Russia Attacks Ukraine

[Diogenes]

For the first time since 1939 a major European power, Russia, has attacked another country in Europe, Ukraine. We have not seen an analogous situation since Germany attacked Poland setting off World War 2. Surprisingly we have Neville Chamberlain like appeasement/isolationist responses from Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson. Besides the 180° turn from traditional Republican politics, to what extent are these events relevant to Christianity?

[AgnosticBoy]

Naw, now what I asked was who was it we needed to fuss at.

As it stands, now I gotta fuss at everybody, just so's the guilty party knows we mean business.

Or we conclude your claim's an empty attempt to smear those who disagree with you.

When I read your comments, I don't find that it is civil. You ask me a question and then you answer it for me.

Had you asked in a civil way, and I thought it wouldn't lead to more distractions and incivility, then I would've had no problems answering you.

#Civility

[JoeyKnothead]

A spelling edit there at the end...

Naw, now what I asked was who was it we needed to fuss at.

As it stands, now I gotta fuss at everybody, just so's the guilty party knows we mean business.

Or we conclude your claim's an empty attempt to smear those who disagree with you.

When I read your comments, I don't find that it is civil. You ask me a question and then you answer it for me.

Had you asked in a civil way, and I thought it wouldn't lead to more distractions and incivility, then I would've had no problems answering you.

#Civility

Nowhere did I ever attempt to put words on you, other'n the ones it is you wrote.

But go on and accuse me of being uncivil for challenging your claim, here in a debate, of all places, if that helps you avoid naming those you claim are automatic side takers.

#Bull biscuits

[AgnosticBoy]

Ukrainian civilians being evacuated, while the Ukrainian military are not allowed to do so. If Russia was killing all civilians like someone suggested earlier, (as opposed to my theory where they're only killing them when they're near armed resistance, in most cases), then these civilians would have all been killed. So far, the events at the Mariupol steel plant area are playing out along the lines of my theory since these civilians aren't being killed and are even being allowed to evacuate.

Some civilians have been evacuated from the Azovstal steel works in Mariupol after a ceasefire was introduced, according to a commander in the Azov Regiment, one of the Ukrainian soldiers trapped at the plant.

Capt. Svyatoslav Palamar, the deputy commander of the Azov Regiment, said the ceasefire, which was supposed to begin at 6 a.m. local time, ended up starting at 11 a.m. local time.

"As of now, it's the truth, both sides follow the ceasefire regime," he said.

"We have brought 20 civilians to the agreed meeting point, whom we've managed to rescue from under the rubble. These are women and children. We hope these people will go the agreed destination, which is Zaporizhzhia, the territory controlled by Ukraine," Palamar said.

Source: CNN

I brought this up in the context of a point I mentioned to mgb, regarding civilian deaths. My point was about why civilians are targeted at times, and how we can mitigate those circumstances by having civilians stay clear of any military officials. Earlier, a member interpreted my attemps as being nit-picky, but my point is actually required under international law. Sure, the Ukrainian soldiers are justifiably defending themselves, but this should NOT be happening by putting civilians in harms way.

If trying to make a point about reducing civilian deaths is nit-picky, then I'll be nit-picky all day.

[otseng]

Moderator Intervention

Allow me to press the reset button here with discussing this issue. Let's drop determining who thinks what and who is fair/objective/empathetic in their assessment.


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[JoeyKnothead]

Ukrainian civilians being evacuated, while the Ukrainian military are not allowed to do so.

There'd be no need for the Russians to evacuate anyone, if they'd quit bombing em.

If Russia was killing all civilians like someone suggested earlier, (as opposed to my theory where they're only killing them when they're near armed resistance, in most cases), then these civilians would have all been killed.

None of which anyone'd hafta fret, if the Russians quit bombing em.

So far, the events at the Mariupol steel plant area are playing out along the lines of my theory since these civilians aren't being killed and are even being allowed to evacuate.

Well how spectacularly magnanimous of the Russians, who've invaded a country and set to bombing the everything heck out of it.

Some civilians have been evacuated from the Azovstal steel works in Mariupol after a ceasefire was introduced, according to a commander in the Azov Regiment, one of the Ukrainian soldiers trapped at the plant.

"Some" is a subjective term, where as little as two meets the requirements to say it.

Had the Russians not invaded, there'd be no need to fret these "some".

Capt. Svyatoslav Palamar, the deputy commander of the Azov Regiment, said the ceasefire, which was supposed to begin at 6 a.m. local time, ended up starting at 11 a.m. local time.

"As of now, it's the truth, both sides follow the ceasefire regime," he said.

"We have brought 20 civilians to the agreed meeting point, whom we've managed to rescue from under the rubble. These are women and children. We hope these people will go the agreed destination, which is Zaporizhzhia, the territory controlled by Ukraine," Palamar said.

Source: CNN

The thing about cease fires is, if ya don't start shooting, there's no need to cease.

I brought this up in the context of a point I mentioned to mgb, regarding civilian deaths. My point was about why civilians are targeted at times, and how we can mitigate those circumstances by having civilians stay clear of any military officials. Earlier, a member interpreted my attemps as being nit-picky, but my point is actually required under international law. Sure, the Ukrainian soldiers are justifiably defending themselves, but this should NOT be happening by putting civilians in harms way.

If trying to make a point about reducing civilian deaths is nit-picky, then I'll be nit-picky all day.

The thing about picking nits, is it sometimes it just leaves ya with a handful of nits.

Had the Russians not invaded, all them nits're moot.

[AgnosticBoy]

Ukrainian civilians being evacuated, while the Ukrainian military are not allowed to do so.

There'd be no need for the Russians to evacuate anyone, if they'd quit bombing em.

If Russia was killing all civilians like someone suggested earlier, (as opposed to my theory where they're only killing them when they're near armed resistance, in most cases), then these civilians would have all been killed.

None of which anyone'd hafta fret, if the Russians quit bombing em.

So far, the events at the Mariupol steel plant area are playing out along the lines of my theory since these civilians aren't being killed and are even being allowed to evacuate.

Well how spectacularly magnanimous of the Russians, who've invaded a country and set to bombing the everything heck out of it.

Some civilians have been evacuated from the Azovstal steel works in Mariupol after a ceasefire was introduced, according to a commander in the Azov Regiment, one of the Ukrainian soldiers trapped at the plant.

"Some" is a subjective term, where as little as two meets the requirements to say it.

Had the Russians not invaded, there'd be no need to fret these "some".

Capt. Svyatoslav Palamar, the deputy commander of the Azov Regiment, said the ceasefire, which was supposed to begin at 6 a.m. local time, ended up starting at 11 a.m. local time.

"As of now, it's the truth, both sides follow the ceasefire regime," he said.

"We have brought 20 civilians to the agreed meeting point, whom we've managed to rescue from under the rubble. These are women and children. We hope these people will go the agreed destination, which is Zaporizhzhia, the territory controlled by Ukraine," Palamar said.

Source: CNN

The thing about cease fires is, if ya don't start shooting, there's no need to cease.

I brought this up in the context of a point I mentioned to mgb, regarding civilian deaths. My point was about why civilians are targeted at times, and how we can mitigate those circumstances by having civilians stay clear of any military officials. Earlier, a member interpreted my attemps as being nit-picky, but my point is actually required under international law. Sure, the Ukrainian soldiers are justifiably defending themselves, but this should NOT be happening by putting civilians in harms way.

If trying to make a point about reducing civilian deaths is nit-picky, then I'll be nit-picky all day.

The thing about picking nits, is it sometimes it just leaves ya with a handful of nits.

Had the Russians not invaded, all them nits're moot.

I think both of our points can be true, Joey. If the Russians had not invaded, many more civilians would be alive, of course. But they've invaded, so my view has to do with how we can maximize civilian survival under the actual scenario we're in. Civilians staying clear of military personnel and equipment, would likely lead to more civilians surviving. I assume that this is part of the rationale for international law on this matter which also says that the two groups should be separated so that civilians can avoid being in the cross fire. This does not prove anything about Russia being right of course because they shouldn't have invaded to begin with.

[AgnosticBoy]

1. I shouldn't bring up the wrongs of the Ukrainians at all (e.g. positioning weapons in residential areas, fighting amongst civilians, etc.), even if there is verifiable evidence for it.

This standard appears to be prevalent in a lot of discussions.

My take...
The only defense I've heard for this standard is that it is inconvenient to talk about the wrongs of the Ukrainians. The wrongs of the Russians are much worse. I wonder who gets to decide when or what should be talked about in a debate? Not wanting to talk about something or looking at something from ONE side is consistent with a biased perspective, especially when it involves ignoring claims and facts. Trying to make someone look bad for bringing up inconvenient facts is certainly consistent with trying to silence someone or have them cancelled. The whole point of a debate is to bring up facts and stick to that. As an analogy, it might be inconvenient for an atheist to tell a Christian that there is no free-will, no God, and no afterlife. Imagine if that Christian had just lost a loved one.

Sure we should show sympathy, but that should not be mistaken for some basis for validity. Not liking the facts or not being a right time for the facts (according to someone's standard) doesn't change the facts.

[AgnosticBoy]

A breath of fresh air. A true diplomat. A good example of NON-partisanship. I'm referring to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. Listen to this clip of him describing the Ukrainian and Russian conflict. Observe the non-partisan terms/behavior:

"Independent investigations", goes over the positions of BOTH sides, he's not mud slinging. All examples of what is LACKING in polarized/partisan American politics, the American politics that tend to involve people ignoring and/or distorting the other side, as if the whole world revolves around Twitter and popularity as a way to solve problems.



And this NON-partisan UN official, was successfully able to broker this deal, something which Russian and Ukrainian officials failed to do on their own. Listen to this report on Mariupol evacuation of civilians...


This would not have happened as it is now if the two sides were just mud slinging at each other or ignoring each other. Some of these Twitter tactics that some politicians engage in is something that i would expect from grade school kids and NOT full grown adults who have the power to launch nuclear missile. Non-partisanship and civility alone is not enough, but it's a start!

[JoeyKnothead]

1. I shouldn't bring up the wrongs of the Ukrainians at all (e.g. positioning weapons in residential areas, fighting amongst civilians, etc.), even if there is verifiable evidence for it.

This standard appears to be prevalent in a lot of discussions.

That's a standard of your own making. I don't see anyone but you putting it forth.

What I'm concerned on is the idea of "bothsidesism", and how such doesn't reflect the reality of the Russians brutalizing a population that's trying to survive it that brutalizing.

As a defender, I refuse to "fight fair", international law be damned. I'll bite and choke, and grab up sticks, and pull hair, and poke eyeballs and do whatever it is I can in defense of mine.

What I won't do is run over to the neighbors, abombing em and such, then complain they ain't playing by my rules.

My take...
The only defense I've heard for this standard is that it is inconvenient to talk about the wrongs of the Ukrainians.

Who can possibly be wrong, that would defend themselves from a bully?

Your attempts to be fair fall flat in the face of a far superior force attempting to run roughshod over a weaker opponent who ain't done nothing to provoke it.

The wrongs of the Russians are much worse. I wonder who gets to decide when or what should be talked about in a debate?

The mods.

Not wanting to talk about something or looking at something from ONE side is consistent with a biased perspective, especially when it involves ignoring claims and facts.

That ignoring things there - how come you ignore my attempts to get you to name these automtic side takers?

Your double standard exposes you as guilty of the very charges you invoke.

Trying to make someone look bad for bringing up inconvenient facts is certainly consistent with trying to silence someone or have them cancelled.

Bull butter.

Again your hypocritical charges've exposed you as being upset folks ain't automatically sided with ya.

The whole point of a debate is to bring up facts and stick to that.

And the fact is, you accuse folks of the automatic side taking, but hush quick up when asked who's guilty of it.

You wanna fuss about sticking to facts, without putting fact to your automatic side taking claim.

As an analogy, it might be inconvenient for an atheist to tell a Christian that there is no free-will, no God, and no afterlife. Imagine if that Christian had just lost a loved one.

Analogies can be created to support any claim we wish to make.

Here's one...

Liars are like trees - they spread their lies out like branches, in order to hide the actual truth among the shade.

Sure we should show sympathy, but that should not be mistaken for some basis for validity. Not liking the facts or not being a right time for the facts (according to someone's standard) doesn't change the facts.

So, as with not liking the facts, I don't like the fact you'd accuse folks of the automatic side taking, then refuse to even attempt to show the charge is anything but an attempt to accuse your opponents of bias. A bias you refuse to show em guilty of.

[AgnosticBoy]

1. I shouldn't bring up the wrongs of the Ukrainians at all (e.g. positioning weapons in residential areas, fighting amongst civilians, etc.), even if there is verifiable evidence for it.
This standard appears to be prevalent in a lot of discussions.

What I'm concerned on is the idea of "bothsidesism", and how such doesn't reflect the reality of the Russians brutalizing a population that's trying to survive it that brutalizing.

Keep in mind that I prefer the term NON-partisanship. The driving principle behind it is not "bothsidesism", but rather it's about seeking any or all truths or facts or putting truth before sides. It can be one-sided if the truth is all on one side. It can involve taking both sides, at least initially (like for information gathering), if the truth is not known or for practical reasons. It can also involve not taking any sides or taking an independent position. All of those variations should show why limiting it to "bothsidesism" isn't accurate. I've taken this a step further by adding a behavioral component (to supplement the cognitive aspect) that would encourage people to work together, despite our differences (as opposed to the partisan behavior that tends to create polarization).

In contrast, one-sidedism is a pipe dream where a political party or group thinks that only their view matters and if they don't get their way, then you're cancelled. That might work if you were the only group on Earth or if everyone agreed with you (it also works in the Twitter-verse), but given reality and the need for international relations, it obviously leads to a lot of problems. Now, just look in this case, the connection between it and resolving some conflict between the Russians and Ukrainians when it came to evacuating civilians in Mariupol. Do you think that "one-sidedism", involving the Ukrainians not listening to the Russians and just demanding would've been successful? Whether you like it or not, they needed to cooperate with the Russians to make this deal work. In fact, both sides failed because they each engaged in one-sidedism. It took a neutral third party to resolve the matter for them.

What I'm concerned on is the idea of "bothsidesism", and how such doesn't reflect the reality of the Russians brutalizing a population that's trying to survive it that brutalizing.

As a defender, I refuse to "fight fair", international law be damned. I'll bite and choke, and grab up sticks, and pull hair, and poke eyeballs and do whatever it is I can in defense of mine.

What I won't do is run over to the neighbors, abombing em and such, then complain they ain't playing by my rules.

I kinda agree that there's no bothsidesism to fighting (where I throw a punch and I wait for you to throw one before throwing another one). That's how much of a joke international law is on war, imo. Russia is already not playing fair. Whatever, happened to the old days, where a fight ended when someone tapped out or ran away with a bloody nose?!

But when it comes to a debate on facts, or investigating war crimes under international law, or trying to make a deal to minimize civilian deaths, then a non-partisan approach would do more to deescalate and resolve situations than partisan behavior.

The wrongs of the Russians are much worse. I wonder who gets to decide when or what should be talked about in a debate?

The mods.

Well the mods. agree with me because I'm following the rules.

If you really want to dive into my world of non-partisanship Joey, I encourage you to read one of my essays here.