233
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
233 points (97.6% liked)
news
23266 readers
808 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Look, I'm not sure who you're upset with, but it's not me. You're spending a lot of effort to assume what I do and don't believe and support, and you're frankly doing a piss poor job of it. No aspect of what you've said since you first engaged with me has constituted a good faith argument, and I'm done engaging with it. Even if your complaints about western countries are accurate, all I said to start this was that invading a country, an act of war, is not an example of trying to avoid war, and all the rest of your assumptions about me are equal parts incorrect and insulting.
You are literally trying to justify the actions of the world's most prolific aggressor and claim that resistance to it is bad.
So yes, I am going to associate you with the world's most prolific aggressor until you stop supporting it.
You have literally come here to talk about how bad resistance to you is.
Well, that's obviously false at least on account of me pointing to the fact that you can't actually provide an alternative way to resist you, and your argument is reducible to 'resisting us is bad'.
What you did is claim that giving NATO years to cease aggression wasn't an attempt at avoiding a war.
You had every opportunity to prove me wrong by providing an alternative way to resist you. You took no opportunities to do so, even when prompted.
Saying that an armed invasion is an act of war and that acts of war are generally not good ways to avoid war is not claiming that resistance to aggression is bad. It is literally pointing out an act of aggression. According to the Budapest Memorandum, the deal for Ukraine giving up nukes was that Russia agrees to respect their sovereignty. And then Russia invaded Ukraine to annex territory. Twice now. I don't believe you're so stupid you can't grasp that, I think you're just that disingenuous.
I am not advocating that resistance to aggression is bad, and I think you know that.
So, was Russia giving NATO years to cease its aggression a bad way to avoid war or not?
Imagine not seeing international law as a joke in the year 2024.
And to defend against your aggression.
Notably, you are yet to provide any sort of alternative to resisting your aggression this way.
Riiiiight. You just completely coincidentally claim that instances of resistance to your aggression are bad. The only time you find resistance to you acceptable is when it's impotent.
The topic at hand was Russia's invasion of Ukraine in the context of attempting to avoid war. I made no direct comments about other topics, nor did I intend to imply anything beyond that. To quote the comment that sparked all of this:
Russia is responsible for their own actions. Regardless of the facts that form the basis for the decision, if their true goal is to avoid war in a region, the best solution is to not militarily invade that region. That's it. That's my full claim. You can try to argue about whether or not Russia was justified to invade, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Russia wanting to not fight in a region they attacked after making a deal to not invade that region.
Cool. You are yet to present any sort of argument for how giving NATO years to stop aggression was a bad way to avoid war.
Yeah. So, how was giving you years to stop your aggression a bad way to avoid war? How should have Russia approached this?
And you should be held responsible for your actions. The rest of the world has every right to resist you. You have no ground to tell the world how to resist you.
Russia gave you years to stop aggression. You didn't.
So, you decided to completely ignore what the person you were responding to was talking about, and you can't even provide a supposedly-better alternative way to respond to your aggression. Good to know.
The person whom you were responding about said that Russia did try to avoid war, which is true. Russia did give you years to stop your aggression. You keep pretending as if that did not happen.
You mean after NATO enacted a coup there and after NATO reneged on its promises to not do what it did, and after NATO tried to establish a military presence there to attack Russia?