5 ms·

"disingenuous" I disagree. Firstly, I explicitly wrote 'NATO members' in all cases except Serbia, where it was NATO. Secondly, the driving force behind NATO

by gdy 6y ago

"disingenuous" I disagree. Firstly, I explicitly wrote 'NATO members' in all cases except Serbia, where it was NATO. Secondly, the driving force behind NATO is the US and it's mostly the US who bombs or invade other countries and it's the US who puts its military bases in the new NATO members. NATO expansion de facto means the expansion of American military infrastructure. Thirdly, NATO members feel that they are protected from the retaliation when they attack other countries individually. Do you think Turkey would've been that agressive, invading Syria, if it didn't know that NATO will protect it from a certain Syrian ally?

mthoms 6y ago
>I explicitly wrote 'NATO members' You did. But you did it in a very snarky and condescending way that implied the parent commenter was an idiot. Frankly, you sound a little too "wound up" to have a civilized discussion with. Even if you do have a couple semi-valid points. Edit: You know what? I just glanced at your comment history. It's chock full of the same childishness. I'm going to disengage here.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gdy 6y ago
  It's puzzling that you've decided to write this after reading a measured and polite comment with what I think are reasonable arguments.
- lovelyviking 6y ago
  >Frankly, you sound a little too "wound up" to have a civilized discussion with. Even if you do have a couple semi-valid points. Very healthy reaction to russian propaganda. They usually act in a semi-valid points to slowly deliver 'lie-point' that have nothing to do with the reality. It's difficult to catch them with direct lie, but you see their signature in a mile after some experience. I went to look for the history of this guy just after reading one-line comment and sure enough I have found more examples of what I've suspected. >It's chock full of the same childishness Here I think, while it's indeed childishness, the threat of it not childish at all and I think underestimated. It's very dangerous propaganda weapon that proven to work well for Russian aggression for some time now. I wish people like you would take that into account and see threat for what it is.
  - gdy 6y ago
    "semi-valid points to slowly deliver 'lie-point' that have nothing to do with the reality" You are welcome to provide counterpoints, that's how "civilized discussion" works.
    - lovelyviking 6y ago
      Frankly, you sound a little too "wound up" to have a civilized discussion with. Even if you do have a couple semi-valid points. You know what? I just glanced at your comment history. It's chock full of the same childishness. I'm going to disengage here.
      - gdy 6y ago
        Are both of you using the same handbook of internet trolls?

by gdy 6y ago

mthoms 6y ago

>I explicitly wrote 'NATO members' You did. But you did it in a very snarky and condescending way that implied the parent commenter was an idiot. Frankly, you sound a little too "wound up" to have a civilized discussion with. Even if you do have a couple semi-valid points. Edit: You know what? I just glanced at your comment history. It's chock full of the same childishness. I'm going to disengage here.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gdy 6y ago
It's puzzling that you've decided to write this after reading a measured and polite comment with what I think are reasonable arguments.
lovelyviking 6y ago
>Frankly, you sound a little too "wound up" to have a civilized discussion with. Even if you do have a couple semi-valid points. Very healthy reaction to russian propaganda. They usually act in a semi-valid points to slowly deliver 'lie-point' that have nothing to do with the reality. It's difficult to catch them with direct lie, but you see their signature in a mile after some experience. I went to look for the history of this guy just after reading one-line comment and sure enough I have found more examples of what I've suspected. >It's chock full of the same childishness Here I think, while it's indeed childishness, the threat of it not childish at all and I think underestimated. It's very dangerous propaganda weapon that proven to work well for Russian aggression for some time now. I wish people like you would take that into account and see threat for what it is.
- gdy 6y ago
  "semi-valid points to slowly deliver 'lie-point' that have nothing to do with the reality" You are welcome to provide counterpoints, that's how "civilized discussion" works.
  - lovelyviking 6y ago
    Frankly, you sound a little too "wound up" to have a civilized discussion with. Even if you do have a couple semi-valid points. You know what? I just glanced at your comment history. It's chock full of the same childishness. I'm going to disengage here.
    - gdy 6y ago
      Are both of you using the same handbook of internet trolls?