Jump to content

Ukraine/Russian Conflict - General Discussion


Smithydog
 Share

Recommended Posts

Poor Sergei and his Thieving chums won't be robbing this house as the Kraken crew ( Ukrainian special opps ) take them out.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

But if we dont post them then you keep asking "Where is the evidence?"

If you choose to believe selective videos are definitive proof of a claim then that is your choice. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Fanta said:

I don’t comment on videos about the deaths of people in this war. Others post videos showing vehicles & equipment etc being destroyed as if there are no people in them or no-one was harmed. Some positively delight in them. Each to their own. 

You asked about Russian stuff, that IS about Russian stuff with Russians...🤣

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Transam said:

You never made a comment about this vid I posted from a very reliable source, in fact no pro-Russian here has.  🤔

How strange, anyhoooooo, I suggest you watch it....😊

Chap ..... I watch articles from both sides, including this one, which tells the sad story of soldiers of an army unit from a Russian town, who were injured or killed in battle. Sadly, 62 were reported by the BBC as dead and the BBC "thinks that" (might be true, but no proof) half of this particular regiment may have ben put out of action due to injuries. Understandably, some of the local community interviewed by the BBC were against the war, others supported it, as is the case with any war when you interview friends and relatives of soldiers, anywhere in the world. The BBC said that it was "hard to gauge public sympathy", and went on to say they didn't now how many of the general public approved or disapproved of the war.

If you think about it, given the scale of this war the BBC could easily find dozens of regiments, both Russian and Ukrainian, from similar towns that would tell similar tragic stories, but the BBC will only show one side of course, because it's a propaganda outfit owned by the UK government.

Did you read this report from another propaganda outfit, showing how awful the Russians, er, Ukrainians are - the clue is in the date: https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/03/world/europe/ukraine-luhansk-building-attack/index.html

😪🤔😭😩

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

Chap ..... I watch articles from both sides, including this one, which tells the sad story of soldiers of an army unit from a Russian town, who were injured or killed in battle. Sadly, 62 were reported by the BBC as dead and the BBC "thinks that" (might be true, but no proof) half of this particular regiment may have ben put out of action due to injuries. Understandably, some of the local community interviewed by the BBC were against the war, others supported it, as is the case with any war when you interview friends and relatives of soldiers, anywhere in the world. The BBC said that it was "hard to gauge public sympathy", and went on to say they didn't now how many of the general public approved or disapproved of the war.

If you think about it, given the scale of this war the BBC could easily find dozens of regiments, both Russian and Ukrainian, from similar towns that would tell similar tragic stories, but the BBC will only show one side of course, because it's a propaganda outfit owned by the UK government.

Did you read this report from another propaganda outfit, showing how awful the Russians, er, Ukrainians are - the clue is in the date: https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/03/world/europe/ukraine-luhansk-building-attack/index.html

😪🤔😭😩

We were asked by your chums for evidence of Russian hurting reality, I have, it is a film with Russian folk hurting.

Now I am not interested in your pro-Russian stance, I have provided a film with a well know Editor, with Russians..   🤫

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Fanta said:

He hasn’t been involved for 8 years and now he speaks the gospel truth? Did you even read his Wikipedia page? 

He has something like 400 000 followers on Russian social media.

I will wager good money if he was saying Putin is super and Russia is winning you would have absolutely no worries about his credentials.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

He has something like 400 000 followers on Russian social media.

I will wager good money if he was saying Putin is super and Russia is winning you would have absolutely no worries about his credentials.

The Kremlin has 1.7 million Twitter followers. Do you believe what they say or is that an isolated case of the number of followers not being indicative of credibility?  

btw: If you had money to lose I would take that bet. Amongst other things he was involved in the shooting down of MH17. You obviously didn’t read his Wikipedia page. Do that first and then come back if you still want to defend his honor. Also, that’s it? An article from ISW quoting an alleged war criminal is your evidence of huge Russian losses? Scraping the barrel…. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Transam said:

We were asked by your chums for evidence of Russian hurting reality, I have, it is a film with Russian folk hurting.

Now I am not interested in your pro-Russian stance, I have provided a film with a well know Editor, with Russians..   🤫

Chap .... so when Ukraine uses its Air Force to bomb its own people in 2014, that's fine and you don't want to hear about it. But when Russia bombs Ukraine in 2022, that's not fine. Is that what you're saying?

🤩🤪💩

Edited by dbrenn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fanta said:

The Kremlin has 1.7 million Twitter followers. Do you believe what they say or is that an isolated case of the number of followers not being indicative of credibility?  

btw: If you had money to lose I would take that bet. Amongst other things he was involved in the shooting down of MH17. You obviously didn’t read his Wikipedia page. Do that first and then come back if you still want to defend his honor. Also, that’s it? An article from ISW quoting an alleged war criminal is your evidence of huge Russian losses? Scraping the barrel…. 

I am not defending his honor. He is one nasty piece of work. He is also a total Russian fanatic who commanded some of your favorite terrorists since 2014.

However the fact is he is saying exactly what the rest of us have been saying for months.

Now who to believe? The experts on ISW or Fanta?

Tis a quandary for sure.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

Chap .... so when Ukraine uses its Air Force to bomb its own people in 2014, that's fine and you don't want to hear about it. But when Russia bombs Ukraine in 2022, that's not fine. Is that what you're saying?

🤩🤪💩

Boring as usual raking up past scraps. Is there nothing new you can bring to the Table old Chap.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, vlad said:

Boring as usual raking up past scraps. Is there nothing new you can bring to the Table old Chap.

Ah, so historical context and background of the current situation is "past scraps" in your way of thinking. 

If someone beat you up and robbed you last week, would you expect the police to take action against them this week? Would it surprise you if they instead dismissed the incident as "past scraps"?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dbrenn said:

Ah, so historical context and background of the current situation is "past scraps" in your way of thinking. 

If someone beat you up and robbed you last week, would you expect the police to take action against them this week? Would it surprise you if they instead dismissed the incident as "past scraps"?

Stop flapping about your going back 6 yrs ago get up to date with this time.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

However the fact is he is saying exactly what the rest of us have been saying for months.

And he is as close to knowing the truth as you or I.  

10 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Now who to believe? The experts on ISW or Fanta?

Silly question. Me of course. Who would you believe? Someone who has no skin in the game or someone with all their skin in the game? 

“core funding provided by a group of defense contractors. According to a mission statement on its website, ISW is supported by contributions from defense contractors including General Dynamics, DynCorp, and previously, Raytheon.It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Study_of_War

If you believe they are unbiased, prove it by showing a few articles on their site where they speak less than glowingly of Ukraine’s efforts and anything positive about Russia’s military efforts. I can wait.. If you cannot find anything on their website you can write to them at  Institute of Stories for Washington, 1400 16th Street NW, Suite 515 Washington, DC 20036 USA. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

Chappie ...... Now you're saying that CNN is making stuff up, and has been since 2014. The BBC also reported on the Luhansk air raid at the time. Were they making stuff up too, and if so why do you believe them now? There were actually journalists there at that time. 

All your propaganda piece showed was anecdotal clips, which were probably harvested from social media. How many BBC journalists are in Russia at the moment, let alone on the ground in that area? Some people will believe anything the BBC says. Time to pull the plug on the licence fee.

🤪💩

No use crying about uneven coverage when Russia bans the journalists people want to see reporting on the ground from even entering the country! This report highlights different ones banned including BBC.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/14/russia-bans-29-uk-journalists-including-guardian-correspondents

An argument for more or better balanced coverage by the BBC is in the hands of Russia. Free up the access and allow journalists to report what they actually see, not just what Russia wants them to see or report on. Get rid of the Russian law banning certain types of news reports....i.e. ones against the Russian public position? 

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/07/1084870797/russia-has-reasserted-state-control-over-the-country-s-major-media-companies

Sorry, but you can't expect more or better balanced journalism when a country itself inhibits the ability to offer balanced reporting. It fair to complain about it when journalists are allowed to report freely, without such restrictions and not any one-sided view. If they don't then offer more and balanced reporting, then it is fair to question. 

It works both ways as well. Did the Russian journalists equally report about the ceasefire breaches by the Donbas rebels as advised in the daily monitoring reports by the SMM in Ukraine?....don't seem to see any! Perhaps they too need to do more and better balanced reporting.

https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fanta said:

And he is as close to knowing the truth as you or I.  

Silly question. Me of course. Who would you believe? Someone who has no skin in the game or someone with all their skin in the game? 

“core funding provided by a group of defense contractors. According to a mission statement on its website, ISW is supported by contributions from defense contractors including General Dynamics, DynCorp, and previously, Raytheon.It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Study_of_War

If you believe they are unbiased, prove it by showing a few articles on their site where they speak less than glowingly of Ukraine’s efforts and anything positive about Russia’s military efforts. I can wait.. If you cannot find anything on their website you can write to them at  Institute of Stories for Washington, 1400 16th Street NW, Suite 515 Washington, DC 20036 USA. 

Odd that you actually quoted part of an ISW article I posted on the other thread which criticized the Ukrainians.

Had you forgot about that? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fanta said:

And he is as close to knowing the truth as you or I.  

So basically what you are saying is that a guy who has been an ardent Russian supporter and was a leader of the terrorist forces in Donbass and is living in the Ukraine has no idea what he is talking about but you do.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Had you forgot about that?

Your claims of what I have said have always been proven to be wrong. You know the drill by now.  Link to my quote or it didn’t happen. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

So basically what you are saying is that a guy who has been an ardent Russian supporter and was a leader of the terrorist forces in Donbass and is living in the Ukraine has no idea what he is talking about but you do.

Do you also need your name tag spelled out? He knows as much as us, probably less unless he has cable but he’d also need electricity for that.

btw: it is Ukraine not the Ukraine and it is on the eastern border of the Russia. 😜

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fanta said:

Your claims of what I have said have always been proven to be wrong. You know the drill by now.  Link to my quote or it didn’t happen. 

If you think I am going back into the old thread which is 2000 posts long looking through every one of your posts you are mistaken.

I remember you doing it. The fact either you dont or indeed simply do not want to acknowledge you did is the real issue.

You actually hate the ISW site because all it does is constantly demonstrate you are wrong therefore you wish it to be dismissed.

So pro Russian terrorist thug leaders from the Donbass are wrong and should be ignored. Sites like ISW full of experts should be ignored. Sky news and the BBC should be ignored. But a struck off lawyer from Greece with a huge nose on the internet should be believed. 

Yeah OK. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RedBirdy said:

Dont argue or hold any esteem with a site that allows the like of oldschooler to continue on

It’s called free speech, mate. You clearly don’t enjoy reading a good rant. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just wondeirng how much blood/treasure need be spent in this conflict.  The US has committed more than $40 billion- that is $400 for EVERY family in the US. I am sure people have better uses for that money. Plus, where will it come from? THere are two choices only- borrow (probably from China) or take from another government department. Neither is palatable.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Putin is odious. But just not worth the lives or cash to stop him. Europe can get together and foot the bill, if they want to. It is time to stop looking at Uncle Sugar to pay for every regional conflict that pops up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RedBirdy said:

Dont argue or hold any esteem with a site that allows the like of oldschooler to continue on

What?🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BeerIsLife said:

I am just wondeirng how much blood/treasure need be spent in this conflict.  The US has committed more than $40 billion- that is $400 for EVERY family in the US. I am sure people have better uses for that money. Plus, where will it come from? THere are two choices only- borrow (probably from China) or take from another government department. Neither is palatable.

Don't get me wrong, I think Putin is odious. But just not worth the lives or cash to stop him. Europe can get together and foot the bill, if they want to. It is time to stop looking at Uncle Sugar to pay for every regional conflict that pops up.

Hey the US wanted the job of being the worlds policeman after WW2 so suck it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Fanta said:

It’s called free speech, mate. You clearly don’t enjoy reading a good rant. 

Considering ive been censored and deleted on this site while toxic views are expressed freely, that's very rich. Mate

Edited by RedBirdy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

If you think I am going back into the old thread which is 2000 posts long looking through every one of your posts you are mistaken.

I remember you doing it. The fact either you dont or indeed simply do not want to acknowledge you did is the real issue.

You actually hate the ISW site because all it does is constantly demonstrate you are wrong therefore you wish it to be dismissed.

So pro Russian terrorist thug leaders from the Donbass are wrong and should be ignored. Sites like ISW full of experts should be ignored. Sky news and the BBC should be ignored. But a struck off lawyer from Greece with a huge nose on the internet should be believed. 

Yeah OK. 

So no proof of your “you wrote …”  claim. Again. Here’s a tip - don’t claim if it you cannot prove it. 
I don’t hate the IWS. I loath the biased warmongers. Subtle difference and your guesswork about my motivations is wrong. Big nosed Greek? again you have confused me with someone else. 
Treat all information carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use