Current Events > Tbh 261 did kinda practice abusive behavior sometimes.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Hoodroar posted...

...

Ignoring the actual contents of your post because you seem ignorant of history. There is a very clear line we can point to in history to clear up your "precedent" confusion about territorial claims.

The formation of the United Nations in the wake of world war 2 had the nations of the world all agree that wars of conquest were a terrible thing and that any country that tries that shit is a rogue nation. It didn't resolve ongoing territorial disputes, but we as a collective humanity, came together and agreed that no country should ever be allowed to annex territory from another sovereign state ever again, and that all territory settlements before that point, even those settled in a peace treaty as a result of a war of conquest, were now final, but no future war of conquest could ever be justified. That's when it happened. It's a relatively modern concept.

So don't go trying to cite incidents from before world war 2 to justify Russia's behaviour.

TMOG posted...

ITT Hoodroar believes that Russia will just stop attacking Ukraine and give everything back if the latter isn't too aggressive about being invaded

I made no comment on the end results. I just didn't think it's the role of other countries to help with offensives. But maybe it is depending on the situation.

videospirit posted...

Ignoring the actual contents of your post because you seem ignorant of history. There is a very clear line we can point to in history to clear up your "precedent" confusion about territorial claims.

The formation of the United Nations in the wake of world war 2 had the nations of the world all agree that wars of conquest were a terrible thing and that any country that tries that shit is a rogue nation. It didn't resolve ongoing territorial disputes, but we as a collective humanity, came together and agreed that no country should ever be allowed to annex territory from another sovereign state ever again, and that all territory settlements before that point, even those settled in a peace treaty as a result of a war of conquest, were now final, but no future war of conquest could ever be justified. That's when it happened. It's a relatively modern concept.

So don't go trying to cite incidents from before world war 2 to justify Russia's behaviour.

Russia generally responds to the modern values argument with "but the Iraq invasion" though, which the UN also frowns upon. Though I guess it's less severe since the US was just changing the regime instead of conquering territory.

No shiite they did.

The same fucking type of people making these threads over and over again. Just feeding their pathetic persecution complex. Can't wait for the next one...so new and fresh.

Sandalorn posted...

The same fucking type of people making these threads over and over again. Just feeding their pathetic persecution complex. Can't wait for the next one...so new and fresh.

Yup. Perpetual butthurt that they consistently lost in the marketplace of ideas.

Hoodroar posted...

By "additional fighting" I'm referring to opening conflicts where they aren't already being fought right now. The fighting going on currently is by definition not additional. Additional would be fighting in places not recently attacked by Russia.

What an utterly juvenile concept of war. That is atually child-like. Quite literally detached from the reality of what "war" is.

Rexdragon125 posted...

Yup. Perpetual butthurt that they consistently lost in the marketplace of ideas.

Your echo chamber isn't any more valid than anyone else's. I lost nothing.

Strider102 posted...

No different than CE tbh

Yeah, this sort of thing happens on CE all the time

Hoodroar posted...

Your echo chamber isn't any more valid than anyone else's. I lost nothing.

My "echo chamber" is objective reality. Yours seems to be Rupert Murdoch.

Rexdragon125 posted...

My "echo chamber" is objective reality. Yours seems to be Rupert Murdoch.

Yeah, Rupert Murdoch, a guy I've never shared overlapping support for any political candidates with. Definitely "objective reality" to associate me with someone I don't agree on anything with.

Case in point about the partisan ignorance of your kind. Constant "with us or against us" smears that fail to acknowledge the existence of more than two points of view.

Hoodroar posted...

Yeah, Rupert Murdoch, a guy I've never shared overlapping support for any political candidates with. Definitely "objective reality" to associate me with someone I don't agree on anything with.

Case in point about the partisan ignorance of your kind. Constant "with us or against us" smears that fail to acknowledge the existence of more than two points of view.

What non-chud views do you have?

ellis123 posted...

What non-chud views do you have?

What chud views do I have?

Hoodroar posted...

What chud views do I have?

That was your chance to defend yourself. Rex was right.

ellis123 posted...

That was your chance to defend yourself. Rex was right.

Burden of proof doesn't work that way, lying troll.

TC was a concern troll and Russia appeaser on 261.

Imho 261 sheeple are like a woke k-word and overuse chud like its a smart bomb

TonyKojima posted...

TC was a concern troll and Russia appeaser on 261.

Except Russian appeasement would be defunding Ukraine entirely, not just not helping them liberate places stolen a decade ago.

R1masher posted...

Imho 261 sheeple are like a woke k-word and overuse chud like its a smart bomb

To be fair the alternatives get just as "ThAtS nOt Me!"'d. They are all accurate portrayals of right-wingers, the actual name doesn't matter.

ellis123 posted...

To be fair the alternatives get just as "ThAtS nOt Me!"'d. They are all accurate portrayals of right-wingers, the actual name doesn't matter.

But you revolting dumpster fires also use them against people with little to no right-wing views.

The problem isn't the aggression it's the bullshitting. Anyone you disagree with is a chud and somehow supports billionaire Republican shitheads.