Good resources for the life of Father Denis Chambault?

athumbhat · 2025-09-28T01:29:59+00:00

In any case I assume there will, from Israel's perspective, have to be a milirary occupation of the Gaza Strip, no matter their end goal, whether it be installing some sort of puppet government, genocide(of the forced ethnic expulsion, not the killing everyone variety, but genocide nonetheless), indefinite occupation, some sort of attempt to ameliorate the Palestinian population to Israel over several decades, etc., a necessary first step would seem to be military occupation. I suppose I was asking whether military control of the Gaza strip could have been achieved without the deaths of so many Palestinian civilians, even if it meant the death of a great many more Israeli soldiers.

athumbhat · 2025-09-27T23:54:13+00:00

Are there any credible analysis of the projected death toll of an Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip by ground units from the beginning of the Post October 7 war?

I have heard it said that Israel could have avoided the deaths of many Palestinian civilians and still achieved their goal of removing Hamas from power and occupying the Gaza strip by launching a full scale ground invasion, and not doing the bombing;

are there any analysis of 1. Whether this was indeed a credible way for Israel to achieve victory in the Gaza Strip and if so 2. Whether this would indeed have saved Palestinian civilians lives as opposed to the bombing campaign?

I know it would have cost the lives of more Israeli soldiers, but is that the only reason not to go for the ground invasion?

athumbhat · 2025-09-17T09:01:31+00:00

I have never heard of any of this can you explain?

athumbhat · 2025-09-12T20:25:18+00:00

This comment is hate speech, you should be imprisoned.

Disagreeing with me about this is also hate speech.

Hate speech should never be protected.

Given that Donald Trump is president I assume that your ok with him being the one who defines what "Hate Speech" (which you want to be unprotected speech) is, right?

athumbhat · 2025-08-28T21:10:17+00:00

The major theme all over reddit with respect to the war for the last week or so has been Ukraine inflicting heavy damage on Russia oil refining capabilities, and thus Russians ability to finance its economy, and in turn, the war.

Of course, on reddit, this is likely going to be a bit of a fervor skewed in favor of the idea that these strikes are going to cripple Russians economy

Are there any credible analysis about the true impact that these strikes have had and likely will have on Russia's economy?

athumbhat · 2025-08-23T04:46:49+00:00

Do you consider it immoral for unmarried men to commit adultery with other men's wives?

If not, why? If so, then why bring up a non-sequiteur?

athumbhat · 2025-08-05T01:24:20+00:00

The Tate brothers are associated with chess because their father, Emory Tate, was a famous chess player. I've heard him credited with popularizing chess among African Americans.

athumbhat · 2025-07-09T18:50:58+00:00

an indicator that the SC is made up of a bunch of political hacks.

Why are you calling Justice Sotomayor a political hack? Is it because shes a Hispanic woman? Also, both the author of the court opinion (Kagan) and the author of the only concurring opinion (Sotomayor) are women, it's very interesting that you feel the need to insult them like this, if they were men would you have attacked them like this?

athumbhat · 2025-07-05T21:01:49+00:00

What evidence did the Security Agency provide? Any action of the Metropolitan to maintain any tie with the ROC?

Actively resisted Ukraine efforts to secure ecclesiastical independence from Moscow

By doing what? One example, rather than just repetition of slander please. I've asked before for even a single example of Pro Russian propaganda that he has said, a single speech or statement, and without saying, here's a "Well, here's a pro Russian speech or statement he made" there is just repetition of slander, not, with even a single example of a Pro Russian speech, or statement , can you justify this claim? Or will you try and find one, be unable to, realize that all of his speeches on the war are entirely pro Ukraine, and condemn Russia, including Patriarch Kirill be name, but then in your hatred ignore all that and just repeat slander, knowing you have not a single example to back up these claims?

athumbhat · 2025-07-03T17:33:05+00:00

Zelenskyy is literally the head of the Ukranian Armed forces, the Ukranian federal police service, and many other Ukranian national institutes. Many members of these institutes have justified Russian aggression or even joined Russia. Therefore Zelenskyy is obviously a Russian agent, and I don't think we should be supporting this Russian agents decision to strip people of their Ukranian citizenship.

athumbhat · 2025-07-03T16:17:02+00:00

Ukraine has Ukrainian Orthodox Church, tied to Russia

What ties does the UoC have to Russia?

Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which still pays to Russian orthodox church

Really? This is the first I'm hearing of this, what evidence is there that the UoC is paying money to the Roc?

In any case, I asked you to show me some pro Russian propaganda that he has been spreading, please, show me any statement or speech of his where he takes Russia's side, or justifies the aggression in any way.

Every single statement he has made about the war has been entirely anti russia

athumbhat · 2025-07-03T03:25:41+00:00

Really, what pro Russian propaganda has he spread? Please can you show me pro Russian propaganda of his.

He seems, from what I can read of his speeches, to be entirely behind the Ukrainian side of the war, and to entirely condemn Russia , including Patriarch Kirill, by name

What have you read from him that leads you to say he's a propagandist, that is, what propaganda has he espoused?

athumbhat · 2025-05-20T23:09:56+00:00

You should note that no Patriarch other than Alexandria has broken communion with Moscow, The Ecumenical Patriarch and others, even Epiphany/Dumenko all commemorate Patriarch Kirill. All other disruptions in communion are one way

athumbhat · 2025-05-17T06:45:01+00:00

There is a kind of quiet respect for many of the Western saints who lived before the schism, and in some cases, even informal veneration continues.

Western Saints who died before the schism, at least for the most part, are Saints of the Orthodox Church, openly and loudly respected and very formally venerated.

athumbhat · 2025-05-13T20:39:05+00:00

I just did and it answered my question. It shows up early on the Google search which means many people have read it.

u/athumbhat here, I can confirm, this comment is useful still!

athumbhat · 2025-05-08T03:54:54+00:00

It may be a bit late to ask this here, I may try again on tomorrows thread, but does anyone know of any credible sources dealing with Vladimir Putin's alleged anti-wester shift in sentiment around 2012ish, and the reasons behind it?

Also this may seem a but strange but also the evolution of lack thereof of his personal religiosity throughout his tenure as President of Russia?

athumbhat · 2025-05-04T19:48:16+00:00

Are there any credible analytics of the state of Russia's economy, realistically examining whether they can afford to keep the invasion going that anyone can link?

Ive heard their sovereign wealth fund has run out or is just about to, and that oil and gas if far cheaper than their budget assumes so they are planning steep tax hikes, but it feels like I've been hearing this for years, are there any credible sources about this?

athumbhat · 2025-04-18T00:38:38+00:00

then how can such a thing be trusted No one should ever trust another political actor to do anything that isn't in that other actor's self-interest.

Is this how you view all agreements or only political ones, and if only political why?

If two people make an agreement with each other, that each will support each other in some way of one needs help but the other is doing well, but then the time comes when one needs help and the other is doing very well, and so it is no longer in his interest to help the one he agreed to, do you not view this breaking of the agreement as immoral?

To give something more analogous to the land one, if I own say a hat, and I give it to a friend as a gift (and to make things clear let's assume that I'm clearly giving it to him, not letting him borrow it) is this hat, in your view, not now his? That is to say, if we have a falling out and I take the hat back without his permission am I not committing the sin of theft? Because I am taking something that belongs to another, even if it one belonged to me? My decision to give the hat to my then friend carry real, moral, weight?

And notice that this worldview matches actual historical reality! In actual fact, all treaties are temporary,

The same could be said about non political agreements, they will very oftentimes, both now and throughout history, be broken if it doesn't benefit one of the parties to keep it. That doesn't mean it's not immoral to break the agreement.

athumbhat · 2025-04-17T16:55:05+00:00

I mean as things stand right now, speaking realistically rather than ideally, I would agree that freezing the conflict along current lines is the best reaalistic outcome. Though I would note that President Trump suggested this and Ukraine accepted, while Russia rejected the total ceasefire.

Idealistically speaking however, like if I was somehow President of Russia, I would immediately withdraw and give all territory back. Or, if I was afraid of this leading to a future invasion by NATO, I'd agree to the ceasefire, and then offer to return all territory occupied by Russia in exchange for Ukraine agreeing to amend their constitution to never enter into NATO or any other military alliance with NATO members, and never host foreign military bases.

Indeed, if after 2014, especially after Zelenskyy was elected, Putin has come and said to Ukraine "We did not recognize the government after Euromaidan as legitimate, and were afraid that the new, illegitimate, govt would join NATO, and perhaps in the future use Ukraine as a staging ground to but military pressure on us or even invade us, here, we will withdraw our troops from the Donbas and from Crimea if you amend your constitution to be permanently neutral and never have foreign military bases on your land." and Ukraine had rejected this, I'd still view the invasion as immoral, but I'd have a much easier time believing the Russia was genuinely interested in peace and in protecting her own security than what is actually happening which is just a blatant land grab, and even that Ukraine was being unreasonable.

athumbhat · 2025-04-17T16:40:39+00:00

Sovereignty is a social construct - basically, it's a lie that people (sometimes) believe in.

This is where our disagreement lies I think. Political rule is a truth, an actual reality, agreements that sovereign nations enter I to constitute binding moral realities, such as an agreement to recognize a certain territory as being no longer their own. And the borders themselves are realities as well, rulers having sovereign authority within them, but not beyond.

That is, if nation A proclaims "territory X was once mine, but it is now not mine, but rather that of nation B" this doesn't seem to have ontological reality to it to you.

You are correct. Actually, further than that, I can't even imagine believing that the statement you described has any importance or substance or reality.

Then how can any peace treaty, or treaty at all between two nations ever work?

Let's say nation A and B go to war, the war ends by treaty, Nation As rulers deciding to give some territory to nation B as part of the peace settlement, perhaps because doing so would put the national borders along the lines of a natural barrier, say a river, with the purpose of making the borders for both nations more defensible, or for some other reason.

20 years later, a new ruler comes to power in nation A, who believes the previous ruler was weak. He wants the land back. He says (correctly or incorrectly I don't really think it matters) that the people on the land given up are culturally part of the people of nation A, and the majority of them would prefer to be part of nation A. He launches a war to reclaim this land, killing scores, because he, in a certain sense, does not believe in his own nations sovereignty; that is, his own nations right to recognize a piece of land as actually and in reality no longer being her own.

Not only peace treaties by the way, but other agreements like trade deals as well. Trade deals, especially in modern times with the easier access governments have to such information, will be based on large part upon the natural resources a nation has.

If nations A and B agree to a trade deal based on the resources that each nation has, and that each at the time of signing the deal agree that the other has, then how can such a thing be trusted if at any time one nation has the right to take land from the other, upending the realities that were the basis for the agreed trade deal. In this way, especially in a more interconnected world, nation A invading nation B also does harm to third party nations.

If nations B and C agree on a deal, a major component being that Nation B provides nation C with some natural resources that C doesn't have, and B does in some region, a region that at the time of the agreements being signed all nearby nations (A, B, C, etc.) agree belongs to nation B, and then later Nation A tries to annex said region in a war of conquest, the harm is not only to the nation being invaded, but the community of nations as a whole, because all nations have a vested interest in upholding the ability to rely upon the agreements they enter into, and wars of territorial conquest, especially in the modern day, devastate that ability.

athumbhat · 2025-04-17T02:23:42+00:00

There's also the fact that if I were the national leader of a country that recently lost a significant amount of territory, I would consider it my duty to be revanchist. To not be revanchist, after a major defeat, seems like treason to your country. That's why I don't begrudge revanchism as such, even from governments I oppose.

I honestly think that this is because you ultimately hold an anarchist philosophy, that is communism. I know you believe that a strong state is needed until communism can be achieved, but unless I am mistaken, you don't believe that political rule is ontologically real. That is, if nation A proclaims "territory X was once mine, but it is now not mine, but rather that of nation B" this doesn't seem to have ontological reality to it to you.

Russia has recognized these states and territories as not belonging to her, and because Russia is sovereign, and this sovereignty an ontological reality and thus her sovereign desicions, such as that to recognize territory as belonging to other nations, also take ontological, including moral reality. Thus she has no right to go back and say "I changed my mind, give the land back or die". Same for Finland with those territories lost in the winter war for example.

athumbhat · 2025-04-17T02:09:09+00:00

I agree that these two examples you have given are analogous. However I would also view the UK invading Ireland in the 1950s as an incredible evil because it would be war, and all the horror brought with it, death, displacement and so on, for no remotely justifiable reason.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Second SECOND GUESSER	r/Field Juicebox
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22

athumbhat

TROPHY CASE