ARTY_FOX Posted 5 March 2022 Posted 5 March 2022 56 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said: It was a special military landing according to Putin. Just a military exercise. It's not even real.
Stivo Posted 5 March 2022 Posted 5 March 2022 39 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said: If ever we needed proof of brainwashing, surely this is it But seriously, do we have to suffer this pro Putin bullshit? I am sure that the Russian censor will get round to foxestalk eventually… On the nazi insignia stuff which he bought up with lets look at the insignia of this infamous Donetsk peoples republic battalion… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta_Battalion 1
MPH Posted 5 March 2022 Posted 5 March 2022 Just now, Stivo said: I am sure that the Russian censor will get round to foxestalk eventually… On the nazi insignia stuff which he bought up with lets look at the insignia of this infamous Donetsk peoples republic battalion… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta_Battalion it’s even more laughable when you consider that the Ukranian president is Jewish!
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 5 March 2022 Posted 5 March 2022 2 hours ago, st albans fox said: And Marshall was never in the frame for a cap ????? That was what made the occasional "Marshall for England!" chant so funny.
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 5 March 2022 Posted 5 March 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Line-X said: Really? Ok then. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misread what you were replying to here. For clarity, here's what I said: "Put it this way; I have access to the same sources you do, plus more that (forgive me if I'm wrong) I expect that you don't read" Why did you only quote the bit after the brackets, when the full sentence was "plus more that I expect that you don't read". You made it appear that I was saying that I expect you don't read, which is obviously not what I was saying. I have even remarked that from the way you write, you clearly read a lot. If you read the sentence in its entirety, it refers to the Russian-language news sources, Telegram channels, social media profiles (Russian and Ukrainian) plus the direct correspondence we get from people we know out there. The reason why I said "forgive me if I'm wrong" is because you may actually read these Russian-language sources, in which case I apologise for my incorrect assumption. Quote You can keep playing the "living in Russia" card, but your claim that living in Russia affords a more "balanced view" is laughable. And also, how would you know otherwise? You have already displayed a shocking level of ignorance about the media in the UK. You live in the bubble of an autocracy which is sadly fast descending into a dictatorship. I am still able to read all UK news sources and I read them every day. I have been glued to the news for the last 2 or 3 weeks for goodness sake, just like everybody else. I don't only read things that agree with me, I read everything I possibly can. UK news has a lot of very useful information. It also has a lot rubbish. Your belief in the infallibility of modern journalism is a bit worrying if I'm honest. Quote I can assure you that it is. My brother lived in Moscow for three years in the Presnensky District and a close friend of the family that has taught out there for a decade is now desperately attempting to leave the country. Unfortunately, we haven't heard from her for a week, but that may as much be due to the fact that she's atrocious at keeping in touch. Aside from Moscow, I myself have only visited elsewhere in the country twice - Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg and had a visit planned to Kamchatka, which was cancelled due to the covid outbreak. I am as fascinated by the geography of the country that you call your home, as I am the history of it. I have found Muscovites behind their ostensibly brusque, cold and aloof demeanor/exterior, to be warm, friendly and engaging. Immediately reminded of Alan Partridge saying "Florida mainly. Fortnight in Florida" Not really sure what else I can say about this. Quote Tell me, how's that going? That clearly isn't the case is it otherwise you would be cognisant of the current war against civilians in Ukraine. Meanwhile, you have a President that has claimed that Ukraine is "not a real country" and currently being liberated from neo-nazi rule by "military operation". Care to comment on that? Of course you won't, you have ignored 90% of the questions that I have directed at you and will continue to do so. When I "ignore" your comments, it's usually because they are either irrelevant (sometimes I miss something as well, there's a lot of replies to get through). You also use this tactic of giving me a position and telling me I have to defend it. Here, for example, you're asking me to explain or justify particular statements Putin has made. I don't think that's a useful way of debating. There are plenty of unpalatable quotes I could pick at random (the recent David Sakvarelidze quote about "blonde-haired, blue-eyed Europeans" for example) and then ask you to explain it etc, but it's unfair because you didn't say it or even bring it up. If I were making the claim that "everything Putin says is 100% infallible and I agree with everything he says", you might have a reason to throw his words at me and demand I explain them. Otherwise, I don't think it's a fair way of discussing things. My point here is clear; I do not believe there is evidence to suggest that this is a "war against civilians". It's a war in which civilians are clearly dying, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that that itself is the objective. I gave you documented examples from an independent sources of the Ukrainian forces killing civilians, hoping that you might reconsider the reasoning behind your statement in light of this new information. You don't seem to have allowed that information you affect what you're saying. Can you accept that it's possible for civilians to die, even when the objective is not to kill civilians? We have seen the sort of damage and number of casualties in other conflicts around the world. I am drawing no moral equivalences here, and there is no logically fallacious tu-quoque argument in my next question, but would you say that the Iraq Invasion of 2003 in which 7500 civilians died was "a war against civilians", or a war with other objectives in which civilians died? Or another classification perhaps? Again, no moral equivalence, no tu-quoque, I just want to fully understand your reasoning and invite you to consider whether you're applying it consistently. If not, why not? Quote Agree entirely - and this can afflict reporting and MSM outlets across the globe. However, in the UK, although the press may follow an editorial line, for the western journalist, the greatest acclaim comes from bucking this trend, eschewing the 'food chain' of so called lobby journalism and exposing government corruption. That cannot and does not happen in Russia any longer. Meduza and the Russian-language website Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Svoboda, have been all but shut down by Roskomnadzor in the last week alone. Yep, I don't agree with this. Blocking and shutting down news outlets is bad. I live in hope that it's a temporary wartime measure. I may well be disappointed on that front, but in its current form this a young country which has made astonishing progress in the last 30 years. Time will tell, let's see. Quote No I wouldn't accuse the Ukranian government of war crimes in those circumstances, but as I have pointed out, this is false equivalence. Again, to reiterate, we are not talking about skirmishes and fighting in the proximity of residential areas, rather a planned and coordinated strategy of expressly targeting civilians during the invasion of an independent nation through airstrikes, shelling and multiple rocket launchers. We also know, that Russia has deployed thermobaric weapons and will similarly be prepared to use them on civilians as they did in Syria. This is precisely why the ICC are currently on the ground in Ukraine gathering evidence of Russian war crimes. Are you in denial of that too? And why do you keep ignoring this? https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/03/russia/syria-flurry-prohibited-weapons-attacks https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/10/15/targeting-life-idlib/syrian-and-russian-strikes-civilian-infrastructure# The situations are analogous in that in both instances, weapons are being used to fire out of civilian areas, which means there is a much higher risk of the return fire hitting civilian buildings and resulting in civilian casualties (at least this is the claim being made). Your reason for saying it's a "false equivalence" is a reassertion of your initial claim. It's different, you say, because Russia is expressly targeting civilians. You know they're deliberately targeting civilians because residential buildings are being destroyed and civilians are dying. You are stuck in a circular argument. About the articles you insist I explain, again, I have no idea what the objectives were, what the intended targets were, and most importantly whether they were under instruction to specifically bomb civilians or not. I have no idea if there were combatants or other military infrastructure among the civilians, I simply don't know and neither do you. If I make those assumptions, I would have to apply the same standard to every modern war in which civilians have died unless I could find some material factual distinction between them, and I struggle to do so. I don't believe US and its allies deliberately killed civilians in Iraq, for example, but they certainly did kill a lot of them. Quote At no stage whatsoever have I made any such claim. I have simply recounted events as they have unfolded. Like I said, your denial, cognitive dissonance, personal incredulity and national bias is irrelevant here - as am I. The atrocities being committed against civilians can only be covered up by your own despotic rulers. I can however inform you that the claim of the President of the country that you live in that Ukraine is "governed by a neo-nazi regime" is as deluded as it is comical. All I have done is try to add more facts and information to a discussion which at times has been in desperate need of them. Again, you seem to imagine that my position is "War great, Russia great, civilian deaths good" or something like that. You are finding it very hard to entertain the idea that you might not know everything there is to know about the topic (neither do I, I hasten to add) and that there might be some benefit to learning about things you didn't previously know about. It's not as simple as looking at a map and saying a big country invaded a small country, or civilians are dead therefore Russians are evil murderers or evil supporters of evil murderers. The decades of geopolitical events that led to this point in time are not irrelevant. It doesn't mean civilian deaths are good, it doesn't mean war is a good idea, it doesn't mean everyone would choose war over peace every time. It means that there is some nuance to the situation which might be worth thinking about. Quote Many of these cities do indeed have strategic significance, but what you seem to be unable to comprehend is that the residential areas are being expressly targeted in order to subdue them. That is unequivocal. The innocent people of Ukraine that are dying as a consequence did not ask for this war, nor did they invite this upon themselves. The International Red Cross are appealing to Vladimir Putin to cease targeting civilians who must be protected from these attacks in line with the rules of war. This is the single biggest attack on a European state since World War II in compete violation of international law causing Europe's largest refugee crisis this century. Are you in support of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? It's not a case of supporting or taking sides, you keep trying to pin me down and demand I give simplistic yes or no answers to impossibly difficult questions. I don't like war, I didn't want Russia to invade Ukraine. However, I understand very well why Russia does not want to be in an everlasting territorial dispute in the Donbas with shelling going back and forth, mines being laid, essential services being cut off and the Russian-speaking populations being harassed and bullied and by Ukrainian forces. I also understand why it wants to rule out an increasingly hostile country 500 miles from its capital city joining an international organisation which is very hostile to Russia already and which would give the USA and other NATO countries the obligation to put boots on the ground and fight with, as well as allowing them to amass troops and establish themselves in the country. I still think the best way out of this is for Ukraine and the rest of NATO to give that guarantee. Ukraine has effectively been demilitarised now, Russian forces have taken out over 2000 military targets. As I've said before, all of this could have been prevented years ago. Edited 5 March 2022 by MarshallForEngland clarity and typos
Stivo Posted 5 March 2022 Posted 5 March 2022 10 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said: don't like war, I didn't want Russia to invade Ukraine. However, I understand very well why Russia does not want to be in an everlasting territorial dispute in the Donbas with shelling going back and forth, mines being laid, essential services being cut off and the Russian-speaking populations being harassed and bullied and by Ukrainian forces I don’t like war, I didn’t want Germany to invade Sudetenland however I understand very well ( because I have access to German newspapers) why Germany does not want to be in a territorial dispute with Czechoslovakia etc etc etc with the German-speaking populations being harassed and bullied by Czechoslovakian forces. BeckenbaurForGermany 1938. (Sorry I don’t know any pre war German footballers!)
The whole world smiles Posted 5 March 2022 Posted 5 March 2022 Don't suppose you lads could take this massive geopolitical, socio-economic debate elsewhere? I preferred this thread when it was a resource for up to date info and comment on the conflict. 4
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 5 March 2022 Posted 5 March 2022 17 minutes ago, Stivo said: I don’t like war, I didn’t want Germany to invade Sudetenland however I understand very well ( because I have access to German newspapers) why Germany does not want to be in a territorial dispute with Czechoslovakia etc etc etc with the German-speaking populations being harassed and bullied by Czechoslovakian forces. BeckenbaurForGermany 1938. (Sorry I don’t know any pre war German footballers!) Read more history and politics so you have more examples to draw on. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
weller54 Posted 5 March 2022 Posted 5 March 2022 We're just letting that smug little Ruskie cvnt call all the shots!!.. Nato are looking timid and weak. Putin is playing on this, he's baiting Nato. His threats are working and it's pathetic that we don't do anything. Cmon Nato...grow some!!
Stivo Posted 5 March 2022 Posted 5 March 2022 Just now, weller54 said: We're just letting that smug little Ruskie cvnt call all the shots!!.. Nato are looking timid and weak. Putin is playing on this, he's baiting Nato. His threats are working and it's pathetic that we don't do anything. Cmon Nato...grow some!! sadly a no fly zone would led to nuclear war, it really isn’t an option. Our problem is finding a way for Putin to back down and save enough face.
ARTY_FOX Posted 5 March 2022 Posted 5 March 2022 6 minutes ago, Stivo said: sadly a no fly zone would led to nuclear war, it really isn’t an option. Our problem is finding a way for Putin to back down and save enough face. It'll never come to nukes. There's a hell of alot of posturing but basically putin called the shots first.
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 5 March 2022 Posted 5 March 2022 I'll sign off with this Neil Oliver monologue from today which I've just watched. Pretty much exactly what I feel about the situation except 10 times more articulate and succinct than anything I could say on the topic. I'll not hijack the thread anymore chaps, all the best, goodnight all.
Recommended Posts