? And even when it ends, how long do the Russian sanctions go on for? The longer it goes on, the worse it is for everyone.

    You're the only person I know who sees a moral equivalence between an invading army and one that has some assholes in it.
    I'm of the opinion that arming and training revolutionists in foreign countries is morally comparable to invading that country, especially when those revolutionists are jihadists and Nazis.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  2. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is exactly how to win a war if it's the only option you have left. And if there's any people on the planet more capable of living in frozen forests and tundra, it's the Russians. It's pretty much how they won the 1812 war with France. The Russians will outlast any occupiers in such conditions. And they'll nuke their own cities if they have to.

    If the Russians retreat to the tundra, they'll survive, bank it.

    You're not going to win a war against Russia taking their cities. All you can do is get bogged down into an occupation that is slowly going to kill your men. Eventually you have to retreat, and the Russians emerge from the frozen forest. This is what having such a large and inhospitable country can do for you. This is why Russia will never be defeated. They can only be subdued for a period of time.
    Ok thanks for that expert analysis.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Nonsense. At the start of the war, the Royal Navy was the greatest naval power in the world. By the end of the war, it was the Americans. The Japanese were always a distant third. This is a matter of fact, based on the size of the navies in question In terms of merchant tonnage, our navy was five times bigger than Japan's. Five.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_...f_World_War_II
    Battleships, cruisers and destroyers were basically useless by WWII. A merchant marine isn't part of your battle fleet, so if we're talking about naval power, they're irrelevant.

    Aircraft carriers ruled the waves. Japan had more and better aircraft carriers than the UK in WWII, until the US Navy sunk them all.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Like Switzerland, right?
    Picks a name of a country that didn't fight in WWII. Well played sir.

    Like Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well actually I'm saying let's not pretend we have moral high ground. We're playing the same game they are.
    No, you've been saying you have a problem with helping Ukraine because some people in their army are bad people. Not the same as what you say here.





    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Next time it'll probably be £80.

    This time next year it could be £250.

    How long is this going to go on for? And even when it ends, how long do the Russian sanctions go on for? The longer it goes on, the worse it is for everyone.
    So when we impose economic sanctions on ourselves you're not worried about it, but when we impose them on Russia you think it's going to ruin our economy?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm of the opinion that arming and training revolutionists in foreign countries is morally comparable to invading that country, especially when those revolutionists are jihadists and Nazis.
    So you ARE saying you have a problem with helping Ukraine. I thought that's what I read before.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 03-12-2022 at 03:47 AM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  3. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Like Switzerland, right?

    Every country has mountains, even we have them. The difference with countries like France and Japan is that France's mountains aren't quite as strategic. Japan's mountains cover, I believe, 70% on the land area. Maybe that's just Honshu, not sure. Oh, and they're also an island, unlike mainland Europe.

    Hitler didn't take the one large country in Europe that is so well protected by mountains that it's practically impossible to occupy. He didn't need to of course, they were neutral, but he took neutral Belgium because he needed it to get to France.

    And that's because the mountains of France did protect them from invasion from the south. The way to invade France is through Belgium, the flatlands.

    Mountains are important.
    Thats not strictly true , HItler didnt invade france through Belgium because it was flat and mountains were protecting the french german border. After WW1 france protected that border with with the Maginot line which was a fortified construction.Hitler simply drove round it through Belgium rather than assaulting fortifications and losing men and equipment.
  4. #229
    ^ fair enough, though the point remains that Hitler couldn't invade France via Switzerland due to the terrain. And the invasion of Belgium demonstrated that neutrality was not an issue for Hitler when it came to invading countries. Taking Switzerland was too difficult and served no strategic purpose.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  5. #230
    Germany actually went through the most difficult terrain in Belgium, the Ardennes. Plan A was to do a Schleiffen plan mach 2 and go thru the plains, but a pilot crashed in Belgium with the plans on him, was captured, and so they had to scrap that and come up with a Plan B.

    Plan B was to send most of their tanks thru the Ardennes, which the Allies' commander (Ong's distant relative, apparently) thought was too rough of country for tanks and so didn't properly defend it. Once through the Ardennes, they punched thru the Frenchies' lines at Sedan, then headed for the coast and rolled up the Allied front. After that, Dunkirk, and after that, the Frenchies said "sacre bleu!" and decided they had no chance and gave up. They didn't head for the Alps and say "haha you German types, you cannot get us here!"

    It's a silly argument anyways because obviously it's harder to attack by fighting up and down mountains than just cruising thru plains. But being a mountainous country doesn't make it impregnable. The US had plans drawn up for invading mainland Japan. But they anticipated 100k Allied casualties, so they said fuck that, let's just nuke 'em. And in Europe, Germany rolled through Norway, Yugoslavia, and Greece pretty easily, despite them all being mountainous.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  6. #231
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  7. #232



    Apparently 21% of people think a no fly zone means something like no more holidays allowed in Ukraine for the duration of the war.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  8. #233
    Goddamn sauna-sitting Eurolibfinntard! How dare he point out how useless Boris is!

    https://twitter.com/MatthewStadlen/s...74241119936518
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  9. #234
    I'd love to see the original text for that. What is Finnish for "la la land"?

    This is ridiculous. Boris says he stands up to Russia, some ex-Finland says "but Brexit". I imagine these people have a huge board meeting once a month where they discuss world events and how they will respond. There's a war in Ukraine? Let's talk about Brexit.

    You should attend one of these meetings poop, seems like your kind of thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #235
    I hope to see you soon in la la land.

    Probably NSFW if your superiors look down on the glorification of drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  11. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Boris says he stands up to Russia, some ex-Finland says "but Brexit".

    To be fair, he was much milder in his language about Boris comparing voting for Brexit to the war in Ukraine than his counterpart ex-Ukraine.

    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  12. #237
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'd love to see the original text for that. What is Finnish for "la la land"?

    This is ridiculous. Boris says he stands up to Russia, some ex-Finland says "but Brexit". I imagine these people have a huge board meeting once a month where they discuss world events and how they will respond. There's a war in Ukraine? Let's talk about Brexit.

    You should attend one of these meetings poop, seems like your kind of thing.
    https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status...33283333033988

    Obviously if people think BJ is a buffoon, it must be a global conspiracy.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  13. #238
    Goddamn cheese-eating EU surrender monkey Macron not shaking Boris' hand!

    https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1506945401366192128
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  14. #239
    Oh, Boris is a buffoon, not disputing that, but frankly I expect better from the Nordic countries than to bring Brexit politics into the Ukraine crisis. I thought the Finns were more diplomatic and rational than that. At least it's a former PM, so probably just someone clinging onto relevance, like Blair.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #240
    Boris compared the people who voted for Brexit to those people fighting for their lives in the war in Ukraine. I think it's pretty hard to go too far in ridiculing the person who comes out with such a thing. It's definitely a la la land kind of statement.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  16. #241
    Not that we need more evidence that he's a posh twat clown walking shitshow of a PM, but here he is in parliament yesterday making faces at the opposition.


    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  17. #242
    Putin railing against cancel culture. Wait till he hears about woke people.

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1507333553448800309
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  18. #243
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    My prediction is that both Finland and Sweden are NATO members by end of july. Either both or neither, we're cooperating in this.

    Re: Russia feeling threatened about NATO spreading towards east and threatening them. WTF that's laughable, as if anyone thinks NATO would attack Russia unprovoked. What the westernization of former Soviet states means is that it undermines Russia's authority and values, and hinders their plans of expansion.

    I seriously see no easy way out of this kerfuffle. If Russia gets anything resembling a victory out of this war, they'll continue to pursue their interests with Poland, Georgia, the Baltics, Finland etc. Funny how suddenly a global pandemic seems like a non-issue.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  19. #244
    Even if Russia does feel threatened by NATO, as long as being in NATO is the only thing keeping Russia from attacking a neighboring country, it's just going to keep getting new members. They (i.e. Putin) are basically shooting themselves in the foot with all these pre-emptive strikes on potential NATO members.

    In other news, seems the war hasn't been going too well for ol' Rootin' Tootin' Putin. Reports of his generals lying to him about their failures to keep from getting Stalin-ed. Troops refusing to attack. Doesn't seem like a winning formula.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  20. #245
    WTF that's laughable, as if anyone thinks NATO would attack Russia unprovoked.
    This utterly misses the point. Geopolitics is not just about the threat of invasion or attack from another country.

    If NATO were to build up a military presence in Ukraine, Russia will feel they have no choice but to have their own military build up ion the area to remain on equal footing. Failing to do so would lose influence in the region. Russia don't fear an invasion or attack from NATO, what they fear is the diminished control of the Black Sea, and the economic consequences of having to increase their military presence on the Western front of their country, which is geographically their weakest front.

    Russia do not want to be a sitting duck. That would mean less leverage in geopolitical affairs. That's what matters to Russia.

    If Russia gets anything resembling a victory out of this war, they'll continue to pursue their interests with Poland, Georgia, the Baltics, Finland etc.
    I think this is just paranoia. It's understandable in the current climate, but Russia are not going to invade the Baltic states or Poland because that means going to war with NATIO. Invading Finland would also seriously risk world war, and in the best case scenario means a war with Finland that neither side will win, with the ultimate result of Finland definitely joining NATO to ensure it doesn't happen again. Russia invading Finland would be the dumbest thing they could do, short of invading a NATO country.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #246
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This utterly misses the point. Geopolitics is not just about the threat of invasion or attack from another country.

    If NATO were to build up a military presence in Ukraine, Russia will feel they have no choice but to have their own military build up ion the area to remain on equal footing. Failing to do so would lose influence in the region. Russia don't fear an invasion or attack from NATO, what they fear is the diminished control of the Black Sea, and the economic consequences of having to increase their military presence on the Western front of their country, which is geographically their weakest front.

    Russia do not want to be a sitting duck. That would mean less leverage in geopolitical affairs. That's what matters to Russia.
    "This utterly misses the point" and proceeds to argue for my point. Yes, Russia is worried that they'll lose influence and authority over their neighbors, and even their own population who might star asking questions if their western neighbors are prospering more than them. Them reacting the way they do is why NATO is needed in the first place, and why Russia's neighbors are so keen to join it. There's two sides to this, a bully, and those opposing that bully. I just find it odd the lengths some people go to show empathy towards the bully.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think this is just paranoia. It's understandable in the current climate, but Russia are not going to invade the Baltic states or Poland because that means going to war with NATIO. Invading Finland would also seriously risk world war, and in the best case scenario means a war with Finland that neither side will win, with the ultimate result of Finland definitely joining NATO to ensure it doesn't happen again. Russia invading Finland would be the dumbest thing they could do, short of invading a NATO country.
    I don't think the risk is an open full scale assault, it's sudden appearance of little green men in some areas, rumors of nazism, human rights abuses against russian nationals in foreign countries, small territorial disputes that lead to new funsized "independent" states a la Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Transnistria, South-Ossetia, Abkhazia etc. That's how Russia has operated for decades, taking small enough bites at a time for anyone to be outraged enough to act. What makes you think they'd now suddenly just stop what they've been doing since medieval times?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  22. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    There's two sides to this, a bully, and those opposing that bully. I just find it odd the lengths some people go to show empathy towards the bully.
    It's not this simple. Yes Russia are a bully. So too is NATO. This is all about influence and authority to NATO, too. They're not so different. They just go about their expansion in different ways.

    What makes you think they'd now suddenly just stop what they've been doing since medieval times?
    NATO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  23. #248
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's not this simple. Yes Russia are a bully. So too is NATO. This is all about influence and authority to NATO, too. They're not so different. They just go about their expansion in different ways.
    They are fundamentally different. One's interest is to be a bully, the other's interest is to stop bullies. If you're just looking at the interplay between those 2, yeah they seem similar I'm sure. If you look at them vs anyone else, the difference couldn't be greater.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    NATO
    Hasn't stopped them before, isn't stopping them now.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  24. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    One's interest is to be a bully, the other's interest is to stop bullies.
    I disagree, I think this is naivety. But maybe it's just me being cynical. They are both bullies who go about their bullying differently. You have to understand that when I talk about NATO, I talk about what I consider to be the USA plus its satellite states. USA is a global bully. Ergo, NATO is a bully.

    All great powers are bullies. That's how they become great powers in the first place.

    Hasn't stopped them before, isn't stopping them now.
    Sorry, what did I miss? When did Russia attack a NATO country? NATO is definitely stopping Russia from invading Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. That's not stopping them attacking Finland, but there are other geopolitical issues at play here, not least Russia's desire to not see Finland (and by extension Sweden) join NATO. If Russia attack Finland, then that will certainly result in Finland joining NATO.

    Finland have significant leverage against Russia. St Petersburg is a Russian port that is right next to Helsinki, and indeed Tallinn, a NATO member capital. Between Finland and Estonia (NATO), Russia's access to the Baltic Sea can easily be severely limited if not stopped altogether. Throw in Turkey being able to blockade Russia's access to the Med and from there the Atlantic, and we have enough to deter Russia from seriously provoking NATO. Attacking Finland should be seen as a red line that NATO cannot ignore.

    I am certain that Russia won't attack NATO, and very confident they won't attack Finland. It would be suicide.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #250
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Sorry, what did I miss?
    The part where I explained probably no one expects Russia to just openly invade a NATO member, but I definitely wouldn't rule out "peacekeeping" missions, escalated cyber attacks etc. A hostile nation has more than military conflicts under their belt to pull dick moves. And none of that is gonna change. Putin's approval numbers are rising even by outside estimations.

    https://www.ft.com/content/afce4687-...4-3c8940eaa19a
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  26. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    ...but I definitely wouldn't rule out "peacekeeping" missions, escalated cyber attacks etc.
    Fair enough, I wouldn't rule this out either. But let's not pretend this is exclusive to the enemy. We do "peacekeeping" missions. That's another way of saying we enforce our interests on rogue countries. I'm not saying that makes it ok for Russia to do what they like, this isn't excusing their behaviour. This is refuting your idea that Russia are the bullies and NATO/USA are the bully-stoppers. That's naive, in my opinion. All world superpowers are bullies, now and throughout history. Given USA are the current great superpower in the world, I'd say that makes them the biggest bully of them all.

    Do I want another country to replace USA as the world's great bully? I'm not so sure about that. I'm not sat here hoping for the collapse of USA as a superpower. They are the UK's most important ally when it comes to geopolitics. Not so much economically, but if USA were to be replaced by Russia, that wouldn't be good for the UK at all, nor the rest of Europe. I understand why people default to "them bad us good" but it's not the real story. There are no good guys when it comes to geopolitics, everyone is out for their own interests.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  27. #252
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Of course, but there are varying degrees of bad. The US in particular is obviously not without guilt, and neither are all of the colonialist countries or pretty much any country if you dig back far enough. Perhaps having skin in the game alters my perception somewhat, but to just call everyone as guilty and treating them equally losing all nuance is naive. Are you worried that Germany will try to conquer europe? That
    Spain invades Portugal? No. There might be shit boiling between Serbia and it neighbors, but even those are localized and contained, not some grand scheme of global domination.

    Like I posted above, it's incredibly dangerous and far-reaching what's happening in Russia today. There's a whole generation of people brainwashed to hate the west, humiliated and impoverished, having delusions of imperial grandeur. We're likely gonna be enjoying this shitshow for decades to come.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  28. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    Are you worried that Germany will try to conquer europe?
    Not really, but I'm not going to pretend I'm comfortable with the idea of them restoring their military to the point it's the third best funded in the world, behind only USA and China. That's happening. Is it just history that causes that concern? Of course, I don't think they're likely to become aggressive again, but it's uneasy.

    There's a whole generation of people brainwashed to hate the west
    We're brainwashed to hate the Russians. Remember all that bollocks about poisoning in Salisbury? Did you buy that? I certainly didn't. We've had "Russia bad" drummed into us by media for a long time to the point of false flag events. Every time a Russian military plane comes near British airspace, it's news, even though they didn't actually enter. Meanwhile, we're always doing military things in the Black Sea, exercising our rights to international waters and airspace. That's not news unless the Russians respond. The media are not balanced when it comes to geopolitics.

    I know there are varying degrees of bad. But I also know that I don't know the facts in nearly all geopolitical matters. We know what we're told. You might have more trust in Western governments and media than the Russian, but for the most part, I don't. Not when it comes to the major Western powers... USA, UK, France, Germany. We're all just as corrupt as the Russians, and we're all playing the same global influence game, we just go about it differently.

    Let's not forget Syria. The West were intent on regime change in Syria, but Russia intervened and propped up their government, saving them from collapse. Of course you'll probably argue that's a bad thing, because the Syrian government used chemical weapons and whatnot, while I'll argue that's absolute bollocks, Western propaganda or, worse, Western-sponsored acts of terrorism.

    It looked to me like Russia were the good guys in the Syria matter. Maybe I'm wrong, idk, but it at least serves to demonstrate why I don't default to "them bad us good". I don't trust our governments any more than I trust the Russians.

    But, I also have skin in the game. So I do want NATO to prevail in this fight for dominance. That doesn't mean I'm going to blindly support Western aggression, and I'll continue to compare our aggressive posture with the Russians. We're not that different underneath it all.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  29. #254
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We're brainwashed to hate the Russians. Remember all that bollocks about poisoning in Salisbury? Did you buy that? I certainly didn't. We've had "Russia bad" drummed into us by media for a long time to the point of false flag events.
    Wait so there's one case which (I suppose?) was a false accusation of a political assassination, so we must have been brainwashed? Sergei Yushenkov, Yuri Shchekochikhin, Alexander Litvinenko, Galina Starovoitova, Anna Politkovskaya, Paul Klebnikov and others might disagree. Invasions of Afghanistan, Chechnya twice, Georgia and Ukraine, indiscriminate civilian bombings in Syria and Ukraine, raping and pillaging, execution and torture of civilians, attacks against schools and hospitals and goddamn nuclear plants, which other current country or regime would you expect these kind of actions from? ISIS maybe, but how many NATO countries? Maybe, just maybe, Russia has actually given people multiple good reasons over decades and centuries to hate them.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I know there are varying degrees of bad. But I also know that I don't know the facts in nearly all geopolitical matters. We know what we're told. You might have more trust in Western governments and media than the Russian, but for the most part, I don't. Not when it comes to the major Western powers... USA, UK, France, Germany. We're all just as corrupt as the Russians, and we're all playing the same global influence game, we just go about it differently.
    The difference being use or lack thereof of systematic human rights violations and war crimes. Like I said the west is definitely not a bunch of boy scouts, but the level and number of dick moves are on entirely different scales.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Let's not forget Syria. The West were intent on regime change in Syria, but Russia intervened and propped up their government, saving them from collapse. Of course you'll probably argue that's a bad thing, because the Syrian government used chemical weapons and whatnot, while I'll argue that's absolute bollocks, Western propaganda or, worse, Western-sponsored acts of terrorism.

    It looked to me like Russia were the good guys in the Syria matter. Maybe I'm wrong, idk, but it at least serves to demonstrate why I don't default to "them bad us good". I don't trust our governments any more than I trust the Russians.
    We are looking at things very differently then. Could you point to just one source that would justify questioning what happened in Syria?

    Here's an independent OSI report on it: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena...emical-attack/

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    But, I also have skin in the game. So I do want NATO to prevail in this fight for dominance. That doesn't mean I'm going to blindly support Western aggression, and I'll continue to compare our aggressive posture with the Russians. We're not that different underneath it all.
    Look, I get it. You've lost faith in western media and governments, and for a large part for good reasons. It just simply doesn't follow that the opposite must be true, and doesn't justify giving more credit to the opposing side. Almost all of media have angles in their reporting (mainly to make money, not political ones), and all governments typically first and foremost look after their own interests. Lies or colored truths are spewed from all sides, but that doesn't mean the frequency and level of boldness is the same. Every news article should always be read like it's April 1st, but to say that the reporting of BBC, NYTimes and RIA Novosti are equally bad is to me laughable.

    Btw re: the Salisbury poisoning, what exactly are you referring to? I'm assuming this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison..._Yulia_Skripal
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  30. #255
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I was going to make a few of the points in cocco's recent post. Nice post.

    War is brutal and there will be people driven to committing terrible atrocities on all sides. No one could convince me that there were no rapes of Afghani women by American soldiers during that occupation. No one could convince me that Americans never ever targeted civilians. No one could convince me there was no pillaging and stealing by Americans.

    BUT - The news and images coming out during the past 24 hours have been heart-rending.
    What the Russians left behind them in Bucha is gut-wrenching.


    Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't recall seeing anything like that from a NATO occupation.


    I appreciate an independent POV, ong. I appreciate your point that pretending our side has clean hands is folly.
    I do think there are stark, notable, significant differences between how NATO occupies a place and what Russia is doing in Ukraine.

    Not all dirt is equal.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  31. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    Sergei Yushenkov, Yuri Shchekochikhin, Alexander Litvinenko, Galina Starovoitova, Anna Politkovskaya, Paul Klebnikov and others might disagree.
    The first two guys, that's the Salisbury poisoning and it makes absolutely no sense. The Litvinenko case I actually believe was a Russian state attack. The others, I'm not immediately familiar with by name. I guess one of them is the individual who turned up in a suitcase, that one seemed legit too. There was one fairly recently where an activist turned up ill on a plane. Wasn't buying that one. But I can only speculate. That Salisbury one though, I've read a fair amount about that and it's just a huge crock of shit.

    The Russians are definitely capable of having a pop at those they deem to be enemies of the state. Don't assume that because I think we milked the fuck out of the Salisbury incident, that I believe every incident is a false flag. I don't believe that.

    Invasions of Afghanistan
    This actually made me laugh. Remember how we invaded Afghanistan after a bunch of Saudis apparently flew planes into American buildings? I say apparently because I find it staggering that their passports survived, allowing them to be identified, which is a common theme in these kind of incidents. They should make planes out of whatever they make passports out of. I digress.

    Chechnya twice
    Really messy situation. First war, they tried to leave Russia when the USSR collapsed. They partially succeeded, creating a de facto independent state. Putin came into power and took back control. These were terrible wars. If I had to choose a moral position here it would be on the side of democratic self determination, but I'm not surprised Russia considered this to be a red line.

    Georgia
    Very much geopolitical. They wanted to join NATO, so Russia took control of all but one of their Black Sea ports. A shitty thing to do, but a consequence of NATO expansion. I'm not sure what the people of these regions in Georgia wanted, but if they want to leave Georgia, then again we come back to democratic self determination.

    indiscriminate civilian bombings in Syria
    You made me laugh again. Why are you presenting evidence of "Russia bad" when we've done precisely this?

    raping and pillaging
    Yeah you don't hear about what our soldiers get up to in war zones because the media supress the real shitty stuff. The Russians are worse when it comes to this kind of stuff though. That's always been the case, it's why, after the British bombed the fuck out of Hamburg for years during WWII, that the locals were delighted it was the British occupying the city when Germany surrendered. People were fleeing Russian occupation into British controlled areas.

    execution and torture of civilians
    Again, we do this kind of thing. Remember Guantanamo Bay? We were literally plucking random people and shipping them to Cuba for detention and torture. Some died. This isn't a one off. There are detention camps at Diego Garcia, a place we ethnically cleansed so we could build a military base.

    attacks against schools and hospitals and goddamn nuclear plants
    What happens when the enemy hides in schools and hospitals?

    And the nuclear incident, I watched that happening live, it seemed to me that the Russians were firing away from the reactors. They were attacking the security building at the entrance to the plant. Blown out of proportion because it's a nuclear facility.

    which other current country or regime would you expect these kind of actions from?
    USA, UK, France.

    You know it was a Frenchman who killed Gadaffi, right? Sodomised by a gun. Western regime change in action. Rumours were that Gadaffi was preparing to expose Blair, Bush and (I think) Macron for knowingly and corruptly accepting dirty Libyan money. Who knows if this is true? It certainly wouldn't surprise me.

    Maybe, just maybe, Russia has actually given people multiple good reasons over decades and centuries to hate them.
    I don't dispute this. But we've given the rest of the world reason to hate us too. And many do hate us.

    The difference being use or lack thereof of systematic human rights violations and war crimes.
    We commit "systematic human rights violations and war crimes". Diego Garcia, Gadaffi, Assange, these are examples I've already given. There's plenty more.

    Could you point to just one source that would justify questioning what happened in Syria?
    Sure. Former British Ambassador Craig Murray, an expert on geopolitics and a man with insider contacts. He resigned when the British ignored his protests about us knowingly using Uzbek torture information to help shape foreign policy. At the time, Craig was Ambassador to Uzbekistan, so very well placed to know what was happening. Anyway, here's his comments about Syria...

    https://truepublica.org.uk/contribut...probabilities/

    He has a lot more to say about this matter, and indeed the Salisbury poisoning incident, google his name and whatever you're interested in, ie "Craig Murray Salisbury".

    btw, just because a body has "independent" in its official title, doesn't mean it's truly independent. We're really good at this kind of propaganda, making people believe that investigative bodies are independent from the state. Rarely is that actually true.

    but to say that the reporting of BBC, NYTimes and RIA Novosti are equally bad is to me laughable.
    I dunno about RIA Novosti but I can tell you that I consider the BBS and Russia Today to be equals. The only difference is Russia Today don't pretend to be independent from the state.

    Btw re: the Salisbury poisoning, what exactly are you referring to? I'm assuming this:
    Yes. Craig Murray tears this story to pieces, it's worth a read. Here's one of his many articles on the matter...

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...-of-salisbury/
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  32. #257
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We commit "systematic human rights violations and war crimes". Diego Garcia, Gadaffi, Assange, these are examples I've already given. There's plenty more.
    Totally the same as torturing and executing a few hundred civilians in a war of conquest. It boggles my mind that you keep doubling down.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    btw, just because a body has "independent" in its official title, doesn't mean it's truly independent. We're really good at this kind of propaganda, making people believe that investigative bodies are independent from the state. Rarely is that actually true.
    Right, so let's just listen to this one Craig guy instead who happens to be saying something my ears find more comfortable.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  33. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    War is brutal and there will be people driven to committing terrible atrocities on all sides. No one could convince me that there were no rapes of Afghani women by American soldiers during that occupation.
    I'm in no doubt there were. Certainly there were British soldiers who committed atrocities. I know this first hand, having heard confessions from someone who went there. I've talked about him recently. There's stuff I left out because it's not nice to talk about or think about.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't recall seeing anything like that from a NATO occupation.
    Grozny was completely destroyed, too. The Russians definitely have form for going overboard when they are at war.

    But I'll just point to Basra. We destroyed that city.

    I appreciate an independent POV, ong.
    I appreciate that I might, at times, come across as supporting Russia, because I repeat some of their propaganda. I'm not pretending I'm right about everything I say. I readily admit I don't know the facts.

    I just find it naive to say we're the good guys and they're the bad guys. I find it difficult to support the West in these geopolitical matters because I think we're terrible bastards too. We do almost everything we accuse the Russians of. We just do a really good job of convincing the general public that what we're doing is moral. We're better at lying than they are.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #259
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    Totally the same as torturing and executing a few hundred civilians in a war of conquest. It boggles my mind that you keep doubling down.
    A few hundred? You think our body count is lower?

    Right, so let's just listen to this one Craig guy instead who happens to be saying something my ears find more comfortable.
    You ask for a source, I give you one. You want more sources, find them yourself. He's the guy I trust the most, certainly a great deal more than MSM. You make your own mind up.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #260
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    A few hundred? You think our body count is lower?
    From yesterday, ya pretty sure.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  36. #261
    Ok, we're taking it day by day are we? Then yes, sure, yesterday the Russians killed more then the West.

    We killed a fuck ton of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia... but that wasn't yesterday. Maybe in ten years we can forgive Russia completely for Bucha and never mention it again.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #262
    Apart from the UK, none of the countries in the EU sent troops to Iraq.

    Obviously though they've just been saving them for the Evil Imperial European Army, waiting for the day they could go Hitlerpolean on Russia. I'm sure there's some guy online who says so, and I choose to believe him.

    Seriously though, I don't know what point you're trying to make here Ong. "We" (i.e., some countries in the West) have done some really bad things in the past so what Russia is doing now isn't that big a thing? Amristar was a worse massacre than Mariupol? NATO has bullied Russia into attacking Ukraine? Abraham Lincoln was woke?

    I mean you're one small step away from saying "Putin isn't as bad as Caligula, so we should leave him be."
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  38. #263
    ""We" (i.e., some countries in the West) have done some really bad things in the past so what Russia is doing now isn't that big a thing?
    No. Do pay attention. I made clear several times that's not what I'm saying.

    I'm saying the idea that "Russia bad us good" is naive. I'm arguing that it's silly taking sides when two bullies go head to head. Of course you'd know this if you actually read my posts instead of scanning and knee-jerking.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  39. #264
    So the two bullies are Russia, who invades country after country, and NATO, who doesn't. I mean if you're gonna use reductivo whataboutismo at least try to have a whataboutismo that makes some sense.

    Is it ok to take Ukraine's side vs. Russia, or are you still gonna argue whataboutismo Nazis?
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 04-03-2022 at 05:09 PM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  40. #265
    It's like you've forgotten what we were talking about a week ago.

    We don't invade countries like Russia. Rather, we provide funding, weapons and training for opposition forces. We prefer to destabilise sovereign states rather than outright breach their territory.

    Do you think that makes us better than the Russians? I don't.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  41. #266
    We armed Al Qaida and ISIS, and warlords in Africa. We're arming the Saudis so they can crush Yemen. We're so great.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #267
    Um, so if we didn't sell them arms they'd have nowhere else to buy them? You might as well blame the guy who owns the gun shop because someone got murdered.

    And hey, we also buy things from other countries. Some of them are bad countries. Ergo, we're spreading evil. Instead we should refuse to trade with 99% of the world. Only Sweden and Switzerland. Maybe Iceland. Oh, but they took our cod a few decades ago so actually, they're evil too.

    You understand we're a democracy right? You seem to think that's important when it comes to honouring referendums. Ukraine is also a democracy (or at least pretty close). So by supplying them with arms we're supporting democracy. You think we should send arms to Putin instead?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  43. #268
    Ong, this is a thread on the war in Ukraine. If you want to shit on the West, we've got the MAGA and MEGA threads for that. We could merge them into the "all the reasons the West sucks thread" if you like.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  44. #269
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Um, so if we didn't sell them arms they'd have nowhere else to buy them? You might as well blame the guy who owns the gun shop because someone got murdered.
    What a dreadful analogy.

    Let's explore this. If a gunshop owner knew that his customer intended to use the gun to commit murder, and then sold the gun, then yes he's culpable. Further, if the gunshop owner knew that his customer had already murdered people, and was asking for more guns, and he sold them, then he's a complete fucking asshole who deserves to be in prison just as much as the murderer.

    We are arming the Saudis knowing precisely what they intend to do with our weapons. They're dropping them on Yemen and we're selling them more. So no, this isn't innocently selling weapons on the international market, this is arming them so they can commit atrocities.

    So by supplying them with arms we're supporting democracy. You think we should send arms to Putin instead?
    No, and I'm not as bothered about us arming a country under invasion than I am about arming the Saudis. The fact that neo-Nazis are getting hold of our weapons is very much problematic, but Ukraine do need assistance. Let's just hope when all is said and done we don't have an Nazi ISIS on our hands.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #270
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok, we're taking it day by day are we? Then yes, sure, yesterday the Russians killed more then the West.
    The point was more like Russia probably murdered more people yesterday, Ukrainian and their own, than you can find examples of the west doing since WW2.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We killed a fuck ton of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia... but that wasn't yesterday. Maybe in ten years we can forgive Russia completely for Bucha and never mention it again.
    When there's a war, people are quite often killed. I don't like any wars, but some are more justifiable than others. I think it's far more acceptable to attack a country if you have the backing of the UN and your mission is to stop the target from exterminating a population, for instance, than just pure conquest. Please don't make me say again there are varying degrees of bad. Saying "Russia bad" doesn't mean "West good".
    Last edited by CoccoBill; 04-04-2022 at 02:57 AM.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  46. #271
    Like I said, if we didn't sell them arms someone else would. It's not like weapons are really hard to find.

    Should we take a moral stand and not sell arms to deviant nations? Yes. Is selling arms to a deviant nation as bad as using the same arms yourself to murder innocent people? No.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  47. #272
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    The point was more like Russia probably murdered more people yesterday, Ukrainian and their own, than you can find examples of the west doing since WW2.
    Are we just pretending that Iraq, Afghanistan, and the many other wars didn't happen now?

    I don't like any wars, but some are more justifiable than others.
    This is true. How do you decide if a war is justifiable? Who do you believe?

    Here the list of wars the UK has been involved in since WWII that I consider "justifiable"...

    Falklands
    Serbia

    Let me know what I missed.

    Saying "Russia bad" doesn't mean "West good".
    Ok, I'm glad you made that clear. But you did argue that you consider Russia to be the bullies and the west to be the bully-stoppers.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #273
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Like I said, if we didn't sell them arms someone else would.
    Great. Become a heroin dealer buddy, lots of money in it.

    Should we take a moral stand and not sell arms to deviant nations? Yes. Is selling arms to a deviant nation as bad as using the same arms yourself to murder innocent people? Yes.
    FYP

    At least, if you know this is what the deviant nation intends to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #274
    Frankly poop I find it absurd that you're defending the west selling weapon systems to rogue states. If we were arming Russia, would you feel the same way?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #275
    I just said we shouldn't be doing it. Reductio ad bananum to the nth degree there.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  51. #276
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    At least, if you know this is what the deviant nation intends to do.
    Shame the Nurenburg trials didn't include Krupp and Rheinmetal then. They made arms for the Nazis. The Nazis!

    Stalin sold oil to the Nazis. Don't remember him being brought up on charges for it either.

    Your moral equivalence between providing and using weapons is lame whataboutism.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  52. #277
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Are we just pretending that Iraq, Afghanistan, and the many other wars didn't happen now?
    No, we're just trying to stick to relevant topics. Yes, what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan was also bad. But is Ukraine a threat to the safety of the region or its own citizens? Did the West execute civilians in those wars?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is true. How do you decide if a war is justifiable? Who do you believe?
    A war sanctioned by the UN is probably as close to a justifiable one as it comes. I believe the mainstream media, unless there's substantial conflicting evidence from a credible source.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok, I'm glad you made that clear. But you did argue that you consider Russia to be the bullies and the west to be the bully-stoppers.
    If by the west you mean NATO, then yes, in the interaction between Russia and the NATO, they are trying to be the bully-stoppers, but not very effective ones.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  53. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    No, we're just trying to stick to relevant topics. Yes, what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan was also bad. But is Ukraine a threat to the safety of the region or its own citizens?
    Exactly.



    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Did the West execute civilians in those wars?
    Off topic, but "execute" in the sense of lining them up and shooting them? Not so much. In the sense of indiscriminately killing civilians, yeah I think it's pretty clear that happened. That said, it was despicable then and it's despicable now.

    Ong's reductio whataboutismo is a non-argument afaic.



    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    If by the west you mean NATO, then yes, in the interaction between Russia and the NATO, they are trying to be the bully-stoppers, but not very effective ones.
    I think NATO is doing about as much as it can without sending its own troops in. Arms and other aid to Ukraine, sanctions on Putin. What else do you think NATO can reasonably do?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  54. #279
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Off topic, but "execute" in the sense of lining them up and shooting them? Not so much. In the sense of indiscriminately killing civilians, yeah I think it's pretty clear that happened. That said, it was despicable then and it's despicable now.
    Yeah I was careful choosing that exact verb. Civilian casualties always happen, and are never excusable. Drone strikes to targets where civilians are killed are not justified in any way, but there's still a big difference between them and carpet-bombing whole residential districts or lining up civilians on the street with their hands tied and administering headshots. Unless of course Craig disagrees.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I think NATO is doing about as much as it can without sending its own troops in. Arms and other aid to Ukraine, sanctions on Putin. What else do you think NATO can reasonably do?
    I'm not so much criticizing them of their actions than of the outcomes, I'm not convinced this is ending anytime soon. A cease fire or a peace deal isn't changing anything either medium to long term, Russia's outlook on the world and their aspirations aren't changing. Germany was humiliated in WW1, which in a large part led to WW2. The difference is after WW2 Germany went through a reckoning, and I would say they are now one of the least likely countries to go full hitler. Russia never had that, they've never reconciled their past, the Stalin purges, the wars, the Soviet era. The propaganda machine and state control there is now comparable with North Korea, anyone with any sense left is either fleeing or detained. There's a large and increasing part of the population, not unlike in the US, who are buying into the propaganda that "west is bad". We should all be worried.

    I'm thinking more and more favorably of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, anything less may just be delaying the inevitable escalation.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  55. #280
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  56. #281
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    Did the West execute civilians in those wars?
    Yes. I've said it already but I personally knew someone who did exactly this. Beat a man to death with a gun, that was his way of executing a civilian. In front of his child.

    I believe the mainstream media, unless there's substantial conflicting evidence from a credible source.
    This is where we fundamentally differ.

    If by the west you mean NATO, then yes, in the interaction between Russia and the NATO, they are trying to be the bully-stoppers, but not very effective ones.
    The bully stopping the bully. I already made clear I consider NATO to simply be the military arm of USA + satellite states, so it's pretty hard to talk about NATO without it also meaning USA.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  57. #282
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Your moral equivalence between providing and using weapons is lame whataboutism.
    Ridiculous. You're basically arguing that if I wanted to kill someone, but not be guilty of murder, I just get someone else to do it for me. Of course, that isn't going to hold up in a court of law, not when it comes to murder. That's why people who hire hitmen get charged with murder, not a specific crime of hiring a hitman.

    If we provide weapons to a country that isn't considered rogue, and becomes rogue later, that's different. But an international arms dealer has a moral responsibility to ensure that they are only selling arms to people who intend to use them responsibly... for defence.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  58. #283
    btw, crying about "whataboutism" basically means "I don't want to talk about how shitty we are, only how shitty they are". You're only interested in judging the enemy. It's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  59. #284
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Hm nope. We can have a separate discussion about how someone else sucks, this thread is about Russia. There's not a single nation on the planet that hasn't done something shitty sometime in the past.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  60. #285
    I think we can focus on the recent past, for example this century. All the wars we've been involved with this century, they have been acts of aggression, not defence. Afghanistan was in response to 9/11, even though it was mostly Saudis and no Afghans who flew those planes. Even though Bin Laden himself was a Saudi. Why didn't we go to war with Saudi Arabia? Because they sell us too much oil, it would have destroyed our economies. So we came up with some bullshit that the Taliban were responsible for harbouring terrorists, while pretending Pakistan weren't. Why did we go for Afghanistan? Geopolitics. Not remotely a moral position.

    Iraq was a huge lie, based on the claim that they had weapons of mass destruction and they could deploy them and strike the UK within 45 minutes. That's how they sold the war to us. Of course it was a complete crock of shit. What was really happening, best I could tell, was Saddam was threatening to ditch the dollar as a petrocurrency. Unacceptable to the west.

    This is relevant, at least to me. When we sit here and judge others for doing what we do, it makes us hypocrites.

    If all you guys want to do is talk about how dreadful Russia are while ignoring how dreadful we are, just ignore me. Expecting me to stfu and take my comments to another thread isn't cutting it, sorry.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  61. #286
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Are we just pretending that Iraq, Afghanistan, and the many other wars didn't happen now?
    Of course not.

    But seriously, friend. Compare other facts in these cases. Compare body counts. Both of the invaders and the invaded. Compare the political motivations - both public and private. Compare the actual events on the ground that happened.

    There are similarities. There are stark differences, too.


    The whataboutism critique of your position seems apt, frankly.
    Your position to quell criticism of the current situation in Ukraine with only comparisons to other similar actions by "the West" while not giving any sense that you are aware of the differences... it's provocative to say the least.
    Frankly, it comes across as being a Putin apologist, despite your frequent denials thereof.

    I think you are presenting yourself in such a way that it feels like you're excusing or justifying the mass murder of political opponents for personal gain.

    Which, let's be clear... that's what Putin is doing. That's what he has done. That's why he's the leader of Russia. Not because of any moral semblance of earning the authority of his constituency. But by killing, coercing, and imprisoning his opposition and seizing authority. His modus operandi, if you like, is well established historically.


    But whatever. My editorial on Putin as a person implying I'm better than him aside...


    Past atrocities committed by anyone do not excuse current atrocities.

    Putin is attempting a genocide of Ukrainian people. The towns Russia occupied and left in the past week are testament to his purpose. He's not trying to liberate anyone. He's not trying to end Nazi values in Ukraine. He's the one bringing Nazi values. Just because the actual Nazis did that on a larger scale doesn't mean what is currently happening is somehow OK.

    Just because there are sparse instances of Cities being destroyed by NATO occupation doesn't mean that it was OK then, and it certainly doesn't mean ramping up the scale on previous bad actions is justifiable.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  62. #287
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If all you guys want to do is talk about how dreadful Russia are while ignoring how dreadful we are, just ignore me.
    That's not what we've been doing. No-one even feels the need to point out the obvious moral culpability of this war.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Expecting me to stfu and take my comments to another thread isn't cutting it, sorry.
    Fine, but expecting us to not to see your contributions as irrelevant whataboutism isn't cutting it either.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  63. #288
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    Compare body counts.
    If we're talking about Putin vs any western leader here, ok. If we're talking about Russia vs USA/UK/France in the last 25 years, then I'm not so sure you're making the point you think you're making here. Not that you'll get reliable enough body counts to make a fair comparison, but a shit load of people died in Iraq and Afghanistan due to our intervention. And according to NATO, the body count from this invasion is much higher for the Russians, at 30-40k compared to 2-4k for Ukraine. Pinch of salt, obviously.

    Frankly, it comes across as being a Putin apologist, despite your frequent denials thereof.
    My issue is that we judge others when we're not in a position to be judging. You can call that being an apologist of you like, but it's not the way I see it.

    I would like nothing more than to see the Russians get rid of Putin. I would like to see the Russian people take control of their country. Are those the words of a Putin apologist?

    What I'd also like to see is NATO respecting the legitimate security concerns of Russia. I know that NATO are not going to invade Russia, that's not what I mean by security concerns. What NATO expansion does is cause Russia to invest more in their military, with a build up on the western front. It's causes an arms race. If there are missile systems too close to Russia, then they will want missile systems that make USA feel uncomfortable. NATO expansion causes a deterioration of global security.

    Of course, Russian invasions also cause a deterioration of global security. It's a vicious circle. NATO expand, Russia responds, more countries want to join NATO, Russia feel even more isolated and vulnerable, where does this end? The way it's going, it seems like world war is inevitable. NATO are playing their part in this. This is the problem that military alliances cause. I'd feel a lot more safe if the UK were not a NATO member and were instead geopolitically neutral. As it is, we're one of the first that will get hit if this turns into a world war. And we're not the size of Russia, we get wiped off the map if this goes nuclear.

    I think you are presenting yourself in such a way that it feels like you're excusing or justifying the mass murder of political opponents for personal gain.
    Then you're failing to understand why this is an issue for me. Perhaps that last paragraph will help.

    There is no excusing or justifying the mass murder of political opponents. But let's also be clear... that's none of our business. This is happening all over the world, so it's not like this is our problem with Russia. Our problem with Russia is we don't want to allow them to be as strong as NATO. We want NATO to be the dominant global military force. That's the status quo and we want to maintain it at all costs.

    Putin is attempting a genocide of Ukrainian people.
    This is hyperbole. Genocide is not a casual word. Killing a lot of people is not genocide. Attempting to kill a national, ethnic, racial or religious group within a country, that's genocide. What was happening in Kosovo was genocide. What is happening in Ukraine is not. Russia are attempting to force Ukraine's capitulation, they are not killing people simply for being Ukrainian.

    If and when this does become a matter of genocide, that's a game changer. That's when this does become a matter of serious global interest, and probably means world war. We didn't stand by and watch Muslims getting slaughtered in Kosovo, we intervened and caused the collapse of the Serbian government, and ultimately brought Slobodon Milosovic and others to an international court. We would likely attempt the same if what is happening in Ukraine becomes, without doubt, a genocide.

    He's not trying to liberate anyone. He's not trying to end Nazi values in Ukraine.
    I know. He's trying to enforce his political will on Ukraine. That's his intent. If his intent was to kill Ukrainians for no reason other than being Ukrainian, that's genocide. If you have evidence that this is what is happening, do share. Leaving a city in ruins is not evidence enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  64. #289
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I'm not so much criticizing them of their actions than of the outcomes, I'm not convinced this is ending anytime soon. A cease fire or a peace deal isn't changing anything either medium to long term, Russia's outlook on the world and their aspirations aren't changing. Germany was humiliated in WW1, which in a large part led to WW2. The difference is after WW2 Germany went through a reckoning, and I would say they are now one of the least likely countries to go full hitler. Russia never had that, they've never reconciled their past, the Stalin purges, the wars, the Soviet era. The propaganda machine and state control there is now comparable with North Korea, anyone with any sense left is either fleeing or detained. There's a large and increasing part of the population, not unlike in the US, who are buying into the propaganda that "west is bad". We should all be worried.

    I'm thinking more and more favorably of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, anything less may just be delaying the inevitable escalation.

    The best reasonably likely outcome to me, as bad as it seems, would be for it to drag on long enough that Putin gets taken out by his own side.

    I think the no fly zone is tantamount to a declaration of war, which might goad him into going nuke. I might feel differently if I were in a neighboring country though.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  65. #290
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If we're talking about Putin vs any western leader here, ok. If we're talking about Russia vs USA/UK/France in the last 25 years, then I'm not so sure you're making the point you think you're making here.
    France???





    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    My issue is that we judge others when we're not in a position to be judging. You can call that being an apologist of you like, but it's not the way I see it.
    If this forum were made up of Tony Blair, GW Bush, and Putin, you might have a point. None of us here have done or sanctioned anything like aggressive war afaik. So using the word "we" here to describe "us" is making "you" look disingenuous.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    What I'd also like to see is NATO respecting the legitimate security concerns of Russia. I know that NATO are not going to invade Russia, that's not what I mean by security concerns. What NATO expansion does is cause Russia to invest more in their military, with a build up on the western front. It's causes an arms race. If there are missile systems too close to Russia, then they will want missile systems that make USA feel uncomfortable. NATO expansion causes a deterioration of global security.
    You're missing the point of what NATO means to Europe. Forget the US for now. The reason European countries are in NATO is because Russia. Russia invading a neighboring country every few years just makes NATO more attractive to everyone who isn't Russia.

    You want NATO to respect Russia's security concerns when Russia isn't respecting anyone else's security concerns. Let Russia be peaceful for 25 years and then we can talk. Right now, NATO has the security concerns of Poland, Finland, Sweden, Romania, the Baltics, Turkey, etc.. to think about. Why should Russia get special treatment? Because they keep attacking other countries? That's not how it works unless you're Neville Chamberlain.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Of course, Russian invasions also cause a deterioration of global security. It's a vicious circle. NATO expand, Russia responds, more countries want to join NATO, Russia feel even more isolated and vulnerable, where does this end?
    It ends when Russia finally gets the message war is not a viable option for them.

    Also, despite protestations to the contrary, you keep doing the Putin apologist thing (bolded). Russia is not a passive player in this, responding only to NATO's moves. You understand the difference between aggressive war and joining a defensive pact...




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The way it's going, it seems like world war is inevitable.
    If by "world" you mean NATO v. Russia, I doubt it. That war would be very one-sided. Russia is struggling to take over Ukraine, how are they going to fight NATO?




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    NATO are playing their part in this.
    Again, blaming a defensive alliance for another country starting wars. Just stop and think about what you're saying.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is the problem that military alliances cause. I'd feel a lot more safe if the UK were not a NATO member and were instead geopolitically neutral. As it is, we're one of the first that will get hit if this turns into a world war. And we're not the size of Russia, we get wiped off the map if this goes nuclear.
    Yeah, let's make ourselves weaker because that will make it less likely other countries will attack us.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Our problem with Russia is we don't want to allow them to be as strong as NATO. We want NATO to be the dominant global military force. That's the status quo and we want to maintain it at all costs.
    No, our problem is they keep invading other countries and killing people. They'll never be as powerful as NATO, that's not even an issue.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is hyperbole. Genocide is not a casual word. Killing a lot of people is not genocide.
    I agree, but there are other war crimes that aren't genocide. He's certainly been committing those.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  66. #291
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    There is no way to enforce a no-fly-zone over Ukraine aside from starting WWIII.

    You can't enforce such a thing without shooting at / killing Russian pilots.

    ***
    Putin's deluded view of NATO is not really what NATO is.

    NATO is opposed to Putin, and the ideologies he manifests (totalitarianism and expansionism), not against Russian culture or Russian people.

    The past decades of open trade and tourism between the West and Russia are proof of the fact that the people of the West want to celebrate Russian culture and its awesome contributions to the world.


    We can agree the currently set national borders shouldn't be expected to stay the same forever. We can also agree that when the cause of the changing borders is murder and worse... that's fucked up and should not be condoned by anyone.


    Biden criticizing Putin as a War Criminal is laughable. Biden's written and passed more legislation that limits human rights than I can wave a stick at. Sometimes, he even still brags about that shit.

    Me, on the other hand... not committed anything remotely close to a war crime, have criticized my own nation's actions when invading other nations over the past 30 years, and have every right to not be called a hypocrite for calling out the same bad behaviors in others halfway around the world that I see in others a few thousand miles away in Washington DC.
    I have every right to call out Putin's BS, as I call out my own nation's BS, too. So you can take the whole angle of "The West has no moral high ground." where it's not a non-sequitur. I am not speaking for "The West" or representing anyone but myself.

    As if we don't drone on about the inadequacies of our own gov'ts all the damn time. As if anyone posting on FTR is some fanatical patriot, blind to the shit our nations do in the world. As if criticizing this current evil means we weren't criticizing our own nations' evils for years.

    We're pretty consistent, here for the past few years. Invasion is bad. Increasing world commerce is good. Cheap stuff is good. Expensive stuff is bad. Happy people is good. Sad people is bad. It's not really a hard line to follow.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  67. #292
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The images we've seen coming out of Bucha and other towns the Russians occupied and are leaving paint a pretty clear picture, ong. The Russians were exterminating everyone. They were murdering people in the streets who had their hands tied. They weren't there to do anything ... ANYTHING ... positive. They were there to assault and demolish and eliminate everything Ukrainian.

    NOT calling it genocide is naive at this point. Maybe "attempted genocide" or "almost, but not quite genocide" or however you want to bend over backwards to draw distinctions between what is happening in Ukraine today and the other beads in the string of genocides that have plagued my lifetime news reports.

    I hope I'm wrong. I've seen too many images in the past few days, though. Compared the statements coming out of Bucha over the past weeks to the reality we see evidence of now. Heard the even more extreme reports coming from other cities and towns occupied by Russia still today and ... frankly I quake at it. I'm shook.

    If you're not up-to-date on the recent shit that's been found out as Russian forces pull back from assaulting Kiev, well... I kinda wish I was, too. It's totally fucked up in the worst ways, and I'm not sleeping well lately.

    The worst is yet to be found out. The realities being uncovered these past days are the harbinger of much worse ongoing still in the East and South of Ukraine.


    This is the tip of the iceberg.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  68. #293
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    What happens when the enemy hides in schools and hospitals?
    I'm going to go with, "You choose not to fire weapons at civilians, no matter where the enemy hides." as it's a standard operating procedure of most peace-keeping forces.

    You don't get to claim you're the good guys fighting the bad guys when you go shooting at civvies, man. That's what bad guys do. We can't both be the bad guys.

    WTF kind of world would that be to raise my Hitlerpolean (They/them) kids in?

    ***

    Also, side note: Instantly tell someone is talking out their ass and has no idea what War Crimes actually are when they say "The Geneva Convention" like a fucking moron.
    It's a great tool when someone is talking on TV and they sound reasonable, but then they say that and you're all, "Oh right. You're a fucking idiot."

    Cause FYI... there's more than 1 Geneva Convention, and someone who doesn't even have the basic knowledge of how many conventions there are, let alone what the contents of those conventions are is a total fucking dickwad blowing hot air to puff themself up.

    This has been a PSA
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  69. #294
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    NATO is opposed to Putin, and the ideologies he manifests (totalitarianism and expansionism), not against Russian culture or Russian people.
    No, NATO is by its very existence an anti-Russia military alliance. It's the very reason it was created, to oppose the Soviets.

    The past decades of open trade and tourism between the West and Russia are proof of the fact that the people of the West want to celebrate Russian culture and its awesome contributions to the world.
    Very much true. There certainly was a softening of policy towards Russia after the collapse of the USSR, and this continued after Putin rose to power, at least for a while. There's been rhetoric, but for the most part I brushed it off as mutually beneficial posturing in order to justify large military budgets. I always assumed it suited both parties and that neither actually wanted war.

    We can also agree that when the cause of the changing borders is murder and worse... that's fucked up and should not be condoned by anyone.
    Agreed. How do borders change without bloodshed? At the ballot. Ukraine is not recognising the right of self determination for the people in the regions that want the borders changed. Bloodshed is inevitable in these circumstances.

    Of course, Russia didn't recognise the right of Chechnya to self determination, but Chechnya are not strong enough to fight the Russians. Interestingly, they are now allied to Russia in the fight again Ukraine. Strange. You'd think they'd be allied to Ukraine.

    I am not speaking for "The West" or representing anyone but myself.
    Fair. I know nobody here condones war, we're all nice guys and it goes without saying. Nobody wants to see war, whether it's them or us being the aggressor. But there's a lot more noise, both here and from the general public, now that Russia is the aggressor. You can see this, right? Was there a Syria thread? I don't remember it.

    The Russians were exterminating everyone. They were murdering people in the streets who had their hands tied.
    Well I haven't seen footage of this, and I don't really want to seek it out. Still images are not really telling enough of a story, can easily be staged. Not that I think such images are staged, but there's always propaganda when there's war. Further, for it to be genocide, this has to be happening because of direct orders, not because some rogue soldiers went crazy as they retreated. You can't just throw the word "genocide" around like Twitter throws the word "racist" around. You need evidence not just of atrocities, but also that it's policy.

    I don't use the phrase "ethnic cleansing" lightly when I talk about the Chagos Islands. It was British policy to evict inhabitants of these islands so they could be used as a military base. That's ethnic cleansing. On the other hand, our actions in Iraq caused a refugee crisis, people fleeing war. That wasn't the intent, so this isn't ethnic cleansing. You have to be careful how you use these words. Same with "war criminal".

    I'm going to go with, "You choose not to fire weapons at civilians, no matter where the enemy hides."
    Yeah, this isn't how war works though. With this policy, you actively encourage the enemy to use civilians as a shield. Our bombs hit hospitals and schools. Do you think our missiles aren't that accurate? Or do you suppose the enemy was using these places as a base and we did what we felt was necessary?

    You don't get to claim you're the good guys fighting the bad guys when you go shooting at civvies, man.
    It's bad guys fighting bad guys. Nearly every war is. It doesn't surprise me that people use civilians as a human shield, and it doesn't surprise me that these civilians end up hurt. It saddens me a great deal, but doesn't surprise me.

    We can't both be the bad guys.
    Sadly we are.

    As for war crimes, they happen in every war. The vast majority of people who commit war crimes do not face justice. That's just how it is. Nothing will change that. The international courts will only prosecute those they have the motivation to prosecute, which is why the likes of Blair will never see the inside of an international court.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  70. #295
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    No, NATO is by its very existence an anti-Russia military alliance. It's the very reason it was created, to oppose the Soviets.
    If that were the case, NATO would have a very different structure and purpose. There's only opposition to that military being used for the purposes of invading its neighbors. There's no general opposition to Russia having a military.

    That second sentence is bunk and I know you know it. Not that it's false, but that it belies the continued existence of NATO after the soviet collapse and the staunch refusal of NATO to entertain Russia as a member state. There are things NATO has done to perpetuate a less than friendly relationship with Russia. However, "anti-Russia military alliance" is a scandalous mischaracterization of NATO.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Sadly we are.
    How on Earth was the sarcasm of that comment lost on you. I even invoked Hitlerpoleon (they/them) for you to make it clear.
    SMH my head

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    As for war crimes, they happen in every war. The vast majority of people who commit war crimes do not face justice. That's just how it is. Nothing will change that. The international courts will only prosecute those they have the motivation to prosecute, which is why the likes of Blair will never see the inside of an international court.
    No. War Crimes can only be prosecuted if the court that wants to do so has jurisdiction over their alleged war criminals.
    Tony Blair will not face international court either because they don't have enough evidence to pursue anything or because they do not have jurisdiction over UK politicians. Either is enough.

    People throw the words "War Crimes" around in situations where there simply are no authorities to impose those laws. Ergo, those laws don't actually exist aside from lip service for the purpose of virtue signalling.

    I prefer the term "crimes against humanity" as it at least sounds as unenforceable as it actually is.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  71. #296
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is where we fundamentally differ.
    Yes, and I feel this is the main issue here. All reporting has some kind of editorial bias, either political partisanship or more commonly sensationalism. There are still actual news organizations that at least try to neutrally report current events (AP and Reuters come to mind), and then there are those that try to interpret those events through their own lenses. The first group is who I trust, since even though they too do make mistakes, they're actually trying to be journalists and have some integrity. They're still the best data source out there.

    The second group is most of the rest of the news media, with varying degrees of bias. This doesn't mean they're outright lies, but the bias shows in their reporting. If you're aware of the bias, a lot of them are still perfectly credible sources. I'm sure a lot of, or at least some bloggers/vloggers/independent websites fall under this category too, but you might really have to do some digging to find out what their agenda is. There are things like these that may help in finding out.

    Then there's a 3rd group, which consists of the bullshit machines. Nowadays anyone can be a publisher, and it shows. I wouldn't believe a word what some Craig says unless the sources are clearly cited and the data corroborated on other sites.

    It's hard to know nowadays who is right, there's conflicting info about everything. This just means one should look at every source critically, I like the analogy of pretending it's always April 1st. Just being dismissive about all mainstream reporting and blindly accepting unverified alternative sources is about the worst thing one can do.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well I haven't seen footage of this, and I don't really want to seek it out.
    Being skeptical and being ignorant are different things. Don't be a полезный идиот.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  72. #297
    Quote Originally Posted by Ongtin View Post
    Still images are not really telling enough of a story, can easily be staged.

    Yeah, look at that fake grief on Zelensky's face. What an actor.







    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Being skeptical and being ignorant are different things.
    As Mortensen said, "And thus in his considered view, what did not fit could not be true."
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  73. #298
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    The first group is who I trust, since even though they too do make mistakes, they're actually trying to be journalists and have some integrity.
    I believe AP and Reuters are the best of the MSM, but far from perfect. I appreciate real journalism when I see it, it's just difficult convincing me that what I see is real journalism. This is why I trust Craig Murray, his interest is truth. I mean, he's a socialist, I don't sit on the same political side as he does, but when it comes to foreign policy and global affairs, I respect his journalism. He actually investigates, isn't afraid of being called a conspiracy nut, while at the same time is critical of many conspiracy theories. He won't entertain 9/11 debate on his forum. I think I read him say once that he believes the official story, and that he respects those who don't, but he doesn't want the flame wars on his forum that comes with it, so he'll just delete any such comments. It's not like the guy is a sensationalist trying to get follows from people like me. It's also clear his motivation isn't money, since his pension in the foreign office would have been far more than he can make selling books and asking for donations. He blew that pension due to his conscience.

    Just being dismissive about all mainstream reporting and blindly accepting unverified alternative sources is about the worst thing one can do.
    I don't blindly accept anyone. I did my research into the guy and his story about being a former ambassador checks out. I have witnessed over the last few years the British state attempt to crush this guy, he recently spent time in prison for attempting to be a journalist. The British state do not like this guy, because he is highly critical of British policy, and given his position as a former employee of the state, he has a lot of respect within the alternative media community.

    MSM on the other hand, they are all motivated by money. All of them. Their job is to sell stories, while Murray's job is to tell stories. Big difference. And those who are motivated by money don't care about truth.

    An example of how the MSM works in today's world was clear when Murray was reporting on the Julian Assange case. In the gallery at court, Murray was sat with other members of the press. Only Murray was taking notes, nobody else was. All of those journalists present simply took the press notes from the case and copy/pasted them into their work. Is that real journalism? MSM journalists won't publish anything that will risk their job. That's why independent journalists are much more trustworthy than MSM journalists. Independent journalists do not fear their editor firing them and other consequences of truthful journalism.

    I think trusting MSM is insane. You have to dig around, find the bloggers, put your faith in someone who seems like they are interested in truth.

    And btw, this doesn't mean I believe everything he says. He might sincerely get stuff wrong, or get given bad information. It's not like I read his stuff and think "that's the truth". I read and and I think "this is what Craig thinks is the truth". I trust his sincerity, not necessarily his accuracy.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  74. #299
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Yeah, look at that fake grief on Zelensky's face. What an actor.
    Fun fact - he actually is an actor.

    Not that you'd need to act to show grief when people in your country are dying due to war, but still. He's a pretty good actor, yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  75. #300
    Quote Originally Posted by Ongtin View Post
    I don't blindly accept anyone. I did my research into the guy and his story about being a former ambassador checks out.
    Yeah a former ambassador would never lie. Just because their job irl was to be a professional liar.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ongtin View Post
    I have witnessed over the last few years the British state attempt to crush this guy, he recently spent time in prison for attempting to be a journalist.
    Need more info here. What was the actual charge? I'm pretty sure "attempted journalism" is not a crime, even in the UK.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ongtin View Post
    The British state do not like this guy, because he is highly critical of British policy,
    Amazing. You'd think they'd be all in favour of a sharp critic.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ongtin View Post
    MSM on the other hand, they are all motivated by money. All of them. Their job is to sell stories, while Murray's job is to tell stories. Big difference. And those who are motivated by money don't care about truth.
    How sure are you his motives are pure? Do you know where he gets his income from? Is it possible he's just butthurt because he lost his job?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •