Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 13 minutes ago, Sampson said: Just ignore all his posts in this thread. He comes in, makes some all thinly veiled adolescence "must side with anything remotely anti-Western" or "yeah but the west did xyz" whataboutery point that just comes across as thinly-veiled Putin apologism and then leaves. This is such a ridiculous and uncharitable description of my posts on here Also totally untrue as I'm comically pro-Western. Not only that, I've made the case several times for Western intervention in both the Balkans and Iraq, even though I think the latter is a much harder case to make given the terrible end result. It helps you to characterise me as "must side with anything remotely anti-Western" or "yeah but the west did xyz" because it means you don't actually have to engage your brain or come up with anything like a counter-argument to what I have said about the current situation in Ukraine. You can just dismiss me as some kind of Putin-loving cheerleader who hates the West and then forget about it. Tu quoque arguments are fallacious if you're relying on it to determine that a particular act is moral or virtuous or something like that. However, it's not logically fallacious to use this type of argument to see if somebody applies their own purported moral standards consistently, or to make a case for what type of response is suitable or proportionate. When a lawyer representing a convicted criminal points to previous cases in which the guilty party received a lesser sentence than his client, he does so not to absolve his client of responsibility or say "what about", as you say, but to ask the judge to apply the same standards to the current case as to the previous ones cited. The judge in such a case has to apply the same standard or come up with a factual distinction between this case and the others than justifies the harsher sentence. When I bring up previous wars that Western countries have engaged in, it is not to absolve Russia of responsibility for its own actions, but rather to invite whoever is reading to apply the same levels of scrutiny, critical thinking, and moral reasoning in all cases. You might find that you have over-reacted in the current situation (or under-reacted in a prior one). Or you might find a factual distinction which justifies the different response. Whatever the case, I am not engaging in "whataboutism" and to say that I am is lazy.
SpacedX Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 (edited) 35 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said: What happened to healthy skepticism and critical thinking? It needs to be applied both ways. There are several members on here that absolutely refuse to do so. As has been explained on innumerable occasions to you now, there are a flood of reports from diverse and independent sources, news outlets both national and independent and embedded journalists on the ground in addition to the people of Ukraine themselves simultaneously showing that Russia is intensifying its bombardment of residential areas and attacks upon the civilian population throughout the country. This is not speculation, this is verifiable and has occurred in Kyiv, Mariupol, Kherson and Kharkiv. In Cherniv, there are no military targets and yet large tracts of residential housing including schools and a hospital were bombed during an air raid last night. I do agree that we must apply scepticism and critical appraisal in terms of establishing the veracity of unsubstantiated sources that often are in need of further corroboration - particularly in the case of social media, but we do know that the people of Ukraine are currently under heavy assault from the Russian military. To reiterate, the footage you refer to looks like a dumb artillery shell as opposed to a smart weapon or a guided missile. I am obviously not aware of the urban geography of Irpin, but reports are very similar to other cities from residential areas under bombardment which have no strategic or military significance. So what would have been the intended target then? Why train shells and rockets on residential housing? Moreover, there has also been precision bombing from the air into residential areas and the use of smart weaponry, This is an identical tactic to that employed by Russia against civilians in Syria. Here is another link, since you appear to have ignored the first. It's what they do... https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/03/russia/syria-flurry-prohibited-weapons-attacks Once again, this is a war waged against Ukrainian citizens to break their resistance and assert the political will of the Kremlin. This is what Russia did in Syria alongside Chechnya, South Ossetia/Abkhazia in conjunction with ethnic cleansing. You are witnessing war crimes and history will again attest to this. Edited 4 March 2022 by Line-X
MPH Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Line-X said: , South Ossetia/Abkhazia in conjunction with ethical cleansing. You are witnessing war crimes and history will again attest to this. whoopsie! Edited 4 March 2022 by MPH
David Hankey Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 Just by uttering the word war in Russia will get you arrested. What sort of society is that to live in? And we complain about our "freedoms"!!
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 2 minutes ago, Line-X said: It needs to be applied both ways. There are several members on here that absolutely refuse to do so. As I has been explained on innumerable occasions to you now, there are a flood of reports from diverse and independent sources, news outlets both national and independent and embedded journalists on the ground in addition to the people of Ukraine themselves simultaneously showing that Russia is intensifying its bombardment of residential areas and attacks upon the civilian population throughout the country. This is not speculation, this is verifiable and has occurred in Kyiv, Mariupol, Kherson and Kharkiv. In Cherniv, there are no military targets and yet large tracts of residential housing including schools and a hospital were bombed during an air raid last night. I do agree that we must apply scepticism and critical appraisal in terms of establishing the veracity of unsubstantiated sources that often are in need of further corroboration - particularly in the case of social media, but we do know that the people of Ukraine are currently under heavy assault from the Russian military. To reiterate, the footage you refer to looks like a dumb artillery shell as opposed to a smart weapon or a guided missile. I am obviously not aware of the urban geography of Irpin, but reports are very similar to other cities from residential areas under bombardment which have no strategic or military significance. So what would have been the intended target then? Why train shells and rockets on residential housing? Moreover, there has also been precision bombing from the air into residential areas and the use of smart weaponry, This is an identical tactic to that employed by Russia against civilians in Syria. Here is another link, since you appear to have ignored the first. It's what they do... https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/03/russia/syria-flurry-prohibited-weapons-attacks Once again, this is a war waged against Ukrainian citizens to break their resistance and assert the political will of the Kremlin. This is what Russia did in Syria alongside Chechnya, South Ossetia/Abkhazia in conjunction with ethical cleansing. You are witnessing war crimes and history will again attest to this. You keep saying that it's widespread, accepted, verifiable etc but please show me. I have seen many videos of missiles, destroyed buildings, corpses, burnt out vehicles etc, but that's no evidence of what you say it is happening. These are things that happen in a war. What I want is evidence that civilians are being deliberately targeted. That's a big claim which requires substantial evidence. Fighting close to civilian areas inevitably leads to civilian casualties and fatalities. When I brought up the civilian casualties in Iraq, it was not to say "what about", but rather showing another example of what happens when fighting takes place in urban areas. War means people, sometimes non-combatants, die. I don't for one minute believe that American forces were deliberately killing civilians, yet many thousands of them died. Because that is what happens in a war. It's a tragedy, it's hard to stomach, but it's the awful truth. Russia's claim is that Ukraine has been shelling civilians in the Donbas for 8 years. It is undoubtedly true that some civilians have died as a result of Ukrainian shelling. Would you accuse the Ukrainian leadership of war crimes too? Or would it seem more like they were fighting in urban areas (both sides were firing from urban areas) and that civilians unfortunately got killed as a result?
Popular Post Countryfox Posted 4 March 2022 Popular Post Posted 4 March 2022 6 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said: It is undoubtedly true that some civilians have died as a result of Ukrainian shelling. Have they ? .. can you prove it ? .. or are you making assumptions ?? Evidence please .. (and I don’t mean a Russian video of a man with no legs and a bit of tomato sauce smeared on his stumps being carried to an ambulance) .. 6
LiberalFox Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 22 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said: This is such a ridiculous and uncharitable description of my posts on here Also totally untrue as I'm comically pro-Western. Not only that, I've made the case several times for Western intervention in both the Balkans and Iraq, even though I think the latter is a much harder case to make given the terrible end result. It helps you to characterise me as "must side with anything remotely anti-Western" or "yeah but the west did xyz" because it means you don't actually have to engage your brain or come up with anything like a counter-argument to what I have said about the current situation in Ukraine. You can just dismiss me as some kind of Putin-loving cheerleader who hates the West and then forget about it. Tu quoque arguments are fallacious if you're relying on it to determine that a particular act is moral or virtuous or something like that. However, it's not logically fallacious to use this type of argument to see if somebody applies their own purported moral standards consistently, or to make a case for what type of response is suitable or proportionate. When a lawyer representing a convicted criminal points to previous cases in which the guilty party received a lesser sentence than his client, he does so not to absolve his client of responsibility or say "what about", as you say, but to ask the judge to apply the same standards to the current case as to the previous ones cited. The judge in such a case has to apply the same standard or come up with a factual distinction between this case and the others than justifies the harsher sentence. When I bring up previous wars that Western countries have engaged in, it is not to absolve Russia of responsibility for its own actions, but rather to invite whoever is reading to apply the same levels of scrutiny, critical thinking, and moral reasoning in all cases. You might find that you have over-reacted in the current situation (or under-reacted in a prior one). Or you might find a factual distinction which justifies the different response. Whatever the case, I am not engaging in "whataboutism" and to say that I am is lazy. It just feels like you are more interested in looking to win a few online "debates" when that isn't really the point of the topic. Your behaviour is in line with a pro-Russia stance so while you may see yourself as "comically pro-Western", you aren't being very pro-West. Putin would love it if the Western media hamstrung itself by restricting reporting to a ridiculous burden of proof and accuracy, meanwhile his state apparatus churn out propaganda without a care. 2
Countryfox Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 12 minutes ago, Countryfox said: Have they ? .. can you prove it ? .. or are you making assumptions ?? Evidence please .. (and I don’t mean a Russian video of a man with no legs and a bit of tomato sauce smeared on his stumps being carried to an ambulance) .. And when I say evidence I mean … “What I want isevidence that civilians are being deliberately targeted.That's a big claim which requires substantial evidence.” So get to it !! 1 2
thursday_next Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 1 hour ago, Lionator said: Finding a solution which doesn’t involve nuclear war would be a start. True neutrality of Ukraine, geo-politically, is not a terrible idea. I just don’t see two power hungry blocs being able to implement it, but I’d imagine they’ll be around a table this summer giving it a go. It's too late for that, unfortunately. Russia had to have Crimea, anything else would be unthinkable - it's hard to think of Russia's premier port on the Black Sea with potentially hostile warships in it. Can you imagine the US doing that? We should have bitten the bullet on that and not imposed sanctions unnecessarily however hard that may be on Ukraine. Then there would have been an option, as you say, for true neutrality of Ukraine. There should have been no question of Ukraine joining NATO or the EU. In return for that Russia would quieten down the war as much as possible in the Eastern part of the country. Well, actually they wouldn't do that, because they're Russia, but they would say that they're doing that. That might have avoided the sickening scenes that we're seeing today. Putin is simply wrecking Ukraine. He's dealing out punishment for the people of Ukraine for daring to become members of the EU, and there's sod all that anyone can do about it. This has to go down, in part, as a strategic failure of the US and EU - they knew Putin was there, he'd given ample instances that he'd prefer battle to diplomacy, and yet they ignored him. 1
weller54 Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 35 minutes ago, David Hankey said: Just by uttering the word war in Russia will get you arrested. What sort of society is that to live in? And we complain about our "freedoms"!! Don't mention the war.. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.
HighPeakFox Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 Guys, do your best to remain on good terms. It's horrific enough and at least for now, we're lucky. Have a good weekend everyone. 2
goody2028 Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 21 minutes ago, Countryfox said: Have they ? .. can you prove it ? .. or are you making assumptions ?? Evidence please .. (and I don’t mean a Russian video of a man with no legs and a bit of tomato sauce smeared on his stumps being carried to an ambulance) .. this?
David Hankey Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 4 minutes ago, weller54 said: Don't mention the war.. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it. Well I mention it along with invasion all the time and, fortunately, I haven't had a knock at the door yet.
Countryfox Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 1 minute ago, David Hankey said: Well I mention it along with invasion all the time and, fortunately, I haven't had a knock at the door yet. Don’t touch any door handles .. 1 1
ARTY_FOX Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said: Read my response above to oxford blue. You have no idea what that video shows. Neither do I. The difference is I don't claim to. I have no idea what is in that video. I see an explosion on the side of a building. I don't know what caused it, what the projectile was, what type of weapon likely fired it, who fired it, what the likely target was etc. I don't know any of those things and neither do you. Why do people keep pretending that they know things they cannot possibly know? What I'm stating is that building was the intended target speaking as someone who was in the artillery and has experience calling in artillery fire and air support. To try and say you can't say it's the intended target is so wrong it's baffling to me. 1
Lionator Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 If this is genuinely what Putin wants (I’m skeptical, he wants regime change), at this stage you absolutely take it right?
LiberalFox Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 3 minutes ago, Lionator said: If this is genuinely what Putin wants (I’m skeptical, he wants regime change), at this stage you absolutely take it right? If Ukraine is allowed to join the EU and NATO. 1
Tommy Fresh Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 7 minutes ago, Lionator said: If this is genuinely what Putin wants (I’m skeptical, he wants regime change), at this stage you absolutely take it right? If this was the case, Russia didn't need to invade the whole country, they could have easily focused all their resources on those regions and took them within days. I also think it's a very long way back for them as I can't see Ukraine and the rest of the world just accepting this and letting them have their way now. (If that is all they want) 2
Popular Post SpacedX Posted 4 March 2022 Popular Post Posted 4 March 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said: You keep saying that it's widespread, accepted, verifiable etc but please show me. I have seen many videos of missiles, destroyed buildings, corpses, burnt out vehicles etc, but that's no evidence of what you say it is happening. Firstly, do you accept that this has been a previous tactic employed by the Russian military? A simple yes or no will suffice. Secondly, to reiterate, the entire global news sector outside of Russia are reporting that the citizens of Ukraine are under assault from Russian military. This includes national news stations, independent outlets, and embedded journalists on the ground and multiple footage to support this in addition to the mass testimonies of the citizens of Ukraine and refugees into Europe. I don't need to show you anything - it's there for any rational person to process - go and digest this for yourself. I absolutely understand your scepticism in respect of isolated twitter feeds which need to be substantiated and independently verified, but the world's free press and even state sponsored television in China is reporting simultaneous coordinated attacks on Ukrainian citizens. It's not what "I say is happening", it's what the world says is happening. I am irrelevant. 1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said: These are things that happen in a war. Collateral damage yes, destruction of large tracts of civilian housing and residential areas though precision bombing and targeted barrages no. In the coming days when Kyiv is under siege and enduring air assault and artillery barrage, will you still have the same level of cognitive dissonance? Because this really does not come across as healthy scepticism. 1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said: What I want is evidence that civilians are being deliberately targeted. That's a big claim which requires substantial evidence. The entire field of independent global journalistic coverage not enough for you? Pick your source. RT, you'll find, may not choose to mention it. 1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said: Fighting close to civilian areas inevitably leads to civilian casualties and fatalities. Fighting? We are talking about preemptive attacks for God's sake. This is a war declared by an military power and a resultant invasion on the territory of another country. To emphasise again, These aren't stray shells or randomly fired rockets, these are co ordinated, planned preemptive strikes on suburban residential areas that contain amenities, civic infrastructure and innocent civilians - women and children. This is the way that Russia wages war. Areas that have offered no resistance and of no military significance have been targeted purely because of their civilian populations. 1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said: War means people, sometimes non-combatants, die. I don't for one minute believe that American forces were deliberately killing civilians, yet many thousands of them died. Because that is what happens in a war. It's a tragedy, it's hard to stomach, but it's the awful truth. Yet we do know that Russia has and does deliberately target innocent civilians. Moreover, they have already as predicted accused the Ukrainian government of using 'human shields' to exonerate this. Yet again, you have completely chosen to ignore this: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/03/russia/syria-flurry-prohibited-weapons-attacks 1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said: Russia's claim is that Ukraine has been shelling civilians in the Donbas for 8 years. Yeah, and they claimed that they had no intention of invading Ukraine and that the west was creating panic over a military exercise. They also claim that Ukraine is populated and run by "neo nazis" and Putin justifies his 'military operation' as a peace keeping mission. There is zero in the way of independently verifiable evidence of any intentional shelling of Ukrainian civilians in the Donbas region. A member on here made a similar claim - I asked a dozen times for him to substantiate it. If he shows up again, I will do so once more - unless of course you can produce this? Then I won't need to. 1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said: It is undoubtedly true that some civilians have died as a result of Ukrainian shelling. Would you accuse the Ukrainian leadership of war crimes too? If there was objective evidence that innocent people had been intentionally targeted such as firing upon a residential area away from any military engagement or the Russian proxies that have been inflaming the situation in the east of the country, then yes. Again, do you have that? Do you think that the shelling the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia was accidental? Do you think that it is warranted or justifiable? 1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said: Or would it seem more like they were fighting in urban areas (both sides were firing from urban areas) and that civilians unfortunately got killed as a result? Unfortunately, and tragically, that is not what is currently happening in many of the towns and cities under attack by the Russian military as this invasion unfolds. These are assaults directed at the citizens of Ukraine and history will attest to these war crimes as it has in Aleppo, Grozny, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I have another question for you - again, a simple yes or no will do. Are you in support of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Edited 4 March 2022 by Line-X 9 2
Chelmofox Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 42 minutes ago, Lionator said: If this is genuinely what Putin wants (I’m skeptical, he wants regime change), at this stage you absolutely take it right? What the tweet does not point out is that the Kremlin continued to call for the ‘denazification’ and ‘demilitarization’ of Ukraine as requirements for Russia to cease its attacks. Non starter.
Lionator Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 3 minutes ago, jamesp26 said: What the tweet does not point out is that the Kremlin continued to call for the ‘denazification’ and ‘demilitarization’ of Ukraine as requirements for Russia to cease its attacks. Non starter. I mean these things are likely going to have to happen at some point.
Lionator Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 36 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said: If this was the case, Russia didn't need to invade the whole country, they could have easily focused all their resources on those regions and took them within days. I also think it's a very long way back for them as I can't see Ukraine and the rest of the world just accepting this and letting them have their way now. (If that is all they want) You say the rest of the world but you’ve got large swathes of Asia and Africa (including the two greatest populations on earth) abstaining on UN votes.
Chelmofox Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 Just now, Lionator said: I mean these things are likely going to have to happen at some point. It means regime change for a puppet Russian government (as per Belarus), which will in turn ensure its disarmed and have zero chance to join the EU etc in the future, and will be distanced from teh west. Should consider the 'denazification' akin to Ukrainian cleansing, as the only way of dealing with will be to control the media, coerce and threaten people into submission. It's the exact reason why the Ukrainians are fighting. It's the type of life they left behind a generation ago. It's not a negotiation point, it's a threat.
Parafox Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 38 minutes ago, Lionator said: If this is genuinely what Putin wants (I’m skeptical, he wants regime change), at this stage you absolutely take it right? 27 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said: If this was the case, Russia didn't need to invade the whole country, they could have easily focused all their resources on those regions and took them within days. I also think it's a very long way back for them as I can't see Ukraine and the rest of the world just accepting this and letting them have their way now. (If that is all they want) This is just a bluff I think. A distraction and a false glimmer of hope for peace. He's a pathological liar IMO. Putin is after Ukraine for applying to join EU and NATO. A thing he cannot nor will ever, accept. Ukraine being part of NATO puts NATO right on his western front, something that is completely unacceptable to him as Ukraine has established itself as an independent state after the break up of the USSR. He absolutely HATES Ukraine and the fact that it has become more "western" and free from Russia. The links between Ukrainian people and the Russian people at a basic relationship level IMO, means that the Kremlin fear the influence of Ukraine and it's western leaning government and population and that those relationships will draw in free thinking Russians, particularly the younger people with the access to and understanding of social media, thereby undermining the old guard. Just my view. 2
Carl the Llama Posted 4 March 2022 Posted 4 March 2022 2 minutes ago, Parafox said: This is just a bluff I think. A distraction and a false glimmer of hope for peace. He's a pathological liar IMO. Putin is after Ukraine for applying to join EU and NATO. A thing he cannot nor will ever, accept. Ukraine being part of NATO puts NATO right on his western front, something that is completely unacceptable to him as Ukraine has established itself as an independent state after the break up of the USSR. He absolutely HATES Ukraine and the fact that it has become more "western" and free from Russia. The links between Ukrainian people and the Russian people at a basic relationship level IMO, means that the Kremlin fear the influence of Ukraine and it's western leaning government and population and that those relationships will draw in free thinking Russians, particularly the younger people with the access to and understanding of social media, thereby undermining the old guard. Just my view. Russia already has NATO on their Western front and having Ukraine would give them more borders. NATO is just an ulterior motive.
Recommended Posts