Mongoose
Well-Known Member
It might even be a war crime against NATO-
I'm pretty sure war crimes don't work on the "whataboutisms" scale that ya'll are so used to.
The *OFFICIAL* Russia Is About To Invade Ukraine Thread
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
I'm pretty sure war crimes don't work on the "whataboutisms" scale that ya'll are so used to.
In no universe is that a war crime
I'm genuinely trying to decide what's even being implied as a war crime in that video.
He thinks that video proves that Biden ordered the destruction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and that such an attack would constitute a war crime.
Destruction of civilian infrastructure cans be argued to be a war crime, that has more to do with water infrastructure, nord stream is a commercial oil pipeline and would likely be considered a legitimate target. However attacks against civilian power plants during a Ukrainian winter may be considered a war crime. It could be argued that the dam buster missions by todays ROE could be considered war crimes.
That.....is a reach.
The Nord Stream 2 situation is honestly confusing. We may never know what happened there.
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
I damn well think you know this but this is the part I was referring to.
It's exactly what he's doing. Telling someone they are manipulated and that I can't actually assess anything and how that's dangerous. Then he implies "Dunning-Kruger". He didn't even give me a shot he just insinuated that I don't know anything strictly because he thought he knew more because he has friends... He was talking to me like a child.
The Dunning-Kruger effect effect occurs when a person's lack of knowledge and skills in a certain area cause them to overestimate their own competence
My point was that he never actually educated me on anything he just ran away after the mob here told him how and what to think. The point here was that Ukraine was and still is a historically corrupt racist war torn nation. To me, talking how smart you are then not being able to answer a single question is Dunning-Kruger to a tee like he did. I was all for discourse... He ran away scared. Plain and simple. Instead of educate me he listened to the mob that I was a troll and didn't provide a single rebuttal after.
People want war for 2 countries that are **** countries. I don't. I am the devil for asking where 70 billion dollars went and for not wanting to have mass bloodshed over a historically racist and corrupt country in Ukraine. I mean, I would love to be educated how that is wrong and how Ukraine is some nice clean prospersous country but sir just has insults. That is a fact that sirkickass ran away from and instead went to name calling and telling me how much smarter he is.
View: https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1630309428603019265?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1630309428603019265%7Ctwgr%5Ec6ea47db0309667debadabd871f5cde76840cd94%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fbill-gates-ukraine-corrupt-video-fact-check-debunk-1784383
Last edited:
mongoose01
Well-Known Member
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Sy Hersh has written about how it was completed. Pretty detailed account through his sources.
seymourhersh.substack.com
How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline
The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now
seymourhersh.substack.com
Red
Well-Known Member
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Sy Hersh has written about how it was completed. Pretty detailed account through his sources.
How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline
The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now
Claim That US Blew up Nord Stream Pipelines Relies on Anonymous Source
Seymour Hersh presents factual background material, but his case for conspiracy is held together by a seemingly omnipotent anonymous source.
www.snopes.com
“His later work, however, has been controversial and widely panned by journalists for promoting conspiratorial claims that hinge on dubious anonymous sources or speculation.
Examples of controversial claims made later in Hersh's career include allegations that Turkey, not Russia, was behind a chemical weapons attack in Syria, and that Trump authorized an airstrike in Syria in response to Russia's alleged use of chemical weapons, even while knowing Russia did not use such weapons.
His work, increasingly, has become popular with Russian state-controlled media. Like the aforementioned stories, his most recent article alleging a U.S. attack on a Russian-owned pipeline has seen heavy Russian promotion, as reported by Insider……”
“….This story, when deconstructed, is merely a pile of purported second-hand information allegedly collected by someone connected in some unknown way to deliberations of a highly secret, multi-agency task force. Such a story falls prey to the same criticisms of other more recent work published by Hersh, which has relied on similarly questionable anonymous sources.
If the U.S. did conspire to destroy the Nord Stream pipeline, Hersh's reporting has not proved that case. Hersh has, instead, made a very successful blog post that essentially transcribes a compelling story someone unknown to the general public told him.
Hersh was asked by the Russian news agency TASS about the identity of his source. He told them that, "It's a person, who, it seems, knows a lot about what's going on."
mongoose01
Well-Known Member
I’m pretty sure that’s how a lot of journalism works. Sources need to remain anonymous to protect those sources. That’s why he also includes names, dates, meetings, details about events, places, alliances, motives, accomplices, timelines, etc.
to act like this is nothing is dangerous. Our leaders are acting like the dictator everyone said trump was going to be.
to act like this is nothing is dangerous. Our leaders are acting like the dictator everyone said trump was going to be.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
When relying on anonymous sources, standard procedure is multiple, independent verifications.
mongoose01
Well-Known Member
Yes let’s see if we can get another source to verify anything. Let’s investigate it at least. We should call our congressman and ask that they push for an investigation.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
As I quoted above, you were talking about the eastern border of Ukraine with Donbas. Donbas is a part of Ukraine. This quote, in and of itself, shows 1) that you lack even the most basic understanding of the geography in the area, and 2) that you are being manipulated by pro-Russian propaganda. @sirkickyass was doing you a kindness, but you were too ignorant and full of yourself to recognize it. This is but one example, you are like this on every topic.
Is he really STILL complaining that I said he didn't have enough subject-matter knowledge to accurately evaluate claims about Russia/Ukraine?
That's just demonstrably true. It's not a shame to not know things. But it's definitely not a good look to loudly insist you do know things, despite a very public mountain of evidence to the contrary.
In any event, this is the guy who said I like the war that has ruined the lives of like half the people I know. So if he's upset, I can't say I'm too broken up about it.
That's just demonstrably true. It's not a shame to not know things. But it's definitely not a good look to loudly insist you do know things, despite a very public mountain of evidence to the contrary.
In any event, this is the guy who said I like the war that has ruined the lives of like half the people I know. So if he's upset, I can't say I'm too broken up about it.
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
In order for something to be "demonstrably true" you actually have to demonstrate something instead of run away like you did. Just saying... All you did was brag about being smart while adding no counter point. I was actually looking forward to the conversation where you promised to educate me... And yeah. The war I am against did ruin the lives of "like half the people" you know. That's why I am against it. That's why I prefer peace. That's why under my President we did nothing but make peace and stay out of conflict.. Well outside of Democrats rioting over 200 times and killing over 25 people in cold blood. That includes small children. I mean... If my friends lives were being destroyed the last thing I would want is more bloodshed and war personally. You are pissed that your friends are suffering... I'm the devil for not wanting more needless Americans to go and die for NOTHING. I don't want my friends dying either. Especially with a **** countries like Ukraine and Russia. I've already lost enough over another pointless war.
Edit: it also says a lot that you can't address me directly but instead you have to do it through your friends just to feel validated and cool. It shows that you are afraid to actually conversate human to human. Talk about Dunning Kruger.
Last edited:
One Brow
Well-Known Member
The irony is strong with this one.
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
I got a lot of **** for asking a very very very basic question about an endgame and the obvious answer I didn't think I had to point out was to win the war. I mean duh. But what happens if the war is not winnable or Russia takes a city like Bakhmut and gains much needed morale and a possible supply chain pinch? What happens is Russia starts gaining traction? What happens if this war goes on for 5,10,15 years? Are we going to shes American blood over a historically **** country? How many lives you willing to sacrifice?
Now let's say China decides to get into this? What now? WW3 maybe? More money we don't have? More American troops sent to their graves?
So sure... The endgame is to win, no ****... A)at any cost? B) what if winning is not an option? My question is a little more complex than the common sense answers I got. To get into a war while the entire world is a little shaky and not even have a plan of failure is what got us into our last war.
Now let's say China decides to get into this? What now? WW3 maybe? More money we don't have? More American troops sent to their graves?
So sure... The endgame is to win, no ****... A)at any cost? B) what if winning is not an option? My question is a little more complex than the common sense answers I got. To get into a war while the entire world is a little shaky and not even have a plan of failure is what got us into our last war.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
No, there's not going to be direct conflict between Russian troops and the troops from any member of NATO.
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
Wellllll... I don't think there will, either, but I would say, rather, NATO won't take the first shot. I can absolutely see some Russian commander, whether he's ordered to or not, taking a shot into Poland, maybe at some tanks along the border. I could also see, altho this is less likely, Ukraine being allowed to join while this is going on, which would essentially mean Russia stops or we're all immediately in the war.
Yesterday there was a Ukrainian community event in Los Angeles centered around the band Boombox (Бумбокс). The band actually planned a US tour in spring of 2022, but it was cancelled during the war because the lead singer joined the territorial defense. After being injured, and suffering some facial scarring, he's now touring and raising money for humanitarian aid in Ukraine.
One of the things that always strikes me about these events is the degree of true gratitude that the Ukrainians show to America for supporting them during the war. This is not an event for Americans. Boombox has no English-language songs. The band is essentially unknown in the States (although it's one of Kyrylo Fesenko's favorite bands), and there's no American audience at the show to perform for or talk to. It's an event by Ukrainians, for Ukrainians.
So that they display the US flag and openly state, over and over again, that they are so fortunate there is a place in the world that cares about people in Ukraine, and supports their right to be free, is truly remarkable. It's not performative; it's sincerely felt. And, truthfully, it's the demonstration of what true global power means. Russia wants to capture Ukraine by conquest; by compelling them to be more Russian. Ukrainians value America so much that they lionize it in a space where Americans will never notice. We live in their imaginations and define their dreams.
Thinking about the world outside of the narrowest definition of our self-interest isn't a weakness; it's the definition of what makes us strong.
One of the things that always strikes me about these events is the degree of true gratitude that the Ukrainians show to America for supporting them during the war. This is not an event for Americans. Boombox has no English-language songs. The band is essentially unknown in the States (although it's one of Kyrylo Fesenko's favorite bands), and there's no American audience at the show to perform for or talk to. It's an event by Ukrainians, for Ukrainians.
So that they display the US flag and openly state, over and over again, that they are so fortunate there is a place in the world that cares about people in Ukraine, and supports their right to be free, is truly remarkable. It's not performative; it's sincerely felt. And, truthfully, it's the demonstration of what true global power means. Russia wants to capture Ukraine by conquest; by compelling them to be more Russian. Ukrainians value America so much that they lionize it in a space where Americans will never notice. We live in their imaginations and define their dreams.
Thinking about the world outside of the narrowest definition of our self-interest isn't a weakness; it's the definition of what makes us strong.