NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 14 2022 20:28 Broetchenholer wrote: What are you even arguing here? If 230k people are deported from the land and not allowed back there until 50 years later and then other people come in there and take the land that was just freed up, are you really arguing that none of that was done to allow Russians to colonize good land? Like, are you also arguing that deporting the native americans was to punish them for resisting the colonisation of their land, or to take the land that was freed up by deporting them? When was the last time that a country did atrocities and stated the true reason for them?
I'm arguing that KwarK's claim is dump and he failed to provide any evidence for it (up to now). Is that hard to understand? Posting massive questions is not a correct way to help him either unfortunately
I provided examples across a thousand miles and 400 years.
You didn’t know your history. I did. I stated a historical fact. You disputed it because you don’t know European history (which isn’t necessarily your fault). I, knowing my history, was able to support my statement. It’s now time for you to say “oh, I didn’t know Russia had been doing this for 500 years”.
I'm not challenging you about historic facts, I'm challenging you about your claim. If it has a smallest probablity of truth then I'm sure there must be a massive English content talking about it. Provide it.
You are challenging him on historical facts. Russification is well documented, occurred in multiple lands and to multiple ethnic groups, and has occurred for hundreds of years.
On October 14 2022 20:28 Broetchenholer wrote: What are you even arguing here? If 230k people are deported from the land and not allowed back there until 50 years later and then other people come in there and take the land that was just freed up, are you really arguing that none of that was done to allow Russians to colonize good land? Like, are you also arguing that deporting the native americans was to punish them for resisting the colonisation of their land, or to take the land that was freed up by deporting them? When was the last time that a country did atrocities and stated the true reason for them?
I'm arguing that KwarK's claim is dump and he failed to provide any evidence for it (up to now). Is that hard to understand? Posting massive questions is not a correct way to help him either unfortunately
I provided examples across a thousand miles and 400 years.
You didn’t know your history. I did. I stated a historical fact. You disputed it because you don’t know European history (which isn’t necessarily your fault). I, knowing my history, was able to support my statement. It’s now time for you to say “oh, I didn’t know Russia had been doing this for 500 years”.
I'm not challenging you about historic facts, I'm challenging you about your claim. If it has a smallest probablity of truth then I'm sure there must be a massive English content talking about it. Just provide it.
There is massive English content about it. It's a well-documented and well-researched fact. There are Wikipedia pages about it with literally more than a hundred sources and references. It is not everyone's burden to inform you or to cure you of your ignorance. His claim is a historical fact. If you are challenging his claim, you are challenging historical facts. That is really not that hard a concept to understand unless you are arguing in bad faith. But I think we all know that the latter is the case here, just as it has been before.
Every few weeks or months someone like you or zeo come out of the woodworks to take a shit in topics like this in an attempt to muddy the water, before fucking right off again once you see that no one is buying your bullshit. Can we skip to that last part please?
On October 14 2022 20:28 Broetchenholer wrote: What are you even arguing here? If 230k people are deported from the land and not allowed back there until 50 years later and then other people come in there and take the land that was just freed up, are you really arguing that none of that was done to allow Russians to colonize good land? Like, are you also arguing that deporting the native americans was to punish them for resisting the colonisation of their land, or to take the land that was freed up by deporting them? When was the last time that a country did atrocities and stated the true reason for them?
I'm arguing that KwarK's claim is dump and he failed to provide any evidence for it (up to now). Is that hard to understand? Posting massive questions is not a correct way to help him either unfortunately
I provided examples across a thousand miles and 400 years.
You didn’t know your history. I did. I stated a historical fact. You disputed it because you don’t know European history (which isn’t necessarily your fault). I, knowing my history, was able to support my statement. It’s now time for you to say “oh, I didn’t know Russia had been doing this for 500 years”.
I'm not challenging you about historic facts, I'm challenging you about your claim. If it has a smallest probablity of truth then I'm sure there must be a massive English content talking about it. Provide it.
You are challenging him on historical facts. Russification is well documented, occurred in multiple lands and to multiple ethnic groups, and has occurred for hundreds of years.
On October 14 2022 20:28 Broetchenholer wrote: What are you even arguing here? If 230k people are deported from the land and not allowed back there until 50 years later and then other people come in there and take the land that was just freed up, are you really arguing that none of that was done to allow Russians to colonize good land? Like, are you also arguing that deporting the native americans was to punish them for resisting the colonisation of their land, or to take the land that was freed up by deporting them? When was the last time that a country did atrocities and stated the true reason for them?
I'm arguing that KwarK's claim is dump and he failed to provide any evidence for it (up to now). Is that hard to understand? Posting massive questions is not a correct way to help him either unfortunately
I provided examples across a thousand miles and 400 years.
You didn’t know your history. I did. I stated a historical fact. You disputed it because you don’t know European history (which isn’t necessarily your fault). I, knowing my history, was able to support my statement. It’s now time for you to say “oh, I didn’t know Russia had been doing this for 500 years”.
I'm not challenging you about historic facts, I'm challenging you about your claim. If it has a smallest probablity of truth then I'm sure there must be a massive English content talking about it. Just provide it.
There is massive English content about it. It's a well-documented and well-researched fact. There are Wikipedia pages about it with literally more than a hundred sources and references. It is not everyone's burden to inform you or to cure you of your ignorance. His claim is a historical fact. If you are challenging his claim, you are challenging historical facts. That is really not that hard a concept to understand unless you are arguing in bad faith. But I think we all know that the latter is the case here, just as it has been before.
Every few weeks or months someone like you or zeo come out of the woodworks to take a shit in topics like this in an attempt to muddy the water, before fucking right off again once you see that no one is buying your bullshit. Can we skip to that last part please?
Keep talking nonsense without any evidence again. Good job!
On October 14 2022 20:28 Broetchenholer wrote: What are you even arguing here? If 230k people are deported from the land and not allowed back there until 50 years later and then other people come in there and take the land that was just freed up, are you really arguing that none of that was done to allow Russians to colonize good land? Like, are you also arguing that deporting the native americans was to punish them for resisting the colonisation of their land, or to take the land that was freed up by deporting them? When was the last time that a country did atrocities and stated the true reason for them?
I'm arguing that KwarK's claim is dump and he failed to provide any evidence for it (up to now). Is that hard to understand? Posting massive questions is not a correct way to help him either unfortunately
I provided examples across a thousand miles and 400 years.
You didn’t know your history. I did. I stated a historical fact. You disputed it because you don’t know European history (which isn’t necessarily your fault). I, knowing my history, was able to support my statement. It’s now time for you to say “oh, I didn’t know Russia had been doing this for 500 years”.
I'm not challenging you about historic facts, I'm challenging you about your claim. If it has a smallest probablity of truth then I'm sure there must be a massive English content talking about it. Just provide it.
There is massive English content about it. It's a well-documented and well-researched fact. There are Wikipedia pages about it with literally more than a hundred sources and references. It is not everyone's burden to inform you or to cure you of your ignorance. His claim is a historical fact. If you are challenging his claim, you are challenging historical facts. That is really not that hard a concept to understand unless you are arguing in bad faith. But I think we all know that the latter is the case here, just as it has been before.
Every few weeks or months someone like you or zeo come out of the woodworks to take a shit in topics like this in an attempt to muddy the water, before fucking right off again once you see that no one is buying your bullshit. Can we skip to that last part please?
Keep talking nonsense without any evidence again. Good job!
What do you think the claim that needs support is?
Because people have been posting a lot of evidence, and literally no one seems to get what the fuck you are on about.
On October 14 2022 20:28 Broetchenholer wrote: What are you even arguing here? If 230k people are deported from the land and not allowed back there until 50 years later and then other people come in there and take the land that was just freed up, are you really arguing that none of that was done to allow Russians to colonize good land? Like, are you also arguing that deporting the native americans was to punish them for resisting the colonisation of their land, or to take the land that was freed up by deporting them? When was the last time that a country did atrocities and stated the true reason for them?
I'm arguing that KwarK's claim is dump and he failed to provide any evidence for it (up to now). Is that hard to understand? Posting massive questions is not a correct way to help him either unfortunately
I provided examples across a thousand miles and 400 years.
You didn’t know your history. I did. I stated a historical fact. You disputed it because you don’t know European history (which isn’t necessarily your fault). I, knowing my history, was able to support my statement. It’s now time for you to say “oh, I didn’t know Russia had been doing this for 500 years”.
I'm not challenging you about historic facts, I'm challenging you about your claim. If it has a smallest probablity of truth then I'm sure there must be a massive English content talking about it. Just provide it.
There is massive English content about it. It's a well-documented and well-researched fact. There are Wikipedia pages about it with literally more than a hundred sources and references. It is not everyone's burden to inform you or to cure you of your ignorance. His claim is a historical fact. If you are challenging his claim, you are challenging historical facts. That is really not that hard a concept to understand unless you are arguing in bad faith. But I think we all know that the latter is the case here, just as it has been before.
Every few weeks or months someone like you or zeo come out of the woodworks to take a shit in topics like this in an attempt to muddy the water, before fucking right off again once you see that no one is buying your bullshit. Can we skip to that last part please?
Keep talking nonsense without any evidence again. Good job!
What do you think the claim that needs support is?
Because people have been posting a lot of evidence, and literally no one seems to get what the fuck you are on about.
If you post evidence, you get told you don't understand what is being discussed. If you don't post evidence and tell geod that what is being discussed is well known European history, you get told you're posting without evidence. Either way, in geod's mind, geod is winning lol
On October 14 2022 20:28 Broetchenholer wrote: What are you even arguing here? If 230k people are deported from the land and not allowed back there until 50 years later and then other people come in there and take the land that was just freed up, are you really arguing that none of that was done to allow Russians to colonize good land? Like, are you also arguing that deporting the native americans was to punish them for resisting the colonisation of their land, or to take the land that was freed up by deporting them? When was the last time that a country did atrocities and stated the true reason for them?
I'm arguing that KwarK's claim is dump and he failed to provide any evidence for it (up to now). Is that hard to understand? Posting massive questions is not a correct way to help him either unfortunately
I provided examples across a thousand miles and 400 years.
You didn’t know your history. I did. I stated a historical fact. You disputed it because you don’t know European history (which isn’t necessarily your fault). I, knowing my history, was able to support my statement. It’s now time for you to say “oh, I didn’t know Russia had been doing this for 500 years”.
I'm not challenging you about historic facts, I'm challenging you about your claim. If it has a smallest probablity of truth then I'm sure there must be a massive English content talking about it. Just provide it.
There is massive English content about it. It's a well-documented and well-researched fact. There are Wikipedia pages about it with literally more than a hundred sources and references. It is not everyone's burden to inform you or to cure you of your ignorance. His claim is a historical fact. If you are challenging his claim, you are challenging historical facts. That is really not that hard a concept to understand unless you are arguing in bad faith. But I think we all know that the latter is the case here, just as it has been before.
Every few weeks or months someone like you or zeo come out of the woodworks to take a shit in topics like this in an attempt to muddy the water, before fucking right off again once you see that no one is buying your bullshit. Can we skip to that last part please?
Keep talking nonsense without any evidence again. Good job!
What do you think the claim that needs support is?
Because people have been posting a lot of evidence, and literally no one seems to get what the fuck you are on about.
If you post evidence, you get told you don't understand what is being discussed. If you don't post evidence and tell geod that what is being discussed is well known European history, you get told you're posting without evidence. Either way, in geod's mind, geod is winning lol
What's so hard for you guys to understand simple logic? Let me give you a similarity to understand his claim. French did a lot of massaces all over her colony system and it's a well known fact. Is the objective to move French people there? I doubt it. Did they do it in a systematically way following a strategic policy through-out history to expand survival space of French people? Haven't read anything remotely close to it. So please stop talking nonsense, just provide evidences, do it.
On October 14 2022 20:28 Broetchenholer wrote: What are you even arguing here? If 230k people are deported from the land and not allowed back there until 50 years later and then other people come in there and take the land that was just freed up, are you really arguing that none of that was done to allow Russians to colonize good land? Like, are you also arguing that deporting the native americans was to punish them for resisting the colonisation of their land, or to take the land that was freed up by deporting them? When was the last time that a country did atrocities and stated the true reason for them?
I'm arguing that KwarK's claim is dump and he failed to provide any evidence for it (up to now). Is that hard to understand? Posting massive questions is not a correct way to help him either unfortunately
I provided examples across a thousand miles and 400 years.
You didn’t know your history. I did. I stated a historical fact. You disputed it because you don’t know European history (which isn’t necessarily your fault). I, knowing my history, was able to support my statement. It’s now time for you to say “oh, I didn’t know Russia had been doing this for 500 years”.
I'm not challenging you about historic facts, I'm challenging you about your claim. If it has a smallest probablity of truth then I'm sure there must be a massive English content talking about it. Just provide it.
There is massive English content about it. It's a well-documented and well-researched fact. There are Wikipedia pages about it with literally more than a hundred sources and references. It is not everyone's burden to inform you or to cure you of your ignorance. His claim is a historical fact. If you are challenging his claim, you are challenging historical facts. That is really not that hard a concept to understand unless you are arguing in bad faith. But I think we all know that the latter is the case here, just as it has been before.
Every few weeks or months someone like you or zeo come out of the woodworks to take a shit in topics like this in an attempt to muddy the water, before fucking right off again once you see that no one is buying your bullshit. Can we skip to that last part please?
Keep talking nonsense without any evidence again. Good job!
What do you think the claim that needs support is?
Because people have been posting a lot of evidence, and literally no one seems to get what the fuck you are on about.
If you post evidence, you get told you don't understand what is being discussed. If you don't post evidence and tell geod that what is being discussed is well known European history, you get told you're posting without evidence. Either way, in geod's mind, geod is winning lol
What's so hard for you guys to understand simple logic? Let me give you a similarity to understand his claim. French did a lot of massaces all over her colony system and it's a well known fact. Is the objective to move French people there? I doubt it. Did they do it in a systematically way following a strategic policy through-out history to expand survival space of French people? Haven't read anything remotely close to it. So please stop talking nonsense, just provide evidences, do it.
The question was whether Russia has been doing that (it has for centuries), not whether France did (although French Canada and Louisiana come to mind).
Have missiles hit Russian cities before in this conflict? I am finding it increasingly hard to keep track, I don't remember this happening previously
They have. They have also all (I think?) been Russian missiles miss firing. just yesterday? or maybe the day before one hit an apartment building also in Belgorod.
Have missiles hit Russian cities before in this conflict? I am finding it increasingly hard to keep track, I don't remember this happening previously
Ukrainian helicopters did blow some stuff (I think it was a fuel depot) up in Belgorod, though Ukraine did not admit responsibility iirc. Ukrainian missiles did hit a military airport around Taganrog in Russia at least once.
On October 14 2022 20:28 Broetchenholer wrote: What are you even arguing here? If 230k people are deported from the land and not allowed back there until 50 years later and then other people come in there and take the land that was just freed up, are you really arguing that none of that was done to allow Russians to colonize good land? Like, are you also arguing that deporting the native americans was to punish them for resisting the colonisation of their land, or to take the land that was freed up by deporting them? When was the last time that a country did atrocities and stated the true reason for them?
I'm arguing that KwarK's claim is dump and he failed to provide any evidence for it (up to now). Is that hard to understand? Posting massive questions is not a correct way to help him either unfortunately
I provided examples across a thousand miles and 400 years.
You didn’t know your history. I did. I stated a historical fact. You disputed it because you don’t know European history (which isn’t necessarily your fault). I, knowing my history, was able to support my statement. It’s now time for you to say “oh, I didn’t know Russia had been doing this for 500 years”.
I'm not challenging you about historic facts, I'm challenging you about your claim. If it has a smallest probablity of truth then I'm sure there must be a massive English content talking about it. Just provide it.
There is massive English content about it. It's a well-documented and well-researched fact. There are Wikipedia pages about it with literally more than a hundred sources and references. It is not everyone's burden to inform you or to cure you of your ignorance. His claim is a historical fact. If you are challenging his claim, you are challenging historical facts. That is really not that hard a concept to understand unless you are arguing in bad faith. But I think we all know that the latter is the case here, just as it has been before.
Every few weeks or months someone like you or zeo come out of the woodworks to take a shit in topics like this in an attempt to muddy the water, before fucking right off again once you see that no one is buying your bullshit. Can we skip to that last part please?
Keep talking nonsense without any evidence again. Good job!
What do you think the claim that needs support is?
Because people have been posting a lot of evidence, and literally no one seems to get what the fuck you are on about.
If you post evidence, you get told you don't understand what is being discussed. If you don't post evidence and tell geod that what is being discussed is well known European history, you get told you're posting without evidence. Either way, in geod's mind, geod is winning lol
What's so hard for you guys to understand simple logic? Let me give you a similarity to understand his claim. French did a lot of massaces all over her colony system and it's a well known fact. Is the objective to move French people there? I doubt it. Did they do it in a systematically way following a strategic policy through-out history to expand survival space of French people? Haven't read anything remotely close to it. So please stop talking nonsense, just provide evidences, do it.
User was temp banned for this post.
Maybe try clicking on the link on Russification I provided next time and you won't look like such a fool to everyone here.
On October 14 2022 20:28 Broetchenholer wrote: What are you even arguing here? If 230k people are deported from the land and not allowed back there until 50 years later and then other people come in there and take the land that was just freed up, are you really arguing that none of that was done to allow Russians to colonize good land? Like, are you also arguing that deporting the native americans was to punish them for resisting the colonisation of their land, or to take the land that was freed up by deporting them? When was the last time that a country did atrocities and stated the true reason for them?
I'm arguing that KwarK's claim is dump and he failed to provide any evidence for it (up to now). Is that hard to understand? Posting massive questions is not a correct way to help him either unfortunately
I provided examples across a thousand miles and 400 years.
You didn’t know your history. I did. I stated a historical fact. You disputed it because you don’t know European history (which isn’t necessarily your fault). I, knowing my history, was able to support my statement. It’s now time for you to say “oh, I didn’t know Russia had been doing this for 500 years”.
I'm not challenging you about historic facts, I'm challenging you about your claim. If it has a smallest probablity of truth then I'm sure there must be a massive English content talking about it. Just provide it.
There is massive English content about it. It's a well-documented and well-researched fact. There are Wikipedia pages about it with literally more than a hundred sources and references. It is not everyone's burden to inform you or to cure you of your ignorance. His claim is a historical fact. If you are challenging his claim, you are challenging historical facts. That is really not that hard a concept to understand unless you are arguing in bad faith. But I think we all know that the latter is the case here, just as it has been before.
Every few weeks or months someone like you or zeo come out of the woodworks to take a shit in topics like this in an attempt to muddy the water, before fucking right off again once you see that no one is buying your bullshit. Can we skip to that last part please?
Keep talking nonsense without any evidence again. Good job!
What do you think the claim that needs support is?
Because people have been posting a lot of evidence, and literally no one seems to get what the fuck you are on about.
If you post evidence, you get told you don't understand what is being discussed. If you don't post evidence and tell geod that what is being discussed is well known European history, you get told you're posting without evidence. Either way, in geod's mind, geod is winning lol
What's so hard for you guys to understand simple logic? Let me give you a similarity to understand his claim. French did a lot of massaces all over her colony system and it's a well known fact. Is the objective to move French people there? I doubt it. Did they do it in a systematically way following a strategic policy through-out history to expand survival space of French people? Haven't read anything remotely close to it. So please stop talking nonsense, just provide evidences, do it.
User was temp banned for this post.
Of course that was the objective. The objective of any colonial system is to extract wealth for the empire and settle people there. The french might have been the most reluctant to outright conquer and displace, but that was mostly due to them having less of a military foothold. Why do you think Canada speaks French and not iroqois. Hint, it's because the French displaced native americans in order to settle the land.
It seems Ukraine's defense minister has been given good news given the way reporters have observed him. Now what the News could be is anyone's guess. Iron dome? Patriot?
BRUSSELS — Oleksii Reznikov, Ukraine’s defense minister, was in an excellent mood after several intense days of closed-door meetings at the NATO headquarters.
The Alliance hosted a meeting of defense ministers of all 30 member nations on Oct. 12-13 in Brussels. The so-called Ramstein group of 50 nations providing assistance to Ukraine amid Russia’s war also met for its sixth summit.
Ukraine was at the very center of attention in the NATO corridors, again.
Just days after Russia launched massive missile attacks against critical civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, Reznikov’s mission was to motivate the West to step up support and help Kyiv build an air defense shield.
Ukraine has been asking the West to “close the sky” over the country, by either declaring a no-fly zone or providing advanced air defense systems, since the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion. But neither of the requests has been fully satisfied.
The call for a “no-fly zone” was rejected, as it would directly involve NATO in the war – an idea the West has uncompromisingly opposed.
As for air defense systems, Ukraine’s backers have indeed been supplying them, albeit at a pace too low and in quantities too small to make a real difference. According to President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine has only about 10% of the air defense it needs.
Let me put it this way — we have picked a system and started figuring out if getting it was realistic. I’ve made an official request to my American colleague Lloyd Austin. Here during the Ramstein meeting, we finally discussed this at a high level.
What we have heard is that this option is possible. The most important thing is that the American side voiced a message on the necessity of bolstering Ukrainian air defense as soon as possible. It’s not about only the NASAMS and the IRIS-T, which are already known. In the coming weeks, we’ll see if it all works out and if certain nations are able to take on these liabilities, then we can announce what (this new air defense system) is.
The Ramstein group ministers keep telling me two things: “You are defending not just yourself but the entire democratic world.” These are not just empty words. And the second thing: “We’re reassuring you we’ll be by your side as long as it takes, in the short and the long run.”
We’re also discussing the production of new weapons and munitions. They ask me what we will need in six, eight, 12 months, they are ready to keep rendering assistance until the very end of the war. They really perceive Ukraine as the eastern shield of Europe.
Russian sphere of influence appears to be cracking at a record pace. All due to the failure in Ukraine. Imagine this being said in say 2012, not a chance.
Like I said before, the Emperor has no clothes. The more Russia loses in Ukraine, the weaker Russia will become internationally and so will Putin. In fact, even some Russians call Russia's situation a zugzwang.
It appears the East(?) Bank for Russia is close to collapsing, an update on social media tried to disprove such talk but he is in a vehicle going very fast and heading in the opposite direction...
EPT
