|
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 05:21 0x64 wrote:
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.
Public lies demand public push back. Same goes for the arguing in favour of warcrimes...
|
United States43248 Posts
On July 31 2023 03:27 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 02:58 KwarK wrote:On July 31 2023 02:53 Artesimo wrote:On July 31 2023 02:43 KwarK wrote:On July 31 2023 02:15 Artesimo wrote:On July 31 2023 01:59 KwarK wrote:On July 31 2023 01:56 Artesimo wrote: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.
I refer to the Nazis in WW2 as Nazis for obvious reasons. Not sure why that's the part you object to. They were Nazis.
Also let's play Putin or Hitler.
An empire that used to dominate Eastern Europe collapsed resulting in a decade of economic chaos, hyperinflation, and infighting between the old establishment, the military, and social revolutionaries. A populist strongman was appointed as the head of the legislative by the president. After appointment he staged fake terror attacks by political opponents to consolidate and strengthen his position.
He offered the people the restoration of order and a return of the lost status and wealth of the old empire in exchange for their abdication from political life. He also blamed the collapse of the old empire on a group of internal enemies that he asserted had undermined the old empire.
In terms of economic policy he strongly favoured large centralized business interests over trade unionism/socialism. There was essentially a pact between business elites and government, he would secure their interests against political unrest, allow for the creation of monopolies, subsidize party allies, reward friends with the property of deposed enemies, and concentrate power in the handful of industrial elites. They would reward his favour by being politically reliable and supporting his goals of rearmament.
In terms of social policy he imposed ultraconservative rules upon society based upon the rejection of globalist liberal values. Church and state were merged into a new quasi christian cult of traditionalism based on ethnic and cultural identitarianism. This cult promoted the idea that they were the bastion of traditional moral virtues against modernity and identified the leader as the only individual able to restore the nation and people.
He engaged in a policy of rapid military rearmament and advocated for the seizure of territories lost when the old empire collapsed. His main argument for this were unsubstantiated allegations of mistreatment of the minority speakers of their language living there. After diplomatic efforts failed he infiltrated the region with paramilitary forces and staged a pro-unification revolt, forcing the neighbouring nation to either allow an annexation as a fait accompli or fight back. When they fought back he intervened directly to protect the liberties of the people living there and to "restore order".
Following this success he attempted to repeat it to seize another territory using paramilitary forces to destabilize the region and then marching his army in on the pretext of protecting the minority speakers. In each instance his propagandists staged false flag attacks and continually muddied the conversation by insisting that it was actually they who had been attacked by their victims. The war on truth was fought alongside the actual war with pervasive and immersive propaganda that was so effective that even the skeptics found themselves accepting at least some of the premises of the big lie.
The victim of his second seizure of territory had defensive agreements with western powers but the western powers wanted to avoid a larger war. He was able to successfully convince them that his interest was only in protecting his people and that he had no further territorial interests. This second successful annexation, like the first, was extremely popular with his people and seemed to show the wisdom in his policy of brinkmanship. Despite ruling as a dictator and murdering and imprisoning his political opponents he also received widespread and genuine support for his regime and it appeared to be delivering on its promises. Stability was restored, the humiliation of the territorial losses following the collapse of the empire were undone, the military was rearmed, there was a sense of being respected/feared abroad, and national pride was at an all time high.
This national resurgence was celebrated with lavish olympic games, intended to show the success and prosperity of the new regime in contrast with its recent history. However this took place against a backdrop of increasing political repression and military competition.
The leader then gambled a third time. He declared that a large Eastern European nation that used to be part of the empire was planning to attack them and therefore it was necessary in the name of self defence to invade. Despite his insistence that this was a defensive war he didn't wish to fight he also simultaneously argued that the conquest was necessary and unavoidable as part of the greater national destiny, a doublethink that was a classic staple of regime propaganda.
Unfortunately that third gamble was a bridge too far for the western powers which at last recognized that appeasement was only strengthening the dictator. They resolved to defeat him militarily. In particular a policy of lend lease by the USA was instrumental in ensuring that the military of the nations he invaded received critical supplies.
The early war was characterized by blitzkrieg and terror bombing campaigns that prioritized civilian infrastructure and population centres over targets of military value. Unfortunately this backfired and increased the resolve of the people to resist.
This is literally a reboot. It's massively unoriginal. They just took the plot of the rise and fall of Nazi Germany following WW1 and applied it to Russia following the collapse of the USSR.
|
Visual confirmation that Russian positions near Robotyne have been taken.
|
United States43248 Posts
Tube artillery reaching the Tokmak rail hub is meant to be a game changer. My understanding is that there is essentially one rail line connecting the land bridge to Crimea and that it is now in range of regular artillery. Hopefully that's correct.
|
On July 31 2023 06:09 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 31 2023 03:27 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 02:58 KwarK wrote:On July 31 2023 02:53 Artesimo wrote:On July 31 2023 02:43 KwarK wrote:On July 31 2023 02:15 Artesimo wrote:On July 31 2023 01:59 KwarK wrote:On July 31 2023 01:56 Artesimo wrote: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. I refer to the Nazis in WW2 as Nazis for obvious reasons. Not sure why that's the part you object to. They were Nazis. Also let's play Putin or Hitler. An empire that used to dominate Eastern Europe collapsed resulting in a decade of economic chaos, hyperinflation, and infighting between the old establishment, the military, and social revolutionaries. A populist strongman was appointed as the head of the legislative by the president. After appointment he staged fake terror attacks by political opponents to consolidate and strengthen his position. He offered the people the restoration of order and a return of the lost status and wealth of the old empire in exchange for their abdication from political life. He also blamed the collapse of the old empire on a group of internal enemies that he asserted had undermined the old empire. In terms of economic policy he strongly favoured large centralized business interests over trade unionism/socialism. There was essentially a pact between business elites and government, he would secure their interests against political unrest, allow for the creation of monopolies, subsidize party allies, reward friends with the property of deposed enemies, and concentrate power in the handful of industrial elites. They would reward his favour by being politically reliable and supporting his goals of rearmament. In terms of social policy he imposed ultraconservative rules upon society based upon the rejection of globalist liberal values. Church and state were merged into a new quasi christian cult of traditionalism based on ethnic and cultural identitarianism. This cult promoted the idea that they were the bastion of traditional moral virtues against modernity and identified the leader as the only individual able to restore the nation and people. He engaged in a policy of rapid military rearmament and advocated for the seizure of territories lost when the old empire collapsed. His main argument for this were unsubstantiated allegations of mistreatment of the minority speakers of their language living there. After diplomatic efforts failed he infiltrated the region with paramilitary forces and staged a pro-unification revolt, forcing the neighbouring nation to either allow an annexation as a fait accompli or fight back. When they fought back he intervened directly to protect the liberties of the people living there and to "restore order". Following this success he attempted to repeat it to seize another territory using paramilitary forces to destabilize the region and then marching his army in on the pretext of protecting the minority speakers. In each instance his propagandists staged false flag attacks and continually muddied the conversation by insisting that it was actually they who had been attacked by their victims. The war on truth was fought alongside the actual war with pervasive and immersive propaganda that was so effective that even the skeptics found themselves accepting at least some of the premises of the big lie. The victim of his second seizure of territory had defensive agreements with western powers but the western powers wanted to avoid a larger war. He was able to successfully convince them that his interest was only in protecting his people and that he had no further territorial interests. This second successful annexation, like the first, was extremely popular with his people and seemed to show the wisdom in his policy of brinkmanship. Despite ruling as a dictator and murdering and imprisoning his political opponents he also received widespread and genuine support for his regime and it appeared to be delivering on its promises. Stability was restored, the humiliation of the territorial losses following the collapse of the empire were undone, the military was rearmed, there was a sense of being respected/feared abroad, and national pride was at an all time high. The leader then gambled a third time. He declared that a large Eastern European nation that used to be part of the empire was planning to attack them and therefore it was necessary in the name of self defence to invade. Despite his insistence that this was a defensive war he didn't wish to fight he also simultaneously argued that the conquest was necessary and unavoidable as part of the greater national destiny, a doublethink that was a classic staple of regime propaganda. Unfortunately that third gamble was a bridge too far for the western powers which at last recognized that appeasement was only strengthening the dictator. They resolved to defeat him militarily. This is literally a reboot. It's massively unoriginal. They just took the plot of the rise and fall of Nazi Germany following WW1 and applied it to Russia following the collapse of the USSR.
I was poking at what I remember as first you misrepresented lied about my argument as me saying that you can't be intolerant of fascism without being a fascist, then shifting to pretending I am arguing that being intolerant of nazis makes you one. You might have called it nazis right from the start, but I can't be bothered to go back reading your lies as it doesn't matter for my point. The disagreement was I advocated against your flaming endorsement of "war crimes as long as they hit civilians under a fascist/nazi regime" and your lies about my argument.
I suspect this is just another attempt of you at diverting attention away from the fact that you support war crimes and lied about what I said no matter how often I corrected you, and that you are at leat partially wrong in your support for indiscriminate bombings. You can say "but nazi germany" as much as you want and in however many words you like, it won't change what we, that is the west minus you, stand for. It won't change that it wasn't the bombing of civilians that defeated nazi germany or that it ended up strengthening the resolve of the german population against what they perceived to be the attacker. The parts of strategic bombing that worked were the parts that aren't controversial by todays standards - the valid military targets: logistics hubs, military factories, military facilities.... Even if putin was überhitler reborn, nothing would change about these facts, you would be just as wrong as before, both strategically and morally. Terrorbombings don't work, basic human rights are non-negotiable, rules of war are to be respected or else you are a war criminal.
And because of this I believe that ukraine should not commit such war crimes and I am convinced they never will, at least not from the top.
If you want to have a discussion about if russia is a nazi regime or not, hit up maybenexttime. He disagreed with you calling the russians nazis and called them imperialists instead. I don't care much about that distinction and especially not about having that discussion with you specifically. It is irrelevant to my committent to our western values and my support for ukraine and I don't have any vile ideology that needs the pretext of fighting nazis/fascists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On July 31 2023 05:54 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 05:21 0x64 wrote:
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.
Public lies demand public push back. Same goes for the arguing in favour of warcrimes...
That's not what is happening. Your opinion is pedantic.
|
On July 31 2023 16:12 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 05:54 Artesimo wrote:On July 31 2023 05:21 0x64 wrote:
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.
Public lies demand public push back. Same goes for the arguing in favour of warcrimes... That's not what is happening. Your opinion is pedantic.
Sorry what? I got the clear impression that Kwark was advocating for deliberate systematic killing of civilians as a show of force, over and beyond the destruction of invading soldiers and other military targets.
On July 30 2023 11:51 KwarK wrote:
Bombing their cities is a rebuttal of their arguments. The only one they’re willing to listen to.
Then there was a long argument with Magic Powers in which Kwark argued that pro-genocide, pro-war public opinion in Russia validates his view, and another long argument with Artesimo where Kwark defended some assertions we all agree with (Ukraine has the right to fight, Putin’s regime is fascist) but that I don’t think Artesimo was ever contesting, and Artesimo called him disingenuous and a liar…
…Which is perhaps an unpleasantly personal spot for the conversation to reach, but I can’t see how Artesimo is mistaken about what the point of the argument is: Kwark was advocating for deliberate systematic killing of civilians as a show of force, over and beyond the destruction of invading soldiers and other military targets, and Artesimo says that view can’t go unchallenged.
“Arguing in favor of war crimes needs push back”
“That’s not what’s happening”
Yes it is… what am I missing? Is deliberate systematic killing of civilians not a war crime, or did Artesimo and I both somehow misconstrue Kwark?
If I had to guess, I’d suppose Kwark’s take is something like “whether it’s defined as a war crime doesn’t bear on whether it’s the best path to saving lives in the long run, and I think that against fascist expansionists it is” —- but I wouldn’t want to put words in Kwark’s mouth. Doesn’t seem to me that he has yet tried to explicitly square his position with the notion of war crimes.
|
On July 31 2023 18:51 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 16:12 0x64 wrote:On July 31 2023 05:54 Artesimo wrote:On July 31 2023 05:21 0x64 wrote:
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.
Public lies demand public push back. Same goes for the arguing in favour of warcrimes... That's not what is happening. Your opinion is pedantic. Sorry what? I got the clear impression that Kwark was advocating for deliberate systematic killing of civilians as a show of force, over and beyond the destruction of invading soldiers and other military targets. Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 11:51 KwarK wrote:
Bombing their cities is a rebuttal of their arguments. The only one they’re willing to listen to. Then there was a long argument with Magic Powers in which Kwark argued that pro-genocide, pro-war public opinion in Russia validates his view, and another long argument with Artesimo where Kwark defended some assertions we all agree with (Ukraine has the right to fight, Putin’s regime is fascist) but that I don’t think Artesimo was ever contesting, and Artesimo called him disingenuous and a liar… …Which is perhaps an unpleasantly personal spot for the conversation to reach, but I can’t see how Artesimo is mistaken about what the point of the argument is: Kwark was advocating for deliberate systematic killing of civilians as a show of force, over and beyond the destruction of invading soldiers and other military targets, and Artesimo says that view can’t go unchallenged. “Arguing in favor of war crimes needs push back” “That’s not what’s happening” Yes it is… what am I missing? Is deliberate systematic killing of civilians not a war crime, or did Artesimo and I both somehow misconstrue Kwark? If I had to guess, I’d suppose Kwark’s take is something like “whether it’s defined a war crime doesn’t bear on whether it’s the best path to saving lives in the long run, and I think that against fascist expansionists it is” —- but I wouldn’t want to put words in Kwark’s mouth. Doesn’t seem to me that he has yet tried to explicitly square his position with the notion of war crimes.
An argument to which Kwark clarified he was not pro genocide and not probombing civilians, which should have closed the argument.
|
On July 31 2023 19:15 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 18:51 Djabanete wrote:On July 31 2023 16:12 0x64 wrote:On July 31 2023 05:54 Artesimo wrote:On July 31 2023 05:21 0x64 wrote:
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.
Public lies demand public push back. Same goes for the arguing in favour of warcrimes... That's not what is happening. Your opinion is pedantic. Sorry what? I got the clear impression that Kwark was advocating for deliberate systematic killing of civilians as a show of force, over and beyond the destruction of invading soldiers and other military targets. On July 30 2023 11:51 KwarK wrote:
Bombing their cities is a rebuttal of their arguments. The only one they’re willing to listen to. Then there was a long argument with Magic Powers in which Kwark argued that pro-genocide, pro-war public opinion in Russia validates his view, and another long argument with Artesimo where Kwark defended some assertions we all agree with (Ukraine has the right to fight, Putin’s regime is fascist) but that I don’t think Artesimo was ever contesting, and Artesimo called him disingenuous and a liar… …Which is perhaps an unpleasantly personal spot for the conversation to reach, but I can’t see how Artesimo is mistaken about what the point of the argument is: Kwark was advocating for deliberate systematic killing of civilians as a show of force, over and beyond the destruction of invading soldiers and other military targets, and Artesimo says that view can’t go unchallenged. “Arguing in favor of war crimes needs push back” “That’s not what’s happening” Yes it is… what am I missing? Is deliberate systematic killing of civilians not a war crime, or did Artesimo and I both somehow misconstrue Kwark? If I had to guess, I’d suppose Kwark’s take is something like “whether it’s defined a war crime doesn’t bear on whether it’s the best path to saving lives in the long run, and I think that against fascist expansionists it is” —- but I wouldn’t want to put words in Kwark’s mouth. Doesn’t seem to me that he has yet tried to explicitly square his position with the notion of war crimes. An argument to which Kwark clarified he was not pro genocide and not probombing civilians, which should have closed the argument.
Sorry, but to which post are you referring?
This one?
On July 31 2023 02:58 KwarK wrote:
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.
Granted that Kwark is not a Nazi, but this leaves plenty of room for reluctant systematic bombing of civilians if it’s deemed efficient, which is exactly what Artesimo was arguing against.
Artesimo’s language was pretty accusatory, so I can see why Kwark would want to agree to disagree and why you’d want to lower the temperature. I just don’t follow the part where you said “that’s not what’s happening” after Artesimo cried war crimes. Kwark is saying there’s a time and a place, no? Surely the grounds for ending this convo are that the language escalated too far, not that Artesimo is barking up the wrong tree? Big difference between “systematic killing of civilians never” and “systematic killing of civilians only when a fascist expansionist just refuses to back off”, especially when that’s the exact situation we’re in.
I need to walk away from this for IRL reasons, which dovetails with 0x64’s request that we drop it, but this is where my reading comprehension has brought me.
|
There is also a lack of distinction between targeting civilians on purpose or hitting them as colleteral damage while aiming for other targets (and the discussion of what is a military target).
Anyway it feels beyond stupid to discuss this because Ukraine *could have* hit civilians or civilian structures when Russia has killed thousands of civilians and levelled several cities.
If you do feel that a drone hitting a civilian target (by accident we will have to assume given Ukraines track reccord) puts them in the wrong and is a war crime maybe take a long hard look at your logic.
|
Ukraine doesn't have close to the ability to commit genocide the way Russia is doing. They are morally allowed to attack military or state targets in Russian cities and while civilian casualties are regrettable, they are 100 percent excusable.
What Russia is doing is genocide (which they have admitted and admitted early during the war). Doesn't matter if some soldiers know it or not; they are committing genocide and they should be judged as such - they can't plead insanity (Magic Powers was babbling about this trying to "add layers" lmao).
|
On July 31 2023 19:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
There is also a lack of distinction between targeting civilians on purpose or hitting them as colleteral damage while aiming for other targets (and the discussion of what is a military target).
Anyway it feels beyond stupid to discuss this because Ukraine *could have* hit civilians or civilian structures when Russia has killed thousands of civilians and levelled several cities.
If you do feel that a drone hitting a civilian target (by accident we will have to assume given Ukraines track reccord) puts them in the wrong and is a war crime maybe take a long hard look at your logic.
There is not. I went over exactly that. But this is what I expect KwarK was trying to associate me with to make my point seem unreasonable. I believe he tried to push me in the camp of people who deny ukraine any right to fight back with his mischaracterisation of my argument as "if you don't tolerate nazis you are one".
On July 31 2023 19:28 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 19:15 0x64 wrote:On July 31 2023 18:51 Djabanete wrote:On July 31 2023 16:12 0x64 wrote:On July 31 2023 05:54 Artesimo wrote:On July 31 2023 05:21 0x64 wrote:
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.
Public lies demand public push back. Same goes for the arguing in favour of warcrimes... That's not what is happening. Your opinion is pedantic. Sorry what? I got the clear impression that Kwark was advocating for deliberate systematic killing of civilians as a show of force, over and beyond the destruction of invading soldiers and other military targets. On July 30 2023 11:51 KwarK wrote:
Bombing their cities is a rebuttal of their arguments. The only one they’re willing to listen to. Then there was a long argument with Magic Powers in which Kwark argued that pro-genocide, pro-war public opinion in Russia validates his view, and another long argument with Artesimo where Kwark defended some assertions we all agree with (Ukraine has the right to fight, Putin’s regime is fascist) but that I don’t think Artesimo was ever contesting, and Artesimo called him disingenuous and a liar… …Which is perhaps an unpleasantly personal spot for the conversation to reach, but I can’t see how Artesimo is mistaken about what the point of the argument is: Kwark was advocating for deliberate systematic killing of civilians as a show of force, over and beyond the destruction of invading soldiers and other military targets, and Artesimo says that view can’t go unchallenged. “Arguing in favor of war crimes needs push back” “That’s not what’s happening” Yes it is… what am I missing? Is deliberate systematic killing of civilians not a war crime, or did Artesimo and I both somehow misconstrue Kwark? If I had to guess, I’d suppose Kwark’s take is something like “whether it’s defined a war crime doesn’t bear on whether it’s the best path to saving lives in the long run, and I think that against fascist expansionists it is” —- but I wouldn’t want to put words in Kwark’s mouth. Doesn’t seem to me that he has yet tried to explicitly square his position with the notion of war crimes. An argument to which Kwark clarified he was not pro genocide and not probombing civilians, which should have closed the argument. Sorry, but to which post are you referring?
He is partially correct. The argument was not genocide, it was war crimes. And KwarK did clarify that he does not object to those:
https://tl.net/forum/general/587060-russo-ukrainian-war-thread?page=507#10129
Or his response to my explanation why war crimes are not okay, even if the other side is doing it: https://tl.net/forum/general/587060-russo-ukrainian-war-thread?page=506#10116
Here is the especially bad kicker from it "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.". Bear in mind this was his response to this https://tl.net/forum/general/587060-russo-ukrainian-war-thread?page=506#10113 where I explicitly limit my objection to the deliberate bombing of civilians to break their will.
So the opinion he expressed saw indiscriminate killings along ideological lines as acceptable, not ethnic ones. All with the goal to end the ideology, not the people. Its still vile, incompatible with our values, but its not genocide as far as I understand it. Just a war crime.
And if you believe that calling such beliefs vile is too far, then I guess we just have to disagree on that. Or calling someone a liar when they pretend I am saying something that I repeatedly demonstrated I didn't say. Or when they have demonstrated to deliberately misrepresent what other people say in the past:
https://tl.net/forum/general/587060-russo-ukrainian-war-thread?page=451#9001
https://tl.net/forum/general/587060-russo-ukrainian-war-thread?page=451#9015
I have clearly stated that my objections are limited to what we consider war crimes, expressed that I doubt that the ukrainian drone strikes were anything but unintended collateral damage and thus most likely okay. I have even expressed understanding for any ukrainian disagreeing to that without holding it against them personally. I have tried to cover all my bases, and yet my position as a whole apparently was disagreeable. This doesn't really leave much room for interpretations.
And again, I can't stress this enough for people who are more emotionally struck by this war and let their desire for revenge get the better of them: The consensus on bombings civilians to break a populations will to wage war is that it does not work and instead at least temporarily strengthens their resolve against the attacker. It is very understandable to want to get back at russia when looking at ukrainian cities, but don't go down the road that would only hurt our goal of seeing ukraine victorious.
And this is why I am so adamant in not having some vague "end justifies the means if its fascists on the other side" left standing in the open unopposed. Or see my argument misrepresented as anything that alludes to me denying ukraine the right to defend itself. It is wrong, it is dangerous to our cause, it completely robs one of integrity. This would have ended if he simply agreed that deliberately targeting civilians is unacceptable. He didn't. He disagreed.
|
I agree with Djabanate, Kwark is casually dropping a "you should bomb civilians of a fascist society for profit(?!?!)." and everyone is like, you do you, KwarK, anyway, how dare someone say not all Russians are fascists. Sending drones into Moscow is wrong, it is doing nothing but potentially terrorize civilians. It is why we condemn drone strikes on Odessa, Kyev and Kharkiv, and rightfully so. Now the Ukrainians do it to claim "revenge" and we are like, i bet they had a good reason for it.
|
As a German, the (ethical, obviously not scale) comparison to the strategic bombing campaigns in WW2 seems very obvious here.
What is the common consensus on those. I know that this is a bit murky of a territory historically. On the one hand, the bombing of the civilian population was obviously a horrific thing to do. But on the other hand, losing WW2 was one of the best things to happen to Germany. And the Nazis were really evil assholes, so stopping them is important.
I think this is one of the situations where stuff is complicated. Just bombing civilians for the fun of it is obviously not acceptable. But how much of a military impact does bombing something need to have for it to be justified? What about munitions factories? Or the factories producing machines for the munitions factories? What if there is civilian housing close to those factories?
And can you also make that ivory tower ethical decision while you are actually in a war, and more of your soldiers are dying for every additional day the war takes?
|
On July 31 2023 21:27 Simberto wrote:
As a German, the (ethical, obviously not scale) comparison to the strategic bombing campaigns in WW2 seems very obvious here.
What is the common consensus on those. I know that this is a bit murky of a territory historically. On the one hand, the bombing of the civilian population was obviously a horrific thing to do. But on the other hand, losing WW2 was one of the best things to happen to Germany. And the Nazis were really evil assholes, so stopping them is important.
I think this is one of the situations where stuff is complicated. Just bombing civilians for the fun of it is obviously not acceptable. But how much of a military impact does bombing something need to have for it to be justified? What about munitions factories? Or the factories producing machines for the munitions factories? What if there is civilian housing close to those factories?
And can you also make that ivory tower ethical decision while you are actually in a war, and more of your soldiers are dying for every additional day the war takes?
In my view it's much simpler than this. Looking back at the attacks on bridges that are said to have claimed several lives of civilians, not a single soul here argued that these attacks were wrong. I didn't, no one else did. And the reason we didn't argue that was because no one said anything radical along the lines of "bombing civilian infrastructure will show them Nazis who's boss". We all knew these attacks were justified and that some collateral is expected in this war. To be avoided if possible, but realistically not always avoidable.
This time someone did incite radicalism, and it's fairly obvious to me why that would warrant backlash.
|
On July 31 2023 21:12 Broetchenholer wrote:
I agree with Djabanate, Kwark is casually dropping a "you should bomb civilians of a fascist society for profit(?!?!)." and everyone is like, you do you, KwarK, anyway, how dare someone say not all Russians are fascists. Sending drones into Moscow is wrong, it is doing nothing but potentially terrorize civilians. It is why we condemn drone strikes on Odessa, Kyev and Kharkiv, and rightfully so. Now the Ukrainians do it to claim "revenge" and we are like, i bet they had a good reason for it.
Did you think there would even be an argument, if Kwark was agreeing on how people understood what he wrote? All I can see, is short sentences out of context or even paraphrasing.
It is the third time I have read what he has wrote, and concerning Ukraine attacking russia, I have not seen anything apologizing genocide.
He did go offtopic, and in this thread, we should not switch to arguments about Germany, that was not good.
|
I am not sure what you are saying here? You mean if someone posts something off-topic, that clearly shows how he feels about topic as well, it should not be admissible as his position?
On July 31 2023 02:43 KwarK wrote:
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.
I also fiercely hate fascism and (Neo)Nazis, i would not advertise murdering a few of them to send a strong message. And if this position informs his wishlist of policies towards Russia, which he himself compared to Nazigermany, then it is no wonder these sentences get quoted when there is discussion about his stance on bombing russian cities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
