Best Of

I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.

Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.

We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)

Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US.
The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.

Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order.
No skin in the game, no say.

All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.

I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.

The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.

Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.

What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia?
I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.

Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?

Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.

Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.

Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.

Eventually, yes.

And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.

Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring
peace, it enables genocide.

I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?

Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade

Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.

Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.

In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9

In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.

So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from
now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.

I can well believe that they plan to do all
those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.

May be we can work to the internationally accepted definition of “genocide” rather than the pretendy straw man made up by a
Russian sympathising conspiracy theorist such as yourself?

Maybe you could actually READ you daft fuckwit - I was asking for John Lilburne's explanation of his supposition that hundreds of thousands would be killed if Ukraine surrendered. Genocide wasn't mentioned.

It was in the other post line to which you originally replied on. But of course truth doesn’t matter to you. Just your master’s bidding.

This conversation is showing you up to be a complete loon. I questioned a claim that Putin would slaughter hundreds of thousands post-"surrender". Now I am apparently twisting the meaning of genocide by using the frames of reference given in the original post?

As for 'my master's bidding' - I don't have a master, and that allows me to speak as I find. Perhaps you should think about who has benefitted you, and how that has informed your own viewpoint, because your above post reads like classic projection to me.

The original post that I replied to - and where you responded to me - talked about genocide and you responded with a straw man on 200,000+ deaths

I know that you have consistently parroted Russian propaganda lines from MH17 onward. But I forget you are a truth seeker who treats all statements by western governments with scepticism. And yet, somehow, you always end up sharing the same position as the Russians.

But you’re right. I’ve no evidence that you are paid by the Russians. May be you are just a fool instead.

Dear God, This was the post I replied to:

Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring
peace, it enables genocide.

200,000+ is the minimum number that that comment could have been referring to. So it wasn't any kind of 'straw man' - it was a conservative summation of the statement I took issue with.

Quite. The fact that Putin started a war that has killed well over 200,000 people shouldn't prejudice us against his peaceful intentions.

I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.

Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.

We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)

Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US.
The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.

Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order.
No skin in the game, no say.

All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.

I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.

The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.

Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.

What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia?
I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.

Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?

Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.

Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.

Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.

Eventually, yes.

And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.

Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring
peace, it enables genocide.

I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?

Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade

Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.

Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.

In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9

In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.

So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.

I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.

The deliberate, documented killings in the occupied areas run in to tens of thousands. Given that is 20% of the country, what do you expect in the other 80%?

Because there's a war?

Sigh.

You don’t want to know, do you?

The Russians engaged in deliberately murdering prominent citizens, kidnapping children and also murdering citizens while looting etc etc.

This isn’t war. It’s War Crimes according to all the various treaties.

They did this throughout the areas occupied by Russian forces.

I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.

Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.

We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)

Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US.
The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.

Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order.
No skin in the game, no say.

All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.

I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.

The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.

Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.

What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia?
I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.

Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?

Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.

Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.

Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.

Eventually, yes.

And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.

Donald Trump’s distaste for killing foreigners has been noted as one of his biggest failings by the PB panzer corps (armchair division) many times before. We are in truly dark times when a US President gets queasy about half a million deaths.

The ending of various USAID programmes is going to kill tens of thousands of foreigners. Trump has not the slightest problem with it.

I strongly doubt it. The ending of bizarre and troubling funding of such organisations as the BBC by USAID is certainly going to do very little harm.

https://mutualaidsudan.org/

"Now, Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2024 and already in 2025, are facing an 80% reduction in already-insufficient resources due to recent USAID cuts."

Mutual Aid Sudan is funded by the following organisations (ai)

The Coalition for Mutual Aid in Sudan is supported by 15 philanthropies and other organizations, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Center for Humanitarian Leadership, and the Center for Disaster Philanthropy.

Leaving aside the fact that anything with Bill Gates is a huge red flag to me, why can't the organisations that actually set up this initiative, who it would appear are not short of a bob or two, fund it?

We know you believe in conspiracy theories. If we didn’t, the fact the you think funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a “huge red flag” would tell us.

Bill Gates' publicly stated views and agenda are quite enough of a red flag to me, leaving aside anything else. I also note that his wife says she divorced him due to his association with Epstein, so I'm not sure he qualifies as the all-round nice guy you seem to suppose he is.

Prince Andrew has become the punchline of a joke due to his association with Epstein, but Bill still seems to be feted (by some) as a wonderful global philanthropist. Now having to do a bit more actual philanthropy because his charities are going to be given less grants by the US Government. Which we're meant to feel terrible about.

No the red flag is your interpretation of his stated views and agenda which bear little relation to reality. They are what tell us you are a lunatic conspiacy theorist.

Is he a nice guy? I have no idea. Is he wrapped up in the Epstein stuff? Again I have no idea. But neither do you.

What I do know is the work he and his foundation have been doing has been helping to save the lives of hundreds of thousands - probably millions - of people around the world.

And unless you are one of the anti-vaxxer conspiracy morons then it should be obvious to you as well.