Russia and Ukraine

[The Architect Of Fate]

Did you read my link? Boris Johnson, publicly against any peace deals with Russia.

That proves fuck all.

Former US officials confirm peace deal was in place and ready to move forward. Bori Johnson then has a meeting with Zelenskyy, and the peace deal immediately falls apart following the meeting. Put 2 and 2 together, my friend.

So a fish story and circumstantial evidence.....

Jarred Kushner's billions of dollars deal with the Saudis is not corruption either, right?

Non-Sequiter

[Irreligious Atheist]

Did you read my link? Boris Johnson, publicly against any peace deals with Russia.

Boris Johnson saying stuff publicly is evidence for which conspiracy exactly?  
Which part of "Boris Johnson isnt NATOS spokesperson" didnt you parse when Thump told you?`Which part of that do you want me to explain?

Former US officials confirm peace deal was in place and ready to move forward. Bori Johnson then has a meeting with Zelenskyy, and the peace deal immediately falls apart following the meeting. Put 2 and 2 together, my friend.

I am not your friend, and i leave connecting dots to dolts like you.

Jarred Kushner's billions of dollars deal with the Saudis is not corruption either, right?

And you are telling me that my replies are irrelevant?  

It was thumpalumpacus that brought up the idea that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but you are continuing on in that vein by acting like something has to be 100 % proven or one is an idiot for strongly suspecting. Well, I'd like to hear yours and his take on Cosby. Like what was said during the Boris Johnson meeting, it can't be completely proven, but it's pretty darn obvious how things went down, unless you are desperate to convince yourself otherwise. And yes, the UK is a pretty big part of NATO.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It was thumpalumpacus that brought up the idea that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but you are continuing on in that vein by acting like something has to be 100 % proven or one is an idiot for strongly suspecting. Well, I'd like to hear yours and his take on Cosby. Like what was said during the Boris Johnson meeting, it can't be completely proven, but it's pretty darn obvious how things went down, unless you are desperate to convince yourself otherwise. And yes, the UK is a pretty big part of NATO.

So you have nothing then and more whataboutism...

And i repeat trusting Putin to honor an agreement is like sticking your dick in a tank full of piranhas...

[Irreligious Atheist]

It was thumpalumpacus that brought up the idea that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but you are continuing on in that vein by acting like something has to be 100 % proven or one is an idiot for strongly suspecting. Well, I'd like to hear yours and his take on Cosby. Like what was said during the Boris Johnson meeting, it can't be completely proven, but it's pretty darn obvious how things went down, unless you are desperate to convince yourself otherwise. And yes, the UK is a pretty big part of NATO.

So you have nothing then and more whataboutism....

No, what I did was show that Hitchens, while a brilliant man, was incorrect to state what he did, because his argument doesn't take into account cases like Cosby and many other cases. That's not whataboutism. It's me defending against a faulty argument.

[The Architect Of Fate]

No, what I did was show that Hitchens, while a brilliant man, was incorrect to state what he did, because his argument doesn't take into account cases like Cosby and many other cases. That's not whataboutism. It's me defending against a faulty argument.

Actually, he wasn't incorrect and you did engage in whataboutism. But nice try .....

You have nothing serious to back up your claims so we can toss them out as rubbish.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Also any peace deal with Russia that isn't them totally withdrawing from Ukraine and respecting its sovereignty as a state was going to be a shit deal anyway which Putin would never have honored so even if Johnson did it he was right to do so and in no places any blame on NATO for the war nor alters the fact this is a purely about defense. Because peace at any cost is a stupid concept. Especially now that Ukraine's winning and will be in a much stronger position to get Russia off its back. It's sad there had to be so much loss to get there but in the long run, I think Ukraine will be better off than as a Russian puppet state living in fear of being annexed next time Russia gets urged to" Denazify " them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Something can be both self defense and an escalation, no?

In that case, why aren't you crying about Russia escalating the situation by using these bombers? I mean, that wasn't even self-defense.

Why are you pretending that it's either one or the other?

Because if it is an escalation, and it isn't because these planes weren't armed with nukes, then it's one Russia brought upon itself by choosing to attack civilians. But you don't seem to mind that.

It is a NATO attack because the war is being funded by NATO countries and NATO is supplying weaponry, and NATO countries didn't draw any red lines about cutting off funding if Ukraine attacked Russia's nuclear triad directly.

By that logic, the German attack on France was a Czech invasion, because the Germans also used Czech tanks.

You don't have to converse with me. You can stop if you'd like, and you're going to be whiny. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

What heat? Your points are so vapid that the kitchen is frosty. What I don't like doing is wasting my time on idiots. Show me you're not an idiot, and you'll perhaps earn credence. Show me you're not simply happy aping Putin & Medvedev's talking points and hoping no one will notice.

So far it's a big swing-and-a-miss. Convince me that discussing this with you is not a waste of time.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, I'd like to hear yours and his take on Cosby.

Cosby's case was vacated on a technicality in how the evidence was collected. There's plenty of evidence that Cosby committed date rape for decades.

You're new to this thinking stuff, aren't you?

Anyway, enough with your diversionary tactics.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Something can be both self defense and an escalation, no?

In that case, why aren't you crying about Russia escalating the situation by using these bombers? I mean, that wasn't even self-defense.

Why are you pretending that it's either one or the other?

Because if it is an escalation, and it isn't because these planes weren't armed with nukes, then it's one Russia brought upon itself by choosing to attack civilians. But you don't seem to mind that.

It is a NATO attack because the war is being funded by NATO countries and NATO is supplying weaponry, and NATO countries didn't draw any red lines about cutting off funding if Ukraine attacked Russia's nuclear triad directly.

By that logic, the German attack on France was a Czech invasion, because the Germans also used Czech tanks.

You don't have to converse with me. You can stop if you'd like, and you're going to be whiny. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

What heat? Your points are so vapid that the kitchen is frosty. What I don't like doing is wasting my time on idiots. Show me you're not an idiot, and you'll perhaps earn credence. So far it's a big swing-and-a-miss. Convince me that discussing this with you is not a waste of time.

Also if supplying a country with weapons means the country supplying the weapons are the ones attacking. Does that mean Iran,North Korea, and China are all attacking Ukraine? Or is Russia attacking another country every time they sell weapons to another country and that country goes to war? Or is it only NATO this rule applies to I wonder?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also if supplying a country with weapons means the country supplying the weapons are the ones attacking. Does that mean Iran,North Korea, and China are all attacking Ukraine? Or is Russia attacking another country every time they sell weapons to another country and that country goes to war? Or is it only NATO this rule applies to I wonder?

Supplying weapons to a country at war is itself legally an act of war. That much is true.

But equivocating that fact with every individual use of those weapons as acts perpetrated by the supplier(s) is silly.

And you're dead right, IA's entirely quiet about the Iranian supply of attack drones ... probably because that doesn't get mentioned in Kremlin talking points.