trastrick Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 (edited) This may be helpful. "The areas that Russian forces occupy in Ukrainian territories (as of late January 2023)" - WIKI Ukraine has not (yet) invaded Russia! Edited February 9, 2023 by trastrick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dromedary Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 6 minutes ago, L00b said: And you can ask however many times again… So basically you cant answer it and have to deflect and site another poster instead who stated it was a false equiveillance. Glad we go that sorted! May I should now ask why you think its a false equiveillance? But first I will remind you of what I did say in full... "If Putin is being held to account for that then the West should also be held to account for the many lives lost because the West is supplying armaments and missiles to The Ukraine." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 10 minutes ago, trastrick said: This may be helpful. "The areas that Russian forces occupy in Ukrainian territories (as of late January 2023)" - WIKI Ukraine has not (yet) invaded Russia! That map doesn't show Russia's borders as Putin claims them - which I suspect L00b was alluding to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trastrick Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 4 minutes ago, altus said: That map doesn't show Russia's borders as Putin claims them - which I suspect L00b was alluding to. The WIKI map's description is clear enough. ""The areas that Russian forces occupy in Ukrainian territories..." Your suspicions don't concern me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 16 minutes ago, trastrick said: This may be helpful. "The areas that Russian forces occupy in Ukrainian territories (as of late January 2023)" - WIKI Ukraine has not (yet) invaded Russia! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_annexation_referendums_in_Russian-occupied_Ukraine The referendums have resulted in annexation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts of Ukraine by Russia.[161][162] On 22 September, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev said that any weapons in Moscow's arsenal, including strategic nuclear weapons, could be used to protect territories annexed to Russia from Ukraine. He also said that referendums organized by Russia-installed and separatist authorities would take place in large swathes of Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory and that there was "no turning back".[163] Medvedev said that Donbas republics and other territories "will be accepted into Russia" and mobilisation will also be used to protect the annexed territories.[163] Russian senator Konstantin Kosachev warned that after the referendums, "protecting people in this region will not be our right, but our duty. An attack on people and territories will be an attack on Russia. With all the consequences."[164] Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov did not rule out the use of nuclear weapons to defend annexed Ukrainian territories.[165] And then you claim that I am uninformed? You’re so full of ****, it’s coming out of your ears. As for my “warmongering”, we’ve been over this so many times already, but it’s worth reiterating, since you still appear as incapable of logic or coherence as ever: I’m not supporting the side doing that invading and annexing shown in yellow in your map, i.e. the side doing the warmongering indeed. I’m supporting the side defending itself from warmongering. 1 guess about where that leaves you and posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 5 minutes ago, trastrick said: The WIKI map's description is clear enough. ""The areas that Russian forces occupy in Ukrainian territories..." Your suspicions don't concern me! My suspicions don't need to concern you. But as far as Putin and his claims about territory that is now part of Russia goes, Ukraine are already using NATO country supplied weapons to attack Russia. So, where do you think your “if NATO weapons are used to attack Russian territory then WW3” fits in with that exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Dromedary said: So basically you cant answer it and have to deflect and site another poster instead who stated it was a false equiveillance. Glad we go that sorted! May I should now ask why you think its a false equiveillance? But first I will remind you of what I did say in full... "If Putin is being held to account for that then the West should also be held to account for the many lives lost because the West is supplying armaments and missiles to The Ukraine." I have answered perfectly clearly. Your argument is fundamentally flawed, since no lives besides those of Russian soldiers have been lost to armaments supplied by the West, AFAIK. Now, if you believe that Russian soldiers lives snuffed by western-supplied weapons in a shooting war of aggression, i.e. legitimate targets, is somehow equivalent to civilians lives that are neither Russian nor Ukrainian snuffed by Putin-sanctioned, Russian-controlled BUK operators in a regional proxy conflict, i.e. targets as illegitimate as it is possible to get, then you have a fairly twisted sense of ‘logic’ wherein there’s as much point in discussing the matter with you further, as trying to play chess with a pigeon. I know well what you said, it’s still there in its original post. It’s still just as wrong now, as then. Until and unless you care to expand on the underlying logic. Which I invited you to do, lest you forget, and which you still haven’t done. I think we both (and some others) know perfectly well why that is, don’t we? I’m quite looking forward to Putin’s trial for war crimes (of which MH17), posthumously or otherwise. There’ll be a lot of red faces about. Edited February 9, 2023 by L00b 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 1 hour ago, Dromedary said: So basically you cant answer it and have to deflect and site another poster instead who stated it was a false equiveillance. Unless you have evidence showing that the weapons supplied by the west have been targeted at civilians, or brought down a civilian airliner... it's clearly a false equivalence. 1 hour ago, Dromedary said: Glad we go that sorted! May I should now ask why you think its a false equiveillance? But first I will remind you of what I did say in full... "If Putin is being held to account for that then the West should also be held to account for the many lives lost because the West is supplying armaments and missiles to The Ukraine." Except, that's not what you said in full at all... this is: "The latest news is that Putin allegedly supplied the missile system to the Ukraine separatists that shot down flight MH17 over Ukraine in 2014. If Putin is being held to account for that then the West should also be held to account for the many lives lost because the West is supplying armaments and missiles to The Ukraine." To your knowledge... have any armaments, or missiles, supplied by the West to Ukraine been used to shoot down a civilian airliner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dromedary Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, L00b said: I know well what you said, it’s still there in its original post. It’s still just as wrong now, as then. Until and unless you care to expand on the underlying logic. Which I invited you to do, lest you forget, and which you still haven’t done. I think we both (and some others) know perfectly well why that is, don’t we? Wow such absolute arrogance, but I think many on here already know that as it does seems to be the norm coming from you. Quote I’m quite looking forward to Putin’s trial for war crimes (of which MH17), posthumously or otherwise. There’ll be a lot of red faces about. Why a trial? Putin did not commit war crimes (MH17) in mind, as he did not order the plane to be shot down. Even the Judge in that article you linked to stated : "...it was a deliberate action to bring down a plane, even though the three found guilty had intended to shoot down a military not a civilian aircraft." It is also possible that if the three Russians who were found guilty in absentia had actually been represented at the trial they too could have been found not guilty just like the Russian who was represented. So we now know, it was not a deliberate attempt to shoot down a civilian plane (MH17), it was a bad mistake and the subsequent disaster was not actually sanctioned by Putin. He may have given them the missiles but just as the West have given Ukraine missiles he was not directly responsible on how they are used, just like we are not responsible for how the Ukrainian's will use the ones we give them. Was that the sort of logic you were talking about.... 2 hours ago, Magilla said: Unless you have evidence showing that the weapons supplied by the west have been targeted at civilians, or brought down a civilian airliner... it's clearly a false equivalence. No its not as I have just explained. Bringing down a civilian airliner was a very big mistake so the civilian's on that plane were not deliberately targeted. Edited February 9, 2023 by Dromedary did a slinny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_DADDY Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 42 minutes ago, Dromedary said: Wow such absolute arrogance, but I think many on here already know that as it does seems to be the norm coming from you. Why a trial? Putin did not commit war crimes (MH17) in mind, as he did not order the plane to be shot down. Even the Judge in that article you linked to stated : "...it was a deliberate action to bring down a plane, even though the three found guilty had intended to shoot down a military not a civilian aircraft." It is also possible that if the three Russians who were found guilty in absentia had actually been represented at the trial they too could have been found not guilty just like the Russian who was represented. So we now know, it was not a deliberate attempt to shoot down a civilian plane (MH17), it was a bad mistake and the subsequent disaster was not actually sanctioned by Putin. He may have given them the missiles but just as the West have given Ukraine missiles he was not directly responsible on how they are used, just like we are not responsible for how the Ukrainian's will use the ones we give them. Was that the sort of logic you were talking about.... No its not as I have just explained. Bringing down a civilian airliner was a very big mistake so the civilian's on that plane were not deliberately targeted. Good post is that 👏 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now