Dan Z wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:34 pm
I'm saying exactly what I'm saying.
I appreciated Ernie's article for balancing out the one-sided western spin on what is going on in Ukraine, and for empathy's sake it may be helpful to think about why Russia invaded its neighbor. However, it must still be recognized that even by most worldly standards (including Augustinian "just war" criteria) the Russian reasons for their actions don't come near to justifying the wholesale invasion and destruction of a neighboring country. As a result of Putin's choice to invade Ukraine, there are now dozens of destroyed cities, hundreds of dead civilians, thousands of dead soldiers, millions of refugees, 10's of millions of shattered lives, and a world brought closer to nuclear hell. Simply put, a large-scale war now exists where it hadn't existed just a few weeks ago. That wrong can't be "balanced out" by telling the Russian side of the story.
By the way, this reminds me a lot of the 2003 US Invasion of Iraq - and I would (and did) say some of the same things about what happened there. Reprehensible!
Dan, I remember those days, here... Mostly different cast of characters... I well remember the numerous apologists for USA invasion! (some claiming Mennos too?) I wonder, if they were here now, would the inclinations towards pre-emptive war doctrine be the same? (Maybe Putin learned from US? - or didn't...) But maybe not? Would they stick with old-guard GOPism (Liz Cheney!) or joining the new Tucker/Trump, Putin's-not-so-bad-we-like-strongmen w/no accountability wing? Maybe hard to tell...
nett wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:42 am
I can't find any evidence of that picture existing prior to Feb 2022, where do you get 10 year old from?
Here is a discussion from 2014 on a military forum about whether this exact photo was photoshopped and the swastika added later by photoshop. They concluded it was photoshopped. You can judge for yourself: http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/1 ... alion.html
It is an old photo. Whether it is also photoshopped I'm not equipped to judge. The links to the older original versions of the photo have all been taken down.
I found this in 10 seconds doing an image search.
You're right about the age (well almost, 8 years, not 10), but it turns they were wrong about the forensic analysis.
temporal1 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:52 am
you may notice, some older reports are now tagged with “alerts” like, “this article is 3 years old.”
it’s important for the masses to have “memories of fleas.” really-really important for the propaganda machine.
How does more context help the 'propaganda machine'? Propaganda thrives on precisely obscuring context and details like timing. Why wouldn't you want to know all the relevant details, including time frames and context of a given item? Do you want the whole truth or just parts of it or am I badly misunderstanding the gist of your last lines there?
temporal1 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:52 am
you may notice, some older reports are now tagged with “alerts” like, “this article is 3 years old.”
it’s important for the masses to have “memories of fleas.” really-really important for the propaganda machine.
How does more context help the 'propaganda machine'? Propaganda thrives on precisely obscuring context and details like timing. Why wouldn't you want to know all the relevant details, including time frames and context of a given item? Do you want the whole truth or just parts of it or am I badly misunderstanding the gist of your last lines there?
Most articles are dated, often with time of day.
i believe every article (i’ve seen) with such flags has had the date and time. It would have to be intentionally removed.
Flagging articles that are older infers “inferior.” i agree about relevant details. i see history often ignored and dismissed as irrelevant (because of age). hope that helps.
nett wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:42 am
I can't find any evidence of that picture existing prior to Feb 2022, where do you get 10 year old from?
Here is a discussion from 2014 on a military forum about whether this exact photo was photoshopped and the swastika added later by photoshop. They concluded it was photoshopped. You can judge for yourself: http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/1 ... alion.html
It is an old photo. Whether it is also photoshopped I'm not equipped to judge. The links to the older original versions of the photo have all been taken down.
I found this in 10 seconds doing an image search.
You're right about the age (well almost, 8 years, not 10), but it turns they were wrong about the forensic analysis.
Why would someone want to photoshop a swastika in there anyway? The Wolfsangel symbol is a neo-Nazi symbol anyway so the deception isn't even necessary.
I do not think Putin is lying that neo-Nazi's have been attacking separatists in other parts of Ukraine while authorities in Kiev have looked the other way.
Dan Z wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:34 pm
I'm saying exactly what I'm saying.
I appreciated Ernie's article for balancing out the one-sided western spin on what is going on in Ukraine, and for empathy's sake it may be helpful to think about why Russia invaded its neighbor. However, it must still be recognized that even by most worldly standards (including Augustinian "just war" criteria) the Russian reasons for their actions don't come near to justifying the wholesale invasion and destruction of a neighboring country. As a result of Putin's choice to invade Ukraine, there are now dozens of destroyed cities, hundreds of dead civilians, thousands of dead soldiers, millions of refugees, 10's of millions of shattered lives, and a world brought closer to nuclear hell. Simply put, a large-scale war now exists where it hadn't existed just a few weeks ago. That wrong can't be "balanced out" by telling the Russian side of the story.
By the way, this reminds me a lot of the 2003 US Invasion of Iraq - and I would (and did) say some of the same things about what happened there. Reprehensible!
Dan, I remember those days, here... Mostly different cast of characters... I well remember the numerous apologists for USA invasion! (some claiming Mennos too?) I wonder, if they were here now, would the inclinations towards pre-emptive war doctrine be the same? (Maybe Putin learned from US? - or didn't...) But maybe not? Would they stick with old-guard GOPism (Liz Cheney!) or joining the new Tucker/Trump, Putin's-not-so-bad-we-like-strongmen w/no accountability wing? Maybe hard to tell...
In fairness - I see no one saying Putin "isn't so bad" now. Tucker for instance, who I don't regularly watch but do from time to time, just made it clear last night that he hopes Putin fails but is worried about many of the long-term consequences and the overall wisdom of our sanction regimes and an escalation towards actual war. That is a real difference from your characterization of him.
Here is a discussion from 2014 on a military forum about whether this exact photo was photoshopped and the swastika added later by photoshop. They concluded it was photoshopped. You can judge for yourself: http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/1 ... alion.html
It is an old photo. Whether it is also photoshopped I'm not equipped to judge. The links to the older original versions of the photo have all been taken down.
I found this in 10 seconds doing an image search.
You're right about the age (well almost, 8 years, not 10), but it turns they were wrong about the forensic analysis.
Why would someone want to photoshop a swastika in there anyway? The Wolfsangel symbol is a neo-Nazi symbol anyway so the deception isn't even necessary.
I do not think Putin is lying that neo-Nazi's have been attacking separatists in other parts of Ukraine while authorities in Kiev have looked the other way.
There has been a war going on in eastern Ukraine for at least 8 years or more between separatist forces supported by Russia (and reportedly Russian troops themselves operating clandestinely) fighting the Ukrainian Army. The Azov Battalion is only one of many Ukrainian military units that have been rotated through there.
In fact, This Russian proxy war that has been going on for years in Eastern Ukraine is turning out to have been a major error on the part of Russia. By all reports the Ukrainian Army was in bad shape back in 2014. But they have had 8 years of fighting experience in eastern Ukraine since then. Essentially all the major units of the Ukrainian Army have been rotated through that region where they have picked up operational and combat experience. So in effect, Russia has been running an 8-year training program for the Ukrainian military in the Donbas. And now the Ukrainian Army they are meeting on the battlefield has much more experience and cohesion.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
temporal1 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:52 am
you may notice, some older reports are now tagged with “alerts” like, “this article is 3 years old.”
it’s important for the masses to have “memories of fleas.” really-really important for the propaganda machine.
How does more context help the 'propaganda machine'? Propaganda thrives on precisely obscuring context and details like timing. Why wouldn't you want to know all the relevant details, including time frames and context of a given item? Do you want the whole truth or just parts of it or am I badly misunderstanding the gist of your last lines there?
Most articles are dated, often with time of day.
i believe every article (i’ve seen) with such flags has had the date and time. It would have to be intentionally removed.
Flagging articles that are older infers “inferior.” i agree about relevant details. i see history often ignored and dismissed as irrelevant (because of age). hope that helps.
I don't think a flag that indicates an article is older implies that it's "inferior" -- it just may not be relevant anymore. A flag is helpful because people don't often read the dates of an article.
This morning I read an article on Azov battalion from 2014 -- parts of the article were still relevant to today, but not everything.
I certainly believe that history matters -- what's playing out in Ukraine right now is the result of a long history. At the same time, not everything written or posted in the past may be relevant to the current situation. In response to the war in Ukraine, you've written about Obama, which I frankly don't understand the relevancy of. US foreign policy regarding the former Soviet Union in the early 90s is very relevant to the current situation. Your grievances about Obama might not be.
HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:31 pm
In fairness - I see no one saying Putin "isn't so bad" now. Tucker for instance, who I don't regularly watch but do from time to time, just made it clear last night that he hopes Putin fails but is worried about many of the long-term consequences and the overall wisdom of our sanction regimes and an escalation towards actual war. That is a real difference from your characterization of him.
I very rarely...might watch bits of him sometimes, so I appreciate your updating my impressions of him... And I share his worries too. It sounds like maybe he's adjusted his tune from what was reported initially? (Asking rhetorically... don't wanna go down a TC/Fox news rabbit hole)
Mostly different cast of characters... I well remember the numerous apologists for USA invasion! (some claiming Mennos too?) I wonder, if they were here now, would the inclinations towards pre-emptive war doctrine be the same? (Maybe Putin learned from US? - or didn't...) But maybe not? Would they stick with old-guard GOPism (Liz Cheney!) or joining the new Tucker/Trump, Putin's-not-so-bad-we-like-strongmen w/no accountability wing? Maybe hard to tell...