Unfortunately for some people, they found out too late that they weren't in fact healthy. — Echarmion

Which is why I stated specifically we should go easy on this group during the first year. Give them a year to get their shit together. If they don't, then that's their responsibility and not mine.

The minority who is chronically at risk can be accomodated.

But this cuts to the heart of the issue: that this is somehow a conflict between the "healthy" and the "unhealthy" rather than a communal problem requiring a communal solution. — Echarmion

No one gave a fuck about healthy people who did not want to take vaccines - at no point during the hysteria were their concerns taken seriously, so I don't buy any allusions to community.

It was 'us vs. them', and healthy people were on the receiving end of it. Critical voices were silenced, people treated as second class citizens, etc. , European leaders went on national television overtly threatening healthy people who refused the vaccines.

There was no community. It was tyrannical one-way traffic and the damage this has done is enormous.

Sure. But does that mean we can ignore whether someone is vaccinated (not just against COVID)? — Echarmion

Yes. Vaccines are there for people who feel unsafe to protect them. This is how vaccines have always functioned. It's a personal choice.

Well as I indicated I think the framing was bad. It seemed to be the framing that came naturally to everyone though. — Echarmion

I can't speak for other countries, but in the Netherlands where I live the framing was one-way traffic. I wish there was more of a platform for critical voices, but this was systemically suppressed, disregarded as 'misinformation' - there were literally cases of the Dutch government communicating with social media platforms to censor certain people. It was their policy.

Of course, in the end it turned out the Dutch government itself was the main peddler of misinformation as almost everything that came out of their mouths turned out to be false.

This has nothing to do with framing on my end. I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me at all. The problem is that there was never any discussion. This is why I call it a hysteria.

Very similar to how the US gun control debate ended up. — Echarmion

I don't agree that the two can in any way be compared.

Why was the realisation that your actions affect others such a problem during COVID? — Echarmion

The vaccines weren't designed to stop the spread. That story used to be perpetuated by politicians who tried to guilt trip their citizens into taking a vaccine that they didn't trust.

Is not refusing a vaccine also "partaking in an unhealthy lifestyle"? — Echarmion

No, of course not. Normal, healthy people didn't have anything to fear from covid.

What is also remarkable, I think, is that both vaccination "camps" adopted a rhetoric that displayed the other side as a threat to their health and freedoms. — Echarmion

The decision to take a vaccine is bound to a human right of bodily autonomy.

To me, that means something. If that means nothing to you, then I have nothing to say to you.

Also, the idea that not taking the vaccine somehow turned one into a health hazard is completely made up.

Our western societies seemed ill equipped to deal with the basic tension of individualism vs collective actions. — Echarmion

Ill-equipped in the sense that it allowed mass hysteria to take hold for several years.

Again easy to retort. You are cheerleading Ukrainian surrender to Russian demands. — neomac

No, I'm not. Quote me if you believe I'm saying that.

Perhaps you take my cynical views of Washington's stake in this war as 'pro-Russian', but that's simply a mischaracterization.

That's why I have no problem to qualify myself as pro-US while you seem to have problems to qualify yourself as pro-Russian. — neomac

Yes, I do have a problem with that. I am trying to understand the conflict, not cheerleading for a side.

What people want to inject into their bodies is none of my business (and what I inject into mine should be none of theirs, but alas the latter was not self-explanatory during covid...)

The weak and the sick should be accomodated in some way, but not by having everybody put their lives on hold. The damage done by this is immense, but it is less visible than covid deaths (the media plays a large role in that, but I digress). "Unexplainable" excess deaths, etc.

In the Netherlands (where I live) it was a political choice, in my opinion. Politicians felt it would reflect badly on them if IC capacity was below what it needed to be as a result of their policies. Better smear it out over the entire population and play coy. By their own estimates, they knowingly accepted as much as threefold the damage by choosing this approach. It was criminal. I have no other word for it.

Also, at what point do the people who voluntarily partake in unhealthy lifestyles get to take responsibility?

Let's be graceful and treat year one of covid as a wake-up call where we don't go too hard on this group. As far as I am concerned, when year two hits they've had a full year to get their shit together and at that point why should I care about their health if they evidently don't care about their own?

Covid could have been a great opportunity to reconsider our relationship with our health.

But no, better grind society to a halt and stake our lives on 'quickfix' experimental vaccines the next time we fear being knocked over by a stiff breeze.

I don't really care how you justify it to yourselves. But it's good to know that the extent of the argument doesn't go beyond "Everyone who disagrees with me is a propagandist." :lol:

A-ha. So when western sources state something you dislike they can also be hand-waved as propaganda?

Seymour Hersh - a propagandist too I assume?

Noam Chomsky - a propagandist, obviously.

Ray McGovern - propagandist.

etc. etc.

Nevermind the track record of these folks. Winning Pulitzer prices, being invited at the UN to speak, etc. That's just the typical stuff propagandists do. :nerd:

A fair assessment, but some effort to expose the dishonesty and propaganda seems warranted. — Echarmion

What dishonesty and propaganda are you talking about?

People like Mearsheimer and Sachs are dishonest or Kremlin propagandists to you?

Well, if Sweden was firmly non-aligned would mean that the situation in the Baltic Sea would be very different... — ssu

Sweden isn't and has never been a firmly non-aligned country. It's completely aligned to the West.

The Baltic Sea is NATO-dominated, with or without Sweden.

Sweden is irrelevant, apart from being another useful idiot to wave the NATO flag (aka the flag of American Europe policy).

They, like Finland, don't think with level heads. By joining NATO, the chance of being dragged into a war with Russia doesn't decrease, but increase.

It must be very nice living in your head, having all the answers for everything without even needing to bother with evidence or logic. The superior mind simply knows instantly everything that happens. — Echarmion

This might come as a surprise to you, but hand-waving arguments doesn't actually make them disappear, so I guess you'll have to try harder than that. :lol:

So just run. Cede to the wicked. Abandon your farmland, homes, and storage centers to them. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. The choice between my soul and my possessions is easily made.

If Sweden hasn't got in, surely Ukraine would have been a problem. — ssu

Again, Sweden is irrelevant. If it wants to join of its own accordance, fine - another useful idiot to wave the flag - or such is the sentiment in Washington.

Ukraine on the other hand is extremely relevant, which is why the US is and has been investing billions of dollars in it.

The only way forward is for the US to make bilateral treaties with Ukraine.

Hardly any stomach for that in the US. — ssu

Post-invasion in the short-term, yes. In the long-term clearly not since the irreversibility of Ukraine's route to NATO membership is written in its constitution.

Pre-invasion, I'd say Ukraine was on the verge of developing a military that would have been able to withstand the Russian invasion, at which point bilateral agreements would definitely be in the cards.

↪Tzeentch, the invading buggers haven't opened negotiations, they've just restated their ultimatum. Negotiation isn't quite the right word here. — jorndoe

That's your view, I guess.

Their 'ultimatum' was surprisingly generous, considering what the western propaganda machines have claimed the Russians' goals in Ukraine were.

The peace deal was all but finished when Boris Johnson flew in to announce Ukraine would not be signing any deals with the Russians.

Funny, that. Imagine having Boris Johnson of all people tell you to continue fighting a war - a political walking corpse and who was obviously sent as an errand boy to take the fall in case things went sour, since his political career was already a train wreck.

What a bad joke this Ukraine debacle is.

Are you at all able to imagine a scenario where e.g. you're the leader of an ancient tribe that is slowly being encircled by a dangerous enemy who is mobilizing around your borders? — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. I'd urge everyone to get out of there.

Sweden is an irrelevant nation. Ukraine, not so much.

Had the US succeeded in creating a fait accompli in Ukraine, it would have pushed for NATO membership and any politician foolish enough to get between the neocons and their project would be disposed of, with lethal force if need be. I'm convinced of that.

I agree that there is such a thing as self-defense. I just don't think it applies to war in general because what is actually being defended is not a person, but an idea of a state, territory, national pride, etc.

When a person is backed into a corner and has no viable alternatives, that is in my view when self-defense appiles.

As long as a person has other options open to them, which includes running away, it is not self-defense.

And it should go without saying that self-defense only ever means the protection of oneself and harm that may befall others whilst protecting oneself can only be excused if it is unavoidable and unintentional.

So I agree with the first example since it clearly states person A has no other options besides protecting themselves or suffering serious harm/death.

The second example I don't agree with.

The first misstep is to believe there is such a thing as a 'just war'.

Once a nation goes to war, and thus commits itself to mass murder, it must accept that it has lost any and all rational ground upon which it might consider itself 'moral'.

The only question is how deep it is willing to sink into depravity in order to attain victory - on the individual level, how much of one's humanity one is willing to sacrifice for survival.

And the mass murder of civilians is used as an example, but this is not a prerequisite. The idea that soldiers are fair game and may be butchered by the thousands without moral cost is philosophically short-sighted, repulsive even.

So I agree with the premise; the only moral option is not to go to war.

1. You have the right to defend yourself. — Hanover

I would note here that war itself is not an act of self-defense, and that self-defense only applies when one has ran out of viable alternatives.

The German tabloids are reporting that Scholz and Biden have come together recently and are cooking up a plan to force Ukraine to negotiate.

The original article is behind a paywall, but Alexander Mercouris discussed the article on his channel.

Zelensky is probably resisting because the West initially spurred him on to fight, even though the Russians and Ukrainians were ready to negotiate.

Anyway, if this is true, and it most-likely is, the war is essentially over and the only question is how long the Ukrainians can continue to refuse negotiations, and how much they will be forced to concede in the end.

I hope the Ukrainians will be able to find a way to pay Washington and Brussels back for dragging Ukraine into this war and subsequently throwing it under the bus.

The craziest thing about this, is how obvious this was from the start. Propaganda is a helluva' drug.

'Neutrality clause' while NATO says it is going to incorporate Ukraine into its ranks and the US is funneling billions of dollars into Ukraine to support a coup d'etat. :monkey:

Some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals believe them. — George Orwell

For a while rumors have gone around about the IDF / IAF itself being responsible for a large amount of civilian casualties during the attacks of October 7th.

A recent Haaretz interview with IAF Colonel Nof Erez now seems to lend credence to that idea, referencing the Hannibal Directive that essentially authorizes the Israeli armed forces to take out Israeli hostages to avoid them being used in bargaining for hostage exchanges. Erez called it a "Mass Hannibal".

Erez was presumably directly involved (the interview seems to imply as much) though the full article by Haaretz does not seem to be available yet.

Worrying, to say the least.

It's all good.

Please refrain from being an emotional idiot. — Vaskane

An ironic statement, considering the content of your post. :chin:

It wasn't clear to me you were disagreeing with Schmitt. You could have just said so and taken my post as an argument in support of your position.

But to each their own.

This is a gross misinterpretation of IHL.

It is unsurprising one might find terms like 'voluntary human shield' in a DoD manual, but please refrain from using such terms in a serious discussion about IHL.

To make a long story short, Israel has no right to order Gazans to move, and forcing Gazans to move would in many cases constitute war crimes under the articles pertaining to forced displacement and ethnic cleansing. Resisting foreign occupation, and resisting war crimes, does not make a civilian population a legitimate military target or 'voluntary human shields'.

I feel a sudden urge to wash after having to explain this on a philosophy forum.

Sadly for you, the people I've quoted aren't so easily hand-waved, desperately though you may try.

You could simply provide evidence of your claim. — Echarmion

I did.

I've provided accounts of the people directly involved, accounts of people indirectly involved, reports by prominent UN and NATO representatives, opinion pieces by prominent academics, etc.

All "a flight of fantasy", of course.

This is why you're not taken seriously. You don't seem to realize that reality won't budge any further to accomodate your narrative.

That's not a fact, it's a wild flight of fantasy. — Echarmion

:lol:

This is why discussion with you oompa loompas is pointless.

Of course they were wildly over confident. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't see any evidence of that. It seems to me you're cherry-picking snippets of information (from Russian propaganda channels, no less) and interpreting them to fit your preferred narrative.

The fact is there was a peace deal on the table in March / April, in which Ukraine reneged on their plans to join NATO, and Russia returned all the territory it occupied at that time. This deal was blocked by the US and Britain.

It seems to me that forcing Kiev to the negotiating table was the main purpose of the invasion, and everything from Russian troop numbers to deployments and disposition coincides with that idea. The deal was blocked because the US knew it would be seen as a Russian victory.


If you want to view this conflict through a lens of Russian incompetence, be my guest, though. I doubt I'll be able to change your mind. Given the staggering levels of Russian incompetence I'm sure a Ukrainian victory is just around the corner.

Given how deeply the US was committed to project Ukraine - given the size, state and equipment of the Ukrainian military, I find it unthinkable to be honest.

This is just not how military planning works. Military planners tend to plan, as a minimum, for 'most likely enemy course of action' and 'most dangerous'.

In what world was the most likely thing to happen for Ukraine to collapse? Even in Putin's wildest dreams it would be a stretch, and I find it very hard to believe for any modern military to fall for that level of wishful thinking.

You're trying to compare completely different types of countries and completely different types of conflicts. Apples to oranges, as usual.

Even a layman can understand that a country that has been receiving western military aid for a decade, with a large, well-trained and well-equipped military, wasn't simply going to 'collapse'.

... such as a fast track into the EU (which Russia explicitly said they did not oppose, only NATO). — boethius

It should be noted that Russia has voiced concerns about Ukraine joining the EU as well, because the EU features a military dimension such as a mutual defense clause (making it function, on paper, in a similar way to Art. 5 of the NATO treaty).

It would of course not involve the US, which the Russians perceive as the primary instigator. That's probably why they've been more open to EU membership for Ukraine.

What a disgusting and pathetic display of political opportunism by Washington:




First giving Netanyahu a blank check to commit his evil, blocking UN resolutions calling for a cease-fire, and with the Israel lobby appeased now going back to whinging about a two-state solution which will never happen anyway (and they know it) to avoid dropping too much in the polls.

:vomit:

My own view is that the Israelis restyle their state into a joint Israeli-Palestinian state, citizens having a choice of one of three passports, Palestinian, Israeli, or joint Israeli-Palestinian, full rights as citizens for all, and all Palestinians citizens. Obviously a lot of details to work out. — tim wood

Not a terrible idea. In my opinion a "one-state solution" with equal rights is probably the only real solution to the Israel-Palestine problem, though it's equally unlikely to happen given the huge amount of animosity and unwillingness on both sides. Also it would require Israel to stop being a principally Jewish state, which will probably not happen for various reasons either.

Maybe if Netanyahu gets ousted and a more reasonable political elite takes over. They might come to the conclusion that it is the only way to lasting peace and that there are simply no feasible alternatives.

I'm sure you are aware, but Gaza has not been "occupied" since 2005 by Israel. — schopenhauer1

The UN disagrees.

Israel should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank. That's an action that it can and should undertake unilaterally.

And what exactly would you have them do? — tim wood

It's very simple. They should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank, and stop committing human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

As long as Israel is the occupier and refuses to carry out the relevant UN resolutions, Israel is the problem.

Hamas leaders openly state it as it has been their position from the very beginning. — BitconnectCarlos

What Hamas thinks is completely irrelevant. Israel illegally occupies Gaza and the West Bank, period.

Israel kills the innocent as a byproduct of striking legitimate military targets. — BitconnectCarlos

That's just as intentional and murderous. Or should we try to re-frame Hamas' killing of innocents as a "byproduct of resisting occupation" also?

There is a difference between the indiscriminate, deliberate murder of civilians as Hamas does and targeting, e.g. the Hamas headquarters... — BitconnectCarlos

Unfortunately for you, Israel follows what it calls the 'Dahiya doctrine', which openly endorses the disproportionate killing of civilians, and we see that doctrine in action every day in Gaza.

What Israel is doing is eliminating a group that has fomented conflict within Israel. — BC

What Israel is doing is illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank, as is confirmed by various UN Security Council resolutions, which are legally binding.

As far as I'm concerned, Israel is creating groups like Hamas through its blatant disregard for international and humanitarian law, as confirmed by various human rights organisations, including those within Israel.

Not to mention the current Israeli PM is party to what is colloquially called the 'Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance'.

-

These comments read like a bad joke. I'm sorry to say.

Resistance fighters don't behead babies in their cribs. They don't throw babies into ovens. They don't murder a child's parents and then play with the children afterwards while filming it. 80% of the victims showed signs of torture. Then there's the rapes. And Hamas has clarified that they wish to do this again and again. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sensitive to this type of moral framing. Israel spent the last month indiscriminately murdering civilians in Gaza, a large portion of which were children. They were burned, maimed, cut to pieces also.

Even in the limited context of present events there's no moral high ground for them to claim, I'm afraid.

But you're right in the fact that resistance movements have a tendency to commit acts of extreme violence. That's nothing new.

The state of Israel per se IS the occupation per Hamas. Hamas is committed to the annihilation of any independent Jewish state on that land. — BitconnectCarlos

Regardless of whether that's true or not, Israel should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank.

Antagonizing here meaning being a deadly attacker that rapes, kills, mutilates burns and kidnaps people, ... — schopenhauer1

Resistance movements are often very unpleasant in their methods, simply because they cannot resist the oppressor through conventional means. The Vietcong were no different, nor were the Taliban, or the IRA.

If Israel wants it to stop, they should stop the occupation.

At the end of the day, does the "governing" Hamas (or past tense now perhaps), did they give a shit about the lives of their people? If Israel didn't, did they? — schopenhauer1

Again, Hamas is a resistance movement. Its purpose is to resist the occupier.

It's not a political movement.

Israel actually supported Hamas in order to disenfranchise the Palestinian political movements, so go figure.


The problem is that Israel wants to continue its illegal occupation no matter what, so Israel is at the center of this problem.

That is basically asking how moderate pals plan to control violent deranged elements like Hamas antagonizing Israel rather than living peacefully? — schopenhauer1

The first thing that needs happen is for Israel to stop its belligerent occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Until that happens, Hamas is simply a resistance movement that is reacting to being occupied by Israel.

Armed resistance isn't even forbidden under such conditions according to international law, and Israel, being the occupier, cannot legally claim self-defense.