5 ms·

You know people online can just say things, right?

waffleiron 4y ago
I don’t think it’s that far fetched that DHS shows up to someone who is opposed to the US government and is a self identifying communist. The same DHS who bans immigrants that are or have been members of a communist party [1]. [1] https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20201002-PartyMembership.pdf https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-ma...
ginjas 4y ago
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  - gre 4y ago
    The United States has over 750 military bases in 80 countries. Which state is the militaristic state?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - ginjas 4y ago
    >I reject the false equivalence of the DHS and FSB. Not gonna both-sides this, sorry. lmao mkay. Not identical, but very similar. It's not even 'Alex Jones'-tier to say this. I think you forget you are if you are under US or (even NATO). YOU WILL hear propaganda from your side, as the Russians do. It's NORMAL. We live under control of a hegemon with self-interests. May I have to remind you of these? And tell me the difference between these and Russian spookery: >Assange was being hunted down by the US worldwide (https://diem25.org/exactly-10-years-ago-wikileaks-released-a-us-military-video-depicting-the-slaying-of-over-a-dozen-people-in-iraq/ https://diem25.org/exactly-10-years-ago-wikileaks-released-a...) >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM I could go on, but the point was made already. Edit: So yes, it's actually 'both sides'
    - bpodgursky 4y ago
      Yeah, you could go on, but you get paid per post, not per word.
      - ginjas 4y ago
        Unmasked as a shill for saying that great powers engage in propaganda, false flagging and dissent crushing. I have no skin in the game. War, no war, it doesn't matter to me the outcome of this war to be honest. EDIT: But if you are all moral highground, answer me this: Why did the US goad Ukraine into taking a hostile stance against a neighbouring (and somewhat rival) great power? Whas this to the interest of Ukranians? Or to the geopolitical interests of US? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg
        bpodgursky 4y ago
        I don't accept that you can make this case: "Why did you, W, goad X into expressing their sovereignty against Y? Didn't you know that Y would react with violence? That makes W the bad guy" No, Y is always on the wrong side; you can't use the threat of violence and then claim via realpolitik that the other side was in the wrong. "Moral high ground" means you act out of principle, not political convenience. In this case, Ukraine didn't want to be in the Russian sphere, so we supported them. And now yeah, the US is paying a lot of money and inconvenience to support Ukraine. Gas will be more expensive, we're spending tens of billions on weapons. But that's because it's the right thing to do; not every decision is a realpolitik game about maximizing revenue from vassal states (which I hope Russia will learn someday).
        ginjas 4y ago
        what I meant for the goading part was this: Ukraine has self interests. Everyone has. But not everyone can actualize those, due to reality. The reality is that Ukraine neighbours a powerful hegemon. Since international relations are anarchistic (due to not being a supra-entity that has authority over states [authority!=international courts bullsh*]), Ukraine hasn't any right (to its sovereign, that does not exist) to be sovereign. It has to go out and look for itself. Ukraine thought that had the US/NATO back, that made it act in a more reckless way (kind of when you rely on your big brother type stuff). It escalated 'till it decided it wanted to join NATO. It was goaded. >you can't use the threat of violence and then claim via realpolitik that the other side was in the wrong. who says? That's your problem. You lack the 'anarchistic' framework of geopolitics. Now, realpolitik-wise, Ukraine's self-interests (of being more independent of Russia thru NATO) did clash with Russia's self-interests of being safe (and probably made Russia have a expansionary Casus Belli). I feel that the US triggered and amplified the war, thru regime change in Ukraine (yep, maidan was a coup), recognizing aspirations of UA to NATO, making Zeleskyy too comfy to be more harsh in negotiations (where he had no leverage, cuz Ukraine's power small vs Rus.), ultimately resulted in unnecessary deaths, just for the purpose of sphere of influence expansion. >so we supported them. Even if it's reckless and could trigger something like this? Also, I will play the 'reversed roles card' again. This time with a REAL example. Cuba. Was. The. Same. Thing. That's why this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine. US has the same pattern as Russia. It's actually incredible how close these are.
  - mjhay 4y ago
    Not everyone who questions US foreign policy is a paid Russian agent.
    - bpodgursky 4y ago

I don’t think it’s that far fetched that DHS shows up to someone who is opposed to the US government and is a self identifying communist. The same DHS who bans immigrants that are or have been members of a communist party [1]. [1] https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20201002-PartyMembership.pdf https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-ma...

ginjas 4y ago

bpodgursky 4y ago
- gre 4y ago
  The United States has over 750 military bases in 80 countries. Which state is the militaristic state?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- ginjas 4y ago
  >I reject the false equivalence of the DHS and FSB. Not gonna both-sides this, sorry. lmao mkay. Not identical, but very similar. It's not even 'Alex Jones'-tier to say this. I think you forget you are if you are under US or (even NATO). YOU WILL hear propaganda from your side, as the Russians do. It's NORMAL. We live under control of a hegemon with self-interests. May I have to remind you of these? And tell me the difference between these and Russian spookery: >Assange was being hunted down by the US worldwide (https://diem25.org/exactly-10-years-ago-wikileaks-released-a-us-military-video-depicting-the-slaying-of-over-a-dozen-people-in-iraq/ https://diem25.org/exactly-10-years-ago-wikileaks-released-a...) >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM I could go on, but the point was made already. Edit: So yes, it's actually 'both sides'
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    Yeah, you could go on, but you get paid per post, not per word.
    - ginjas 4y ago
      Unmasked as a shill for saying that great powers engage in propaganda, false flagging and dissent crushing. I have no skin in the game. War, no war, it doesn't matter to me the outcome of this war to be honest. EDIT: But if you are all moral highground, answer me this: Why did the US goad Ukraine into taking a hostile stance against a neighbouring (and somewhat rival) great power? Whas this to the interest of Ukranians? Or to the geopolitical interests of US? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg
      - bpodgursky 4y ago
        I don't accept that you can make this case: "Why did you, W, goad X into expressing their sovereignty against Y? Didn't you know that Y would react with violence? That makes W the bad guy" No, Y is always on the wrong side; you can't use the threat of violence and then claim via realpolitik that the other side was in the wrong. "Moral high ground" means you act out of principle, not political convenience. In this case, Ukraine didn't want to be in the Russian sphere, so we supported them. And now yeah, the US is paying a lot of money and inconvenience to support Ukraine. Gas will be more expensive, we're spending tens of billions on weapons. But that's because it's the right thing to do; not every decision is a realpolitik game about maximizing revenue from vassal states (which I hope Russia will learn someday).
        ginjas 4y ago
        what I meant for the goading part was this: Ukraine has self interests. Everyone has. But not everyone can actualize those, due to reality. The reality is that Ukraine neighbours a powerful hegemon. Since international relations are anarchistic (due to not being a supra-entity that has authority over states [authority!=international courts bullsh*]), Ukraine hasn't any right (to its sovereign, that does not exist) to be sovereign. It has to go out and look for itself. Ukraine thought that had the US/NATO back, that made it act in a more reckless way (kind of when you rely on your big brother type stuff). It escalated 'till it decided it wanted to join NATO. It was goaded. >you can't use the threat of violence and then claim via realpolitik that the other side was in the wrong. who says? That's your problem. You lack the 'anarchistic' framework of geopolitics. Now, realpolitik-wise, Ukraine's self-interests (of being more independent of Russia thru NATO) did clash with Russia's self-interests of being safe (and probably made Russia have a expansionary Casus Belli). I feel that the US triggered and amplified the war, thru regime change in Ukraine (yep, maidan was a coup), recognizing aspirations of UA to NATO, making Zeleskyy too comfy to be more harsh in negotiations (where he had no leverage, cuz Ukraine's power small vs Rus.), ultimately resulted in unnecessary deaths, just for the purpose of sphere of influence expansion. >so we supported them. Even if it's reckless and could trigger something like this? Also, I will play the 'reversed roles card' again. This time with a REAL example. Cuba. Was. The. Same. Thing. That's why this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine. US has the same pattern as Russia. It's actually incredible how close these are.
- mjhay 4y ago
  Not everyone who questions US foreign policy is a paid Russian agent.
  - bpodgursky 4y ago