«12. . .1,3061,3071,3081,3091,3101,3111,312. . .1,3151,316»
Yesterday’s Answer: What is the Wardrobe?
Congratulations:
The Lead Crystal Glassblowing of Wine Decanter
Only telegrammed responses will be considered
All responses must be in the form of a question
HISTORIC GROUPS
THE KIPCHAK KHANATE IS ANOTHER NAME FOR THIS GROUP THAT WAS EVENTUALLY DEFEATED BY TAMERLANE IN 1395
What is ... ?
Post by Soviet union as suppressed by a moderator.
Post by Soviet union as suppressed by a moderator.
You must be a big fan of Illumination movies. I am not. I support Ukraine and intelligent, inclusive movies like Titan A.E.. Call me a hippie, call me a commie, but it’s what’s best for us.
not every US citizen supported the invasion of Iraq by GW Bush: i was quite opposed.
but the US made no claims nor attempts to annex.
i suspect the vast majority of americans have no problems with russians in general, but i don't see how any neutral party can support Putin's invasion of a peaceful country. you would have to be quite the dullard to believe Putin's claim that jewish Zelenskiy is a Nazi, and a bigger fool for that as a pretense for invasion. suppose Canada elected Poilievre as prime minister, and the US used that as casus belli.
Putin has done what autocrats do when their economies suffer: start wars, use any excuse (no matter how lame), and the dim-witted civilians are distracted.
as for supporting Russia, perhaps The Dictatorship of Soviet union AS should clarify if he wants Russia to have a stronger economy, better infrastructure, more civil liberties, and peace among its many ethnicities; or does he simply support Putin's invasion and want the annexation of Ukraine and demolition of its culture.
if it's the former, then i agree.
you should be able to deduce my opinion if it's the latter.
Thank you!
I respect your decision to support Russia's entirely unprovoked and selfish act of aggression against the Ukrainian people. I'm definitely not being sarcastic. (I'm being sarcastic.)
And since we're on the topic of fighting in the world, and a Zionist who thinks Israelis are oppressed has joined the region, I'd like the make known the following:
No settler colony state holds any legitimacy whatsoever, and has zero inherent right to exist. Palestinians are currently being occupied and brutally attacked by a settler colony. Palestinians have every right to fight back against this settler colony, and this settler colony has zero right to do anything about it. That's international law. If you don't like it, take it up with the UN. If you can support Ukraine in their efforts against Russia, it is hypocritical to not offer the same support to Palestinians.
You, sir, are a Nazi.
You, sir, support a country whose prime minister can be quoted as having said "The Nazis didn't want to exterminate the Jews". Nothing is more antisemitic than Zionism.
Where exactly in the world the Jews would not be considered settlers? Asking for a friend. In fact the earliest unquestionably known (and I mean not the Bible, but archaeological evidence and written records of other peoples, e.g. the Romans) place where the Jews lived for a long time happens to be Israel. Moreover, they used to have a state there. Not that ancient history entitles anybody today to anything, but if we start calling people "colonizing settlers", it is useful to remember that the Roman Empire has clear records of a Jewish vassal state but no mention of any Arabs in the area.
By what exactly international law Israel has no right to exist? It was actually created by a decision by the UN General Assembly. And before that there was a League of Nations mandate for the same purpose.
What do you imply for other nations? The US was unquestionably created as a settler colony. In fact it's the greatest example of it. So? Do American Indians have every right to fight back? Even though they themselves were once settlers from Asia? For that matter, as Homo Sapiens is a native species only in Africa, are all countries outside Africa settler colonies? Is Russian state legitimate? It was originally created by Viking settlers. Is Turkey a settler colony? There were no Turks anywhere on its territory just a millennium ago. Is not Hungary a settler colony? This game can be played all over the world. Is not it curious that Israel is the only country whose right to exist is being questioned?
You guys are all crazy. Russia is politically and materially compelled to aggressively counteract the eastward expansion of NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence, which the US and its crony states have puppeted Ukraine to achieve. That's an old conflict, and one marked by dozens of proxy wars, of which this is only the latest, and certainly not the last. The only appropriate response is to pity the poor bastards in Ukraine who got dragged into a multipolar ideological conflict, same as all the others. Meanwhile Israel is a goddamn ethnostate. It defines itself by its adherence to ethnic and religious forms. It's not possible for an ethnostate to exist and for all the people living in its proximity to be treated equitably by the state. Every ethnostate that has existed has been destroyed, because it's not possible for an ethnostate to withdraw from those interests, and the consequent internal conflict will tear it by the seams. The only appropriate response is to pity the poor bastards in Palestine who got dragged into it too. And yes, the American Indians do in fact have the right to resist colonisation and occupation, as do all the colonised and occupied people living in Australia, Canada, Japan and elsewhere. Do you even hear yourself?
I'm shocked, shocked that nobody has expressed any hostility towards Taiwan yet. If Ukraine should be "given back" to Russia and Israel should be "given back" to the Palestinians, should not Taiwan be "given back" to China? Those three usually come together - for both the Far Right and the Far Left.
Cool deflect, ethnic cleansing apologist. Taiwan is Taiwan, having historically been at different times settled by a number of states, including the Qing, Dutch and Spanish. It was ceded to Japan in 1895, then the ROC invaded it, then the ROC government in exile fled there. It is its own country with a history of indigenous settlement dating to 3000 BC. Taiwan should only be returned to the Taiwanese, who are not Chinese. Ukraine, believe it or not, is also Ukraine. Following the National Revival in the mid 1800s it was divided between Russia and Galicia but was then and has since been a singular nation. It belongs to itself. These are politically and geographically bounded states. Israel is a big city that the UK built inside of Palestine and filled with people with no relationship to its place in contemporary history. And you know what? That could have been fine. It is okay to come to a country and decide you want to live there. It is not okay to demand that everybody currently living there has to leave or die. The Israelis have a right to live in Palestine, but not a right to own it. To confuse the issue with the contested sovereignty of other states is disingenuous, as it presupposes that sovereignty is the primary mode of disagreement on the issue. It is not. Ethnic cleansing is the issue.
Just where exactly did I support any ethnic cleansing? Although the issue is indeed sovereignty, if you just look at the plain meaning of "from the river to the sea". But I'm not going to argue as I have only a very superficial knowledge of the region's history and little desire to learn it.
However I know more about European history, and on Ukraine you just repeat the Russian talking points. For starters, there was no "NATO expansion". Rather, most Russian neighbors along its western border, based on their better understanding of the nature of Russian imperialist state, chose to join NATO and they indeed had to fight to be allowed to join, as initially the US was not interested. And as for NATO presence, you reverse cause and effect. Not only there was no meaningful NATO presence on its eastern flank, but there was effectively no American presence in Europe, period. In November 2013 Obama removed the last American tanks from Europe. For the first time in 70 years there was no US armor on the continent, and that effectively meant there were no US ground combat forces in Europe. What was left was just the Air Force and logistics (including training). And how did Russia react to its decades long dream finally fulfilled? Why, three months later Putin invaded Ukraine (in Crimea, and then soon in the Donbas). So Russia definitely was not counteracting any "expansion". It is the subsequent enhanced forward presence of NATO that was the response to Russian aggression.
Also, it is curious that Russia "counteracted" actual NATO "expansion" aka Finland joining the alliance by transferring a lot of air defense assets around St. Petersburg and a lot of troops on the border with Finland to Ukraine. And of course, children of top Russian leaders (including Putin) live in NATO countries. Russia does not give a rat's behind about NATO except for the limits that it imposes on the potential restoration of the bad old Russian Empire. Interestingly, of all the former parts of the Soviet Union that did not join NATO, most have experienced Russian military intervention (sometimes at the request of their own corrupt authoritarian leader in need of being propped up against popular protests). Of all those that did join NATO, none experienced any Russian military intervention (and neither did any of the former Soviet puppet states in Eastern Europe that joined NATO).
Tuesday, 2 April, 2024 | 24
He who stands on tiptoe
doesn't stand firm.
He who rushes ahead
doesn't go far.
He who tries to shine
dims his own light.
He who defines himself
can't know who he really is.
He who has power over others
can't empower himself.
He who clings to his work
will create nothing that endures.
If you want to accord with the Tao,
just do your job, then let go.
Could've stopped there.
Ground forces are inconsequential in this discussion. Finland's entry into NATO threatens Russia's naval power, but Ukraine's alignment with the US presents a more substantial problem: it is literally on their border. The provision of "buffer states" has been a fundamental aspect of geopolitical military strategy for, oh, six hundred years? The sad reality is that apart from any genuine strategic interest in Ukraine, the Russian Federation is in the position that its internal propaganda, which places it as a serious contender in great power struggle, can't withstand an obvious overreach such as the US degrading the Federation's buffer zone, and an autocracy lives or dies on its propaganda. Garbage state, garbage strategy, but nonetheless a strategy that was inevitable the moment that Ukraine's alignment with NATO crystallised. Forgetting that, the formalisation of the EFP may have been subsequent to Euromaidan, but its function and purpose have been in place much, much longer. As in my original statement, the whole conflict is a bunch of nonsense posing. The US pushed way too hard in Central Europe, Russia is forced to react, the reaction is awful and winds up killing a lot of people with no real stake in the issue. But hey, Northrop Grumman stocks are up.
Jews aren't the settlers. There were Jews in Palestine. White Zionist Europeans are the settlers. They don't belong there. The fact you think I would be against Native Americans fighting back is beyond me. I'm no hypocrite. All colonised people should be fighting back. There is no settler colony that has any right to exist. And no, Native Americans didn't settle in America, they crossed a land bridge to a completely empty land. There were no people in America before Native Americans. You can't call that settler colonialism. The very fact you'd even imply that tells me just about everything I need to know about you.
There was no buffer zone as Russia already had land borders with five NATO countries. As I pointed out, the US did not push but actually withdrew forces even from Germany. Ukraine has no strategic significance whatsoever. But its very existence is an affront to Russian national identity. It's not acceptable, period. The integral part of the Russian (imperial) national identity is the belief that the Ukrainians are part of the Russian nation (perhaps a slightly inferior part - kind of like the Northern Italians see the Sicilians). Therefore Ukrainian statehood is illegitimate. The Russians can tolerate a nominal Ukrainian state in the Russian orbit (just as they have no problem with current Belarus - another part of the Russian nation). But once the Ukrainians started moving to the West, immediate harsh reaction followed. It had absolutely nothing to do with any US actions and everything to do with zero tolerance for truly sovereign and independent Ukrainian state (i.e. the one that can choose on its own to join the EU - or NATO). Plus the Russian ruling class was absolutely terrified by a popular uprising overthrowing a corrupt president and the prospect of Ukraine then thriving on the Western trajectory, because of a potential example for the Russians. It's easy to dismiss Western societies by saying "They are very different from us, and we have our own path". It's much harder to answer questions like "Why can't we be more like the Ukrainians?" So once again, the world does not revolve around the US. The Americans are not the source of all evil. And neither are the Jews.
It is amazing that on many points the above Nations are actually in agreement with they but cannot see the agreements due to the personal remarks which invoke rebutal.
Split hairs
M
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Once again, where do white Jews of European descent "belong"? You did not answer this question. Around the time of mass Zionist movement in Europe many people in places where those Jews had lived for centuries believed the Jews belonged in gas chambers. Bonus question: do Sephardic Jews belong in Arab countries? You know, the countries where they had lived for centuries and were expelled from in the late 1940's. I have never heard any meaningful answer from the Far Left.
Another interesting question. Do Palestinians belong in Palestine? Aren't they settlers? At the time of Pontius Pilate there were no Arabs in Palestine. In fact "Palestine" was not even a word then. A little later (70 AD or so) the Jewish natives had an anti-imperialist uprising against the Roman Empire (you should approve of it, right?). It was brutally crushed and then the Romans engaged in ethnic cleansing and not only expelled the Jews but invented a new name for the area specifically in order to erase even the memory of the Jewish inhabitants (and forever since the Jews were considered settlers wherever they went after the expulsion). Only centuries later the Arabs moved into the area during the great Islamic expansion. So are they settlers or not? Or is there some statute of limitations? I.e. is there some particular date in history when people should be considered "belonging" wherever they happened to be at that time, while those who moved somewhere later are colonial settlers? I'm just trying to understand the organizing principle. You know, I had pretty good Marxism-Leninism education (I even have a special diploma from something called "University of Marxism-Leninism"), but I don't much about modern leftist ideology.
OK, another question. Should the Greeks be fighting back against Turkish settlers? Would you be OK with ethnic cleansing of Istanbul? Or was the Ottoman conquest of Eastern Roman Empire before the statute of limitations date? If so, I guess we can narrow it down to somewhere between 1453 and 1492, right? Speaking of 1492, there were two other related events that year. First, expulsion of Jews from Spain - outrageous ethnic cleansing by intolerant greedy theocratic imperialists or perfectly legit because they were settlers? Second, what about Conquista and Reconquista, the Moors and Spaniards? Which ones were settlers and which ones were fighting back? Was what bin Laden called "the tragedy of El Andalus" ethnic cleansing of people of color by white European conquerors or restorative justice? If the former, then was 9/11 just the colonized people fighting back (and therefore morally acceptable, just as I assume, you consider October 7)?
Palestinians were never from Arabia, they're decendants of Canaanites. Most of them today have more ancient Hebrew DNA than most Jews living in Israel. As for where white Eurpean Zionists belong, back in Europe. 9/11 and 10/7 aren't comparable. One was a terrorist attack done for no other reason than to cause harm to others. The other was an oppressed people fighting back against their oppressor, and then being demonised and lied about by the oppressor. All of this bullshit you keep saying is just you trying to weaponise the real suffering of real Jews to try to justify the atrocities being committed against Palestinians for no reason by people who couldn't give you the a single line of the Torah if they tried. (By the way, according to the Torah, Israel shouldn't exist, because Israel has to kill, steal, oppress, and otherwise violate the Torah to maintain its existence)
Is this region named after the game?
Europe is big. Where specifically in Europe do white European Zionists belong? And for now I won't even go into the issue of the majority of Israelis not having been born in Europe.
«12. . .1,3061,3071,3081,3091,3101,3111,312. . .1,3151,316»
Advertisement
