Russia invading Ukraine (NEWS/UPDATES)


Status
Not open for further replies.
May I ask it instead?
Tbh, I don't know why it's even being asked? I find it quite insulting. Merely by questioning that there is at least another side to all this, that there is context etc., it's interpreted that this implies I support civilians being killed in Ukraine.
When did I do that?
When you liked the post by the other member which justified those invasions.
 
I think the West needs to encourage, or at least not discourage, any Fighters who want to go to the Ukraine. According to this in The Telegraph the Russians have enlisted thousands of Syrian Fighters. We should get tens of thousands from wherever in the free world who want to help imo.

"Images of cheering Syrian fighters holding up posters bearing the 'Z' symbol of the Russian invasion have been broadcast by the Kremlin.

The video footage on the Russian defence ministry television channel was broadcast shortly after President Vladamir Putin announced he would be sending foreign volunteers to fight in his faltering invasion"
Arab fighters used to combat in the heat of the Middle East is exactly what you need in the cold of a Ukrainian winter😂.
 
Tbh, I don't know why it's even being asked? I find it quite insulting. Merely by questioning that there is at least another side to all this, that there is context etc., it's interpreted that this implies I support civilians being killed in Ukraine.

When you liked the post by the other member which justified those invasions.
Don't put words in my mouth.

That doesn't mean I endorse the deliberate killing of civilians.

Conversely, does that mean you support the invasion of Ukraine?

You are one raising the issues of civilians being killed in Ukraine by comparing your perceived lack of outrage about civilians being killed in other conflicts.
 
Last edited:
Unlike you, I tend not to support invasions.
Yet you've put forward several justifications for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Your are also deliberately twisting the context which was the deliberate killing of civilians.
The Russian army is clearly shit at taking on another army but does encircle civilian cities and then pulverise them into submission. Tactics it emplyed in Syria.
 
Last edited:
Yet you've put forward several justifications for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Your are also deliberately twisting the context which was the deliberate killing of civilians.
I haven't expressed that the invasion of Ukraine was/is justified. What I trying to get at is, was it justified to ignore Russia's strategic demands for a neutral Ukraine, given that a possible result of doing so would be an invasion of Ukraine? Also, were any assurances given to Russia which have since been abandoned?

You will need to explain what you mean by deliberate killing of civilians. But if I was to have a stab at what you mean, it's that the civilians killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places were merely 'collateral damage' and 'unintentional'. In other words, a get out clause for anyone we kill.
 
I haven't expressed that the invasion of Ukraine was/is justified. What I trying to get at is, was it justified to ignore Russia's strategic demands for a neutral Ukraine, given that a possible result of doing so would be an invasion of Ukraine? Also, were any assurances given to Russia which have since been abandoned?

You will need to explain what you mean by deliberate killing of civilians. But if I was to have a stab at what you mean, it's that the civilians killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places were merely 'collateral damage' and 'unintentional'. In other words, a get out clause for anyone we kill.
Stop trying to twist the context.

The Russians have surrounded civilian cities and then try to pulverise them into submission. They have used cluster bombs and vacuum bombs in civilian areas as well as missile strikes on civilian targets. They have agreed to humanitarian corridors for civilians to leave and then bombed them. That is the deliberate killing of civilians.

What next? Using chemical weapons?

All tactics they have used in Syria.
 
Last edited:
I don't either but I'm reminded when he gave testimony at a congressional hearing on the first Iraq war. Made the congressional committee look like half wits.
Its still kicking around on you tube

I guessing he's one someone's payroll

The other thing I remember, was, despite his differences with Nigel Farage, Galloway was the only Scot who stood up and criticised his appalling treatment by locals on visits to Edinburgh prior to the Brexit vote.
 
Stop trying to twist the context.

The Russians have surrounded civilian cities and then try to pulverise them into submission. They have used cluster bombs and vacuum bombs in civilian areas as well as missile strikes on civilian targets. They have agreed to humanitarian corridors for civilians to leave and then bombed them. That is the deliberate killing of civilians.

What next? Using chemical weapons?

All tactics they have used in Syria.
What chemical weapons did Russia use in Syria? They were accused of using banned weapons and I am not disputing that they may have done so. What did we do in places like Fallujah in Iraq or Sirte in Libya. What were our tactics and what weapons were used?

Ukraine advertised that it was arming civilians. Could it be that this move has had an impact on Russian tactics? I am merely asking the question, not justifying the tactics.
 
What chemical weapons did Russia use in Syria? They were accused of using banned weapons and I am not disputing that they may have done so. What did we do in places like Fallujah in Iraq or Sirte in Libya. What were our tactics and what weapons were used?

Ukraine advertised that it was arming civilians. Could it be that this move has had an impact on Russian tactics? I am merely asking the question, not justifying the tactics.
Ukraine said it was arming some civilians after Russia invaded. Does that mean all civilians are legitimate targets, including children? I doubt if the majority of civilians are armed. Jesus give your head a shake man. Four million are expected to have left the country soon.
 
Last edited:
My keyboard is fine (watch your own arrogance doesn't explode).

Well let's see what negotiations took place in the years, months weeks prior to the invasion?

Who deems who 'is posing a threat to anyone'.

Should Myanmar have been invaded for posing a threat to Rohingyas?

What about China? Should they be invaded? They pose a threat to a number of their population.

Regarding these invasions that were right.. over 7000 civilians killed during first two months of Shock and Awe. But they don't count because they weren't killed by Russians?

People like you frighten me.

I would support UN troops going to Myanmar to protect the Rohingyas.

Of course shock and awe and civilian deaths were awful, abhorrent and saddening. No one has said anything otherwise.

No civilian death counts more or less than any other. That’s why Yemen and Syria and so many places are such sad stories of human suffering.

Given we agree about civilian deaths it is better to talk about the Russian invasion which you still seem to be trying to justify. There is no justification for the Russian invasion.

Russia sent tens of thousands or troops with tanks and artillery into a neighbouring democratic country that was just acting like a normal free democratic country providing no threat to Russia. There was no ethnic cleansing, genocide, or murderous dictator to remove. Ukraine was just a normal functioning democracy. That is why the invasion is wrong and completely unjustified.

Ukraine was providing as much threat and challenge to Russia as Ireland does to the UK. And it is beyond all conceivability that the UK would invade Ireland.

Do you think the invasion was wrong?

Do you want the Russians to leave (whether through negotiation or force)?

Do you accept Ukraine’s right to be an independent country making its own decisions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top