Disrupting the supply lines to Ukraine

[iendo]

3 minutes ago, Moses said:

Personally, I think he was deeply disliked in the Council. And the personal relationships between the deputies resulted in this outcome.

If someone can receive seven years in prison because he is disliked by other council members, that actually proves my point about the system not being free. In a functioning legal system, personal relationships or office politics cannot send a person to prison. Only the law and the facts of the case should matter.

So if your explanation is that he was punished because colleagues disliked him, that makes the situation even worse, not better.

[Moses]

8 minutes ago, iendo said:

Maria Ponomarenko
Journalist from Barnaul

The same March'22

[Moses]

3 minutes ago, iendo said:

So if your explanation is that he was punished because colleagues disliked him, that makes the situation even worse, not better.

See above about McCarthyism. Nothing new for human civilization. 

I'm going to bed - 2AM here

[iendo]

3 minutes ago, Moses said:

See above about McCarthyism. Nothing new for human civilization. 

I'm going to bed - 2AM here

McCarthyism is also remembered as a period of political repression and fear, which is exactly why it is viewed negatively today. If the best comparison is another period of political persecution, then that only reinforces my point, not the opposite.

Sleep well.

[unicorn]

I would advise you to stop wasting your time, @iendo. The board's veteran liar will never admit (much less apologize) for his lies. He will come up with more lies, resort to whataboutism, or deflect to completely irrelevant discussions, such as whether or not Ukrainian citizens are Ukrainian. Apologize for falsely implying Ukraine was behind the sabotage in Poland? Don't make me laugh. There is no need to try to "convince" him, since he already knows he's lying. He's been caught lying red-handed multiple times, and always resorts to irrelevant deflections and/or more lies.

[Keithambrose]

13 hours ago, floridarob said:

I just had this conversation with @BjornAgain last week.... I wish I remembered the explanation 🥺

Another wrinkle is sport. For historical reasons, the 4 constituent countries all compete separately in international competitions in soccer, cricket (not Wales), and other sports.  For the Olympics,  it's one group, the United Kingdom. This causes issues with the soccer team,  since England is so dominant.  Just to confuse further, Rugby Union has England, Wales, Scotland,  and Ireland,  but in this case Ireland includes Northern Ireland  and the separate country of Eire, Southern Ireland.  Their regional championship includes 4 provinces, 3 from Eire, one from Northern  Ireland.  All international  matches are played in Dublin! For Old Daddys information,  Dublin is in Eire!

 

 

[vinapu]

4 hours ago, Moses said:

IAnd state don't need to suppress such individuals - public will do it instead.

shame  on the  public then. Those are descendants of public which cried after Stalin died even if they knew their relatives perished in Gulags. 

They are millions of decent people in Russia , they are just silenced, as always  , by their oppressive state

[vinapu]

7 hours ago, Moses said:

The Russian state isn't as cannibalistic as the Western media portrays it. The state does something much simpler and easier: it creates conditions in which such people prefer to leave Russia. Not because it's dangerous to live here, but because they can't make a living here. No one hires them here, and because of sanctions, the West can't support them here—it's impossible to transfer money here. So they leave,.....

 

this is exactly what makes Russia cannibalistic state - pushing own people out for thay can avoid being eaten alive by their own country

[Moses]

6 hours ago, unicorn said:

I would advise you to stop wasting your time, @iendo. The board's veteran liar will never admit (much less apologize) for his lies. He will come up with more lies, resort to whataboutism, or deflect to completely irrelevant discussions, such as whether or not Ukrainian citizens are Ukrainian. Apologize for falsely implying Ukraine was behind the sabotage in Poland? Don't make me laugh. There is no need to try to "convince" him, since he already knows he's lying. He's been caught lying red-handed multiple times, and always resorts to irrelevant deflections and/or more lies.

You again lie? Please quote me where I'm "falsely implying Ukraine". Whole "false implication" was in your mind. I wrote here only fact "2 citizens of Ukraine". Do you want to oppose that fact?

[iendo]

1 hour ago, Moses said:

You again lie? Please quote me where I'm "falsely implying Ukraine". Whole "false implication" was in your mind. I wrote here only fact "2 citizens of Ukraine". Do you want to oppose that fact?

Moses, this isn’t about one detail or one case. It’s about the pattern that appears every time you debate these topics.

You often skip the main point and go straight to a tiny side detail, as if addressing that one fragment somehow cancels the rest. When someone gives several examples, you leave most of them untouched and shift the focus to something safer or unrelated. The core issue then disappears, and the discussion goes in circles.

When the conversation becomes uncomfortable, you often deflect to things like McCarthyism or “this has always existed in human history”, which avoids the actual point being discussed. At the same time, you accuse others of lying or acting in bad faith instead of addressing their argument directly.

You also tend to give half a fact without the broader context, so something technically true ends up being misleading. And you position yourself as the reasonable person who is being misunderstood, while not really engaging all the points people bring to you.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about the method. It makes a normal, good-faith conversation very difficult, because the focus constantly moves away from the main argument.

I am always willing to admit when someone makes a valid point. That’s how honest discussion works. I also understand that this kind of openness might not be an option for you, depending on your personal situation. But if we want productive conversation here, we need to address the whole argument, not just the smallest part of it.

[Keithambrose]

2 minutes ago, iendo said:

Moses, this isn’t about one detail or one case. It’s about the pattern that appears every time you debate these topics.

You often skip the main point and go straight to a tiny side detail, as if addressing that one fragment somehow cancels the rest. When someone gives several examples, you leave most of them untouched and shift the focus to something safer or unrelated. The core issue then disappears, and the discussion goes in circles.

When the conversation becomes uncomfortable, you often deflect to things like McCarthyism or “this has always existed in human history”, which avoids the actual point being discussed. At the same time, you accuse others of lying or acting in bad faith instead of addressing their argument directly.

You also tend to give half a fact without the broader context, so something technically true ends up being misleading. And you position yourself as the reasonable person who is being misunderstood, while not really engaging all the points people bring to you.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about the method. It makes a normal, good-faith conversation very difficult, because the focus constantly moves away from the main argument.

I am always willing to admit when someone makes a valid point. That’s how honest discussion works. I also understand that this kind of openness might not be an option for you, depending on your personal situation. But if we want productive conversation here, we need to address the whole argument, not just the smallest part of it.

There is no point in continuing these discussions,  im afraid,  one just gets more annoyed!

[iendo]

5 minutes ago, Keithambrose said:

There is no point in continuing these discussions,  im afraid,  one just gets more annoyed!

I get your point, Keith. For me it’s not really about getting annoyed. I’m trying to understand what drives Moses and why he argues the way he does. I’ve been reading a lot of stoic philosophy lately, so I’m more interested in observing the pattern than fighting it. It’s actually quite fascinating to watch how certain discussions unfold and how people react when the topic becomes sensitive.

But I agree that there’s no real point in pushing the debate further. Anyone reading the thread can draw their own conclusions. I’m fine leaving it here.

[Keithambrose]

2 hours ago, iendo said:

I get your point, Keith. For me it’s not really about getting annoyed. I’m trying to understand what drives Moses and why he argues the way he does. I’ve been reading a lot of stoic philosophy lately, so I’m more interested in observing the pattern than fighting it. It’s actually quite fascinating to watch how certain discussions unfold and how people react when the topic becomes sensitive.

But I agree that there’s no real point in pushing the debate further. Anyone reading the thread can draw their own conclusions. I’m fine leaving it here.

You can't argue with a fanatic. Logic just doesn't work! PeterRS tried!

[Moses]

3 hours ago, iendo said:

I get your point, Keith. For me it’s not really about getting annoyed. I’m trying to understand what drives Moses and why he argues the way he does.

You still not got? I'm just playing and teasing.

Here isn't right place to discuss real politic: nobody here has own source of information - everyone (almost, I know only Vinapu can read Russian and that means he maybe also may read Ukrainian) here takes the same information from filtered Western sources. What to discuss? Almost everyone here is believer into Western medias, templates and holy democracy.

I can read information from all sides of conflict, compare and make own conclusions. And many things what you takes as a truth are just Western urban legends, implemented by Western propaganda. "Oceania has never been at war with Ostasia" - you know what I mean. 

[iendo]

35 minutes ago, Moses said:

You still not got? I'm just playing and teasing.

He says and jumps straight back into the same political jibber jabber

[floridarob]

11 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

Another wrinkle is sport.

I'd forgotten everything you said by the time I scrolled down.... then to confuse matters even more, you brought sports into it....😳

 

 

5 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

There is no point in continuing these discussions,  im afraid,  one just gets more annoyed!

Noticed I stay out of it.... who needs to be doubly annoyed with me in the conversation 🤷‍♂️

[Keithambrose]

3 hours ago, floridarob said:

I'd forgotten everything you said by the time I scrolled down.... then to confuse matters even more, you brought sports into it....😳

 

 

Noticed I stay out of it.... who needs to be doubly annoyed with me in the conversation 🤷‍♂️

Is that possible?

[unicorn]

21 hours ago, Moses said:

You again lie? Please quote me where I'm "falsely implying Ukraine". Whole "false implication" was in your mind. I wrote here only fact "2 citizens of Ukraine". Do you want to oppose that fact?

Some of your lies have been more audacious than others. Some more black-and-white lies were when you supplied a link to United Nations World Court proceedings from the Hague, and stated the link cleared Putin of wrongdoings, when, in fact, the proceedings came to the opposite conclusion. Or, even more audaciously, when you took a list of the world's most voracious drinkers of vodka, and simply renumbered them, omitting #1 through #5 from the list (#1 was Russia). In this instance, whether or not these saboteurs were citizens of Ukraine or not depends on your viewpoint. Putin, and probably most Russians, would argue that these people are Russian citizens. From a factual standpoint, I doubt these people can go to some passport office in Donetsk or Luhansk, and obtain Ukrainian passports (I suspect they have Russian passports). 

However, even if one accepts the international viewpoint that these were, in fact, Ukrainian citizens, what cannot be denied (by anyone who has at least 5 neurons in his brain) is that your post was clearly intended to falsely implicate Ukraine in the act of sabotage. When you deny what's obvious to absolutely everyone, you not only come off as a liar, but also give yourself the appearance of a dumbass as well. As you often do, you stupidly thought that no one would check your references (perhaps imagining no one could translate the Polish), and got caught. Rather than confess and apologize, you diverted to some stupid argument about citizenship, which everyone recognizes as inane, and has nothing to do with the underlying fact that this operation was carried out by Russian intelligence (although they fumbled even then). 

If you're not going to apologize, one can hope that you'd at least not dig yourself deeper and come off as a jackass as well.

 

 

[Moses]

 

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

However, even if one accepts the international viewpoint that these were, in fact, Ukrainian citizens, what cannot be denied (by anyone who has at least 5 neurons in his brain) is that your post was clearly intended to falsely implicate Ukraine in the act of sabotage. When you deny what's obvious to absolutely everyone, you not only come off as a liar, but also give yourself the appearance of a dumbass as well. As you often do, you stupidly thought that no one would check your references (perhaps imagining no one could translate the Polish), and got caught. Rather than confess and apologize, you diverted to some stupid argument about citizenship, which everyone recognizes as inane, and has nothing to do with the underlying fact that this operation was carried out by Russian intelligence (although they fumbled even then). 

You're the liar here.

It was your limited brain that assumed my motives, and now you're trying to attribute them to me.
You didn't even bother to understand the facts.
Two saboteurs -  2 citizens of Ukraine - officially crossed the Polish border, were seen on CCTV cameras, committed an act of sabotage, and then officially crossed the border again, leaving Poland.

These are facts.

That's why Tusk reported the saboteurs' citizenship—they were identified on video, and their identity and citizenship were determined by biometric data left at the border.

Everything else is your conjecture, just like Tusk's—it's impossible to determine who the saboteurs are working for from biometric data; they weren't detained, so they can't testify. And assuming that the Poles know who they're working for from other sources is stupid, because then the question arises: why were they allowed into Poland if they knew about their ties to Russia?

The logical conclusion is that Tusk's statement about saboteurs' connections to Russia is political speculation, akin to the classic British slander "highly likely" assumption.

Therefore, everything you wrote about me above is your dirty speculative conjecture, dirty lies, and slander.

You're arrogant, confident in your own infallible rightness, a baseless, brainwashed, and limited-knowledge individual.

 

[unicorn]

@Moses, everyone on this forum knows who you are. (And, as you know, those two saboteurs entered and left Poland via Belarus, Not Ukraine)