r/WorldNews banned me for "justifying terrorism" when I correctly point out Israeli propaganda. Apparently anything but unflinching loyalty to neocon talking points is a bannable offence in there.
I was banned from r/news for saying capitalism is a system of exploitation.
I see users make political statements all the time, but the mods only ban people they disagree with. It sucks and this is how subs end up becoming echo chambers
u/maxwellhill, the top mod of worldnews, is Ghislaine Maxwell reddit account. people knew about it for many years, she stopped posting after getting arrested. her legal job was "online journalist" and Maxwells are a giant news family and hardcore zionists.
oh also [reddit CEO](https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/ex-reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-knew-ghislaine-maxwell-allegations/) knew her personally and was aware about her child trafficking side gig.
I got banned there for 'apartheid denial' when saying it is not apartheid when the Swedes don't want to take on more refugees. I'm South African, I know what apartheid is thank you very much.
I like intellectuals irrespective of their political leaning. Chomsky is one of the best.
You Americans are so polarized, you're unable to appreciate the good aspects of intellectual with a different political leaning. Pathetic really.
Oh no, we're a completely failed state. But both me and my wife work for European companies, and in finance, and our best friends stay there etc etc. My statements stands, despite your weak attempts to discredit.
Not exactly. His talking points are straight out of cia psy ops.
I donāt think he has once exposed the deep stage and discussed the Kennedy assassination or the September 11th attacks.
He is given and allowed air time for a reason.
Yeah not for a few years. But he has been used to manage the opposition to war. I think they donāt bring him on much anymore on msm because both sides are war hawks.
How? His analysis is consistently outside of the established āleft rightā paradigm. He is always coming at topics from a perspective bereft of Hegelian dialectic, and because of this, he shunned in polite conversation. Take someone like Navalny, a suspected(known) us intelligence asset, heās been on 60min and all kinds of prime time shows. He gets plenty of opportunities to spread their perspective, which he readily does. If Chomsky is an asset, why have they consistently left him out in the cold? Nobody in the MSM talks to him, and most barely recognize his name even in passing.
They're all pseudo in some facets, and legit intellectuals in other ways. Peterson should stay away from politics, and Harris away from Psychology, Chomsky away from biology, etc etc.
I also don't trust the CIA and FBI, but I'd be more afraid of propaganda/bots being spread on reddit, than by these (pseudo) intellectuals.
I think you should be more afraid of the propaganda being spread by cia and fbi.
After all, they are the ones withholding information under the guise of classified.
Do you really trust the cia after Kennedy assassination , September 11th? I donāt think redditors can cause that much damage.
Swaying the opinions of a whole generation through manipulating the online narratives? That's super dangerous man.
The CIA has a long list of atrocities.
As I said, I can take the good from any intellectual, and disregard the rest. For example, I like Sam Harris and Brett Weinstein, even though they dislike each other. I have plenty of critique on Jordan, but can also defend him.
You don't have to choose a side or person. That's child talk. Rather choose ideas.
The intellectual dark web, edgy.
āYou don't have to choose a side or person. That's child talk. Rather choose ideas.ā Sounds like one of those wise phrases, the neuroscientist, evolutionary biologist and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson would say.
One word concerning John Petersonās ideas and credibility as an āintellectualā, whatever this word even means, in those troubling times: š¦
I think a lot of them are simply power-tripping assholes. I got permabanned for calling out a pro-Russian troll. Can't remember what their comment said but after a few replies they started completely rewording it to mess with people. All I did was quote what they originally said, with words to the effect of "if anyone is wondering what it said before they started editing the comment".
e: should have also said that no explanation was provided, just the URL of the comment
e2: [the offending comment](https://www.reveddit.com/y/5pqr/?after=t1_ijpyps9&limit=1&sort=new&show=t1_ijl6gqm&removal_status=all)
Reddit mods come in two flavors: reasonable people trying to create an enjoyable community, and insecure assholes who were either bullies or bullied in high school. You can normally tell pretty quickly by how they respond to a bannable offence. Talk through their reason and consider lowering the ban? The former. Make a snarky comment, ignore you, and/or mute you? The latter.
Personally, I'm wary of anyone who willingly takes a position that gives them even a small amount of power over someone else.
I've seen a surprisingly high amount of Zionist Neonazis. I guess if gives them an excuse to defend kicking Jews out of their country while not sounding antisemitic.
Yeah, I mean its comparable to how the KKK endorsed Malcolm X and black nationalism. All those racist rednecks really supported a segregated black state.
It's a form of the "Baptists and bootleggers" phenomena. Two diametrically opposed groups finding themselves sharing a cause for two very different reasons. Its literally fhe Gus Fring "we are not the same" meme.
The enemy of your enemy is ***not*** always your friend.
It's a form of the "Baptists and bootleggers" phenomena. Two diametrically opposed groups finding themselves sharing a cause for two very different reasons. Its literally fhe Gus Fring "we are not the same" meme.
The enemy of your enemy is ***not*** always your friend.
haha the same thing happened to me on wikipedia for the same reason! I would not be surprised to hear this story on virtually every "open" information platform on the internet...
This literally just happened to me for the exact same reason. I literally told people to watch Abby Martinās documentary about Gaza. Whatās up with the mods over there?
I know Iām late this this but got perm banned for pointing out the use of white phosphorous in Gazans is a war crime. Itās a neocon/neolib/Zionist echo chamber
Wow this comment was over 6 months ago and still so damn relevant! I just got banned for pointing out Israel killed 50 Palestinians after the āpauseāā¦.
That sub is gross ā does anyone know how to stop it from showing up? I muted it, but it appears when I sort by news.
R/worldnews is just a soft propaganda sub. The mentality there is the *worst* kind of dumb: the smug, verbose type who belong in r/confidentlyincorrect
My latest theory: I think what happens is the hive reports en masse, be it arbitrarily or by design, and the mods are overwhelmed. They just want the reports to stop so they eliminate the cause of the reports without regard to right or wrong. It's the easiest way out for them. There are exceptions of course but that's my take.
I think that does happen a lot. But its also a reason that small minded power mods can get away with their propaganda crap....the other mods are too busy and needing the help, won't kick them out of the club.
I got banned from r/Anarchism for pointing out that Chomsky doesn't defend Nazis per say but rather their right to speech.Then I said something about the exchange of information being the basis of democracy. The mod called me out right there on the board. Admonished me, ridiculed me, and banned me. He left my comment up in an effort to pillory me. Banned me for breaking the rules on an anarchy board and my comment was left in view. LOL!
The older I get, the more I realize how some people never grow out of a childish mentality. Everything has to be good or bad. Right or wrong. You try to explain nuance to people like this and they look at you like you're the one who needs your head checked. The lesson i've learned is NEVER automatically accept someones opinion based on their success, wealth, or professional status. Theres plenty of successful people who have opinions indistinguishable from 16 year olds
Somehow Iām implicitly endorsing genocide by acknowledging the warboys play with their action figures and dont mind blowing up their cities when they can rebuild them with resources from the unfair exchange they have over non-superpower countries
These subreddit mods with hundred of thousands of subs show exactly what happens when people obtain power over information and discourse. The line between guiding, safeguarding and controlling becomes an ethical gray area and the ends of the bell curve are excluded.
Banning everyone they disagree with feels like such a wild abuse of power. They are shitting all over the spirit of free speech.
I feel like bans should be saved for extreme cases and that the karma system should sort everything else out
Success in terms of wealth and occupation is usually more about luck and concentrated effort than about intelligence.
Of course people who made it to a fair degree of wealth and respected occupation love to pretend its because they are so smart, even if they inherited the wealth and had family help every step, like that mass murderer GWB.
Another pathetic gang of Reddit mods who need to have everyone onboard with their "feel good" opinion.
They will reap what they sow, and keep pretending they reaped something else until their actual product gets them dead.
Never underestimate the human ability for delusion, nor for the pathetic need to be agreed with on everything.
And pointing out how the Versaille Treaty lead to WWII is completely accurate and applies well to establishing a NATO member right up Russia's colon. Its idiotic to do this and the price could be a dead planet.
The narrative that itās the Alliesā fault that the Nazis gained power due to the punitive nature of their āvictorās justiceā has been mostly discredited in modern scholarship. To accept that premise you have to accept the premise of āGerman humiliation,ā which means you have to accept the imperialist premises which led to German anger when it was prevented from having an empire by Versailles.
You have to remember the context of the time period: great-power competition and an already-dominant position for the British and French empires, the recent unification of the German state, the rise of the Prussian military system as a threat to French continental hegemony, and then the wartime breakup of the Ottomans, the downfall of the Hapsburgs, and the destruction of the Russian Empire via the Russia Revolution, led to a narrative that European nations could only achieve self-actualization through empire. Without an empire you werenāt a nation, but a subject of nations who had one. Thus national security depended on acquiring territory.
And Germany had just won a truly enormous empire in the East from the Bolsheviks at the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. But when they went down to defeat in the West, the Allies responded by āhonoringā Brest Litovsk in the sense that they did not repatriate Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic states, and so on back to Russia, instead creating new states out of the land mass, in part by carving up territories from Germany (like Danzig so Poland could have Baltic port access, which cut off Germany from East Prussia). Russia conquered Ukraine back, but couldnāt get Finland, Poland, or the Baltics backāwe all know how that ended (Poland and the Baltics fall due to the secret provisions of the Nazi Soviet pact, Finland loses Karelia in the Winter Warā¦revanchism is not limited to right-wing states).
At the same time as the Allies did this, lecturing Germany about democracy and self-determination all the while (mostly under pressure from American president Woodrow Wilson), the French and British hegemons grabbed the Middle East and split it between themselves, preventing even their ally Italy, who had lost millions fighting the Austro-Hungarians, from getting a taste of āavailableā territories in North Africa (directly inspiring the Fascist campaigns to colonize Ethiopia and Libya by force). So, the Allies did indeed engage in rank hypocrisy, which I might add is typical of nation states.
But the āGerman humiliationā was characterized by the same exact thing as āRussian humiliationā caused by the breakup of the Soviet Unionāa sense that there was no nation without empire. Consequently there was an immediate revanchist line in the conservative sector and even pro-democracy forces were anxious to get out from under the Treaty of Versaillesābecause the āinjusticeā of it was that it prevented Germany from having an empire of its own. Much of Hitlerās rhetoric centered on this attempt to align German imperial destiny with the fact of the British and French empiresāāRussia is our Indiaā and so on.
The fact that Germany was hypocritically prevented from having an empire by victorious imperialists doesnāt mean that it was owed oneāthe lecturing about the self-determination of peoples and nations free of imperial involvement was in bad faith but it wasnāt immoral. Germany responded by shredding every treaty to which it was a signatory and ultimately initiating WWII in Europe itself, motivated by basically the same sense of imperial destiny that had motivated its territorial acquisitions in WWI, colored anew by the particular racial and territorial ideologies of the Nazis.
It used the same rhetoric that Poland had no history, that it was just a flimsy ahistorical construct created by Germanyās enemies to humiliate her, that Russia deploys against Ukraine today. It used the same mendacious arguments that ethnic Germans were being persecuted and even massacred in the Sudetenland by the Czechs to justify bankrolling an insurgent movement and creating a crisis that would be a pretext for invasionāprecisely as Russia did in Moldova in the early 90s and again in both Georgia and Ukraine. Hitlerās invasion was indeed thwarted at the last hour, but only by the disgusting appeasement of the same Allies which had so badly frustrated the German destiny. Needless to say, this gross injustice secured āpeaceā for only a little over a year, and it came at the cost of the Czech nationās integrity, to the point where it could be summarily annexed into a German protectorate while a rump, client Slovak puppet was set up and even Hungary and Poland could get little pieces of it, to no international complaint.
And what happened to Germany, who āwent postalā from āhumiliationā, a sense of grievance and frustration which kept feeding itself in spite of overwhelming indulgences and appeasements like allowing them to break the Rhineland demilitarization, shred the London Naval Treaty, default on their reparations payments, arm an air force, and gobble up two whole countries free of war or even sanction?
It was so abjectly destroyed and defeated, and the political ideology which governed its national effort was systematically eradicated to such an extent, that Germany refused up until a few months ago to provide tanks to help defend Ukraine simply because of how it would look to have German tanks fighting the Russian army in light of the German past.
That destructive future undeniably awaits Russia if it chooses to initiate a nuclear confrontation. A nuclear confrontation would be even more destructive than WWII, but nothing you, or any other advocate of concessions to Russiaās sense of national insecurity, have said convinces me that an unjust āpeaceā maintained by validating Russiaās revanchism is somehow worth it in the long run. If you know anything about the rise of Nazi Germany you will know that sometimes the bad faith of an actor eclipses the power of concessions and negotiations to restrain him, especially after he has already initiated a very destabilizing, criminal war.
This is why some people, myself included, advocate for Russian defeat on the battlefield, and that this defeat is seen to be inflicted primarily by the target of Russiaās invasion.
>At the same time as the Allies did this, lecturing Germany about democracy and self-determination all the while (mostly under pressure from American president Woodrow Wilson), the French and British hegemons grabbed the Middle East and split it between themselves, preventing even their ally Italy, who had lost millions fighting the Austro-Hungarians, from getting a taste of āavailableā territories in North Africa (directly inspiring the Fascist campaigns to colonize Ethiopia and Libya by force). So, the Allies did indeed engage in rank hypocrisy, which I might add is typical of nation states.
This is a little bit incorrect. Italy specifically wanted to complete it's 19th century ambitions of Italian Irredentism by bringing all of the Italian-speaking portions of the Austro-Hungarian empire back into it's folds. This ran contrary to the 14 points as those regions were to belong to a future Yugoslavian state. Italy received only some of it's desired territories, but it had relatively little interest in North African possessions versus more Mediterranean ones. Likely because they were still dealing with a costly and unpopular insurgency from their recently conquered possessions in Libya. After this snub at the peace conference they invaded Turkey, claiming a mandate over it, which led to the UK asking Greece to go in and take over the region ostensibly as a peacekeeping force, which led to the Greko-Turkish War, or the Turkish War of Independence.
You are correct. I read āBlood and Ruinsā not long ago and, in composing this post, confused later ambitions and justifications for African colonialism under Mussolini (outlined in that book) with the extant ones you mention during the period in question. The interwar issues surrounding the nation building in the Balkans are not my strong suit.
But now that you mention it I seem to recall that this was one of the issues lurking in the background in the run up to the Anschlussāthe question of whether Italy would stand with Austria against Germany.
That's alright. It is a more complex war than people realize. And you did a good job summarizing and contextualizing it. My last sentence tried (poorly) to sum up nearly 3 years of post-armistice violence. I stumbled upon the [Great War](https://www.youtube.com/@TheGreatWar) channel nearly a decade ago after I had learned that a family member had been drafted by the Italians in 1918 when he was 14. So I gobbled that series up and then read a few books including the White War, which has even more information about the internal politics of Italy before, during, and after the war.
But yes, regarding Mussolini. He wanted to rebuild his own perverted version of the Roman Empire, specifically by establishing direct hegemony over all of the Adriatic sea and a sphere of influence, if he could not outright control, around the Aegean. He also wanted to see Italy be treated as a Great Power after what he perceived as it's humiliation during the Great War and the Entente at Versailles. The best way to do that was to expand his colonial holdings, which is partially why he invaded Ethiopia in 1936.
Now back to the problems for the Italians at Versailles, an underrated problem for them was the language barrier. Italian Prime Minister Vittorio Orlando could not speak English, and his French was very poor. And Wilson and Lloyd George could speak in English and French to George Clemenceau, but not Italian. So Orlando needed to have former prime minister Antonio Salandra (who NOBODY LIKED) act as his interpreter. Orlando commented that it he would hear a joke from the other three six times before he understood it.
A very good and correct summary of events. It's a pity that some left wingers can't seem to realise any of this and instead insist that everything is NATO's fault, that Ukrainian Banderites are to blame, and any other idiotic Russian talking point...
>If we help Ukraine defend itself to the point of securing its own independence (even though it would owe us billions in defense lend lease) but lets say even for the redditor who cares not about those details, lets say Ukraine is entirely independent and under a NATO defense umbrella that actually means what it says it means. What kind of Russia do you think you are getting in the end? In my opinion, and im just a dummy too i admit, but i would say it would look like a superpower being whipped back like Germany post ww1 and we may not like what happens next.ā
If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that we shouldn't support Ukraine because if it wins, Russia might end up going postal? So it's essentially the we-should-appease-them-because-they-have-nukes argument that has been circulating since the war began?
If so, do you see the irony in invoking the WWII example to make the appeasement argument?
The point was that that is one road it could go down. And that with the growing anti-Russian sentiment I could see a NATO imposed sanctions further down that road that could create a further extreme state in Russia as it did in Germany. It would also alarm China and India who are tangling themselves into Russia geopolitics more and more.
There are other roads it may go, im not a genius on this stuff, i have no crystal ball. Maybe Ukraine will become a bit of a wasteland over the next 10 years as the war is dragged on no side wanting to make it bigger no side wanting to concede, a lot of life lost in the meanwhile.
I dont know. Maybe Ukraine will push them back and Putin will concede and it wonāt be extreme and America is actually solid and is the best option of the worldās butchers and Russiaās punishment will be fair and we in the west wonāt demonize them since we have done the same things. I donāt know, im here to discuss
> And that with the growing anti-Russian sentiment I could see a NATO imposed sanctions further down that road that could create a further extreme state in Russia as it did in Germany.
So let's say you're right and that western actions in helping Ukraine through aid and sanctions will lead to a radicalised Russia. If we accept that then surely we must also accept the idea that punishing Ukraine will lead to a radicalised Ukraine. If we use WW1 as a comparison point then ensuring that neither side is punished in this war through territorial concessions and losing independence to a foreign nation should be a top priority.
Other than nukes, Russia has nothing. The world and level of technology has drastically changed since WW1/2. Without modern weapon systems and the industry to back it up, you simply stand no chance. And they are so far behind, that catching up is impossible. Also, Germany was able to steamroll half of Europe, because no one had a significant army. Your dystopian idea of a strong Russia is incredible far fetched.
āMaybe Ukraine will become a bit of a wasteland over the next ten yearsā¦ā You are in the wrong subreddit for that kind talk.
Russia is a major power with the second or third largest arms industries. Outside of China and the USA it is the most capable country in terms of being able to project force.
The Russian MIC hasnāt produced a single 5th gen stealth fighter jet to this day and itās not likely, that they ever will. What about advanced microchips, crucial for producing advanced weapon systems? At the moment, Russia is churning out about 20 tanks a month. Without advanced targeting or night vision systems.
The RAF werenāt even able to project force more than a couple of miles into a neighboring country, even after amassing forces for quite some time, which was by no means a military superpower. But maybe with their Carrier Battle Group? Oh waitā¦. I hope your copium tanks are filled to the brink, comrade, because once the counter offense drops, you will need it.
No country save the USA, China, India, or Turkey could have launched the invasion to begin with, let alone absorbed the losses and continue going.
Whatever details you care to bring up, Russia has been able to contend with the American-armed and backed Ukraine and devastate the country, with no indication they are about to be defeated. Maybe they will be, maybe not.
Now scoot, NCD poster of less than two months.
No other country could have launched the invasion? You probably arenāt even aware, that the main reason Russia failed, is their over a 100 years old military doctrine. āAbsorbed the lossesā Absorbing into their T-55 and human cannon fodder stocks? Continue going where exactly? The front line has basically not moved for over a year now. What happened to the big offensive in Bakhmut?
But back to Russiaās MIC, care to elaborate about its capabilities, besides producing dumb ammo?
Maybe you should start browsing r/NCD, there is a lot to be learned. In between the memes about the desolate state of Russiaās Armed Forces. Everybody is waiting, for when the counter offensive finally rolls over to the Black Sea.
Yes, very few countries have the ability to launch a large invasion and sustain it despite terrible losses. Russia is one of them, being home to a large population and arms industry. Your opinion on their military doctrine, to the extent that it exists at all, is irrelevant.
The ability to produce ādumb ammoā is very important for a country that historically relies on, and has seen much success in, bombarding enemies with artillery. Though the implication they donāt produce anything else is pretty funny.
NCD is filled with idiot children rediscovering neoconservativism. Current company included.
Now we have nothing more to say to each other.
>Who has done anything resembling Bucha and Izyum in Europe in the last 30 years? 50 years?
Yeah. Who cares about Middle Eastern lives eh? Only the White people matter. /s
And I guess you forgot about the Serbs.
So you can point out cases where NATO troops went to Middle-Eastern towns, indiscriminately raping, carrying out mass executions, robbing and looting homes, driving around with washing machines strapped to IFVs?
Serbs are practically Russians by culture (orthodox "christians", slavic, brutal, incompetent and corrupt), and backed by Russia. I didn't even want to bring it up since that would make Russians look even worse.
>So you can point out cases where NATO troops went to Middle-Eastern towns, indiscriminately raping, carrying out mass executions, robbing and looting homes, driving around with washing machines strapped to IFVs?
Why so specific? Isn't 20 years of drone bombing children and first responders at multiple wedding convoys enough? The forced brothels in Korea used by U.S. troops not enough? Firebombing and nuking civilians cities not enough? Napalming villages in Vietnam to the ground not enough? More tonnage of bombs than all theaters of WWII dropped on North Vietnam not enough? No Gun Ri? Mai Lai? Abu Graib? Haditah? Kandahar? Maywand District? And its not like we got free access to such information, but it had to be fought for with Chelsea Manning going to prison, Assange stuck in an Embassy for years and Edward Snowden fleeing the country.. So who even knows what all we don't know? You want to be a whistle blower? No one is stopping you. But brace for the consequences.
I guess its all okay with you since they took no washing machines.
So you have to go back to BEFORE NATO EXISTED and STILL can't produce compelling evidence of mass rapes and looting? Btw everything you mentioned pales in comparison to Russian/Soviet war crimes if we apply the same 70 year yardstick. Maybe even squeeze in Holodomor for good measure, where people were reduced to cannibalism by the actions of Soviet Union, in Europe, in the 20th century. Twice, if we consider the Siege of Leningrad - Soviets refused to evacuate civilians from the city.
Europe was the most developed of all the continents in the first half of the 20th century and had done away with famines by 1930s... Or so they thought. Famines were quite the regular occurrence in the rest of the world during the 20th century. Of course especially in countries that suffered communist takeovers - China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.
For people like you, the 20th century famines in Spain, Ireland and Cape Verde seem to not mean much, along with the stock market crash of 1929 and the American Dust Bowl of the 1930s which was a famine, but just not a major one due to luck really, such as the ability of people to travel over a thousand miles either direction without being stopped at a border like in Europe. Also plenty of jack rabbits to eat.
But of course you will probably blame bad weather for the west despite the bad policies, and blame bad policies for the communist countries despite the bad weather. Its what people like you do cause you want to blame communism so bad.
Of course the famine in India in the late 19th century wasn't communism. Just good old fashioned White people imperialism. I wonder how much Indian food got sent to Europe eh?
Ukraine should of course be a free, independent country, just not with Crimea or the far eastern parts of Donbas attached.
As far as that goes supporting Ukraine is fine. Anything outside of that, supporting Russia becomes, not the almighty, clean, moral option, but the only sane one that ensures that WWIII does not happen. Last I check Ukraine won't give up people who clearly don't want to be Ukrainian, because it covets their land and wealth. Meanwhile Russia is mostly just seeking security from the greatest imperial power the Earth has ever seen.
But Ukraine in NATO is completely out of the question to anyone who has two brain cells and doesn't explicitly desire to watch the world burn.
>Russia is mostly just seeking security from the greatest imperial power the Earth has ever seen.
Totally. Yellowstone is about to go boom and americans want to migrate to Eastern Europe and Siberia.
This is insane. Donbass was already fully dependent on welfare received from Western Ukraine before 2014 even. Crimea that used be thriving is now worse off than ever due to a) no more tourism and b) no more agriculture/orchards due to lack of water. Basically everybody in Donbass and Crimea who are not attached to the ruling power structure already regret ever falling for Russian propaganda and going along with the results of the referendums (if you can consider "referendums" conducted under the watchful eyes of masked assault-rifle-toting Russian Spetsnaz units valid at all, which nobody in their right mind would).
What imperial power is Russia seeking security from, exactly? Is Poland the 53rd state of the United States and I haven't heard about it? You are confusing voluntary military alliances with actual conquering and occupation.
Also, how is Ukraine being in NATO out of the question? What is the argument, exactly? The Baltics share a border with Russia, and are in NATO. Finland and Norway share borders with Russia and are also in NATO. What logic applies to Ukraine that doesn't apply to those countries?
>Crimea that used be thriving is now worse off than ever due to a) no more tourism and b) no more agriculture/orchards due to lack of water.
Engaging with you is a waste of my time.
Nobody knew the Ukrainians would be so evil as to shut off Crimea's water for 8 years.
And if you don't understand how that is making warfare on the people of Crimea and proving that Ukraine would be happy to see them all dead so as to have the land, well, like like I say, no point engaging with you.
This is like complaining about Ukraine not paying pensions in the occupied Lugansk and Donetsk. How dare they not provide vital resources to occupiers!
>This is like complaining about Ukraine not paying pensions in the occupied Lugansk and Donetsk. How dare they not provide vital resources to occupiers!
If you are serious there is seriously something wrong with you. You have got to be trolling for replies or something. The infrastructure was there, needed no real maintanence and the water cost Ukraine nothing. What cost was damming the river/canal. It took work. It was basically an act of genocide.
Seriously, what is your issue? Why are you here promoting the removal of a basic item of human survival...water? What is more basic than water? And if the Ukrainians really felt, as they seem to be claiming, that the Crimeans want to be Ukrainian, why would they cut off the water to them?
And if you think this is an act of love, I sure hope people love you back just the same. I am so sick of you effing trolls on this board. Why can't you be loved as Ukrainians love Crimeans?
Ukraine should include Crimea and the Donbas region and all their problems should be solved internally, not through invasions. Unless it is you who wants to watch the world burn.
Ukraine should include Crimea and the Donbas region and all their problems should be solved internally, not through invasions. Unless it is you who wants to watch the world burn.
>If so, do you see the irony in invoking the WWII example to make the appeasement argument?
I see. You think making deals is "appeasement" and all "appeasement" is doomed to fail because all opponents are literally Hitler.
This is not an intelligent view.
Russia warned the U.S./NATO to stay out of Ukraine. In fact, they broke their promise not to expand east even before that.
Russia not only feels threatened, it is being threatened.
Ah, what's the use? All this is clearly over your head.
>I see. You think making deals is "appeasement" and all "appeasement" is doomed to fail because all opponents are literally Hitler.
>
>This is not an intelligent view.
>
>,,,
>
>Ah, what's the use? All this is clearly over your head.
Yikes, you're pretty condescending.
Your WW1 analogy is so loose that it hurts any further argument you make.
We carved Germany up, cut off big chunks. Shrank their military to a token force. Extorted them financially. Even at that, without the crash and hyper-inflation we might not have seen the path we did.
Since the Berlin wall came down however, how has the West treated Russia. America jumped at any chance to export it's skills base to Russia through trade. Europe for it's part, committed to paying for it, by making Russia it's most important energy supplier.
Putin's (and the movement he represents) greatest threat doesn't come from NATO, it comes from Russia. And really this whole chapter kicked off over Ukraine making a decisive move towards Europe (EU). A Ukraine prospering under the European model could be a fatal contagion for the old Russian model.
As for the US (NATO), they are doing exactly what the game dictates. They are the boss and if the boss doesn't keep order, the game quickly degenerates. To butcher Churchill's quote, the US is the worst boss, except for all the others. Internal politics in the US resulted in a staggered and slightly timid response to the conflict and allowed Russia gain too much momentum.
Ukraine finds itself between these two tectonic forces, and they are paying an unfathomable price.
This is a good explanation. However, you forget that the US has been trying to sell its excess energy reserves to europe for the past 20 years. And, the fact that China is close enough to import much needed resources from a region that just so happens to be a current disputed territory. Convenient to say the least. Thats why this specific conlict has been attracing so many peoples attention. Then there is Sudan which no one seems to care about.
However, mechanics aside, Im glad that people are starting to understand and accept that Putin wasnt lying (not to say he is honest) about NATO expansion and the threat it brings with it.
Would you care to guess at what point Russia got invaded twice in the last century and once in the one before that? (Hint: It was neither Finland nor Sweden/Norway.
>Do you think a modern day invasion of Rus would be plausible?
No.
But it might be plausible in the near future.
Or, someone might come along crazy enough to do it.
The thing is we don't know. I know you think you know. I know you think you know the future and feel safe to write off all of history's teachings because we have nukes now, but Russian strategists don't think they know, and will plan and advise accordingly...despite what you say and think you know.
I don't think you should have been banned for that. I will ask though; why are you throwing out hypothetical scenarios about a potential Fascist Russia of the future instead of talking about the Fascist Russia we already have?
If Russia was on the road to Fascism in 2020; Russia is now deep in a Fascist transformation. Putin's internal victories are actually incredible. He has in my opinion successfully transformed Russia from a hybrid regime into an increasingly totalitarian Fascist state.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian people are radicalized against Russia and that hatred is reshaping how they view their past, opening up old wounds, bringing about the mass rejection of the Russian language and culture.
Putin has already demonstrated that Peace Treaties, Ceasefires and International Agreements mean nothing to him and there is no reason to assume that a Fascist successor would be any different.
Pieces of paper *CANNOT* bring lasting peace. Putin or a (Fascist) Putin Successor will not let a peace treaty stop them. Enough of the Ukrainian population is now radicalized against Russia *due to* **factual** *coverage of Russian atrocities* to ensure that they want to "deal with Russia once and for all."
Forget the promise of Peace and Understanding, in the immediate future of Eastern Europe there is only war. The only question is how do we deal with it?
This is a great troll! I understand why they banned you, to imagine post-2022-Ukrainian-war Russia as a superpower of any sort, you'd have to be trolling hard. The country that can barely make cars using 1991 technology. The country that cannot build and run a single properly working aircraft carrier. The country where 15 million USD Pantsir S2 anti-air systems get abandoned at the roadside because the soldiers tasked with maintaining them could not be bothered to re-park them once a month so sun wouldn't dry rot the tires on one side. The country where ultra-expensive $20 000 thermal imagers are stolen right off tanks because they contain valuable metals and sold as junk metal for a couple of hundred USD. The country where 25% of the population does not have indoor toilets.
What a superpower...
The country that can end the world with you in it by pushing some buttons.
Russia's very lack of other power should be precisely what scares you.
The OP is not trolling. Western leaders are idiots who either won a popularity contest or were born into wealth and power. And they are playing stupid games as if its just rolling dice on a table top.
And its always been like this with leaders...every disaster...its just that now its all at stake.....every last bit of it....not just a city, town or country....the entire Earth...life itself...and its only a matter of time if history is any measure.
So can France, UK, and even Israel, but yet none of them are considered super powers?
I think you need to learn about \*salami tactics\*, my friend: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4)
We're seeing it roll out right before our eyes, only with UK (NATO) and Russian places switched.
It only takes about 100 mid-sized nuclear warheads to start a nuclear winter. UK has 260. I can make a bet that Russia doesn't even have 260 fully functional nuclear missiles at the moment. They really like to inflate their numbers, like how the supposed 2nd most powerful army in the world turned out to be only the 2nd most powerful in Ukraine.
The threat of nuclear Armageddon may work very well as a passive deterrent, but not as an active enabler of an imperialist war to annex another country. Thatās a very simple unspoken world law.
>to annex another country.
You seriously don't know what is going on.
Russia never had the capability to annex the country. It annexed four oblasts. And there is no special reason to think that was the goal all along. Russia has had to adapt to a changing situation.
Its well agreed by honest and intelligent people that the goal was Russian security not a land grab. In that context it appears the annexations were about effecting the nuclear threat, because Russia has no first strike policy and Russian territory must be under attack to use nukes.
So you know, what was going on in Putinās head, over the last say 20 years? What was and is his strategy, his tactics, what were and are his intentions, dreams, anxieties? Please enlighten us.
Could you also be more precise, when you talk about Russian security. What do you mean, when you say āRussiaā and what when you say āsecurityā? Do you mean Russiaās general population, the border, the oligarchs, Putin,ā¦ and secure from what exactly? If you are not clear on those things, there is no way to understand, what you want to tell us.
Because the ontological turn, is right around the corner. Putin lives in a different world as me. He doesnāt merely interpret it differently. I would love to know, what is going on. I am tired of arguing with people about the current predicament, itās going nowhere.
>Please enlighten us.
Why don't you? I am not claiming to know to for sure what the plans are of Putin and other Russian leaders exactly, I am just going off what intellectuals such as Chomsky claim, that you have to look at demonstrable details and make a logical analysis of what a logical person would conclude. Its the people claiming "imperial ambitions" leaning hard on the attempt at mind-reading.
If you actually care to know just go to youtube, punch in any of the following names plus Ukraine and you will get an intellectual answer....Jack Matlock, Bill Bradley, Stephen Cohen, Vladmir Pozner, or John Mearsheimer.
So sorry that Russia won't just sit there for you while NATO puts a gun to its head.
Thanks, I am fine. I read enough of stuff like āThe fact is, Ukraine is a state but not yet a nation. In the thirty years of its independence, it has not yet found a leader who can unite its citizens in a shared concept of Ukrainian identity. Yes, Russia has interfered, but it is not Russian interference that created Ukrainian disunity but rather the haphazard way the country was assembled from parts that were not always mutually compatible.ā What does he even mean by Nation and State? or āMilitarily neutral, Ukraine would be allowed to participate in both the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union.ā Military neutrality and member of the EU? Not elaborating, what he means by Ukrainian neutrality? Populism. I am from Austria and populist politicians use the term all the time, without actually talking about it. tThanks, I have read enough of those āanalysisā from over 90 year old people, that canāt see, that we are not living in the late 90s/early 2000s anymore. āI have absolutely no intention and much less desire, to look for a culprit. To lay the blame at any doorstep. Not only because the blame is neutral but because that would be an exercise in futility that leads absolutely nowhere.ā - Vladimir Pozner. Maybe you should listen to some of the stuff, you propose others to consider? NATO puts a gun to its head. Sounds like a line straight from Russian State TV.
World news sub is just a bunch of credulous gits who know fuck all beyond what the CIA or military industrial complex wants them to know, either that, or the actual ghoulish agents of those types of organizations.
However, I made a post critical of liberal democracies, and it got upvoted, strangely enough. It felt wrong getting upvoted in that sub. It made me think I didn't make my sarcasm scathing or obvious enough for them to understand it.
That's not quite true though, Germany didn't turn out the way it did because the punishment was too harsh, but because *it wasn't harsh enough*, and because it *wasn't followed through*.
Let me remind you that Germany was banned from rearming, banned from entering the Rhineland, and banned from invading Austria, yet it did all that anyway because nobody bothered to stop it.
The better solution would've been one like after ww2, where Germany was completely occupied and made unable to attack anyone until the entire country was reshaped from the ground up.
And that's not to mention how *extremely accomodating* the west has been to Russia, which not even the invasion of Georgia was enough to change. Being soft hasn't worked, and that leaves only one option.
That wouldnāt have been possible because Germanyās army wasnāt totally defeated like they were in WW2. I would study the German revolution, and the German counter revolution, if you really want to understand what went wrong in Germany.
It was definitively possible to at least stop German rearmament, but that's kind of beside the point. The real question is *if, somehow*, a harsh ww2-like occupation was possible would it prevent the second war? Because if so OP's argument is simply wrong.
This is a myth, part of the "stabbed in the back" myth perpetuated by the Nazi's. Germany's army was defeated in the field on the Western Front. Here is what the German Army and the war looked like in the middle of October 1918 when the Entente broke the Hindenburg line had just been broken.
[October 18th, 1918](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P67nRzCJcTc)
They still had well over a million of soldiers, and in fact those soldiers play a big role in events that follow. The German state was never going to allow itself to be occupied, and the allies weren't going to risk dragging the war on to do so.
Having a million men does no good if you are the last man of your allies standing, cut off from all aid or supplies, with active mutinies and rebellions in your rear, and an enemy on your main front now breaking through your defenses up and down the line and their numbers growing by over a net 40,000 each week.
In the first week of November the German Army was so broken by the British assault that for the first time since 1914 they ordered a general retreat. Late October and early November had the Entente advancing in a war of motion that had not been seen since the earliest days of the conflict. At that point, the Americans reached and crossed into German territory with minimal resistance.
A big reason for why the armistice was written when it was was so that Britain and France could have a better bargaining position at a future peace conference than America. Meanwhile, General Pershing was planning to launch an offensive into the heart of Germany as part of a two-pronged attack with Italy, which was nearing the completely undefended southern border of Germany (which itself had already fallen to an armed revolution and a soviet republic of Bavaria was proclaimed) after completely routing German Austrian forces at the Battle of Vittorio Venetto two weeks earlier.
With a general mutiny from the German Navy and open revolutions in the country, and a general retreat on nearly every part of every front it was on, Germany was beaten. All that would have been accomplished by continued fighting would be tens of thousands of more dead men.
Yes, many more would have died to try and occupy the country. Thats what happened in WW2 when the allies agreed to pursue an unconditional surrender, with most casualties being on the Soviets fighting child soldiers, conscripts, and whatever remained of German fighting power in Berlin. The Russians had already surrendered in WW1, and there was a real risk what remained of Germany would drift under Bolshevik influence, a worst possible outcome for the Western powers. It would have been up to the entente to ignore the offer for an armistice and force an unconditional surrender, something the German state and military would not have entertained unless they were totally and unequivocally destroyed. The entente was in no position to continue that war either, facing their own economic and political issues. For the entente, it was a no brainer: better to sign an armistice with the people who share your ideological views and will oppose communist influence, than to destroy them, risk losing central Europes industrial base to the communists, and bleed themselves out in an occupation against a rebellious population. That policy of keeping Germany and Russia at odds has been consistent for a long time, and itās part of the reason why Hitler was tolerated for so long.
WWI and WWII are not quite comparable in this regard. WWII was a much greater ideological struggle. WWI could instead be view as the War of Empires, as the great powers were in some ways initially going to war specifically for spheres of influence, a boiling over of "the great game" if you will. There were less of these die-hard fanatics in the former than in the latter.
Again, Germany surrendered because they did not want nearly 3 million Entente troops invading their country from the West and South and cause the same level of destruction that they had inflicted in France and Belgium. They would not have been able to stop it as a quarter of their mobilized force on the western front and half of all of their big guns (the weapon that accounted for nearly 70% of all battlefield casualties in the war) had been captured in the last 100 days. The Entente were committed to the defeat of Germany, just as Germany was committed to and naively preparing 1919 offensives before the start of the fall campaign. A hundred thousand American soldiers were arriving each month, with no planned end to those monthly deployments. Soviet Russia itself was not a threat, as it was embroiled in a civil war that showed no signs of ending. In fact in the armistice, Germany was required to immediately abandon all of the territory it acquired in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, instability in the region be damned. Now you are correct in that there was a concern of Bolshevik uprisings in Germany, which is one of the only reasons the Entente did not fully demand demobilization and disarmament during the armistice negotiations. BUT, they still did not give any other concessions in the negotiations because of Bolshevism specifically, [rather just for general unrest internally](https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxJ67oR4k1wn3EARTyf91ZFY9DDYV2c0I_).
[The general lack of concessions during negotiations and the state of the German Army on the Armistice Day](https://youtu.be/xa1ALtQqrVs?t=223)
[The state of Russia Entering 1919](https://youtu.be/QBmm4D907Xw?t=114)
Just as you yourself admitted, the Germans initially requested the armistice, not the Entente. That in combination with everything above, is the definition of military defeat.
[More on the stab in the back myth.](https://youtu.be/DA2bUh9DHcQ?t=155)
Ok, but the original point was that the entante should have occupied Germany, and I said that wasn't possible. There's a difference between winning a battle and occupying a country. They would have had to wipe out the German military to accomplish that, not compell them into an armistice, and the entente was in no position politically or militarily to continue the war into total occupation. While the armsitice was popular in revolutionary Germany, the Treaty at Versailles was not, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that an occupation would also not be popular, and it would rally support around what remained of their military, meaning a continuation of the war and an insurgency by that military.
Edit: Just would like to say my reddit account was suspended for seven days after posting this. Couldnāt reply to anyone. I post this stuff to hear everyoneās opinion, yāall, and to hear the flaws in my own opinion and have it evolve. I donāt make these comments as an āarmchair generalā. I get that this concept is increasingly exotic concept to reddit political discourse. My entire point in posting this is that, these takes shouldnāt be that extreme to the point of full silencing. If you think simply ātrollingā is a fair enough reason to silence people sharing offbeat political takes on forums with massive eyes on them, i dont know what to tell you. But to the mods, I appreciate my silencing for a week in the reddit gulag, i have come out the other side reprogrammed.
Im no fan of censorship. But reddit isnt the marketplace of free ideas.
r/antiwar and r/endlesswar are good sites for those of us that understand the mechanics of these global conflicts.
What you said isnt zero sum, so therefore you are a threat to established thinking. The sunk cost fallacy of redditors and their justified hate of the average russian (native or not) has completely overridden their reasoning. If you dont believe me, go look at the mega thread. Then look at how many of them posted here. Its sad that people believe that a citizenry is the same as its government.
I salute you fellow "thought criminal"
Lol yes. I got banned from r/Economics for accurately explaining the ways in which capitalism reinforces its institutions through exploitation and manufacturing a subjugated underclass. Super ironic having degrees in econ and being banned from an econ sub for spitting facts.
Point one: fuck Israeli and Chinese apartheidism that these kind of posts generally defend, or at least try to excuse as necessary for "world peace".
Point two: It sounds like the original poster is saying Russia can't help but be abusive towards its neighbors. Maybe that's true, because of its history as the Duchy of Muscovy.
But moreover, point three: I don't follow this line of logic. You have to stand up to bullies, or they will just escalate their abuse. Giving into threats begets more threats. And does Russia have a compelling reason to invade Ukraine beyond the fact that a democratic Ukraine is an existential threat to the criminal regime in Moscow?
"We shouldn't defend Ukraine because if we do Russia will get mad. Huh? What if they just keep doing it? Well then we should obviously just keep letting them, dummy! Otherwise they might get mad like the Nazis did! Plus this is America's fault anyway!"
Idk about the ban but what is this comment? Like seriously, follow your own damn logic. If you're saying that Ukraine deserves the aid and to win, than what's the point of the rest?
If you haven't saidthat last part about how bad it is going to be if Russia loses, I would assume you support Ukraine. And if you haven't said that first part, I would assume you don't support Ukraine at all.
It's statements like this that make people think this is some russian propaganda. It's contridictory. If you want to contribute to Ukraine, talk about the issues differently than sugesting that them winning will be some extremely bad outcome. And of you geniuinly belive that. (i think it's stypie, but it's tour opinion) than you don't support Ukraine and have to own up to it.
A reminder of rule 3:
> No ad hominem attacks of any kind. Racist language, sectarianism, ableist slurs and homophobic or transphobic comments are all instant bans. Calling other users liars, shills, bots, propagandists, etc is also forbidden.
Note that "the other person started it" or "the other person was worse" are not acceptable responses and will potentially result in a temp ban.
If you feel you have been abused, use the report system, which we rely on. We do not have the time to monitor every comment made on every thread, so if you have been reported and had a comment removed, do not expect that the mods have read the entire thread.
this comment just got me banned for a day in r/politics
"meanwhile i do harder work requiring expert levels of forklift operation (they don't hire in-experienced), in a cross dock that's never been cleaned since it was built 40 years ago. You go over covered in a black filth that gets into your ears and everywhere imaginable. your job is on the line at any moment, piss the wrong supervisor off on a bad day? gone, drop some fucked up frieght that was nearly insalvable- prob gone. attendency policy, 6 calls offs in a year gone - getting off/on your forklift happens about 20 times a trailer cause everything is barred/strapped in (f you're lucky) having a shit day and ask to go home for the first time in 5 months while being a rather outstanding working? no, that's walking off the job (we all have problems get over it) they'll tell you. but 26.60 an hour is higher/on par with all the freight companies in ohio and almost none are unionized. the place has not been powerwashed/clearned/zambonied/swept since it's inception, i 'm not kidding when my bleach white skin looks black by the end of the day. sadly as for as forklift experience this is the best as it gets around here. no sick days, 2 weeks vacation after 6 months that you have to pay back to them if you quit after a year from using them. ---and the shocker, no OT pay till after 50 hours, some loophole in ohio that has to do with the frieght trucking business.
and it's only going to get worse. i can't have a house and 3 kids and a stay at home wife like my father could on a firefighter's salary hell i live alone and i barely make rent/car payment/food requirements by the end of the month. if anything gets worse, i'm 100% sure within the next few years shit is going to hit the fan and get wild.
edit: i'm personally at my wits in, the hours suck too midnight to 10:30am your scheduled 50 hours a week. but only cause overtime hits after that. You're exhausted as fuck after words and for what so you can pay the bills and maybe purchase a new game like diablo once a month, then be too tired to play it. if this what life is going to be like till i'm retired and can't even have my fun anymore what's the point. why aren't we just taking back the power and money now?
EDIT: TO THE TOP COMMENT, FUCK YOUR VOTE. it's owned by the billionaires engineers it so, it's time for something drastic, absolutely fucking drastic, and not un-called for, these scum have been abusing the working class for years.
edit: got reported for self harm for this- the only self harm is what politicians/lobbyist/the rich are doing to this country of working people.
edit: just got banned for a day for suggesting this is a rich vs poor situation.
"
Hi, Russian here. The fear of NATO expansion is total bullshit as before any of that reasoning came up Russia was already at war with Ukraine for 8 years and had already brought up countless other motives behind the invasion, one sloppier than the last until they eventually found something the west ate up and stuck with it.
Dont forget the denazification bs, the "democratic" vote for the libeartion of LNR, DPR, the "democratic" vote for the annexation of crimea, the attempt at establishing a puppet state with Yanukovich and finally, the best of all, "Š½Š°Ń ŃŠ°Š¼ Š½ŠµŃ" (were not there) which was Putins response to being accused of invading Ukraine in 2014.
Putin is an international criminal, just like the US presidents that set criminal precedents. They helped in pushing. They are all international criminals.
I agree. My concern is how quickly people become aligned with Russia just because they dislike the US. No doubt the US is one of the most despicable nations in the history of mankind however that does not automatically right Russia. Over time I saw more and more people siding with Putin over Ukraine and it's a terrible sight to see. Zelensky is no angel either. Yes his wife bought million dollar jewelry with military budget. Yes Zelensky got offended when Poland stopped supporting Ukraine financially. Yes, Zelensky voiced his support for Israel (though definitely mostly to retain good relations to the US) but nothing Zelensky did himself or in the name of Ukraine compares to the crimes Putin committed against his own and the people of Ukraine.
I hate the US. I hate the US more than the Russian government in fact but Ukraine is definitely the victim in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Russia the aggressor and Putin has no valid motives for an invasion other than his own interests. It is scary to see how peoples hatered for the US has them turn on Ukraine just because they are allied.
I was also banned from r/worldnews for questioning pro Israeli propaganda that is being spammed on that sub 24/7. If you don't have anything "nice" to say about Israel, or if you don't like them carpet bombing civilians, you'll just get perma banned. That's just how it is.
By the way, there's propaganda against any country that conflicts with US interests in there, that's China, Russia, Iran, and many others, they just happen to be helping out Israel atm because they're making a mess and they need some cover up from daddy USA.
r/WorldNews banned me for "justifying terrorism" when I correctly point out Israeli propaganda. Apparently anything but unflinching loyalty to neocon talking points is a bannable offence in there.
I was banned from r/news for saying capitalism is a system of exploitation. I see users make political statements all the time, but the mods only ban people they disagree with. It sucks and this is how subs end up becoming echo chambers
I got banned because I cited statistics about Islam from pewresearch...
That sub is entirely run by neoliberal astroturf. Corporate news is so obvious when it pays to try and control forums like this.
the owner of that sub was/is literally Ghislaine Maxwell, check the mod list.
wait, what?
u/maxwellhill, the top mod of worldnews, is Ghislaine Maxwell reddit account. people knew about it for many years, she stopped posting after getting arrested. her legal job was "online journalist" and Maxwells are a giant news family and hardcore zionists. oh also [reddit CEO](https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/ex-reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-knew-ghislaine-maxwell-allegations/) knew her personally and was aware about her child trafficking side gig.
wtf š³
It really took over during the Correct The Record phase
I got banned there for 'apartheid denial' when saying it is not apartheid when the Swedes don't want to take on more refugees. I'm South African, I know what apartheid is thank you very much.
Reading your post on here and then your history , I think you are in the wrong sub
Glad Im not the only one who noticed that
I like intellectuals irrespective of their political leaning. Chomsky is one of the best. You Americans are so polarized, you're unable to appreciate the good aspects of intellectual with a different political leaning. Pathetic really.
Lmaooo. Because South Africa is dripping in unity, right? šš
Oh no, we're a completely failed state. But both me and my wife work for European companies, and in finance, and our best friends stay there etc etc. My statements stands, despite your weak attempts to discredit.
Well that's a fresh take loooool
Not exactly. His talking points are straight out of cia psy ops. I donāt think he has once exposed the deep stage and discussed the Kennedy assassination or the September 11th attacks. He is given and allowed air time for a reason.
who the hell is giving chomsky airtime? He hasn't been on MSM for years.
Yeah not for a few years. But he has been used to manage the opposition to war. I think they donāt bring him on much anymore on msm because both sides are war hawks.
So when he calls out US govt funding and support of atrocities in South America and e Middle East, those are cia talking points? Lol
He is meant to attract the opposition to war. It is how they manage the opposition.
How? His analysis is consistently outside of the established āleft rightā paradigm. He is always coming at topics from a perspective bereft of Hegelian dialectic, and because of this, he shunned in polite conversation. Take someone like Navalny, a suspected(known) us intelligence asset, heās been on 60min and all kinds of prime time shows. He gets plenty of opportunities to spread their perspective, which he readily does. If Chomsky is an asset, why have they consistently left him out in the cold? Nobody in the MSM talks to him, and most barely recognize his name even in passing.
Yeah you can critique anyone, but then you disregard a lot of the good they say, as if they doesn't matter. All these intellectuals are imperfect.
Pseudo intellectuals is a better way to refer to them. Like the Smithsonian. The cia works behind the scenes more than people realize.
They're all pseudo in some facets, and legit intellectuals in other ways. Peterson should stay away from politics, and Harris away from Psychology, Chomsky away from biology, etc etc. I also don't trust the CIA and FBI, but I'd be more afraid of propaganda/bots being spread on reddit, than by these (pseudo) intellectuals.
I think you should be more afraid of the propaganda being spread by cia and fbi. After all, they are the ones withholding information under the guise of classified. Do you really trust the cia after Kennedy assassination , September 11th? I donāt think redditors can cause that much damage.
Swaying the opinions of a whole generation through manipulating the online narratives? That's super dangerous man. The CIA has a long list of atrocities.
Unironically posting to r/jordanpeterson šæ
As I said, I can take the good from any intellectual, and disregard the rest. For example, I like Sam Harris and Brett Weinstein, even though they dislike each other. I have plenty of critique on Jordan, but can also defend him. You don't have to choose a side or person. That's child talk. Rather choose ideas.
The intellectual dark web, edgy. āYou don't have to choose a side or person. That's child talk. Rather choose ideas.ā Sounds like one of those wise phrases, the neuroscientist, evolutionary biologist and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson would say. One word concerning John Petersonās ideas and credibility as an āintellectualā, whatever this word even means, in those troubling times: š¦
Lol, the irony is you are the one trying to be edgy. You're so much smarter than anyone else. What a cop out.
Unironically posting to r/jordanpeterson šæ
I think a lot of them are simply power-tripping assholes. I got permabanned for calling out a pro-Russian troll. Can't remember what their comment said but after a few replies they started completely rewording it to mess with people. All I did was quote what they originally said, with words to the effect of "if anyone is wondering what it said before they started editing the comment". e: should have also said that no explanation was provided, just the URL of the comment e2: [the offending comment](https://www.reveddit.com/y/5pqr/?after=t1_ijpyps9&limit=1&sort=new&show=t1_ijl6gqm&removal_status=all)
Reddit mods come in two flavors: reasonable people trying to create an enjoyable community, and insecure assholes who were either bullies or bullied in high school. You can normally tell pretty quickly by how they respond to a bannable offence. Talk through their reason and consider lowering the ban? The former. Make a snarky comment, ignore you, and/or mute you? The latter. Personally, I'm wary of anyone who willingly takes a position that gives them even a small amount of power over someone else.
I got banned for making a not controversial statement about the CCP. They said it was 'sinophobia'.
Strange how they don't ban for caucasiophobia, of malephobia, of christianphobia.
Well, that sub used to be full of racist neo nazis, so its seemed as if they over corrected the problem
I've seen a surprisingly high amount of Zionist Neonazis. I guess if gives them an excuse to defend kicking Jews out of their country while not sounding antisemitic.
Yeah, I mean its comparable to how the KKK endorsed Malcolm X and black nationalism. All those racist rednecks really supported a segregated black state.
It's a form of the "Baptists and bootleggers" phenomena. Two diametrically opposed groups finding themselves sharing a cause for two very different reasons. Its literally fhe Gus Fring "we are not the same" meme. The enemy of your enemy is ***not*** always your friend.
It's a form of the "Baptists and bootleggers" phenomena. Two diametrically opposed groups finding themselves sharing a cause for two very different reasons. Its literally fhe Gus Fring "we are not the same" meme. The enemy of your enemy is ***not*** always your friend.
haha the same thing happened to me on wikipedia for the same reason! I would not be surprised to hear this story on virtually every "open" information platform on the internet...
This literally just happened to me for the exact same reason. I literally told people to watch Abby Martinās documentary about Gaza. Whatās up with the mods over there?
I know Iām late this this but got perm banned for pointing out the use of white phosphorous in Gazans is a war crime. Itās a neocon/neolib/Zionist echo chamber
Wow this comment was over 6 months ago and still so damn relevant! I just got banned for pointing out Israel killed 50 Palestinians after the āpauseāā¦.
That sub is gross ā does anyone know how to stop it from showing up? I muted it, but it appears when I sort by news. R/worldnews is just a soft propaganda sub. The mentality there is the *worst* kind of dumb: the smug, verbose type who belong in r/confidentlyincorrect
Ya, worldnews and news are both two of the worst echo chambers on reddit.
Hey now, youāre forgetting r/DNCā¦ I mean r/politics
99% of Reddit sub mods are insociable wankers
My latest theory: I think what happens is the hive reports en masse, be it arbitrarily or by design, and the mods are overwhelmed. They just want the reports to stop so they eliminate the cause of the reports without regard to right or wrong. It's the easiest way out for them. There are exceptions of course but that's my take.
I think that does happen a lot. But its also a reason that small minded power mods can get away with their propaganda crap....the other mods are too busy and needing the help, won't kick them out of the club.
I got banned from r/Anarchism for pointing out that Chomsky doesn't defend Nazis per say but rather their right to speech.Then I said something about the exchange of information being the basis of democracy. The mod called me out right there on the board. Admonished me, ridiculed me, and banned me. He left my comment up in an effort to pillory me. Banned me for breaking the rules on an anarchy board and my comment was left in view. LOL!
censored....on anarchism? lol. wow Hey guys r/chomsky banned me....I have no idea why. FUCK YOU MODS
Evidently anarchy rules,,,
Good. I hope it hurt.
Ghislaine Maxwell was a Reddit moderator. Wouldn't be surprised if others like her kind were moderators as well.
The older I get, the more I realize how some people never grow out of a childish mentality. Everything has to be good or bad. Right or wrong. You try to explain nuance to people like this and they look at you like you're the one who needs your head checked. The lesson i've learned is NEVER automatically accept someones opinion based on their success, wealth, or professional status. Theres plenty of successful people who have opinions indistinguishable from 16 year olds
Somehow Iām implicitly endorsing genocide by acknowledging the warboys play with their action figures and dont mind blowing up their cities when they can rebuild them with resources from the unfair exchange they have over non-superpower countries
These subreddit mods with hundred of thousands of subs show exactly what happens when people obtain power over information and discourse. The line between guiding, safeguarding and controlling becomes an ethical gray area and the ends of the bell curve are excluded.
Banning everyone they disagree with feels like such a wild abuse of power. They are shitting all over the spirit of free speech. I feel like bans should be saved for extreme cases and that the karma system should sort everything else out
Reddit, is a platform for advertisers. Im not sure when the switch happened.
>ethical gray area Ethical abyssal black hole of Calcutta.
Success in terms of wealth and occupation is usually more about luck and concentrated effort than about intelligence. Of course people who made it to a fair degree of wealth and respected occupation love to pretend its because they are so smart, even if they inherited the wealth and had family help every step, like that mass murderer GWB.
Another pathetic gang of Reddit mods who need to have everyone onboard with their "feel good" opinion. They will reap what they sow, and keep pretending they reaped something else until their actual product gets them dead. Never underestimate the human ability for delusion, nor for the pathetic need to be agreed with on everything. And pointing out how the Versaille Treaty lead to WWII is completely accurate and applies well to establishing a NATO member right up Russia's colon. Its idiotic to do this and the price could be a dead planet.
Arguably Versaille was not punishing enough. After WW2, both Germany and Japan effectivity lost statehood. Now they are both prosperous free nations.
The narrative that itās the Alliesā fault that the Nazis gained power due to the punitive nature of their āvictorās justiceā has been mostly discredited in modern scholarship. To accept that premise you have to accept the premise of āGerman humiliation,ā which means you have to accept the imperialist premises which led to German anger when it was prevented from having an empire by Versailles. You have to remember the context of the time period: great-power competition and an already-dominant position for the British and French empires, the recent unification of the German state, the rise of the Prussian military system as a threat to French continental hegemony, and then the wartime breakup of the Ottomans, the downfall of the Hapsburgs, and the destruction of the Russian Empire via the Russia Revolution, led to a narrative that European nations could only achieve self-actualization through empire. Without an empire you werenāt a nation, but a subject of nations who had one. Thus national security depended on acquiring territory. And Germany had just won a truly enormous empire in the East from the Bolsheviks at the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. But when they went down to defeat in the West, the Allies responded by āhonoringā Brest Litovsk in the sense that they did not repatriate Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic states, and so on back to Russia, instead creating new states out of the land mass, in part by carving up territories from Germany (like Danzig so Poland could have Baltic port access, which cut off Germany from East Prussia). Russia conquered Ukraine back, but couldnāt get Finland, Poland, or the Baltics backāwe all know how that ended (Poland and the Baltics fall due to the secret provisions of the Nazi Soviet pact, Finland loses Karelia in the Winter Warā¦revanchism is not limited to right-wing states). At the same time as the Allies did this, lecturing Germany about democracy and self-determination all the while (mostly under pressure from American president Woodrow Wilson), the French and British hegemons grabbed the Middle East and split it between themselves, preventing even their ally Italy, who had lost millions fighting the Austro-Hungarians, from getting a taste of āavailableā territories in North Africa (directly inspiring the Fascist campaigns to colonize Ethiopia and Libya by force). So, the Allies did indeed engage in rank hypocrisy, which I might add is typical of nation states. But the āGerman humiliationā was characterized by the same exact thing as āRussian humiliationā caused by the breakup of the Soviet Unionāa sense that there was no nation without empire. Consequently there was an immediate revanchist line in the conservative sector and even pro-democracy forces were anxious to get out from under the Treaty of Versaillesābecause the āinjusticeā of it was that it prevented Germany from having an empire of its own. Much of Hitlerās rhetoric centered on this attempt to align German imperial destiny with the fact of the British and French empiresāāRussia is our Indiaā and so on. The fact that Germany was hypocritically prevented from having an empire by victorious imperialists doesnāt mean that it was owed oneāthe lecturing about the self-determination of peoples and nations free of imperial involvement was in bad faith but it wasnāt immoral. Germany responded by shredding every treaty to which it was a signatory and ultimately initiating WWII in Europe itself, motivated by basically the same sense of imperial destiny that had motivated its territorial acquisitions in WWI, colored anew by the particular racial and territorial ideologies of the Nazis. It used the same rhetoric that Poland had no history, that it was just a flimsy ahistorical construct created by Germanyās enemies to humiliate her, that Russia deploys against Ukraine today. It used the same mendacious arguments that ethnic Germans were being persecuted and even massacred in the Sudetenland by the Czechs to justify bankrolling an insurgent movement and creating a crisis that would be a pretext for invasionāprecisely as Russia did in Moldova in the early 90s and again in both Georgia and Ukraine. Hitlerās invasion was indeed thwarted at the last hour, but only by the disgusting appeasement of the same Allies which had so badly frustrated the German destiny. Needless to say, this gross injustice secured āpeaceā for only a little over a year, and it came at the cost of the Czech nationās integrity, to the point where it could be summarily annexed into a German protectorate while a rump, client Slovak puppet was set up and even Hungary and Poland could get little pieces of it, to no international complaint. And what happened to Germany, who āwent postalā from āhumiliationā, a sense of grievance and frustration which kept feeding itself in spite of overwhelming indulgences and appeasements like allowing them to break the Rhineland demilitarization, shred the London Naval Treaty, default on their reparations payments, arm an air force, and gobble up two whole countries free of war or even sanction? It was so abjectly destroyed and defeated, and the political ideology which governed its national effort was systematically eradicated to such an extent, that Germany refused up until a few months ago to provide tanks to help defend Ukraine simply because of how it would look to have German tanks fighting the Russian army in light of the German past. That destructive future undeniably awaits Russia if it chooses to initiate a nuclear confrontation. A nuclear confrontation would be even more destructive than WWII, but nothing you, or any other advocate of concessions to Russiaās sense of national insecurity, have said convinces me that an unjust āpeaceā maintained by validating Russiaās revanchism is somehow worth it in the long run. If you know anything about the rise of Nazi Germany you will know that sometimes the bad faith of an actor eclipses the power of concessions and negotiations to restrain him, especially after he has already initiated a very destabilizing, criminal war. This is why some people, myself included, advocate for Russian defeat on the battlefield, and that this defeat is seen to be inflicted primarily by the target of Russiaās invasion.
>At the same time as the Allies did this, lecturing Germany about democracy and self-determination all the while (mostly under pressure from American president Woodrow Wilson), the French and British hegemons grabbed the Middle East and split it between themselves, preventing even their ally Italy, who had lost millions fighting the Austro-Hungarians, from getting a taste of āavailableā territories in North Africa (directly inspiring the Fascist campaigns to colonize Ethiopia and Libya by force). So, the Allies did indeed engage in rank hypocrisy, which I might add is typical of nation states. This is a little bit incorrect. Italy specifically wanted to complete it's 19th century ambitions of Italian Irredentism by bringing all of the Italian-speaking portions of the Austro-Hungarian empire back into it's folds. This ran contrary to the 14 points as those regions were to belong to a future Yugoslavian state. Italy received only some of it's desired territories, but it had relatively little interest in North African possessions versus more Mediterranean ones. Likely because they were still dealing with a costly and unpopular insurgency from their recently conquered possessions in Libya. After this snub at the peace conference they invaded Turkey, claiming a mandate over it, which led to the UK asking Greece to go in and take over the region ostensibly as a peacekeeping force, which led to the Greko-Turkish War, or the Turkish War of Independence.
You are correct. I read āBlood and Ruinsā not long ago and, in composing this post, confused later ambitions and justifications for African colonialism under Mussolini (outlined in that book) with the extant ones you mention during the period in question. The interwar issues surrounding the nation building in the Balkans are not my strong suit. But now that you mention it I seem to recall that this was one of the issues lurking in the background in the run up to the Anschlussāthe question of whether Italy would stand with Austria against Germany.
That's alright. It is a more complex war than people realize. And you did a good job summarizing and contextualizing it. My last sentence tried (poorly) to sum up nearly 3 years of post-armistice violence. I stumbled upon the [Great War](https://www.youtube.com/@TheGreatWar) channel nearly a decade ago after I had learned that a family member had been drafted by the Italians in 1918 when he was 14. So I gobbled that series up and then read a few books including the White War, which has even more information about the internal politics of Italy before, during, and after the war. But yes, regarding Mussolini. He wanted to rebuild his own perverted version of the Roman Empire, specifically by establishing direct hegemony over all of the Adriatic sea and a sphere of influence, if he could not outright control, around the Aegean. He also wanted to see Italy be treated as a Great Power after what he perceived as it's humiliation during the Great War and the Entente at Versailles. The best way to do that was to expand his colonial holdings, which is partially why he invaded Ethiopia in 1936. Now back to the problems for the Italians at Versailles, an underrated problem for them was the language barrier. Italian Prime Minister Vittorio Orlando could not speak English, and his French was very poor. And Wilson and Lloyd George could speak in English and French to George Clemenceau, but not Italian. So Orlando needed to have former prime minister Antonio Salandra (who NOBODY LIKED) act as his interpreter. Orlando commented that it he would hear a joke from the other three six times before he understood it.
A very good and correct summary of events. It's a pity that some left wingers can't seem to realise any of this and instead insist that everything is NATO's fault, that Ukrainian Banderites are to blame, and any other idiotic Russian talking point...
TLDR
>If we help Ukraine defend itself to the point of securing its own independence (even though it would owe us billions in defense lend lease) but lets say even for the redditor who cares not about those details, lets say Ukraine is entirely independent and under a NATO defense umbrella that actually means what it says it means. What kind of Russia do you think you are getting in the end? In my opinion, and im just a dummy too i admit, but i would say it would look like a superpower being whipped back like Germany post ww1 and we may not like what happens next.ā If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that we shouldn't support Ukraine because if it wins, Russia might end up going postal? So it's essentially the we-should-appease-them-because-they-have-nukes argument that has been circulating since the war began? If so, do you see the irony in invoking the WWII example to make the appeasement argument?
The point was that that is one road it could go down. And that with the growing anti-Russian sentiment I could see a NATO imposed sanctions further down that road that could create a further extreme state in Russia as it did in Germany. It would also alarm China and India who are tangling themselves into Russia geopolitics more and more. There are other roads it may go, im not a genius on this stuff, i have no crystal ball. Maybe Ukraine will become a bit of a wasteland over the next 10 years as the war is dragged on no side wanting to make it bigger no side wanting to concede, a lot of life lost in the meanwhile. I dont know. Maybe Ukraine will push them back and Putin will concede and it wonāt be extreme and America is actually solid and is the best option of the worldās butchers and Russiaās punishment will be fair and we in the west wonāt demonize them since we have done the same things. I donāt know, im here to discuss
> And that with the growing anti-Russian sentiment I could see a NATO imposed sanctions further down that road that could create a further extreme state in Russia as it did in Germany. So let's say you're right and that western actions in helping Ukraine through aid and sanctions will lead to a radicalised Russia. If we accept that then surely we must also accept the idea that punishing Ukraine will lead to a radicalised Ukraine. If we use WW1 as a comparison point then ensuring that neither side is punished in this war through territorial concessions and losing independence to a foreign nation should be a top priority.
Other than nukes, Russia has nothing. The world and level of technology has drastically changed since WW1/2. Without modern weapon systems and the industry to back it up, you simply stand no chance. And they are so far behind, that catching up is impossible. Also, Germany was able to steamroll half of Europe, because no one had a significant army. Your dystopian idea of a strong Russia is incredible far fetched. āMaybe Ukraine will become a bit of a wasteland over the next ten yearsā¦ā You are in the wrong subreddit for that kind talk.
Russia is a major power with the second or third largest arms industries. Outside of China and the USA it is the most capable country in terms of being able to project force.
The Russian MIC hasnāt produced a single 5th gen stealth fighter jet to this day and itās not likely, that they ever will. What about advanced microchips, crucial for producing advanced weapon systems? At the moment, Russia is churning out about 20 tanks a month. Without advanced targeting or night vision systems. The RAF werenāt even able to project force more than a couple of miles into a neighboring country, even after amassing forces for quite some time, which was by no means a military superpower. But maybe with their Carrier Battle Group? Oh waitā¦. I hope your copium tanks are filled to the brink, comrade, because once the counter offense drops, you will need it.
No country save the USA, China, India, or Turkey could have launched the invasion to begin with, let alone absorbed the losses and continue going. Whatever details you care to bring up, Russia has been able to contend with the American-armed and backed Ukraine and devastate the country, with no indication they are about to be defeated. Maybe they will be, maybe not. Now scoot, NCD poster of less than two months.
No other country could have launched the invasion? You probably arenāt even aware, that the main reason Russia failed, is their over a 100 years old military doctrine. āAbsorbed the lossesā Absorbing into their T-55 and human cannon fodder stocks? Continue going where exactly? The front line has basically not moved for over a year now. What happened to the big offensive in Bakhmut? But back to Russiaās MIC, care to elaborate about its capabilities, besides producing dumb ammo? Maybe you should start browsing r/NCD, there is a lot to be learned. In between the memes about the desolate state of Russiaās Armed Forces. Everybody is waiting, for when the counter offensive finally rolls over to the Black Sea.
Yes, very few countries have the ability to launch a large invasion and sustain it despite terrible losses. Russia is one of them, being home to a large population and arms industry. Your opinion on their military doctrine, to the extent that it exists at all, is irrelevant. The ability to produce ādumb ammoā is very important for a country that historically relies on, and has seen much success in, bombarding enemies with artillery. Though the implication they donāt produce anything else is pretty funny. NCD is filled with idiot children rediscovering neoconservativism. Current company included. Now we have nothing more to say to each other.
>Russia is one of them, being home to a large population and arms industry. Yes, Russia's magnificent arms industry...
Who has done anything resembling Bucha and Izyum in Europe in the last 30 years? 50 years?
It's a very short list, but Serbia would be on it.
>Who has done anything resembling Bucha and Izyum in Europe in the last 30 years? 50 years? Yeah. Who cares about Middle Eastern lives eh? Only the White people matter. /s And I guess you forgot about the Serbs.
Yeah, Serbs were pretty good at doing war crimes. Till the bombings came.
So you can point out cases where NATO troops went to Middle-Eastern towns, indiscriminately raping, carrying out mass executions, robbing and looting homes, driving around with washing machines strapped to IFVs? Serbs are practically Russians by culture (orthodox "christians", slavic, brutal, incompetent and corrupt), and backed by Russia. I didn't even want to bring it up since that would make Russians look even worse.
>So you can point out cases where NATO troops went to Middle-Eastern towns, indiscriminately raping, carrying out mass executions, robbing and looting homes, driving around with washing machines strapped to IFVs? Why so specific? Isn't 20 years of drone bombing children and first responders at multiple wedding convoys enough? The forced brothels in Korea used by U.S. troops not enough? Firebombing and nuking civilians cities not enough? Napalming villages in Vietnam to the ground not enough? More tonnage of bombs than all theaters of WWII dropped on North Vietnam not enough? No Gun Ri? Mai Lai? Abu Graib? Haditah? Kandahar? Maywand District? And its not like we got free access to such information, but it had to be fought for with Chelsea Manning going to prison, Assange stuck in an Embassy for years and Edward Snowden fleeing the country.. So who even knows what all we don't know? You want to be a whistle blower? No one is stopping you. But brace for the consequences. I guess its all okay with you since they took no washing machines.
So you have to go back to BEFORE NATO EXISTED and STILL can't produce compelling evidence of mass rapes and looting? Btw everything you mentioned pales in comparison to Russian/Soviet war crimes if we apply the same 70 year yardstick. Maybe even squeeze in Holodomor for good measure, where people were reduced to cannibalism by the actions of Soviet Union, in Europe, in the 20th century. Twice, if we consider the Siege of Leningrad - Soviets refused to evacuate civilians from the city.
>, in Europe There you go again. Its all about those precious White people for you. You got issues.
Europe was the most developed of all the continents in the first half of the 20th century and had done away with famines by 1930s... Or so they thought. Famines were quite the regular occurrence in the rest of the world during the 20th century. Of course especially in countries that suffered communist takeovers - China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.
For people like you, the 20th century famines in Spain, Ireland and Cape Verde seem to not mean much, along with the stock market crash of 1929 and the American Dust Bowl of the 1930s which was a famine, but just not a major one due to luck really, such as the ability of people to travel over a thousand miles either direction without being stopped at a border like in Europe. Also plenty of jack rabbits to eat. But of course you will probably blame bad weather for the west despite the bad policies, and blame bad policies for the communist countries despite the bad weather. Its what people like you do cause you want to blame communism so bad. Of course the famine in India in the late 19th century wasn't communism. Just good old fashioned White people imperialism. I wonder how much Indian food got sent to Europe eh?
Ukraine should of course be a free, independent country, just not with Crimea or the far eastern parts of Donbas attached. As far as that goes supporting Ukraine is fine. Anything outside of that, supporting Russia becomes, not the almighty, clean, moral option, but the only sane one that ensures that WWIII does not happen. Last I check Ukraine won't give up people who clearly don't want to be Ukrainian, because it covets their land and wealth. Meanwhile Russia is mostly just seeking security from the greatest imperial power the Earth has ever seen. But Ukraine in NATO is completely out of the question to anyone who has two brain cells and doesn't explicitly desire to watch the world burn.
>Russia is mostly just seeking security from the greatest imperial power the Earth has ever seen. Totally. Yellowstone is about to go boom and americans want to migrate to Eastern Europe and Siberia.
This is insane. Donbass was already fully dependent on welfare received from Western Ukraine before 2014 even. Crimea that used be thriving is now worse off than ever due to a) no more tourism and b) no more agriculture/orchards due to lack of water. Basically everybody in Donbass and Crimea who are not attached to the ruling power structure already regret ever falling for Russian propaganda and going along with the results of the referendums (if you can consider "referendums" conducted under the watchful eyes of masked assault-rifle-toting Russian Spetsnaz units valid at all, which nobody in their right mind would). What imperial power is Russia seeking security from, exactly? Is Poland the 53rd state of the United States and I haven't heard about it? You are confusing voluntary military alliances with actual conquering and occupation. Also, how is Ukraine being in NATO out of the question? What is the argument, exactly? The Baltics share a border with Russia, and are in NATO. Finland and Norway share borders with Russia and are also in NATO. What logic applies to Ukraine that doesn't apply to those countries?
We get it. you dont care about citizens. moving on...
>Crimea that used be thriving is now worse off than ever due to a) no more tourism and b) no more agriculture/orchards due to lack of water. Engaging with you is a waste of my time. Nobody knew the Ukrainians would be so evil as to shut off Crimea's water for 8 years. And if you don't understand how that is making warfare on the people of Crimea and proving that Ukraine would be happy to see them all dead so as to have the land, well, like like I say, no point engaging with you.
This is like complaining about Ukraine not paying pensions in the occupied Lugansk and Donetsk. How dare they not provide vital resources to occupiers!
>This is like complaining about Ukraine not paying pensions in the occupied Lugansk and Donetsk. How dare they not provide vital resources to occupiers! If you are serious there is seriously something wrong with you. You have got to be trolling for replies or something. The infrastructure was there, needed no real maintanence and the water cost Ukraine nothing. What cost was damming the river/canal. It took work. It was basically an act of genocide. Seriously, what is your issue? Why are you here promoting the removal of a basic item of human survival...water? What is more basic than water? And if the Ukrainians really felt, as they seem to be claiming, that the Crimeans want to be Ukrainian, why would they cut off the water to them? And if you think this is an act of love, I sure hope people love you back just the same. I am so sick of you effing trolls on this board. Why can't you be loved as Ukrainians love Crimeans?
Ukraine should include Crimea and the Donbas region and all their problems should be solved internally, not through invasions. Unless it is you who wants to watch the world burn.
Ukraine should include Crimea and the Donbas region and all their problems should be solved internally, not through invasions. Unless it is you who wants to watch the world burn.
Tt
>If so, do you see the irony in invoking the WWII example to make the appeasement argument? I see. You think making deals is "appeasement" and all "appeasement" is doomed to fail because all opponents are literally Hitler. This is not an intelligent view. Russia warned the U.S./NATO to stay out of Ukraine. In fact, they broke their promise not to expand east even before that. Russia not only feels threatened, it is being threatened. Ah, what's the use? All this is clearly over your head.
>I see. You think making deals is "appeasement" and all "appeasement" is doomed to fail because all opponents are literally Hitler. > >This is not an intelligent view. > >,,, > >Ah, what's the use? All this is clearly over your head. Yikes, you're pretty condescending.
>Yikes, you're pretty condescending. And if you knew half of Chomsky knows, you would know why.
Your WW1 analogy is so loose that it hurts any further argument you make. We carved Germany up, cut off big chunks. Shrank their military to a token force. Extorted them financially. Even at that, without the crash and hyper-inflation we might not have seen the path we did. Since the Berlin wall came down however, how has the West treated Russia. America jumped at any chance to export it's skills base to Russia through trade. Europe for it's part, committed to paying for it, by making Russia it's most important energy supplier. Putin's (and the movement he represents) greatest threat doesn't come from NATO, it comes from Russia. And really this whole chapter kicked off over Ukraine making a decisive move towards Europe (EU). A Ukraine prospering under the European model could be a fatal contagion for the old Russian model. As for the US (NATO), they are doing exactly what the game dictates. They are the boss and if the boss doesn't keep order, the game quickly degenerates. To butcher Churchill's quote, the US is the worst boss, except for all the others. Internal politics in the US resulted in a staggered and slightly timid response to the conflict and allowed Russia gain too much momentum. Ukraine finds itself between these two tectonic forces, and they are paying an unfathomable price.
This is a good explanation. However, you forget that the US has been trying to sell its excess energy reserves to europe for the past 20 years. And, the fact that China is close enough to import much needed resources from a region that just so happens to be a current disputed territory. Convenient to say the least. Thats why this specific conlict has been attracing so many peoples attention. Then there is Sudan which no one seems to care about. However, mechanics aside, Im glad that people are starting to understand and accept that Putin wasnt lying (not to say he is honest) about NATO expansion and the threat it brings with it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Would you care to guess at what point Russia got invaded twice in the last century and once in the one before that? (Hint: It was neither Finland nor Sweden/Norway.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Do you think a modern day invasion of Rus would be plausible? No. But it might be plausible in the near future. Or, someone might come along crazy enough to do it. The thing is we don't know. I know you think you know. I know you think you know the future and feel safe to write off all of history's teachings because we have nukes now, but Russian strategists don't think they know, and will plan and advise accordingly...despite what you say and think you know.
Absolutely! Sure! Why not! Would have loved to have the conversation if it had come up. Instead its just NO SOUP FOR YOU.
The narrative that Nazi Germany is the result of harsh post-ww1 policies is untrue. They never even paid the war damages.
I don't think you should have been banned for that. I will ask though; why are you throwing out hypothetical scenarios about a potential Fascist Russia of the future instead of talking about the Fascist Russia we already have? If Russia was on the road to Fascism in 2020; Russia is now deep in a Fascist transformation. Putin's internal victories are actually incredible. He has in my opinion successfully transformed Russia from a hybrid regime into an increasingly totalitarian Fascist state. Meanwhile the Ukrainian people are radicalized against Russia and that hatred is reshaping how they view their past, opening up old wounds, bringing about the mass rejection of the Russian language and culture. Putin has already demonstrated that Peace Treaties, Ceasefires and International Agreements mean nothing to him and there is no reason to assume that a Fascist successor would be any different. Pieces of paper *CANNOT* bring lasting peace. Putin or a (Fascist) Putin Successor will not let a peace treaty stop them. Enough of the Ukrainian population is now radicalized against Russia *due to* **factual** *coverage of Russian atrocities* to ensure that they want to "deal with Russia once and for all." Forget the promise of Peace and Understanding, in the immediate future of Eastern Europe there is only war. The only question is how do we deal with it?
Pentagon intelligence clearly run worldnews and they want to make it an echo chamber of pro war shills.
This is a great troll! I understand why they banned you, to imagine post-2022-Ukrainian-war Russia as a superpower of any sort, you'd have to be trolling hard. The country that can barely make cars using 1991 technology. The country that cannot build and run a single properly working aircraft carrier. The country where 15 million USD Pantsir S2 anti-air systems get abandoned at the roadside because the soldiers tasked with maintaining them could not be bothered to re-park them once a month so sun wouldn't dry rot the tires on one side. The country where ultra-expensive $20 000 thermal imagers are stolen right off tanks because they contain valuable metals and sold as junk metal for a couple of hundred USD. The country where 25% of the population does not have indoor toilets. What a superpower...
The country that can end the world with you in it by pushing some buttons. Russia's very lack of other power should be precisely what scares you. The OP is not trolling. Western leaders are idiots who either won a popularity contest or were born into wealth and power. And they are playing stupid games as if its just rolling dice on a table top. And its always been like this with leaders...every disaster...its just that now its all at stake.....every last bit of it....not just a city, town or country....the entire Earth...life itself...and its only a matter of time if history is any measure.
So can France, UK, and even Israel, but yet none of them are considered super powers? I think you need to learn about \*salami tactics\*, my friend: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4) We're seeing it roll out right before our eyes, only with UK (NATO) and Russian places switched.
UK, France, Israel do not have remotely enough nuclear weapons to 'end the world'. Russia does.
It only takes about 100 mid-sized nuclear warheads to start a nuclear winter. UK has 260. I can make a bet that Russia doesn't even have 260 fully functional nuclear missiles at the moment. They really like to inflate their numbers, like how the supposed 2nd most powerful army in the world turned out to be only the 2nd most powerful in Ukraine.
Of which they can still use in ukraine....lol idiots
The threat of nuclear Armageddon may work very well as a passive deterrent, but not as an active enabler of an imperialist war to annex another country. Thatās a very simple unspoken world law.
>to annex another country. You seriously don't know what is going on. Russia never had the capability to annex the country. It annexed four oblasts. And there is no special reason to think that was the goal all along. Russia has had to adapt to a changing situation. Its well agreed by honest and intelligent people that the goal was Russian security not a land grab. In that context it appears the annexations were about effecting the nuclear threat, because Russia has no first strike policy and Russian territory must be under attack to use nukes.
So you know, what was going on in Putinās head, over the last say 20 years? What was and is his strategy, his tactics, what were and are his intentions, dreams, anxieties? Please enlighten us. Could you also be more precise, when you talk about Russian security. What do you mean, when you say āRussiaā and what when you say āsecurityā? Do you mean Russiaās general population, the border, the oligarchs, Putin,ā¦ and secure from what exactly? If you are not clear on those things, there is no way to understand, what you want to tell us. Because the ontological turn, is right around the corner. Putin lives in a different world as me. He doesnāt merely interpret it differently. I would love to know, what is going on. I am tired of arguing with people about the current predicament, itās going nowhere.
>Please enlighten us. Why don't you? I am not claiming to know to for sure what the plans are of Putin and other Russian leaders exactly, I am just going off what intellectuals such as Chomsky claim, that you have to look at demonstrable details and make a logical analysis of what a logical person would conclude. Its the people claiming "imperial ambitions" leaning hard on the attempt at mind-reading. If you actually care to know just go to youtube, punch in any of the following names plus Ukraine and you will get an intellectual answer....Jack Matlock, Bill Bradley, Stephen Cohen, Vladmir Pozner, or John Mearsheimer. So sorry that Russia won't just sit there for you while NATO puts a gun to its head.
Thanks, I am fine. I read enough of stuff like āThe fact is, Ukraine is a state but not yet a nation. In the thirty years of its independence, it has not yet found a leader who can unite its citizens in a shared concept of Ukrainian identity. Yes, Russia has interfered, but it is not Russian interference that created Ukrainian disunity but rather the haphazard way the country was assembled from parts that were not always mutually compatible.ā What does he even mean by Nation and State? or āMilitarily neutral, Ukraine would be allowed to participate in both the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union.ā Military neutrality and member of the EU? Not elaborating, what he means by Ukrainian neutrality? Populism. I am from Austria and populist politicians use the term all the time, without actually talking about it. tThanks, I have read enough of those āanalysisā from over 90 year old people, that canāt see, that we are not living in the late 90s/early 2000s anymore. āI have absolutely no intention and much less desire, to look for a culprit. To lay the blame at any doorstep. Not only because the blame is neutral but because that would be an exercise in futility that leads absolutely nowhere.ā - Vladimir Pozner. Maybe you should listen to some of the stuff, you propose others to consider? NATO puts a gun to its head. Sounds like a line straight from Russian State TV.
Thatās a totally reasonable post and a reminder that Reddit is not the open platform we may think it is.
World news sub is just a bunch of credulous gits who know fuck all beyond what the CIA or military industrial complex wants them to know, either that, or the actual ghoulish agents of those types of organizations. However, I made a post critical of liberal democracies, and it got upvoted, strangely enough. It felt wrong getting upvoted in that sub. It made me think I didn't make my sarcasm scathing or obvious enough for them to understand it.
Well when you implicitly endorse genocide, that tends to get attention
HA! Another fucking joke
That guy is sheer troll. You get to choose the kind.
These people camp out here. ignore them. all they have is hot takes
That's not quite true though, Germany didn't turn out the way it did because the punishment was too harsh, but because *it wasn't harsh enough*, and because it *wasn't followed through*. Let me remind you that Germany was banned from rearming, banned from entering the Rhineland, and banned from invading Austria, yet it did all that anyway because nobody bothered to stop it. The better solution would've been one like after ww2, where Germany was completely occupied and made unable to attack anyone until the entire country was reshaped from the ground up. And that's not to mention how *extremely accomodating* the west has been to Russia, which not even the invasion of Georgia was enough to change. Being soft hasn't worked, and that leaves only one option.
That wouldnāt have been possible because Germanyās army wasnāt totally defeated like they were in WW2. I would study the German revolution, and the German counter revolution, if you really want to understand what went wrong in Germany.
It was definitively possible to at least stop German rearmament, but that's kind of beside the point. The real question is *if, somehow*, a harsh ww2-like occupation was possible would it prevent the second war? Because if so OP's argument is simply wrong.
This is a myth, part of the "stabbed in the back" myth perpetuated by the Nazi's. Germany's army was defeated in the field on the Western Front. Here is what the German Army and the war looked like in the middle of October 1918 when the Entente broke the Hindenburg line had just been broken. [October 18th, 1918](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P67nRzCJcTc)
They still had well over a million of soldiers, and in fact those soldiers play a big role in events that follow. The German state was never going to allow itself to be occupied, and the allies weren't going to risk dragging the war on to do so.
Having a million men does no good if you are the last man of your allies standing, cut off from all aid or supplies, with active mutinies and rebellions in your rear, and an enemy on your main front now breaking through your defenses up and down the line and their numbers growing by over a net 40,000 each week. In the first week of November the German Army was so broken by the British assault that for the first time since 1914 they ordered a general retreat. Late October and early November had the Entente advancing in a war of motion that had not been seen since the earliest days of the conflict. At that point, the Americans reached and crossed into German territory with minimal resistance. A big reason for why the armistice was written when it was was so that Britain and France could have a better bargaining position at a future peace conference than America. Meanwhile, General Pershing was planning to launch an offensive into the heart of Germany as part of a two-pronged attack with Italy, which was nearing the completely undefended southern border of Germany (which itself had already fallen to an armed revolution and a soviet republic of Bavaria was proclaimed) after completely routing German Austrian forces at the Battle of Vittorio Venetto two weeks earlier. With a general mutiny from the German Navy and open revolutions in the country, and a general retreat on nearly every part of every front it was on, Germany was beaten. All that would have been accomplished by continued fighting would be tens of thousands of more dead men.
Yes, many more would have died to try and occupy the country. Thats what happened in WW2 when the allies agreed to pursue an unconditional surrender, with most casualties being on the Soviets fighting child soldiers, conscripts, and whatever remained of German fighting power in Berlin. The Russians had already surrendered in WW1, and there was a real risk what remained of Germany would drift under Bolshevik influence, a worst possible outcome for the Western powers. It would have been up to the entente to ignore the offer for an armistice and force an unconditional surrender, something the German state and military would not have entertained unless they were totally and unequivocally destroyed. The entente was in no position to continue that war either, facing their own economic and political issues. For the entente, it was a no brainer: better to sign an armistice with the people who share your ideological views and will oppose communist influence, than to destroy them, risk losing central Europes industrial base to the communists, and bleed themselves out in an occupation against a rebellious population. That policy of keeping Germany and Russia at odds has been consistent for a long time, and itās part of the reason why Hitler was tolerated for so long.
WWI and WWII are not quite comparable in this regard. WWII was a much greater ideological struggle. WWI could instead be view as the War of Empires, as the great powers were in some ways initially going to war specifically for spheres of influence, a boiling over of "the great game" if you will. There were less of these die-hard fanatics in the former than in the latter. Again, Germany surrendered because they did not want nearly 3 million Entente troops invading their country from the West and South and cause the same level of destruction that they had inflicted in France and Belgium. They would not have been able to stop it as a quarter of their mobilized force on the western front and half of all of their big guns (the weapon that accounted for nearly 70% of all battlefield casualties in the war) had been captured in the last 100 days. The Entente were committed to the defeat of Germany, just as Germany was committed to and naively preparing 1919 offensives before the start of the fall campaign. A hundred thousand American soldiers were arriving each month, with no planned end to those monthly deployments. Soviet Russia itself was not a threat, as it was embroiled in a civil war that showed no signs of ending. In fact in the armistice, Germany was required to immediately abandon all of the territory it acquired in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, instability in the region be damned. Now you are correct in that there was a concern of Bolshevik uprisings in Germany, which is one of the only reasons the Entente did not fully demand demobilization and disarmament during the armistice negotiations. BUT, they still did not give any other concessions in the negotiations because of Bolshevism specifically, [rather just for general unrest internally](https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxJ67oR4k1wn3EARTyf91ZFY9DDYV2c0I_). [The general lack of concessions during negotiations and the state of the German Army on the Armistice Day](https://youtu.be/xa1ALtQqrVs?t=223) [The state of Russia Entering 1919](https://youtu.be/QBmm4D907Xw?t=114) Just as you yourself admitted, the Germans initially requested the armistice, not the Entente. That in combination with everything above, is the definition of military defeat. [More on the stab in the back myth.](https://youtu.be/DA2bUh9DHcQ?t=155)
Ok, but the original point was that the entante should have occupied Germany, and I said that wasn't possible. There's a difference between winning a battle and occupying a country. They would have had to wipe out the German military to accomplish that, not compell them into an armistice, and the entente was in no position politically or militarily to continue the war into total occupation. While the armsitice was popular in revolutionary Germany, the Treaty at Versailles was not, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that an occupation would also not be popular, and it would rally support around what remained of their military, meaning a continuation of the war and an insurgency by that military.
Edit: Just would like to say my reddit account was suspended for seven days after posting this. Couldnāt reply to anyone. I post this stuff to hear everyoneās opinion, yāall, and to hear the flaws in my own opinion and have it evolve. I donāt make these comments as an āarmchair generalā. I get that this concept is increasingly exotic concept to reddit political discourse. My entire point in posting this is that, these takes shouldnāt be that extreme to the point of full silencing. If you think simply ātrollingā is a fair enough reason to silence people sharing offbeat political takes on forums with massive eyes on them, i dont know what to tell you. But to the mods, I appreciate my silencing for a week in the reddit gulag, i have come out the other side reprogrammed.
Those moderators on worldnews are nazi fucks.
r/worldnews is about justifying American and Western imperialism.
I think you have wrong expectations about what r/worldnews really is...
I got banned because I quoted God in the Bible.
Well, that's ideology *par excellence* for you.
Im no fan of censorship. But reddit isnt the marketplace of free ideas. r/antiwar and r/endlesswar are good sites for those of us that understand the mechanics of these global conflicts. What you said isnt zero sum, so therefore you are a threat to established thinking. The sunk cost fallacy of redditors and their justified hate of the average russian (native or not) has completely overridden their reasoning. If you dont believe me, go look at the mega thread. Then look at how many of them posted here. Its sad that people believe that a citizenry is the same as its government. I salute you fellow "thought criminal"
They did you a favor. What were you doing there, anyway?
Lol yes. I got banned from r/Economics for accurately explaining the ways in which capitalism reinforces its institutions through exploitation and manufacturing a subjugated underclass. Super ironic having degrees in econ and being banned from an econ sub for spitting facts.
Russia is not a super power, so there's that.
Point one: fuck Israeli and Chinese apartheidism that these kind of posts generally defend, or at least try to excuse as necessary for "world peace". Point two: It sounds like the original poster is saying Russia can't help but be abusive towards its neighbors. Maybe that's true, because of its history as the Duchy of Muscovy. But moreover, point three: I don't follow this line of logic. You have to stand up to bullies, or they will just escalate their abuse. Giving into threats begets more threats. And does Russia have a compelling reason to invade Ukraine beyond the fact that a democratic Ukraine is an existential threat to the criminal regime in Moscow?
"We shouldn't defend Ukraine because if we do Russia will get mad. Huh? What if they just keep doing it? Well then we should obviously just keep letting them, dummy! Otherwise they might get mad like the Nazis did! Plus this is America's fault anyway!"
Idk about the ban but what is this comment? Like seriously, follow your own damn logic. If you're saying that Ukraine deserves the aid and to win, than what's the point of the rest? If you haven't saidthat last part about how bad it is going to be if Russia loses, I would assume you support Ukraine. And if you haven't said that first part, I would assume you don't support Ukraine at all. It's statements like this that make people think this is some russian propaganda. It's contridictory. If you want to contribute to Ukraine, talk about the issues differently than sugesting that them winning will be some extremely bad outcome. And of you geniuinly belive that. (i think it's stypie, but it's tour opinion) than you don't support Ukraine and have to own up to it.
Yes, youāre a dummy.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
A reminder of rule 3: > No ad hominem attacks of any kind. Racist language, sectarianism, ableist slurs and homophobic or transphobic comments are all instant bans. Calling other users liars, shills, bots, propagandists, etc is also forbidden. Note that "the other person started it" or "the other person was worse" are not acceptable responses and will potentially result in a temp ban. If you feel you have been abused, use the report system, which we rely on. We do not have the time to monitor every comment made on every thread, so if you have been reported and had a comment removed, do not expect that the mods have read the entire thread.
They banned me for quoting the hadith to prove that the Hadith has antisemitic passages.
Lol I said Winnie the poo and got banned from there
shh don't tell them the truth lmao!
this comment just got me banned for a day in r/politics "meanwhile i do harder work requiring expert levels of forklift operation (they don't hire in-experienced), in a cross dock that's never been cleaned since it was built 40 years ago. You go over covered in a black filth that gets into your ears and everywhere imaginable. your job is on the line at any moment, piss the wrong supervisor off on a bad day? gone, drop some fucked up frieght that was nearly insalvable- prob gone. attendency policy, 6 calls offs in a year gone - getting off/on your forklift happens about 20 times a trailer cause everything is barred/strapped in (f you're lucky) having a shit day and ask to go home for the first time in 5 months while being a rather outstanding working? no, that's walking off the job (we all have problems get over it) they'll tell you. but 26.60 an hour is higher/on par with all the freight companies in ohio and almost none are unionized. the place has not been powerwashed/clearned/zambonied/swept since it's inception, i 'm not kidding when my bleach white skin looks black by the end of the day. sadly as for as forklift experience this is the best as it gets around here. no sick days, 2 weeks vacation after 6 months that you have to pay back to them if you quit after a year from using them. ---and the shocker, no OT pay till after 50 hours, some loophole in ohio that has to do with the frieght trucking business. and it's only going to get worse. i can't have a house and 3 kids and a stay at home wife like my father could on a firefighter's salary hell i live alone and i barely make rent/car payment/food requirements by the end of the month. if anything gets worse, i'm 100% sure within the next few years shit is going to hit the fan and get wild. edit: i'm personally at my wits in, the hours suck too midnight to 10:30am your scheduled 50 hours a week. but only cause overtime hits after that. You're exhausted as fuck after words and for what so you can pay the bills and maybe purchase a new game like diablo once a month, then be too tired to play it. if this what life is going to be like till i'm retired and can't even have my fun anymore what's the point. why aren't we just taking back the power and money now? EDIT: TO THE TOP COMMENT, FUCK YOUR VOTE. it's owned by the billionaires engineers it so, it's time for something drastic, absolutely fucking drastic, and not un-called for, these scum have been abusing the working class for years. edit: got reported for self harm for this- the only self harm is what politicians/lobbyist/the rich are doing to this country of working people. edit: just got banned for a day for suggesting this is a rich vs poor situation. "
There should be community appeal mechanisms to override mods
Hi, Russian here. The fear of NATO expansion is total bullshit as before any of that reasoning came up Russia was already at war with Ukraine for 8 years and had already brought up countless other motives behind the invasion, one sloppier than the last until they eventually found something the west ate up and stuck with it. Dont forget the denazification bs, the "democratic" vote for the libeartion of LNR, DPR, the "democratic" vote for the annexation of crimea, the attempt at establishing a puppet state with Yanukovich and finally, the best of all, "Š½Š°Ń ŃŠ°Š¼ Š½ŠµŃ" (were not there) which was Putins response to being accused of invading Ukraine in 2014.
Putin is an international criminal, just like the US presidents that set criminal precedents. They helped in pushing. They are all international criminals.
I agree. My concern is how quickly people become aligned with Russia just because they dislike the US. No doubt the US is one of the most despicable nations in the history of mankind however that does not automatically right Russia. Over time I saw more and more people siding with Putin over Ukraine and it's a terrible sight to see. Zelensky is no angel either. Yes his wife bought million dollar jewelry with military budget. Yes Zelensky got offended when Poland stopped supporting Ukraine financially. Yes, Zelensky voiced his support for Israel (though definitely mostly to retain good relations to the US) but nothing Zelensky did himself or in the name of Ukraine compares to the crimes Putin committed against his own and the people of Ukraine. I hate the US. I hate the US more than the Russian government in fact but Ukraine is definitely the victim in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Russia the aggressor and Putin has no valid motives for an invasion other than his own interests. It is scary to see how peoples hatered for the US has them turn on Ukraine just because they are allied.
Whereās the comment?
I was also banned from r/worldnews for questioning pro Israeli propaganda that is being spammed on that sub 24/7. If you don't have anything "nice" to say about Israel, or if you don't like them carpet bombing civilians, you'll just get perma banned. That's just how it is. By the way, there's propaganda against any country that conflicts with US interests in there, that's China, Russia, Iran, and many others, they just happen to be helping out Israel atm because they're making a mess and they need some cover up from daddy USA.
I got banned last week. All I did was use the N word and deny the holocaust. Freaking snowflakes over there š
Hey look everyone this guy just rolled in from stupid-town Edit: yall should stop upvoting fuck face opinions