Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Posts

    3667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    112

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    whYNOT got a reaction from EC in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition   
    Not to be victims -- again. i.e. the survivors. Got it?
    The Palestinians could - and I know a couple who have - turn from nihilism to self-value.
    Now get lost. I don't answer to fascist Jew-haters.
  2. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    There'd not have been a war without close collusion of Western Gvts./Nato with their flunky western media. The immense sacrifices demanded requires sanction from unthinking, misinformed majorities, driven by emotions whipped up by the media.
    Ukraine in some regional wrangle with Russia? Were there solutions on hand? Yes. Simply slap temporary sanctions on both; tell them both to behave, stand down and begin negotiations--instantly - before conflict escalates.
    Why is it our business? - stay out. 
    If just in retrospect, one can now see that was too simple or rational;  an unsuitable resolution contrary to the ultimate goals of the 'powers that be. Therefore, they intended war.
     
  3. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from Grames in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    All conjecture and propaganda-fuelled "revanchist" nonsense. Regard the Russian actions - foremost. Politicians' rhetoric and accusations of misdeeds count little. Make your own deductions from facts.
    It is "a given":  invading Poland etc.etc., would result in nuclear catastrophe - everybody loses. Does anyone think the Kremlin didn't/does not know this, or would welcome annihilation? First order of the western propaganda we saw was to get around that minor detail, to promote an "insane Putin" who'd immolate his country along with everybody else.
    Turns out he is quite rational.
    And supposing for a moment there was no NATO Art. 5 - and no nukes - what was Putin going to do with an enemy nation he invaded and at great cost, defeated? Occupy it indefinitely, despite recurring insurrections by the populace?
    Then move onto the next country?
    All to spread and force the ideology of Orthodox Christianity? And maybe install the Czarist Empire in every nation?
    All the above too ridiculous to entertain for a second.
    Quite explicitly, the Kremlin has dismissed even conquering and occupying Western Ukraine, where they'd be heavily opposed by extremist anti-Russians. What does that make of the "Russian Empire" project? Nonsense; made up by rationalistic academics.
    If you read your media with a critical eye, you'd see that Putin often responded to arms escalations and to rhetorical threats of foreign intervention (the "Coalition of the Willing") with a reminder to the West that Russia, beyond its effective conventional forces, has a nuclear capacity as its final line of defense; in other words, "don't push us too far". Like, launching serious attacks on our cities and land, a red line. Presented by the alarmist media and taken by gullible readers to be a direct threat he at any time would - initiate- nuclear use. The subtlety of a caution vs. an intentional threat escapes many. E.g. Putin wants to nuke us!
    Quite irrelevant, the interference in foreign elections, either insignificant or unfounded - or refuted, like "Russiagate" in the US - and not a sign of Russian hostility. 
    The trouble is that the West cannot accept that most Russians sincerely believe there was/is an existential threat by NATO/Kyiv looming for Russia. Things would escalate out of hand, sooner or later. Large forces amassed near the border, increasing assaults on the Donbas last year-- and then-- NATO membership giving Ukraine great military and nuclear might. So a first strike was logical and justifiable, while a terrible pity, most Russians apparently think. On principle, for any nation in that difficult position, I agree.
    Therefore the West can never accept that
    1. Putin's act were (mainly) defensive, in the interests of national survival and neutrality avoiding more conflicts with Nato/Ukraine in the forseeable future.
    2. Nato's acts in Ukraine and the potential and future actions were and are now, mainly malign and offensive, in the supposed "interests" of the West.
    Proof: Item A. You can see it and heard it. There has been every explicit intention to allow, continue and prolong the war (to Ukraine's cost) and every evasion of a quick negotiated settlement, as Putin offered. . 
    The "defense of Ukraine and western values", etc., etc., is mendacious. Ukraine clearly has been made to be the sacrificial martyr to others' ends. Losing (or winning) against Russia, could have no other outcome but a grave self-sacrifice.
    Conclusion: Not about "Ukraine". The prime objective was and is, undermining and overthrowing the RF.
  4. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    The above is what I wrote. "As long as they are not pacifists against self-defense..."
    I have no interest if Agnes is a peace activist pro- or against self-defense. Anyhow, they are not mutually exclusive, she might be for world peace while also for the right of defense.
    I do not need to know either.
    She and her host made a compelling case for Sweden and Swedes being fear-mongered to join NATO.
    That corresponds to what I read and surmised.
    My interest in Agnes ends there.
     
  5. Thanks
    whYNOT got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Indeed, An active and receptive (not "open") mind is recommended. It's an impossibility to trace back, validate and communicate your entire conceptual store to another, given that it began inductively from a multitude of 'facts in reality'.
    True OR false - OR unproven, as yet - while, (im)probable/(im)possible/(un)likely - constitute the triple poles, to my mind
    (I'm not fond of "the arbitrary assertion" theory, whose importance escapes me: E.g., the onus is solely with the claimant to verify his/her assertion.
    Cognitive rigidity will follow from this.
    The utterly ridiculous assertion speaks for itself - it's false, not "arbitrary".
    If one is interested and enjoys expanding one's knowledge, one would surely set about proving/disproving someone's claim for oneself.
    A so-called "charity read", would begin with accepting a debater's veracity: why would this person set out to lie and to deceive? Therefore, until seen to be a regular character flaw, I listen in good faith while suspending judgment of its truth content (they could be innocently wrong too).
    (The constant and unjust accusations of lying puts me on guard, I find they are very often a projection of the accuser's own untruthfulness).
  6. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    e
    A prequel to Ukraine, with very similar elements in place; The Soviets break up, a Color revolution, a war by West-leaning Georgians against the conservative loyalists in South Ossetia, a (short) military intervention by Russia - however = Georgia remains a sovereign nation to the present. Russia did not try to conquer/annex/ "Empire build" Georgia by justifying and capitalizing upon the tensions. Further, it did not do so despite Georgian wishes to join NATO and their close operational affinity.
    A state situated totally within Russia - a NATO member!? and all the militarization and probable nuclear bases that entails? Really smart - and cynical. Unpopular with Moscow. This would be a security danger (for Georgia as well), into the far future. Nor would any other country consider tolerating a clearly inimical entity entering its heartland.
    I could theorize that the game-plan by NATO et al utilized the Georgian episode knowing it could also entice Russia into Ukraine to defend loyalists - and the RF - against a massive, Nato-ized army, and to block NATO's intentions in the Russian "near abroad".
    Besides, the fault lay largely with Georgia for the conflict, in this independent study. Only the RF's "legality' is faulted.
    https://www.dw.com/en/independent-report-blames-georgia-for-south-ossetia-war/a-4746802
     
  7. Thanks
    whYNOT reacted to necrovore in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    When you imply that someone is a conspiracy theorist, that is a statement about the person rather than the argument they are making.
    Saying that someone "must be irrational if they support X, Y, or Z" can be an argument from intimidation, like "Oh, you can't claim to be an Objectivist if you believe X, Y, or Z, because then you'd be irrational, and Objectivists have to be rational." It's an appeal to Objectivist peer pressure, especially trying to say that "this is supposed to be an Objectivist board so only Objectivist points of view should be able to be posted here," etc.
    And both are a form of psychologizing -- attacking a statement by going into the mental state of the person making it, instead of attacking it by comparing it to reality.
    If you want to show that some statement X is mistaken, then you have to show why without reference to the person making the statement.
    If you want to show that a statement is arbitrary then you need to show that no evidence, of any kind, could establish its truth or falsehood -- that it is "detached from reality" in the specific sense that reality wouldn't make any difference to it.
    (It's possible for something to be arbitrary "in practice" and to prove this by using other facts about the world to establish that it is arbitrary; it is valid, for example, to say that a statement is arbitrary because the current state of technology is such that nobody could know today whether it is true or false -- even if in principle it might become known someday. This is how you deal with the claim of the teapot orbiting Venus.)
    Finally, it's not always possible to prove something definitively on any sort of forum. This is why civilization as such sometimes requires people to agree to disagree. It is also one of the reasons why freedom is important. There can be a difference between what you know and what you can prove to others.
  8. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    The demand for "facts" conceals an evasion of the most significant facts.
    Disconnected, non-hierarchical "facts" signify an avoidance of conceptual thinking.
    It's not "facts" you need, would you know what to do with them?
  9. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Nah, in this thread, this is a follow-the-government-line "fan-forum".
    One can't go wrong faithfully obliging the Establishment.
  10. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    All conjecture and propaganda-fuelled "revanchist" nonsense. Regard the Russian actions - foremost. Politicians' rhetoric and accusations of misdeeds count little. Make your own deductions from facts.
    It is "a given":  invading Poland etc.etc., would result in nuclear catastrophe - everybody loses. Does anyone think the Kremlin didn't/does not know this, or would welcome annihilation? First order of the western propaganda we saw was to get around that minor detail, to promote an "insane Putin" who'd immolate his country along with everybody else.
    Turns out he is quite rational.
    And supposing for a moment there was no NATO Art. 5 - and no nukes - what was Putin going to do with an enemy nation he invaded and at great cost, defeated? Occupy it indefinitely, despite recurring insurrections by the populace?
    Then move onto the next country?
    All to spread and force the ideology of Orthodox Christianity? And maybe install the Czarist Empire in every nation?
    All the above too ridiculous to entertain for a second.
    Quite explicitly, the Kremlin has dismissed even conquering and occupying Western Ukraine, where they'd be heavily opposed by extremist anti-Russians. What does that make of the "Russian Empire" project? Nonsense; made up by rationalistic academics.
    If you read your media with a critical eye, you'd see that Putin often responded to arms escalations and to rhetorical threats of foreign intervention (the "Coalition of the Willing") with a reminder to the West that Russia, beyond its effective conventional forces, has a nuclear capacity as its final line of defense; in other words, "don't push us too far". Like, launching serious attacks on our cities and land, a red line. Presented by the alarmist media and taken by gullible readers to be a direct threat he at any time would - initiate- nuclear use. The subtlety of a caution vs. an intentional threat escapes many. E.g. Putin wants to nuke us!
    Quite irrelevant, the interference in foreign elections, either insignificant or unfounded - or refuted, like "Russiagate" in the US - and not a sign of Russian hostility. 
    The trouble is that the West cannot accept that most Russians sincerely believe there was/is an existential threat by NATO/Kyiv looming for Russia. Things would escalate out of hand, sooner or later. Large forces amassed near the border, increasing assaults on the Donbas last year-- and then-- NATO membership giving Ukraine great military and nuclear might. So a first strike was logical and justifiable, while a terrible pity, most Russians apparently think. On principle, for any nation in that difficult position, I agree.
    Therefore the West can never accept that
    1. Putin's act were (mainly) defensive, in the interests of national survival and neutrality avoiding more conflicts with Nato/Ukraine in the forseeable future.
    2. Nato's acts in Ukraine and the potential and future actions were and are now, mainly malign and offensive, in the supposed "interests" of the West.
    Proof: Item A. You can see it and heard it. There has been every explicit intention to allow, continue and prolong the war (to Ukraine's cost) and every evasion of a quick negotiated settlement, as Putin offered. . 
    The "defense of Ukraine and western values", etc., etc., is mendacious. Ukraine clearly has been made to be the sacrificial martyr to others' ends. Losing (or winning) against Russia, could have no other outcome but a grave self-sacrifice.
    Conclusion: Not about "Ukraine". The prime objective was and is, undermining and overthrowing the RF.
  11. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from Craig24 in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition   
    A (presumed) Muslim-Israeli lets rip on BBC Arab.
     
  12. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from tadmjones in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    I did not write "massively". But a change there has been. Anyhow, it seems I must stress the obvious: this is no longer a Communist-atheist dictatorship. Its ideology is predominantly Orthodox Christianity, and therefore Russia poses little threat now to other nations, as it did when the state and intellectuals had a mass ideology to export, one that convinced and coerced many other people.
    The change is more fundamental than mere political, (i.e. simply, "authoritarian v. democratic").
    Fundamentally, the Russian people's/culture's convictions have flipped from (Communist) subjectivism/skepticism - to - mystical-intrinsicism.
    During roughly the same period the West has been moving the opposite way - into subjectivism-skepticism (neo- Marxism: to post-modernism, to Wokeism/etc.).
    Both positions are the clearest example of "different sides of the same counterfeit coin", in Rand's brilliant formulation. In essential terms, they equally represent primacy of consciousness.
    With newfound subjectivity and skepticism, anti-reason and anti-individualism, the West is in the process of losing some liberty and freedoms at the same time the Russians are gaining somewhat more than they had.
  13. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    They meant it - "To the last Ukrainian!" What made for rousing headline copy at the time is closer. The refugees, now 'draft dodgers', are to be forced by Kyiv to go home and fight(some EU countries have refused, to their credit).
    In war, when you've run out of your available resources, you've lost the war and must sue for an armistice. All that one heard until lately was about the endless supply of weaponry - lethal aid - to Ukraine. As though the weapons and armor, each type a proposed "game changer", would do the job alone. How much was heard about the steady losses to Ukraine's human resources - except to massively underrepresent them? (as deception to keep up morale for their troops' losing battle, keep cash and supplies coming in and sustain public belief by far away onlookers, so more would die). Ruled by western skepticism/determinism and sacrificial sentimentality, depressingly predictable
     
  14. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    https://youtu.be/MKMxMUG4cKA?si=AoNmqP92YIagEoOn
    Sachs still at it, tirelessly pointing out the emperor's nakedness.
     
  15. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    And why did NATO, at minimum, not *consider* Russian alarms about its expansion, advertised often by Putin and previous presidents, or at least enter some dialogue?
    Conclusion: like macho juveniles, they hubristically believed they'd "win" --without negotiations--with the large Ukraine military doing NATO's bidding and heavy sanctions to break apart the RF, politically and economically, and a vast propaganda campaign influencing public opinion in the West.
    All irrationally aimed at a distinctly non-hostile and conciliatory post Cold War Russia.
    However, now not looking good for Ukraine and NATO. The "consequentialists", in the leadership cliques and a billion followers, who looked for moral supremacy in a 'certain' triumph over Russia, and justifying the several 100's of thousands (of Ukraine soldiers) thrown at Russia and killed - and the loss of more land (than first entertained by an early treaty, as more oblasts choose to join Russia), are soon to be bitter and confused: By their ethical doctrine when Russia wins - they lose any moral high ground. No sympathy for them from me.
    Then there will be more of the "CYA" coming from Nato and western governments. A first crack from Stoltenberg below, admitting/bragging publicly that Putin was worried about NATO expansionism and placed a proposal for mutual security.
    "We rejected that".
    Maybe, Jens, that was the cause (and other provocations) for invasion? Not even urgent plans to discuss anything with Putin and reach a compromise?
    How are things looking now, buddy? 
    Caitlin Johnstone, another fellow horrified at the senseless life lost by acts and inacts by the morally/intellectually bankrupt Western leaders who abetted and incited a conflict. And even now prevaricate, escalate and won't pull the plug
     
    https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=82124&post_id=136866482&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=20l79l&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMjE5MjE1NDUsInBvc3RfaWQiOjEzNjg2NjQ4MiwiaWF0IjoxNjk0MjIzMzE2LCJleHAiOjE2OTY4MTUzMTYsImlzcyI6InB1Yi04MjEyNCIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.UuTyb8mQF-Il1ZlTW7dQGa0NlDEGiO9oGdpE17E4FGs
     
  16. Like
    whYNOT reacted to necrovore in Reblogged:What Is a 'Populist,' Anyway?   
    Now instead of Republican versus Democrat we have Establishment versus anti-Establishment.
    It is the Establishment side that sorts people into elites and "little people," and who hope to keep themselves at the top while keeping the "little people" dependent and incapable of escaping. (The whole idea that the Establishment try to embody is essentially Platonism.)
    Of course the idea of "anti-Establishment" is almost as useful as "atheist" because the term doesn't say what someone is for.
    It would encompass collectivists who want to transfer power from the existing Establishment to another (theirs), who might be more properly called "anti-this-Establishment." It would also encompass individualists who don't want an Establishment at all but who want a free country. It would also encompass anarchists who don't want any kind of government or laws at all.
    It's a mistake to package-deal these kinds of people. (Think who gains and who loses from such a package-dealing...)
    The sorting of people into elites and "little people" is not merely a conceptual device, it is an enforced set of standards. You end up with two rules of law for the two groups. Recognizing that this has occurred is not the same thing as endorsing it or helping to create it.
    A politician who tries to get the votes of the "little people" is merely recognizing the categories which the Establishment has already created. However, aiming for the votes of the "little people" does not say if you are an individualist or not; it doesn't even say if you are anti-Establishment or not, since the Establishment also hopes to win votes from "little people" so that they can at least maintain the appearance of having been legitimately elected.
  17. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    An "evil dictator" - as presented by 'the Narrative'.  For my part, I find it hard to accept that O'ists, versed in reality, can be taken in by deceit and propaganda, like everybody.
     I construe my concept of "evil" from *evasion*.
    I.e. The countless chain of evasions committed for 30 years which incrementally brought us, Ukraine and the rest of the world, to this climatic point.
    If you've not been following, I will repeat what many thinkers have observed, that this war was easily averted.
    As the previous essay showed, Putin went to lengths to find a peaceful resolution which was permanent and guaranteed.
    No one wanted to listen. As late as three months pre-invasion he presented a draft to the White House proposing security guarantees for the two nations that was rebuffed. A well-publicized attempt, I doubt. It was essential Putin be imaged by Govt.-fed misinformation to be the imperialist, insane, evil dictator, invading for no discernible cause, so to get all Europeans pliable.
    Russia's concerns - those of a nuclear superpower - did not merit being considered seriously, it appears. One more evasion.
     
    Not simply that NATO and the collective West ignored warnings for decades by several scholars like Stephen Cohen to leave Ukraine alone and neutral-- against the high risk of Russia and ANY Russian president, not necessarily Putin, responding forcefully in defense - it is obvious, the experts heard about and were highly familiar with the potential risks.
    Therefore: Those in NATO, etc., etc., were clearly COUNTING upon a Russian reaction - and a confrontation in Ukraine.
    Not innocent ignorance, iow, but knowing evasion.
    Did the intelligent and educated people who specialize in Russian studies in advisory 'think tanks' etc., actually believe Putin was going to abandon Russia's assets, human and territorial, when the new and huge UAF Army attacked them? Shrug and walk away? That strains all credibility.
    Summary: they knew conflict was coming and welcomed it. To have justification to "weaken" (read - collapse) Russia with the force of a surrogate army and harsh economic sanctions. Their motives, geo-political, hegemonic, grab natural resources cheaply and war profiteering.
    You want to tell me about "evil"? first of all, look to your government(s) who are indifferent to this predictable bloodshed (Russian/Ukrainian, does it matter to the ghouls?) and evaded every opportunity to prevent it, contain it, curtail it or end it.
    History will judge, the West's governments and Kyiv did not own the moral high ground.
    Now that their objectives are failing, those 'experts' are exposed as wishful fools, immoral ones at that.
  18. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    "Now or never".  Academic Geoffrey Roberts. Written sometime last year, but still relevant and his logical telling of known facts is enhanced by recent events and revelations. Putin, apparently, did not seek war.
    The orchestrated position that Putin was trapped in: act "now" (with preemptive, preventative and protective, initially - limited - force), or Crimea and Donbas, then Russia, would have to inevitably confront overwhelming attacks from the strengthened and enlarged Ukraine-NATO forces a little later. But critical he should be depicted to the masses as the first aggressor, Kyiv the innocent victim...
    https://jmss.org/article/view/76584/56335
     
     
     
     
     
  19. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Sanctions, embargoes and the like, are the weapons of statism, like wars are. They don't work in practice and only hurt the poorest people who (in theory) are supposed to react by rising up against their rulers at their own possible sacrifice. Much of the time the sanctioned country adapts to and replaces their losses, learns to manufacture their own products and finds covert ways to import and export commodities. Sanctions are a collectivist punishment against a citizen of another state which hasn't the approval of this group of wealthier, more powerful, "democratic" governments-states, acting in collusion. Just as properly one individual or a company ought to be doing business with another in a foreign land by their own choice, uninterfered with by his government's trade regulations, etc. - if he later so chooses not to, he cannot "sanction" that ex-partner (nor "go to war" with them), he simply ends the deal. The "blowback" from sanctions on Russia onto the people, industries and businesses around the world who depended on the markets in and supplies from Russia, is slowly sinking in economically and financially. We are being hurt more than Russians are, so sanctions are sacrificial of individuals even outside Russia, so are immoral.
  20. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Short memories people have, and how msm can spin on a dime for 'expediency'. Their names reel off: Reuters, BBC, CNN...These same Ukraine neo-Nazis who in 2014 were condemned widely by them, are now celebrated in Congress/Parliament/etc.. You are promoting Putin's propaganda to point out this glaring lapse. Some are asking if a lot of Westerners recently became 'nazified' by association/conviction.
    https://open.substack.com/pub/askeptic/p/the-msms-ukraine-amnesia?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
     
     
  21. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    A few things. I know how street interviews are done, I did many on the papers. Good journalists will look for a mix of opinions to be printed and aired. Dishonest ones will not, and will cut the interviews short or edit out unfavorable comments. "Polo"
    The idea is to create the perception of a monolithic opposition (here against Putin) - or of support - by publishing only the one side. Who hopefully give the impression of 'representing' the whole society. There will always be dissent, to be welcomed. (The West could use some). Russians are like people everywhere, some thinking things through better, some going on their emotions, some automatic, anti-war pacifists, some simply don't like Putin's mannerism's and appearance, some more pro-West, some malcontents, and on and on. You have x millions of citizens, only 20% in opposition is a lot of people.
    Such individual opinions are interesting but tell nothing. Linked here, the idea by AL must be to indicate Putin's unpopularity. He does not believe the 80% approval number touted. Perhaps inflated - but so what? A majority can be all wrong and a minority might be right. And the reverse. One can't make moral judgments on "approval" figures.
  22. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    What - when the UAF was then, the Number 2 most formidable military force in Europe (behind Russia's Army)? One that was being expanded, trained and equipped "to Nato standards"?
    Most implausible. Those activities could not go unnoticed for those years.
    Moscow would be closely following events in Ukraine, and be well aware, via intel, agents, etc. of the strength they had. And so the "demilitirization" Putin insisted upon. (A condition he relaxed, in Bennett's account).
    Putin's plan nearly came off, and it was as worthwhile effort - if it were left mano a mano. Zelensky was twice that we know of ready to talk turkey, maybe to make a settlement. He was not permitted, outside interference, to make the choice.
    After those abortive attempts, for some reason he turned into an anti-Russian fanatic.
    Underestimated, certainly, was the ferocious response by Nato, weapons pouring in, the coordinated psy-ops and propaganda warfare that posed the 'invasion' as an intended Russian conquest of all Ukraine (and beyond, Europe!). Which apparently motivated the army, some of which are fanatical Russian haters, in a ferocious fight for the West's Cause. 
  23. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    "Humanitarian" assistance to Ukraine, was the original sales pitch by the West to the ignorant, easily influenced public.
    Of course, who could argue with helping out the citizens of Ukraine?
    The switch to "lethal aid" went widely unquestioned.
    In the light of incessant bombardment of the Donbass towns, entering its tenth year, to which zero attention, Western humanitarian aid or public outcry has been drawn. By donated, elusive, precision Himars missile systems, btw. Where is the outrage now? Since the invasion, shelling only increased, and this is not "collateral damage" to be clear, this is the daily, directed killing and terrorizing of Ukrainian (now Russian) civilians that has claimed several thousand casualties this past year alone. It will end when the UAF is pushed out of the region.
    Okay when the West brings "humanitarian"/lethal aid, not okay when it's Russia that sends in a rescue mission to protect ethic Russian civilians.
     
    https://www.rt.com/russia/575224-donetsk-ukraine-shelling-civilians/
  24. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Is it your claim that the greater casualties were of the Russians?
    Answer yes/no: if yes, bring evidence and proof. 
    No matter, as things collapse, the lies are being exposed daily. Expect a flood of denouncement, accusations, cover-ups and recriminations. Sour grapes, in short. You and the indoctrinated believers will become superfluous to the debate in six months.
    Why the obsession with numbers? It's interesting that "numbers" - polls and casualty statistics - indicate the immorality, or otherwise, of the conflict's opposing sides, and matter so much to many. I have seen their - specifically Ukraine supporters -  celebrations. I.e. if 'we' kill more of them, we are in the right. If we are victorious we are moral. The determinist-skeptics' ethics by numerology. These are each and all human beings, any death is sorrowful.
  25. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    https://ending-nuclear-weapons.org/Ukraine/Gov-Lies-about-Ukraine-war.html
×
×
  • Create New...