Jump to content

213374U

Members
  • Posts

    5642
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by 213374U

  1. 34 minutes ago, Malcador said:

    Heh, if the Iraqis had lots of ATGMs that would have been fun to see.

    It also begs the question of what abrogating previous policies against supplying weapons to conflict zones will mean for America's next war. When, not if.

    In related news, Germany has largely exhausted their ability to provide weapons to Ukraine from its arsenals.

  2. 3 hours ago, bugarup said:

    he wasn't referring to (possibly) retaliatory attacks, but Russia's news channels in unison stating how Moskva sunk because of fire on board (as if ship sinking out of incompetence is somehow a better spin than it being sank by the enemy...), and at the same time, on the same TV channels their propaganda dogs howling for Ukrainian blood because "revenge for Moskva!"

    I have seen exactly one video of a commentator on Russian TV specifically calling for revenge for Moskva, though there may have been more. Hardly an unison situation, let alone evidence to substantiate an attempt at collective psychoanalysis. If that's where we're setting the bar, I'd like to hear your verdict after watching 10 minutes of Tucker Carlson.

    There's also an implication that anything any random talking head says says on Russian TV is 1:1 representative of the official Russian government position. That's not really how state media works.

    • Like 1
  3. 11 hours ago, ShadySands said:

    I generally agree with this but that totally represents my in-laws in Russia... though if it must be said, I cannot say whether those same sentiments are as widely held by the majority of Russians. 

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

     

    5 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

    I have not ignored anything, nor have I flat out rejected anything. I have also made it very clear that much of what I have posted cannot be regarded as confirmed -- just go back and check. At this point, I question your ability to read.

    I can't see any point in responding to you any further, as your tone continues to be both surprisingly hostile and very inappropriate. If this was a real-life situation (i.e. you being in an administrative position in a shop or something, like you are a moderator here), I'd have a chat with your boss. Here, there is no such option.

    Right. So your musings about Russia's collective insanity is supposed to get a pass because, hey, it's "not confirmed" or what? How does that work?

    I'm sorry that you regard my calling you out as hostile. It's the nature of an open environment where you post stuff, and people respond. You are of course free to keep waxing psychological, and there is no need to respond to me. But expect that I, and possibly others, will continue to reply to things you post whenever.

    And by all means, go ahead and talk to my "boss". Here, I'll even tag him for you, so we can finally put the matter of moderators having opinions *gasp* to rest so that it's not something that merits a passive aggressive remark every time one of us posts something that a member doesn't like.

    @Fionavar

     

    3 hours ago, bugarup said:

    Out of Xzar's list, only "2) Russia also clears essentially all of its western front in order to attack Ukraine, because it knows perfectly well that NATO has no intention to attack it, ever." may be interpreted as a speculation. Everything else can be fact-checked. Unless, of course, we speculate that Russia is so mired in lies that absolutely nothing their officials and propaganda mouthpieces say can be taken at face value....what would still prove Xzar's point, but in a roundabout way. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    It can be fact-checked? Can you verify that strikes on a variety of targets, including a missile workshop are in retaliation for the sinking of the Moskva, and only because of that? Can you show that there were no such strikes previous to the Moskva being sunk? I mean, a stated goal of the invasion is demilitarization of the country, so it stands to reason that they would attack such a target -- much like they've been doing from day one. Their rationale has been "it's in retaliation for attacks on Russian soil", of which we've seen one or two in the past few days. Don't get me wrong, this is Russia spinning facts to fit a narrative, but it is not internally inconsistent and suggesting that it's evidence of "madness" is a bit of a stretch.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1
  4. 15 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

    I gave four examples of how the Russian position is internally inconsistent and illogical in relation to what Russia or its representatives have said themselves.

    Not really. You gave four examples of what you think the Russian position is. Or what the media says the Russian position is. Or... what the Soviet Union's position was. Anything that doesn't fit with that is either ignored -a few articles deviating from the mainstream narrative in this thread- or flat out rejected because by definition nothing Russians say is true, while any "report" from a Twitter account with a Ukrainian flag in the handle is worth reposting.

    You've made a choice to believe a certain version of facts. That's your prerogative, but painting anyone disagreeing with that version as insane strikes me as... dogmatic, to put it mildly.

    I mean, I'm sure y'all are familiar with the old adage, "in war, truth is the first casualty". We shouldn't believe that "OSINT" sources have made that saying obsolete, heh.

  5. 8 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

    For the psychologically inclined, this is an excellent study in cognitive dissonance. Also, madness.

    Or... it could be you going off a bunch of preconceptions, media takes and non sequiturs.

    There's this weird outlook that's getting more and more pervasive that simply because one disagrees with or can't understand someone else's perspective, that perspective must be irrational, insane, illogical, or w/e. It's a convenient way to avoid considering the ramifications of the beliefs held by oneself -- indeed, it bypasses any self-reflection whatsoever. I wonder what the psychologically inclined would say about that, hmm?

  6. 5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

    I am sure it was the UK who were the first who created property rights

    Yeah, no. You are sure, and as usual, you are wrong.

    Brown people from the Middle East beat the Anglos by about ~2500 years. You may be thinking of the creation of corporations, but even then, it's probably the Dutch who created the first companies in a modern sense rather than the English.

      

    4 minutes ago, BruceVC said:
    10 minutes ago, Elerond said:

    State where head of state is leader of state's official church?

    Putin? But I am not sure

    Holy ****. You've got to be ****ing trolling.

    • Haha 1
  7. 30 minutes ago, Malcador said:

    You mean people just regurgitating BS?

    No, no. Twitter "reports". There's a difference -- these sometimes include Alamy stock photos, or ARMA clips.

    --

    In other news, Spanish journalist Soviet superspy Pablo González Pavel Rubtsov has been held incommunicado in a Polish prison for a month and a half, and stands accused of spying for the damn Russkies. The accusation is substantiated on the fact that he, uh, had a Russian passport. He faces charges that could land him behind bars for up to 10 years.

    No right to counsel for you, Pavel, that'll teach you to love freedom!

  8. 10 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:
    54 minutes ago, Malcador said:

    Pretentious old men, playing at running the world.

    Ha! For such an (apparently) young person you seem remarkably and consistenly cynical in the attitude displayed in your posts. What has made you so cold-hearted?

    I'm sure it wasn't a computer game about a convoluted conspiracy to install a shadow world government by means of mass surveillance, manufactured conflict, tax codes and a deadly epidemic...

    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
  9. 1 hour ago, Gorth said:

    Agreed, for all its potential and rich background, the GW universe has produced very few "quality" games. Vermintide, Mechanicus and Mordheim: City of the Damned are fun, but there are a lot I haven't touched, as the reviews were out horrendous or just not a type of game that appealed to me. Worst I ever laid my hands on (many years ago) was a Tau game obviously written for consoles. Fire Warrior (or something like that) iirc.

    Frustrating when considering how much potential it has for quality great tactical combat games as well as CRPG's :(

    Dawn of War was (a) great (source of memes). Battlefleet Gothic Armada too. Maybe I'm biased because it seems to be a franchise that produces a lot of coop games, but I like their approach with regards to licensing. I simply ignore all the shovelware made under the brand, and go for the few good bits, heh.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  10. 3 hours ago, Elerond said:

    Technically all Russian soldiers in Ukraine are terrorists/murderers/other form criminals who aren't protected by any laws governing soldiers in war.

    EDIT: But because most of world considers it as war they would be treated like they are soldiers in international courts and get protection from most acts that are done because they were commanded to do what they have done

    Right. And that may well be Ukraine's stance on the matter if they end up in a position to try Russian soldiers.

    However the case of a British national fighting Russians is a bit different. There are no Russian POWs held by the UK either so fat chance of an exchange. Considering the position of the UK regarding sanctions (and comments regarding trying Russians in the ICC), there's little incentive for Russia to accommodate them so the guy may end up getting a regular criminal conviction and a long sentence.

  11. 20 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

    Quite contrary. I would like to maintain support from Russia if Russia would not be such a B for once in the century so we can get rid of our dependency on middle east for fossil fuels. Is west stance on MBS hypocritical? Yes. Do I like it? No. But fact is that Europe needs fossil fuels from someone. And I think green deal in principle would be great to reduce EU dependency on fossil fuels, but germans being germans always mess it up. Instead of starting Nukes and moving to clean electricity they just swapped from being depended on oil to being depended on gas - go figure. (not to mention that going electric also means we need a lot of precious metals which EU does not have either). And considering no-one wants to go back to horseback riding we need some solution. 

    Meanwhile in Germany...

  12. 24 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

    Technically, they are not mercenaries, as they have officially signed joining papers of the Ukrainian Foreign Legion. They needed to be approved by Ukrainian Military to join their ranks, to officially fight for them and get the official support by the Ukrainian Army. They are foreigners, but still part of the Ukrainian army. Of course there are also some foreigners which are there on their own. But it's much lower number, from what I understood.

    It's a muddy mess. Technically, no war has been declared, so what's the legal standing?

    There's also the possibility that he'd have to face the music if (when) he's sent back to the UK. Could be prosecuted under the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 that bans Britons from fighting wars against countries the UK is at peace with, and the official posture of the gov't is that anyone going to fight there is breaking the law. Normally I doubt it would be enforced but you never know.

     

     

    18 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

    And whether we like it or not, people are more engaged, when their neighbours are being killed than some random folks 1000 miles away. Prime example would be, that people here gave as much **** about 9/11 as they give now about Saudis killing Yemenis :shrugz:

    Yes. That's probably the most sincere argument I've seen for this. We simply care more about bad **** when we believe we could be next, or when it's happening to a people we feel a kinship with.

    Politicians and officials in esteemed and righteous international organizations should be above such tribalisms, though. Universal human rights are supposed to be that, not regional, not ethnic, not tribal.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  13. 36 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

    Saying that no one cares at all is simply not true.

    Technically not true, perhaps. Typical response to bad stuff going down somewhere the average westling westerner can't find on a map (current relevant example being Yemen):

    oh-no-anyway.gif

    I mean, if you support 'decoupling' from Russia economically -a fine stance to maintain- there is no valid argument for not doing the same with Saudi. Every accusation you can throw at Putin is also applicable to MBS. But when this apparent double standard is brought up, it's always "OMG wHaTaBoUtIsM". It's like people feel obligated to defend hypocrisy just because the hypocrite happens to be repeating a talking point that resonates with them currently.

    The world would be such a better place if people were just a tad more consistent with their outrage.

  14. 18 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

    Where was this? In other words, who are "we"?

    I'm Spanish. Used to be a lot of carryover crap from back when the military establishment was the main source of the regime's political power in the country, and it took a long while to really modernize and grow out of it. We've come a long way in the last ~25 years and the worst is now in the past, but it's not completely fixed. Senior officers are still mostly untouchable.

    • Thanks 1
  15. 4 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

    There's a delightful picture right there: this kind of stuff is what the Russians do to their own people, in times of peace.

    Yes. The implication here is that the baby in the video could actually be his own child, or a relative. Dedovschina isn't a phenomenon unique to the Russians, sadly. We used to have a fairly serious suicide problem in the army here before going from a conscripted to a fully professional army, and hazing was identified as a key factor.

    But again, the possibility that this was somehow demanded of him is just conjecture. It may certainly be that he's just a sick ****. The picture simply isn't complete, and anyone suggesting that it is should provide evidence.

     

  16. 8 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

    Why is dedovschina relevant here? My first thought would be that you might be suggesting he is doing something that has been done to him, but I am not saying that, I would like to hear your take on why it's relevant. And I am honestly curious.

    (I have not seen the video, nor do I intend to watch it. I also have no interest in any summary more detailed than the one I've already read, nor am I interested in captures.)

    Because I've read "reports" that this kind of video is a product of the kind of endemic hazing prevalent in the Russian armed forces -- which is consistent with the guy putting the camera to his face and stating his full name before starting. There's more going on in the video than just the baby being molested, such as the perpetrator putting a knife up his ass or putting a mascara brush into his mouth that had previously gone into his butthole.

    Take that as you will. I have no clue if that's actually the case or not, or when and where the video was in fact recorded.

    <insert obligatory "I'm not defending or excusing anything yadda yadda" disclaimer>

×
×
  • Create New...