Iranian channel reminds the world of the Dresden massacre . I wonder why America keeps wanting to overthrow Iran
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (130)
sorted by:
I do? Can you cite one single instance? I don't think you can, because I've always condemned the shelling of civilian areas (whether Donetsk or Mariupol), while also acknowledging that Azov used it as a human shield in the way that Hamas does.
What actions are those? Do they address them as Zelensky bodyguards? I'm not convinced of these mad tales of Russian supposed atrocities, particularly because it's wartime and the regime loves to make up propaganda about its adversaries. Bucha, seems likely that the Russians did it (though I can't see what rhyme or reason those actions have), but I wouldn't be surprised if there was something else either. But even that wasn't targeting of children and women.
About that, remember the statement by the NATO apparatchik defending taking out Yugoslavia's power? But... but... that wasn't in winter. I'm sure they would have stopped if their terror bombing lasted into winter.
The West is pure dogsh*t when it comes to governments. The only thing that changed in the West is that they started to hold up appearances. This means that they pretend to not target civilians, while actually bombing weddings. They'll pretend to support a "rules-based international order", while bombing Yugoslavia when it suits them and destroying one country after another. And they'll condemn it when Russia shells Mariupol while shilling for their puppets who shell the city center of Donetsk.
Just like they steal Russian assets and impose sanctions because "it invaded another country", and didn't do either against the US when it invaded other countries and didn't do it against their buddy Azerbaijan (with whose genocidal leader Von der Leyen was recently taking photo-ops).
Hypocrisy is the state religion of the West. I'm sure you won't be shocked that the people who protect grooming gangs are bad people.
That is interesting. I wonder if that's not because the atomic bombs suck all the oxygen out of the air. Most people don't know a lot about the terror bombings to begin with.
The interesting thing is that Stalin lied about Soviet losses in the war. He couldn't make them too low, but the true figure of 27 million was just too much, so he decided to cut it by 1/4. 7 million Soviet citizens died during the war, and that was final.
I'm not going to dig around your post history if that's even possible, but I distinctly remember that when Russia started to lose early in the war, and switched to terror artillery bombardment of civilian areas, your attitude towards that was to defend it, and argue that the blood is on Zelensky's (and the West's) hands for continuing to resist, that the best way to save lives was to capitulate. This is, of course, the exact mentality that Russia wanted to promote through its terror campaign. "just surrender to save lives, bro, stop making us mass murder you"
Azov did not = Mariupol. The Azov controlled one part of Mariupol around Azovstal, and there were numerous other units in Mariupol resisting. The idea that Mariupol = Azov was always Russian propaganda. Russia massively magnified the Azov Regiment's significance because a handful of its rank and file had wehraboo tattoos (as did many Russian soldiers, btw, it turns out love for SS iconography isn't a uniquely Ukrainian thing).
Also, Ukraine tried multiple times to get Russia to agree to a civilian corridor to evacuate Mariupol. Russia agreed, then opened fire on those who tried to flee. So no, I don't agree at all that anyone used Ukrainian civilians as human shields.
There were tons of dead bodies littering the streets in Bucha, and in some cases video evidence of the Russian soldiers gunning them down for no reason. You speak of "rhyme or reason"? Soldiers murder civilians because they've been ordered to, or because they've been keyed up through propaganda, or because they're simply angry and out for revenge and a civilian is an easy defenseless target.
Plenty of the dead in Bucha were women and children.
How many other Buchas have there been, which we simply don't have the same degree of video evidence of? There is no reason to believe that the Russians acted uniquely in Bucha.
The US absolutely targets power infrastructure in wars, and it's ordinarily a legitimate military target. The big difference here is that Russia ignored those targets for a loooooong time, clearly indicating that Russia didn't consider them targets.
Then, late in the war, when Russia was coming up with new terror ideas for its iranian drone offensive, it settled on power and water infrastructure. And we know that shutting down the power has no effect on Ukrainian military units since they all have generators. Looking at the individualized facts of this situation, it is clear to me that the Russian motive here is to specifically try to break the morale of the Ukrainians through terror attacks designed to inflict hardship and death.
Now, if the Russians had gone all out on power plants right at the beginning of the war, I wouldn't be criticizing it the same way at all. Context matters. Actions might look legitimate in 1 context, and illegitimate in another.
No, it's genuine. Your attitude on this is Russian projection.
The West takes pains to avoid hitting civilian targets, and once in a while, mistakes are made. The key difference is that it isn't intentional. Also our enemies, particularly muslims, invest great effort at hiding their terrorist meetings in the contexts of things like weddings in order to deter bombing, and to exploit it for propaganda if the bombing happens anyway.
There are countless videos of muslims combatants in iraq and afghanistan running full speed for the nearest mosque once they came under fire. IMO if your enemy is going to hide behind women and children or run into mosques, you hit the target anyway and blame the enemy for the result.
Serbia violated the "rules-based international order". NATO's bombing was 100% consistent. Of course the EU imposes much stricter rules on its own area than are applied more broadly elsewhere in the world.
I'm not aware of any country destroyed by the West. Example?
Ukraine doesn't engage in area shelling of civilian areas. The one time I heard of a Ukrainian commander doing it a little bit, he was reassigned and punished.
Russia invades to engage in wars of conquest and empire building. The US only invades to protect the West and preserve the West's norms of order.
Yep. The west did absolutely nothing to stop Azerbaijan, because Armenia is a client state of Russia and it was Russia's job to protect it.
And did Russia do anything to help Armenia? No. Looks like Russia is a pretty shit ally and nobody should ever be Russia's ally ever again. Armenia proved that a Russian alliance is worthless.
“If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics.”
In the West, the enormous death toll of the Soviets and Chinese are just meaningless numbers on a page. The Korean Comfort Women, which is a trifling and massively exaggerated thing, get enormous attention because South Korea is part of the West and never shuts the fuck up about it. Normies think 100% of comfort women were Korean, when it was less than half. Normies think 100% of the victims of the Holocaust were jews, when it was only about half.
The degree of attention focused on a thing warps the perception of that thing. This warped perception then gets recycled into "common knowledge".
As you also distinctly remember, I supported making peace on terms that you thought amounted to a defeat for Russia. Which then was foiled because the puppet non-country was ordered to not make peace, as Bennett recounted.
So yeah, the West and its puppet are 100% responsible for any casualties in the normal course of the war. They caused the war, they provoked it. Russia is only responsible for casualties that could have been avoided by Russia, say Bucha if Russia was indeed responsible for that, or Mariupol if you are correct that Russia decided to shell Russian speakers for literally no reason.
So they were using Mariupol as a human shield, like Hamas does in Gaza. Good to know.
That said, morality aside, I have questioned the judgment of shelling Russian speakers in the east. Folks who should be more inclined to be on Russia's side, and whom Russia wants to rule. Seems like a really stupid thing to do.
Any time this is pointed out, the 'Ukraine' apologists produce the same photo. So not exactly.
The last part, all true. That is why war is hell. No strategic, operational or even tactical objective was achieved by gunning down those people. On the other hand, that petty non-country had plenty to gain by faking it. However, I've not looked into it closely, so I don't see how they could have faked it - despite pro-Russia generally claiming that it is.
I have seen 'Ukraine' soldiers allegedly saying that they were firing on those wearing white armbands. But who knows if that was just a fake translation? See, I care about the truth, which you in many cases don't - you just want to say RUSSIA BAD.
So you have no evidence? Considering that you're still talking about Bucha months afterwards, despite Ukraine having a compliant media, I'd say none.
Allegedly, that was the transition to full war. Clearly, trying to reason with that so called country hadn't worked, so tougher measures had to be used.
I don't know about that. You 'know' a lot of stuff that you were told by the MSM, which you dismiss when it writes a hitpiece on your beloved GOP, but then believe unconditionally when it says something that you like...
Sure thing. The people who allow tens of thousands of young girls to be raped by Pakistanis, the people who'll allow millions of Americans to get addicted to opiates to increase a pharma company's profit, REALLY CARE about another country's population when they don't even care about their own.
You even used a passive voice! Who made those 'mistakes' in your wars of aggression?
And you are correct about that, at least if it's proportional. Throwing a MOAB into a crowd of 10,000 people because one Muslim combatant fled into it is not proportional.
Yes, the one where the rules are made by corrupt American bureaucrats, and the orders are given by Raytheon stooges.
Serbia, Libya, Syria, Iraq. I'm leaving out Afghanistan because the war there was justified.
You heard of it one time, so it must have happened only one time? They've been shelling civilian areas of Donetsk since the beginning of this war. Of course, you don't hear about that, just like you didn't hear that they were shelling a nuclear power plant because it was held by the Russians.
LOL! Dude, you go from sounding like a hard-nosed realist to a 15-year-old coomer addicted to Disney movies. WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS! YAY!
You know full well that this is not how things work, so cut it out.
And not only that, it funded its wars of aggression, no sanctions, which proves their hypocrisy.
Yes, that is a major problem. If you have a political lobby, you can get attention focused on your pet non-issues even if you are 0.3% of the population and you want to groom kids.
Ukraine: minding its own business
Putin: invades
Antonio: "how could Ukraine do this???"
No, defending a city isn't the same as human shield tactics. The Ukrainians tried to evacuate the civilians, but Russia surrounded the city and started to open fire on anyone trying to leave.
Russia would eventually kidnap the civilian refugees and force them to resettle in Russia, which confirms your empire theory of Russia trying to gain population.
You've got that backwards. I care about the truth 100% of the time and an open to being swayed by evidence. I'm not biased against Russia. I have some unfair bias against Azerbaijan, for example, because they are muslims killing Christians. I have no such bias in the Ukraine war. You, on the other hand, are super eager to believe total bullshit from non-credible sources if it fits your bias, and to reject settled evidence if it conflicts with yours.
There's extensive documentation of lots of examples of Russians killing civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_civilians_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
I don't take my information from the MSM. The fact that the Ukrainian military isn't dependent on the power grid comes from numerous sources I consider to be credible within Ukraine itself. Most notably, the fact that CIVILIANS can and do often buy generators of their own. Earlier last year it was more difficult for them to buy them because the military was taking them, but later on, there was enough surplus supply that a lot of businesses have them now. All OSINT types have been consistent that the power attacks pose no threat to Ukraine's military capabilities since they don't rely on the grid at all. If you know how military units work, you'd know that they rely very heavily on fuel, but not on the electrical grid.
So by "destroyed" you mean "bombed". Last I checked, Serbia is still there, same with the rest. Libya had a civil war where NATO helped the rebels (and they shouldn't have). Syria the US had almost no involvement in, in contrast to Russia which got heavily involved. The US only did strikes on Syria 1 time in response to chemical weapons attacks. Iraq, the US nation built up into a functioning democracy.
It's easy to be the "good guys" when your enemies and muslim terrorists, russia, and china.
We've been over this. Lobbying against Russia, restricting the Russian language, and being at war with the Donbas is not minding your own business. Neither is importing lethal arms from the US.
I don't know if I believe that.
Why exactly would it need to 'force' civilians to go to Russia? They're Russian speakers.
Not in my exp. You seem to be a hardline Cold Warrior stuck in the 1980s. That said, despite your assholery, you also have a good heart, which means that you can be fooled into believing that this is about 'fraydom' or 'democracy' or such other non-existent crap. It's a shame that the ruling class in the US is able to advance its own interests by fooling the population like that.
Like what, the journalist who has a near-perfect 50 year track record? Oh sure!
I don't even click on Wikipedia. If you suddenly think it's trustworthy, open the article for any Republican. Or transgenderism.
Yeah, I have yet to see an 'OSINT type' who wasn't a total jackass.
Which I don't, but the unfortunate thing is, that I don't know what source I can trust in a war environment. Either they're biased against Ukraine, or against Russia. So I basically end up saying "I don't know".
As opposed to what, sinking into the ocean?
Didn't they spend a billion a year training terrorists, and spend even more through proxies. The only saving grace was that Obama was relatively rational on foreign policy, and that he wasn't dying for new wars like most American politicians.
Russia was defending the government. That's rather different from stoking a civil war, which the US did, and which has caused all this destruction.
Dude, c'mon man. You destroyed the country.
People who don't castrate their kids and bow down before black people very bad!
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
There's too much crap here for me to know what is being referred to. Maybe "Ukraine doesn't engage in area shelling of civilian areas"? Even if that's what you're going for, that's not what we mean by the disinformaiton rule. Shilling for your factional specific narrative is not the same as spreading explicit disinformation. It's a much higher standard than what normally gets treated.