advertisement


Ukraine V

That’s how I read Bart‘s post too.

That said, I think most of us would agree that the use of euphemisms to describe the horror of war is, at best, distasteful. The US military is guilty of this, as is pretty much every other country’s military.

https://legionmagazine.com/en/euphemisms-acronyms-and-outright-lies-the-language-of-war/

I would think everyone here would agree that the doublespeak is horrific, particularly in the case of war. However, it would be more efficient and certainly less tedious if there was a separate thread to catalogue all of the US/Western mistakes and horrors rather than having to mention these things every time something is said about Russia in this thread. And that really is the mindset for some here…we have a misunderstanding of a simple phrase because the desire to counterbalance the Russia talk is so great. Just my opinion.
 
For a man who's been terminally ill and on his way out since last February, he's doing alright, isn't he?
From what I understand, his latest chemotherapy session went very badly and he has to take, well, speed, in order to do short live stints like today with Xi.

He also lost a lot of weight and his suits are ill-fitting now. His doubles are starting to look very different from him. He really doesn't look like a man in charge. And there are rumors of serious unhappiness in upper circles around him.

Kadyrov, on the other hand, after being recently poisoned, swelled up like a balloon and went to the Emirates to recuperate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RoA
I do not think you (and apparently others) understand the meaning of “look no further”. It does not mean that euphemisms haven’t been born in other countries (eg. USA) and wouldn’t in any way require a response explaining as such.

As this thread is named “Ukraine V” and obviously in regards to the Russian atrocities, reading “look no further than Moscow” within this thread is entirely appropriate and the furthest thing from nonsense.

In regards to real and actual nonsense, carry on.
The point is that there was a general conversation about the use of euphemisms that included euphemisms such as “joy riding” and “pax Britannica”. In that context mention of other euphemisms like “collateral damage” are entirely reasonable. But instead of a reasonable discussion about the use of euphemism we have the usual few people on here trying to control what is being said and who is allowed to speak.

Deeply ironic that those most vocal about exclusively Russia authoritarianism are themselves so quick to try to shut down any dissenting voices on an internet forum.
 
I would think everyone here would agree that the doublespeak is horrific, particularly in the case of war. However, it would be more efficient and certainly less tedious if there was a separate thread to catalogue all of the US/Western mistakes and horrors rather than having to mention these things every time something is said about Russia in this thread. And that really is the mindset for some here…we have a misunderstanding of a simple phrase because the desire to counterbalance the Russia talk is so great. Just my opinion.
There are multiple threads on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya on pfm, a simple search will show them. You’ll see widespread opposition expressed to the invasion of Iraq and the tactics used. I and many others protested against it and stopped voting Labour as a consequence.
It’s the 20th anniversary of Robin Cook’s resignation speech over the Iraq invasion, I’m sure a thread would be no bad idea if people wanted to revisit the issue. For now, the pressing matter is the survival of the Ukrainian people and I see no point in chiming in with Kremlin talking points along with the likes of Orban, the GOP or various other supporters. You might say, now’s not the time.
 
For a man who's been terminally ill and on his way out since last February, he's doing alright, isn't he?

Is he terminally ill? Everyone seems to think he is but someone from US intelligence popped up a few months ago and said there is no evidence that he is. He certainly doesn't look particularly healthy though.
 
What is telling is that the person against who the post was made does seem to attract this - it's why I have them permanently blocked. YMMV.
What is definitely telling is that the person in question never used to attract this.

Until he became an advocate for MMT.

It feels like the antipathy he generated on various threads where MMT was discussed now follows him around (ie, even when he's not discussing MMT). That, by any definition, is ad-hom.
 
What is definitely telling is that the person in question never used to attract this.

Until he became an advocate for MMT.

It feels like the antipathy he generated on various threads where MMT was discussed now follows him around (ie, even when he's not discussing MMT). That, by any definition, is ad-hom.

Something about reap as ye shall sow maybe???

Regards

Richard
 
What is definitely telling is that the person in question never used to attract this.

Until he became an advocate for MMT.

It feels like the antipathy he generated on various threads where MMT was discussed now follows him around (ie, even when he's not discussing MMT). That, by any definition, is ad-hom.

There was a lot of ad-hom from both sides on the MMT threads. Now, back to bashing Putin...
 
There are multiple threads on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya on pfm, a simple search will show them. You’ll see widespread opposition expressed to the invasion of Iraq and the tactics used. I and many others protested against it and stopped voting Labour as a consequence.
It’s the 20th anniversary of Robin Cook’s resignation speech over the Iraq invasion, I’m sure a thread would be no bad idea if people wanted to revisit the issue. For now, the pressing matter is the survival of the Ukrainian people and I see no point in chiming in with Kremlin talking points along with the likes of Orban, the GOP or various other supporters. You might say, now’s not the time.

Likewise. Iraq was a grotesque crime. Like many others I protested against it at the time, and never voted for Blair as a consequence (I didn't vote for him in 1997 either, as at that time I was a committed unvoter, but post-Iraq I could never have brought myself to vote for him under any circumstances).

But the fact of Iraq changes nothing about my view of what has happened in Syria and now in Ukraine. Drivelling on about moral equivalences in the context of a genocide being committed in front of our eyes is grossly insulting to those fighting to protect their lives in the face of a raping, murdering, psychopathic invading force, and is utterly intellectually vacuous to boot. I have no patience for the "Peace at all costs" nonsense of halfwits like Corbyn because (a) it essentially means allowing Russia to get away with it and (b) it is sometimes necessary to take up arms defend even the flawed democracy we have. I have even less patience for leftists regurgitating Russian justifications for their actions in Syria and Ukraine, since that is, purely and simply, leftists joining up with the far right. I don't give a stuff for your "nuance" if you're basically channelling the talking points of the very worst people in the world.

We are in an extremely dangerous place, it seems to me. Putin military victories this year, a MAGA electoral victory in 2024, and Xi and Modi positioning themselves as global statesman; all of these things will be disastrous for basic democratic norms, and for the rights of millions of people to live relatively free of state violence and authoritarianism.
 
We are in an extremely dangerous place, it seems to me. Putin military victories this year, a MAGA electoral victory in 2024, and Xi and Modi positioning themselves as global statesman; all of these things will be disastrous for basic democratic norms, and for the rights of millions of people to live relatively free of state violence and authoritarianism.
Completely agree with this, though it's 'billions' not 'millions' who will be affected, including us.
 
Likewise. Iraq was a grotesque crime. Like many others I protested against it at the time, and never voted for Blair as a consequence (I didn't vote for him in 1997 either, as at that time I was a committed unvoter, but post-Iraq I could never have brought myself to vote for him under any circumstances).

But the fact of Iraq changes nothing about my view of what has happened in Syria and now in Ukraine. Drivelling on about moral equivalences in the context of a genocide being committed in front of our eyes is grossly insulting to those fighting to protect their lives in the face of a raping, murdering, psychopathic invading force, and is utterly intellectually vacuous to boot. I have no patience for the "Peace at all costs" nonsense of halfwits like Corbyn because (a) it essentially means allowing Russia to get away with it and (b) it is sometimes necessary to take up arms defend even the flawed democracy we have. I have even less patience for leftists regurgitating Russian justifications for their actions in Syria and Ukraine, since that is, purely and simply, leftists joining up with the far right. I don't give a stuff for your "nuance" if you're basically channelling the talking points of the very worst people in the world.

We are in an extremely dangerous place, it seems to me. Putin military victories this year, a MAGA electoral victory in 2024, and Xi and Modi positioning themselves as global statesman; all of these things will be disastrous for basic democratic norms, and for the rights of millions of people to live relatively free of state violence and authoritarianism.
It is not “moral equivalence” in order to change a view about what is happening in Ukraine. And it is not “drivelling on” when responding a moral assertionAs has been said many many times, Putin is a tyrant and support for Ukraine is right and proper. But if someone is going to say that Putin is “uniquely evil” or the US is “good”, then those moral statements, as moral statements, don’t bear comparison.

I’m all for this being a Putin bashing thread, we can all agree on that, but it is a bit rich for someone to introduce moral arguments, then complain when those moral arguments are examined.
 
From what I understand, his latest chemotherapy session went very badly and he has to take, well, speed, in order to do short live stints like today with Xi.

He also lost a lot of weight and his suits are ill-fitting now. His doubles are starting to look very different from him. He really doesn't look like a man in charge. And there are rumors of serious unhappiness in upper circles around him.

Kadyrov, on the other hand, after being recently poisoned, swelled up like a balloon and went to the Emirates to recuperate.

Thing is, DimitryZ, it's just rumour and speculation (the weight loss, the alleged constant presence of an oncologist, holding the edge of the table in a funny way, a singular instance of a shaky leg, looking a bit 'peaky', looking a bit 'puffy' etc) - it could just be old age, poor diet, less frequent exercis and lack of sleep. He may well be, but I think a lot of it is either wishful thinking, or disinformation or possibly both. He will die one day, but it is unlikely to happen in a timeframe to have a material effect on this invasion.
 


advertisement


Back
Top