Ukraine-Russia War Take 2
Here is what the preliminary take on the Ukraine thread disappearing is:
The site was hit with a massive spam attack where hundreds of spam threads were created. In the case where, for example, I see a single spam thread and delete it, that is called a soft delete, and mods can still see them but forum members cannot. Those deletion can be undone.
When a massive attack hits with hundreds of threads, an admin uses a different procedure where the hundreds of spam threads are merged and then hard deleted, where the threads are gone, and no note is left behind. As I have mentioned with my own experience of just soft deleting a large number of posts, sometimes a post or thread gets checked or merged accidentally and is deleted by mistake. Dealing with hundreds of spam threads takes a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.
It appears that our Ukraine thread may have gotten caught up in that recent net of spam threads. If so, it is likely gone for good. I cant say this for sure, and am awaiting comments from admins on this issue. Yes, this sucks. And hopefully there was some other software glitch that caused the disappearance, and we may recover it in the future.
But in the meantime, I have created this new Ukraine-Russia War thread to enable the conversation to continue. Obviously continuity with earlier discussions will be lost. There is no way around that. So as best as possible, let's pick up the conversation with recent events and go from there.
If you have any questions about this, please post them in the mod thread, not here. Let's keep this thread going with posts about the war, not the disappearance of the old thread.
Thanks.
I did not imply it. I am telling you I did not imply it. If I intended to mean or imply what you claim, then I would say so. I never have a problem standing by my words.
So stop lying you lying liar.
Yea I know. I’m laughing at the situation. Clearly you didn’t say it. And implied is a very broad term
Could possibly be the Chechens? ISIS are the trolls of terrorism. They claimed responsibility for the Las Vegas shooting iirc. I'd personally take any claim of theirs with a large barrel of salt. Not saying they aren't responsible either to clarify but they're not exactly a reliable source.
Yeah could definitely be Chechens. I think the assumption is that ISIS is in areas like that.
supposedly these guys were Tajiks. Putin is putting some blame on Ukraine, claiming they were fleeing to an intentional opening there. lets see if he goes all genocidal like the Zionists. Id guess not, and hope not.
Lol. The simping for Putin never stops. He has gone full genocide, but he's currently being stopped by the war you would like to end under conditions that enable Putin to go full genocide unimpeded. Remember all that Orwell nonsense you spewed which didn't relate to Orwell at all? Yeah the guy you are constantly simping for while denying you are simpiny for likes to use "peace" as a euphemism for "genocide".
The fleeing claim is pretty silly. Who flees to a border along a war zone when trying to go undetected? If this is true at all it's far more likely they were going to Belarus.
The US believed that the group intending to launch such an MFA (marauding firearms attack, as in the 2015 Bataclan attack in Paris) was ISIS-K, also known as IS Khorasan, a group so mad that it actually carries out attacks on the Taliban for not being mad enough. ISIS-K may have members in Tajikistan, and a Russian parliamentarian has claimed that Tajik passports were found in the arrested men's car. Russia is an IS target due to the Cheche
USA claims to have proof too.
Yes you clearly implied it as if not then just wtf did your comment even mean?? You just jump to the defence of any non western power in a knee jerk manner it seems, due to West Bad Everyone Else Good. So yeah you clearly implied it, otherwise your comment is simply pointless dribble and sorry but pointless words is our resident pointless dribble guy, whereas you're our resident apologist, hence my observation of your implication.
This is his new shtick. It's a way of attacking and putting forward narratives without having to actually defend those attacks or narratives. Meanwhile if you go into the Palestine thread and suggest that Oct 7 was bad or that Israeli children shouldn't be bombed it automatically implies you are in favor of genocide of all Muslims, and a horrible human being, or something along those lines. (Obviously some exaggeration here.) Meanwhile PW will attack you for trying to have productive conversations by connecting Victor's dots which clearly line up. It's the equivalent of trying to discuss something while someone is screaming around the corner and when confronted they quiet down until you continue the discussion at which point they continue screaming again.
Meanwhile if you ask him to clarify what exactly he is trying to say he will call you dumb for a lack of reading comprehension while refusing to clarify what he is actually saying.
Oh hey prime example. If someone jumps into a conversation and says something that is related, it's safe to imply that it's related to the conversation. This is how conversation works. Quit defending his weak attempts at disrupting conversations and attacking Ukrainians without taking responsibility for doing this.
It's the behavior of a poorly raised child.
I did not imply it. I am telling you I did not imply it. If I intended to mean or imply what you claim, then I would say so. I never have a problem standing by my words.
So stop lying you lying liar.
You did imply it. You have a poor grasp of the English language and a worse grasp on how to have productive conversations. I won't say you are lying because you have displayed such a poor grasp on these things, but anyone of even passing conversational abilities and English I would absolutely accuse of lying. Do better.
Meanwhile if you ask him to clarify what exactly he is trying to say he will call you dumb for a lack of reading comprehension while refusing to clarify what he is actually saying.
if you ask me to clarify something there is no point in answering bc you have already made up an argument and attributed it to me and there is nothing I can say to change that.
You did imply it
case in point.
Meanwhile if you go into the Palestine thread and suggest that Oct 7
lies
or that Israeli children shouldn't be bombed it automatically implies you are in favor of genocide of all Muslims
lies ofc. esp about the "all Muslims" crap.
but if you are referencing the PTSD that Israeli children experience then well, its pretty weird for you to bring that up considering before Oct7 something like 80% of the Gazans children had PTSD and the at this point its gotta be 100% and PTSD probably doesnt even describe it any more.
why did you bring that stuff up? you did bc you were trying to justify the Israeli response bc Israel is an ally of the USA and there is no limit to what the USA can do. so yes, you were trying to support a genocide. you still are.
and theres a lot of other reasons why you support genocide in that thread. you could just get educated. but there is no amount of knowledge that will shake your faith in the West. not any number of dead babies or obliterated civilians will even give you pause.
No.
if you ask me to clarify something there is no point in answering bc you have already made up an argument and attributed it to me and there is nothing I can say to change that.
case in point.
False.
You can clarify your positions all you want and I'd love it if you did. That does not change the fact that your language implied what it did; it is giving you a chance to correct what you implied to more accurately reflect what you said.
lies ofc. esp about the "all Muslims" crap.
Please do not cut out parts of my quotes to make them read differently, that is incredibly dishonest and in this case an outright lie.
but if you are referencing the PTSD that Israeli children experience then well, its pretty weird for you to bring that up considering before Oct7 something like 80% of the Gazans children had PTSD and the at this point its gotta be 100% and PTSD probably doesnt even describe it any more.
why did you bring that stuff up? you did bc you were trying to justify the Israeli response bc Israel is an ally of the USA and there is no limit to what the USA can do. so yes, you were trying to support a genocide. you still are.
The irony. This has been explained to you 3 times now. It was a smaller, more focused discussion on the radicalization of Jews. Discussing PTSD of Jews in such a conversation in no way diminishes that suffered by Palestinians. This has been explained to you multiple times now, yet you continue to state this lie. You can think it's weird all you want, the only weird part is stating it's weird that any child, of any religion, should not suffer rocket attacks and the PTSD from them.
and theres a lot of other reasons why you support genocide in that thread. you could just get educated. but there is no amount of knowledge that will shake your faith in the West. not any number of dead babies or obliterated civilians will even give you pause.
Lies.
I do not support genocide in that thread. Read better. Do better.
if you want to know why Israelis are radicalized then you could start by watching the recent EI interview with Ilan Pappe and then read his book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idea_o...
I am only about a quarter of the way through it.
you could also watch this video but it really the result of the indoctrination and not the how.
Do you deny that suffering from PTSD could radicalize someone towards disliking the group who caused that PTSD?
there is no amount of prying questions that will make me support the actions of the Israeli Army. I wont prescribe punishment bc that is up to the Palestinians. if they deemed it proper to execute every war criminal then I would support that. if they deemed it necessary to let 99% of them go free like the Nazis were allowed then I would support that.
nor will I ever view their actions as acceptable.
and finally, no I do not think that PTSD from impotent rockets is what is causing this genocide.
Do you deny that suffering from PTSD could radicalize someone towards disliking the group who caused that PTSD?
This was the question. Feel free to answer it instead of the questions you'd rather answer, but there's no pressure since your gymnastics to avoid answering the one pertinent question to this conversation illustrated the point just as well.
yes, with qualifications. also no, with qualifications.
Great, then you don't disagree with me. Next time instead of accusing me of hating Palestinians or whatever and attacking my stance of "no PTSD for children" you can just skip the post.
FWIW: what you posted is not the least bit clear, but it's about as clear as one can expect from you. "yes.. also no..." lol good god man.
well I find the premise absurd and grotesque considering prior to Oct 7, 80% of Gazan children suffered from PTSD. and since then it has become a grave yard of children. since then it has the by far the highest number of child amputations, mostly done without anesthesia, and there is now a new acronym that is common WCNSF – wounded child, no surviving family.
so I find your equivalence disgusting and serving a certain agenda.
its looking like most of these children survive anyway so I guess thats the end of the PTSD for them.
If my "equivalence" is that no child should suffer from rocket attacks and you find that equivalence "disgusting" then you believe that some children deserve to suffer from rocket attacks?
Looks like the guy who had his ear cut off is almost definitely one of the shooters.
No.
False.
You can clarify your positions all you want and I'd love it if you did. That does not change the fact that your language implied what it did; it is giving you a chance to correct what you implied to more accurately reflect what you said.
Please do not cut out parts of my quotes to make them read differently, that is incredibly dishonest and in this case an outright lie.
The irony. This has been explained to you 3 times now. It was a
Only talking about Israeli ptsd is bad and biased. Have you spoken about Palestinian ptsd? It shows you only care to speak about one side
False. Yes. No, it doesn't.
FFS there's a poster in here who for over a year has been slamming the defenders of invasion and genocide over any and every issue imaginable, including fake ones, while almost never attacking the instigator of the invasion and genocide. Suggesting that this shows a bias towards one side is attacked vehemently with ridiculous, pedantic arguments. Meanwhile if during a discussion about how Israelis have been radicalized (not exactly a positive thing!!!!!) it shows a bias to focus on the Israelis and their mindset?
WTF?
ISIS released bodycam footage of the attack today, so it's almost certainly them.
Lol just own that you don’t care about Palestinian kids ptsd enough to write about it. But you do for Israeli kids.
I won't own that because it's not true. Furthermore nothing I've done suggests that I believe that. Suggesting that no child should suffer a rocket attack certainly doesn't suggest it, in fact it suggests the exact opposite.
no I didnt imply it lol. theres a lot of nasty videos about this incident.
I didnt see him eat the ear or see it described. and no! before you jump down my throat, that does not "clearly imply" that I dont think it happened or that I think you are making it up. it simply means that I did not see that part of the video.
Yeah you did and anyone normal would infer such an implication and so what if you didn't see all the video, they still sliced his ear off. Again just knee jerk apologia for any non western power from you.
oh now I get it. you live in an absolute fantasyland if you think I am defending torturing the guy.
Victor: Israel bombed a hospital!
Someone: Israel claims Hamas fired an rpg from the hospital window.
Victor: That is a clearly a non sequitur and not an attempt at justifying bombing the hospital because that is how conversation works.
Victor: This person was tortured at Guantanamo!
Someone: Do you know the horrible things they are accused of doing?
Victor: No, please educate me, I am sure your reply is also a non sequitur and just an interesting bit of trivia not related to my comment in the least bit.
