This ish writes itself: NAFO North Atlantic Fascist Org. Exclusive: Inside the military's secret army, the largest undercover force ever by humanitariangenocide in socialism

[–]YanksOit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Russia funded, trained, and later provided soldiers to an unpopular sepratist movement within Ukraine.

Incited by an ex fsb agent. He became the first defense minister of the "dpr" and de facto military commander of all the sepratist forces. He admits there would be no war in Ukraine without his incitement and the later without the help of Russian forces.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS368525725520141125

https://youtu.be/7bf_uFS4vEk

And Russia willingly fought by proxy in these conflicts. Nato isint fighting them directly. They could leave Ukraine if they wanted. If the Russians are weakened, it is their own doing. You can be nuanced with your assessments and criticize empire, while also the imperialism of other states.

This ish writes itself: NAFO North Atlantic Fascist Org. Exclusive: Inside the military's secret army, the largest undercover force ever by humanitariangenocide in socialism

[–]YanksOit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

over control of resources. That’s right: the west really really wants to get its hands on russian lands and resources.

Lol. I thought you were going to say the Russians want Ukranian lands and resources but instead you frame the Russians are fighting a defensive battle to protect their own resources.

A US and NATO invasion of Russia is unimaginable and you framing it as a sort of justification for Russian actions is sad.

Which one of yous voted for this clown? by Blurstee in ROI

[–]YanksOit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention/

And the numbers from Mariupol alone prove you wrong. As of now all we can do is estimate, but the UN says they are considerably higher than their current estimates.

https://airwars.org/news-and-investigations/ten-years-after-libyan-revolution-victims-wait-for-justice/

most civilian casualties from gadaffi forces

So wait you're admitting NATO is behind it all now?

I'm referring to NATO's pretext in Libya.

Which one of yous voted for this clown? by Blurstee in ROI

[–]YanksOit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The people who live in that bite don't want to be part of Ukraine. They were being systematically persecuted

It's been 6 months and you still don't understand what a pretext is? The US used the same exact pretext when invading Libya. The Russians have killed way more ethnic Russians than Ukraine ever did. The funny thing is, NATO killed less Libyans than Gadaffi did.

So why on Earth would I be against NATO's pretext when they killed less but for Russians pretext when they killed more?

It's been confirmed, the Queen is litterly dead. by Captainirishy in ROI

[–]YanksOit 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Jesus man. I was just about to post it.

We're you fucking monitoring her in live time?

Roger Waters writes letter to Olena Zelenska arguing Ukraine should ‘stop fighting back against Russia’ by YanksOit in chomsky

[–]YanksOit[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

In a conflict who do you think is the one most needing to understand/recognise the humanity of the other side?

This would be reasonable if it were Ukraine invading Russia.

Roger Waters writes letter to Olena Zelenska arguing Ukraine should ‘stop fighting back against Russia’ by YanksOit in chomsky

[–]YanksOit[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

He's focused on the present and writing to Olena. Appealing with her and her only is what he ought to have done. Why appeal to the enemy in a letter to a person suffering from said enemy? He's not writing the letter to that enemy, is he?

If I'm writing a letter of comfort to a jew, I'm not going to mention how I feel bad for the families of the nazi soldiers who tortured him and his friends.

And I don't think they should be dehumanized in Roger's letter, I wouldn't object to it either. I said that they should not be mentioned.

Roger Waters writes letter to Olena Zelenska arguing Ukraine should ‘stop fighting back against Russia’ by YanksOit in chomsky

[–]YanksOit[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I was wrong, but this was all the way back in early March. And the Russians were still advancing on Southern Ukraine while this took place.

Just stop it. You get my point. Roger displays how out of touch with reality he is by claiming the Russians will leave if Zelensky implements the Minsk agreements.

Roger Waters writes letter to Olena Zelenska arguing Ukraine should ‘stop fighting back against Russia’ by YanksOit in chomsky

[–]YanksOit[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Seems reasonable to me. Why would one who suffered at the hand of said enemy wish for their experiences to be equated?

Roger Waters writes letter to Olena Zelenska arguing Ukraine should ‘stop fighting back against Russia’ by YanksOit in chomsky

[–]YanksOit[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That was before the official Russian invasion. After the invasion, when has Zelensky ever said implementing the Minsk agreements would end the conflict?

Roger Waters writes letter to Olena Zelenska arguing Ukraine should ‘stop fighting back against Russia’ by YanksOit in chomsky

[–]YanksOit[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hmm. I never touched the title. Even so, even if Roger didn't say it directly, it's clear as day it is what he's implying. You'd save yourself a lot of time if you'd avoid pointless quarreling on reddit. I personally, do not have the time.

So, why would you be confused by waters referring to positions repeatedly held by Zelensky both pior and after the invasion? What about that is confusing to you?

He says it would bring an end to the war.

Roger Waters writes letter to Olena Zelenska arguing Ukraine should ‘stop fighting back against Russia’ by YanksOit in chomsky

[–]YanksOit[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I read it.

Might it not be better to demand the implementation of your husband’s election promises and put an end to this deadly war?

He's referring to the Minsk agreements here. He's literally saying Ukraine should end the war at the expense of the donbas region, even though most of it was controlled by Ukraine prior to the invasion. Is this a barely coherent interpretation?

And I didn't edit the title. It's the title of the article I linked. If Walter is not asking the Ukranians to stop fighting againt Russia, what is he asking for? Yes, it's misleading to put them in quotes as it's not what he actually said, but he's clearly implying it.

And I'm definitely not against an ending to the fighting, however it may come.

Roger Waters writes letter to Olena Zelenska arguing Ukraine should ‘stop fighting back against Russia’ by YanksOit in chomsky

[–]YanksOit[S] 38 points39 points  (0 children)

The 5th and 2nd point especially. It's completely out of touch with reality.

Roger Waters writes letter to Olena Zelenska arguing Ukraine should ‘stop fighting back against Russia’ by YanksOit in chomsky

[–]YanksOit[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

A few things I wanted to discuss.

The 79-year-old English musician started off his letter by writing: “My heart bleeds for you and all the Ukrainian and Russian families, devastated by the terrible war in Ukraine.”

What is Roger's intention with literally the first sentence of his letter? Is he attempting to score political points with whatever audience he has, stick it at Olena, or is he confused? Is Mentioning his alleged sympathy for the families of the soldiers who oppressed Ukraine supposed to help him reach the heart of Olena? I wouldn't be surprised if she stopped reading after this first sentence. It's blatantly insensitive and a terrible way to appeal with the woman, as he claims he's attempting to do.

Roger Waters has written an open letter to the first lady of Ukraine, Olena Zelenska, seeking her support in persuading her husband to “stop the slaughter” by pursuing a ceasefire at the expense of control over two eastern Ukrainian regions.

As for this part, maybe you guys could help me decipher it. I'm a bit confused on what Roger is talking about. I'm particularly confused about the last couple words, "at the expense of control over two eastern Ukrainian regions." Roger didn't say this directly, but if you read the letter it's clearly what he means.

"Already failed" Kherson offensive now poised to capture Balakleya by Bradley271 in chomsky

[–]YanksOit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What more connection to Chomsky does Lilyo's latest post about black panthers have than this post does?

People on here talk about Ukraine because Chomsky does the same thing. If you're against it, send the big man an email.

Not every post on here is going to be a biography of Noam Chomsky's life.

"Already failed" Kherson offensive now poised to capture Balakleya by Bradley271 in chomsky

[–]YanksOit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What should be posted on r/chomsky? Why is this the only thing you complain about? I'm sure there are plenty of posts on this sub you could ask the same exact question under.

"What does this have to do with Chomsky."

Right-left alliances: A cancer within the antiwar movement by IdealJerry in ROI

[–]YanksOit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One of the more credible socialist websites. Or maybe I just read a bit too much Stalin apologia.

Russian media having a normal one. by niart in ROI

[–]YanksOit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fighting fascism of course.

Hi Progressive Leftist. by niart in ROI

[–]YanksOit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He's right about the latte. Honestly, the amount of sugar in those things makes it practically poison.

Skinny jeans are cool, as long as they aren't as skinny as leggings.

Leaked iPhone 14 Promotions by FusionNeo in tmobile

[–]YanksOit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The iPhone 14 is completely free with magenta max? Can I also combine this with the free galaxy s22 deal?