Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
>>>It will be interesting what this twosome will have to say under OATH.
Isn’t going to happen. The J6 committee is clearly uninterested in hearing from now. They did speak to them more than once in the past in an effort to find dirt on Trump but now that they may be saying something that weakens the value of a testimony against him they are avoiding these people like the plague.
>>>Who says that you have to follow the liberal agenda? They provide help to the poor as a springboard to find a job and not like their opponents advocating ‘sink or swim’.
Helping the poor through the confiscation of other people’s money isn’t chesed. It is theft.
What does the Gemorah say about “Chesed Lumim Chatos?”
Trump is going to pretend and hint that he is running until the last minute . His ego loves the speculation and false hopes among his base.
When it comes down to it, it is lot les likely that he will do so.
For two reasons:
(1)His ego won’t be able to take it if he loses again
(2)He can’t risk the mainstream Republicans turning on him more than they already did. He doesn’t need any former Republican allies looking to get him out the way turning to Democrats with something they “remember” Trump told them that can cause him major legal trouble. There is just a limit to how far you can stretch the value of negative attention when your former allies turn on you.
The above assumes Trump is still capable of rational thought. I’m uncertain that is still the case.
>>>TDS at it’s finest!
No other president has garnered so much attention while outside of officeAlmost all of that attention is being given to him by his enemies. If he didn’t have so many of them and they didn’t have their own self serving motives for giving it to him that attention he would not be heard from any more than say Obama.
One thing is certain. The January 6th Committee clearly does not want any outside scrutiny. Not even by friendly groups. Their absolute refusal to hand over the transcripts of the interviews they conducted to the DOJ which is completely on their side is just another indication that they have something to hide or info they hiding because it does not help their narrative.
Most poskim do not admit blood tests as evidence that a husband is not the father of his wife’s children and cause mamzerus issues. I have no idea where the fathers were (or weren’t) in the story but one of them probably objected. Particularly if you understand that the Posuk calling the women zonos is to be understood with the usual meaning.
According to the other opinion mentioned in Chazal that they were mother in law and daughter in law pair , both husbands were dead and it was a question of the DIL doing Yibum. If so what would a DNA test have helped? Either way it would show relationship with the MIL . She was either the baby’s mother or grandmother. (the MIL was in fact the actual mother)
If you are doing multiple choice and don’t know the answer don’t do just guess any of them. First eliminate the wrong answers, then guess
>>> Because I think if BLM stormed the capitol in January 2017 to prevent Trump’s inauguration, you would agree that it was worse than other riots.
Had I been given the choice of BLM storming the capitol in January 2017 to prevent Trump’s inauguration or the actual BLM riots where over twenty people were killed and over twenty billion dollars in damages were done and all sort of pro crime anti police law resulted
I absolutely would have preferred them storming the capitol in January 2017 to prevent Trump’s inauguration. A thousand times overThe main difference between the two (for liberals) boils down to the liberal belief of “the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is which side you are on” . (The actual difference of course is that terrorists target civilians whereas freedom fighters only target military and other government representatives of the occupying forces)
There is no justification for their ignoring riots where over twenty people were murdered and over twenty billion dollars of damage were done. Given the choice between the capital riots happening again or the BLM riots happening again I’ll take the capital riots any day.
The Democrats have thrown their “root cause” ideology out the window for the capital riots. The belief that riots perpetrators behavior is attributable to some kind of societal dysfunction that needs to be addressed did not even get a mention in all the media obsession with January 6.
The question of what drove so many people to get riled up by the idea of election fraud should be a major question for liberals. How can there be such a mass distrust of government and media that Trump is so easily able to peddle such claims is not a question the January 6 commission, in their ostensible efforts to prevent such things from happening in the future, will even consider.
The BLM rioters were handsomely rewarded with liberals sending hundreds or thousands of people to their deaths to die for “defund the police” and other liberal antipolice pro crime ideology. The capital rioters were treated in a way that will probably make them even more radical and hostile to the government
>>>You can be sure Barr has the information and can assess whether an investigation has been adequate.
This and the rest of your comment basically boils down to “you know how you can you know there was no fraud? Because they said so”
No surprise that people who don’t trust the government (with good reason if I may add) aren’t willing to accept it .
>>>Maybe he deluded himself, that’s a charitable way to put it. If he was really deluded and ignored data and his officials, then he is not fit to be president.
And maybe the Democrats really have a lot of blame for this particularly with how easy it was for Trump to get his supporters to believe the election was stolen. Maye they have good reason for not trusting the government which the January 6 commission is only adding to
Let’s start from the beginning
What investigations were undertaken regarding claims of fraud in the election in 2020. Who was in charge? In what states? What types of fraud were looked at? When did these investigations begin? When did they end?
What investigative techniques were used? How many search warrants? Any grand juries empaneled? Where? Did any of them issue subpoenas? Was a final report issued? If so why hasn’t it been made public?
I have no idea about any of the questions above. But I do know that Mr Mueller toke a tremendous amount of time and effort with the full weight of the government and media behind him to investigate completely false allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Had he shot down those allegations as quickly as quickly and operating in as much secrecy as they were shot down in 2020 you would still have many Democrats saying and believing those allegations. More importantly were those involved ever punished for setting the precedent of questioning elections by falsely alleging fraud that Trump was following? Were there hearings then about how to prevent it in the future?
And again I’m anti-Trump but I don’t see the Democrats as being the pro Democracy good guys in the story.
>>>Dear Smerel, etc
How many times do I have to repeat that I am NOT a Trump supporter?
My opposition to Trump however does not make me blind to the repeated wrongdoings and dishonesty of the other side. And right now they are the ones sounding off , not Trump.
>>>Smerel: you acknowledge Trump probably did lots of treif things. Yet you skewer and discredit all investigations as corrupt and political. They are working with a handicap because Trump and many of his top supporters have not cooperated.
Only an idiot would cooperate with a investigation when he knows that those who are making it aren’t out for truth but are out to get him. There are plenty of things they could and would have done to work around such distrust if they were looking to do an honest investigation like (1)stress that we don’t know the outcome (2)appoint DEMOCRATS who weren’t long term passionate Trump enemies (3)have oversight and transparency which conducting the investigation (4) have this as an actual hearing with the Trump side being given the ability to be present and question the what is being presented etc.etc.etc.
The way things really were done I don’t think they were even TRYING to make a fair investigation, give accurate information or determine the causes of January in an effort to prevent them from happening again.
I’m being very charitable to both sides by saying Trump seems to have deluded himself into thinking that he really won the election and still thinks that way now. The January 6 committee seems to have deluded themselves into thinking they are impartial investigators honestly presenting an impeccable case against Trump for altruistic motives.
For the good of America’s future as a democracy cooler and more honest heads need to prevail.
>>>4) The 174 traitors in the republican party that voted on January 6th (after the riots) to overturn the election results.
As if two of the most vocal members of the January 6th commission (Jamie Raskin & Bennie Thomspn ) didn’t try to do the exact same thing in 2016 not to certify Trump.
As is another member of the commission Adam Schff didn’t spend years trying to get rid of Trump by telling us baseless false claims that he had proof of Russian collusion and election fraud resulting in Trump getting elected. And Trump probably really deluded himself into thinking he won the election. Adam Schiff for all his self righteousness probably realized that he was lying when he claimed to have evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 elections
Even if I were capable of believing everything the January 6 commission is saying is true it wouldn’t change the fact that the Democrats spent years engaging in very similar behavior to get rid of Trump. It is only being viewed as a threat to democracy now becuae the other side allegedly did it.
>>>And so, some on this blog would have us believe that the Jan 6 insurrection was merely a walk in the park, verily a picnic with just a few rowdy boys.
No one said that
>>>Obviously they didn’t watch t.v. that day in which our wonderful democracy almost was lost.
Sure. American democracy was almost lost by thigs breaking into the capital. There was a real chance that they were going to install a new government. I’m so glad it didn’t happen and so terrified it will happen again.
>>>smerel, I’m voting Democratic since my main issue right now is preservation of Democracy.
If you truly believe that you need to vote Democratic to preserve it is time for you to drinking the kool-aid.
One of my many issues with the Democratic party is that they are trying to hard to “other” Republicans that they are risking major danger
. When Biden and co say stupid proactive things like “MAGA is the ‘most extreme political organization’ in recent U.S. history” it is far more likely to marginalize and raise extremism among that group than moderate it or cause it to disappear. For a few votes from people who think like you he is willing to risk
(1)creating a self fulfilling prophecy
(2)creating very fertile grounds for dangerous demagogues on either side to step in and cause havoc.
This is aside for the general issues like the Democratic party used to be the party of tolerance and acceptance. Now it is the party of hate
>>>Smerel, so you’re fixed in your views: if they were all democrats, it must be a witch hunt. If there are any republicans then they must be sell-outs
Totally not the case. Had Pelosi also picked Republicans who hadn’t very strongly expressed their opinion that Trump is guilty and whatever else the Democrats party line is before they were chosen then I would give the commission the benefit of the doubt. It’s current makeup is about as objective as a KKK lynch mob running after a black man accused of raping a white women. The black man may be guilty but they are still a lynch mob.
>>>At least there are 2 republicans participating who have every political incentive NOT to participate
They were only selected to be on the commission they had both very clearly and strongly expressed their view that Trump is guilty.
Liz Cheney is making MILLIONS of millions dollars from liberal donors for being on the committee. Adam Kinzinger (who the Democrats gerrymandered out of future office) is a guy who no one ever would have heard of had he not joined the committee but now (along with Cheney) is getting an enormous amount of attention and kovod from the media.
They both have very bright future careers on MSNBC and other such sites bad mouthing the Republicans. Ever since they joined the committee they have both picked so many fights with other Republicans (about unrelated issues) that they are both clearly angling for those positions.
They are NOT people of principle (It’s possible they once were but once you join such corrupt commissions all principles and morals are out the window)
>>>Also, why would they gather so much evidence and hear over a thousand testimonials, to just go with such a basic premise?
Because they are Looking for more excuses to harass and more information to incriminate their political opponents and sifting through it to make sure to AVOID presenting any other evidence. The January 6th committee is already guilty of presenting altered documents to the public. Does anyone think they would hesitate to do so again?
Does anyone think that if the Republicans made a similar investigation into the Democrats who supported The Steele Dossier or other completely baseless and outright fabricated attempts to remove the legally elected president of the US (Trump) it would look so different from what the January 6 commission will tell us?
I don’t watch the Republican or Democratic national conventions because I’m not interested in party line propaganda meant to whip the party faithful into a frenzy. Any important new proposals being made I’ll hear about the next day. What makes this any different?
Let me tell you in advance what they will tell us “Trump conspired to overthrows Democracy … he and other Republicans… this is a danger to American democracy… we need to….”
They been telling us that for over a year and a half already. Even before the committee started the committee members told us that. So if I left anything out let me know tomorrow …
Does anyone believe that if they came across counterevidence to the narrative in the first paragraph above or even non counterevidence but something that takes the blame off Trump and Republicans exclusively and puts some on their friends instead they will share that with us?
>>>The reason why all America tuned in on May 17th 1973 to the Watergate Hearings is because there was no Fox news.
Um.. no…
The Watergate committee was careful to include Nixon supporters and to avoid including any passionate Nixon enemies to ensure that they would conduct a fair and unbiased investigation. The January 6th committee did the exact opposite. The ONLY included passionate Trump enemies to ensure that it would NOT be a fair and unbiased investigation.
Therefore people trusted and cared about what the Watergate commission said. As opposed to the January 6th commission which is just political theater and people using their government platform to repeat to us what they already told us ad nauseum before the investigation even started
The January 6th commission has no purpose or focus other than creating more divisiveness, more distrust of the “others” in America, more of a precedent of the party in the majority using their power to as a political tool to conduct compelled interrogations of those who are in the minority etc.
That is terrible for the US and it’s future democracy as a whole.
Note I personally am a Trump opponent so don’t start lecturing me about how terrible Trump and Republicans are or assume I get my views from Fox News and Sean Hannity. Even so I still the January 6th commission as a danger to America.
>>>I have a half sister who I didnt know existed and was only seen once , and that was nearly 60 years ago. Why would I sit shiva
In such a case I wouldn’t be menachem avel if there was a major inconvenience to me. My SIL had such a sister. I’m not sure if she knew of her sisters existence or not but I certainly didn’t. No mention of her having a sister was made when she married into the family or any time later.
When that sister died I was not menachem avel. It would have been a whole day shlep and I felt that if her family never acknowledged her existence during her lifetime I don’t have to do so after her death.
>>>You need to wait for the avol to start the conversation. You should not.
Aside for that he murmured words of acknowledgment I was told by Rav Moshe Heineman that if an avel leaves the door and allows people into the house and is sitting in a manner of being prepared for conversation you don’t need to wait for him to initiate conversation. Ask your LOR but when an avel is looking at you waiting and expecting you to say something I don’t think it is correct to remain silent because he is
I had a situation a few months ago where a neighbors 10 year old daughter was killed in a car crash. Even worse his wife was the one driving. She lost control of the car and flew into a highway guard rail I barely know him and certainly didn’t know his daughter but of course went to be menachem avel.
Given the tragic circumstances I expected to find a big crowd on the Sunday morning when I showed but it was almost empty so I had to sit down directly across from. Being that at the time I had never sat Shiva myself I was at a lost for words when he looked at me expectantly. What was I supposed to say?
Now that I sat Shiva myself I’m more familiar with what to do. I would started off with “I’m so sorry that this is the circumstances that I’m here for…” and gauged his response and cues for what to say further. If I sensed he was no longer interested in me “I would have said “let me go take some mishnoyis…Hamokom Yinachem Eschem…” and made a slow exit
I recently sat Shiva. Not sure why anyone who knew neither the nifteras not the avelim would have come to be menchem avel (don’t remember any such people) but anyone and everyone who came was and is appreciated.
What is and was awkward was people who I knew vaguely coming and just sitting and sitting there after the conversation ran dry (usually because they were waiting for someone)
IMHO if you go to be Menachem avel with your wife, make up with her to wait for her on the porch/front of the house if you finish first. And if you primarily know one of the aveilim but due to the seating situation end up near one of the avelim you only know vaguely and the conversation has run dry, just get up and say “let me see if can go over to…”
>>>No need to change the second amendment. Just follow it. Either interpret it the way it was interpreted for centuries as applying to a “milita” and not individual.
That wasn’t the understanding for centuries. It was one supreme court ruling in 1939 that took that position. All the other many supreme court cases on this issue came to the oppisite conclusion The US never faced a legal effort to implement total gun control and a simple reading of
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
pretty clearly give individuals the right own guns as opposed to referring exclusively to a militia. Otherwise it would say “the right of the militia member to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” It is these type of interpretations that I’m concerned about. Once things are stretched beyond their simple meaning you can discard the constitution
Until relatively recently I was very pro gun control. My only issue was that changing the second amendment is a very dangerous precedent. Obama’s sneering comment about “those who cling to guns and religion” should tell you where the next step after overthrowing the second amendment would be
I changed my mind to oppose strict gun control after the George Floyd riots. Those riots caused me to realize that the line of “one day a gun may be your only protection so don’t let them take it away ” is true.
The over twenty people murdered in those riots were not killed with legal guns. The footage and pictures of a riots where entire business districts were destroyed except for the one store where the owner had a gun and stood on the roof of his store brandishing it also made me rethink my opposition to gun ownership.
People say they “only the US has mass shootings” Aside for that not being true it ignores that the US is also from the few countries that tolerates riots like the George Floyd riots so it’s citizens have more reason to be armed than the the citizens of other countries.
And while the media of course only tells you about mass shootings that (preferably) took place with legal guns and cover up the skyrocketing shootings and murders in the aftermath of the anti-police laws passed after the George Floyd protests, in places that all have VERY strict gun laws, those murders made me question how effective gun control really is.
I still support gun control laws that exclusively focus on weeding out people who present a clear and present danger if they owned a gun (as opposed to most gun control laws –at least in NYS that make so many technical difficulties in owning a legal gun there is no point in trying) I support the following gun control laws (1)national registry for buying a gun that does not allow felons to own a gun and requires felons who own them to hand them back. (2)a two week wait between the purchase and acquisition of a gun (3) only licensed gun dealers may sell guns and much stricter penalties and enforcement for non licensed sales or possession (4)raise the legal possession of gun ownership to 20 UNLESS the person owning the gun is in the army or police training
I’m no fan party of either party. I usually (not always) vote Republican as the lesser of the two evils.
If the Republican win the midterm election they will slow the American decline. With all their faults the Republicans won’t be pushing for policies that are anti-religion, pro crime, anti work etc.
In the end the US is going to fall apart anyway . The Democrats will accelerate the process. The Republicans not as much.
>>>However, I’ve heard that in IRL the Jew was in fact the hero of the story, and Shakespeare made him into the villain only because he knew that in those anti Semitic times no one would show to a play in which the Jew was the good guy, and that he was not in fact an anti Semite
I’ve seen the claim that the Jew was the hero of the story and Shakespeare changed the roles is a Marcus Lehman. I question if the story ever happened to begin with that anyone had any role in it.
As far as Shakespeare himself is concerned the excuse sounds like all the Germans who said after the war “we only members of the Nazi party for business purposes” And in the case of the Germans some of them really didn’t actively do anything other than belong to the Nazi party whereas Shakespeare personally wrote anti-Semitic works
>>>After an enjoyable two hour shmooze on the topic, not one chabadsker will say anything like the Rebbe has replaced God.
Catholics don’t say that Yoske replaced God either. They give him a quasi status similar to that which some in Chabad seem to give their leader.
And of course no Chabadsker is going to admit to an outsider like me having such views. I personally was in attendance at fabrengans in 770 where the crowd was warned not to share some of their views with non Chabadskers because it stops the spreading of Lubavitch
>>>If you think you understand the chassidishe velt because you learned a little chassidishe seforim and went to Torah Vodaas then that might be the reason you think Chabad is not rooted in precedent from Chassidishe thought.
Don’t give me this “you don’t understand” apologetics. The leader of the Chabad movement himself when he introduced the “atzmius” concept explicitly said that it isn’t something he saw in any Chassidishe Seforim.
And say you are right that I don’t understand it. Do you think I’m the only one who doesn’t? Do you think no one in Chabad takes it even more literally than I do? I’ve heard plenty of chabad educators give speeches about how we need to take the “rebbe” for what he says. I’ve never seen any chabad educator speaking to a Chabad crowd emphasize that עצמות ומהות מלובש בגוף is not to be understood the way it sounds and that it would be a terrible aveira to do so.
>>>Please name one chabad rabbi (who does not belong in a mental rehab) who chas vshalom says that the Rebbe is Hashem.
They don’t say that the Rebbe is Hashem but they talk about him as if he were.
And yes some of them refer to him as עצמות ומהות מלובש בגוף R’L Something the rebbe himself made up. Some say that they don’t mean it literally . Others not so much.
There are very few issues that I want to be proven wrong and made a fool out of myself for saying like this one
It is true that in Chabad they have lifted their leader almost to the point of deification R’L but they aren’t going to listen to any outside group who attempts to set them straight . There are few groups in the frum world who are as willing to ignore the vehement opposition of other groups as Chabad. BUT their result should be a lesson to all of us that you should not just ignore vehement opposition from Talmedey Chachomim from other groups
Democrats are addicted to Trump. Or more accurately they are addicted to HATING Trump.
If they ignored him he would go away. He has no power to do anything affecting anyone’s life anymore. He was thrown off Twitter and social media. etc.
But the Democrats remain obscessed with him. When I go on Internet explorer for news there are more stories about Trump than about Biden. All of those stories are written by people who clearly hate Trump.
It’s clear that the Democrats need him for two reason (1) a major part of their identity revolves around hating Trump (2)they want him as the bogeyman so the party faithful continue to vote for them.
Note: I can’t stand Trump either but I think if he would be ignored he would no longer be anymore relevant than say Bill Clinton
>>>If not for covid Trump would have won
That is true but his behavior after the election doomed his chances in 2024.
Had he acted like Stacy Abrams and said “I don’t accept that I lost the election but realize that I won’t be the next governor of Georgia” and moved on he would have had a good chance in 2024.
But two years of talking about a stolen election don’t endear you to anyone. Is 2024 about what the voters want or a referendum on whether 2020 was stolen or not?
I don’t think Trump will run again . The winds are blowing against him even in the Republican party. The crowds who are coming to his rallies are getting smaller. His ego will not be able to take another loss.
>>>Haaretz is the Zionist version of Der Sturmer.
You would be hard pressed to find a more ANTI Zionst publication than Haaretz
>>>Rav Avrohom Pam ZTVK”L signed a letter supporting R. Helbrans, etc.
Without context this is motzey shem ra.
At the the time Helbrans had a Yeshiva in Boro Park that was relatively mainstream . He was facing accusations of kidnapping someone who lived in his house. Helbrans claimed he was hosting a troubled youth who was running away from a dysfunctional family . The teenager involved (then an adult) who was not a follower of Helbrans and not living with him anymore consistently backed up Helbrans side of of the story. As far as I know he still does. The letter of support was limited to that court case. Not any type of controversy that Lev Tohor was involved (at that point in time they weren’t involved in any)
Without context this is motzey shem ra.
The question sure seems like a troll question but I’ll answer it anyway.
These days the term cult (which the question makes no effort to define) is used so broadly that it frequently really boils to “members of a group with strong opinions or a lifestyle you dislike”
As such pretty much any group can be accused of being a cult. Or one could can question if joining a cult is really such a bad idea. If you can enhance your life by joining a group that others consider to be a cult I would say go right ahead (assuming the only real issue with the group is that others accuse it’s members of being cultists)
A cult is only bad and a cult when there is a charismatic leader knowingly misusing the trust of his followers for his own benefit. An example of such a guy is Reverends Moon . A guy who misleads his followers to terrible results because he believes what he is saying is not a cult leader. An example of such a guy is an atheistic scientist.
>>>I’ve often heard that farmers hate DST since the extra hour of sunlight is harmful to the crops.
Obviously you never heard that because DST doesn’t add sunlight but what is true is that some farmers don’t like DST because it means the dew defrosts an hour later in the work day causing problems for their work day schedules.
I’m not expecting any sympathy for the frum world who doesn’t like year round DST because of Netz but how can anyone ignore the plight of the Muslims who will need to fast a extra hour every day for a month when Ramadam falls out in the winter?
>>>I am talking about a whole universe of science as presented by hundreds of papers written by probably thousands of people. You seem to dismiss them all
I don’t dismiss them all but I also don’t think that a scientific peer reviewed paper about something that can’t be proven true with a clear cause and effect, where there are many unknown factors and only certain types of evidence are admissible in reaching that conclusion represents truth.
>>>You seem to dismiss them all, without presenting a specific argument.
Scientists frequently do that about things like (but not limited to) overwhelming anecdotal evidence against them.
>>>I can only think that this is based on internal feeling that we, Yidden, know and understand something important that others don’t.
I work in a non-Jewish professional office and interact with non-Jews most of the day . I’ve never met a non-Jew who had the incredible degree of Emunas Chachim in scientists and Emunah Pesutah
in various scientific claims like I see on the ostensibly frum science oriented blogs and forums>>>smerel, I would like to understand the source of your looking down at all the official information.
>>> just because you got yeshiva education and know how to browse internet does not necessarily mean that you understand facts better.
I certainly don’t think I know more or better than a guy like Fauci does. However unlike two years ago I no longer put lying and misleading the public past him (he admit lying and misleading the public for “the greater good” at least twice during Corona)
And Fauci for all his faults is from the good guys compared to some of the more power hungry hypocritical politicians who claimed to speak in the name of science and for health
Therefore if they suggest something that does not seem cost effective to me I see no reason to listen to them.
>>>u have a pblm with science. all it is , is give you FACTS.
don’t like facts? r u an ostrich?
they don’t like the truth and facts, so they hide their face in dirt.
be my guestWhoa! Defensive much here even though no one attacked you.
I won’t change your mind but (1)science does not give facts. They give their interpretation of phenomena and sometimes claim they are facts. Sometimes they are sometime they aren’t (2)Someone so scientifically educated should know that ostriches don’t hide their face in dirt. It’s an ancient scientific belief that we have far advanced from. They use their beaks to check on their eggs buried in the ground and in times of danger lower their heads partially in the ground to protect it.
But whatever…
>>>such scepticism predates Covid.
Before Covid I was skeptical of government and “science” but felt that due to the lack of alternative and better information source you may as well go along with most of what they say
Today what they say means as much to me as a advertisement saying “Drink Pepsi”
>>>After taking over crimea, donbas and invading Ukraine , they have ZERO LEGITIMACY.
Do you know the Russian talking point justification for doing so? Like always and like ALL countries who make military invasions they claimed it was a defense maneuver .
In this particular case when you have a hostile military alliance (NATO) coming closer and closer to Russian borders they are lot more justified in claiming defense purposes than in many other military conflicts where the western views supports the invaders and claims of defense .
I stopped accepting the Western view about every conflict over thirty years ago because of this very conflict. Back then there was a question of Russia keeping Ukraine by force. The US of course was screaming against it. Gorbachev responded “The United States did the same thing and a lot, lot worse during the Civil War” The more research I did into the Civil War the more I came to realize that with all the American excuse (like Fort Sumter) Gorbachev was making an accurate analogy.
Getting back to this conflict going on now. When you have a military alliance (NATO) constantly moving closer to a country they are hostile to (Russia) with no other ostensible conflict at hand the hostile military alliance (NATO) has plenty of fault when a larger conflict erupts over it.
This is my last post on this thread.
>>>Nations are literally standing in line to get into Nato, while nobody stands in line to partner with Russia
From the Russian point of view it is for a simple reason. They no longer have a militaristic alliance like NATO moving from country to country. When Putin and the Russians say “we disbanded the Warsaw Pact why does the West continue the militaristic buildup of NATO?” there is legitimacy behind what they are saying.
>>>If I was a Russian I would be asking myself the following.
No you wouldn’t. If you be Russian you would probably agree with the over seventy percent of Russians who see the enlargement of NATO as a threat to them and like most Russian be happy you have a leader like Putin who is willing to do something about it.
Russians like citizens of the US and ALL countries only support their country going to war when they believe they are facing some threat otherwise. Putin doesn’t have seventy percent support for the invasion because people are dying to dominate Ukraine .
The reason this invasion did not happen when Trump was president was because for all his faults Trump understood Putin’s point of view and was careful not to provoke him.
You can scream about Trump being too friendly and soft with Putin but the end of the day Putin invaded Crimea under Obama and Ukraine under Biden. Nowhere under Trump. So apparently Trump’s friendly way of dealing with Putin really was better
>>>Now Biden has practically done nothing and he is being called a coward. Isn’t this what the conservatives wanted?
I STILL don’t think Biden should do anything but once he got involved beforehand and spent weeks goading Putin to invade by telling us that Putin is about to do so and worse after sending US troops to bolster NATO in early February which caused an escalation of the crises his current lack of involvement is deserving of criticism.
>>>Paul Gosar and MTG spoke at a pro Russia white nationalist event led by well known anti semite Nick Fuentes.
The event they attended wasn’t inherently anti-Semitic and neither of them said anything remotely anti-Semitic at the event. I have no idea what MTG and PG privately think but one thing is certain: The Jewish community making a major about an event they attended and calling them anti-Semites is guaranteed to send them in that direction.
>>>One can only imagine the large OUTRAGE headline if it was AOC or Ilhan Omar.
I don’t remember any large OUTRAGE headline over AOC or Ilhan Omar attending events organized by anti-Semites. And they do so all the time!
>>>Is antisemitism merely a tool to use against political enemies?
Quite ironic that you would ask that question because that is exactly what you are doing with this post
>>>Smerel: Why blame NATO? Part of the purpose of NATO is to deter aggressors from invading sovereign countries
Not really. Officially the UN peacekeepers do that and even they don’t really do so.
NATO was formed to protect anti Russian countries. From the Russian perspective when they are moving their troop closer and closer to the Russian they are the aggressors. There was no conflict that precipitated those moves. Putin is correct to see it as a move against him and to respond.
As above how would the US react to military “peacekeepers” from hostile counties being moved closer and closer to the US border?