:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Printable View
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Russian claims of them fighting Nazis is complete bollocks.
Oh wait...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
I could keep quoting from this article. Better to just read it if you want to know who we're arming and training in Ukraine. Canada apparently have sent $2b, yes that's a b, in aid to these people, though cannot find reliable source.Quote:
The Azov Special Operations Detachment, also known as the Azov Detachment, Azov Regiment, Azov Battalion (until September 2014), or simply Azov, is a right-wing extremist, neo-Nazi, formerly paramilitary unit of the National Guard of Ukraine. Azov initially formed as a volunteer militia in May 2014 and has since been fighting Russian separatist forces in the Donbas War. On 12November 2014, Azov was incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine, and since then all members have been official soldiers serving in the National Guard.
Yes, lots of countries have problems with right wing extremism, including the UK, but the UK does not incorporate racist paramilitary groups into the army. Ukraine does. This is a matter of documented fact. It's not like they hide it.
There is video evidence, apparently, of Avoz Battalion crucifying Chechen Muslims in 2014. I'm not going to watch it, let alone post such videos.
Ukraine voted for a Jewish president, and right-wing groups perform poorly in elections. Ukrainian citizens are not, for the most part, Nazis. But actual Nazis are involved in their military and in the fight against Russia. We're arming the military, not the citizens. We're arming Nazis.
Russia claim that the bombing of the maternity hospital was due to the fact that Azov Battalion were using it as a base. Whether that's true or not, I don't know, and wouldn't know who to believe anyway.
btw, there's evidence Russia also has problems with Nazis. We're not arming the Russians though.
Ukraine has problems with nazi groups that operate in Ukraine near the Russian border.
This is well established.
IDK who you're preaching at with this, right now.
It doesn't give any nation the right to invade.
This isn't a social problem, it's a military problem. And we're arming their military. Doesn't that concern you?Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
We armed Al Qaeda and ISIS. How did that work out?
I'm not attempting to justify the invasion. I'm expressing deep concern about who we're supporting.Quote:
It doesn't give any nation the right to invade.
I mean if I were going to attempt to justify the invasion, I'd point out that Ukraine is a relatively new country occupying land that was once owned by Poland and the Soviets. Maybe if Ukraine don't want to give Crimea and Donbas to Russia, they should give back the west to Poland.
Nah, didn't think so.
Borders change throughout history. We're witnessing it happening right now. Donbas is lost, it's de facto Russian now, just like Crimea. Not our business. We can sit here and judge if we want, but we've waged wars of aggression. We sit back and do nothing while Israel expands its borders at Palestine's expense. Are we really well placed to judge Russia? While I despise war like any person with a conscience, I can understand from a geopolitical pov why this is so important to Russia, just like I can understand from a geopolitical pov why the British and American aren't in any hurry to correct the ethnic cleansing of the Chagos Islands. In order for great powers to project their influence, they need to control the highly strategic islands, capes and archipelagos. A great power becomes great by controlling these places.
The reason we're trying to stop Russia is because we want control of these strategic locations. Crimea in NATO hands would be a game changer for Russia, it would be checkmate. They rely on the Black Sea for a great deal of their trade. If we could blockade Russian ships in the Black Sea, they are finished. You can have all the oil you want, but it's useless if you can't ship it to buyers. It's not that we'd do it, but it's incredible leverage. Russia will no longer be able to challenge the West. Maybe that's not a bad thing, but then again maybe it is. Maybe we need a balance of power, rather than a dominant power. I'm not going to pretend I know which is better.
What I'm also not going to pretend is that this is a matter of morality for the West. It's not. It's a matter of geopolitics. And in that context, I can understand why Russia is doing what it's doing.
That's not the same as taking their side. Anyone who wages a war of aggression is a bad guy. We can only hope these psychopaths have enough restraint to not unleash nuclear, biological and chemical hell on the human race. Can't say I'm all that optimistic right now.
idk, what really irks me is the public reaction to media. I know that sounds like a petty thing to be worried about right now, but if we weren't so fucking gullible as a society, we'd have more control. The majority of people are not psychopaths. But those in power are. It should be the non-psychopath majority that run the world. Why is that not the case? Because the psychopaths are smart, and know how to control the masses with divisive politics and propaganda.
Honestly, I haven't got a fucking clue how the world really works. All I know is it's not how the vast majority of people think it works. For example, I'm almost certain that we're advanced enough to get all of our energy needs from renewable sources, but the psychopaths in charge won't let it happen because oil is such a powerful weapon. Maybe I'm wrong, idk, but it seems likely to me that the kind of people who send kids by the thousands to die in battlefields would rather cling onto their source of income and power than to allow humanity to evolve into something worth cherishing. What we have now isn't, all we really have is hope that one day we'll be a better species than we are now.
I'm not sure we're gonna make it.
That got a bit deep.
During WWII, the West sent thousands of tons of supplies to the USSR. Without these the Nazis probably would have conquered them. We could have just let the USSR fall, but then we would have been faced with an even harder task in defeating Hitler, if it would have even been possible all. Ultimately, the West decided that given a choice between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, the latter was the lesser of two evils.
If the choice now is between supporting Ukraine, even though they have some Neo-Nazis in their army, versus letting Putin's Russia overrun them, I'll take the former, and it's not even close.
EU Eurolibtards fast-tracking Ukraine's application to join.
https://twitter.com/GitanasNauseda/s...03582337871874
Remember when Brexit was going to lead to a domino effect of countries leaving the EU? It's been six years, that never happened, and now the EU is looking to grow even more.
I'm really not sure about this. Russia is nearly impossible to conquer, certainly by land invasion. They just set fire to their own cites and retreat into the countryside, leaving the enemy in the bitter winter with no supplies. I'm sure we helped, but I doubt very much it won the war. This is obviously a matter of debate though, we can never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
If we're going to help Nazis win a war by arming them, then we've got no right to sit here and use that word as a negative. And can they even win the war, even with our help? The best I think we can do is help to create a stalemate by keeping them armed. Ukraine are not going to reclaim Crimea, the best they can hope for is a Russian retreat from Ukrainian-controlled regions. That's not a win, it's basically a draw. A win would be for Ukraine to reclaim all of its territory. I don't see that happening unless NATO get involved, which they seem to be very keen to avoid.Quote:
If the choice now is between supporting Ukraine, even though they have some Neo-Nazis in their army, versus letting Putin's Russia overrun them, I'll take the former, and it's not even close.
So what are we even doing? Just negotiate. Let Russia claim the Russian-speaking provinces in the east. Give them the assurances they need with regards Ukrainian geopolitical neutrality. That probably ends the war right there.
Instead, we're allowing a dispute between Russia and Ukraine destroy the global economy. Is it really worth it? When the morality of the whole issue is questionable from both sides, I'm not sure it is worth it.
Don't think you appreciate how close WWII was. Germany had a very very good army. Don't believe the war movies where one US or UK soldier kills dozens of Nazis without even breaking a sweat. In any fight where the numbers were even, they could beat anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Germany had the USSR on the ropes for two years. Without our aid, if they weren't conquered, they certainly would have been emasculated and powerless to do anything to Germany. Germany could have ended up with a big slice of the USSR, a trade deal guaranteeing them oil supplies, sent all their armies West and we'd have never set foot in mainland Europe after that.
As you know, we're not only sending arms to the minority of Nazi regiments in the Ukrainian armed forces, we're sending it to the whole country's armed forces, most of whom aren't Nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Whoa whoa whoa Mujombo. Let Russia gain territory in an aggressive war? You think that's going to encourage Putin to keep the peace? He's just going to see we caved, wait a couple of years, come up with another excuse, and go back and take another chunk out of Ukraine, or maybe the rest of it. Then you'll come on and say we should give him what he wants again so we can have peace. Rinse and repeat.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's not destroying the global economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The morality of the issue isn't questioned by anyone but you afaik.
Putin and Lukashenko meet Zelensky on the subway.
Edit: stupid youtube won't share video link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw
I don't think you appreciate how vast Russia is, and how hardy their people are. Sure Germany had a very good army, but no army in the world is defeating Russia by invading. Not then, not now. It would require non-conventional warfare to defeat them. Like Japan in WWII, only Russia are ten times the military power Japan were.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
There's a reason we chose to nuke Japan instead of invade. That too is an impossible country to invade, it's just too mountainous.
Geography matters more than the size and skill of an army.
Oh there's only a few of them, that's ok then.Quote:
As you know, we're not only sending arms to the minority of Nazi regiments in the Ukrainian armed forces, we're sending it to the whole country's armed forces, most of whom aren't Nazis.
No it's not ok. This "minority" are responsible for crucifictions of Muslims. And we don't even know how much of a "minority" we're talking about. I've shown one battalion, you think that's the extent of the problem? I don't.
Why not? We let Israel get away with it. We wage aggressive wars ourselves in the name of geopolitics. What right have we got to tell Russia they can't do it? This isn't our fight. If we're going to stop Russia, then we should stop everyone who tries to gain territory. It doesn't seem logical to pick and choose who we allow to expand. Unless, of course, we have our own geopolitical interests, which is of course precisely why we oppose Russia but not Israel.Quote:
Whoa whoa whoa Mujombo. Let Russia gain territory in an aggressive war?
I think Putin is finding out right now that taking Ukraine will not happen. The eastern regions might want Russian influence, but the west doesn't. They won't accept it. It will require constant troops on the ground, and it will be a long war. Nobody wants that, not Ukraine, not Russia, nobody.Quote:
He's just going to see we caved, wait a couple of years, come up with another excuse, and go back and take another chunk out of Ukraine, or maybe the rest of it.
I guess you haven't been to the petrol pumps in a few days.Quote:
It's not destroying the global economy.
I'm not the only person who has a moral problem arming Nazis. And I'm not the only person who has a moral problem with the West's hypocrisy.Quote:
The morality of the issue isn't questioned by anyone but you afaik.
About the economy... if this continues, it's not just oil and gas that's a global problem. Wheat and potash are an even bigger problem. The longer this goes on, the more likely we are to see famine. Maybe not here in the UK or USA, but in third world countries not allied to Russia.
Whoa there.
To the extent you're objectively comparing and contrasting the US's history in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. to gain perspective, that's great.
If you're getting to the point of drawing direct parallels, then you're no longer objective.
Don't forget to contrast as well as compare.
Try not to ignore the differences just because everyone else is ignoring the similarities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg0OWPjdLzU
This (biased, obv) video makes a pretty good point that does acknowledge a lot of what you're saying ong.
It also puts some of that into a better perspective.
And yeah. This hit to the global economy is not localized to Russia. We're all taking shots to the left foot in effort to put all our shots together on Russia's right foot. Or something. Get it?
We were making loads of money trading with Russia. They were making loads trading with us. Now no one's making nuffink.
Except China, of course.
China stands to sit pleasantly in the middle of all this and mediate all trade through Russia, getting it's processing fees to boot, I imagine.
My Chinese friend is infuriatingly a bit gloaty about it. She's all, "I mean, hey, it's good for China, so I don't care."
and I'm all, "You know you're a monster, right? Like... the world of suffering caused around this and you're just chill 'cause you'll make a buck?"
And she's, "Haha yeah. Sucks to be you. I bet I can help you get Chinese citizenship if you want."
:lol:
No one should be comfortable with the idea of arming Nazis.
Your proposed alternative to just ignore this and let Ukraine or parts of Ukraine fall to a terrible tyrant who rules with lies and oppression is just untenable. Not simply to me, but to the vast majority of countries.
If you have any other ideas, keep them coming.
Both Poland and Ukraine geographically have been contested so many time over the centuries that I'd say it's pretty hard for anyone to call dibs. Slavs have inhabited Poland periodically since 450BC and Ukraine since 600somethingBC. Go back enough, and no country can claim any piece of land their "own", it's always just what current consensus says. Russia has/had no legitimate claim on Crimea or Donbas.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Hm has Canada? I don't recall. Anyhoo, I for one strongly condemn (and have done so for decades) what the Israeli are doing. Stop the whataboutism.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Oh for sure, Ukraine is strategically, politically ands economically almost a necessity to win. If they start leaning more west and get more prosperous, that's a really bad look for Kremlin (anyone else find it funny how close that sounds to Gremlins?), and Ukraine has massive amounts of minerals, they're the 2nd largest producer of wheat in the world, they used to have all of the major ports in the black sea etc. Plenty of reasons. A NATO threat on Russia's western border probably didn't make top10 even in the most paranoid of Russian minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What moves exactly have you seen NATO make to achieve these goals?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
IF at the moment Russia invaded, Zelensky had fled, the Ukraine army and people had surrendered and greeted them as liberators, yeah, I could understand it. He gambled stacks and lost. Then again, now after two weeks of bombing civilians, hospitals and maternity clinics, threatening the use of nuclear and chemical weapons, and northkoreaing Russia, my understanding is at a significantly lower level.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yup, agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I try to remain a little less cynical, though it isn't easy. I know for a fact that many if not most people getting into politics mean well. A lot of them actually do care, and aren't or at least don't start off ass complete dicks. However, politics is messy, and power corrupts. Some people get sick of it and drop out, others succumb to it or get drunk on the power they're entrusted with. Politicians aren't a different breed, they're just people. There are things we could do to weed out some of the most outrageous shit and incentivize good behavior, but change isn't easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
People on average are very risk and change averse. Just remember the amount of people that used to say how internet/smart phones/every new technological advancement is stupid and useless, until they can't live without it. Changing things on a societal level is hard, and typically takes a generational change. My grandparents, like most of their generation were totally fucked up by the wars, and I'm maybe the first generation that is starting to get over the trauma. Ukraine and Russia both will be fucked for at least a couple generations due to what's going on. It breaks my heart. I don't know if it's the great filter, but our inability to cooperate and have empathy sure seems like one.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Sad to say but my thoughts exactly, or even if we should.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Genuinely human, genuinely relatable and genuinely sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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, but yeah I do appreciate how vast Russia is. I also know about 70% of it is tundra and frozen forests. You don't win a war by holding onto tundra.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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. We were basically throwing them life preservers of supplies the whole time. They wouldn't have made it without our help, guaranteed.
In b4 you complain that we were hypocrites because the USSR army committed war crimes.
Japan was the second greatest naval power in WWII after the USA, Russia was the second greatest land power after Germany. So they had different strengths, but they were both great powers then.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
[Insert list of mountainous countries Germany rolled over in days in WWII.]Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yes, geography matters. But you eventually have to fight the other side to win. You can hope they forget to pack their winter boots but that isn't usually a good strategy.
What is a "crucifiction," is that like pretending to crucify someone, or is it a fake news story about crucifixion?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No-one is saying let's promote Nazism in Ukraine. There's some bad guys in their army. There's some bad guys in every army. What kind of teddy bears do you think volunteer to go to war?
But you're saying we shouldn't try to defend those interests "because nazis."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'd be surprised if he ever thought it was going to be easy. It seems more like he's throwing an escalating hissy fit than managing a well-planned out campaign. 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Even generals in other countries are scratching their heads. The first thing he should have done if he wanted to blitzkreig Ukraine is establish air supremacy. That makes the land war so much easier. He had the planes to do it. Instead he barely committed enough to contest the U air force.
I have. The amount i spend on gas has gone from £60 to £70 a fill. I may have to sell my house.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're the only person I know who sees a moral equivalence between an invading army and one that has some assholes in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I lived in America for a year and talking shit to your friends is obligatory. I wouldn't take what she says seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Not had, but has.Quote:
Originally Posted by poopy
It's been 2 weeks and he still hasn't done it.
WTF is that?
I mean there's so much bad faith argument there from poop I'm not even sure I have the energy to respond to that.
This is a really good comment, and something I'll try to take on board.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
The things is, my proposal is to let him have Donbas and Crimea. The people of these regions are culturally Russian, not Ukrainian. It's not like I'm suggesting we let him take regions where only outright oppression will keep them in tow. Russia most certainly should not be allowed to take Kyiv, not as long term territory at least. Ok in war cities get captured, but that's to force capitulation, if Russia take Kyiv it should definitely be returned upon their surrender.Quote:
Your proposed alternative to just ignore this and let Ukraine or parts of Ukraine fall to a terrible tyrant who rules with lies and oppression is just untenable. Not simply to me, but to the vast majority of countries.
I realise that the people of Crimea haven't always been pro-Russian, but that doesn't change the fact that right now, they are people and Crimea is their home. It's impossible to do right in these situations. I mean, should we give the Falklands to Argentina? Of course not, the people there don't want that to happen. Why should we ignore them and cave into the political demands of people who don't live there? That doesn't change the fact that the Falklands is a colony and perhaps we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. But it's now, not then.
Maybe he knew the price of gas was going up and wanted to save money.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I agree with all this except the last sentence. Russia totally have a legitimate claim on these regions. The people want it. We can argue about where these people should have self determination or not, but I firmly believe they should. They are culturally different to the people they share a country with. They want to be part of a country they are culturally closer to. Who are we to say they can't have that? Ukraine was never going to let them have a referendum, and in the case of Crimea, where Russia basically took it without going to war, I can get behind that. Granted, it started a war in the east, perhaps Russia should just have occupied these regions at the same time in the hope it prevents a future war.Quote:
Originally Posted by cocco
I mean people seem to say "whataboutism" in an attempt to not discuss the awkward truths. How we behave on the world stage has relevance. And how we morally respond to world events should be related to our own behaviour. We can't ignore the Iraq and Syria situations. They are relevant. Especially Syria, since it was Putin who basically came along and stopped us doing the same to Syria what we did to Iraq and Libya... get their leaders killed.Quote:
Hm has Canada? I don't recall. Anyhoo, I for one strongly condemn (and have done so for decades) what the Israeli are doing. Stop the whataboutism.
I read somewhere that when Putin saw footage of Gadaffi being assraped by a gun after the French captured him, he was actually shocked. Imagine shocking a man like Putin, a former KGB mafia thug. This was Western regime change in action. And the West dare to take moral high ground in geopolitical affairs.
And now we're arming crucifiers in an attempt to stop him from claiming land occupied by Russian speaking people.
This is why I can't take sides when it comes to Russia vs the West. We're both as bad as each other. We just go about things differently. Both sides are ruled by psychopaths. And frankly I feel like Putin is the more intelligent out of the world leaders of great powers. I dunno if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Watch that video mojo linked above. NATO have acted in bad faith when it comes to Russia.Quote:
What moves exactly have you seen NATO make to achieve these goals?
Maybe in Finland those in power are just normal people who want to live in a world of happiness and peace. Stay out of NATO for your own sanity, because the company you'll be keeping is psychopaths.Quote:
Politicians aren't a different breed, they're just people.
I mean I don't even know what you're getting at here, but you're right, I'm not a historian.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
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.Quote:
I also know about 70% of it is tundra and frozen forests. You don't win a war by holding onto tundra.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Japan was the second greatest naval power in WWII after the USA,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_...f_World_War_II
Like Switzerland, right?Quote:
[Insert list of mountainous countries Germany rolled over in days in WWII.]
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.
Thanks for the spelling correction.Quote:
What is a "crucifiction"
Well actually I'm saying let's not pretend we have moral high ground. We're playing the same game they are.Quote:
But you're saying we shouldn't try to defend those interests "because nazis."
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.Quote:
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.
Next time it'll probably be £80.Quote:
I have. The amount i spend on gas has gone from £60 to £70 a fill. I may have to sell my house.
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.
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:
You're the only person I know who sees a moral equivalence between an invading army and one that has some assholes in it.
Ok thanks for that expert analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Aircraft carriers ruled the waves. Japan had more and better aircraft carriers than the UK in WWII, until the US Navy sunk them all.
Picks a name of a country that didn't fight in WWII. Well played sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Like Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway.
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
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
So you ARE saying you have a problem with helping Ukraine. I thought that's what I read before.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
^ 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.
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.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNvOheXU...pg&name=medium
Apparently 21% of people think a no fly zone means something like no more holidays allowed in Ukraine for the duration of the war.
Goddamn sauna-sitting Eurolibfinntard! How dare he point out how useless Boris is!
https://twitter.com/MatthewStadlen/s...74241119936518
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.
I hope to see you soon in la la land.
Probably NSFW if your superiors look down on the glorification of drugs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMD_cv4fM4s
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki5N6gU6CYc
https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status...33283333033988Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Obviously if people think BJ is a buffoon, it must be a global conspiracy.
Goddamn cheese-eating EU surrender monkey Macron not shaking Boris' hand!
https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1506945401366192128
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.
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.
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.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOkglTYX...jpg&name=small
Putin railing against cancel culture. Wait till he hears about woke people.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1507333553448800309
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.
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.
This utterly misses the point. Geopolitics is not just about the threat of invasion or attack from another country.Quote:
WTF that's laughable, as if anyone thinks NATO would attack Russia unprovoked.
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.
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:
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.
"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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cocco
NATOQuote:
What makes you think they'd now suddenly just stop what they've been doing since medieval times?
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
Hasn't stopped them before, isn't stopping them now.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cocco
All great powers are bullies. That's how they become great powers in the first place.
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.Quote:
Hasn't stopped them before, isn't stopping them now.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.ft.com/content/afce4687-...4-3c8940eaa19a
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cocco
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cocco
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.Quote:
There's a whole generation of people brainwashed to hate the west
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.
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
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
We are looking at things very differently then. Could you point to just one source that would justify questioning what happened in Syria?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Here's an independent OSI report on it: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena...emical-attack/
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Btw re: the Salisbury poisoning, what exactly are you referring to? I'm assuming this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison..._Yulia_Skripal
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cocco
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.
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.Quote:
Invasions of Afghanistan
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.Quote:
Chechnya twice
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.Quote:
Georgia
You made me laugh again. Why are you presenting evidence of "Russia bad" when we've done precisely this?Quote:
indiscriminate civilian bombings in Syria
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.Quote:
raping and pillaging
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.Quote:
execution and torture of civilians
What happens when the enemy hides in schools and hospitals?Quote:
attacks against schools and hospitals and goddamn nuclear plants
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.
USA, UK, France.Quote:
which other current country or regime would you expect these kind of actions from?
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.
I don't dispute this. But we've given the rest of the world reason to hate us too. And many do hate us.Quote:
Maybe, just maybe, Russia has actually given people multiple good reasons over decades and centuries to hate them.
We commit "systematic human rights violations and war crimes". Diego Garcia, Gadaffi, Assange, these are examples I've already given. There's plenty more.Quote:
The difference being use or lack thereof of systematic human rights violations and war crimes.
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...Quote:
Could you point to just one source that would justify questioning what happened in 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.
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.Quote:
but to say that the reporting of BBC, NYTimes and RIA Novosti are equally bad is to me laughable.
Yes. Craig Murray tears this story to pieces, it's worth a read. Here's one of his many articles on the matter...Quote:
Btw re: the Salisbury poisoning, what exactly are you referring to? I'm assuming this:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...-of-salisbury/
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
Right, so let's just listen to this one Craig guy instead who happens to be saying something my ears find more comfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
Grozny was completely destroyed, too. The Russians definitely have form for going overboard when they are at war.Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't recall seeing anything like that from a NATO occupation.
But I'll just point to Basra. We destroyed that city.
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.Quote:
I appreciate an independent POV, ong.
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.
A few hundred? You think our body count is lower?Quote:
Originally Posted by cocco
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:
Right, so let's just listen to this one Craig guy instead who happens to be saying something my ears find more comfortable.
From yesterday, ya pretty sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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."
No. Do pay attention. I made clear several times that's not what I'm saying.Quote:
""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?
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.
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?
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.
We armed Al Qaida and ISIS, and warlords in Africa. We're arming the Saudis so they can crush Yemen. We're so great.
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?
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.
What a dreadful analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
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.
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:
So by supplying them with arms we're supporting democracy. You think we should send arms to Putin instead?
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
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
Are we just pretending that Iraq, Afghanistan, and the many other wars didn't happen now?Quote:
Originally Posted by cocco
This is true. How do you decide if a war is justifiable? Who do you believe?Quote:
I don't like any wars, but some are more justifiable than others.
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.
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:
Saying "Russia bad" doesn't mean "West good".
Great. Become a heroin dealer buddy, lots of money in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
FYPQuote:
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.
At least, if you know this is what the deviant nation intends to do.
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?
I just said we shouldn't be doing it. Reductio ad bananum to the nth degree there.
Shame the Nurenburg trials didn't include Krupp and Rheinmetal then. They made arms for the Nazis. The Nazis!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Ong's reductio whataboutismo is a non-argument afaic.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm thinking more and more favorably of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, anything less may just be delaying the inevitable escalation.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cocco
This is where we fundamentally differ.Quote:
I believe the mainstream media, unless there's substantial conflicting evidence from a credible source.
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:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course not.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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
Fine, but expecting us to not to see your contributions as irrelevant whataboutism isn't cutting it either.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
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.Quote:
Frankly, it comes across as being a Putin apologist, despite your frequent denials thereof.
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.
Then you're failing to understand why this is an issue for me. Perhaps that last paragraph will help.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Putin is attempting a genocide of Ukrainian people.
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.
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:
He's not trying to liberate anyone. He's not trying to end Nazi values in Ukraine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
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.
France???Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
It ends when Russia finally gets the message war is not a viable option for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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...
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
Again, blaming a defensive alliance for another country starting wars. Just stop and think about what you're saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yeah, let's make ourselves weaker because that will make it less likely other countries will attack us.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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
I agree, but there are other war crimes that aren't genocide. He's certainly been committing those.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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
No, NATO is by its very existence an anti-Russia military alliance. It's the very reason it was created, to oppose the Soviets.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
I am not speaking for "The West" or representing anyone but myself.
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.Quote:
The Russians were exterminating everyone. They were murdering people in the streets who had their hands tied.
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".
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?Quote:
I'm going to go with, "You choose not to fire weapons at civilians, no matter where the enemy hides."
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.Quote:
You don't get to claim you're the good guys fighting the bad guys when you go shooting at civvies, man.
Sadly we are.Quote:
We can't both be the bad guys.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
How on Earth was the sarcasm of that comment lost on you. I even invoked Hitlerpoleon (they/them) for you to make it clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
SMH my head
No. War Crimes can only be prosecuted if the court that wants to do so has jurisdiction over their alleged war criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
Being skeptical and being ignorant are different things. Don't be a полезный идиот.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ongtin
Yeah, look at that fake grief on Zelensky's face. What an actor.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserv...39&resize=1200
As Mortensen said, "And thus in his considered view, what did not fit could not be true."Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cocco
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.Quote:
Just being dismissive about all mainstream reporting and blindly accepting unverified alternative sources is about the worst thing one can do.
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.
Fun fact - he actually is an actor.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
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.
Yeah a former ambassador would never lie. Just because their job irl was to be a professional liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ongtin
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
Amazing. You'd think they'd be all in favour of a sharp critic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ongtin
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ongtin