Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, AlexL said:

You claimed that the Ukraine government is run by “a neo-Nazi gang”. I have asked you to prove this. Instead of evidence you produced evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems.

Afterwards I asked you if you do intend to prove your allegation, e.g. by naming the top government officials who are Nazis or by naming the specifically Nazi policies of this government. You did not react.

This is my third and last attempt: what is your evidence that the Ukraine government is run by Nazis?

>Instead of evidence you produced evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems

No, I produced links to eye-witness testimony, which rational people consider to be a robust form of evidence.  Either these eye-witnesses are lying for some reason or you're not rational. I'll accept either explanation.

I don't know what "misrepresentations" you have in mind. I simply restated the evidence as presented by the historical facts and the testimony of eye-witnesses.

As for the "ad hominems", I think you mean "insults" (not quite the same thing as an ad hominem). I was merely stating the facts of the matter regarding your evident fear of doing your own research. 

Clearly, you're afraid to get Red Pilled over the Ukrainian issue. So are most people.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Economic Freedom said:

>What point are you trying to make? 

Objectivists live in an echo chamber.

Why did you hop into the echo chamber? Did Q send you?

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, EC said:

Also, what's the difference between an Oist and "a self-proclaimed Oist"? Is there a secret handshake that I'm not aware of? Does one have to complete a philosophy degree before they can be an "official" Oist?

I was mostly poking fun in an ironic tone that I think most people who deeply care about proclaiming themselves to be Objectivists are the biggest complainers and nitpickers in my experience. The label doesn't matter much to me, but those people get caught up in criticizing the small things and saying little praise about the big and good things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I was mostly poking fun in an ironic tone that I think most people who deeply care about proclaiming themselves to be Objectivists are the biggest complainers and nitpickers in my experience. The label doesn't matter much to me, but those people get caught up in criticizing the small things and saying little praise about the big and good things. 

I agree. I've always hated when the peeps on here try to pretend they are "intellectuals" all worried about sounding perfect and "smart". It actually achieves the opposite of what they are going for.... I mean just talk like a normal fucking person. Like personally I know my  about 165 IQ probably bests everyone that has ever posted here, I don't need to be a pretentious sounding faux "intellectual" prick like the majority of posters here to "prove" it. I'm secure enough in myself and my genius that any one that needs "proof" of it is worth far less than I would ever value-- like I give an actual fuck about the worthless opinion of completely insecure wannabe "intellectual" pricks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Economic Freedom said:

>Instead of evidence you produced evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems

No, I produced links to eye-witness testimony, which rational people consider to be a robust form of evidence.  Either these eye-witnesses are lying for some reason or you're not rational. I'll accept either explanation.

I don't know what "misrepresentations" you have in mind. I simply restated the evidence as presented by the historical facts and the testimony of eye-witnesses.

As for the "ad hominems", I think you mean "insults" (not quite the same thing as an ad hominem). I was merely stating the facts of the matter regarding your evident fear of doing your own research. 

Clearly, you're afraid to get Red Pilled over the Ukrainian issue. So are most people.

Let’s see if my claim about your practicing evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems is true.

Evasion:

> I produced links to eye-witness testimony, which rational people consider to be a robust form of evidence. 

Here is what you "produced":

> The proof of MY claims are based on the eye-witness accounts and testimony [...] that the Ukrainian army has been shelling their own cities and committing atrocities against their own people...

In fact:

a). you produced no links, only claims, and

b). most importantly, these claims are about "atrocities", while the claim you had to justify was that Ukraine government is run by “a neo-Nazi gang”.

You evaded the subject instead of proving your claim.

Misrepresentation:

You claimed that “the Ukraine government is run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion)”. I noted that this makes sense only IF “the Azov Battalion” is some kind of a political party which dominates the government.

To this you comment that I (!!!) do believe that they're a political party ! This is a clear misrepresentation. 

Ad hominems:

> you know nothing about Ukraine. If you've never heard of Kolomoisky, you know nothing about Ukraine. If you don't know who Victoria Nuland is […]

> But then you'll be Red Pilled and awake and you probably won't like that. Please: swallow the Blue Pill, continue watching CNN, and go back to sleep

> Clearly, you're afraid to get Red Pilled over the Ukrainian issue. So are most people.

The subject under debate was not my person, but your claim that Ukraine is run by Nazis.

Given the established fact that you

- are unable to justify your claims (which coincide with Putin’s propaganda)

- and that you are practicing evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems,

I will ask the moderator(s) to consider the possibility of banning you from this forum. Indeed, there are thousands of sites hosting Putin’s propaganda, so that it is not necessary that the Objectivist Online Forum becomes one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one's from RT, definitely has to be "Putin's propaganda" ... (as opposed to overwhelming western, war mongering propaganda)

https://www.rt.com/news/555356-hatred-russia-mcdonalds-us/

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

This one's from RT, definitely has to be "Putin's propaganda" ... (as opposed to overwhelming western, war mongering propaganda)

https://www.rt.com/news/555356-hatred-russia-mcdonalds-us/

 

...you do know that RT is state-controlled, right? Yes, there is western propaganda, but you seem to be saying that there is not also Russian propaganda. State-controlled news is as close to propaganda as you can get. So yes, quite literally, everything on RT is Putin's propaganda. Always take with a massive grain of salt.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

...you do know that RT is state-controlled, right? Yes, there is western propaganda, but you seem to be saying that there is not also Russian propaganda. State-controlled news is as close to propaganda as you can get. So yes, quite literally, everything on RT is Putin's propaganda. Always take with a massive grain of salt.

 

I know. I spend some time studying media bias; private controlled or state controlled, in their techniques and effects are little different - except privately owned is more insidious and sophisticated, and viewers/readers tend to soak it up (- illogically, because they are "private", while several play to a similar theme although supposedly 'in competition'. )

From all the "propaganda" on hand, one -may- sift out the realities.

And oddly to some, I read and hear a larger range of eclectic and contrarian opinions on RT, by commentators who would get far less exposure on western networks. For fear of confusing the simplistic story-book 'Agenda' the Western media want to impart - i.e. all "black" v. all "white" and inherently Russophobic. The background here, more than ever, is greatly nuanced and complex that can take plenty of effort to start to understand; far differing accounts of the war and the lack of unbiased correspondence from the field show a controlled narrative contrived to bend world opinion. It's revealing of the fear, that masses of people might hear both/all sides of the story in depth and think each for him/herself, that had RT banned and restricted in most countries straight after the invasion.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

. . . The background here, more than ever, is greatly nuanced and complex that can take plenty of effort to start to understand; far differing accounts of the war and the lack of unbiased correspondence from the field show a controlled narrative contrived to bend world opinion. It's revealing of the fear, that masses of people might hear both/all sides of the story in depth and think each for him/herself, that had RT banned and restricted in most countries straight after the invasion. . . .

Tony, when you said "here", did you mean specifically South Africa? Or are the news sources there pretty much the same as in Europe?

We stopped watching TV for news a couple of years ago. The flow of information in talking is much slower than in reading. In the US, you never have to listen to a President giving an address or news conference; you can just look up the text later at Whitehouse.gov. I've never relied on social media (cauldrons for relished vicious big lies between its participants every day) for news.

It is easy to discern biases in media, from the newspapers of past decades and centuries to CNN today. The prejudice of CNN television favoring H. Clintion leading up to the 2016 election was pretty darn obvious. 

In recent years, I read online news at BBC, CNN, and NYT. That last is by subscription; I had originally subscribed to get access to their digital archive of NYT in previous years, and that has proven very good for me: from the 1961 exchange between Sidney Hook and Nathaniel Branden over Rand's philosophy, to the 1957-58 coverage of the Asian Flu pandemic, to the public-intellectual responses concerning influences of German philosophy on German aggression in WWI.

I wouldn't be surprised but what somewhere someone has opined, even hollered, that Germany was not the aggressor in WWI. I'm gonna go with the usual reports and textbooks that nail Germany as the agressor (and the loser), whatever its motivations and however prejudiced the anglophile element in America that eventually got America into the war on the side against Germany.

The US was the agressor in Iraq (2003). Sadaam was the aggressor in Kuwait (1990). Russia was the aggressor in the Ukraine (2022). Has any of your sifting of news sources refuted any of that? Motives do not change who is the aggressor; aggression is not turned from wrong to right nor mitigated one iota by sympathetic motives such as benevolence or self-protection against possible future aggressions.

I do think it is self-injury to approach all individuals and all media outlets with priority on building a circumstantial ad hominem case (that variety of informal-logic invalid case) against whatever they are reporting or arguing. That is, going around cooking up stories, top priority, of "Well of course so-and-so would say such-and-such given the circumstances of their life." And of course, I think it is self-deluding to pass off every view contrary one's own as being the result of biased media or education. You are probably familiar with that sort of distorting lens among Marxists, in which they would discount views opposing theirs as being the result of the economic class of their opponent. Self-blinding.

Two things I've sifted from this war is that Putin has in the West an abundance of apologists for his aggression, and US Defense has a lot of information on Russian military manuevers and vulnerabilities, such as US ability to track Russian generals and US knowledge of a design weakness in Russian tanks. Think it through three times, Mr. Putin, before going nuclear.

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boydstun said:

Tony, when you said "here", did you mean specifically South Africa? Or are the news sources there pretty much the same as in Europe?

We stopped watching TV for news a couple of years ago. The flow of information in talking is much slower than in reading. In the US, you never have to listen to a President giving an address or news conference; you can just look up the text later at Whitehouse.gov. I've never relied on social media (cauldrons for relished vicious big lies between its participants every day) for news.

It is easy to discern biases in media, from the newspapers of past decades and centuries to CNN today. The prejudice of CNN television favoring H. Clintion leading up to the 2016 election was pretty darn obvious. 

In recent years, I read online news at BBC, CNN, and NYT. That last is by subscription; I had originally subscribed to get access to their digital archive of NYT in previous years, and that has proven very good for me: from the 1961 exchange between Sidney Hook and Nathaniel Branden over Rand's philosophy, to the 1957-58 coverage of the Asian Flu pandemic, to the public-intellectual responses concerning influences of German philosophy on German aggression in WWI.

I wouldn't be surprised but what somewhere someone has opined, even hollered, that Germany was not the aggressor in WWI. I'm gonna go with the usual reports and textbooks that nail Germany as the agressor (and the loser), whatever its motivations and however prejudiced the anglophile element in America that eventually got America into the war on the side against Germany.

The US was the agressor in Iraq (2003). Sadaam was the aggressor in Kuwait (1990). Russia was the aggressor in the Ukraine (2022). Has any of your sifting of news sources refuted any of that? Motives do not change who is the aggressor; aggression is not turned from wrong to right nor mitigated one iota by sympathetic motives such as benevolence or self-protection against possible future aggressions.

I do think it is self-injury to approach all individuals and all media outlets with priority on building a circumstantial ad hominem case (that variety of informal-logic invalid case) against whatever they are reporting or arguing. That is, going around cooking up stories, top priority, of "Well of course so-and-so would say such-and-such given the circumstances of their life." And of course, I think it is self-deluding to pass off every view contrary one's own as being the result of biased media or education. You are probably familiar with that sort of distorting lens among Marxists, in which they would discount views opposing theirs as being the result of the economic class of their opponent. Self-blinding.

Two things I've sifted from this war is that Putin has in the West an abundance of apologists for his aggression, and US Defense has a lot of information on Russian military manuevers and vulnerabilities, such as US ability to track Russian generals and US knowledge of a design weakness in Russian tanks. Think it through three times, Mr. Putin, before going nuclear.

I like most of what I've seen you say on here except it's not correct to say that a moral nation aggressively strikes a non moral dictatorship to prevent future aggression from the evil party. For instance a full preemptive strike on places like N. Korea, Iran, Russia, or China would be justified, moral, and the proper thing that should happen but likely won't unfortunately.

Earlier you said that the government running up debt is the biggest issue to you. While that's definitely a huge issue it can't be number one because it instantly won't matter if one of the evil dictatorships instantaneously vaporizes us in a nuclear attack. Dead people don't have to worry much about their debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EC said:

. . . While that's definitely a huge issue it can't be number one because it instantly won't matter if one of the evil dictatorships instantaneously vaporizes us in a nuclear attack. Dead people don't have to worry much about their debt.

Agreed. And I think it is right for the US to always be trying to stop the proliferation of nuclear-weaponed countries. 

In a nuclear crisis, the US, like anyone else, will try to strike first, no matter stated policy to the contrary. Only in a nuclear crisis. :::

Quote

 

In 1957 I was nine years old. That year was the 50th anniversary of statehood for my state Oklahoma. There was a terrific exposition at the State Fairgrounds in Oklahoma City to celebrate the occasion. The exhibition was called "Arrows to Atoms."

My folks had bought our 2-acre lot just outside the city for $600. We were building our house ourselves. It was a ranch style of 2700 sq. ft. The lot had some outstanding large oaks. But the soil was sand, and it would grow only sandburrs until years of cultivation had passed. There was a good thing about that sand. As my brother and I would work in the soil, especially after a rain, we would find flint and arrowheads. My brother found one spear head. Apparently our lot had once been an Indian encampment.

Those were inhabitants earlier than our own Indian ancestors, who were Choctaw and who had been marched to Indian Territory from the South by the US government on the Trail of Tears. My father and my brother were dark. My father's hair was black and straight. At the US Air Force base where he worked as a civilian in War Plans, they affectionately called him Chief.

At the base were all kinds of aircraft, including the B52's loaded with really big nuclear bombs, ready to fly to Russia and annihilate it. The name of our state's semi-centennial celebration was fitting.

On a day in October 1962, the alert reached my father at home. His face turned white. That evening they waited in the War Room as the President announced his decision to the world.

The Soviets withdrew their missles from Cuba, we returned from the brink without crossing, and a few years later I went with my father to his office. I remember a flag, pictures of the President and the base commander, and an inscription: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." (Prov. 29:18)

 

I do think that our species and the other higher animals will sooner or later be extinguished by major nuclear exchange. We can do what we can to make it not in our own era, but that's it. The species will end in this way. (Yet the species will have been a glory, just as the individual mortal human life is a glory and an end in itself on this earth.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, whYNOT said:

far differing accounts of the war and the lack of unbiased correspondence from the field show a controlled narrative contrived to bend world opinion.

Are you trying to say that Russia is the good guys, and Ukraine is the bad guys? Or are you saying something more like the Ukrainian government is not full of angels? I mean, I know that there are people who think that there is literally nothing wrong with the Ukrainian government and treat Russia as the USSR. That is overly simplistic. Every war since and including Vietnam has pretty much been both sides being in the wrong to some degree. 

But it's pretty straightforward to understand that the Russian government is filled with bad actors. Putin especially. I don't mean recently, I mean all the way back since 2000. Whatever the Ukrainian government did wrong, the Russian government has usually done worse, asserting some sort of imperialistic authority, completely pragmatic, led by one man for over 20 years who has no particular problem with assassination and murder of people in countries that are allied with the US. 

Leaving aside anything about the Ukraine, anything that hurts the Russian government more seems like the best option.

18 hours ago, whYNOT said:

that had RT banned and restricted in most countries straight after the invasion.

eh, it isn't without reason to ban a state run media organization if that country is an enemy. 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2022 at 10:09 AM, EC said:

I stopped reading when you claimed I get my news from CNN and MSNBC. I don't watch left-wing propaganda stations and when I watch a national news channel it's only FOX News, 

FOX news is controlled opposition, it props up the false dichotomy Democrat versus Republican.  You won't find anything there that actually conflicts with the establishment narrative in any important way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grames said:

But we are not at war with Russia, so they are not OUR enemy.  You've let the ambient propaganda alter the framework in which you understand current events.

You don't need to be at war with someone for them to be your enemy. I told you some of the reasons I think Russia is an enemy, but I didn't mention anything why I think those matter to US interests. I'm not sure if you think I'm saying that the US should get involved, I'm not. I'm saying that whenever the interests of Russia are harmed these days, that's a good thing. I don't really care enough about RT to say that it needs to be a banned, but it sounds like a potentially reasonable thing to do. It doesn't bother me.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Boydstun said:

Tony, when you said "here", did you mean specifically South Africa? Or are the news sources there pretty much the same as in Europe?

We stopped watching TV for news a couple of years ago. The flow of information in talking is much slower than in reading. In the US, you never have to listen to a President giving an address or news conference; you can just look up the text later at Whitehouse.gov. I've never relied on social media (cauldrons for relished vicious big lies between its participants every day) for news.

It is easy to discern biases in media, from the newspapers of past decades and centuries to CNN today. The prejudice of CNN television favoring H. Clintion leading up to the 2016 election was pretty darn obvious. 

In recent years, I read online news at BBC, CNN, and NYT. That last is by subscription; I had originally subscribed to get access to their digital archive of NYT in previous years, and that has proven very good for me: from the 1961 exchange between Sidney Hook and Nathaniel Branden over Rand's philosophy, to the 1957-58 coverage of the Asian Flu pandemic, to the public-intellectual responses concerning influences of German philosophy on German aggression in WWI.

I wouldn't be surprised but what somewhere someone has opined, even hollered, that Germany was not the aggressor in WWI. I'm gonna go with the usual reports and textbooks that nail Germany as the agressor (and the loser), whatever its motivations and however prejudiced the anglophile element in America that eventually got America into the war on the side against Germany.

The US was the agressor in Iraq (2003). Sadaam was the aggressor in Kuwait (1990). Russia was the aggressor in the Ukraine (2022). Has any of your sifting of news sources refuted any of that? Motives do not change who is the aggressor; aggression is not turned from wrong to right nor mitigated one iota by sympathetic motives such as benevolence or self-protection against possible future aggressions.

I do think it is self-injury to approach all individuals and all media outlets with priority on building a circumstantial ad hominem case (that variety of informal-logic invalid case) against whatever they are reporting or arguing. That is, going around cooking up stories, top priority, of "Well of course so-and-so would say such-and-such given the circumstances of their life." And of course, I think it is self-deluding to pass off every view contrary one's own as being the result of biased media or education. You are probably familiar with that sort of distorting lens among Marxists, in which they would discount views opposing theirs as being the result of the economic class of their opponent. Self-blinding.

Two things I've sifted from this war is that Putin has in the West an abundance of apologists for his aggression, and US Defense has a lot of information on Russian military manuevers and vulnerabilities, such as US ability to track Russian generals and US knowledge of a design weakness in Russian tanks. Think it through three times, Mr. Putin, before going nuclear.

Yes, Stephen.  I can relate to much. What strikes are the false dichotomies which we, the worried global public, have to contend with. There's every reason one can equally hold Putin as the immoral aggressor, and also observe without contradiction the amount of evasions by the other actors, NATO and Kyiv etc. There are a great number of apologists for them too.

Here are contexts dropped from MSM reports: Kyiv's continuous military actions against the Donbass since 2014 up until the invasion causing the loss of 14000 lives and destruction; the previous "breakaway" ambitions of those self-elected and declared 'republics', leading from a coup d'etat - and alienation of Russian Ukrainians, socially, culturally and linguistically, not only politically, which led quite reasonably to that attempt at self-determination. All topped by the broken Minsk agreements supposedly giving special status to them - which weren't implemented by Zelensky's govt. It reads like a sad sequence of events, the democracy undermined, many violent incidents in that revolution, and promises broken, for which Ukraine also has to take some responsibility for aggressive force.  

This statement of rationale or justification (or whatever one thinks) may be regularly seen as the postscript to many RT articles:

"Russia attacked the neighboring state in late February, following Ukraine’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, first signed in 2014, and Moscow’s eventual recognition of the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. The German- and French-brokered protocols were designed to give the breakaway regions special status within the Ukrainian state.

"The Kremlin has since demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force".

Well - of course Kyiv was planning to retake the republics! This was confirmed by a US State Dept. official the other day: how Brits and Americans had been supplying and training Ukraine soldiers for years. For what? Only an offensive to conquer the oblast separatists (and/or a counter-offensive to an expected Russian incursion). Those are not the acts of a free nation, which could have been addressing itself properly to its separatist citizens' fears in the East instead.

Given this, while there were too many transgressions from both sides to list in that conflict, could it be that Putin genuinely perceived his invasion as a preemptive, defensive move? To end the everlasting civil war and liberate the 'republics'?

If he'd wanted Ukraine absorbed by Russia he could have done so quite quickly and effectively when he came to power in 1999. Instead Moscow left the nation completely alone long after the Ukraine govt's illegal overthrow. The "Imperialist" theory bandied about, ambitions for a Greater Russia encompassing Ukraine and expanding further abroad can now be seen for ludicrous fear mongering. The news reports tell that on the one hand the Russian Army is too ineffectual and demoralized to defeat Kyiv and there was driven back (the capital possibly a tactical diversion from its main objective, an eastern corridor) - on the other, that its poses a threat to Poland, Finland, Sweden, the Baltic States. Etc. (Defeating and occupying them, one by one, keeping the populations subdued -- without even a unifying ideology any more!). Madness. But it is generally believed.

Those people want it both ways, the image of a weak Russia and an all-powerful one.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rambled somewhat, there's too much ground to cover, my central point being, and I maintained from the start: end this soonest.

Where were and are the diplomats and peacemakers, who should be pressuring both Zelensky and Putin to cease fire and treaty with each other? Zelensky was amenable at first to compromises, but as the support poured in, has been avoiding any deal. Lavrov says he's open to talk. Zelensky is sacrificing his people to an unwinnable cause.

More moral, materiel and financial support is only extending this war. I ask the war-mongers, are you more concerned about innocent lives being lost daily, or about getting the satisfaction of pay back on Putin?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, EC said:

For instance a full preemptive strike on places like N. Korea, Iran, Russia, or China would be justified, moral, and the proper thing that should happen but likely won't unfortunately.

Such a strike would not violate the rights of those governments because they don't have any.  But it would kill a lot of innocent people and otherwise wreak great destruction, especially if the target government got off any nukes.

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The news reports tell that on the one hand the Russian Army is too ineffectual and demoralized to defeat Kyiv and there was driven back (the capital possibly a tactical diversion from its main objective, an eastern corridor) - on the other, that its poses a threat to Poland, Finland, Sweden, the Baltic States.

Russia may have suffered a lot of defeat in Ukraine, but it has also killed a lot of Ukrainians and otherwise done heavy harm to Ukraine.  It has enough power to do the same to other countries.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

. . .

Given this, while there were too many transgressions from both sides to list in that conflict, could it be that Putin genuinely perceived his invasion as a preemptive, defensive move? To end the everlasting civil war and liberate the 'republics'?

. . .

A preemptive invasion is an aggression. Who throws the first punch matters, whatever the reason, perceptive or deluded. That G.W. Bush crossed that aggression line by his invasion of Iraq is to his disgrace as an American.

Lincoln was right to make war on the Secessionists. Had he entered into a ceasefire agreement with Richmond (cf. Minsk Agreement), he'd be right to break the agreement in action in order defeat the Confederate army and end the rebellion.

Helpful history on Ukraine, by EB, is here.

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Such a strike would not violate the rights of those governments because they don't have any.  But it would kill a lot of innocent people and otherwise wreak great destruction, especially if the target government got off any nukes.

   

Yeah I know this. I have no interest in innocents dying, it will be the worst tragedy in history but if it has to happen and a massive prememtive strike is the only way to possibly "win" while hopefully losing the least amount of American lives then it's what has to happen or at least seriously threatened. I do have some ideas about preventing all this via some sci-fi means but won't get into all of that at the moment (sneak peek though: there is likely a very good reason why there is tons of extremely credible reports of UAP over our bases and using advanced tech to shut down our nukes 😉).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...