News War with Russia

[Deebs]

NSFW

Spoiler

View: https://twitter.com/AseyevStanislav/status/1510333593180069896

 

[Wij]

View: https://twitter.com/mhmck/status/1510319120935440390


Anyone still think Ukraine should have surrendered?

 

[Scouse]

Anyone still think Ukraine should have surrendered?

As I pointed out very clearly earlier in the thread - this was the West's desired outcome.

You don't get multi-generational hatred of the kind that prompts a people to violently resist an occupation unless they've suffered real atrocity - which they now clearly have. This was always the likely outcome of civilians resisting an invading army so effectively. Russia couldn't back down so they were going to turn to this sort of shit.

I doubt very much you can motivate soldiers to line up people in houses and shoot people in the back of the head as "examples" unless the soldiers are suffering. The west's strategy in Ukraine has always been to create the conditions for this sort of shit.

NOBODY gives a shit about the people. Not the politicians in the West, not Putin and his cronies. The soldiers and the civilians (and us) are nothing more than meat in a grinder. As it has always been.

My "surrender quick" positon at the beginning of the war was precicely to avoid the sort of wholesale devestation that was always going to be a result of this invasion if it got messy. Now it's happened, I'm entirely unsurprised.

If your position @Wij is that this atrocity would definitely have been carried out of they'd surrendered anyway - I stand in opposition (see above) - but even if you're right, the rest of the wholesale destruction would have been curtailed.

It's lose-lose-lose for the people. Straight the way through. But it's "win" for an uncaring west - because we now have a whole population that are so angry at their family members being slaughtered that they will continue violent reprisals for the next three decades in any bits of the Ukraine that Russia keeps - and Putin will be bloodied but likely feel that he's gained too. (Who knows what his actual objectives were - all this talk of "Putin losing" is just conjecture - who knows what he wanted to do really - are we going to believe western analysis on this subject?).

So, just to be clear - this is what we wanted when we sent weapons to civilians. This was our strategy all along. The horror that we all rightly feel at these utterly despicable scenes of devestation, the human suffering, the murder, rape and torture of civilians - don't be fooled for one second into thinking that this wasn't the desired political outcome.

Putin is a massive massive murderous cunt. Just like our murderous cunts. The people are pawns and they don't matter.

- there HAS to be a better way for humans to arrange society to avoid this.

 

[Deebs]

As I pointed out very clearly earlier in the thread - this was the West's desired outcome.

You don't get multi-generational hatred of the kind that prompts a people to violently resist an occupation unless they've suffered real atrocity - which they now clearly have. This was always the likely outcome of civilians resisting an invading army so effectively. Russia couldn't back down so they were going to turn to this sort of shit.

I doubt very much you can motivate soldiers to line up people in houses and shoot people in the back of the head as "examples" unless the soldiers are suffering. The west's strategy in Ukraine has always been to create the conditions for this sort of shit.

NOBODY gives a shit about the people. Not the politicians in the West, not Putin and his cronies. The soldiers and the civilians (and us) are nothing more than meat in a grinder. As it has always been.

My "surrender quick" positon at the beginning of the war was precicely to avoid the sort of wholesale devestation that was always going to be a result of this invasion if it got messy. Now it's happened, I'm entirely unsurprised.

If your position @Wij is that this atrocity would definitely have been carried out of they'd surrendered anyway - I stand in opposition (see above) - but even if you're right, the rest of the wholesale destruction would have been curtailed.

It's lose-lose-lose for the people. Straight the way through. But it's "win" for an uncaring west - because we now have a whole population that are so angry at their family members being slaughtered that they will continue violent reprisals for the next three decades in any bits of the Ukraine that Russia keeps - and Putin will be bloodied but likely feel that he's gained too. (Who knows what his actual objectives were - all this talk of "Putin losing" is just conjecture - who knows what he wanted to do really - are we going to believe western analysis on this subject).

So, just to be clear - this is what we wanted when we sent weapons to civilians. This was our strategy all along. The horror that we all rightly feel at these utterly despicable scenes of devestation, the human suffering, the murder, rape and torture of civilians - don't be fooled for one second into thinking that this wasn't the desired political outcome.

Putin is a massive massive murderous cunt. Just like our massive massive murderous cunts. The people are pawns and they don't matter.

- there HAS to be a better way for humans to arrange society to avoid this.

What? The West sent weapons to civilians? Seriously stick to minding your chickens. You have no fucking idea and you just spout shit all the fucking time. As far as I am aware western armies don't handcuff men aged between 16-60 and then execute them.

 

[Scouse]

BTW - the cost militarily in Ukraine, bought at the cost of Ukranian civilian lives - has shown Putin that should he want to invade other countries bordering Russia that it's really going to cost him - and Nato don't even have to bring their arms to the party.

That is partly why we're happy to have "spent" those Ukranian lives.

 

[Ormorof]

Jesus Christ they would have done this even if they had "surrendered quickly", there would just be a lot less evidence of it, Putin has form for this. see Chechnya and what happened to the 200k missing people surprise! We dont know, cities were leveled, people disappeared.

The idea that this is somehow the Wests fault is increasingly absurd dude, no one in the west forced Russian soldiers to massacre people

 

[Wij]

As I pointed out very clearly earlier in the thread - this was the West's desired outcome.

You don't get multi-generational hatred of the kind that prompts a people to violently resist an occupation unless they've suffered real atrocity - which they now clearly have. This was always the likely outcome of civilians resisting an invading army so effectively. Russia couldn't back down so they were going to turn to this sort of shit.

I doubt very much you can motivate soldiers to line up people in houses and shoot people in the back of the head as "examples" unless the soldiers are suffering. The west's strategy in Ukraine has always been to create the conditions for this sort of shit.

NOBODY gives a shit about the people. Not the politicians in the West, not Putin and his cronies. The soldiers and the civilians (and us) are nothing more than meat in a grinder. As it has always been.

My "surrender quick" positon at the beginning of the war was precicely to avoid the sort of wholesale devestation that was always going to be a result of this invasion if it got messy. Now it's happened, I'm entirely unsurprised.

If your position @Wij is that this atrocity would definitely have been carried out of they'd surrendered anyway - I stand in opposition (see above) - but even if you're right, the rest of the wholesale destruction would have been curtailed.

It's lose-lose-lose for the people. Straight the way through. But it's "win" for an uncaring west - because we now have a whole population that are so angry at their family members being slaughtered that they will continue violent reprisals for the next three decades in any bits of the Ukraine that Russia keeps - and Putin will be bloodied but likely feel that he's gained too. (Who knows what his actual objectives were - all this talk of "Putin losing" is just conjecture - who knows what he wanted to do really - are we going to believe western analysis on this subject?).

So, just to be clear - this is what we wanted when we sent weapons to civilians. This was our strategy all along. The horror that we all rightly feel at these utterly despicable scenes of devestation, the human suffering, the murder, rape and torture of civilians - don't be fooled for one second into thinking that this wasn't the desired political outcome.

Putin is a massive massive murderous cunt. Just like our murderous cunts. The people are pawns and they don't matter.

- there HAS to be a better way for humans to arrange society to avoid this.

Wtf?

The west is sending weapons to the Ukrainian ARMY to prevent more of this. Yes it would have happened if Ukraine had surrendered on day 1. That’s what Russia does. Have you not seen Syria? It would have been worse if they surrendered. How can you even doubt that? How much more evidence do you need?

Putin would need another war in a couple of years if he had won. The only way to stop this is to destroy his armed forces.

 

[caLLous]

As I pointed out very clearly earlier in the thread - this was the West's desired outcome.

You don't get multi-generational hatred of the kind that prompts a people to violently resist an occupation unless they've suffered real atrocity - which they now clearly have. This was always the likely outcome of civilians resisting an invading army so effectively. Russia couldn't back down so they were going to turn to this sort of shit.

I doubt very much you can motivate soldiers to line up people in houses and shoot people in the back of the head as "examples" unless the soldiers are suffering. The west's strategy in Ukraine has always been to create the conditions for this sort of shit.

NOBODY gives a shit about the people. Not the politicians in the West, not Putin and his cronies. The soldiers and the civilians (and us) are nothing more than meat in a grinder. As it has always been.

My "surrender quick" positon at the beginning of the war was precicely to avoid the sort of wholesale devestation that was always going to be a result of this invasion if it got messy. Now it's happened, I'm entirely unsurprised.

If your position @Wij is that this atrocity would definitely have been carried out of they'd surrendered anyway - I stand in opposition (see above) - but even if you're right, the rest of the wholesale destruction would have been curtailed.

It's lose-lose-lose for the people. Straight the way through. But it's "win" for an uncaring west - because we now have a whole population that are so angry at their family members being slaughtered that they will continue violent reprisals for the next three decades in any bits of the Ukraine that Russia keeps - and Putin will be bloodied but likely feel that he's gained too. (Who knows what his actual objectives were - all this talk of "Putin losing" is just conjecture - who knows what he wanted to do really - are we going to believe western analysis on this subject?).

So, just to be clear - this is what we wanted when we sent weapons to civilians. This was our strategy all along. The horror that we all rightly feel at these utterly despicable scenes of devestation, the human suffering, the murder, rape and torture of civilians - don't be fooled for one second into thinking that this wasn't the desired political outcome.

Putin is a massive massive murderous cunt. Just like our murderous cunts. The people are pawns and they don't matter.

- there HAS to be a better way for humans to arrange society to avoid this.

Your "surrender quick" position was and is cowardly and unconstructive and would've only emboldened Putin to go on to the next ex-Soviet state, and the next. I refuse to believe that you genuinely think these executions wouldn't have happened had Ukraine surrendered. Guess what... the people of Ukraine don't want to be annexed into Russia.

 

[Scouse]

What? The West sent weapons to civilians?

Get your bleeding head out of the sand Deebs.

We've been spending billions sending weapons to Ukraine. Civilians have been given handouts of automatic weapons. The laws in Ukraine were changed so civilians would be able to keep any spoils of war. It's utterly uncontroversial - who the fuck do you think are getting all the weapons that we're sending over there? In your head do you think there's some Ukranian military defending civilians and only them are getting involved in the fighting? No - it's everyone - the "civilian" population aren't civilians any more - they're combatants.

They've all got guns now - because they've all been given them - so it's going to be a fucking shitshow for generations because they won't be giving those guns back. 1) Arming the people, and 2) giving them a reason to fight (dead family is a pretty fucking good motivator) - is the desired outcome.

Ukraine's president signs law on civilian use of weapons during wartime

Civilians not responsible for use of firearms against those who carry out armed aggression against Ukraine, law says - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

View: https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000008227906/ukraine-civilians-military-video.html

 

[Wij]

Civilians may have assault rifles for self defence but they aren’t getting NLAWs and Stingers. You aren’t seriously trying to say that Russia wouldn’t have killed civilians if none of them had been armed? I mean, bollocks.

 

[Scouse]

The idea that this is somehow the Wests fault is increasingly absurd dude, no one in the west forced Russian soldiers to massacre people

I'm not saying it's the west's "fault". Absolutely not. But we're certainly involved to some extent in creating the environment that allows this shit to happen.


There's no point in continuing to argue about this shitshow. None of it is surprising. All of it is very predictable. And all of it is utterly boring - the outrage you're all feeling, and nobody really wants to change anything. Human chimpanzee reaction to war - as it ever was.

I'd post that map of changing borders to show how normal this shit all is, again. But the point never seems to sink in. People get their heckle feathers up at war and want to pick a side. (And if forced to pick - well, US, of course - I pick us) - but I also hate the fact that we're doing fuck all, politically, to change systems so human life is prized - and war is made less and less likely.

War is political failure. And if our politics are failing - and resulting in atrocity - then we need to change our politics.

But we're not.

 

[Scouse]

You aren’t seriously trying to say that Russia wouldn’t have killed civilians if none of them had been armed?

Go back and read what I said?

 

[Deebs]

Get your bleeding head out of the sand Deebs.

We've been spending billions sending weapons to Ukraine. Civilians have been given handouts of automatic weapons. The laws in Ukraine were changed so civilians would be able to keep any spoils of war. It's utterly uncontroversial - who the fuck do you think are getting all the weapons that we're sending over there? In your head do you think there's some Ukranian military defending civilians and only them are getting involved in the fighting? No - it's everyone - the "civilian" population aren't civilians any more - they're combatants.

They've all got guns now - because they've all been given them - so it's going to be a fucking shitshow for generations because they won't be giving those guns back. 1) Arming the people, and 2) giving them a reason to fight (dead family is a pretty fucking good motivator) - is the desired outcome.

Ukraine's president signs law on civilian use of weapons during wartime

Civilians not responsible for use of firearms against those who carry out armed aggression against Ukraine, law says - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

View: https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000008227906/ukraine-civilians-military-video.html

The West are sending weapons to the government of Ukraine not civilians you dumb fuck. What the Ukrainian government does with those weapons is down to them but I doubt our NLAWS/Starstreaks are being operated by Joe Public.

 

[Deebs]

I'm not saying it's the west's "fault". Absolutely not. But we're certainly involved to some extent in creating the environment that allows this shit to happen.


There's no point in continuing to argue about this shitshow. None of it is surprising. All of it is very predictable. And all of it is utterly boring - the outrage you're all feeling, and nobody really wants to change anything. Human chimpanzee reaction to war - as it ever was.

I'd post that map of changing borders to show how normal this shit all is, again. But the point never seems to sink in. People get their heckle feathers up at war and want to pick a side. (And if forced to pick - well, US, of course - I pick us) - but I also hate the fact that we're doing fuck all, politically, to change systems so human life is prized - and war is made less and less likely.

War is political failure. And if our politics are failing - and resulting in atrocity - then we need to change our politics.

But we're not.

Remind us again which political party failed and started this war?

 

[Scouse]

The West are sending weapons to the government of Ukraine not civilians you dumb fuck. What the Ukrainian government does with those weapons is down to them but I doubt our NLAWS/Starstreaks are being operated by Joe Public.

Yeah yeah. Like any arms dealer our responsibility ends with the handover eh?

"What you going to do with the guns?"
"We're going to give them to everyone - including our kids if they'll pick them up".
"Well, it's nothing to do with us eh? *wink wink*"

Fuck that. We know exactly what we're doing and where the guns are going. If you've got a knife, and hand it to a guy in a bar who's about to start a fight, you're in part responsible for the outcome.

 

[Deebs]

Yeah yeah. Like any arms dealer our responsibility ends with the handover eh?

"What you going to do with the guns?"
"We're going to give them to everyone - including our kids if they'll pick them up".
"Well, it's nothing to do with us eh? *wink wink*"

Fuck that. We know exactly what we're doing and where the guns are going. If you've got a knife, and hand it to a guy in a bar who's about to start a fight, you're in part responsible for the outcome.

No, you said that we are sending weapons to civilians. That is simply untrue like most of what you spout.

 

[Scouse]

Remind us again which political party failed and started this war?

Politics. Not political party. A political party is just a cog in the wheel of politics.

Our very notions of government, state, nation need challenging and changing. We have to move past it.

Humans are absolutely capable of organising the world and cooperating in different ways - ways that would obsolete violent action as means to an end - but the people in charge have no appetite to do so. So we'll keep on warring - like we always have - until somebody somewhere presses the big red button that kills us all. (or something else happens that's ultimately born out of the failure of global politics).

 

[Deebs]

Politics. Not political party. A political party is just a cog in the wheel of politics.

Our very notions of government, state, nation need challenging and changing. We have to move past it.

Humans are absolutely capable of organising the world and cooperating in different ways - ways that would obsolete violent action as means to an end - but the people in charge have no appetite to do so. So we'll keep on warring - like we always have - until somebody somewhere presses the big red button that kills us all. (or something else happens that's ultimately born out of the failure of global politics).

Ok, politics. Who started this war? Was it a political party or hmm, I don't know, one fucked up delusional person with absolute power who doesn't give a fuck about politics?

 

[Raven]

What a ridiculous view to hold @Scouse

 

[Wij]

Yeah yeah. Like any arms dealer our responsibility ends with the handover eh?

"What you going to do with the guns?"
"We're going to give them to everyone - including our kids if they'll pick them up".
"Well, it's nothing to do with us eh? *wink wink*"

Fuck that. We know exactly what we're doing and where the guns are going. If you've got a knife, and hand it to a guy in a bar who's about to start a fight, you're in part responsible for the outcome.

I’d be happy for any Ukrainian to kill a Russian invader. I’d rather they didn’t have to but that’s not an option.

It still isn’t the reason Russians are massacring civilians.

 

[Wij]

Ok, politics. Who started this war? Was it a political party or hmm, I don't know, one fucked up delusional person with absolute power who doesn't give a fuck about politics?

Pretty sure none of us has a vote in Russia.

 

[Scouse]

No, you said that we are sending weapons to civilians. That is simply untrue like most of what you spout.

No it isn't.

If we're stood in a line giving guns to someone and he's simply passing them on to children - then WE'RE passing guns to children.

You can self-justify if you like - or tell lies to yourself that we're not supplying guns for civilians - but they're such obvious lies that I won't back down on that for a second. It's not even remotely hidden. We're sending weapons to be given to civilians in FULL knowledge of where they're going to go.

It's fucking bullshit to say it's nothing to do with us where they end up.

 

[Scouse]

What a ridiculous view to hold @Scouse

What view would that be?

 

[MYstIC G]

Get your bleeding head out of the sand Deebs.

We've been spending billions sending weapons to Ukraine. Civilians have been given handouts of automatic weapons. The laws in Ukraine were changed so civilians would be able to keep any spoils of war. It's utterly uncontroversial - who the fuck do you think are getting all the weapons that we're sending over there? In your head do you think there's some Ukranian military defending civilians and only them are getting involved in the fighting? No - it's everyone - the "civilian" population aren't civilians any more - they're combatants.

They've all got guns now - because they've all been given them - so it's going to be a fucking shitshow for generations because they won't be giving those guns back. 1) Arming the people, and 2) giving them a reason to fight (dead family is a pretty fucking good motivator) - is the desired outcome.

Ukraine's president signs law on civilian use of weapons during wartime

Civilians not responsible for use of firearms against those who carry out armed aggression against Ukraine, law says - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

View: https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000008227906/ukraine-civilians-military-video.html

Right, so I'm going to come to your place with a spoon, point it at you and you're going to just give your home to me then, right?

That or you can just stop with this shit.

 

[Deebs]

No it isn't.

If we're stood in a line giving guns to someone and he's simply passing them on to children - then WE'RE passing guns to children.

You can self-justify if you like - or tell lies to yourself that we're not supplying guns for civilians - but they're such obvious lies that I won't back down on that for a second. It's not even remotely hidden. We're sending weapons to be given to civilians in FULL knowledge of where they're going to go.

It's fucking bullshit to say it's nothing to do with us where they end up.

Again, how many civilians have been given NLAWs/Stingers/Starstreak? I reckon zero. We are not arming civilians, the Ukranian Government is (with machine guns not MANPADS)

 

[Scouse]

I’d be happy for any Ukrainian to kill a Russian invader. I’d rather they didn’t have to but that’s not an option.

I know. But even if we leave the massacres aside - the result of that was always going to be massive civilian death.

Agree? If you arm someone, and they shoot at you, you're going to try to kill them. Right?

Or are the Russians only killing unarmed people? They're only committing massacres? Or are they now shooting at armed civilians - who are now not civilians, but combatants?

Please to be answering.

 

[Deebs]

I know. But even if we leave the massacres aside - the result of that was always going to be massive civilian death.

Agree? If you arm someone, and they shoot at you, you're going to try to kill them. Right?

Or are the Russians only killing unarmed people? They're only committing massacres? Or are they now shooting at armed civilians - who are now not civilians, but combatants?

Please to be answering.

Fuck me, read the news. Civilians with hands tied behind their backs shot in the head, civilians on bikes shot dead, civilian in a well shot dead, hospitals bombed, houses/blocks of flats bombed. These people were not shooting at anyone.

I am getting close to banning you from this thread fwiw.

 

[Scouse]

Fuck me, read the news. Civilians with hands tied behind their backs shot in the head, civilians on bikes shot dead, civilian in a well shot dead, hospitals bombed, houses/blocks of flats bombed. These people were not shooting at anyone.

I'm not saying that isn't happening. It's all too obvious. I'm not denying it for a second - it's horrid.

I'm saying that this was the desired outcome. I said this would happen at the start of the thread - and IIRC I provided a link to the professional western military analysis that said that too.

I am getting close to banning you from this thread fwiw.

Feel free. It's your forum.

It'd be a weak response to someone saying "we're involved and we knew this would happen" and you not liking it though.

 

[Deebs]

I'm not saying that isn't happening. It's all to obvious. I'm not denying it.

I'm saying that this was the desired outcome. I said this would happen at the start of the thread - and IIRC I provided a link to the military analysis that said that too.


Feel free. It's your forum.

It'd be a weak response to someone saying "we're involved" and you not liking it though.

It is not a weak response, just fed up with your drivel and I know and support that we are involved. I wish we could do more if I am being completely honest even with the threat of WW3.

 

[Scouse]

I wish we could do more if I am being completely honest even with the threat of WW3.

And you accuse me of spouting drivel.

Someone else needs to be able to voice that people act dumb. Countries act dumb. Nations act dumb.

Even with the threat of WW3? Sorry Deebs - I know how emotive a subject this is for you - but that is crazy talk. Just crazy.

Ukraine, and all the horror and suffering these poor people are going through - they're not worth that. Because that means the horror and suffering that is happening right now on a tiny bit of the globe happens to everyone.

The problem is - too many humans react and think like that. And it'll get us all killed one day. I understand why you feel the way you do - but I cannot stand by and not argue against all the bloodthirsty jingoism that is running through this thread. The celebration of death. We need - as a species - to think a lot less tribally.