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 July 31 2023 01:51 KwarK wrote: You can still believe in the values of peace and tolerance while recognizing that sometimes you need 180000 tungsten balls to defend them. They’re not incompatible. The idea that using force to defend peace is somehow betraying the ideals of peace is naive and simplistic.
You can argue the benefits of peace once the fascists have been forcibly disarmed and their ideology discredited. Trying to argue it beforehand is how we got the invasion of Poland or Ukraine. The best way of dissuading someone from thinking might makes right is showing them that they’re not mighty and therefore that within their own ideology they are wrong. Once you’ve achieved that you can be magnanimous in victory. By refusing to abuse your power over them the way they planned to abuse their power over others you can demonstrate the virtues of peace.
But only after they’ve lost their power. Not before.
Is this a response to my post? If so, quoting it instead of vague posting would be appreciated so one can actually follow the conversation, and it would be important for me to know if I need to respond.
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Would you say that, if he were to be sent to the frontline, he should be accused of being an active participant in genocide?
Absolutely
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Some of the Russian soldiers who have died were completely innocent people who got thrown into the meatgrinder. You cannot reasonably argue against that.
You cannot reasonably argue it. These are armed men entering a foreign country as part of a campaign of genocide. Their role in that genocide is to shoot anyone who tries to prevent it. They are performing that role.
"Russian soldiers who are fighting for the right to genocide the Ukrainians"
Is what you said. Don't gaslight me.
Their motivation for enabling a genocide does not in any way invalidate the fact that they are engaged in it.
Russian tv proudly declares to the Russian people that they are fighting for genocide. They're not being tricked into it, they like the genocide part. This wasn't a bait and switch, they want to erase the Ukrainian culture and national identity because it refuses to submit to the natural supremacy of the Russian people.
I need evidence of that. Prove to me please that Russian state TV openly declares (without meaningful pushback) that they're planning to eradicate the Ukrainian people. I really need footage of that, and not just one soundbite. It has to be a compilation that's longer than a few minutes of random soundbites that can only be heard every few weeks or so, or from fringe radicalized stations à la Alex Jones. It has to be reputable Russian TV channels.
How about an article from Kremlin-controlled RIA Novosti (a "news wire" agency, in reality an official propaganda outlet):
It equates the Ukrainian national identity with a new, "amorphous" (i.e. lacking any traits of actual Nazism) form of Nazism that needs to be eradicated. Here's a summary from Wiki:
The article advocates for "brutal censorship" of the Ukrainian culture, large-scale "de-ukrainization" of Ukrainians on the territories occupied by Russia in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.[4][12][8]
The author insists that Ukraine's ethnocentrism is an artificial perversion,[13] that Ukraine's existence is "impossible" as a nation-state,[12] and that the word "Ukraine" itself cannot be allowed to exist.[3][4] According to the author, Ukraine should be dismantled and replaced with several states under direct control by Russia.[14] He adds that the "ethnic component of self-identification" of Ukraine would also be rejected after its occupation by Russia.[12]
The author claims that "most likely the majority" of Ukrainian civilians are "passive Nazis and Nazi accomplices. They supported the Nazi authorities and pandered to them",[12] thus, they "technically" cannot be punished as war criminals, but can be subjected to "denazification" and are to blame.[15] While Sergeytsev notes that there are no Nazi parties, symbols, racist laws, or other evidence of actual Nazism, he counters that by asserting that "Ukrainian Nazism is unique due to its amorphism and ambiguity", which is, per Timothy Snyder, equivalent to a "special Russian definition of Nazism".[5] The author asserts that Banderites are actually marginal to "Ukro-nazism", and that the real menace is Pro-Europeanism.
He claims that Ukrainians must "assimilate the experience" of the war "as a historical lesson and atonement for [their] guilt". After the war, forced labor, imprisonment and the death penalty would be used as punishment. After that, the population would be "integrated" into "Russian civilization".[12] The author describes the planned actions as a "decolonization" of Ukraine.[13][14]
According to Anton Shekhovtsov, writing in Haaretz, the article is an expanded version of a 2016 article by Russian columnist Alexander Zhuchkovsky, who is linked to Russian Imperial Movement. In that article, Zhuchkovsky called for the dehumanization of Ukrainians, saying "It is natural and right, as we are fighting not against people but against enemies, [...] not against people but against Ukrainians."[16]
Or this article, accidentally published by RIA shortly after the war (it was written as if Russia had already won the war). It talks about Putin taking a "historical responsibility of solving the Ukrainian question". Does that sound familiar?
Russian state propagandists arguing that the Ukrainian question must be solved and that they need to kill every living thing in the Kharkiv oblast. Man, woman, child.
Thank you. I wrote a rough transcript (exclamation marks and question marks of the most critical points):
(Video uploaded 1 month ago ~June/July 2023)
!? - The Ukrainian question must be solved once and for all - Kyiv is a de facto weapon of NATO to wage war against us ? - It's not enough to take their weapon away from them (i.e. from NATO), they must never get this weapon back
!? -- I think we should change the very paradigm of the special military operation -- The Great Patriotic War is starting -- This is no longer about defending Russia's new regions (annexed territory) -- Russia and the historic Russian Federation has been attacked! (referring to the towns of Shebekino and Grayvoron, near the border between Russia and Ukraine) -- People are being evacuated from Belgorod -- Russian citizens are constitutionally obligated to defend their Motherland!
- There is the Kursk region (another town somewhat near the border), there are drones in Moscow!
? --- There has to be a different approach, it's impossible to solve this through limited means. Additional forces have to be brought in, otherwise the situation will get worse for us
- Only Putin can make these decisions !!! - What comes to mind right now, I will say it again, is to destroy every living thing in the Kharkiv region as a punishment and as a deterrent
So this is the key quote: "[...] destroy every living thing in the Kharkiv region as a punishment and as a deterrent [...]"
That is referring to Putin's decision. It's a suggestion by the woman from the TV channel (since it's scripted, it would be written and approved by the channel).
My question would be two-fold: Was this clearly suggested already prior to the waves of mobilization or only after? Are the Russian soldiers at the front free to access this channel? And how often do they realistically receive news updates from that TV station (considering they're often busy fighting)?
You’re not really arguing in good faith here. You keep adding layer after layer of additional evidence I must provide. It’s not reasonable to argue in this way. If I were to provide evidence of the same rhetoric before mobilization you would simply ask for proof that the Russian soldiers had access to those broadcasts. If I provided that then you’d ask for proof that specific Russian soldiers heard them.
Of course I'm adding layers, because there's a difference between what's being said on TV and what realistically reaches the Russian people and the soldiers. I'm not asking you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is happening, but I will be trying to gauge which conclusion is the most reasonable. Either no Russian soldier can be brainwashed into believing that this war is just (i.e. all of them should be aware that they're partaking in genocide), in which case your conclusion would be the correct one. Or some Russian soldiers can be brainwashed despite this information being out there because they don't access it, or not at the right time, to be able to realize before it's too late for them to make a U-turn (i.e. some of them can reasonably be unaware of their participation in genocide).
An accusation of participation in genocide is very severe. An accusation of enabling genocide is extremely dangerous. An accusation of direct genocide is inexcusable unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There have to be layers, I'm sorry. I don't like it, but this is the standard that I live by. Justice can only be served when standards are very high.
From this footage I can conclude that your point of view ("there are no good Russian soldiers") does sound reasonable. I repeat: your point of view from our first clash does sound reasonable. I concede that. If we'd had this discussion last time with TV footage of an uncritical call for genocide being available to us, our altercation would've gone very differently.
This doesn't mean I should uncritically accept that my view is therefore unreasonable. Do you see why?
On July 31 2023 01:51 KwarK wrote: You can still believe in the values of peace and tolerance while recognizing that sometimes you need 180000 tungsten balls to defend them. They’re not incompatible. The idea that using force to defend peace is somehow betraying the ideals of peace is naive and simplistic.
You can argue the benefits of peace once the fascists have been forcibly disarmed and their ideology discredited. Trying to argue it beforehand is how we got the invasion of Poland or Ukraine. The best way of dissuading someone from thinking might makes right is showing them that they’re not mighty and therefore that within their own ideology they are wrong. Once you’ve achieved that you can be magnanimous in victory. By refusing to abuse your power over them the way they planned to abuse their power over others you can demonstrate the virtues of peace.
But only after they’ve lost their power. Not before.
Is this a response to my post? If so, quoting it instead of vague posting would be appreciated so one can actually follow the conversation, and it would be important for me to know if I need to respond.
Yes, sorry.
In that case you found yourself not only to be wrong by historic evidence that suggest this does not work, but instead will rally the population against the attacker. You also added "supports potential war crimes when its against people he doesn't like" to what I accuse you of, as the terrorbombings like they were carried out in ww2 are widely accepted today as "would probably be considered a war crime". Your post also gives off the impression that I am arguing against resiting, when all I said is "hey maybe don't argue for indiscriminately bombing civilians", which I am past granting you the benefit of the doubt and just gonna call straight up disingenuous. There is a whole range of options that are outside of "possibly war crimes that will also most likely rally the opposing population behind the war effort", like conducting a war within the rules of war, which is exactly what ukraine has done so far. I never alluded to using force is betraying peace, I am saying that doing things that are completely opposite to western values is betraying western values - like advocating for war crimes.
Your response greatly demonstrates what I said about your posts earlier: They sound great, almost like you are running for some populist tl election, throwing around great sounding phrases with much pathos - and then I start to think about what you actually said and discover how vile it is.
Russian state propagandists arguing that the Ukrainian question must be solved and that they need to kill every living thing in the Kharkiv oblast. Man, woman, child.
Thank you. I wrote a rough transcript (exclamation marks and question marks of the most critical points):
(Video uploaded 1 month ago ~June/July 2023)
!? - The Ukrainian question must be solved once and for all - Kyiv is a de facto weapon of NATO to wage war against us ? - It's not enough to take their weapon away from them (i.e. from NATO), they must never get this weapon back
!? -- I think we should change the very paradigm of the special military operation -- The Great Patriotic War is starting -- This is no longer about defending Russia's new regions (annexed territory) -- Russia and the historic Russian Federation has been attacked! (referring to the towns of Shebekino and Grayvoron, near the border between Russia and Ukraine) -- People are being evacuated from Belgorod -- Russian citizens are constitutionally obligated to defend their Motherland!
- There is the Kursk region (another town somewhat near the border), there are drones in Moscow!
? --- There has to be a different approach, it's impossible to solve this through limited means. Additional forces have to be brought in, otherwise the situation will get worse for us
- Only Putin can make these decisions !!! - What comes to mind right now, I will say it again, is to destroy every living thing in the Kharkiv region as a punishment and as a deterrent
So this is the key quote: "[...] destroy every living thing in the Kharkiv region as a punishment and as a deterrent [...]"
That is referring to Putin's decision. It's a suggestion by the woman from the TV channel (since it's scripted, it would be written and approved by the channel).
My question would be two-fold: Was this clearly suggested already prior to the waves of mobilization or only after? Are the Russian soldiers at the front free to access this channel? And how often do they realistically receive news updates from that TV station (considering they're often busy fighting)?
You’re not really arguing in good faith here. You keep adding layer after layer of additional evidence I must provide. It’s not reasonable to argue in this way. If I were to provide evidence of the same rhetoric before mobilization you would simply ask for proof that the Russian soldiers had access to those broadcasts. If I provided that then you’d ask for proof that specific Russian soldiers heard them.
Of course I'm adding layers, because there's a difference between what's being said on TV and what realistically reaches the Russian people and the soldiers. I'm not asking you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is happening, but I will be trying to gauge which conclusion is the most reasonable. Either no Russian soldier can be brainwashed into believing that this war is just (i.e. all of them should be aware that they're partaking in genocide), in which case your conclusion would be the correct one. Or some Russian soldiers can be brainwashed despite this information being out there because they don't access it, or not at the right time, to be able to realize before it's too late for them to make a U-turn (i.e. some of them can reasonably be unaware of their participation in genocide).
An accusation of participation in genocide is very severe. An accusation of enabling genocide is extremely dangerous. An accusation of direct genocide is inexcusable unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There have to be layers, I'm sorry. I don't like it, but this is the standard that I live by. Justice can only be served when standards are very high.
From this footage I can conclude that your point of view ("there are no good Russian soldiers") does sound reasonable. I repeat: your point of view from our first clash does sound reasonable. I concede that. If we'd had this discussion last time with TV footage of an uncritical call for genocide being available to us, our altercation would've gone very differently.
This doesn't mean I should uncritically accept that my view is therefore unreasonable. Do you see why?
Whether they're aware of it is completely irrelevant to whether they're enabling/perpetrating a genocide. Why is it so hard to grasp?
Also, Russian propaganda has been replete with calls for genocide (although euphemistically phrased), mass war crimes, and nuclear annihilation of the West throughout the war. How come you're not aware of this and yet make so many comments on how Russian propaganda may affect Russian soldiers?
On July 31 2023 01:33 Liquid`Drone wrote: Guilt exists on a spectrum. You can say that Putin, not the soldiers or random russians are the ones responsible for the war, but likewise, 'innocent' should be reserved for people who did more than accept what is happening.
The climate change parallel is quite apt tbh. There are some people who have pushed consumerism and consumption of fossil fuels and destruction of forests to produce more beef and these people are more responsible, but if your biological footprint is greater than 1, you are not innocent. Your vegan friend who bikes everywhere, refuses to fly, wears only second hand clothing and adds an extra layer of clothing rather than increases the heat during winter might be, but a solid 98%+ of people in western countries are not.
For me the parallel that came to mind is an illegal annexation/occupation and ethnic cleansing campaign that the US and many European governments are arming, training, and subsidizing. If we were to apply some of the reasoning from the last several pages, it's a lot of pot calling the kettle black imo.
Which one are you referring to here? Israel?
I think it’s Chinas dictatorship, given it’s slavery and imperialism (all the awful that comes with it) and how the west happily allows it as long as we get cheap stuff.
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Would you say that, if he were to be sent to the frontline, he should be accused of being an active participant in genocide?
Absolutely
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Some of the Russian soldiers who have died were completely innocent people who got thrown into the meatgrinder. You cannot reasonably argue against that.
You cannot reasonably argue it. These are armed men entering a foreign country as part of a campaign of genocide. Their role in that genocide is to shoot anyone who tries to prevent it. They are performing that role.
"Russian soldiers who are fighting for the right to genocide the Ukrainians"
Is what you said. Don't gaslight me.
Their motivation for enabling a genocide does not in any way invalidate the fact that they are engaged in it.
Russian tv proudly declares to the Russian people that they are fighting for genocide. They're not being tricked into it, they like the genocide part. This wasn't a bait and switch, they want to erase the Ukrainian culture and national identity because it refuses to submit to the natural supremacy of the Russian people.
I need evidence of that. Prove to me please that Russian state TV openly declares (without meaningful pushback) that they're planning to eradicate the Ukrainian people. I really need footage of that, and not just one soundbite. It has to be a compilation that's longer than a few minutes of random soundbites that can only be heard every few weeks or so, or from fringe radicalized stations à la Alex Jones. It has to be reputable Russian TV channels.
How about an article from Kremlin-controlled RIA Novosti (a "news wire" agency, in reality an official propaganda outlet):
It equates the Ukrainian national identity with a new, "amorphous" (i.e. lacking any traits of actual Nazism) form of Nazism that needs to be eradicated. Here's a summary from Wiki:
The article advocates for "brutal censorship" of the Ukrainian culture, large-scale "de-ukrainization" of Ukrainians on the territories occupied by Russia in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.[4][12][8]
The author insists that Ukraine's ethnocentrism is an artificial perversion,[13] that Ukraine's existence is "impossible" as a nation-state,[12] and that the word "Ukraine" itself cannot be allowed to exist.[3][4] According to the author, Ukraine should be dismantled and replaced with several states under direct control by Russia.[14] He adds that the "ethnic component of self-identification" of Ukraine would also be rejected after its occupation by Russia.[12]
The author claims that "most likely the majority" of Ukrainian civilians are "passive Nazis and Nazi accomplices. They supported the Nazi authorities and pandered to them",[12] thus, they "technically" cannot be punished as war criminals, but can be subjected to "denazification" and are to blame.[15] While Sergeytsev notes that there are no Nazi parties, symbols, racist laws, or other evidence of actual Nazism, he counters that by asserting that "Ukrainian Nazism is unique due to its amorphism and ambiguity", which is, per Timothy Snyder, equivalent to a "special Russian definition of Nazism".[5] The author asserts that Banderites are actually marginal to "Ukro-nazism", and that the real menace is Pro-Europeanism.
He claims that Ukrainians must "assimilate the experience" of the war "as a historical lesson and atonement for [their] guilt". After the war, forced labor, imprisonment and the death penalty would be used as punishment. After that, the population would be "integrated" into "Russian civilization".[12] The author describes the planned actions as a "decolonization" of Ukraine.[13][14]
According to Anton Shekhovtsov, writing in Haaretz, the article is an expanded version of a 2016 article by Russian columnist Alexander Zhuchkovsky, who is linked to Russian Imperial Movement. In that article, Zhuchkovsky called for the dehumanization of Ukrainians, saying "It is natural and right, as we are fighting not against people but against enemies, [...] not against people but against Ukrainians."[16]
Or this article, accidentally published by RIA shortly after the war (it was written as if Russia had already won the war). It talks about Putin taking a "historical responsibility of solving the Ukrainian question". Does that sound familiar?
That article works as evidence, thanks.
A major issue I see with this one is that the like-to-dislike ratio is 1 : 8.7 even though the target audience is Russians. This indicates that it's mostly non-Russians who've read it. Otherwise it would imply that Russians clearly don't like what's being written. Either way it couldn't have negatively affected the minds of very many Russian soldiers or would-be-soldiers.
On July 31 2023 01:51 KwarK wrote: You can still believe in the values of peace and tolerance while recognizing that sometimes you need 180000 tungsten balls to defend them. They’re not incompatible. The idea that using force to defend peace is somehow betraying the ideals of peace is naive and simplistic.
You can argue the benefits of peace once the fascists have been forcibly disarmed and their ideology discredited. Trying to argue it beforehand is how we got the invasion of Poland or Ukraine. The best way of dissuading someone from thinking might makes right is showing them that they’re not mighty and therefore that within their own ideology they are wrong. Once you’ve achieved that you can be magnanimous in victory. By refusing to abuse your power over them the way they planned to abuse their power over others you can demonstrate the virtues of peace.
But only after they’ve lost their power. Not before.
Is this a response to my post? If so, quoting it instead of vague posting would be appreciated so one can actually follow the conversation, and it would be important for me to know if I need to respond.
Yes, sorry.
In that case you found yourself not only to be wrong by historic evidence that suggest this does not work, but instead will rally the population against the attacker. You also added "supports potential war crimes when its against people he doesn't like" to what I accuse you of, as the terrorbombings like they were carried out in ww2 are widely accepted today as "would probably be considered a war crime". Your post also gives off the impression that I am arguing against resiting, when all I said is "hey maybe don't argue for indiscriminately bombing civilians", which I am past granting you the benefit of the doubt and just gonna call straight up disingenuous. There is a whole range of options that are outside of "possibly war crimes that will also most likely rally the opposing population behind the war effort", like conducting a war within the rules of war, which is exactly what ukraine has done so far. I never alluded to using force is betraying peace, I am saying that doing things that are completely opposite to western values is betraying western values - like advocating for war crimes.
Your response greatly demonstrates what I said about your posts earlier: They sound great, almost like you are running for some populist tl election, throwing around great sounding phrases with much pathos - and then I start to think about what you actually said and discover how vile it is.
The example of the blitz rallying people against Germany is an example of the strength of democracy and of the lengths peaceful people will go to to preserve peace. Injustice doesn’t defeat people who believe in justice, it motivates them. They fight for justice.
It doesn’t apply the same when you’re bombing fascists because fascists believe that might makes right. They fight for the right to bomb the weak, to them that is justice. Getting a bomb to the face is fully in line with their ideology, it’s what they believe the weak deserve for not submitting to the strong. They’re absolutely on board with bombing the weak, they just didn’t think it would be them. They don’t think that being bombed is unjust, they think that maybe it’s time to submit. Large proportions of the German state were successfully convinced by violence that Germany should submit but unfortunately Hitler kept surviving assassination attempts. And large portions of the German state were successfully convinced to follow his madness in the first place precisely because of the lack of violence in response. Had the French mobilized in 1936 Hitler would have been discredited.
It’s simply arguing with fascists in the only language they understand. It shouldn’t be the first argument used and it wasn’t. It wasn’t at Munich and it wasn’t with Crimea. But when all other arguments have been exhausted it is the one that is left.
For the record I don’t especially object to the bombing of Germany in WW2. No people making gas, no gas chambers. If the Nazis hadn’t been so comically evil then they wouldn’t have required such extreme steps to stop them. But they were. If, in 1939, the allies had possessed nuclear weapons and had proceeded to nuke German cities, one by one, until Germany surrendered then the world would have been a better place and a lot of good people would have lived. That includes the Germans themselves who would have been saved the Red Army’s atrocities, the millions of other war related casualties, and the subsequent ethnic cleaning of Germans from Eastern Europe.
Fascism is a disease that also destroys the host. It’s no crime to cure it.
Russian state propagandists arguing that the Ukrainian question must be solved and that they need to kill every living thing in the Kharkiv oblast. Man, woman, child.
Thank you. I wrote a rough transcript (exclamation marks and question marks of the most critical points):
(Video uploaded 1 month ago ~June/July 2023)
!? - The Ukrainian question must be solved once and for all - Kyiv is a de facto weapon of NATO to wage war against us ? - It's not enough to take their weapon away from them (i.e. from NATO), they must never get this weapon back
!? -- I think we should change the very paradigm of the special military operation -- The Great Patriotic War is starting -- This is no longer about defending Russia's new regions (annexed territory) -- Russia and the historic Russian Federation has been attacked! (referring to the towns of Shebekino and Grayvoron, near the border between Russia and Ukraine) -- People are being evacuated from Belgorod -- Russian citizens are constitutionally obligated to defend their Motherland!
- There is the Kursk region (another town somewhat near the border), there are drones in Moscow!
? --- There has to be a different approach, it's impossible to solve this through limited means. Additional forces have to be brought in, otherwise the situation will get worse for us
- Only Putin can make these decisions !!! - What comes to mind right now, I will say it again, is to destroy every living thing in the Kharkiv region as a punishment and as a deterrent
So this is the key quote: "[...] destroy every living thing in the Kharkiv region as a punishment and as a deterrent [...]"
That is referring to Putin's decision. It's a suggestion by the woman from the TV channel (since it's scripted, it would be written and approved by the channel).
My question would be two-fold: Was this clearly suggested already prior to the waves of mobilization or only after? Are the Russian soldiers at the front free to access this channel? And how often do they realistically receive news updates from that TV station (considering they're often busy fighting)?
You’re not really arguing in good faith here. You keep adding layer after layer of additional evidence I must provide. It’s not reasonable to argue in this way. If I were to provide evidence of the same rhetoric before mobilization you would simply ask for proof that the Russian soldiers had access to those broadcasts. If I provided that then you’d ask for proof that specific Russian soldiers heard them.
Of course I'm adding layers, because there's a difference between what's being said on TV and what realistically reaches the Russian people and the soldiers. I'm not asking you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is happening, but I will be trying to gauge which conclusion is the most reasonable. Either no Russian soldier can be brainwashed into believing that this war is just (i.e. all of them should be aware that they're partaking in genocide), in which case your conclusion would be the correct one. Or some Russian soldiers can be brainwashed despite this information being out there because they don't access it, or not at the right time, to be able to realize before it's too late for them to make a U-turn (i.e. some of them can reasonably be unaware of their participation in genocide).
An accusation of participation in genocide is very severe. An accusation of enabling genocide is extremely dangerous. An accusation of direct genocide is inexcusable unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There have to be layers, I'm sorry. I don't like it, but this is the standard that I live by. Justice can only be served when standards are very high.
From this footage I can conclude that your point of view ("there are no good Russian soldiers") does sound reasonable. I repeat: your point of view from our first clash does sound reasonable. I concede that. If we'd had this discussion last time with TV footage of an uncritical call for genocide being available to us, our altercation would've gone very differently.
This doesn't mean I should uncritically accept that my view is therefore unreasonable. Do you see why?
Whether they're aware of it is completely irrelevant to whether they're enabling/perpetrating a genocide. Why is it so hard to grasp?
Also, Russian propaganda has been replete with calls for genocide (although euphemistically phrased), mass war crimes, and nuclear annihilation of the West throughout the war. How come you're not aware of this and yet make so many comments on how Russian propaganda may affect Russian soldiers?
Because to us it may seem that calls for genocide are literally everywhere (because non-Russians are going out of their way to discover it and spread the word), while the reality for Russian soldiers per se may look very different. Clearly there are many bad Russian soldiers. But my understanding of people is that they're generally not evil unless proven otherwise.
My assumption is always that most people are morally neutral, and some are excplicitly good. For Russian people I don't do it differently. The American people were in favor of segregation during the first half of the 20th century. But they were certainly not in favor of racial genocide. I have a very hard time believing that somehow the circumstances have made it so all Russian soldiers are determined to erase Ukraine from the map and commit acts of genocide against Ukrainian people. It would blow my mind if a state aparatus were able to so cleanly weed out all the remaining soldiers who are, for the most part, in the wrong place at the wrong time, and those who have no way out. Especially the Russian state aparatus, which isn't known for efficiency like that.
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Would you say that, if he were to be sent to the frontline, he should be accused of being an active participant in genocide?
Absolutely
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Some of the Russian soldiers who have died were completely innocent people who got thrown into the meatgrinder. You cannot reasonably argue against that.
You cannot reasonably argue it. These are armed men entering a foreign country as part of a campaign of genocide. Their role in that genocide is to shoot anyone who tries to prevent it. They are performing that role.
"Russian soldiers who are fighting for the right to genocide the Ukrainians"
Is what you said. Don't gaslight me.
Their motivation for enabling a genocide does not in any way invalidate the fact that they are engaged in it.
Russian tv proudly declares to the Russian people that they are fighting for genocide. They're not being tricked into it, they like the genocide part. This wasn't a bait and switch, they want to erase the Ukrainian culture and national identity because it refuses to submit to the natural supremacy of the Russian people.
I need evidence of that. Prove to me please that Russian state TV openly declares (without meaningful pushback) that they're planning to eradicate the Ukrainian people. I really need footage of that, and not just one soundbite. It has to be a compilation that's longer than a few minutes of random soundbites that can only be heard every few weeks or so, or from fringe radicalized stations à la Alex Jones. It has to be reputable Russian TV channels.
How about an article from Kremlin-controlled RIA Novosti (a "news wire" agency, in reality an official propaganda outlet):
It equates the Ukrainian national identity with a new, "amorphous" (i.e. lacking any traits of actual Nazism) form of Nazism that needs to be eradicated. Here's a summary from Wiki:
The article advocates for "brutal censorship" of the Ukrainian culture, large-scale "de-ukrainization" of Ukrainians on the territories occupied by Russia in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.[4][12][8]
The author insists that Ukraine's ethnocentrism is an artificial perversion,[13] that Ukraine's existence is "impossible" as a nation-state,[12] and that the word "Ukraine" itself cannot be allowed to exist.[3][4] According to the author, Ukraine should be dismantled and replaced with several states under direct control by Russia.[14] He adds that the "ethnic component of self-identification" of Ukraine would also be rejected after its occupation by Russia.[12]
The author claims that "most likely the majority" of Ukrainian civilians are "passive Nazis and Nazi accomplices. They supported the Nazi authorities and pandered to them",[12] thus, they "technically" cannot be punished as war criminals, but can be subjected to "denazification" and are to blame.[15] While Sergeytsev notes that there are no Nazi parties, symbols, racist laws, or other evidence of actual Nazism, he counters that by asserting that "Ukrainian Nazism is unique due to its amorphism and ambiguity", which is, per Timothy Snyder, equivalent to a "special Russian definition of Nazism".[5] The author asserts that Banderites are actually marginal to "Ukro-nazism", and that the real menace is Pro-Europeanism.
He claims that Ukrainians must "assimilate the experience" of the war "as a historical lesson and atonement for [their] guilt". After the war, forced labor, imprisonment and the death penalty would be used as punishment. After that, the population would be "integrated" into "Russian civilization".[12] The author describes the planned actions as a "decolonization" of Ukraine.[13][14]
According to Anton Shekhovtsov, writing in Haaretz, the article is an expanded version of a 2016 article by Russian columnist Alexander Zhuchkovsky, who is linked to Russian Imperial Movement. In that article, Zhuchkovsky called for the dehumanization of Ukrainians, saying "It is natural and right, as we are fighting not against people but against enemies, [...] not against people but against Ukrainians."[16]
Or this article, accidentally published by RIA shortly after the war (it was written as if Russia had already won the war). It talks about Putin taking a "historical responsibility of solving the Ukrainian question". Does that sound familiar?
That article works as evidence, thanks.
A major issue I see with this one is that the like-to-dislike ratio is 1 : 8.7 even though the target audience is Russians. This indicates that it's mostly non-Russians who've read it. Otherwise it would imply that Russians clearly don't like what's being written. Either way it couldn't have negatively affected the minds of very many Russian soldiers or would-be-soldiers.
This sort of rhetoric has been present in Russia's mainstream media throughout the war. As for the likes/dislikes ratio, keep in mind the article has been widely shared in the West, as well as the fact that most Ukrainians can read Russian.
On July 31 2023 01:51 KwarK wrote: You can still believe in the values of peace and tolerance while recognizing that sometimes you need 180000 tungsten balls to defend them. They’re not incompatible. The idea that using force to defend peace is somehow betraying the ideals of peace is naive and simplistic.
You can argue the benefits of peace once the fascists have been forcibly disarmed and their ideology discredited. Trying to argue it beforehand is how we got the invasion of Poland or Ukraine. The best way of dissuading someone from thinking might makes right is showing them that they’re not mighty and therefore that within their own ideology they are wrong. Once you’ve achieved that you can be magnanimous in victory. By refusing to abuse your power over them the way they planned to abuse their power over others you can demonstrate the virtues of peace.
But only after they’ve lost their power. Not before.
Is this a response to my post? If so, quoting it instead of vague posting would be appreciated so one can actually follow the conversation, and it would be important for me to know if I need to respond.
Yes, sorry.
In that case you found yourself not only to be wrong by historic evidence that suggest this does not work, but instead will rally the population against the attacker. You also added "supports potential war crimes when its against people he doesn't like" to what I accuse you of, as the terrorbombings like they were carried out in ww2 are widely accepted today as "would probably be considered a war crime". Your post also gives off the impression that I am arguing against resiting, when all I said is "hey maybe don't argue for indiscriminately bombing civilians", which I am past granting you the benefit of the doubt and just gonna call straight up disingenuous. There is a whole range of options that are outside of "possibly war crimes that will also most likely rally the opposing population behind the war effort", like conducting a war within the rules of war, which is exactly what ukraine has done so far. I never alluded to using force is betraying peace, I am saying that doing things that are completely opposite to western values is betraying western values - like advocating for war crimes.
Your response greatly demonstrates what I said about your posts earlier: They sound great, almost like you are running for some populist tl election, throwing around great sounding phrases with much pathos - and then I start to think about what you actually said and discover how vile it is.
The example of the blitz rallying people against Germany is an example of the strength of democracy and of the lengths peaceful people will go to to preserve peace. Injustice doesn’t defeat people who believe in justice, it motivates them. They fight for justice.
It doesn’t apply the same when you’re bombing fascists because fascists believe that might makes right. They fight for the right to bomb the weak, to them that is justice. Getting a bomb to the face is fully in line with their ideology, it’s what they believe the weak deserve for not submitting to the strong. They’re absolutely on board with bombing the weak, they just didn’t think it would be them. They don’t think that being bombed is unjust, they think that maybe it’s time to submit. Large proportions of the German state were successfully convinced by violence that Germany should submit but unfortunately Hitler kept surviving assassination attempts.
It’s simply arguing with fascists in the only language they understand. It shouldn’t be the first argument used and it wasn’t. It wasn’t at Munich and it wasn’t with Crimea. But when all other arguments have been exhausted it is the one that is left.
For the record I don’t especially object to the bombing of Germany in WW2. No people making gas, no gas chambers. If the Nazis hadn’t been so comically evil then they wouldn’t have required such extreme steps to stop them. But they were. If, in 1939, the allies had possessed nuclear weapons and had proceeded to nuke German cities, one by one, until Germany surrendered then the world would have been a better place and a lot of good people would have lived. That includes the Germans themselves who would have been saved the Red Army’s atrocities, the millions of other war related casualties, and the subsequent ethnic cleaning of Germans from Eastern Europe.
Fascism is a disease that also destroys the host. It’s no crime to cure it.
Like I said, just vile shit when you think about it. "Ends justify the means" and its only evil if the evildoers are doing it... You are no champion of western values, you are just an extremist who's views are incompatible with western values.
Also just as a hint: The terrorbombing of german cities did just the same as the one against allied ones: It rallied the population behind the war effort. At best you shoot yourself in the foot, at worst you become a war criminal. People like you are what I call morally lucky. Absolutely despicable, but you are doing it for the right side so people don't call you out. You got much more in common with some of the wehrmacht soldiers that you like to rant on about. Not in ideology, but that you are willing to do wrong for what you perceive to be a right cause.
On July 31 2023 02:51 Magic Powers wrote: The American people were in favor of segregation during the first half of the 20th century. But they were certainly not in favor of racial genocide.
On July 31 2023 01:51 KwarK wrote: You can still believe in the values of peace and tolerance while recognizing that sometimes you need 180000 tungsten balls to defend them. They’re not incompatible. The idea that using force to defend peace is somehow betraying the ideals of peace is naive and simplistic.
You can argue the benefits of peace once the fascists have been forcibly disarmed and their ideology discredited. Trying to argue it beforehand is how we got the invasion of Poland or Ukraine. The best way of dissuading someone from thinking might makes right is showing them that they’re not mighty and therefore that within their own ideology they are wrong. Once you’ve achieved that you can be magnanimous in victory. By refusing to abuse your power over them the way they planned to abuse their power over others you can demonstrate the virtues of peace.
But only after they’ve lost their power. Not before.
Is this a response to my post? If so, quoting it instead of vague posting would be appreciated so one can actually follow the conversation, and it would be important for me to know if I need to respond.
Yes, sorry.
In that case you found yourself not only to be wrong by historic evidence that suggest this does not work, but instead will rally the population against the attacker. You also added "supports potential war crimes when its against people he doesn't like" to what I accuse you of, as the terrorbombings like they were carried out in ww2 are widely accepted today as "would probably be considered a war crime". Your post also gives off the impression that I am arguing against resiting, when all I said is "hey maybe don't argue for indiscriminately bombing civilians", which I am past granting you the benefit of the doubt and just gonna call straight up disingenuous. There is a whole range of options that are outside of "possibly war crimes that will also most likely rally the opposing population behind the war effort", like conducting a war within the rules of war, which is exactly what ukraine has done so far. I never alluded to using force is betraying peace, I am saying that doing things that are completely opposite to western values is betraying western values - like advocating for war crimes.
Your response greatly demonstrates what I said about your posts earlier: They sound great, almost like you are running for some populist tl election, throwing around great sounding phrases with much pathos - and then I start to think about what you actually said and discover how vile it is.
The example of the blitz rallying people against Germany is an example of the strength of democracy and of the lengths peaceful people will go to to preserve peace. Injustice doesn’t defeat people who believe in justice, it motivates them. They fight for justice.
It doesn’t apply the same when you’re bombing fascists because fascists believe that might makes right. They fight for the right to bomb the weak, to them that is justice. Getting a bomb to the face is fully in line with their ideology, it’s what they believe the weak deserve for not submitting to the strong. They’re absolutely on board with bombing the weak, they just didn’t think it would be them. They don’t think that being bombed is unjust, they think that maybe it’s time to submit. Large proportions of the German state were successfully convinced by violence that Germany should submit but unfortunately Hitler kept surviving assassination attempts.
It’s simply arguing with fascists in the only language they understand. It shouldn’t be the first argument used and it wasn’t. It wasn’t at Munich and it wasn’t with Crimea. But when all other arguments have been exhausted it is the one that is left.
For the record I don’t especially object to the bombing of Germany in WW2. No people making gas, no gas chambers. If the Nazis hadn’t been so comically evil then they wouldn’t have required such extreme steps to stop them. But they were. If, in 1939, the allies had possessed nuclear weapons and had proceeded to nuke German cities, one by one, until Germany surrendered then the world would have been a better place and a lot of good people would have lived. That includes the Germans themselves who would have been saved the Red Army’s atrocities, the millions of other war related casualties, and the subsequent ethnic cleaning of Germans from Eastern Europe.
Fascism is a disease that also destroys the host. It’s no crime to cure it.
Like I said, just vile shit when you think about it. "Ends justify the means" and its only evil if the evildoers are doing it... You are no champion of western values, you are just an extremist who's views are incompatible with western values.
Also just as a hint: The terrorbombing of german cities did just the same as the one against allied ones: It rallied the population behind the war effort. At best you shoot yourself in the foot, at worst you become a war criminal. People like you are what I call morally lucky. Absolutely despicable, but you are doing it for the right side so people don't call you out. You got much more in common with some of the wehrmacht soldiers that you like to rant on about. Not in ideology, but that you are willing to do wrong for what you perceive to be a right cause.
Back to “intolerance of Nazis makes you the real Nazi” I see. The key difference isn’t the methods but the context. The Nazi believes violence is the first resort, I believe it is the last. The Nazi believes that violence is the goal, I believe that disarming the Nazi and ending the violence is the goal. But let’s agree to disagree.
Russian state propagandists arguing that the Ukrainian question must be solved and that they need to kill every living thing in the Kharkiv oblast. Man, woman, child.
Thank you. I wrote a rough transcript (exclamation marks and question marks of the most critical points):
(Video uploaded 1 month ago ~June/July 2023)
!? - The Ukrainian question must be solved once and for all - Kyiv is a de facto weapon of NATO to wage war against us ? - It's not enough to take their weapon away from them (i.e. from NATO), they must never get this weapon back
!? -- I think we should change the very paradigm of the special military operation -- The Great Patriotic War is starting -- This is no longer about defending Russia's new regions (annexed territory) -- Russia and the historic Russian Federation has been attacked! (referring to the towns of Shebekino and Grayvoron, near the border between Russia and Ukraine) -- People are being evacuated from Belgorod -- Russian citizens are constitutionally obligated to defend their Motherland!
- There is the Kursk region (another town somewhat near the border), there are drones in Moscow!
? --- There has to be a different approach, it's impossible to solve this through limited means. Additional forces have to be brought in, otherwise the situation will get worse for us
- Only Putin can make these decisions !!! - What comes to mind right now, I will say it again, is to destroy every living thing in the Kharkiv region as a punishment and as a deterrent
So this is the key quote: "[...] destroy every living thing in the Kharkiv region as a punishment and as a deterrent [...]"
That is referring to Putin's decision. It's a suggestion by the woman from the TV channel (since it's scripted, it would be written and approved by the channel).
My question would be two-fold: Was this clearly suggested already prior to the waves of mobilization or only after? Are the Russian soldiers at the front free to access this channel? And how often do they realistically receive news updates from that TV station (considering they're often busy fighting)?
You’re not really arguing in good faith here. You keep adding layer after layer of additional evidence I must provide. It’s not reasonable to argue in this way. If I were to provide evidence of the same rhetoric before mobilization you would simply ask for proof that the Russian soldiers had access to those broadcasts. If I provided that then you’d ask for proof that specific Russian soldiers heard them.
Of course I'm adding layers, because there's a difference between what's being said on TV and what realistically reaches the Russian people and the soldiers. I'm not asking you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is happening, but I will be trying to gauge which conclusion is the most reasonable. Either no Russian soldier can be brainwashed into believing that this war is just (i.e. all of them should be aware that they're partaking in genocide), in which case your conclusion would be the correct one. Or some Russian soldiers can be brainwashed despite this information being out there because they don't access it, or not at the right time, to be able to realize before it's too late for them to make a U-turn (i.e. some of them can reasonably be unaware of their participation in genocide).
An accusation of participation in genocide is very severe. An accusation of enabling genocide is extremely dangerous. An accusation of direct genocide is inexcusable unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There have to be layers, I'm sorry. I don't like it, but this is the standard that I live by. Justice can only be served when standards are very high.
From this footage I can conclude that your point of view ("there are no good Russian soldiers") does sound reasonable. I repeat: your point of view from our first clash does sound reasonable. I concede that. If we'd had this discussion last time with TV footage of an uncritical call for genocide being available to us, our altercation would've gone very differently.
This doesn't mean I should uncritically accept that my view is therefore unreasonable. Do you see why?
Whether they're aware of it is completely irrelevant to whether they're enabling/perpetrating a genocide. Why is it so hard to grasp?
Also, Russian propaganda has been replete with calls for genocide (although euphemistically phrased), mass war crimes, and nuclear annihilation of the West throughout the war. How come you're not aware of this and yet make so many comments on how Russian propaganda may affect Russian soldiers?
Because to us it may seem that calls for genocide are literally everywhere (because non-Russians are going out of their way to discover it and spread the word), while the reality for Russian soldiers per se may look very different. Clearly there are many bad Russian soldiers. But my understanding of people is that they're generally not evil unless proven otherwise.
My assumption is always that most people are morally neutral, and some are excplicitly good. For Russian people I don't do it differently. The American people were in favor of segregation during the first half of the 20th century. But they were certainly not in favor of racial genocide. I have a very hard time believing that somehow the circumstances have made it so all Russian soldiers are determined to erase Ukraine from the map and commit acts of genocide against Ukrainian people. It would blow my mind if a state aparatus were able to so cleanly weed out all the remaining soldiers who are, for the most part, in the wrong place at the wrong time, and those who have no way out. Especially the Russian state aparatus, which isn't known for efficiency like that.
Again, whether Russian soldiers are aware of participating in a genocide is completely irrelevant to whether they are enabling one to happen. Why is it so hard to grasp?
Russian state propagandists arguing that the Ukrainian question must be solved and that they need to kill every living thing in the Kharkiv oblast. Man, woman, child.
Thank you. I wrote a rough transcript (exclamation marks and question marks of the most critical points):
(Video uploaded 1 month ago ~June/July 2023)
!? - The Ukrainian question must be solved once and for all - Kyiv is a de facto weapon of NATO to wage war against us ? - It's not enough to take their weapon away from them (i.e. from NATO), they must never get this weapon back
!? -- I think we should change the very paradigm of the special military operation -- The Great Patriotic War is starting -- This is no longer about defending Russia's new regions (annexed territory) -- Russia and the historic Russian Federation has been attacked! (referring to the towns of Shebekino and Grayvoron, near the border between Russia and Ukraine) -- People are being evacuated from Belgorod -- Russian citizens are constitutionally obligated to defend their Motherland!
- There is the Kursk region (another town somewhat near the border), there are drones in Moscow!
? --- There has to be a different approach, it's impossible to solve this through limited means. Additional forces have to be brought in, otherwise the situation will get worse for us
- Only Putin can make these decisions !!! - What comes to mind right now, I will say it again, is to destroy every living thing in the Kharkiv region as a punishment and as a deterrent
So this is the key quote: "[...] destroy every living thing in the Kharkiv region as a punishment and as a deterrent [...]"
That is referring to Putin's decision. It's a suggestion by the woman from the TV channel (since it's scripted, it would be written and approved by the channel).
My question would be two-fold: Was this clearly suggested already prior to the waves of mobilization or only after? Are the Russian soldiers at the front free to access this channel? And how often do they realistically receive news updates from that TV station (considering they're often busy fighting)?
You’re not really arguing in good faith here. You keep adding layer after layer of additional evidence I must provide. It’s not reasonable to argue in this way. If I were to provide evidence of the same rhetoric before mobilization you would simply ask for proof that the Russian soldiers had access to those broadcasts. If I provided that then you’d ask for proof that specific Russian soldiers heard them.
Of course I'm adding layers, because there's a difference between what's being said on TV and what realistically reaches the Russian people and the soldiers. I'm not asking you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is happening, but I will be trying to gauge which conclusion is the most reasonable. Either no Russian soldier can be brainwashed into believing that this war is just (i.e. all of them should be aware that they're partaking in genocide), in which case your conclusion would be the correct one. Or some Russian soldiers can be brainwashed despite this information being out there because they don't access it, or not at the right time, to be able to realize before it's too late for them to make a U-turn (i.e. some of them can reasonably be unaware of their participation in genocide).
An accusation of participation in genocide is very severe. An accusation of enabling genocide is extremely dangerous. An accusation of direct genocide is inexcusable unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There have to be layers, I'm sorry. I don't like it, but this is the standard that I live by. Justice can only be served when standards are very high.
From this footage I can conclude that your point of view ("there are no good Russian soldiers") does sound reasonable. I repeat: your point of view from our first clash does sound reasonable. I concede that. If we'd had this discussion last time with TV footage of an uncritical call for genocide being available to us, our altercation would've gone very differently.
This doesn't mean I should uncritically accept that my view is therefore unreasonable. Do you see why?
Whether they're aware of it is completely irrelevant to whether they're enabling/perpetrating a genocide. Why is it so hard to grasp?
Also, Russian propaganda has been replete with calls for genocide (although euphemistically phrased), mass war crimes, and nuclear annihilation of the West throughout the war. How come you're not aware of this and yet make so many comments on how Russian propaganda may affect Russian soldiers?
Because to us it may seem that calls for genocide are literally everywhere (because non-Russians are going out of their way to discover it and spread the word), while the reality for Russian soldiers per se may look very different. Clearly there are many bad Russian soldiers. But my understanding of people is that they're generally not evil unless proven otherwise.
My assumption is always that most people are morally neutral, and some are excplicitly good. For Russian people I don't do it differently. The American people were in favor of segregation during the first half of the 20th century. But they were certainly not in favor of racial genocide. I have a very hard time believing that somehow the circumstances have made it so all Russian soldiers are determined to erase Ukraine from the map and commit acts of genocide against Ukrainian people. It would blow my mind if a state aparatus were able to so cleanly weed out all the remaining soldiers who are, for the most part, in the wrong place at the wrong time, and those who have no way out. Especially the Russian state aparatus, which isn't known for efficiency like that.
Again, whether Russian soldiers are aware of participating in a genocide is completely irrelevant to whether they are enabling one to happen. Why is it so hard to grasp?
I addressed that in an earlier comment. I urge you to re-read that one.
On July 31 2023 01:51 KwarK wrote: You can still believe in the values of peace and tolerance while recognizing that sometimes you need 180000 tungsten balls to defend them. They’re not incompatible. The idea that using force to defend peace is somehow betraying the ideals of peace is naive and simplistic.
You can argue the benefits of peace once the fascists have been forcibly disarmed and their ideology discredited. Trying to argue it beforehand is how we got the invasion of Poland or Ukraine. The best way of dissuading someone from thinking might makes right is showing them that they’re not mighty and therefore that within their own ideology they are wrong. Once you’ve achieved that you can be magnanimous in victory. By refusing to abuse your power over them the way they planned to abuse their power over others you can demonstrate the virtues of peace.
But only after they’ve lost their power. Not before.
Is this a response to my post? If so, quoting it instead of vague posting would be appreciated so one can actually follow the conversation, and it would be important for me to know if I need to respond.
Yes, sorry.
In that case you found yourself not only to be wrong by historic evidence that suggest this does not work, but instead will rally the population against the attacker. You also added "supports potential war crimes when its against people he doesn't like" to what I accuse you of, as the terrorbombings like they were carried out in ww2 are widely accepted today as "would probably be considered a war crime". Your post also gives off the impression that I am arguing against resiting, when all I said is "hey maybe don't argue for indiscriminately bombing civilians", which I am past granting you the benefit of the doubt and just gonna call straight up disingenuous. There is a whole range of options that are outside of "possibly war crimes that will also most likely rally the opposing population behind the war effort", like conducting a war within the rules of war, which is exactly what ukraine has done so far. I never alluded to using force is betraying peace, I am saying that doing things that are completely opposite to western values is betraying western values - like advocating for war crimes.
Your response greatly demonstrates what I said about your posts earlier: They sound great, almost like you are running for some populist tl election, throwing around great sounding phrases with much pathos - and then I start to think about what you actually said and discover how vile it is.
The example of the blitz rallying people against Germany is an example of the strength of democracy and of the lengths peaceful people will go to to preserve peace. Injustice doesn’t defeat people who believe in justice, it motivates them. They fight for justice.
It doesn’t apply the same when you’re bombing fascists because fascists believe that might makes right. They fight for the right to bomb the weak, to them that is justice. Getting a bomb to the face is fully in line with their ideology, it’s what they believe the weak deserve for not submitting to the strong. They’re absolutely on board with bombing the weak, they just didn’t think it would be them. They don’t think that being bombed is unjust, they think that maybe it’s time to submit. Large proportions of the German state were successfully convinced by violence that Germany should submit but unfortunately Hitler kept surviving assassination attempts.
It’s simply arguing with fascists in the only language they understand. It shouldn’t be the first argument used and it wasn’t. It wasn’t at Munich and it wasn’t with Crimea. But when all other arguments have been exhausted it is the one that is left.
For the record I don’t especially object to the bombing of Germany in WW2. No people making gas, no gas chambers. If the Nazis hadn’t been so comically evil then they wouldn’t have required such extreme steps to stop them. But they were. If, in 1939, the allies had possessed nuclear weapons and had proceeded to nuke German cities, one by one, until Germany surrendered then the world would have been a better place and a lot of good people would have lived. That includes the Germans themselves who would have been saved the Red Army’s atrocities, the millions of other war related casualties, and the subsequent ethnic cleaning of Germans from Eastern Europe.
Fascism is a disease that also destroys the host. It’s no crime to cure it.
Like I said, just vile shit when you think about it. "Ends justify the means" and its only evil if the evildoers are doing it... You are no champion of western values, you are just an extremist who's views are incompatible with western values.
Also just as a hint: The terrorbombing of german cities did just the same as the one against allied ones: It rallied the population behind the war effort. At best you shoot yourself in the foot, at worst you become a war criminal. People like you are what I call morally lucky. Absolutely despicable, but you are doing it for the right side so people don't call you out. You got much more in common with some of the wehrmacht soldiers that you like to rant on about. Not in ideology, but that you are willing to do wrong for what you perceive to be a right cause.
Back to “intolerance of Nazis makes you the real Nazi” I see. The key difference isn’t the methods but the context. The Nazi believes violence is the first resort, I believe it is the last. The Nazi believes that violence is the goal, I believe that disarming the Nazi and ending the violence is the goal. But let’s agree to disagree.
I was pretty clear that this is not what I said, but liars keep lying. The difference is that I am not willing to commit warcrimes, not that you can't resist nazis... actually it was fascists before, but I guess that was not plucking enough heartstrings for the desperate position you are in. And you don't even try to hide it by giving the pretext of it being the last option... But keep mischaracterising what I said to try and appear like what you said isn't horrible.
On July 31 2023 04:34 JimmiC wrote: Because I'm Canadian I'll use a hockey analogy.
If someone keeps slashing you on the back of legs, cross checking you, hitting from behind and so on at some point you have to decide if you want them to keep doing it or punch them in the face. Sure punching in the face is "wrong" but you are not left with many options and most of the time it works and even when it does not it feels good and is justified.
This is how I feel about the drones hitting Moscow (which I believe are intended for military or government targets) and the cluster munitions (which again I believe are used for military targets). Not doing it is not stopping them from, they continue to and are doing way more dirty shit than you are. But at some point you have to get in the bud with them a bit because there is so much you can take. Yeah you are going to get dirty but clearly playing clean is not working.
To reiterate, I was not arguing against ukraine attacking russian targets and I don't think anyone was in this exchange. The controversy came from some people not saying that the drones hitting the wrong target being acceptable collateral, but making justifications why it would be okay to deliberately hit civilian targets.
No sports analogy needed, ukraine is conducting war within the rules, in which mistakes, unfortunate collateral damage, and other tragedies can still happen. When they do you just own up to them, not make up excuses why even if this wasn't a mistake, russia deserved it anyway.
The true hockey analogy would be that in response, the attacked player (A) fights back, and in a freak accident, his shoe flies off, into the crowd and the blade slices the neck of a fan of the opposing team. The fan bleeds out in what clearly was not what player (A) or his team intended. Then fans of the team of player (A) show up start arguing that the fan deserved it and it was totally fine, even if player (A) intended to kill the fan.
This is what we dealt with, just unhinged mask off that I hope no reasonable person with a clear mind would agree to, and I believe even the people spouting it in here would not really stick to when they left the forum warrior battleground and went into the real world.
Your position on the other hand as I understand it is a perfectly reasonable one: "The drones were most likely not intended to hit those buildings. They did, which is unfortunate, but this is something that happens in war which is an inherently unfortunate event. Its still perfectly fine within the legal framework for wars. Sucks for the russians, but what is ukraine supposed to do? They have to defend themselves."
I think you all got an argument with very little value to all the rest of us. If you think this has value to you, move the discussion to private messages.
This is a hard argument to make to Kwark, as he is a moderator and has kept things civil. No one should get that amount of flame for so little.
EPT
