Printable View
[QUOTE=GDreams;2810966]A bit naive. Putin was always going to attack Ukraine, he was just manufacturing excuses to justify it. What the US should have done is fly in several squadrons of F15's and A10's on a friendship mission to Ukraine.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.cc.com/video/8067fc/the-colbert-report-crisis-in-ukraine-gideon-rose[/URL]
[QUOTE=WyattEarp;2810903]You explained the dilemma of Western foreign policy. How much power and force do we expend trying to combat immoral and corrupt regimes around the world?
I don't know what the end for the Ukrainian conflict looks like. I just don't know if it looks like the picture you have painted. We might have moved back into a strategy of containment in Eastern Europe and the Pacific Rim. It's not inspiring. It's not brave. It's just realpolitik.[/QUOTE]My last post dealt directly with your comment that I'm taking things too personally. In response I stated that, aside from all the analysis and reasoning about geopolitical and battlefield outcomes, there is a distinct and separate moral dimension that needs to be considered and addressed. And it's that dimension that explains my personal feelings of revulsion and outrage.
So, lets try this a second time, shall we? Here's a video interview of a Wagner mercenary who has returned to Russia from fighting in Ukraine. In the interview, he states (among other disclosures) that he was given explicit orders to kill civilians, including children. In one graphic passage, he talks about shooting a girl who was about 5 or 6 years of age. He killed her with a shot to the head.
[URL]https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1648013152414732288[/URL]
Here's my challenge to you: Can you describe, in a simple single sentence, your reaction as a moral being to this (IMO) quintessential example of evil?
Please don't do yourself a disservice by engaging in some (for this particular moral issue) detached pundit-style discussion of a geopolitical or policy topic. It's a simple question that begs an equally simple answer.
Here's the bottom-line, IMO: Nobody knows how the war will end. Maybe Russia wins completely, maybe Ukraine wins completely, or maybe it'll be something in the middle. But that has NOTHING to do with recognizing evil when it's being perpetrated. And, once recognized, morality demands that it be condemned.
My personal feelings stem from my outrage at the depraved atrocities being committed by Russia, in a calculated and systematic way. I don't have the right to ask anyone to share those feelings, but I do absolutely have the right to expose you to what is clearly an act of pure evil, and ask for your honest and unfiltered reaction.
P.S. For anyone who would like to claim that this video isn't genuine, I'd simply point out that Wagner isn't making that claim and is taking action to punish the interviewee.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2810944]Of course, it is. What did Hersch say that was wrong?
When Hersh was asked if he had one source, he responded, "I do not give up my sources. " Got that? Pleural. So you take the accusation as fact because that is what you want to believe.
In truth, if you read Hersh's story, it is hard to fathom he had only one source.
Absolutely not. You do not get to single handedly judge Hersch without looking at his facts. You did not read what he write nor dispute what he wrote. You just swallowed the fact checkers bullshit story whole.
And then you cite the AP code. LOL. You think after all the twitter files, Russiagate, Covid, the vaccines, and the latest Hunter Biden fiasco that the AP gets the facts right? Give me a fucking break.
Every single fact you cite fits your narrative. I do not dispute the fact that Russian ships were near the pipeline. What I dispute is how anyone with a brain could take that fact and compare it to Hersh's detailed writing and say, "The Russians may have done it" like you did. As far as you go, any theory is acceptable including the pipeline being blown up by space monkeys. Shit, Biden himself said he was going to take out the pipeline. You are like, "Well, gee, duh, just because Biden said he would take out the pipeline is not proof he did it. ".
Peter Zeihan has said ad nauseam that this war is "Russia's to lose" even when he has chronicled the victories Ukraine has enjoyed. What he has said jives totally with the documents Jack Teixeira leaked. It showed the Russians had a huge advantage in the war and were grossly incompetent with how they managed their resources. Zeihan said this is normal for the Russians. They are incompetent in the early phase of a war and get better and better.
What bugs me about you is you are so gung ho war the very notion that the Ukrainians could lose has not even entered your head, and it could easily have happened and probably should have happened.
You are saying "Well, no one knows what could happen", but the possibility Russia could take all of Ukraine does not seem to register with you. And when you say that anything could happen, you really are not considering nuclear war. Because if you and the people spinning the narrative you believe in really felt like those things were possible, this war would have been over with yesterday.[/QUOTE]Since you're so eager to believe unverified anonymous info, here's some more for you to swallow:
STOP THE PRESSES!
It's been revealed that the source of the 20+ year old (Bin laden raid-related) "goat fuck" quote, as well as the contemporary (NordStream-related) "goat fuck" quote, is none other than Elvis2008!
This is based on an unimpeachable intel source. Actually, intel SOURCES, as in "Pleural" (funny spell-check boo-boo), just take my word for it.
A personal substack is being prepared for the publication of this HIGHLY DETAILED bombshell info! Sources can't be disclosed, not even internally to those who would pledge to keep identities secret, so you'll just have to trust that the info is true.
Those of you who believed the false official narrative that Elvis has left the building should prepare to have your world view shaken to its core! Elvis has NOT left the building, he's been fucking goats this whole time.
Be sure to click on [URL]www.elvisthegoatfucker.substack.com[/URL] in the near future. Every detail on that site is 100% true, guaranteed!
[QUOTE=WyattEarp;2810903]You explained the dilemma of Western foreign policy. How much power and force do we expend trying to combat immoral and corrupt regimes around the world?
I don't know what the end for the Ukrainian conflict looks like. I just don't know if it looks like the picture you have painted. We might have moved back into a strategy of containment in Eastern Europe and the Pacific Rim. It's not inspiring. It's not brave. It's just realpolitik.[/QUOTE]Wyatt,
The problem is not that we try to combat "immoral and corrupt regimes. " The problem is we don't.
If we did, we wouldn't try to placate the Saudis, China, Venezuela and a litany of other "bad hombres" from Haiti to the "Stans. " And we'd certainly have challenged Russia not in 2022, not even in 2014, but back in 2008 when it invaded Georgia under a false flag pretense.
Or maybe even before then, when they first produced and broadcasted the animation about nuclear ashes. That's 2006 or 2007, I believe.
Strong men (or, as it's turned out in our example, "strawmen") never stop until they're stopped.
Had we been more forceful instead of encouraging that fucking waste of human DNA, this war wouldn't have happened.
And you're damn right about containment. Russia is done and gone for civilization for at least 4-5 decades. The only thing I hope about is that someone is working on making sure all those nukes stay wherever they are right now.
[QUOTE=GDreams;2810966]A bit naive. Putin was always going to attack Ukraine, he was just manufacturing excuses to justify it. What the US should have done is fly in several squadrons of F15's and A10's on a friendship mission to Ukraine.[/QUOTE]I too believe Putin was always going to attack, but I don't think he was looking for excuses. His excuses are ridiculous, clumsy and, quite frankly, insane. I think he attacked when he got to believe that his army was ready and Ukraine would fall apart the moment his tanks cross the border. Then he would've conquered Kyiv in three days and installed a pro-Russian government, and the West would've been forced to accept the new reality like they did in 2014. Basically, he fell victim of his own propaganda.
'And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Click on cancel and then play (English titles provided):
[URL]https://t.me/RVvoenkor/43466[/URL]
[QUOTE=Questner;2811325]'And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Click on cancel and then play (English titles provided):
[URL]https://t.me/RVvoenkor/43466[/URL][/QUOTE]And God said:
"The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand".
Cursed from the earth, an appropriate fate for Putin the murderer.
[QUOTE=Questner;2811325]'And the LORD said unto Vatniks, why are you so fucking stupid?[/QUOTE]I heard your brave leaders have been sending their sons to the front.
[QUOTE=Jmsuttr;2811188]My last post dealt directly with your comment that I'm taking things too personally. In response I stated that, aside from all the analysis and reasoning about geopolitical and battlefield outcomes, there is a distinct and separate moral dimension that needs to be considered and addressed. And it's that dimension that explains my personal feelings of revulsion and outrage.
So, lets try this a second time, shall we? Here's a video interview of a Wagner mercenary who has returned to Russia from fighting in Ukraine. In the interview, he states (among other disclosures) that he was given explicit orders to kill civilians, including children. In one graphic passage, he talks about shooting a girl who was about 5 or 6 years of age. He killed her with a shot to the head.
[URL]https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1648013152414732288[/URL]
Here's my challenge to you: Can you describe, in a simple single sentence, your reaction as a moral being to this (IMO) quintessential example of evil?
Please don't do yourself a disservice by engaging in some (for this particular moral issue) detached pundit-style discussion of a geopolitical or policy topic. It's a simple question that begs an equally simple answer.
Here's the bottom-line, IMO: Nobody knows how the war will end. Maybe Russia wins completely, maybe Ukraine wins completely, or maybe it'll be something in the middle. But that has NOTHING to do with recognizing evil when it's being perpetrated..[/QUOTE]You can frame the war as a black and white moral question. That's important. I can abhor the Russian atrocities and at the same time think about what the practical resolution to the hostilities might look like.
I am not criticizing Xpartan's post that followed your post, but it highlights the dilemma in thinking the United States and the West can fight every moral battle on the planet. The list he notes is long "Saudis, China, Venezuela and a litany of other "bad hombres" from Haiti to the "Stans". I could add some countries to that list, but that's not the point. The point is the you. S, and its European allies will support the cause of freedom and human rights. They will support those fighting tyranny and aggression. However, there will be accommodations with evil as there has been since 1945.
[QUOTE=Xpartan;2811294]I too believe Putin was always going to attack, but I don't think he was looking for excuses. His excuses are ridiculous, clumsy and, quite frankly, insane. I think he attacked when he got to believe that his army was ready and Ukraine would fall apart the moment his tanks cross the border...........[/QUOTE]I agree with you that Putin was always going to attack the Ukraine. He believed his army was ready and it would be an easy victory.
I kind of think $100 a barrel oil early last year got Putin thinking he had the West in a precarious state. The West's need for oil and gas would outweigh its principle. Of course, it hasn't worked out that way. In Putin's mind, the timing was perfect.
[QUOTE=WyattEarp;2811549]You can frame the war as a black and white moral question. That's important. I can abhor the Russian atrocities and at the same time think about what the practical resolution to the hostilities might look like.
I am not criticizing Xpartan's post that followed your post, but it highlights the dilemma in thinking the United States and the West can fight every moral battle on the planet. The list he notes is long "Saudis, China, Venezuela and a litany of other "bad hombres" from Haiti to the "Stans". I could add some countries to that list, but that's not the point. The point is the you. S, and its European allies will support the cause of freedom and human rights. They will support those fighting tyranny and aggression. However, there will be accommodations with evil as there has been since 1945.[/QUOTE]You made a comment that, in your opinion, I'm taking the war too personally. The primary thrust of my response was NOT directed at the war, in a generalized sense, but rather at a SPECIFIC incident that I assert was an act of pure evil. And I asked you directly for your reaction to that specific act.
[QUOTE]You can frame the war as a black and white moral question.[/QUOTE]You're substituting a more abstract and generalized view in lieu of the very specific question presented to you.
[QUOTE]I am not criticizing Xpartan's post that followed your post, but[/QUOTE]Why are you commenting about Xpartan's post in your response to mine? Whether or not you intended it, the only purpose this passage served was either as filler (kindest interpretation) or as misdirection (less kind interpretation), both of which allowed you to side-step answering the specific question posed to you.
Can you find the frankness needed to answer a simple question with an equally simple answer? Fuck the war, in its generalized and abstract sense, and fuck Realpolitik and similar issues. So, let's try this again. Will the third time be a charm, or a strikeout?
"Here's a video interview of a Wagner mercenary who has returned to Russia from fighting in Ukraine. In the interview, he states (among other disclosures) that he was given explicit orders to kill civilians, including children. In one graphic passage, he talks about shooting a girl who was about 5 or 6 years of age. He killed her with a shot to the head.
[URL]https://twitter.com/igorsushko/statu...13152414732288[/URL]
Here's my challenge to you: Can you describe, in a simple single sentence, your reaction as a moral being to this (IMO) quintessential example of evil?
Please don't do yourself a disservice by engaging in some (for this particular moral issue) detached pundit-style discussion of a geopolitical or policy topic. It's a simple question that begs an equally simple answer".
To sum up, the ENTIRETY of this post deals solely with asking whether or not you would call the willful shooting of an innocent, defenseless young girl, an evil act.
If your moral compass says yes, then you've answered the question about why I have strong personal feelings.
If you can't (or won't) answer, or continue to seek refuge in "big picture"/ geopolitical / abstract concepts, that will be a profoundly disappointing development.
Duh, let's not get into details about the modified version of AA-13 Axehead. Today everyone asked about what was in common between Zed and Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China. Of course, both to share their funeral terracotta warriors. Trying to flush the drive of the image of schnorring Z, here's a nice triptych:
[QUOTE=Questner;2811624]Duh, let's not get into details about the modified version of AA-13 Axehead. Today everyone asked about what was in common between Zed and Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China. Of course, both to share their funeral terracotta warriors. Trying to flush the drive of the image of schnorring Z, here's a nice triptych:[/QUOTE]Since Putin will be sucking it, no matter what, details really don't matter.
Except, of course, if Putin sucks it three times in a row. Would that then be characterized as a nice trip-dyck?
Oh, and Putin should count himself lucky that he's servicing Xi rather than Emperor Wun Fat Dong!
[QUOTE]Vladimir Solovyov, an anchor on the Russia 1 channel, urged Carlson to "come join us," writing on his Telegram channel: "you don't have to be afraid of taking the p*** out of Biden here." Another message signed by his team on the nightly show said that the U.S. mainstream media "has lost [b]its last remaining voice of reason." [/b]
"You have our admiration and support in any endeavor," it said in English, "be it running for president of the United States (which you should totally do, by the way) or making an independent media project."[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.newsweek.com/carlson-russia-kremlin-media-fox-news-1796512[/URL]
I think Tucker should totally go work for Russia -- overtly, this time.
[QUOTE=Jmsuttr;2811202]Since you're so eager to believe unverified anonymous info, here's some more for you to swallow[/QUOTE]You do not know if Hersh has one or many sources. You just think your Democratic douche fact check is a source.
Of course, you have not read the article. No shock there. You did not even try to find it. Here it is: [URL]https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream[/URL].
And here is a quotation of the story:
The Norwegian navy was quick to find the right spot, in the shallow waters of the Baltic sea a few miles off Denmark's Bornholm Island. The pipelines ran more than a mile apart along a seafloor that was only 260 feet deep. That would be well within the range of the divers, who, operating from a Norwegian Alta class mine hunter, would dive with a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and helium streaming from their tanks, and plant shaped C4 charges on the four pipelines with concrete protective covers. It would be tedious, time consuming and dangerous work, but the waters off Bornholm had another advantage: there were no major tidal currents, which would have made the task of diving much more difficult.
After a bit of research, the Americans were all in.
At this point, the Navy's obscure deep-diving group in Panama City once again came into play. The deep-sea schools at Panama City, whose trainees participated in Ivy Bells, are seen as an unwanted backwater by the elite graduates of the Naval Academy in Annapolis, who typically seek the glory of being assigned as a Seal, fighter pilot, or submariner. If one must become a "Black Shoe"that is, a member of the less desirable surface ship commandthere is always at least duty on a destroyer, cruiser or amphibious ship. The least glamorous of all is mine warfare. Its divers never appear in Hollywood movies, or on the cover of popular magazines.
End of link. There are a lot of facts there, and not one was disputed.
And for someone who claims to be making statements based on facts, you are just a Democratic douche type who swears anything on CNN and MSNBC is fact and anything on Fox is not.
If you weren't such a loser, you would have taken on Hirsch's article versus insulting me.