Appeals to fund weaponry used to kill and maim people who might be relatives of users doesn’t seem particularly respectful, but you’re the boss.
I thought you were just providing info and not making a plea. Then how should we interpret posts like this last one?
5 Likes
Certainly not as any kind of plea for anything. Merely a reply to a point made by the one with ultimate, unaccountable power in this domain.
Note of course that those people wouldn’t be in danger if they weren’t actively invading another country. Also note that if weaponry and humanitarian aid isn’t delivered to Ukraine, people who are active players here, and their relatives, will lose their country and their lives.
5 Likes
You could say exactly the same thing about members of the US forces involved in military actions.
As far as I can tell, the proposed law does not prevent appeals for humanitarian aid.
(But I think if you did, you could find yourself in quite a bit of trouble either from the law or extremist nutjobs, or both.)
What does that have to do with anything in this topic? I do see this “counter point” pop up regularly as though it was some sort of defense or something.
… nope? Free speech is kind of a big deal over here.
7 Likes
It’s an example of whataboutism. Person 1 makes a point, such as that invaders are responsible for putting themselves in danger. Person 2 responds by shifting attention to the actions of someone else, such as the U.S. military, implying hypocrisy or inconsistency on the part of Person 1.
8 Likes
Although it does point up the hypocrisy of the US authorities (not necessarily Anoek himself), it was more to make him feel how cruel his remark was by making him think about the same being said about those who put their lives on the line for his government.
1 Like
I do feel pity for Russian soldiers being thrown into the meat grinder in Ukraine. But the way to stop this tragedy for them (and for Ukrainians), is Putin calling it quits and deoccupying[*] Ukraine, not OGS removing some old posts calling for support for the Ukrainian armed forces.
You say you’re not here to be an apologist for Putin or the Russian government, but I see you shift blame everywhere except to Putin.
[*] as the UN General Assembly demanded by 141 votes in favor versus 5 votes against on 2 March 2022.
4 Likes
Well no you can’t because as far as i know till long ago US forces are not invading and then annexing other countries.
Ofc we can discuss on interventionism for whatever reason (religion, oil, despotism, terrorism, etc… ) and the US international politics are far to smell so good (See N. Chomsky books for example, CIA programs etc… ) but conquest is not part of the program. See a difference in this?
Eastern European countries have understandable fears about russian expensionism, and to become again a vassal. We lived mostly in peace since WWII but Putin is disturbing it now.
How not to be against an agressor provoking mass exile, erasing cities, planting fields of mines and trenches, and finally telling that’s some new province attached to Russia?
5 Likes
Chance of that happening:
3 Likes
I don’t think I’ve blamed anyone for anything, have I?
You seem to have embellished @anoek’s comment.
Have you actually tried telling an invalided US vet that his injuries are his own fault and wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Vietnam or wherever? Or do you have divine knowledge? Why not do some actual experiments and see if anything happens to you? Face-to-face would be the best test. I’d love to hear how you get on.
Btw, your Ukrainian flag looks a bit wonky.
If this news is so irrelevant to OGS (I agree), why bother sharing it? There’s like a billion other irrelevant news topics you could post 
As @Mark5000 already mentioned, this is “whataboutism”. It has nothing to do with the (suggestive) original post. Characteristic for trolling.
1 Like
In theory, it is relevant. In practice, my personal judgement is that OGS is unlikely to be affected. There is a difference between law as enacted and law enforcement. Sometimes enacted laws are not enforced because it would be more trouble than it’s worth.
It’s a reply to issa_T’s trolling. I shouldn’t feed him, really. In fact, I won’t reply to any further off-topic comments, even if they make scandalous allegations or insinuations against me.
Oh, I now notice I’m replying to more of it.
It’s more than that. It’s ad hominem, questioning your experience and suggesting you lack “divine knowledge.” It’s a straw man, implying you blame U.S. veterans for their injuries and would say insensitive things to them face-to-face. It’s a false dilemma, presenting only two extreme options (blaming veterans to their face or having “divine knowledge”). It’s an appeal to consequences of confronting veterans. It’s a red herring, distracting from the original debate about responsibility for invading forces.
The original purpose of this thread was to share proposed legislation that could affect this community. That purpose has been achieved. So if all the ancillary discussion continues to be non-constructive (see the FAQ), we’ll need to lock it.
14 Likes