The NATO

[Estro Felino]

And your evidence of this conspiracy is...?

And also, how does this gel with the actual history of Ukraine, i.e: Putin's repeated interference in their elections, the installation of a pro-Putin president who violently put down protestors, and his history of both funding and supporting separatist groups in East Ukraine through astroturfing and propaganda, not to mention the numerous human rights violations against the people of Ukraine committed by Russia during its occupation of the Donbas, and Putin's continual lies and posturing about the war to his own people (who he is happy to use as cannon fodder for his own ambitions)?

Just going to ignore all of that in favour of your completely baseless conspiracy theory?

On a social platform, nobody can demonstrate anything.
If the question is brought to the attention of the ICJ in The Hague, we can ascertain who did what and why.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't.
Absolutely not.
I condemn all wars. Regardless of who wages them.

Yeah, defender and attacker alike. That is your double standard.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

On a social platform, nobody can demonstrate anything.
If the question is brought to the attention of the ICJ in The Hague, we can ascertain who did what and why.

Then do that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Does this imply that there are people who are okay with doublestandardism?

Yes. You have just given us a fine example.

Thank you, I suppose. Sort of. I still hope you learn better.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

On a social platform, nobody can demonstrate anything.
If the question is brought to the attention of the ICJ in The Hague, we can ascertain who did what and why.

No actual facts, no arguments, just Putin apologia and denial of war crimes and history.

What's the deal? Do you just really like "strong men" and feel that they have a right to invade and kill whoever they like? Because, right now, that's only logical reason for you supporting Russia and turning a blind eye to everything they have done.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah, defender and attacker alike. That is your double standard.

I am not getting it. Be specific.

 

[Estro Felino]

No actual facts, no arguments, just Putin apologia and denial of war crimes and history.

What's the deal? Do you just really like "strong men" and feel that they have a right to invade and kill whoever they like? Because, right now, that's only logical reason for you supporting Russia and turning a blind eye to everything they have done.

I condemn wars.
I don't condone wars.
Whenever there is a war, I am for negotiations and not fighting back.

I need to point out that back when the Allies landed in Sicily in 1943, King Victor Emmanuel immediately signed the armistice, unconditional surrender with Eisenhower (he was a general back then).
This shows that a monarch can take sensible decisions for the good of his own people.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not getting it. Be specific.

All war is wrong regardless of being defender or attacker.
A double standard is to use one and another standard. But you use one standard for wrong, when there could be 2. Thus in a weird sense, you are using a double standard as one. All violence is wrong even self-defense.

You are doing the same as one, where some of us do 2 or more. But for all standards you claim there is one and that is yours.
So that is a double standard. Yours is correct as subjective and mine is wrong as subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I condemn wars.
I don't condone wars.
Whenever there is a war, I am for negotiations and not fighting back.

I need to point out that back when the Allies landed in Sicily in 1943, King Victor Emmanuel immediately signed the armistice, unconditional surrender with Eisenhower (he was a general back then).
This shows that a monarch can take sensible decisions for the good of his own people.

Yeah, but you are not the people and it is not your people. The same for me. You just claim that it is so for you, but not for everybody else. That is your double standard.

 

[Estro Felino]

All war is wrong regardless of being defender or attacker.
A double standard is to use one and another standard. But you use one standard for wrong, when there could be 2. Thus in a weird sense, you are using a double standard as one. All violence is wrong even self-defense.

You are doing the same as one, where some of us do 2 or more. But for all standards you claim there is one and that is yours.
So that is a double standard. Yours is correct as subjective and mine is wrong as subjective.

The definition of double standards:
Whenever a person justifies an act X in the situation A, but condemns the same act X in the situation B (with different actors).
It is the act X which is identical/similar. The actors change.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The definition of double standards:
Whenever a person justifies an act X in the situation A, but condemns the same act X in the situation B (with different actors).
It is the act X which is the same. The actors change.

But there are not actors, because you are the only correct actor. That is your double standard.
For 2 humans you are correct and the other is wrong and you don't consider it in reverse.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No. For example, I would like to understand why the US sided with KSA against Yemen.
That is, they sided with the invader and not with the invaded.

No, you paint a non-informed, simplistic picture.
Saudi shares a border with Yemen, and the take over of Yemen by the 'houthis' were backed by shia Iran.

..I won't continue, because I don't want to get into a protracted political debate about Yemen.
This thread is about Ukraine and Russia. [specifically NATO]

 

[Estro Felino]

No, you paint a non-informed, simplistic picture.
Saudi shares a border with Yemen, and the take over of Yemen by the 'houthis' were backed by shia Iran.

..I won't continue, because I don't want to get into a protracted political debate about Yemen.
This thread is about Ukraine and Russia. [specifically NATO]

Honestly I don't care about religious-motivated wars in the Middle East.
I was pointing out the different attitude in two wars.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I condemn wars.

Cool. So do you condemn the war in Ukraine and Russia for starting it?

I don't condone wars.

Cool. So when a country starts a war by invading another country, you support ensuring said victim of invasion should be protected and the borders restored?

Whenever there is a war, I am for negotiations and not fighting back.

Are you serious? So countries like Russia should just steamroll over all of their neighbours, and nobody can do anything about it?

I need to point out that back when the Allies landed in Sicily in 1943, King Victor Emmanuel immediately signed the armistice, unconditional surrender with Eisenhower (he was a general back then).
This shows that a monarch can take sensible decisions for the good of his own people.

Wow. Thanks for bringing up this completely unrelated historical tidbit that means nothing.

Putin is not pursuing peace. When he was winning, he demanded an unconditional surrender. Now he is losing, he is demanding and unconditional surrender. When it became obvious he couldn't get that, he is demanding to keep control of the parts of the country he has annexed.

If you are against war, you should be against Putin.

 

[Estro Felino]

Cool. So do you condemn the war in Ukraine and Russia for starting it?


Cool. So when a country starts a war by invading another country, you support ensuring said victim of invasion should be protected and the borders restored?


Are you serious? So countries like Russia should just steamroll over all of their neighbours, and nobody can do anything about it?


Wow. Thanks for bringing up this completely unrelated historical tidbit that means nothing.

Putin is not pursuing peace. When he was winning, he demanded an unconditional surrender. Now he is losing, he is demanding and unconditional surrender. When it became obvious he couldn't get that, he is demanding to keep control of the parts of the country he has annexed.

If you are against war, you should be against Putin.

The difference between me and the elitist cabal of warmongers* (who are not from Europe) is:
That I want the war to end today, I don't care whether Russia loses or wins. I couldn't care less. I want peace. So I do want Putin to terminate the war, to withdraw all the troops.

Whereas those elites want the war to continue. Indefinitely. As long as they get to Putin.

* expression used by Tulsi Gabbard.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The difference between me and the elitist cabal of warmongers[snip]

No conspiracy talk, please. I don't care what your imagined cabal thinks, I am asking YOU.

That I want the war to end today, I don't care whether Russia loses or wins. I couldn't care less. I want peace. So I do want Putin to terminate the war, to withdraw all the troops.

Cool. So, that's not going to happen. Putin does not want to withdraw his troops. He wants Ukraine.

So, what do you do?

 

[Estro Felino]

.

So, what do you do?

I? I can't do anything. You mean my country?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I? I can't do anything. You mean my country?

I am asking what should be done. What is YOUR preferred choice of action if you want peace, and you want Russia to remove their troops, but they refuse to remove their troops.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, that is based on the fact, that he believes in the idea of a Russian Empire and doesn't accept democracies.

I don't think Putin has problems with democracies. He has been nice to us, but no one likes to be cornered.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think Putin has problems with democracies. He has been nice to us, but no one likes to be cornered.

That he is corned is in his mind.