Current Affairs Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thought that rang a bell...
During this period, the Inquisition would collect accusations. If two witnesses under oath accused someone of heresy, the accused person would be summoned to appear. Opinions, prejudices, rumors, and gossip were all accepted as evidence. The accused was never told the names of the accusers, nor even the exact charges.

Inquisitors examined the accused in secret. Anyone who refused to confess immediately was assumed to be guilty. Inquisitors were trained only in religion, and they would try to trap the accused with religious questions. For example, an inquisitor might ask, "Do you believe what the holy church believes?"

"I am a faithful Christian," the fearful suspect might reply.

"So!" the inquisitor might shout. "We already know you believe in heresies! You're saying your beliefs are the true Christianity and the church is false!"

No lawyers were allowed, because it was considered heresy to defend a heretic. The only possible escape was to recant as quickly as possible and name the names of other heretics.?
I'm your accuser.

I'm accusing you here, in front of the rest of the forum.

The charge is that your stubborn refusal to condemn Putin, in the face of his troops raping and murdering Ukrainian civilians, intimates your tacit support for those despicable crimes and for the man who has orchestrated the invasion of Ukraine: Vladimir Putin.

I find it astonishing that you won't condemn a man who has sent troops into a neighbouring country to round up, torture, rape and kill women, children and the elderly. What else am I to think of you if you won't condemn such barbarity? When you have had so many specific requests to confirm your position?

I don't wish to believe that a fellow Evertonian could be in favour of the torture, rape and murder of civilians, but here I am exchanging words with someone who twists, avoids, vascillates, prevaricates, equivocates, ANYTHING to avoid saying anything critical of Russian troops engaged in exactly that behaviour, or the man who issues their orders.

"In the conflict between the weak and the strong, to remain silent or neutral is to side with the strong".
 
I don’t know how there can be a negotiation if this is a widespread opinion


I'm not sure we can use state sponsorship propaganda to the views across the whole country. Of course there will be some that think like that but there will also be many more that don't. Imho we need to becareful not to vilify the whole country based on this and a rogue president who drives it.

Elect a leader we don't like, well you don't understand democracy so we'll replace him with one we do, form a wrong alliance, again you shouldn't do that so we'll correct you by force or regime change or sanctions.

Russia would love to be able to fairly elect a leader right about now. Anyone who opposes the leadership end in a siberian prison or dead. Sounds great, I can see why you prefer your version...:Blink:

As Alan Moore said "People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people."

As did the Afghans.

Like Russia hasn't tried already, and for a way less excusable reason.

Why did they invade Iraq?

NATO had nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. In school you learn about sets in maths, England is also part of the UK, which is part of Europe and some of these countries can also be part of NATO. Now just because one part of something does a thing, doesn't mean everything else that has links to it is involved or shares that viewpoint. Is that simple enough to understand?

All that NATO does is insist that countries in that group spend a minimum amount of gdp for their military budget and conduct training exercises where forces from other countries get to share training and are used to fighting alongside other countries in case the need ever arises. The only time when a fully formed NATO driven attack will come if some country invades/attacks another who is part of NATO then under agreement the members are honour bound to come to aid.

Russia actually operates a similar pact with several ex-soviet states, although has recently failed to live up to its end of the bargain in regards to Armenia. Not really surprising that Russia doesn't stand up to its obligations though is it?

Are the west crying that there was such a pact made? No because we (the royal we) aren't planning on invading countries just to expand/build an empire.
 

Biden condemns Putin's 'utter brutality' after Russian missile strikes​

President Joe Biden said the US “strongly condemns” Russian missile strikes on cities across Ukraine, which demonstrate Vladimir Putin’s “utter brutality” against the Ukrainian people.

In a statement, Biden added:


Today’s attacks only further reinforce the US’s commitment to stand with the people of Ukraine “for as long as it takes”, Biden continued.




You tell em Uncle Joe.
Looks like Putin has made the same mistake as did Hitler in 1940. Wasting air raids and bombs attacking the civilians in British cities rather than continuing to bomb military infrastructure.
Cost him the battle of Britain and a future ability to invade England.
Also made the population more resolute and defiant in opposing him.
History to be repeated we hope.
And there again his ground forces are allegedly behaving in a similar way to the nazi troops in Ukraine in 1942.
 
Looks like Putin has made the same mistake as did Hitler in 1940. Wasting air raids and bombs attacking the civilians in British cities rather than continuing to bomb military infrastructure.
Cost him the battle of Britain and a future ability to invade England.
Also made the population more resolute and defiant in opposing him.
History to be repeated we hope.
And there again his ground forces are allegedly behaving in a similar way to the nazi troops in Ukraine in 1942.
A very interesting point. Russian military strategy has been rather poor hasn't it? A vast understatement.

I guess Russia is hoping for winter to kick in and kibosh any immediate Ukrainian action.

If Russia actually hit key infrastructure close to the front then they could force that and give them time to recover their capabilities before spring. Good job they don't read GOT.

Russia are like a boxer who won the first 6 rounds and are now holding out for the final bell and a referees decision- the main problem being it's round 9 and they're goosed with 3 rounds to go after this.
 
Or let's go with the much more likely scenario of a guided Cruise missile was aimed to hit a bit of a park 20m from a playground at a time it'd be empty during what appears to have been an attack targeting critical infrastructure.
I’d go with indiscriminate attacks against innocent civilians. Classic terrorist behaviour and another one to add to the list of atrocities and war crimes.

Maximum destruction - destroy the will of the people just like Grozny and Aleppo.

He will pay for this and his other crimes, as will the henchmen who carry out his orders.
 
NATO was not involved in IRAQ. You are being deliberately obtuse. If NATO was in IRAQ it would be under NATO command, and it wasn’t. So stop the whataboutary and answer my simple question, why would NATO wish to invade Russia…..
So none of the troops on the ground or those involved in air support were from member countries of Nato?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top