|
Asante
Mage


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,792
|
|
Quote:
CHeifM4sterDiezL said:
Then why would Russia invade Ukraine?
for the same reason the US does all these wars: the govt decides on somerthing that a well informed pubic would not yield a majority for.
Many russian soldiers were told they were on an exercise, they never knew they were to be used as invasive forces.
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 13 hours, 8 minutes
|
|
I mean, it kind of is a massive training exercise...You think Ukraine is the end?
Quote:
Stable Genius said:
Quote:
twighead said: It's hard not to think they're bluffing to a good degree when their airforce is almost entirely composed of 1960s and 70s US built aircraft that they largely haven't been able to even reverse engineer spares for and desperately set up weird schemes in the US to try and pilfer spares from the grey market
From what I understand Russia worked out a long time ago that decent artillery is superior to aircraft.
Russia quite literally wrote the book on how to use artillery, back in WWI.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,423
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 23 seconds
|
Re: The Official Ukraine War Threat [Re: The Ecstatic] 1
#27859811 - 07/12/22 10:48 AM (1 year, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Ecstatic said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Russia offers fast-track citizenship to ALL Ukrainians
Pretty smart, this is what the US did to Cuba in order to get all the exiles and intellectuals off the island.
Would have been even smarter to do this before invading - assuming protecting vulnerable civilian populations was the honest motivation for this war.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: The Official Ukraine War Threat [Re: shivas.wisdom] 1
#27859887 - 07/12/22 12:19 PM (1 year, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I've explained it already, and also said it's something a court would decide.
So nothing I stated in the initial quote was wrong, but around we go in circles anyways...
You love to go around in circles, and it's getting old, because I've already explained everything to you.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: ... back to my favourite criticism of your political beliefs; wherein you are either ignorant of their real implications, or intentionally deceptive.
That's everyone's favorite criticism - a nice generic statement that can't be argued with.
You've repeatedly mischaracterized my position, as everyone here typically does, so you can make believe I'm "either ignorant or intentionally deceptive", and I'm tired of this dishonesty, but I'll continue to explain my position as long as you fail to understand it.
You said "we should be able to argue these contrasting opinions without fear of state incarceration" and OF COURSE I agree with that, and I explained that I'm not against differing opinions, but I'm against intentionally fake news.
How do you determine if something is "intentionally fake"? The same way you determine if someone committed any other crime - through the court system. Is the court system 100% perfect? No. Do I think 7 years was the appropriate penalty? No, I think 7 years is too much for fake news..
You keep asking questions I've already answered. Any other questions?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: The Official Ukraine War Threat [Re: twighead]
#27859903 - 07/12/22 12:38 PM (1 year, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
twighead said: The two main cities in Donetsk and Luhansk were already under control before the 2022 invasion, so presumably a lot of the fighting took place out in the open - which considering the open terrain, artillery would be highly effective.
Then on the flip side - look at Mariupol which was not under control and saw pitched urban resistance - most of the city was heavily damaged and saw lots of civilian casualties - this is where the difference between US style air strikes and artillery comes in - when you're trying to take out a target in one building, a precision air munition can do it and destroy only the target. An artillery strike on the other hand will likely take out the entire block - and with its low angle of fire - if there's other buildings obscuring the angles between the artillery and the target - they're heavily at risk too. So in urban settings - it lends to huge amounts of collateral.
Which two main cities are you referring to? I'm pretty sure Stable Genius was referring to Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, which Russia had to take control of similar to Mariupol.
|
Stable Genius
Durka durka


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 5,755
Loc: Durkadurkastan
Last seen: 5 hours, 10 minutes
|
Re: The Official Ukraine War Threat [Re: Kryptos] 1
#27859912 - 07/12/22 12:45 PM (1 year, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said: I mean, it kind of is a massive training exercise...You think Ukraine is the end?
Pretty much.
The people in the Donbas want Russia to be there. Look how much it cost the U.S. to fail in Afghanistan. I don't think being an occupying force in another country makes much sense.
|
Stable Genius
Durka durka


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 5,755
Loc: Durkadurkastan
Last seen: 5 hours, 10 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Which two main cities are you referring to? I'm pretty sure Stable Genius was referring to Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, which Russia had to take control of similar to Mariupol.
Yes. That’s quite a large area to take 100% control over, as well as Mariupol.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I explained that I'm not against differing opinions, but I'm against intentionally fake news.
Meanwhile, Germany criminalizes journalists for exposing Ukrainian war crimes:
It's too long a video for most, but in summary, Alina Lipp is one of the very few Western journalists reporting from Donbas, and she's discovering the things Stable Genius, chopstick, and I have been saying are true, and she now faces 3 years in prison for exposing Ukrainian war crimes (or for supporting Russia as Germany calls it).
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 4 hours, 21 minutes
|
|
Criminalizing speech is something you support.
Anyways not watching your video but almost certainly it’s bullshit and you’re lying. Post an article from a real media source.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (07/12/22 01:59 PM)
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,423
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 23 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: That's everyone's favorite criticism - a nice generic statement that can't be argued with.
You've repeatedly mischaracterized my position, as everyone here typically does, so you can make believe I'm "either ignorant or intentionally deceptive", and I'm tired of this dishonesty, but I'll continue to explain my position as long as you fail to understand it.
You said "we should be able to argue these contrasting opinions without fear of state incarceration" and OF COURSE I agree with that, and I explained that I'm not against differing opinions, but I'm against intentionally fake news.
How do you determine if something is "intentionally fake"? The same way you determine if someone committed any other crime - through the court system. Is the court system 100% perfect? No. Do I think 7 years was the appropriate penalty? No, I think 7 years is too much for fake news..
You keep asking questions I've already answered. Any other questions?
It might seem general because you continually open yourself up to the same criticism - but my claims of ignorance or deception are always accompanied by specific criticism. Like right now:
"I'm ok with a law that prohibits intentionally fake news."
Who decides what is fake, what is true, and what is opinion?
The courts, aka the state.
What happens to those who dissent from the state-derived truth (aka, official state narrative) and the state decides it doesn't qualify as opinion?
Is it still: "Absolutely no penalty for that"? Doesn't seem like it.
___ ___ ___The core of this is that you want to empower the state - via the courts - to criminalize speech based on their official definition of truth, intentional falsehood and opinion. You've also now seen this exact law used in a way that you disagree with; and the uncertainty of enforcement (like whether the courts will decide if my speech qualifies as opinion or not) will cause people to hesitate to exercise even legitimate speech for fear of legal repercussions. Despite all this, you are perfectly fine with allowing the state to criminalize speech, and somehow - despite your constant rhetoric against censorship in other areas - you consider laws criminalizing whatever the courts deem as 'intentionally fake' to be a net-positive to society. Therefore, considering all the specific criticism above, you are either ignorant of how state censorship and repression functions, or you are intentionally deception with regards to these consequences. One could even say 'intentionally fake' - but I don't think you should be criminalized for it even if a court decides otherwise. Because unlike you, I don't support state censorship.
--------------------
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,357
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 13 hours, 10 minutes
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
The Ecstatic said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Russia offers fast-track citizenship to ALL Ukrainians
Pretty smart, this is what the US did to Cuba in order to get all the exiles and intellectuals off the island.
Would have been even smarter to do this before invading - assuming protecting vulnerable civilian populations was the honest motivation for this war.
It’s their motivation as much as the “freedom” of Cubans was for us.
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 4 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: The Official Ukraine War Threat [Re: The Ecstatic]
#27860042 - 07/12/22 03:12 PM (1 year, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I went looking for that story about the German journalist and it’s only showing up in pro-fascist outlets. 
I went to a book reading about the rise of fascism hosted by Sidney blumenthal a few years ago. I wonder if he’s disappointed that his son is now a mouthpiece for a fascist regime.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (07/12/22 03:18 PM)
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,795
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: The Official Ukraine War Threat [Re: koods]
#27860054 - 07/12/22 03:17 PM (1 year, 6 months ago) |
|
|
allegedly, she's been charged under article 140 of the german constitution. If you look at article 140 it just binds some other articles into law of which the relevant one is probably this one, I think. I'm not sure yet but I'm reading the damn thing right now, lol.
Edit: this doesn't seem like it could be it, after all
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 4 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: The Official Ukraine War Threat [Re: ballsalsa]
#27860057 - 07/12/22 03:20 PM (1 year, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Apparently she accused German troops of trying to blow up a bridge?. It’s hard to make head or tails from these articles because they are mostly making highly charged emotional appeals
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 13 hours, 8 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Stable Genius said:
Quote:
Kryptos said: I mean, it kind of is a massive training exercise...You think Ukraine is the end?
Pretty much.
The people in the Donbas want Russia to be there. Look how much it cost the U.S. to fail in Afghanistan. I don't think being an occupying force in another country makes much sense.
I think your assumption as to the goals is wrong.
If you look at the intended goal as simply an exercise in power and domination, then being an occupying force makes perfect sense. Just like if you look at the intended goals of the US occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan as a way to pump money into the pockets of military contractors, the occupation was a resounding success.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,795
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: The Official Ukraine War Threat [Re: koods] 1
#27860096 - 07/12/22 03:53 PM (1 year, 6 months ago) |
|
|
https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/braunschweig_harz_goettingen/Staatsanwalt-Goettingen-ermittelt-gegen-YouTuberin-Alina-Lipp,aktuellbraunschweig8804.html
Quote:
Lipp is said to have called on the Internet to show solidarity with the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. According to a spokesman for the public prosecutor's office, this is a criminal offense under Article 13 of the Code of Crimes against International Law, since it sanctions criminal offences.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
mycosis


Registered: 08/20/07
Posts: 19,727
Loc: USSA
|
Re: The Official Ukraine War Threat [Re: ballsalsa]
#27860140 - 07/12/22 04:40 PM (1 year, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I think you can go to prison in Germany for simply hailing the new dawn.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: "I'm ok with a law that prohibits intentionally fake news."
Who decides what is fake, what is true, and what is opinion?
The courts, aka the state.
So far, I'm with you.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: What happens to those who dissent from the state-derived truth (aka, official state narrative) and the state decides it doesn't qualify as opinion?
These are two completely different things.
The "official narrative" has NOTHING to do with "intentionally fake" news. If the official narrative is that the Russian Government colluded with Trump on election interference, and I say that an in depth analysis showed that Russia only spent $46,000 on Facebook ads before the 2016 election, 11% of which had political content, then I'm going against the official narrative, but I'm not spreading fake news.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: The core of this is that you want to empower the state - via the courts - to criminalize speech based on their official definition of truth, intentional falsehood and opinion.
NO! Only based on their interpretation of intentional falsehood, not opinion.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: You've also now seen this exact law used in a way that you disagree with...
NO! I disagreed with the penalty, not the law.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: ...and the uncertainty of enforcement (like whether the courts will decide if my speech qualifies as opinion or not) will cause people to hesitate to exercise even legitimate speech for fear of legal repercussions.
NO! People can have whatever opinion they like, as long as they're not intentionally lying.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,423
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 23 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: What happens to those who dissent from the state-derived truth (aka, official state narrative) and the state decides it doesn't qualify as opinion?
These are two completely different things.
The "official narrative" has NOTHING to do with "intentionally fake" news. If the official narrative is that the Russian Government colluded with Trump on election interference, and I say that an in depth analysis showed that Russia only spent $46,000 on Facebook ads before the 2016 election, 11% of which had political content, then I'm going against the official narrative, but I'm not spreading fake news.
Not if the courts decide otherwise.
I don't consider calling Russia's invasion of Ukraine a 'war of aggression' to be fake news, but both you and (more importantly) the Russian courts do so my opinion would risk criminalization - and you have already stated that the courts would determine opinion or otherwise:
“I don't think you understand the difference between an opinion and intentionally fake news. [...] I've explained it already, and also said it's something a court would decide."
Ignorance or deception.
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 4 hours, 21 minutes
|
|
Quote:
NO! People can have whatever opinion they like, as long as they're not intentionally lying.
Calling Russia’s war of aggression a war of aggression is not only an opinion, it’s a factual one.
You’re not so dumb that you don’t understand this.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
|