You do know you are implicitly, if not explicitly, supporting Ukrainian citizens who are arming themselves to the teeth in order to defend themselves against the Russian invaders, right? Perhaps you might want to think that through and ask some tough question. Though I'll admit such an approach is typically antithetical to being at peace with leftwing activism.
While we're on that subject, let's be careful about criticizing Russian Soldiers who shoot civilians during a war in which civilians are being handed guns and told to kill Russian Soldiers
ReplyDeleteuh, no. any Russian soldier who doesn't want to be shot by a Ukrainian citizen should leave Ukraine. Occupation is consent to be shot.
Delete(Tom New Poster)
DeleteThe unjust aggressor has no right to consideration, unless he surrenders. Period.
I would say Russia is the aggressor, so gets what it has coming to it. There is, of course, a difference between Russian soldiers killing unarmed citizens and those armed citizens killed in combat by Russian soldiers. They understand the risk when they go into the fray, which is why they're quite the heroes.
DeleteI say rather than get too deep into the philosophy of war & morals, we all take a minute to appreciate the irony of liberals. They never can seem to realize how one policy idea is going to counteract another policy idea.
DeleteRussia isn't totally unjustified. Putin is trying to stop Western Woke, LGBTQ Etc.... Stuff from infiltrating the Slavic world. NATO has been a tool of George Soros and the Davos group for some time.
DeleteI'm not condeming Zelinsky for giving guns to people. I support his decision. I even generally side with Ukraine in this war. I just think it's hypocritical to complain about enemy soldiers shooting at civilians during a war in which you yourself are arming civilians to shoot at soldiers.
DeleteI've heard that reasoning, and there are some who sympathize with Putin's concerns about the encroaching soul rot of Western liberalism. The problem with Russia is that it blew all credibility and sympathy by invading and being the aggressor in a war killig innocents, as well as children, but the truck load.
DeleteTo the one who thinks that Putin is the great defender of morality, I would suggest that you do some research. Putin is a former KGB Colonel, which means that he was a committed Communist. (If you want to get an idea of what the KGB was, watch The Death of Stalin, which was largely about the methods of the KGB's predecessor organization, the NKVD. Here's a little hint for you, Putin and his KGB, now FSB, thugs are the successors to Beria and his NKVD thugs, who were the successors to the original Cheka thugs, and their methods and moral outlook haven't changed since Lenin.)
DeleteThere is evidence that he was the handler for the German Red Army Faction, also known as the Baader-Meinhoff gang. If you are unfamiliar with them, they were terrorists who practiced indiscriminate murder and mayhem. He has a history of having his political opponents and critics assassinated by such wonderful means as polonium poisoning. Oh by the way, there is evidence that the plot to assassinate Saint John-Paul originated with Putin's beloved KGB. Most of the LGBTQ and other leftist stuff was pushed into American culture by the KGB through what the KGB thought of as useful idiots -- you know, westerners who loved them some Russian/Soviet dictatorships and thus worked to advance Soviet interests.
Putin has made it clear that he thinks that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy and that he wants to reconstitute it. So now you are trying to sell the idea that this high ranking KGB thug and assassin who wants to resurrect the Soviet Union or a Russian Empire on its lines is now a moral bulwark against the very stuff that the KGB pushed in western society. Pull the other one, as they say.
I never said Putin was the defender of morality. I never said Russia was the god guy. When Empires clash there typically is no "good side," just different degrees of bad. Saying "Russia isn't completely unjustified," (which is what I said) is very different from saying "Putin is a Great Defender of Morality," (which is what you seem to think I said). This stuff about Putin being the agressor is a matter Of perspective. To the Soldiers of the DPR and LPR, Russia is liberating them from a government in Kiev which they view as illegitimate (just look at how Republicans reacted to evidence of Biden's election being fraudulent or how Democrats reacted to the so-called "coup," of January 6th). As for the Civilian casualties, that tends to be unavoidable when fighting in Urban areas with modern weapons. Just look at how many civilians we had to kill to stop Hitler, Saddam, Hirohito or North Korea. have plenty of criticism when it comes to the USSR (not to mention Communist China, the USA, Britain, India and other empires that committed attrocities during the Cold War. Everybody has gallons of innocent blood on their hands) I was just saying this conflict isn't as Black and White as Biden and NATO seem to think it is. From the Kremlin's perspective, they're fighting to stop Zelinsky from re-aserting David's control over Donbass and Crimea. Even if Putin was once a supporter of LGBT stuff, clearly his agenda has changed.
DeleteSaying "Russia isn't completely unjustified," (which is what I said)
DeleteRussia is completely unjustified.
No, Mr. Deco, That's untrue. Russia is supporting Sepratists in Donbass who are trying to avoid being part of George Soros's sphere of influence. Putin isn't a nice guy, but neither is Soros.
DeleteThey support Ukraine because the news and the pundits they follow told them to. They don't think about it more deeply than that.
ReplyDeleteThere are good reasons to support Ukraine, but if you actually have thought it through you will be able to answer questions like "is it justified to arm Ukranian citizens, and do these reasons also apply to arming American citizens?" If you are just acting by regurgitating the current zeitgeist such considerations will never have crossed your mind.
For Rocha in particular it is instructive to watch a debate he did a while back about whether a Catholic can be a socialist. He is presented with Church documents attacking socialism and is asked repeatedly to explain what exactly is being condemned there, if it isn't the socialism that Rocha is advocating for. Rocha never really answers the question, but just gives vague platitudes about socialism being good and not something that would be worth attacking. He's not a deep thinker, and I imagine that his thinking in terms of guns is the same.
I said years ago that the problem the left has is that there is no oversight. The press, education, arts and culture, even many religions that should make such people account for themselves don't. So they are free to be as shallow or wrong or stupid as they feel. I said that in reaction to Richard Dreyfuss (an actor I admire and enjoy and have followed since I was a kid) some yeaars ago. He said something stupid about how an MSNBC host saying he wished Dick Cheney would die was an example of beautiful, civil discourse. How could he be that stupid? Because nobody in a place to call him out did so, since he was in line with the Left. As I've said before, today is what McCarthyism would have looked like if education, media and pop culture would have had McCarthy's back.
DeleteA good thing that gun control was not the order of the day at Tours, Lepanto and Vienna.
ReplyDeleteTours, Lepanto and Vienna were won by professional Soldiers, not armed Civilians. I'm not sure why the issue of Gun Control is relevant when discussing those events
DeleteOk, Tours was won by feudal levies, not just professional Soldiers. Still not sure how gun control would be relevant in 7th century Europe
DeleteRead 'weapons control' for 'gun control' and you will grok his meaning.
DeleteEvery hear of the 'Great Sword Hunt' in 16th century Japan?
I've heard of the great sword hunt.
DeleteThat doesn't change the fact that Lepanto and Vienna were won by professional Soldiers using state-owned weapons. I'm not as familiar with 7th century weapons and military logistics, but I doubt privately-owned weapons were the crucial element. the Umayyad Caliphate had access to cutting-edge weapons and equipment, so I'm guessing Charles Martell probably had a fair amount of state-funded weapons and armor. Otherwise, he would've been beaten.
Rocha is a moron. What else is new?
ReplyDeleteI think the problem isn't intelligence as much as it's the problem with most on the Catholic Left: they can't admit the obvious. One thing I'll say about conservatives is that they admit it. So many who cleave unto the left feel they must deny what is so plain to see.
Delete