Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

[Wergeland 2.0]

But tell me, if you, and I say 'you' generically, are an advocate for theocracy, and given the history of theocracy, why is it unreasonable to call you, and again I say 'you' generically lest there be any misunderstanding, as someone who is undemocratic, not freedom loving, tyrannical, or even terroristic?

Theocracy, democracy, these are are mere words and maybe some «definitions» that have consesus within a certain circle of people.

I am a muslim. I dosent matter to me if the ideal muslim nation calls itself a theocracy or democracy or supersuperbestestcracy. What matters to me is that the leadership of a nation lives upto some ideals and that subjects should be given some responibilites and benefits in a balanced way.

The problem is that most americans and non-muslims, and even muslims, think Islam is a religion, that is religion according to the western definition of religion. Islam is NOT a religion. As i told here before Islam compared to neo-liberalism and postmodernism do not believe in unrestricted individual freedom, and tbh neither does USA. Without regulations there would be no civilization. Islam says freedom is a virtue and should be maximized, but not at the expense of other virtues like family, social life, stability, safety and so on.

Of course you are free to think a «theocracy» is tyrannical. But then i have to ask you what is a theocracy and tyrannical compared to what?? If Iran is a theocracy and in your opinion therefore tyrannical, then you given yourself the right to sanction, bomb, invade and kill iranians? Isnt murdering and killing people in lands far off from your coast, the real tyranny!? Any normal human would think so.

When europeans invaded and killed native americans, the legitimized it by labeling them barbaric and tyrannical. So they were exterminated.

 

[Bilal.]

This is just going around in circles, you can't accept a very simple premise. Respect a country and its principals or don't choose to live there.

Again you are confusing policies with principles and then proposing the very thing that contradicts what US “claims” to be as one of the basic “principles” it stands on.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

 

[RescueRanger]

This is just going around in circles, you can't accept a very simple premise. Respect a country and its principals or don't choose to live there.

Respectfully YOU are no one to make that demand on a fellow human being. He is entitled to his opinion and his immigration status is NOT up for debate here.

Everyone stay on topic from now on. No personal attacks no cheap nonsense.

@The Eagle @LeGenD

—-

 

[pkuser2k12]

China to pull Premier League TV coverage this weekend over Ukraine support​

China pulls PL TV coverage over Ukraine support

Chinese broadcasters will not air Premier League matches this weekend in response to the league's planned support of Ukraine.

www.espn.in

 

[dbc]

It’s not an argument. It’s just attacking the argument with the ethnicity card. A citizen of country has a right to criticize without the end all argument of you don’t like it then leave. It is an attack on ethnicity and basically denying the right to criticize to a person(or people) of certain ethnic backgrounds.

Or at least that’s what US preaches and would be nice if it practices the same.

A US citizen can criticise his or her country, it's done all the time. As a matter of fact I know many who have chosen not to apply for citizenship because they loath the US enough to never want to become permanently associated with the country.

The US isn't without flaws and it can never be all things to all people. Criticism is ok, but when people bearing our flag on PDF wish harm to befall our country - that is not ok. If the US has caused you to become bitter -then leave.

I don't see a flaw in Gambits reasoning. Suggesting that a US citizen of Vietnamese descent has a higher burden of loyalty is racist.

 

[NotSure]

Fine, so the US made agreements and broke them. But this is about RUSSIA AND UKRAINE, not US. Can YOU find that written agreement between Russia and Ukraine where Russia promised not to attack if Ukraine give up 1700 nuclear warheads? Do you think the Ukrainians give a damn about US breaking past agreements? No, they do not.

Each nuclear warhead is one security assurance. Russia seduced/convinced Ukraine to give up 1700 security assurances. It was not a legally enforceable doc but Ukraine gave up anyway. But now, it is so important that Ukraine understand that the US had broken promises therefore Ukraine must self justify Russia's invasion? Is that the main point of your argument?

This written agreement was obsolete after the Coup happened on 22. february 2014.

Get over it, everybody knows and understand it. Your parroting of the word "written" thousand times will change nothing.

 

[teX]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1499876055968100359

I don't how big bet this actor/comedian has placed for Nato's direct involvement, but he sure is the main person who brought his country to current situation.
He reminds me of Altaf bhai while making emotional statements

 

[Meengla]

Pretty interesting discussion on an Indian channel. I know, Pranab is hated by PDF Pakistanis but at least in this episode he shines around minute 27. And around minute 39 the discussion gets really interesting. Here is a video from around minute 39. What is obvious is that Indians are not very happy with the anti-Russia slant and that's not just in this video. As are most Pakistanis but who, more than India, can afford to be totally neutral. Pakistan's main gain is through China's advantage but that's still so tangential gain. Pakistanis could afford to be totally neutral in this.

 

[gambit]

Theocracy, democracy, these are are mere words and maybe some «definitions» that have consesus within a certain circle of people.

I am a muslim. I dosent matter to me if the ideal muslim nation calls itself a theocracy or democracy or supersuperbestestcracy. What matters to me is that the leadership of a nation lives upto some ideals and that subjects should be given some responibilites and benefits in a balanced way.

Never asked what you are and did not know, until now. But ultimately, I do not care and so far in this thread, I never brought in religion. Unlike others who brought in arguments that have nothing to do with the main topic. The reason I brought in theocracy was just to use a contrasting example. Not to indict any particular religion.

The problem is that most americans and non-muslims, and even muslims, think Islam is a religion, that is religion according to the western definition of religion. Islam is NOT a religion. As i told here before Islam compared to neo-liberalism and postmodernism do not believe in unrestricted individual freedom, and tbh neither does USA. Without regulations there would be no civilization. Islam says freemdom is a virtue and should be maximized, but not at the expense of other virtues like family, social life, stability, safety and so on.

Under that umbrella, anything can be construed as threatening to <whatever>. And that is the point of why the US have such a liberal attitude towards the IDEA of 'free speech'. But am not going into the details of that here.

Of course you are free to think a «theocracy» is tyrannical. But then i have to ask you what is a theocracy and tyrannical compared to what?? If Iran is a theocracy and in your opinion therefore tyrannical, then you given yourself the right to sanction, bomb, invade and kill iranians? Isnt murdering and killing people in lands far off from your coast, the real tyranny!? Any normal human would think so.

Are you saying that the current hostile relation between Iran and the US is based SOLELY on ideological differences and not from other issues/factors?

 

[pkuser2k12]

What is wrong with these people

https://twitter.com/x/status/1499880226922319873

 

[Wood]

 

[gambit]

This written agreement was obsolete after the Coup happened on 22. february 2014.

Get over it, everybody knows and understand it. Your parroting of the word "written" thousand times will change nothing.

You cannot even produce that agreement, let alone declaring it nullified.

Ukraine was in physical ownership of 1700 Soviet nuclear warheads. Russia was too weak to get them back. Russia seduced/convinced Ukraine to give up the nukes based on a non-legal doc. Ukraine agreed and complied to Russia's wishes. Now Russia is 1700 nuclear warheads more powerful.

And Ukraine is in the wrong?

 

[Bilal.]

A US citizen can criticise his or her country, it's done all the time. As a matter of fact I know many who have chosen not to apply for citizenship because they loath the US enough to never want to become permanently associated with the country.

The US isn't without flaws and it can never be all things to all people. Criticism is ok, but when people bearing our flag on PDF wish harm to befall our country - that is not ok. If the US has caused you to become bitter -then leave.

I don't see a flaw in Gambits reasoning. Suggesting that a US citizen of Vietnamese descent has a higher burden of loyalty is racist.

No one had wished harm to befall on US as far as I read. @Madni Bappa was pointing out how the flawed US “policies” had brought suffering and consequences back home. And the counter argument used to answer that was “go back to Pakistan”.

I wouldn’t care generally for that argument if it weren’t for US’s constant lecturing and active funding of NGOs across the world to question the policies of their respective countries and when it comes to its own matters, behaving to the contrary.

Like I said, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either accept criticism from your “citizens” or stop your preaching and arm twisting across the globe.

 

[Wergeland 2.0]

The opposite of 'free speech' is 'anti free speech', not 'some free speech' or 'conditional free speech'. You cannot make a little bit of fire. It is physically impossible. Either you have the flame, or you have no fire. Either you have a circle or a square or a triangle, or you do not, there is no middle ground. If you blend a circle with a square, you will have something else, but never a circle or a square.

Again youre painting it as if Americans have unrestricted freedom of speech and that voting really counts.

In reality i would sat yes in certain areas America has more freedom of expression and speech but in other areas it prevents freedom of speech. In america you are not allowed to openly say or publish things which compromise national security, and rightly so. But still its a limitation of freedom of speech. You are not allowed to boycott israeli productc in many states. Teachers has to do a oath where they sign that they support Israel.

If we take it to the extreme you can say yes america allows gay marriage in certain states but why not consentual incest? Now let me tell you i am all against consentual incest, but to be fair for the sake of freedom of expression and liberty, why is it disallowed? Why are people disallowed to walk completely naked in public sphere?

In summary: America does not have absolute freedom of speech, what you have is a consensus based framework for what is acceptable or not. By large the limits of freedom of expression is controlled by your media, which in reality are 5-10 big media conglomerates, owned and controlled by only a few people.

When it comes to voting, you think you have a say when in reality its the money and media who decides whos going to win. People only vote according to the information they have access to, and that information is controlled by media.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

All I can say is Hamartia has a much easier cubicle than you. Or desk if y'all work from home these days lmao

@Hamartia Antidote wassup big bro?

It gives me a big chuckle when I point out all the so-called experts here who made reply after reply after long winded reply saying there is no way Putin would invade Ukraine and all this talk by the US of an invasion was fakeNews. When Russian officials stood up and actively denied an invasion was imminent the weak minded sheep again got up and pointed out this as proof of US lies.

Then after Putin invades the tune changes from "he would never invade" to "oh..uh..they deserve to be invaded..yes..yes..that's it".