KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

---

With respect,

Throughout world history ( including US strategic interests ) this moral compass you mention is an illusion.

Super powers and empires have always acted out in their economic, political and strategic best interests and then justified it afterwards.

Is Russian ' morally ' correct to invade Ukraine ?
Obviously it depends who you ask .

Was the United States 'morally' correct to invade Iraq ?
Again it depends who you ask.

Personally I am equally angry at both Biden and Putin. They both miscalculated, a horrendous war ensued, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians have been sacrificed.

However it was the UNITED STATES that attempted to alternate the existing status quo in the region. It was the UNITED STATES that ignored the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border . Most likely Biden simply was simply too far into his dementia to comprehend the finality of the situation. Or possibly welcomed a proxy war in which to cover his family's money laundering activities.

Regardless the rich elites in both the US and Russia sit safely back in their mansions while the poor and middle class elements of Ukrainian and Russian society are forced to kill each other.

That is what is morally repugnant to me.

As always it is the rich elites who start wars, but the poor and middle class who get mutilated and die in them .

---

Sorry but I don't buy your moral relativism. You're a good poster who I generally agree with, but you've lost your way and are dead wrong on this one. Your position that a tyrant is justified in killing innocents is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether he has been antagonized by Biden's decisions.

There is no excusing russias actions here.

---

And I believe you to be one of the best contributors on this board . Totally respect what you have done as a father .

But from the Russian perspective, they had few options remaining.

Months of negotiations were fruitless as the United States was unwavering in its determination to recruit Ukraine into NATO.

Thereby clearing the way to place still more nuclear weapons directly at the Russian people . From distances so short there would be less then 15 minutes notice of a nuclear launch.

I believe the US would have done something similar if these roles were reversed involving Mexico.

And much of the world would criticize our 'immoral' actions.

---

Yeah that's a bunch of hogwash and nothing more than Russian propaganda. There was little chance Ukraine was going to join NATO, and an even more minuscule chance that it would ever have nuclear weapons. Russia had options other than invasion. Perhaps if it had tried acting fairly with Ukraine years ago and chosen diplomacy rather than aggression and bloodshed this entire situation could have been avoided. But Russia chose to betray its agreements and commitments to Ukraine years ago and behaved in a manner that had Ukraine looking to Europe for trade agreements and alliances. And that was a bridge too far for the tiny little dictator.

Whatever way you try to spin it your position on this will remain wrong and morally reprehensible. It saddens me because you're an otherwise good poster. You're not a Sam who will quickly betray his purported deeply held beliefs and conservatism when it depends on the actor.

The sooner our party stops buying Russian propaganda the better.

---

Pure propaganda. It's the West that has betrayed its commitments to Russia at every turn.

---

The US certainly owns its share of the blame for this war and the resulting deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

But to say the West had betrayed its commitments to Russia 'at every turn' is a gross exaggeration.

---

NATO expansion, INF, ABM, Open Skies, Maidan, Minsk, proxy war…the list is long.

---

Admittedly I am not familiar will all the ramifications of these programs , nor what prompted them .

However I do know Putin isn't blameless for the current situation. As he has repeatedly declared his dismay of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and his hope of restoring its former power .

---

Those remarks were taken out of context. His point was that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a necessary development in Russian society and history.

Mothra said:

---

I already won the debate. You're just engaging in revisionist history at this point, attempting to falsely state that you provided other "justifications" than Nazism in your comments regarding this war being just.

That is quite simply a false statement.

---

LOL

Now, there's some of that Russian spin. Truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle:

1) INF - US withdrew in 2019 as a result of Putin's numerous, repeated and well-documented violations of the treaty, starting in 2014. In short, Russia had been involved in the development of ground-launched cruise missile having a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (as evidenced - among other things - by their hypersonic cruise missiles). It is one of the main reasons the US was so far behind Russia in that regard. Russia had been developing them since 2014 (among other missiles).

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/INFtreaty

2) US withdrawal from ABM wasn't a betrayal of commitments to Russia. To the contrary, the ABM allowed either side to withdraw from the ABM upon six months notice. US legally withdrew in 2001 to develop a missile defense shield. We can argue whether that was the correct course of action, but it was a perfectly legal one under the ABM.

3) Open Skies - Again, the Open Skies like the ABM provided a mechanism for withdrawal, and the US. did so in 2021 for the stated reason that Russia had likewise repeatedly violated it. Among other things, Russia had restricted access for Open Skies flights over Kaliningrad, over Moscow, and along the border between Russia and the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, in violation of the treaty. Russia reportedly also failed to provide priority flight clearance for Open Skies flights on a few occasions.

4) Maidan - please. There is plenty of blame for Maidan to go around. Russia, upset over another sovereign country's pro-European trajectory, scuttled discussions between Europe and Ukraine in Nov. 2013, days before an accord was to be signed. The accord would have more closely integrated political and economic ties between the EU and Ukraine, but Yanukovych bowed to intense pressure from Moscow. At this point, the Ukrainian people protested in Kyiv. Police violently dispersed crowds in Kyiv's Maidan Square, and, as the protests continued into December, demonstrators occupied Kyiv's city hall and called on Yanukovych to resign. in January 2014, Yanukovych signed a series of laws restricting the right to protest, and hundreds of thousands took to the streets of Kyiv in response. Bloody clashes between police and protesters ensued. On January 22 two protesters were killed in skirmishes with police. There is no evidence at all that the US was behind the protests that led to Yanukovych resigning.

5) Minsk - Again, please. Let's remember why Minsk became necessary: Russian aggression (surprise, surprise). Let's also remember it was a poorly written peace agreement, repeatedly and consistently violated by Russia.

Yet, in typical Putin **** sucker fashion, you put the blame on the U.S. for all of these.

Of course, this should be no surprise. You're the same guy who once argued the US should never have gotten involved in WWII, and that the U.S. was responsible for Pearl Harbor for not continuing to supply the Japanese imperialists with steel. The same guy who said the U.S. has never been involved in a Just War. The same guy who sides with authoritarians over US citizens, and said the govt. should be allowed to shut down businesses. The same guy who argued for vaccine mandates. The same guy who argued for a ministry of truth.

In short, depending on the actor, you're all too willing to betray your purported conservative and Just War beliefs. You are consistently on the wrong side of most issues. This is no different.

No one said our treaty withdrawals were illegal or without pretext.

We were responsible for Pearl Harbor only in the sense that we provoked it. As I explained before and will explain again, likely to no avail, there is a difference between provocation and justification.

It's not that the government should be allowed to shut down businesses. The government is allowed to shut down businesses, at least at the state level, and it always has been. It's only since Covid that some people decided this wasn't "conservative."

As for JWT, I would encourage you to seek a better understanding of it before passing judgment.

Of course Putin isn't blameless. I mean, here is a guy who betrayed everything that Boris Yelstin attempted. He's stymied democracy and political dissent at every turn. Amended the constitution to cement himself as Russia's dictator. Outlaws political opponents from running against him. Has more political prisoners in Russian gulags that any other "democracy" in the world today. Has repeatedly behaved in an aggressive manner with his neighbors, with incursions and land grabs of large swaths of territory. Regularly violates international arms treaties. Kills political opponents both inside and outside of Russia with abandon.

Yet, Sam would have you believe it is Putin that has been misunderstood or whose position have been mischaracterized. It's rather remarkable.

Sam Lowry said:

---

No one said our treaty withdrawals were illegal or without pretext.

We were responsible for Pearl Harbor only in the sense that we provoked it. As I explained before and will explain again, likely to no avail, there is a difference between provocation and justification.

It's not that the government should be allowed to shut down businesses. The government is allowed to shut down businesses, at least at the state level, and it always has been. It's only since Covid that some people decided this wasn't "conservative."

As for JWT, I would encourage you to seek a better understanding of it before passing judgment.

---

"No one said our treaty withdrawals were illegal or without pretext."

Yet, it's all America's fault. We have betrayed poor, innocent little Russia at every turn.

"We were responsible for Pearl Harbor only in the sense that we provoked it. As I explained before and will explain again, likely to no avail, there is a difference between provocation and justification."

Provoke a bully to knock your teeth out, it's your fault and shouldn't respond in like kind. LOL.

"It's not that the government should be allowed to shut down businesses. The government is allowed to shut down businesses, at least at the state level, and it always has been. It's only since Covid that some people decided this wasn't "conservative."

Nice try at the spin, but nobody argued there wasn't legal precedent for the govt. shutting down business. You went further and said it was the right thing to do, and that govt. should have shut it down even longer. Remember?

"As for JWT, I would encourage you to seek a better understanding of it before passing judgment."

For you, JWT only applies to countries other than America (and other Western powers).

Mothra said:

---

Of course Putin isn't blameless. I mean, here is a guy who betrayed everything that Boris Yelstin attempted. He's stymied democracy and political dissent at every turn. Amended the constitution to cement himself as Russia's dictator. Outlaws political opponents from running against him. Has more political prisoners in Russian gulags that any other "democracy" in the world today. Has repeatedly behaved in an aggressive manner with his neighbors, with incursions and land grabs of large swaths of territory. Regularly violates international arms treaties. Kills political opponents both inside and outside of Russia with abandon.

Yet, Sam would have you believe it is Putin that has been misunderstood or whose position have been mischaracterized. It's rather remarkable.

---

"Large swaths of territory." You're a hoot.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Of course Putin isn't blameless. I mean, here is a guy who betrayed everything that Boris Yelstin attempted. He's stymied democracy and political dissent at every turn. Amended the constitution to cement himself as Russia's dictator. Outlaws political opponents from running against him. Has more political prisoners in Russian gulags that any other "democracy" in the world today. Has repeatedly behaved in an aggressive manner with his neighbors, with incursions and land grabs of large swaths of territory. Regularly violates international arms treaties. Kills political opponents both inside and outside of Russia with abandon.

Yet, Sam would have you believe it is Putin that has been misunderstood or whose position have been mischaracterized. It's rather remarkable.

---

"Large swaths of territory." You're a hoot.

---

17,000 square miles in 2014, another 51,000 as of today - more than 25% of pre-2014 Ukraine. And of course, 20% of Georgia.

But you want to argue semantics over a single phrase while ignoring the rest of the post. LOL. Of course.

Russian shill gonna shill.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Of course Putin isn't blameless. I mean, here is a guy who betrayed everything that Boris Yelstin attempted. He's stymied democracy and political dissent at every turn. Amended the constitution to cement himself as Russia's dictator. Outlaws political opponents from running against him. Has more political prisoners in Russian gulags that any other "democracy" in the world today. Has repeatedly behaved in an aggressive manner with his neighbors, with incursions and land grabs of large swaths of territory. Regularly violates international arms treaties. Kills political opponents both inside and outside of Russia with abandon.

Yet, Sam would have you believe it is Putin that has been misunderstood or whose position have been mischaracterized. It's rather remarkable.

---

"Large swaths of territory." You're a hoot.

---

17,000 square miles in 2014, another 51,000 as of today - more than 25% of pre-2014 Ukraine. And of course, 20% of Georgia.

But you want to argue semantics and ignore the rest of the post. LOL. Of course.

Russian shill gonna shill.

---

"France takes Algeria from Turkey, and almost every year England annexes another Indian principality: none of this disturbs the balance of power; but when Russia occupies Moldavia and Wallachia, albeit only temporarily, that disturbs the balance of power. France occupies Rome and stays there several years during peacetime: that is nothing; but Russia only thinks of occupying Constantinople, and the peace of Europe is threatened. The English declare war on the Chinese, who have, it seems, offended them: no one has the right to intervene; but Russia is obliged to ask Europe for permission if it quarrels with its neighbor. England threatens Greece...and burns its fleet: that is a lawful action; but Russia demands a treaty to protect millions of Christians, and that is deemed to strengthen its position in the East at the expense of the balance of power. We can expect nothing from the West but blind hatred and malice, which does not understand and does not want to understand."

From a memo to Czar Nicholas during the Crimean War. True today as it was then.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Of course Putin isn't blameless. I mean, here is a guy who betrayed everything that Boris Yelstin attempted. He's stymied democracy and political dissent at every turn. Amended the constitution to cement himself as Russia's dictator. Outlaws political opponents from running against him. Has more political prisoners in Russian gulags that any other "democracy" in the world today. Has repeatedly behaved in an aggressive manner with his neighbors, with incursions and land grabs of large swaths of territory. Regularly violates international arms treaties. Kills political opponents both inside and outside of Russia with abandon.

Yet, Sam would have you believe it is Putin that has been misunderstood or whose position have been mischaracterized. It's rather remarkable.

---

"Large swaths of territory." You're a hoot.

---

17,000 square miles in 2014, another 51,000 as of today - more than 25% of pre-2014 Ukraine. And of course, 20% of Georgia.

But you want to argue semantics and ignore the rest of the post. LOL. Of course.

Russian shill gonna shill.

---

"France takes Algeria from Turkey, and almost every year England annexes another Indian principality: none of this disturbs the balance of power; but when Russia occupies Moldavia and Wallachia, albeit only temporarily, that disturbs the balance of power. France occupies Rome and stays there several years during peacetime: that is nothing; but Russia only thinks of occupying Constantinople, and the peace of Europe is threatened. The English declare war on the Chinese, who have, it seems, offended them: no one has the right to intervene; but Russia is obliged to ask Europe for permission if it quarrels with its neighbor. England threatens Greece...and burns its fleet: that is a lawful action; but Russia demands a treaty to protect millions of Christians, and that is deemed to strengthen its position in the East at the expense of the balance of power. We can expect nothing from the West but blind hatred and malice, which does not understand and does not want to understand."

From a memo to Czar Nicholas during the Crimean War. True today as it was then.

---

Ah, yes, moral relativism pointing to bad conduct by England and France - most of which occurred in the 1700-1800s - as justification for Russia invading, bombing, and annexing sovereign countries today.

LOL. Yes, England's actions in the mid 1800s give it no room to cry foul about Russian aggression today. Of course.

SMH.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Of course Putin isn't blameless. I mean, here is a guy who betrayed everything that Boris Yelstin attempted. He's stymied democracy and political dissent at every turn. Amended the constitution to cement himself as Russia's dictator. Outlaws political opponents from running against him. Has more political prisoners in Russian gulags that any other "democracy" in the world today. Has repeatedly behaved in an aggressive manner with his neighbors, with incursions and land grabs of large swaths of territory. Regularly violates international arms treaties. Kills political opponents both inside and outside of Russia with abandon.

Yet, Sam would have you believe it is Putin that has been misunderstood or whose position have been mischaracterized. It's rather remarkable.

---

"Large swaths of territory." You're a hoot.

---

17,000 square miles in 2014, another 51,000 as of today - more than 25% of pre-2014 Ukraine. And of course, 20% of Georgia.

But you want to argue semantics and ignore the rest of the post. LOL. Of course.

Russian shill gonna shill.

---

"France takes Algeria from Turkey, and almost every year England annexes another Indian principality: none of this disturbs the balance of power; but when Russia occupies Moldavia and Wallachia, albeit only temporarily, that disturbs the balance of power. France occupies Rome and stays there several years during peacetime: that is nothing; but Russia only thinks of occupying Constantinople, and the peace of Europe is threatened. The English declare war on the Chinese, who have, it seems, offended them: no one has the right to intervene; but Russia is obliged to ask Europe for permission if it quarrels with its neighbor. England threatens Greece...and burns its fleet: that is a lawful action; but Russia demands a treaty to protect millions of Christians, and that is deemed to strengthen its position in the East at the expense of the balance of power. We can expect nothing from the West but blind hatred and malice, which does not understand and does not want to understand."

From a memo to Czar Nicholas during the Crimean War. True today as it was then.

---

Ah, yes, moral relativism pointing to bad conduct by England and France - most of which occurred in the 1700-1800s - as justification for Russia invading, bombing, and annexing sovereign countries today.

LOL. Yes, England's actions in the mid 1800s give it no room to cry foul about Russian aggression today. Of course.

SMH.

---

Who said it was bad conduct?

LOL. So now you are in favor of imperalism?

It sure is interesting how much your views change depending on the actor.

Mothra said:

---

LOL. So now you are in favor of imperalism?

It sure is interesting how much your views change depending on the actor.

---

You're missing the point of the quotation (hint: it doesn't depend on how you feel about imperialism or whether the conduct was good or bad).

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LOL. So now you are in favor of imperalism?

It sure is interesting how much your views change depending on the actor.

---

You're missing the point of the quotation (hint: it doesn't depend on how you feel about imperialism or whether the conduct was good or bad).

---

Ah yes, just blind hatred and malice, which does not understand and does not want to understand.

Couldn't possibly be the fact Putin is dictator who kills or imprisons political opponents, kills innocents, breaches arms treaties, engages in cyber terrorism, and invades other countries. That couldn't have ANYTHING to do with it.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LOL. So now you are in favor of imperalism?

It sure is interesting how much your views change depending on the actor.

---

You're missing the point of the quotation (hint: it doesn't depend on how you feel about imperialism or whether the conduct was good or bad).

---

Ah yes, just blind hatred and malice, which does not understand and does not want to understand.

Couldn't possibly be the fact Putin is dictator who kills or imprisons political opponents, kills innocents, breaches arms treaties, engages in cyber terrorism, and invades other countries. That couldn't have ANYTHING to do with it.

---

Try again.

Didn't think so either.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Didn't think so either.

---

Yes, nothing of substance to respond to at this point. You got nothing.

Mothra said:

---

Yo, Sammy boy. I saw over the weekend your boy Putin is blaming Ukraine for the Isis terrorist attack. What say you on this? We know how much you trust Putin. Gotta be the truth, right?

---

Didn't learn much from your rush to judgment on Navalny, did you?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yo, Sammy boy. I saw over the weekend your boy Putin is blaming Ukraine for the Isis terrorist attack. What say you on this? We know how much you trust Putin. Gotta be the truth, right?

---

Didn't learn much from your rush to judgment on Navalny, did you?

---

ROFL if you're suggesting otherwise, vatnik.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yo, Sammy boy. I saw over the weekend your boy Putin is blaming Ukraine for the Isis terrorist attack. What say you on this? We know how much you trust Putin. Gotta be the truth, right?

---

Didn't learn much from your rush to judgment on Navalny, did you?

---

A highly ironic post, given Putin's immediate rush to judgment, blaming Ukraine (and the US), when we now know ISIS-K was responsible for what happened.

Or maybe it's ok to rush to judgment as long as the judgment supports Sam's narrative?

So glad we definitively know that Navalany died of natural causes, which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Russian authorities. Believe Putin.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yo, Sammy boy. I saw over the weekend your boy Putin is blaming Ukraine for the Isis terrorist attack. What say you on this? We know how much you trust Putin. Gotta be the truth, right?

---

Didn't learn much from your rush to judgment on Navalny, did you?

---

A highly ironic post, given Putin's immediate rush to judgment, blaming Ukraine (and the US), when we now know ISIS-K was responsible for what happened.

Or maybe it's ok to rush to judgment as long as the judgment supports Sam's narrative?

So glad we definitively know that Navalany died of natural causes, which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Russian authorities. Believe Putin.

---

You understand that ISIS-K and US/Ukraine involvement are not mutually exclusive, right? ISIS-K is basically a remnant of the US-trained intelligence and security forces in Afghanistan. Their leader was a contractor at Bagram and has reportedly worked for Abdul Rashid Dostum and Amrullah Sallah, both of whom fought against Russia and later served as key allies of the CIA against the Taliban. It's also well known that ISIS-trained militants, mostly from Chechnya, are fighting in Ukraine. So there will be plenty to unravel as Russia pursues its investigation.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-25-2024

The March 22 Islamic State Khorasan (IS-K) attack on Moscow's Crocus City Hall is a notable Russian intelligence and law enforcement failure, and explaining currently available open-source evidence does not require any wider and more complicated conspiracy theory either within or against the Russian state. Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed during an address on March 25 that "radical Islamists" committed the attack, but immediately and baselessly accused the United States of trying to cover the "Ukrainian trace" of the attack, directly accusing Ukraine of being the "customer" of the attack.[1] ISW continues to assess that the attack itself, as well as the claim pattern following the attack, is highly consistent with the way IS conducts and claims such incidents and has observed no evidence that Ukraine was involved in the attack.[2] Available open-source evidence indicates that the Crocus City Hall attack was the result of a significant Russian intelligence failure, not a conspiracy initiated by, or targeting, the Russian intelligence apparatus. Russian investigative opposition outlet Dossier Center reported on March 24 that Russian intelligence services were closely monitoring IS-K activities before the March 22 attack and alleged that the Russian Security Council received a warning that IS-K might use Tajik citizens for an attack in Russia a few days before IS-K carried out the attack on Crocus City Hall.[3] Dossier Center and other Russian insider and opposition outlets also noted that Russian law enforcement was very slow in responding to the incident and reported that security officers first arrived at Crocus City Hall an hour after the attack began, despite the fact that the Moscow Special Purpose Mobile Unit (OMON) headquarters is less than three kilometers away from the hall.[4]

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yo, Sammy boy. I saw over the weekend your boy Putin is blaming Ukraine for the Isis terrorist attack. What say you on this? We know how much you trust Putin. Gotta be the truth, right?

---

Didn't learn much from your rush to judgment on Navalny, did you?

---

A highly ironic post, given Putin's immediate rush to judgment, blaming Ukraine (and the US), when we now know ISIS-K was responsible for what happened.

Or maybe it's ok to rush to judgment as long as the judgment supports Sam's narrative?

So glad we definitively know that Navalany died of natural causes, which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Russian authorities. Believe Putin.

---

You understand that ISIS-K and US/Ukraine involvement are not mutually exclusive, right? ISIS-K is basically a remnant of the US-trained intelligence and security forces in Afghanistan. Their leader was a contractor at Bagram and has reportedly worked for Abdul Rashid Dostum and Amrullah Sallah, both of whom fought against Russia and later served as key allies of the CIA against the Taliban. It's also well known that ISIS-trained militants, mostly from Chechnya, are fighting in Ukraine. So there will be plenty to unravel as Russia pursues its investigation.

---

Ah, so Putin was correct in rushing to judgment, in your opinion (if so, what a shock)? Both Ukraine and the US are at fault?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yo, Sammy boy. I saw over the weekend your boy Putin is blaming Ukraine for the Isis terrorist attack. What say you on this? We know how much you trust Putin. Gotta be the truth, right?

---

Didn't learn much from your rush to judgment on Navalny, did you?

---

A highly ironic post, given Putin's immediate rush to judgment, blaming Ukraine (and the US), when we now know ISIS-K was responsible for what happened.

Or maybe it's ok to rush to judgment as long as the judgment supports Sam's narrative?

So glad we definitively know that Navalany died of natural causes, which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Russian authorities. Believe Putin.

---

You understand that ISIS-K and US/Ukraine involvement are not mutually exclusive, right? ISIS-K is basically a remnant of the US-trained intelligence and security forces in Afghanistan. Their leader was a contractor at Bagram and has reportedly worked for Abdul Rashid Dostum and Amrullah Sallah, both of whom fought against Russia and later served as key allies of the CIA against the Taliban. It's also well known that ISIS-trained militants, mostly from Chechnya, are fighting in Ukraine. So there will be plenty to unravel as Russia pursues its investigation.

---

Ah, so Putin was correct in rushing to judgment, in your opinion (if so, what a shock)? Both Ukraine and the US are at fault?

---

We don't know yet who's to blame. Putin stated as fact that the terrorists had contacts in Ukraine. He either had that information from an intelligence briefing or he made it up. In neither case would I call it a rush to judgment.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yo, Sammy boy. I saw over the weekend your boy Putin is blaming Ukraine for the Isis terrorist attack. What say you on this? We know how much you trust Putin. Gotta be the truth, right?

---

Didn't learn much from your rush to judgment on Navalny, did you?

---

A highly ironic post, given Putin's immediate rush to judgment, blaming Ukraine (and the US), when we now know ISIS-K was responsible for what happened.

Or maybe it's ok to rush to judgment as long as the judgment supports Sam's narrative?

So glad we definitively know that Navalany died of natural causes, which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Russian authorities. Believe Putin.

---

You understand that ISIS-K and US/Ukraine involvement are not mutually exclusive, right? ISIS-K is basically a remnant of the US-trained intelligence and security forces in Afghanistan. Their leader was a contractor at Bagram and has reportedly worked for Abdul Rashid Dostum and Amrullah Sallah, both of whom fought against Russia and later served as key allies of the CIA against the Taliban. It's also well known that ISIS-trained militants, mostly from Chechnya, are fighting in Ukraine. So there will be plenty to unravel as Russia pursues its investigation.

---

Ah, so Putin was correct in rushing to judgment, in your opinion (if so, what a shock)? Both Ukraine and the US are at fault?

---

We don't know yet who's to blame. Putin stated as fact that the terrorists had contacts in Ukraine. He either had that information from an intelligence briefing or he made it up. In neither case would I call it a rush to judgment.

---

Good grief.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yo, Sammy boy. I saw over the weekend your boy Putin is blaming Ukraine for the Isis terrorist attack. What say you on this? We know how much you trust Putin. Gotta be the truth, right?

---

Didn't learn much from your rush to judgment on Navalny, did you?

---

A highly ironic post, given Putin's immediate rush to judgment, blaming Ukraine (and the US), when we now know ISIS-K was responsible for what happened.

Or maybe it's ok to rush to judgment as long as the judgment supports Sam's narrative?

So glad we definitively know that Navalany died of natural causes, which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Russian authorities. Believe Putin.

---

You understand that ISIS-K and US/Ukraine involvement are not mutually exclusive, right? ISIS-K is basically a remnant of the US-trained intelligence and security forces in Afghanistan. Their leader was a contractor at Bagram and has reportedly worked for Abdul Rashid Dostum and Amrullah Sallah, both of whom fought against Russia and later served as key allies of the CIA against the Taliban. It's also well known that ISIS-trained militants, mostly from Chechnya, are fighting in Ukraine. So there will be plenty to unravel as Russia pursues its investigation.

---

Ah, so Putin was correct in rushing to judgment, in your opinion (if so, what a shock)? Both Ukraine and the US are at fault?

---

We don't know yet who's to blame. Putin stated as fact that the terrorists had contacts in Ukraine. He either had that information from an intelligence briefing or he made it up. In neither case would I call it a rush to judgment.

---

Ah, so it was not a rush to judgment for Putin and his cronies to say the West and Ukraine were behind the attack (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68663043), even though "we don't know yet who's to blame?"

Of course. Predictable as the sunrise. As always, you are a walking dichotomy, depending on the actor.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yo, Sammy boy. I saw over the weekend your boy Putin is blaming Ukraine for the Isis terrorist attack. What say you on this? We know how much you trust Putin. Gotta be the truth, right?

---

Didn't learn much from your rush to judgment on Navalny, did you?

---

A highly ironic post, given Putin's immediate rush to judgment, blaming Ukraine (and the US), when we now know ISIS-K was responsible for what happened.

Or maybe it's ok to rush to judgment as long as the judgment supports Sam's narrative?

So glad we definitively know that Navalany died of natural causes, which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Russian authorities. Believe Putin.

---

You understand that ISIS-K and US/Ukraine involvement are not mutually exclusive, right? ISIS-K is basically a remnant of the US-trained intelligence and security forces in Afghanistan. Their leader was a contractor at Bagram and has reportedly worked for Abdul Rashid Dostum and Amrullah Sallah, both of whom fought against Russia and later served as key allies of the CIA against the Taliban. It's also well known that ISIS-trained militants, mostly from Chechnya, are fighting in Ukraine. So there will be plenty to unravel as Russia pursues its investigation.

---

Ah, so Putin was correct in rushing to judgment, in your opinion (if so, what a shock)? Both Ukraine and the US are at fault?

---

We don't know yet who's to blame. Putin stated as fact that the terrorists had contacts in Ukraine. He either had that information from an intelligence briefing or he made it up. In neither case would I call it a rush to judgment.

---

Ah, so it was not a rush to judgment for Putin and his cronies to say the West and Ukraine were behind the attack (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68663043), even though "we don't know yet who's to blame?"

Of course. Predictable as the sunrise. As always, you are a walking dichotomy, depending on the actor.

---

We -- meaning you and I -- don't know, Mothra. Has it not occurred to you that the relevant authorities may have more information?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yo, Sammy boy. I saw over the weekend your boy Putin is blaming Ukraine for the Isis terrorist attack. What say you on this? We know how much you trust Putin. Gotta be the truth, right?

---

Didn't learn much from your rush to judgment on Navalny, did you?

---

A highly ironic post, given Putin's immediate rush to judgment, blaming Ukraine (and the US), when we now know ISIS-K was responsible for what happened.

Or maybe it's ok to rush to judgment as long as the judgment supports Sam's narrative?

So glad we definitively know that Navalany died of natural causes, which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Russian authorities. Believe Putin.

---

You understand that ISIS-K and US/Ukraine involvement are not mutually exclusive, right? ISIS-K is basically a remnant of the US-trained intelligence and security forces in Afghanistan. Their leader was a contractor at Bagram and has reportedly worked for Abdul Rashid Dostum and Amrullah Sallah, both of whom fought against Russia and later served as key allies of the CIA against the Taliban. It's also well known that ISIS-trained militants, mostly from Chechnya, are fighting in Ukraine. So there will be plenty to unravel as Russia pursues its investigation.

---

Ah, so Putin was correct in rushing to judgment, in your opinion (if so, what a shock)? Both Ukraine and the US are at fault?

---

We don't know yet who's to blame. Putin stated as fact that the terrorists had contacts in Ukraine. He either had that information from an intelligence briefing or he made it up. In neither case would I call it a rush to judgment.

---

Ah, so it was not a rush to judgment for Putin and his cronies to say the West and Ukraine were behind the attack (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68663043), even though "we don't know yet who's to blame?"

Of course. Predictable as the sunrise. As always, you are a walking dichotomy, depending on the actor.

---

We -- meaning you and I -- don't know, Mothra. Has it not occurred to you that the relevant authorities may have more information?

---

That being the case, how can you say, with any semblance of certainty, that statements that Ukraine and the West were behind the attack is not a rush to judgment?

The US and Ukraine have of course said that's preposterous. While I realize of course you will take the statements of a dictator over your country, Russia has brought forth no evidence to support such statements. But we should just assume that Russia has evidence to support its positions, and has no reason whatsoever to spin this attack for political gain?

Let me guess - you also take Russia's statements that Navalany died of natural causes at face value. Amiright?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yo, Sammy boy. I saw over the weekend your boy Putin is blaming Ukraine for the Isis terrorist attack. What say you on this? We know how much you trust Putin. Gotta be the truth, right?

---

Didn't learn much from your rush to judgment on Navalny, did you?

---

A highly ironic post, given Putin's immediate rush to judgment, blaming Ukraine (and the US), when we now know ISIS-K was responsible for what happened.

Or maybe it's ok to rush to judgment as long as the judgment supports Sam's narrative?

So glad we definitively know that Navalany died of natural causes, which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Russian authorities. Believe Putin.

---

You understand that ISIS-K and US/Ukraine involvement are not mutually exclusive, right? ISIS-K is basically a remnant of the US-trained intelligence and security forces in Afghanistan. Their leader was a contractor at Bagram and has reportedly worked for Abdul Rashid Dostum and Amrullah Sallah, both of whom fought against Russia and later served as key allies of the CIA against the Taliban. It's also well known that ISIS-trained militants, mostly from Chechnya, are fighting in Ukraine. So there will be plenty to unravel as Russia pursues its investigation.

---

Ah, so Putin was correct in rushing to judgment, in your opinion (if so, what a shock)? Both Ukraine and the US are at fault?

---

We don't know yet who's to blame. Putin stated as fact that the terrorists had contacts in Ukraine. He either had that information from an intelligence briefing or he made it up. In neither case would I call it a rush to judgment.

---

Ah, so it was not a rush to judgment for Putin and his cronies to say the West and Ukraine were behind the attack (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68663043), even though "we don't know yet who's to blame?"

Of course. Predictable as the sunrise. As always, you are a walking dichotomy, depending on the actor.

---

We -- meaning you and I -- don't know, Mothra. Has it not occurred to you that the relevant authorities may have more information?

---

That being the case, how can you say, with any semblance of certainty, that statements that Ukraine and the West were behind the attack is not a rush to judgment?

The US and Ukraine have of course said that's preposterous. While I realize of course you will take the statements of a dictator over your country, Russia has brought forth no evidence to support such statements. But we should just assume that Russia has evidence to support its positions, and has no reason whatsoever to spin this attack for political gain?

Let me guess - you also take Russia's statements that Navalany died of natural causes at face value. Amiright?

---

I just got through saying I don't know whether Putin is telling the truth. Again, I didn't take anyone's statements about Navalny at face value. I waited until the Ukrainians confirmed that he died of natural causes. You already believe what you believe, and it's not going to change no matter what evidence comes out. That's rushing to judgment. It's quite comical to see you savaging others when you're one of the worst offenders in this regard.

Without knowing for sure, however, I would say the idea that it was a Ukrainian terror attack is far from "preposterous." They've been routinely attacking civilian targets in Russia for months. In fact that's the most likely reason for the escalation of Russian attacks on energy infrastructure that you've loudly denounced. Ukraine's intelligence service (which is run by another CIA trainee, by the way) has committed hundreds of bombings and assassinations in eastern Ukraine and Russia, often targeting victims who were simply exercising free speech or who had little or no military significance. No one even tries to deny it, so it's not like any of this is out of character.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yo, Sammy boy. I saw over the weekend your boy Putin is blaming Ukraine for the Isis terrorist attack. What say you on this? We know how much you trust Putin. Gotta be the truth, right?

---

Didn't learn much from your rush to judgment on Navalny, did you?

---

A highly ironic post, given Putin's immediate rush to judgment, blaming Ukraine (and the US), when we now know ISIS-K was responsible for what happened.

Or maybe it's ok to rush to judgment as long as the judgment supports Sam's narrative?

So glad we definitively know that Navalany died of natural causes, which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Russian authorities. Believe Putin.

---

You understand that ISIS-K and US/Ukraine involvement are not mutually exclusive, right? ISIS-K is basically a remnant of the US-trained intelligence and security forces in Afghanistan. Their leader was a contractor at Bagram and has reportedly worked for Abdul Rashid Dostum and Amrullah Sallah, both of whom fought against Russia and later served as key allies of the CIA against the Taliban. It's also well known that ISIS-trained militants, mostly from Chechnya, are fighting in Ukraine. So there will be plenty to unravel as Russia pursues its investigation.

---

Ah, so Putin was correct in rushing to judgment, in your opinion (if so, what a shock)? Both Ukraine and the US are at fault?

---

We don't know yet who's to blame. Putin stated as fact that the terrorists had contacts in Ukraine. He either had that information from an intelligence briefing or he made it up. In neither case would I call it a rush to judgment.

---

Ah, so it was not a rush to judgment for Putin and his cronies to say the West and Ukraine were behind the attack (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68663043), even though "we don't know yet who's to blame?"

Of course. Predictable as the sunrise. As always, you are a walking dichotomy, depending on the actor.

---

We -- meaning you and I -- don't know, Mothra. Has it not occurred to you that the relevant authorities may have more information?

---

That being the case, how can you say, with any semblance of certainty, that statements that Ukraine and the West were behind the attack is not a rush to judgment?

The US and Ukraine have of course said that's preposterous. While I realize of course you will take the statements of a dictator over your country, Russia has brought forth no evidence to support such statements. But we should just assume that Russia has evidence to support its positions, and has no reason whatsoever to spin this attack for political gain?

Let me guess - you also take Russia's statements that Navalany died of natural causes at face value. Amiright?

---

I just got through saying I don't know whether Putin is telling the truth. Again, I didn't take anyone's statements about Navalny at face value. I waited until the Ukrainians confirmed that he died of natural causes. You already believe what you believe, and it's not going to change no matter what evidence comes out. That's rushing to judgment. It's quite comical to see you savaging others when you're one of the worst offenders in this regard.

Without knowing for sure, however, I would say the idea that it was a Ukrainian terror attack is far from "preposterous." They've been routinely attacking civilian targets in Russia for months. In fact that's the most likely reason for the escalation of Russian attacks on energy infrastructure that you've loudly denounced. Ukraine's intelligence service (which is run by another CIA trainee, by the way) has committed hundreds of bombings and assassinations in eastern Ukraine and Russia, often targeting victims who were simply exercising free speech or who had little or no military significance. No one even tries to deny it, so it's not like any of this is out of character.

---

The only thing remotely comical are the vatnik lies you keep trying to push, cuck.

I stand corrected. Bear8084 will always try to deny everything no matter how obvious.