CBS admits most of the weapons going to Ukraine are not being used by the Ukraine military.
Oh look. Carmine linking to Jimmy Dore saying stupid things. Carmine - where did the 30% number come from? Did Jimmy Dore do any checking to verify the number? Was it referring to non-lethal aid, weapons, or all of the above? When was the 30% number referring to? Is that number still accurate? For somebody that thinks everything is propaganda, you sure fall for a lot of propaganda.
Did you watch it?
Then you would know where the 30% came from and it was not Jimmy Dore.
It seems like a danger with this war, and the near continual coverage of Russian atrocities (in prisons and in the war), that one becomes rather inured to them, and starts just accepting that Russians are animals and that's it good news every time a Russian is killed.
This is a bad outcome, and I fear a popular one.
It makes it easy to forget that Russians are actually humans.
Oh look. Carmine linking to Jimmy Dore saying stupid things. Carmine - where did the 30% number come from? Did Jimmy Dore do any checking to verify the number? Was it referring to non-lethal aid, weapons, or all of the above? When was the 30% number referring to? Is that number still accurate? For somebody that thinks everything is propaganda, you sure fall for a lot of propaganda.
Did you watch it?
Then you would know where the 30% came from and it was not Jimmy Dore.
Keep clinging to the state propaganda.
Got that 3rd booster yet?
You didn’t answer the question (and I never said Jimmy Dore came up with the number, just that he parroted it without doing any fact checking). So, since you *did* watch it, why don’t you enlighten us and answer the questions I posed.
p.s. No, I didn’t watch it. Jimmy Dore is a f*cking moron and I wouldn’t watch a five minute clip of his show if you gave me $1000.
It seems like a danger with this war, and the near continual coverage of Russian atrocities (in prisons and in the war), that one becomes rather inured to them, and starts just accepting that Russians are animals and that's it good news every time a Russian is killed.
This is a bad outcome, and I fear a popular one.
It makes it easy to forget that Russians are actually humans.
Russia could avoid that outcome by withdrawing their troops, returning to pre-2014 borders, and paying reparations for the damage they’ve caused. Or, they could continue committing war crimes and living down to their reputation.
"Asinine" is what I call your completely unsupported claims. Unless we include your go-to argument “I said so.”
Endlessly calling opposing view and arguments "unsupported" when they have been well-supported is dishonest or clueless. Not once have I stated something is true because "I said so".
This thread contains dozens of messages from me backed up with links to reputable news sources and sometimes connected with plain observation and inference.
You would have less reason to complain how dark it is outside if you opened your eyes.
I'm not saying the Ukrainians couldn't be responsible, I'm saying your logic getting to "most likely the Ukrainians" isn't very persuasive.
The phrase repeatedly used was it seemed "more likely than not".
Do you see equal or greater probability of the Russian side attacking Russian-held territory compared with the Ukraine side attacking Russian-held territory?
It would be naive to think Ukrainian partisans in Russian occupied regions aren't providing intelligence on Russian positions and movements to the UDF, so it is entirely plausible that the Russians would view them as potentially unfriendly and would try to restrict their mobility.
It seems like a danger with this war, and the near continual coverage of Russian atrocities (in prisons and in the war), that one becomes rather inured to them, and starts just accepting that Russians are animals and that's it good news every time a Russian is killed.
This is a bad outcome, and I fear a popular one.
It makes it easy to forget that Russians are actually humans.
A lot of Russian soldiers are acting like animals, and it's fantastic news when trash like that gets reduced to little burnt blobs of flesh and cheap equipment, as is happening a lot these days. Even the Russian soldiers who follow international law are illegally invading another country in an unprovoked war and supporting the actions of their animal comrades, so it's good news when they get taken out, too. Russian family members of the deceased can productively transform their sadness into outrage at their lying, incompetent government. A Putin-colored revolution could solve this problem real quick.
"Asinine" is what I call your completely unsupported claims. Unless we include your go-to argument “I said so.”
Endlessly calling opposing view and arguments "unsupported" when they have been well-supported is dishonest or clueless. Not once have I stated something is true because "I said so".
This thread contains dozens of messages from me backed up with links to reputable news sources and sometimes connected with plain observation and inference.
You would have less reason to complain how dark it is outside if you opened your eyes.
Endlessly failing to support your view with facts is an indication that you’re being intentionally disingenuous or you’re stupid. The discussion of butterfly mines began in post 5336, where you posted two links. The first is to an article on the hill.com titled, “Russia likely trying to use ‘deeply controversial, indiscriminate’ mines in Ukraine: UK intelligence” and the second to The Daily Mail titled, “Russian forces are using deadly butterfly mines in Donbas that maim children who mistake them for toys, Britain's MoD warns”. Neither of these articles support the claim you made in post 5351 that
While not conclusive unto itself, factoring motive and opportunity, it does seems more likely the Butterfly mines dropped on Donetsk were from the Ukraine side.
You then posted two additional links regarding attacks around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. So, you’ve provided ZERO links to credible news sources to support your claim. Hence, it’s unsupported and will continue to be unsupported until you actually provide credible evidence to support it. Once again you’re resorting to “believe me because I said so” and we’ve already seen that your powers of observation and analysis are lackluster at best (e.g., Snake Island).
Endlessly failing to support your view with facts is an indication that you’re being intentionally disingenuous or you’re stupid. The discussion of butterfly mines began in post 5336, where you posted two links. The first is to an article on the hill.com titled, “Russia likely trying to use ‘deeply controversial, indiscriminate’ mines in Ukraine: UK intelligence” and the second to The Daily Mail titled, “Russian forces are using deadly butterfly mines in Donbas that maim children who mistake them for toys, Britain's MoD warns”. Neither of these articles support the claim you made in post 5351
To be fair, post 5336 was about inaccuracies in the press coverage and how they might influence perceptions, but no one should be surprised that The Daily Mail is a sensationalist rag littered with questionable journalism and heavy dose of celebrity boobs.
The bigger leap was dismissing the British intelligence assessment on the basis of source bias. While it's true that the British favor the Ukrainian side and likely skew their public statements that way, it's also the case that there are British systems in theater that can identify the origin of artillery fire.
Generally I'd expect western intelligence assessments may be selective, but not overt lies. For example we've seen the recent US estimate of Russian casualties but probably won't see the same for Ukrain and can be certain they've assessed both.
Endlessly failing to support your view with facts is an indication that you’re being intentionally disingenuous or you’re stupid. The discussion of butterfly mines began in post 5336, where you posted two links. The first is to an article on the hill.com titled, “Russia likely trying to use ‘deeply controversial, indiscriminate’ mines in Ukraine: UK intelligence” and the second to The Daily Mail titled, “Russian forces are using deadly butterfly mines in Donbas that maim children who mistake them for toys, Britain's MoD warns”. Neither of these articles support the claim you made in post 5351
To be fair, post 5336 was about inaccuracies in the press coverage and how they might influence perceptions, but no one should be surprised that The Daily Mail is a sensationalist rag littered with questionable journalism and heavy dose of celebrity boobs.
The bigger leap was dismissing the British intelligence assessment on the basis of source bias. While it's true that the British favor the Ukrainian side and likely skew their public statements that way, it's also the case that there are British systems in theater that can identify the origin of artillery fire.
Generally I'd expect western intelligence assessments may be selective, but not overt lies. For example we've seen the recent US estimate of Russian casualties but probably won't see the same for Ukrain and can be certain they've assessed both.
I absolutely agree with you. The issues lie in post 5351, and Ernest’s subsequent posts where he claims 1) that Ukraine was more likely to have deployed butterfly mines in Donetsk; 2) presents no evidence to support claim 1; and 3) writes “No assertion is valid until reasonably supported by evidence and reason, out-competing alternative explanation.” in the same post that he makes an assertion that is not supported by evidence nor does it out-compete alternative explanations. Hence, the only reasonable assertion that’s supported by these facts is that he’s being intentionally disingenuous or he’s an idiot.
That is massive speculation. A balanced UK study showed how different news outlets, ministries of defense and other organizations put forth wildly varied estimates on troop casualties. There has only been 4K independently verifiable troop casualties on the Russian side. On the Ukrainian side it is a 100% mystery because the Ukrainians refuse to release any information at all.
Endlessly calling opposing view and arguments "unsupported" when they have been well-supported is dishonest or clueless. Not once have I stated something is true because "I said so".
This thread contains dozens of messages from me backed up with links to reputable news sources and sometimes connected with plain observation and inference.
You would have less reason to complain how dark it is outside if you opened your eyes.
Endlessly failing to support your view with facts is an indication that you’re being intentionally disingenuous or you’re stupid. The discussion of butterfly mines began in post 5336, where you posted two links. The first is to an article on the hill.com titled, “Russia likely trying to use ‘deeply controversial, indiscriminate’ mines in Ukraine: UK intelligence” and the second to The Daily Mail titled, “Russian forces are using deadly butterfly mines in Donbas that maim children who mistake them for toys, Britain's MoD warns”. Neither of these articles support the claim you made in post 5351 that
While not conclusive unto itself, factoring motive and opportunity, it does seems more likely the Butterfly mines dropped on Donetsk were from the Ukraine side.
You then posted two additional links regarding attacks around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. So, you’ve provided ZERO links to credible news sources to support your claim. Hence, it’s unsupported and will continue to be unsupported until you actually provide credible evidence to support it. Once again you’re resorting to “believe me because I said so” and we’ve already seen that your powers of observation and analysis are lackluster at best (e.g., Snake Island).
Does logic works differently in your upside-down alternate universe?
You ignore posts and portions of them, then twist and misunderstand them. And ot seems you cannot think for yourself as you constantly demand everyone provide you easy-to-find links and lay out arguments which ought to be plain. When given them, you either pretend the information was not presented or endlessly dismiss it as flawed or irrelevant.
Occasionally you do have a point, but then you fixate to the exclusion of all else, and so exceptions define rules.
We tried a different tack. You were to lay out an argument for Russians having used Butterfly mines in the Ukraine - and for the Ukraine side not having used them. You did not. Because some people would rather tear down than build up.
You bring nothing to the thread except raw prejudice on open display. You take joy in and express fervent desire for [Russian] deaths. And make endless complaint against anyone who doesn't back-slap you for it.
Stop wasting my time and yours. You'd find more sympathetic company at a Proud Boys rally.
That is massive speculation. A balanced UK study showed how different news outlets, ministries of defense and other organizations put forth wildly varied estimates on troop casualties. There has only been 4K independently verifiable troop casualties on the Russian side. On the Ukrainian side it is a 100% mystery because the Ukrainians refuse to release any information at all.
We have no reliable estimates of Russian casualties. And practically no estimates of Ukraine casualties.
Almost all information shared has been prepared for propaganda purposes.
Anyway, it seems the attack on the Crimean Novofedorivka airbase was more significant than acknowledged.
Videos and photos have emerged showing rows of burned-out cards and, reportedly, over 50 damaged apartment buildings.
ISW is suggesting Ukraine conducted the attack - and that the Russian side is motivated to hide that so their Air Defence system does not seem inadequate.
Other analysts are suggesting Ukraine Special Forces conducted a close-range attack - though this would seem to deflect speculation that American HIMARS ATACMS were used.
While not taking credit for the attack, the Ukraine side is now claiming 9 to 12 Russian military aircraft were also destroyed.
The phrase repeatedly used was it seemed "more likely than not".
Do you see equal or greater probability of the Russian side attacking Russian-held territory compared with the Ukraine side attacking Russian-held territory?
It would be naive to think Ukrainian partisans in Russian occupied regions aren't providing intelligence on Russian positions and movements to the UDF, so it is entirely plausible that the Russians would view them as potentially unfriendly and would try to restrict their mobility.
Some of your posts make good sense. This is not one.
You are suggesting Russians peppered a Russian-controlled civilian neighbourhood with Butterfly mines in order to prevent possible Ukraine partisans from freely moving about.
But you (and others) acknowledge the neighbourhood as having no military or strategic importance. So what might hypothetical Ukraine spies be reporting on?
And consider that citizens there, which includes potential spies, did continue to move freely about after Butterfly bombs were dropped - albeit more carefully.
There are thousands neighbourhoods across the Donbas which might be spied upon. Why only here?
You would have us believe Russians speculatively and uniquely rained anti-personnel mines down on "their" citizens in an inconsequential area. But not, it seems, on any Ukraine soldiers beyond front lines?
How can that reasonably called "plausible"? And even if it were, is it most "probable"?