ChicagoExpat

I don't need to, as that wasn't what I claimed.

Dates are a bit off (Europeans slaughtering Jews back into the Middle Ages, Jews in Israel at least 3000 years ago, Islam arrived 1300 years ago through conquest) but your point is well taken.

You're REALLY unaware of why Israelis are fighting? Because so many of your beloved Palestinians are bloodthirsty terrorists. Here's a cookie -- run along now with your "lebensraum" claims and be clever somewhere else.

Unsurprisingly you completely dodged my point -- that atheist countries have been hell on earth. Turns out we DO need a book to tell us this. The morals you cherish are all from religion, dear boy (specifically Christian religion); you just pretend they aren't.

Where do you think morals come from, Dinsdale (and nearly everyone else here)? We have the entire 20th century to show how officially atheist societies do -- it seems by most commenters' reckoning, they should have simultaneously been wonderfully moral and also paragons of enlightenment, tolerance, progress, and peace. How did it all go?

Obviously the "world" doesn't need a pope, but the RC church does. Although the Pope does act as a moral leader and is often involved in trying to resolve world conflicts.

Episode #116 in arguing in bad faith: In my mind there are NOT only two types of people, and even if I did think that, they wouldn't be the two categories you invented. This is called a straw man argument. WOW, YOU DON'T KNOW PUTIN? That really changes everything and I'm glad you stated that clearly. You won't state your love for him for clearly, but you will argue on his behalf day after day while pretending to be just a neutral guy who wants peace. Thank you for clearing that up, GUY WHO DEFINITELY DOES NOT SUPPORT RUSSIA.

Wait, you're really claiming someone is interfering with your ability to respond on this site? Someone wants to silence your making pro-Putin commentary here so they prevent you from posting? I hate to tell you this but it's been Zelenskiy all along, with his "mansions, Ferraris, and yachts" who is out to get you. Wow. Just wow.

A Putin lover, who, while arguing on behalf of Putin's invasion, once told me I have a reading comprehension problem, so maybe you can help me out because, you know, I'm just so illiterate: To be clear, your position is that Zelenskiy himself stole $100 billion dollars which no one noticed until he himself pointed out his own theft? That's your point?

You never explained why you attributed those positions to me that I have never advocated for. That's arguing in bad faith. Feel free to just admit you overreached. More evidence of arguing in bad faith? Accusing me of narcissism, gaslighting, and manipulation. Sorry you don't like getting called out in a public forum by someone who knows much more about the subject, but the easy solution is to stop trying to defend the indefensible. More arguing in bad faith? Disguising the position from which you argue -- an extremely common tactic among Western Putin lovers. Because to be seen as arguing from neutral position -- "just a regular guy calling it as I see it" -- rather than as someone who argues SOLELY from the exact lines Russia and its proxies use -- is an attempt to gain credibility you don't deserve. So, yes, your dishonesty is completely relevant. OK, let's move on with the claim that "Half the aid was stolen." Go ahead and back that up -- specifically because you're claiming Zelenskiy stole it (you know how tricky those JOOOOS are...).

So let's point out the arguing in bad faith before the ink dries on this one. You agree that it's natural for a President to try and prevent the destruction of his country at the hands of a brutal, fascist, more powerful invader but then go right to calling that a scam. Always arguing in bad faith. And a key part of your arguing in bad faith: YOU'RE DEFINITELY NOT A RUSSIA SUPPORTER. A reminder from before: Feel free to show where I created a boogeyman out of Putin, or argued that he is going to go on to conquer all of Europe, and then the U.S. And that I'm consciously arguing on behalf of "Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption." Because arguing in bad faith and making sh!t up is the norm for SOMEONE WHO IS DEFINITELY NOT A RUSSIA SUPPORTER, but I'll keep pointing it out.

I'm sure no fan of either Obama but this seems like a dumb, and even mean thing to dump on her for. Yes, women talk waaaay more about their feelings than men do, and yes, she is part of that group of people who just love to share whatever she is going through, for whatever reason (attention?). But at the same time she's a mom in a tough time in life, no matter if she's rich and obnoxious. Not sure if any of us stayed married long enough to the woman we had kids with to see her go through the "empty nest," but it's hard on a woman. Their lives are wrapped up in being Moms and then in a way suddenly they aren't anymore.

You're literally painting it as a bad thing that a country's president might ask for "money, weapons, supplies, foreign help" in trying to stave off the destruction of his country at the hands of a brutal, much more powerful invader. 🤣 Do you even realize how dumb that looks? Your country of allegiance did the same thing when invaded by the 1940s version of themselves. Was Stalin wrong in asking for help? Translation: WHY WON'T UKRAINE SURRENDER?

Because you know, it's just absolutely impossible that the President of a country might want to do all he can to prevent the destruction of that same country. The only explanation for Slavaboos is CoCaInE! YaChTs! WESTERN MSM! WESTERN MIC! BIIIIIIIIDEN!!!!!!! And literally every single thing they say 1) originates in Kremlin agitprop and 2) is either false or is 1000x worse for the country of their allegiance, Russia.

I just reject your Putin-love narrative (even though YOU'RE DEFINITELY NOT A RUSSIA SUPPORTER). You're not right about anything, from your deluded Kremlin take on Zelenskiy to the hopelessness of the situation to the Western MIC driving all this. Literally every "point" you try to make and every "big picture" you try to paint is a Kremlin lie. Assigning blame is a really important part of settling any conflict and preventing a future conflict. If a gang of thugs begins to take over your property, and kills your family, and you call for help -- I'm certain you won't be satisfied with your prescription for Ukraine: "let them keep what they took, in the future you can't call for help, and no one is at fault here." A reminder from before: Feel free to show where I created a boogeyman out of Putin, or argued that he is going to go on to conquer all of Europe, and then the U.S. And that I'm consciously arguing on behalf of "Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption." Because arguing in bad faith and making sh!t up is the norm for SOMEONE WHO IS DEFINITELY NOT A RUSSIA SUPPORTER, but I'll keep pointing it out.

And yet, in a discussion about the Russia/Ukraine issue, it's somehow irrelevant that far worse than Western media, far far worse than Ukrainian media, is the Russian media. In terms of credibility, independence, and integrity. Propaganda? World class. COVID scam? They had that, and add in the "Sputnik V" injection that they foisted on a captive audience... with no lab testing! And if you don't subscribe to Putin's fantasies, you're not only a fascist, you're in jail or dead. Just thought I'd add some perspective FOR THE GUYS WHO DEFINITELY DON'T SUPPORT RUSSIA.

Setting aside the other nonsense in your post, let's focus on this little gem. The corpses of thousands more dead kids lie at the feet of Russia. Period. For all three invasions of Ukraine. Still waiting for your explanation for what I asked you -- here's a reminder: Feel free to show where I created a boogeyman out of Putin, or argued that he is going to go on to conquer all of Europe, and then the U.S. And that I'm consciously arguing on behalf of "Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption." You never argue in good faith, Jas (James?). Including the endless claim that you are not a Russia supporter -- the one cheering on "the thousands more dead kids" is you. You are indeed a Russia supporter, and all of this is what you cheer on. Of course, you can solve this dilemma but condemning Russia's invasion -- but in all the scores of online arguments I've had with guys like you, not a single one has EVER clarified his position as a lover of peace by simply condemning Russia. Not a single one. And the silence speaks louder than all the Kremlin agitprop stuff you say. P.S. I'm a little hurt you didn't at least acknowledge how funny my last post was. Admit it, it WAS funny! Trying to keep things light.

It's not questionable at all. When you invade a country across every border possible and intend to take the capital, that's trying to conquer an entire country. Here's a little story for you -- a parable, even. I wonder if you'll recognize who is who. Hint: You're in there! One day a thug started stabbing someone, in broad daylight, where everyone could see. As people prepared to try and stop the thug from killing the victim, an observer claimed "He's not really trying to kill him! It's a just Special Stabbing Operation! The victim obviously deserves to die -- don't try to stop the dignified gentleman from completing his noble work. Oh, and I DEFINITELY DO NOT SUPPORT THE DIGNIFIED GENTLEMAN. I just want peace in the neighborhood and am tired of my tax dollars going to persecute dignified gentlemen. Who are the rest of you to judge the dignified gentleman?" You know, the lengths to which you'll go to justify Russia's actions to us, all while DEFINITELY NOT SUPPORTING RUSSIA, is remarkable.

Still waiting for your explanation for what I asked you -- here's a reminder: Feel free to show where I created a boogeyman out of Putin, or argued that he is going to go on to conquer all of Europe, and then the U.S. And that I'm consciously arguing on behalf of "Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption." Because you can't just make sh!t up, and when called out on it, make up more sh!t.

Well, if I'm wrong, set me straight and answer the question. I truly thought that's what you meant.

No, the straw man is completely your creation. Feel free to show where I created a boogeyman out of Putin, or argued that he is going to go on to conquer all of Europe, and then the U.S. And that I'm consciously arguing on behalf of "Anything to sway public opinion and continue the flow of money to the military complex and to those profiting from the corruption." "I'm just looking for specifics," as one dishonest AseanNow contributor once said to me.

We get it, you were talking about Israel occupying Gaza. So, per your theory, when Israel occupied a very small corner of Gaza, Hamas was a natural, understandable response to foreign occupation. For your theory, then, to hold any water at all, you need to explain why Hamas continued to exist after 2005, and not only exist, relentlessly attack Israel even after it got what it wanted. Go for it. Because what's obvious to the rest of us is that Hamas was, is, and always will be a terrorist group that doesn't exist to provide liberation to Gazans but to kill as many Jews as possible in the most horrific ways as possible. And no one could live next door to that.

Ukraine not being conquered and absorbed into Russia is definitely in the interests of the United States. And Europe. For the rest, you set up a silly straw man. That's on you.

I'm pointing out that in a conversation about Ukraine you state one thing but support another -- inconsistency, hypocrisy, whatever you want to call it. "Nations should be able to act in their own interests" -- except Ukraine. "For Ukraine, Russia gets to decide what happens." This is the universal response of the Russia supporter who won't admit he is a Russia supporter. While claiming neutrality, the absolute refusal to denounce Russia, coupled with an eagerness to denounce Ukraine. You just want peace, right? But only on Russia's terms. Russia's victory is both inevitable and imminent, correct? And has been for more than three years.