The Thriller
Well-Known Member
LOL
I LOVE when people prove me right. I’m just sitting back today and enjoying the popcorn.
I LOVE when people prove me right. I’m just sitting back today and enjoying the popcorn.
The *OFFICIAL* Russia Is About To Invade Ukraine Thread
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
Thanks for reading my post. @fishonjazz just another form of proof that's it's you guy who are the trolls. I've put a lot of work into my rebuttals. What do you and Cy offer? I provide links, I provide insight, I provide my opinions, I countered your bully victim playing with how I come to my conclusions. Now what do you offer here? Bullying and circle jerks(not technically).
We will never see eye to eye but the difference is I can actually explain and articulate my stances. You simply can't.
Last edited:
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
@fishonjazz another example that you guys are afraid of my knowledge.
What have you guys offered outside of bullying? Show me. Or run away which you already did. I'm talking Russia you bully's are talking about me. This all you guys do. Obsess about me and Trump.
The real reason you guys hate me is that I challenge you and you guys can't handle it. Thus post like this. Thriller feening for attention from your high school clique. The popular high school bullies that have yet to mature enough. I was you once but I grew up.
Last edited:
Ukraine is not important enough to go to war for.
Perhaps, yet it is true.
Ukraine is not in NATO.
Red
Well-Known Member
One Brow has repeatedly, and effectively, offered rebuttals to your points. If you want to ignore his points, and you do ignore them, you change the subject and ignore the rebuttals he offered, well, that’s on you. Unlike some, I do read all the exchanges between One Brow and yourself. I like logic, and One Brow uses it to his advantage to offer logical rebuttals to your points. You offer rage. In almost every one of your postings, you offer rage at anyone who does not recognize your genius.
Oh, please. Get real….
Conclusions
While the phrase ‘counterfactual Trump’ may conjure notions of fake news and false election denials, in this article we have gone further by actually overturning the 2020 election, if only analytically. Our counterfactual analysis demonstrates how differences between Trump's and Biden's personalities—their beliefs, traits and the experiences that shaped them—affected the US approach and the response of NATO allies to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Biden's commitment to Ukraine and his views on Russia, combined with his empathy and willingness to listen to advisers, all contributed towards his strong condemnation of Russia and his strong support for Ukraine. His cooperative nature—both in his worldview and his style—were an important part of his multilateral efforts. In contrast, Trump's transactional orientation, his affinity for Putin and his antipathy towards Ukraine, combined with his overly self-confident, exploitative and distrusting nature, would have compelled him towards a different approach, making sustained criticism of Russia, support for Ukraine, free sharing of intelligence and prioritizing European allies very unlikely.
What if? Counterfactual Trump and the western response to the war in Ukraine
This article contrasts Joe Biden and Donald Trump's personalities to argue that the current unified western response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine would
academic.oup.com
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
Disagree, saying I read the onion that had nothing to do with my post(I actually didn't even see that stupid post tbh, I though he was saying my article I posted was satire), calling me a transphobe for being against men in women sports and calling me a Russian propagandist because I said this could lead to WW3, which is factually true.is a dumb answer. What about "Ukraine is not part of NATO" which literally has nothing to do with anything. Like literally anything. I do agree though. I respect the guy for actually being able to debate unlike the rest of you who don't possess the ability or even 1/10th of the knowledge to. Though he is always just opinions and never backs his lies up with factual evidence like I do but at least he's capable unlike fish specifically. He just says stuff without any sort of proof. To be clear, j wasn't talking about Onebrow I was talking specifically about fish, thriller(Cy), log, safety, you, and Gameface. The guys that want me dead and to put in jail(internment camps subconsciously)for my opinions.One Brow has repeatedly, and effectively, offered rebuttals to your points. If you want to ignore his points, and you do ignore them, you change the subject and ignore the rebuttals he offered, well, that’s on you. Unlike some, I do read all the exchanges between One Brow and yourself. I like logic, and One Brow uses it to his advantage to offer logical rebuttals to your points. You offer rage. In almost every one of your postings, you offer rage at anyone who does not recognize your genius.
Oh, please. Get real….
Conclusions
While the phrase ‘counterfactual Trump’ may conjure notions of fake news and false election denials, in this article we have gone further by actually overturning the 2020 election, if only analytically. Our counterfactual analysis demonstrates how differences between Trump's and Biden's personalities—their beliefs, traits and the experiences that shaped them—affected the US approach and the response of NATO allies to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Biden's commitment to Ukraine and his views on Russia, combined with his empathy and willingness to listen to advisers, all contributed towards his strong condemnation of Russia and his strong support for Ukraine. His cooperative nature—both in his worldview and his style—were an important part of his multilateral efforts. In contrast, Trump's transactional orientation, his affinity for Putin and his antipathy towards Ukraine, combined with his overly self-confident, exploitative and distrusting nature, would have compelled him towards a different approach, making sustained criticism of Russia, support for Ukraine, free sharing of intelligence and prioritizing European allies very unlikely.
What if? Counterfactual Trump and the western response to the war in Ukraine
This article contrasts Joe Biden and Donald Trump's personalities to argue that the current unified western response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine would
And "strong condemnation"? Lol get out of here. His weak *** didn't condemn anything. Putin did nothing while Trump was in office yet he mobilized 3 days after Biden lifted sanctions on Nord allowing him sufficient energy. Funny how your article leaves out the vast sanctions Trump put on Russia.
"I think what you're going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do."
-Biden
Meanwhile Trump literally threatened to nuke them.. Which is substantially hardcore and
extremely over the top but it sent a very clear message.
Last edited:
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
An unlike you and fish the bully I actually took the time to read this and it's the biggest fluff piece using now debunked Russia hoax propaganda as it's main base of it's clear bias views. Stuff like Trump's call with Ukraine that we now know Hunter was already being investigated by the FBI who literally hid this info from everyone to hurt Trump. I get accused of being a troll but here I am actually giving you the time unlike any one of you outside of OB.What if? Counterfactual Trump and the western response to the war in Ukraine
This article contrasts Joe Biden and Donald Trump's personalities to argue that the current unified western response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine would
Here is NPR who hates Trump.
That might sound like hyperbole, but in this case, there's actually some basis for the president's boast.
"When you actually look at the substance of what this administration has done, not the rhetoric but the substance, this administration has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era," said Daniel Vajdich, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.
Take military spending: Trump sought to add $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2018 to the European Deterrence Initiative — a military effort to deter Russian aggression that was initially known as the European Reassurance Initiative. That's a 41 percent increase from the last year of the Obama administration. The president also agreed to send lethal weapons to Ukraine — a step that Obama resisted. And Trump gave U.S. forces in Syria more leeway to engage with Russian troops.
The administration has also imposed sanctions on dozens of Russian oligarchs and government officials. And Trump has aggressively promoted U.S. energy exports, although so far that hasn't created much competition for Russia's oil and gas.
"Russian gas sales to Europe last year were at record levels," said Ed Chow, who studies energy and national security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Russians will always have a cost advantage. And if they want to protect market share, all they have to do is lower the price."
View: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/20/630659379/is-trump-the-toughest-ever-on-russia
Last edited:
SteakNEggs
Well-Known Member
What we now know is that Obama was fully aware that Russia was a hoax and that he openly colluded with Hillary and the FBI. I've explained this to you guys @Red who pushed this hoax so it's pointless but this all ties together. Obama literally allowed Russia to meddle in our elections to get Putin's blessing on his Iran Deal. Then he knowingly blamed Trump and his Intelligence helped Hillary cook up this entire thing and you geeks fell for it.... It's all in the Durham report. It's literally admitted...
news.yahoo.com
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Tuesday revealed a bombshell allegation that Hillary Clinton ordered “a campaign plan to stir up a scandal” by linking President Trump to Russia in 2016 — and that then-President Barack Obama knew about her possible role.
Ratcliffe disclosed the information in a letter published by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) just hours before Trump debates Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, who was vice president at the time.
Clinton’s alleged July 2016 plot would tar Trump by “tying him to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee,” Ratcliffe wrote Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
www.snopes.com
K, I'll quit spamming. I'm going golfing. @fishonjazz I look forward to your intelligent response.
Obama cyber chief confirms 'stand down' order against Russian cyberattacks in summer 2016
Obama cyber chief confirms 'stand down' order against Russian cyberattacks in summer 2016
Michael Daniel, Obama White House’s chief cyber official testified that proposals he was developing to counter Russia’s attack on the U.S. presidential election were put on a “back burner” after he was ordered to “stand down” his efforts in the summer of 2016.
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Tuesday revealed a bombshell allegation that Hillary Clinton ordered “a campaign plan to stir up a scandal” by linking President Trump to Russia in 2016 — and that then-President Barack Obama knew about her possible role.
Ratcliffe disclosed the information in a letter published by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) just hours before Trump debates Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, who was vice president at the time.
Clinton’s alleged July 2016 plot would tar Trump by “tying him to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee,” Ratcliffe wrote Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Did Obama Suggest 'More Flexibility' Toward Russia After the 2012 Election?
In 2012, President Obama was overheard over a hot microphone telling President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia he would have "more flexibility" to negotiate with Putin after the election.
Did Obama Suggest 'More Flexibility' Toward Russia After the 2012 Election?
In 2012, Barack Obama was overheard telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev he would have "more flexibility" to negotiate with Putin after the election.
www.snopes.com
K, I'll quit spamming. I'm going golfing. @fishonjazz I look forward to your intelligent response.
Last edited:
I obviously worded my post poorly there. Your comment reminded me of the contents of the Onion article so very clearly and obviously that I saw you making the satire of the article real. I did not mean to imply that you had or had not read the article. My statement was in support of the notion that satirizing your positions are difficult, because they are so extreme.
I'm against men in women's sports. You're a transphobe because you identify trans women as being men.
A propagandist would know that they are repeating propaganda. I don't know if you do or not, which is why I said you repeated propaganda (which is factually true, notice Putin and his allies are the only ones saying it). I did not call you a Russian propagandist.
It does mean that when Biden talks about US soldiers defending NATO countries, it has no bearing on US soldiers defending Ukraine.
I've been offering more links in my posts lately, but you just seem to blow right by them.
You have mis-explained, asserting evidence that is not there and asserting support from the Durham report that it does not give you.
Obama cyber chief confirms 'stand down' order against Russian cyberattacks in summer 2016
Michael Daniel, Obama White House’s chief cyber official testified that proposals he was developing to counter Russia’s attack on the U.S. presidential election were put on a “back burner” after he was ordered to “stand down” his efforts in the summer of 2016.
This article is confirming the item you are saying is a hoax. It is disconfirming your position.
How confused do you have to be to say "Trump debates Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, who was vice president at the time"?
JimLes
Well-Known Member
My wife works at an emergency women's shelter. I could tell you all kinds of horrifying stories for hours, but I'm sure you can imagine. If you can't, I'm sure you know how to use Google.
An amazing thing about women's shelters is that they don't engage in whataboutism or moral judgement. The women coming in are flawed. Some have addiction issues, some have criminal records, some are rude to the staff and "ungrateful" for the services provided. Some of them do things like break curfew(there is one due to safety concerns, obviously), some of them endanger everyone by revealing the location of the shelter to other people---including their abuser, some of them come with kids they're obviously abusive to.
None of this matters. The shelter offers abused women a temporary sanctuary and services to hopefully find a permanent exit from their situation. The shelter does not serve as some kind of an arbiter of morality, or some impartial observer, or the devil's advocate. The shelter is on the side of the abused women. None of the stuff above matters because no one, no one deserves to be beaten over the head with a 2x4 to the point where the standard-issue winter hat from the shelter can't fit over their head because of swelling. This should not be a controversial statement.
No, @SteakNEggs , you're not being bullied. You are saying idiotic things and then complaining that people are calling you out for saying idiotic things. You talking about Ukraine's corruption and flawed democracy is whataboutism. Full stop. Ukraine does not deserve a brutal invasion, war crimes, and the denial of the very right for their nation to exist simply because they're less democratic or more corrupt than your country. I say that as someone writing from a country that's undoubtedly less corrupt and more democratic than yours, and as someone coming from a country that's less democratic and more corrupt than say...New Zealand.
You can refute everything point by point as you claim until the cows come home, that doesn't mean a thing because your basic premises are logical fallacies. Whether or not Fish or Thriller are being overly mean about it doesn't have any bearing on that fact. You're not anti-war, you're just anti-Ukraine and you're trying to obfuscate that by pretending to be "neutral." Just give it up already.
An amazing thing about women's shelters is that they don't engage in whataboutism or moral judgement. The women coming in are flawed. Some have addiction issues, some have criminal records, some are rude to the staff and "ungrateful" for the services provided. Some of them do things like break curfew(there is one due to safety concerns, obviously), some of them endanger everyone by revealing the location of the shelter to other people---including their abuser, some of them come with kids they're obviously abusive to.
None of this matters. The shelter offers abused women a temporary sanctuary and services to hopefully find a permanent exit from their situation. The shelter does not serve as some kind of an arbiter of morality, or some impartial observer, or the devil's advocate. The shelter is on the side of the abused women. None of the stuff above matters because no one, no one deserves to be beaten over the head with a 2x4 to the point where the standard-issue winter hat from the shelter can't fit over their head because of swelling. This should not be a controversial statement.
No, @SteakNEggs , you're not being bullied. You are saying idiotic things and then complaining that people are calling you out for saying idiotic things. You talking about Ukraine's corruption and flawed democracy is whataboutism. Full stop. Ukraine does not deserve a brutal invasion, war crimes, and the denial of the very right for their nation to exist simply because they're less democratic or more corrupt than your country. I say that as someone writing from a country that's undoubtedly less corrupt and more democratic than yours, and as someone coming from a country that's less democratic and more corrupt than say...New Zealand.
You can refute everything point by point as you claim until the cows come home, that doesn't mean a thing because your basic premises are logical fallacies. Whether or not Fish or Thriller are being overly mean about it doesn't have any bearing on that fact. You're not anti-war, you're just anti-Ukraine and you're trying to obfuscate that by pretending to be "neutral." Just give it up already.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
The more I learn about the Kakhovka dam's destruction and the aftermath, the more convinced I am that Ukraine was the party responsible for the dam's breech. I don't want that to be true but I'm becoming more convinced that it is true.
The breech of the dam does little to Ukrainian positions but ruins the Russian trench networks and minefileds south of the river. It destroys Russian forward ammo stores. As the reservoir turns back into a river, it more than doubles the length where a crossing can happen. It also cuts Crimea off from water.
The breech of the dam does little to Ukrainian positions but ruins the Russian trench networks and minefileds south of the river. It destroys Russian forward ammo stores. As the reservoir turns back into a river, it more than doubles the length where a crossing can happen. It also cuts Crimea off from water.
Then you should be relieved. The evidence is that the dam was broken by an internal explosion, not shelling, and Russians were in control of the dam.
Not Kakhovka Dam alone: Russia destroys dams in occupied Zaporizhzhia oblast
While western media largely ‘play safe’ and report that Kyiv and Moscow ‘are blaming each other’ for the horrific disaster, the Russian invaders are actively destroying other dams in occupied parts of Zaporizhzhia oblast
khpg.org
The breech does a lot to slow Ukrainian advances (as opposed to hurting current positions) and kill Ukrainians.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Yes. It was not shelling. Also, the Russians had destroyed the road on the Kherson side of the dam so they could retain control of the dam itself. The explosion that caused the breech of the dam was clearly on the Russian side. All of that is true. It makes it very easy to place blame on the Russians for this act.
Cui bono? The Ukrainians do have the underwater demolitions capability to blow up a Nord-Stream pipeline or to get an explosive device into the hydroelectric inlet pipe. I have underestimated the stupidity of the Russian military actions before so you may be correct, but this hurts Russia a lot more than it hurts Ukraine.
The dam break is going to be an ecological disaster for decades to come.
It is a war crime to destroy dams where there is a risk to civilians. I'm pretty sure this was done by the Russians (they controlled the dam and previously announced that they had mined it to prevent the Ukrainians from trying to take it) but I don't care who it was when it comes to holding them accountable for this.
It is a war crime to destroy dams where there is a risk to civilians. I'm pretty sure this was done by the Russians (they controlled the dam and previously announced that they had mined it to prevent the Ukrainians from trying to take it) but I don't care who it was when it comes to holding them accountable for this.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Ya im wondering if the dam is still ok if russia never invades ukraine. Im guessing it would be.
I've posted one of this guys videos before and he is one of my regular sources for updates. He is very biased in favor of Ukraine and the U.S. (he's a former U.S. Airforce Missileer officer who worked in Nuclear Missile Silos) but his updates are pretty good and I really enjoy them.
In this one he breaks down in significant detail why he believes Russia is responsible for destroying the dam and, well, it's pretty damning (pun intended).
In this one he breaks down in significant detail why he believes Russia is responsible for destroying the dam and, well, it's pretty damning (pun intended).