5 ms·

Oh, please! You’re just reciting the ridiculous American media. US leaders have been aggressively rallying for war with Russia for many many years, and it has b

Oh, please! You’re just reciting the ridiculous American media. US leaders have been aggressively rallying for war with Russia for many many years, and it has been especially intense over the past few months. Putin is insane, but the US has given him every reason to believe that striking sooner than later is in his best interest. They didn’t have to do that, ya know. Americans have plenty of problems at home, and it is absolutely shameful that they can’t focus on them. Many parts of America are utter slums.

fairity 5y ago
> US leaders have been aggressively rallying for war with Russia for many many years Source please.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Not at all the person you're responding to, and don't agree in the slightest with their viewpoint, however from what i recall Hillary Clinton was selling herself very tough on Russia in the last election she lost.
  - EvaK_de 5y ago
    "being tough on Russia" is very far from "aggressively rallying for war with Russia".
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Personally that's how i interpreted her posture. It may have been all for show, but who knows.
      - mikeyouse 5y ago
        When Hillary was running, Russia had just invaded Ukraine the first time. So Russia intervened in US elections to get someone more pliant elected. This war and any “aggressive” posture toward Russia is entirely of Moscow’s making.
        nopenopenopeno 5y ago
        Russiagate has been handily debunked, and its premise was always stupid. No country on Earth has meddled in nearly the number of foreign elections as the USA. This is universally understood history. It’s not up for debate. Only the propagandized American domestic population would have even considered Russiagate a newsworthy scandal. And only the propagandized American domestic population would have interpreted it as anything short of a failure on the part of America’s own leadership and commercialized election system.
        mikeyouse 5y ago
        Ah yes. "Debunked". There's literally no serious doubts about whether Russia interfered to assist the Trump campaign. The only real question was whether any of it was coordinated. Who spear-fished Podesta again? As well as the DNC? And 4,000 other Clinton-related email addresses? And why did that same group also attack the World Anti-Doping Agency, MH17 researchers, senior NATO members and Russian political opposition and journalists?[1] Who was Manafort providing internal polling data to, and why was that worth forgiving $20 million worth of loans? [2] When even the Republican Senate Intelligence committee has this to say, it's clearly "debunked"[3]; > The Committee found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Parts of this effort are outlined in the Committee's earlier volumes on election security, social media, the Obama Administration's response to the threat, and the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Here's what Mueller had to say, sure, "debunked"[4]: > The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials—hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government—began that same month. [1] - https://www.secureworks.com/research/iron-twilight-supports-active-measures https://www.secureworks.com/research/iron-twilight-supports-... [2] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/08/manafort-russian-poll-share-konstantin-kilimnik-trump-investigation-2016-election-latest https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/08/manafort-rus... [3] -https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... [4] - https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download
arrrg 5y ago
It doesn’t matter if tyrants are democratically elected. And he was a tyrant, indiscriminately slaughtering protesters. Once you are violating human dignity and human rights in such an obvious way you are in no way a legitimate leader. Election victories can never be a justification for blatant human rights violations. (This doesn’t even touch on whether the election was legitimate in the first place.) Also, whataboutism isn’t very helpful in the current situation. It’s a pointless distraction and doesn’t make anything Putin does currently any less wrong. In general, whataboutism is just so incredibly unhelpful and pointless. It’s extremely dumb (or extremely clever in an evil way if you have an agenda). (This is dangerously close to whataboutism, but just another point: you mention the EU removing him, however as far as I can tell there was no EU involved in his removal.)
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  See: immanent critique. Western liberal dogma holds that democratic consent justifies global terrorism of virtually any kind. As Chomsky says, the US state apparatus is the world’s largest terrorist organization.
  - arrrg 5y ago
    More whataboutism. Ukraine is being invaded here. By Russia. Neither the EU nor NATO are involved. You make literally no sense at all. Also, the tyrant slaughtering his own people was disposed of by them. You can make all the legalistic arguments in the world, that won’t change that his own people disposed of him. So you talking about the USA literally makes no sense. So what if I were to agree that the US is the largest terror org in the world. Doesn’t change a thing and is pure irrelevance.

fairity 5y ago

> US leaders have been aggressively rallying for war with Russia for many many years Source please.

sofixa 5y ago
Not at all the person you're responding to, and don't agree in the slightest with their viewpoint, however from what i recall Hillary Clinton was selling herself very tough on Russia in the last election she lost.
- EvaK_de 5y ago
  "being tough on Russia" is very far from "aggressively rallying for war with Russia".
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Personally that's how i interpreted her posture. It may have been all for show, but who knows.
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      When Hillary was running, Russia had just invaded Ukraine the first time. So Russia intervened in US elections to get someone more pliant elected. This war and any “aggressive” posture toward Russia is entirely of Moscow’s making.
      - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
        Russiagate has been handily debunked, and its premise was always stupid. No country on Earth has meddled in nearly the number of foreign elections as the USA. This is universally understood history. It’s not up for debate. Only the propagandized American domestic population would have even considered Russiagate a newsworthy scandal. And only the propagandized American domestic population would have interpreted it as anything short of a failure on the part of America’s own leadership and commercialized election system.
        mikeyouse 5y ago
        Ah yes. "Debunked". There's literally no serious doubts about whether Russia interfered to assist the Trump campaign. The only real question was whether any of it was coordinated. Who spear-fished Podesta again? As well as the DNC? And 4,000 other Clinton-related email addresses? And why did that same group also attack the World Anti-Doping Agency, MH17 researchers, senior NATO members and Russian political opposition and journalists?[1] Who was Manafort providing internal polling data to, and why was that worth forgiving $20 million worth of loans? [2] When even the Republican Senate Intelligence committee has this to say, it's clearly "debunked"[3]; > The Committee found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Parts of this effort are outlined in the Committee's earlier volumes on election security, social media, the Obama Administration's response to the threat, and the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Here's what Mueller had to say, sure, "debunked"[4]: > The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials—hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government—began that same month. [1] - https://www.secureworks.com/research/iron-twilight-supports-active-measures https://www.secureworks.com/research/iron-twilight-supports-... [2] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/08/manafort-russian-poll-share-konstantin-kilimnik-trump-investigation-2016-election-latest https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/08/manafort-rus... [3] -https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... [4] - https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

arrrg 5y ago

It doesn’t matter if tyrants are democratically elected. And he was a tyrant, indiscriminately slaughtering protesters. Once you are violating human dignity and human rights in such an obvious way you are in no way a legitimate leader. Election victories can never be a justification for blatant human rights violations. (This doesn’t even touch on whether the election was legitimate in the first place.) Also, whataboutism isn’t very helpful in the current situation. It’s a pointless distraction and doesn’t make anything Putin does currently any less wrong. In general, whataboutism is just so incredibly unhelpful and pointless. It’s extremely dumb (or extremely clever in an evil way if you have an agenda). (This is dangerously close to whataboutism, but just another point: you mention the EU removing him, however as far as I can tell there was no EU involved in his removal.)

nopenopenopeno 5y ago
See: immanent critique. Western liberal dogma holds that democratic consent justifies global terrorism of virtually any kind. As Chomsky says, the US state apparatus is the world’s largest terrorist organization.
- arrrg 5y ago
  More whataboutism. Ukraine is being invaded here. By Russia. Neither the EU nor NATO are involved. You make literally no sense at all. Also, the tyrant slaughtering his own people was disposed of by them. You can make all the legalistic arguments in the world, that won’t change that his own people disposed of him. So you talking about the USA literally makes no sense. So what if I were to agree that the US is the largest terror org in the world. Doesn’t change a thing and is pure irrelevance.