Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arch Dornan said:
Just not this one. It's a first.
Click to expand...
Yes, as i said, you are only admitting that apparently you don't track the news much, and now you are being amazed that you never saw anything like that in the news before.
You are basically admitting general ignorance in an attempt to make a little conspiratorial "activates your almonds" implication.

Senator resigns to focus on lieutenant governor campaign

A state senator says he’s resigning to focus on his campaign to be Georgia’s next lieutenant governor.
www.washingtontimes.com www.washingtontimes.com
www.businessinsider.in

Trump-backed GOP congressman abruptly resigns to focus on campaign for governor in hotly contested Florida race

Alex Wong/Getty ImagesRepublican Rep. Ron DeSantis resigned on Monday to focus entirely on his campaign for governor of Florida.DeSantis is locked in a tight
www.businessinsider.in www.businessinsider.in
 
Marduk said:
Yes, as i said, you are only admitting that apparently you don't track the news much, and now you are being amazed that you never saw anything like that in the news before.
You are basically admitting general ignorance in an attempt to make a little conspiratorial "activates your almonds" implication.

Senator resigns to focus on lieutenant governor campaign

A state senator says he’s resigning to focus on his campaign to be Georgia’s next lieutenant governor.
www.washingtontimes.com www.washingtontimes.com
www.businessinsider.in

Trump-backed GOP congressman abruptly resigns to focus on campaign for governor in hotly contested Florida race

Alex Wong/Getty ImagesRepublican Rep. Ron DeSantis resigned on Monday to focus entirely on his campaign for governor of Florida.DeSantis is locked in a tight
www.businessinsider.in www.businessinsider.in
Click to expand...
Yes I truly didn't know this can happen. I still suspect something. Politicians are like that.
 
Arch Dornan said:
Ah. That makes sense snooping as usual I see.
Click to expand...

we expect Russia to spy on everyone because thats how the game is played every one spys on everyone else.

What we don't expect them to do is fuck it up because spying is one of the few things their honestly pretty good at.
 
Cherico said:
we expect Russia to spy on everyone because thats how the game is played every one spys on everyone else.

What we don't expect them to do is fuck it up because spying is one of the few things their honestly pretty good at.
Click to expand...
They fuck up like anyone else. They're human so they make mistakes even as they try to project strength.
 
LordsFire said:
And here you show that you are not, in fact, paying attention to things you just don't want to. I didn't just cite the casualty figures, I also cited the size of the forces involved in that fighting. Specifically, 150k on the Allied side, and ~50k on the German side. Those were the forces actually involved in the fighting that took place that day in that battle, and the attendant figure of 4,414 allied KIA.
Click to expand...

Except that ignores the original context you made, in that it was overall force sizes; hence, why the size of the German Army in WWII is rather relevant, no?

Yet you ignore this and try to compare it to 16 and 13 million, because that fits your narrative better. That you are being deliberately myopic is obvious.
Click to expand...

Not at all, as shown above. Specific to your example, provide us your estimation of Russian and Ukrainian forces in Donbass.

And here we get to the meat of it. You will quote part of a source if you like how it fits the position you've already taken, and ignore other parts if it doesn't fit what you want to believe is true.
Click to expand...

Then the onus is on you, and only you, to cite where I did such. The real meat of the matter is that in these debates, I'm consistently citing sources; most of my opponents don't, and if you think I'm distorting them then the link is provided. That you don't is telling.

The funny part here, is that yes, the Ukrainians do have motivation to distort the numbers. That doesn't mean they have, but they do have a motivation to do so, which means that there's good reason to be skeptical.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you elucidate such for us? Leaving it vague does nothing to advance our conversation here.

For the same reason, one should be skeptical of reports from the Russian side of thing, yet you seem to only apply this skepticism in one direction.
Click to expand...

Here's a fun challenge for you: quote me one time I cited a report from "the Russian side of things". Every single article I've posted is from Western media and Western media alone, it's all mainstream organizations too.

And here is your blatant bias coming in for another round. What is the major battle that the Ukrainians won a complete victory on?

The battle for Kyiv. The capital of Ukraine. Where the actual government and leadership of the nation was.

That was the single most important battle of the war, and was Russia's one chance for a swift and decisive victory. They committed elite units and large amounts of very expensive war material to this offensive.

And they were utterly crushed.
Click to expand...

Given you call it "Kyiv" and claim the engagement there was the most important battle battle of the war, you'll excuse me if I find any sort of grand standing on bias as rather hypocritcal. Specific to your claims, you might it useful to get out of your own bubble because even Zelensky disagrees with your characterization:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said that fighting for the city of Severodonetsk may decide the outcome of the war in the east of the country.​
​
"In many respects, the fate of the Donbas is being decided there," he said as combat raged in the industrial belt with Russian and separatist forces.​
​
He said his troops were inflicting major losses on enemy forces.​
​
But Ukrainian forces have been pushed back to the outskirts, according to the region's top Ukrainian official.​
​
Serhiy Haidai, governor of the Luhansk region (which makes up the Donbas along with the neighbouring Donetsk region), said special forces had pulled back after Russia "started levelling the area with shelling and air strikes".​
​
"Our [forces] now again control only the outskirts of the city," he told local media. "But the fighting is still going on, our [forces] are defending Severodonetsk."​

For someone trying to lecture me on WWII, it's patently absurd you don't understand the on-ground realities of the positioning of the war:

img17.png


This is map depicts industrial production by region in Ukraine. Immediately noticeable is the fact that Ukraine either has lost all of its industrial heartland to the Russians or its on the frontline; how exactly is Ukraine supposed to win an industrial war without industry?

Yes, the Ukrainians have lost Mariupol and Lyman; last I checked they're still holding on to part of Severodonetsk, but the Russians have control of most of the city, so that part is clearly going in their favor right now. However, the Ukrainians also won around Chernihiv, and are advancing on Kherson.
Click to expand...

Again, need to start practicing self-reflection on what you're saying to me and apply it into your own analysis:
FV5KCIZagAErOmf

If you look at the actual track record of who has won on what front, and listen to positives and negatives for both forces, it's clear this could go either way. I can look at things that have gone well for Russia and poorly for Ukraine, and say 'this matters, this is relevant towards the course of the war.' You are apparently incapable of doing the same for things that have gone well for Ukraine, and poorly for Russia.
Click to expand...

In which case, I feel comfortable completely dismissing your analytical capabilities to assess this war. Russia's industrial output alone is larger than Ukraine's entire economy, it has 4x the people, and has yet to even mobilize. They've overrun almost 50% of Ukrainian GDP, including their industrial heartland. There is no historical, economic, or military basis to claim Ukraine has a chance, absolutely none. You're basing your arguments on early war victories that not even Ukrainian senior leadership points to as being of a decisive character.

This war is a repeat of the Pacific War, in that Ukraine scored some early victories and then will be crushed by the superiority of Russian resources. It's rather ironic that, after trying to lecture me about WWII history, we find out you're operating on the same thinking that doomed Japan.

Because you aren't looking at this from an even perspective, you're blinded by your own bias.
Click to expand...

It's rather rich to claim this, when you have to show you are operating on anything beyond your own bias.
 
Arch Dornan said:
Yes I truly didn't know this can happen. I still suspect something. Politicians are like that.
Click to expand...

Of course,but in that particural case it is easy to explain.
Kaczyński party for few years claimed how big patriots they are and that they defend polish independence from EU.Now they capitulate.
Kaczyński must focus on not loosing electorate after that,becouse people now could vote Konfederacja,which is really right-wing/well,liberal-catholic-nationalist/ party.

That is all.
 
Aldarion said:
Yeah, no. They weren't.
Click to expand...
I do apologize for not responding earlier. Real life just kicked me in the face so I was busy and lost track of this.
Anyway, I do prefer you to state exactly what your argument is, I did read the article, and there is alot I'll respond to some of it.

The existence of a Muslim kingdom in Medieval Spain where different races and religions lived harmoniously in multicultural tolerance is one of today’s most widespread myths. University professors teach it. Journalists repeat it. Tourists visiting the Alhambra accept it. It has reached the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, which sings the virtues of the “pan-confessional humanism”
Click to expand...
First off this looks like it's setting up a strawman. No the Islamic empires weren't "pan confessional bastions of humanism and secular rights" No they were empires and they privileged Muslims above others. Yet others could live as second class citizens which is more than other nations at the time gave. Islamic Spain allowed Christians and Muslims to exist(second class citizens yes, your modern nation states would consider it apartheid and human rights violations yes), yet Christian Spain had expelled all it's Muslims and Jews. You can make a liberal argument that apartheid is bad, but then surely Nazi style ethnic cleansing is worse.

The history of Islamic Spain begins, of course, with violent conquest. Helped by internal dissension among the Visigoths, in 711 A.D. Islamic warriors entered Christian Spain and defeated the Visigothic king Rodrigo. These Muslims were a mixture of North African Berbers, or “Moors,” who made up the majority, and Syrians, all led by a small number of Arabs proper (from the Arabian peninsula). The Crónica Bizantina of 741 A.D., the Crónica mozárabe of 754 A.D. and the illustrations to the thirteenth-century Cantigas de Santa María chronicle the brutality with which the Muslims subjugated the Catholic population. From then on, the best rulers of al- Andalus were autocrats who through brute force kept the peace in the face of religious, dynastic, racial, and other divisions.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry was Queen Isabel elected to the throne of Spain? EVERY powerful nation at that time was an autocracy, they all kept rule through brute force and thats how peace was kept.

Abd al-Rahman III (912-961), “The Servant of the Merciful,” declared himself Caliph of Cordoba. He took the city to heights of splendor not seen since the days of Harunal- Rashid’s Baghdad, financed largely through the taxation of Catholics and Jews and the booty and tribute obtained in military incursions against Catholic lands. He also punished Muslim rebellions mercilessly, thereby keeping the lid on the boiling cauldron that was multicultural al- Andalus. His rule presumably marks the zenith of Islamic tolerance. Al-Mansur (d. 1002), “The One Made Victorious by Allah,” implemented in al-Andalus in 978 a ferocious military dictatorship backed by a huge army. In addition to building more palaces and subsidizing the arts and sciences in Cordoba, he burned heretical booksand terrorized Catholics, sacking Zaragoza, Osma, Zamora, Leon, Astorga, Coimbra, and Santiago de Compostela. In 985 he burned down Barcelona, enslaving all those he did not kill.
Click to expand...
Yes, Jews and Christians had higher taxes. They were second class citizens, I conceded this. Islamic Spain was not some liberal secular state where all men were equal. And I can sense the hostility on "the booty and tribute obtained in military incursions against Catholic lands." Do European Christian Kings not gain wealth from sacking foreign lands? And do they not also punish rebels mercilessly?

For similar reasons of strategy, not “tolerance,” the invaders obtained the help of Jewish leaders unhappy with their treatment under the Visigoths. Contrary to popular opinion, Jews were not very numerous, either in Andalusia or in Catholic Spain,6 but for a time Jewish garrisons kept an eye on Catholics populations in key cities like Cordoba, Granada, and Toledo.7 Jewish leaders achieved positions of power, as visirs (prime ministers), bankers, and counselors. Others wrote brilliant literary works, mostly in Arabic. Jews thus formed for a time an intermediary class between the hegemonic Muslims and the defeated Catholics. This was the so-called “Spanish Jewish Golden Age.” But Jews remained dhimmi, a group subject to and serving the Muslim rulers.
Click to expand...
And this was what I was looking for. The Jews in Spain frequently betrayed the Christians to help the Muslims. Why is this, are Jews just naturally treacherous, or do they side with what is in their best interests like other humans? Now studies on Jews betraying anyone are hard to find, because of the uh political nature of the claim, but yes Muslims treated Jews not equal to Muslims, yes it's not a secular nation that tries to make all citizens equal. But here is the thing, they treated Jews, better than the Christian Kingdoms did. That's why the Jews were behind all those conspiracies.

The Jews and the Muslim Conquest of Spain on JSTOR

Norman Roth, The Jews and the Muslim Conquest of Spain, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Spring, 1976), pp. 145-158
www.jstor.org www.jstor.org

Let us next examine racial tolerance. The Quran does not proclaim the innate superiority of any racial group. But the enslavement of black Africans was an entrenched part of the culture of Andalusia. So was racial prejudice. In his Proverbs, al-Maydani (d. 1124) wrote, “the African black, when hungry, steals; and when sated, he fornicates.” 18 Traveling through Africa, Ibn Battuta (1207-1377?) claimed that blacks were stupid, ignorant, cowardly, and infantile. 19 These attitudes could be found throughout the Islamic world. Early in the wonderful Arabian Nights, the worst thing about the adultery of the wives of kings Sahzman and his brother Shariyar is that their infidelity was with blacks. In Nights 468, a black slave is rewarded for his goodness by being transformed into a white man. A similar case occurs in the eleventhcentury “Epistle of the Pardon” by al- Ma’arri, where a black woman, because of her good behavior, ends up as a white huri in Paradise.20
Click to expand...
Are you telling me black is beautiful baby?
Lol, anyway Islam like Christianity does not say one race is more "holy" or better or chosen than another. People have always been "racist" and regard foreigners with distrust. Islamic states are no diffrent. Hell Ancient Greeks or Romans said the same thing about blacks being baked too long, and Northern Germanics as not long enough.

What about the claim regarding the “progressive” status of women in Andalusia? Muslim treatises tell a different story. Ibn Abdun lists numerous rules for female behavior in everyday life: “boat trips of women with men on the Guadalquivir must be suppressed”; “one must forbid women to wash clothes on the fields, because the fields will turn into brothels. Women must not sit on the river shore in the summer, when men do”; “one must especially watch out for women, since error is most common among them.” Elsewhere he also condemns wine drinking, gambling, and homosexuality, following the Quran and the Hadith.22 Truly “liberated” women like the now much admired Wallada bint al-Mustafki (994-1091) were exceptions. The average woman inAndalusia was treated much the same as elsewhere under Islamic sharia, with practices like wearing the hijab (following Quran S. xxxiii. 59), separation from men, confinement to the household, and other limitations that did not exist in Catholic lands. Even the much praised poetry of El collar de la paloma displays attitudes that would be called misogynistic today.
Click to expand...
No shit. I've never heard anyone say that Islam treated women equal to men. You'd have to be dumber than John Green and his Mongols were totally good to make a claim like "They were into women power like Norway and Sweden are today!" The most you can say is that Islam was better to women than what was BEFORE Islam. But considering Pagan societies had Sati, or burried girls alive, that's not a high bar. Yes Muslims and Christians in the 1800's and before agreed with keeping women in the kitchen.

Similarly, other violations of Muslim practices (such as the prohibition on drinking wine) by the powerful of Andalusia, often pointed out as proof of the unique tolerance of Muslim Spain, resulted from the corrupting influence of Catholics, who drank wine liberally. Such exceptions were not unique to Andalusia. They can also be found in other Muslim communities along the Mediterranean where historic Catholic influence has remained relatively strong, such as Tunisia. The influence of non-Muslim civilizations may account also for other deviations from orthodoxy, not only in Andalusia, but in places like Persia (Iran) and India. The risqué quality of many tales in the Arabian Nights may well trace its origin to the pre-Muslim Persians and even the Christian Byzantines. The Muslim poet Omar Khayyam sang the beauties of wine, song, and sex, but he was Persian. Another instance is the Andalusian poet Ibn Quzman, much praised today for his singing of eroticism and homosexuality: his admirers overlook that he was blond and blue-eyed, and that these facts, together with a name like Ibn Quzman (Guzmán or Guttman), mean that he was of Hispanic (indeed Visigothic, that is, Germanic) origin.
Click to expand...
It was just bitching about racism earlier because a woman was rewarded by being turned white, and now it says that the Muslim poet was really of Aryan Germanic heritage? LOL. The Vizigoths arrived in France/Spain around 418. Guzman was born 1087. Let's say his family arrived in 500 AD. 500 years is still enough to intermix and become like the modern local Spainiards.

This article while it isn't lying, umm is bashing a strawman.

LordsFire said:
1. I'm not British.

2. Citing Wikipedia, notorious for being completely captured by the left on any page that has anything to do with the culture wars, isn't getting you any credence.

3. Blaming Bush (or any government/nation etc) for what muslims do to people who had nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq is textbook blame shifting.

Islam teaches that all infidels must convert or die. They can have an intermediary period where they pay the Jizya, but in the end, it's conversion or the sword.
Click to expand...
1. Sorry confused you for someone else.
2. That article has nothing to do with culture war bullshit. Unless you are saying the status quo of Israel is also "culture war"
3. An intermediary period? Hmm usually a intermediary period is temporary if it's temporary there is a time limit. Why is it taking so long? Islam ended it's conquest of Egypt in 646. It is now 2022. The Copts are a Christian denomination who live in Egypt and are native to the area. Egypt's government bans certain types of demographics. But most estimates say between 10 to 15 percent of Egyptians are Copts. Some Christian sources claim up to 25 percent. It's been 1376 years, yet a non Muslim group seems to be living in a Muslim majority nation.
Zachowon said:
Anyone remeber the Barbary wars?
Click to expand...
Those had nothing to do with religion though? The barabary states were Muslim but the war happened because they were slave raiders and America did not want to deal with them capturing their people into slavery, and did not want to pay tribute/protection money. Many nations have done what the Barabary nations have done, extortion isn't some Islamic thing are the Huns or Mongols actions somehow proof that Tengrism teaches conquest?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top