War in Ukraine

#83,128
#83,128
#83,129
#83,129
BeardedVol said:
You want to read it on Forbes instead?
www.forbes.com

Russian Marines Flying Soviet Flags Paraded Right Into A Ukrainian Minefield In Kursk. Drones Finished Them Off.

Russian efforts to recapture Kursk Oblast are faltering.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...
So you do cite and and ask others to believe state-run media. Or why do you post this red herring to change the subject instead of admitting it when called out? I guess you want to sidestep the question about whether you are on the chatbot feeds, too.

What makes you think Forbes is reliable?

www.forbes.com

The Wuhan Lab Leak Hypothesis Is A Conspiracy Theory, Not Science

Despite the enormous flood of recent reports, there's no good evidence for a lab leak.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
Last edited:
#83,130
#83,130
Orange. said:
So you do cite and and ask others to believe state-run media. Or why do you post this red herring to change the subject instead of admitting it when called out? I guess you want to sidestep the question about whether you are on the chatbot feeds, too.

What makes you think Forbes is reliable?
Click to expand...
Lol I don't really follow how me linking this tweet about a Ukrainian military operation, someone means Russia Today is telling the truth, when they claim that the Maidan Revolution is a CIA coup.

Please elaborate on your logic.
 
#83,131
#83,131
walkenvol said:
How about a more accurate analogy?

If your brother invaded part of your father’s estate claiming a misinterpretation of the will. You disagreed which led to you and your brother to start punching each other in the nose.
Click to expand...
Wut? Are you actually suggesting that ukraine is not a sovereign country?
 
#83,134
#83,134
BeardedVol said:
Lol I don't really follow how me linking this tweet about a Ukrainian military operation, someone means Russia Today is telling the truth, when they claim that the Maidan Revolution is a CIA coup.

Please elaborate on your logic.
Click to expand...
There you go again! You yourself have previously specified that "state-run media" is unreliable propaganda. It's been one of your standard "attack the source" and "ignore the question" of what the facts of the any given situation may or may not be. But you yourself often cite state-run media. And you did again in the instance at hand.

So now you want to change (by sleight of hand) your long-time position from "state-run media is propaganda" to a much more narrow claim (or rather insinuation) that Russia Today is unreliable. You always dodge a question and try to distract by changing the subject. Maybe your fanboys fall for it. But answer: Do you claim that state-run media is unreliable propaganda? Or, do you now retract your long-standing claim and taunt, and thus falsify every post you have ever made playing the state-run media card?

I see also -- another of your go-to deceitful moves -- that you completely ignored my question about Forbes. Do you think Forbes is a reliable source? I submitted an example for your consideration.
 
Last edited:
#83,135
#83,135
Orange. said:
There you go again! You yourself have previously specified that "state-run media" is unreliable propaganda. It's been one of your standard "attack the source" and "ignore the question" of what the facts of the any given situation may or may not be. But you yourself often cite state-run media.

So now you want to change (by sleight of hand) your long-time position from "state-run media is propaganda" to a much more narrow claim (or rather insinuation) that Russia Today is unreliable. You always dodge a question and try to distract by changing the subject. Maybe your fanboys fall for it. Do you claim that state-run media is unreliable propaganda? Or, do you now retract your long-standing claim and taunt, and thus falsify every post you have ever made playing the state-run media card?

I see also -- another of your go-to deceitful moves -- that you completely ignored my question about Forbes. Do you think Forbes is a reliable source? I submitted an example for your consideration.
Click to expand...
I'd say that the general consensus concerning Forbes is that it's a relatively objective and factual source.

Your attempt to create a false equivalence between spravdi reporting on a Ukrainian military operation, and Russia Today pushing a false narrative that the Maidan Revolution was a CIA coup, is bizarre, but definitely on brand for you.
 
#83,136
#83,136
Orange. said:
There you go again! You yourself have previously specified that "state-run media" is unreliable propaganda. It's been one of your standard "attack the source" and "ignore the question" of what the facts of the any given situation may or may not be. But you yourself often cite state-run media. And you did again in the instance at hand.

So now you want to change (by sleight of hand) your long-time position from "state-run media is propaganda" to a much more narrow claim (or rather insinuation) that Russia Today is unreliable. You always dodge a question and try to distract by changing the subject. Maybe your fanboys fall for it. But answer: Do you claim that state-run media is unreliable propaganda? Or, do you now retract your long-standing claim and taunt, and thus falsify every post you have ever made playing the state-run media card?

I see also -- another of your go-to deceitful moves -- that you completely ignored my question about Forbes. Do you think Forbes is a reliable source? I submitted an example for your consideration.
Click to expand...

Not much different between USSR era news and current main stream media, geography?

I think I posted this before, I listened to this Russian in the mid 90s on an internet broadcast, the person interviewing asked him what happened at the end.... the guy simply said everyone just stopped listening to it all. They turned them off, tuned them out, and ignored any message. Sound familiar?

None of its working now and really hasn't for quite some time. I wouldn't even say its propaganda is pure lunatic nonsense, it doesn't even get to the level of USSR propaganda. They wish it was at the level of USSR propaganda i.e. its over.

giphy.gif
 
#83,137
#83,137
LSU-SIU said:
Not much different between USSR era news and current main stream media, geography?

I think I posted this before, I listened to this Russian in the mid 90s on an internet broadcast, the person interviewing asked him what happened at the end.... the guy simply said everyone just stopped listening to it all. They turned them off, tuned them out, and ignored any message. Sound familiar?

None of its working now and really hasn't for quite some time. I wouldn't even say its propaganda is pure lunatic nonsense, it doesn't even get to the level of USSR propaganda. They wish it was at the level of USSR propaganda i.e. its over.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Come on, lawgator and Nashvol11 still listen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#83,138
#83,138
BeardedVol said:
I'd say that the general consensus concerning Forbes is that it's a relatively objective and factual source.

Your attempt to create a false equivalence between spravdi reporting on a Ukrainian military operation, and Russia Today pushing a false narrative that the Maidan Revolution was a CIA coup, is bizarre, but definitely on brand for you.
Click to expand...
For the third time you have ignored my direct question about "state-run media." Which is a claim that you yourself have repeatedly made on this board with an air of ridiculous superiority. I am not going to gratify your obsession with (and tired old question-dodging distraction of) Russia Today until you answer my two direct questions. I'm not falling for your shape-shifter nonsense. And answer in your own name. Do you still say that state-run media is propaganda or do you renounce all of your many posts in the past employing that point of yours as a "proof."

Secondly, as for Forbes, I did not ask you what you "would say" is "the general consensus" about Forbes. You are changing the subject again to dodge a question again. It's all you do. And I didn't ask you what one of your ad hoc "internet sources" says about Forbes. You have long and regularly snidely criticized people you disagree with by changing the subject by condescendingly accusing them of using "internet sources." It's one of your regular scoffing attempts to shame and to pander to the peanut gallery, hoping that they are too biased or careless to notice your obvious sleight of hand. Your appeal to your "internet source" is an appeal to authority. I didn't ask you to make an appeal to authority. I asked you if you say Forbes is a reliable source. And to consider an example from Forbes when answering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#83,139
#83,139
Seems to be a conflict with negotiations where yesterday Trump stated that Ukraine would be a part of the negotiations. Now Zelensky is stating they knew nothing about the talks in Saudi Arabia and will not recognize any agreement.

I don't see how you can have any negotiations without at least a party or person from Ukraine. If that's what is happening, I don't agree with it.
 
#83,141
#83,141
TVOLS said:
Seems to be a conflict with negotiations where yesterday Trump stated that Ukraine would be a part of the negotiations. Now Zelensky is stating they knew nothing about the talks in Saudi Arabia and will not recognize any agreement.

I don't see how you can have any negotiations without at least a party or person from Ukraine. If that's what is happening, I don't agree with it.
Click to expand...

If Trump doesn't believe Europe or the Ukraine are of any help in solving it than why would them be involved. It was my understanding the Ukraine was invited to talks in SA, but not sure they are actually there. Technically, under the Constitution, the Ukraine can't actually settle at this point anyway. The other summit appears to the Orange Man and Da Poootin later in the month, that appears to be just them getting together to start to mend fences.

Europe and the Ukraine really aren't players in any of this if that is what the Orange Man wants. If you allow yourself to be used a pawn, you have limited value. 🤷‍♂️

This can all end whenever the Orange Man wants.
 
#83,145
#83,145
volbound1700 said:
That is impossible because the armies of those nations are technically "NATO" troops. There isn't a specifically identified NATO force. Trump could state that he would pull US forces from those nations but not "NATO" forces.
Click to expand...

NATO battlegroups are multinational, and separate from the domestic military forces of the host country.
 
#83,146
#83,146
LSU-SIU said:
If Trump doesn't believe Europe or the Ukraine are of any help in solving it than why would them be involved. It was my understanding the Ukraine was invited to talks in SA, but not sure they are actually there. Technically, under the Constitution, the Ukraine can't actually settle at this point anyway. The other summit appears to the Orange Man and Da Poootin later in the month, that appears to be just them getting together to start to mend fences.

Europe and the Ukraine really aren't players in any of this if that is what the Orange Man wants. If you allow yourself to be used a pawn, you have limited value. 🤷‍♂️

This can all end whenever the Orange Man wants.
Click to expand...
Why would you trust Putin who has invaded 2 different countries under 3 US presidents?
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol and BeardedVol
#83,148
#83,148
TVOLS said:
Why would you trust Putin who has invaded 2 different countries under 3 US presidents?
Click to expand...

Putin is definitely NOT Trustworthy and his track record shows that. However, he is a lot like Mussolini in that his armies don't back up his ambitions as what has been seen with Ukraine. His army wasn't near as strong as we or even he thought they were. Russia today is basically 1940s Italy who needed German help to win every campaign they fought.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top