Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
So revelation is not proof of religious belief?
For asylum seekers it shouldn't be no
So Christianity is inexplicably linked to knowledge of the Bible? Sounds like Bibliolatry - no true Christian would endorse that.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
So revelation is not proof of religious belief?
Once a friend of mine was arguing with the wife of the Rector about hymns. He wanted ones that were musical, she wanted ones that were fashionable.
Eventually she said, snootily, 'Mr Davies, I don't believe you're a true Christian, you've never seen Jesus.'
And Mr Davies, very miffed, fired back, 'You don't know what I've seen when I've had a couple of pints.'
I've always thought it a brilliant summary of the problem with the argument from religious experience.
I mean so what if Jesus existed. The new religion had to come from somewhere and if there was a bloke, pale complexion, long flowing beard/hair who was making a big noise about something then all well and good.
And then people began to create.
You can perfectly reasonably say Jesus existed. Can you perfectly reasonably say he existed, he was the son of god and died and rose up again on the third day. And all the other stuff.
No. No I don't think you can so what does it matter if there was an historical figure, poor bloke, onto which all this was piled.
You certainly can if you are one of the 2 billion Christians still worldwide
I would have thought that it would be pretty hard to say anything on the matter if you've been chucked out of the UK and put to death for apostasy in your home country.
If you are a Muslim from a hardline nation looking to convert to Christianity for economic reasons for a UK passport you would quickly return to Islam if evicted before you got home and faced the above
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Ukraine might be outgunned in some areas, but there are suggestions that the casualty rate leans rather heavily the other way.
But (cueing @Dura_Ace) : the information space is filled with contradictory information. And if you favour Russia, you might choose pro-Russian figures.
"Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has"
Yet oddly, Russia is attacking. There are obvious reasons (and one major reason) why.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The Conservative Party has fallen out with vicars, who go around saying woke nonsense like Matthew 25:35-40.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
Moving on from "salvation by faith" and "salvation by works", apparently we now have Hyufdism - "salvation by knowledge".
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
That’s not what he said.
We also have left wing labour MPs suspended for saying far less.
In your world it is all fake offence from so called PB Tories. However there is offence across the political divide at, what are, offensive comments.
His comments were offensive but not anti -Semitic .
At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will result in accusations of anti-Semitism !
Accusing Netenyahu and the IDF of allowing an attack or not assisting quickly enough to aid the people effected so you can then pulverize Gaza is just that .
The fault is with those not the Jewish people as a whole .
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
So revelation is not proof of religious belief?
For asylum seekers it shouldn't be no
So Christianity is inexplicably linked to knowledge of the Bible? Sounds like Bibliolatry - no true Christian would endorse that.
For asylum yes, otherwise anybody could start speaking gibberish and pretend it was Christian revelation
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
So revelation is not proof of religious belief?
Once a friend of mine was arguing with the wife of the Rector about hymns. He wanted ones that were musical, she wanted ones that were fashionable.
Eventually she said, snootily, 'Mr Davies, I don't believe you're a true Christian, you've never seen Jesus.'
And Mr Davies, very miffed, fired back, 'You don't know what I've seen when I've had a couple of pints.'
I've always thought it a brilliant summary of the problem with the argument from religious experience.
(In case anyone wonders - he got the sack.)
But it's a good point - so many people claim to hear and see God, why should your specific version of Christianity matter more than anyone else's? If they say they believe Christ died for their sins - they're a Christian. Everything else I'm sure there has been a schism about at some point.
'Rishi Sunak has to call an election in 6 weeks - he has no other choice' The Prime Minister cannot wait until Autumn to call a vote, says Fleet Street Fox. There'll be no-one left in Downing Street by then
Here are some facts. There hasn't been an October election since 1974. Ten of the last 11 elections have all been held in spring or summer. There are local elections planned for May 2, and the spring budget date has been moved to a week or two earlier than expected, on March 6.
And here's an assumption: the Conservative Party is going to be utterly decimated in the locals. Reform will make good ground among motivated anti-immigration voters, Labour will sweep the board in the north and midlands, and even Ed Davey's dire record on the Post Office scandal won't stop the Lib Dems cleaning up in the south.
The question that would furrow Sunak's brow, if he cared about any of this, is: who's going to campaign for him in October? Who's going to stuff leaflets, who's going to give old ladies a lift to the polling station, who's going to stand in rainy high streets saying "vote Tory"? Not a single Conservative councillor, who will either have lost their seats five months previous or have scraped through by pretending not to have anything to do with That Lot In Westminster.
She’s nothing to do with me. She puts the argument so partisan and weakly. Not only not the strongest reasoning, there’s no reasoning there to add to the list!
She is right though in knowing they realistically didn’t have the whole year to choose from, six months ago when they decided it was either May 2nd or October, and they chose May 2nd.
Worth saying they do need to decide by or on March 25th. If they announce it a day later the election date would be May 9th as you need 25 working days and Easter makes that calculation slightly more complex.
March 25th being, appropriately, the first day of the new year for many centuries until 1582.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
'Rishi Sunak has to call an election in 6 weeks - he has no other choice' The Prime Minister cannot wait until Autumn to call a vote, says Fleet Street Fox. There'll be no-one left in Downing Street by then
Here are some facts. There hasn't been an October election since 1974. Ten of the last 11 elections have all been held in spring or summer. There are local elections planned for May 2, and the spring budget date has been moved to a week or two earlier than expected, on March 6.
And here's an assumption: the Conservative Party is going to be utterly decimated in the locals. Reform will make good ground among motivated anti-immigration voters, Labour will sweep the board in the north and midlands, and even Ed Davey's dire record on the Post Office scandal won't stop the Lib Dems cleaning up in the south.
The question that would furrow Sunak's brow, if he cared about any of this, is: who's going to campaign for him in October? Who's going to stuff leaflets, who's going to give old ladies a lift to the polling station, who's going to stand in rainy high streets saying "vote Tory"? Not a single Conservative councillor, who will either have lost their seats five months previous or have scraped through by pretending not to have anything to do with That Lot In Westminster.
She’s nothing to do with me. She puts the argument so partisan and weakly. Not only not the strongest reasoning, there’s no reasoning there to add to the list!
She is right though in knowing they realistically didn’t have the whole year to choose from, six months ago when they decided it was either May 2nd or October, and they chose May 2nd.
Worth saying they do need to decide by or on March 25th. If they announce it a day later the election date would be May 9th as you need 25 working days and Easter makes that calculation slightly more complex.
Parliament closes on the 26th March, we will know days before then. Probably told Monday following the budget when the old lectern - no the new one 4ft lower - will appear and media told to expect announcement. But we will know before then because the weekend papers will be full of it. In fact we will know before the weekend papers are full of it, as there will be subtle moves on infrastructure and contracts.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Another fatuous error
As of today, in its present wartime borders, Ukraine's population is estimated at about 31 million; it is severely reduced from pre-war times due to refugees, lost land, war time deaths, and draft dodgers
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
Because they're always whingeing about the state of education. Why should theological colleges be exempt?
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
So revelation is not proof of religious belief?
Once a friend of mine was arguing with the wife of the Rector about hymns. He wanted ones that were musical, she wanted ones that were fashionable.
Eventually she said, snootily, 'Mr Davies, I don't believe you're a true Christian, you've never seen Jesus.'
And Mr Davies, very miffed, fired back, 'You don't know what I've seen when I've had a couple of pints.'
I've always thought it a brilliant summary of the problem with the argument from religious experience.
(In case anyone wonders - he got the sack.)
Prsesumably he was trhe organist rather than the catechist?!
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
Not the Christian Old Testament, though. That's only one millennium and some centuries.
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
NPXMP was saying something sensible along the lines of the first part of your final paragraph.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
All wars end with either total defeat of one side or a compromise. Ukraine needs some belief that if it agreed to cede territory to the bully, the bully wouldn't be back in a few years time.
Like paying Danegeld only led to a need to pay more Danegeld.
And yet, what can they do if they run out of troops? Conscription (have they already done this?) Call up women too? (Have they already done this?)
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
Not the Christian Old Testament, though. That's only one millennium and some centuries.
New Testament, shurely?
Sorry, yes! But certainly the Christian added-on bit.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Ukraine has close to one million men under arms.
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
So revelation is not proof of religious belief?
For asylum seekers it shouldn't be no
So Christianity is inexplicably linked to knowledge of the Bible? Sounds like Bibliolatry - no true Christian would endorse that.
For asylum yes, otherwise anybody could start speaking gibberish and pretend it was Christian revelation
So if a preacher came to China or Iran, sans Bible (because they're illegal), and told parables (in ways that fit in with Chinese or Iranian traditions, to better help them understand the messages - as Paul did to the gentiles) and the people who listened to those parables and took them to heart and were then persecuted because of it - that's not good enough for you? Not real conversion, not real faith?
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
So revelation is not proof of religious belief?
Once a friend of mine was arguing with the wife of the Rector about hymns. He wanted ones that were musical, she wanted ones that were fashionable.
Eventually she said, snootily, 'Mr Davies, I don't believe you're a true Christian, you've never seen Jesus.'
And Mr Davies, very miffed, fired back, 'You don't know what I've seen when I've had a couple of pints.'
I've always thought it a brilliant summary of the problem with the argument from religious experience.
(In case anyone wonders - he got the sack.)
Prsesumably he was trhe organist rather than the catechist?!
He certainly was.
But I think she was the really massive organ involved...
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
France doesn't, nor does Germany, Italy, Spain or Canada
It's a red herring. Does the US spend more on defence because it's a member of NATO, compared with if it wasn't? Unlikely. Do America's NATO commitments distract from other priorities? Hypothetically possible but America's NATO allies in recent years have contributed more to American projects than the other way round. Also Trump doesn't seem particularly keen on those commitments. So the US is getting a lot of benefit from NATO for a minimal net input. It shouldn't be wholly transactional, and I don't think it is, but if you go down that route, America is the beneficiary right now.
If Russia invaded France and Germany it certainly wouldn't be the US the beneficiary of NATO
Umm I think the idea is that there is an absolute commitment to mutual defence and that deters attacks, so the commitment itself saves everyone a lot of trouble. Seems to have worked so far, in the sense that Russia, for example, has invaded a few neighbours, but not any that are members of NATO no matter how small the country or how big a Russian minority they have.
NATO's Article 5 has only been invoked once - after the Sept 11 attacks on the USA.
True but the US could have invaded Afghanistan on its own and indeed it was US Navy Seals who killed Bin Laden.
Indeed the US could defeat any other nation on its own, including Russia, except perhaps China
The USA cannot defeat Russia, or China, or indeed North Korea probably, because nukes
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
I still don't understand how some of the Tories think priests are supposed to know the supplicants are asylum seekers in the first place (especially if they are assumed to be fibbing anyway). Does one need to bnring a passport or HO documents to the catechism class?
Edit: but I forget, it's been like that for ages for banks and landlords and employers ... . Though it's not been enshrined in law that the state church should also conform. Or will it be?
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
That’s not what he said.
We also have left wing labour MPs suspended for saying far less.
In your world it is all fake offence from so called PB Tories. However there is offence across the political divide at, what are, offensive comments.
His comments were offensive but not anti -Semitic .
At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will result in accusations of anti-Semitism !
Accusing Netenyahu and the IDF of allowing an attack or not assisting quickly enough to aid the people effected so you can then pulverize Gaza is just that .
The fault is with those not the Jewish people as a whole .
How does that square with your comment:
"The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti-Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet."
'Rishi Sunak has to call an election in 6 weeks - he has no other choice' The Prime Minister cannot wait until Autumn to call a vote, says Fleet Street Fox. There'll be no-one left in Downing Street by then
Here are some facts. There hasn't been an October election since 1974. Ten of the last 11 elections have all been held in spring or summer. There are local elections planned for May 2, and the spring budget date has been moved to a week or two earlier than expected, on March 6.
And here's an assumption: the Conservative Party is going to be utterly decimated in the locals. Reform will make good ground among motivated anti-immigration voters, Labour will sweep the board in the north and midlands, and even Ed Davey's dire record on the Post Office scandal won't stop the Lib Dems cleaning up in the south.
The question that would furrow Sunak's brow, if he cared about any of this, is: who's going to campaign for him in October? Who's going to stuff leaflets, who's going to give old ladies a lift to the polling station, who's going to stand in rainy high streets saying "vote Tory"? Not a single Conservative councillor, who will either have lost their seats five months previous or have scraped through by pretending not to have anything to do with That Lot In Westminster.
She’s nothing to do with me. She puts the argument so partisan and weakly. Not only not the strongest reasoning, there’s no reasoning there to add to the list!
She is right though in knowing they realistically didn’t have the whole year to choose from, six months ago when they decided it was either May 2nd or October, and they chose May 2nd.
Worth saying they do need to decide by or on March 25th. If they announce it a day later the election date would be May 9th as you need 25 working days and Easter makes that calculation slightly more complex.
Parliament closes on the 26th March, we will know days before then. Probably told Monday following the budget when the old lectern - no the new one 4ft lower - will appear and media told to expect announcement. But we will know before then because the weekend papers will be full of it. In fact we will know before the weekend papers are full of it, as there will be subtle moves on infrastructure and contracts.
Yes, the announcement would be no later than Monday 18th March, with a few days of mopping up before parliament prorogues on Thursday 21st.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
This is interesting - especially in light of Putin's recent (dud of) an interview with Carlson. I was listening to a review of the interview that noted that it didn't seem to serve the shared purposes of the two people involved - namely saying all the talking points needed for the American right to get on board with Trump doing exactly this when he wins again, and instead was much more of Putin doing some historical revisionism and occasionally insulting Carlson, with Carlson seeming mostly confused, trying to get Putin to join him in his talking points (how Russia is the real defender of the West and Christendom and is fighting against the international deep state) with the occasional real journalistic question in seemingly out of a belief that Putin was having the conversation in good faith. Maybe that was Putin just recognising that he can win a war of attrition with Ukraine and starting his victory lap, or maybe Putin didn't feel he needed to play the propaganda game as he thinks Trump has it in the bag?
I suspect Putin is just out of touch, like most dictators. He had a great opportunity to directly influence American (and to a lesser extent European) public opinion, and he completely fluffed it.
I mean, about the only specific thing I learnt from this interview is that Putin said "Poland forced Hitler to invade." This kind of crap isn't going to help nurture the suspicion that Putin is actually sadly misunderstood.
And even Harper of PB complained the interview was boring.
You would have thought Putin's and Carlson's teams would have discussed this before hand.
Preparation probably beneath Putin, he already thinks the history of Ukraine is his specialist subject. Carlson is just a chancer.
It did occur to me that maybe the only Germans Putin is in touch with these days are the more extreme AfD types, so he thought having a bit of sympathy for Hitler's case against Poland would go down well in Germany. But I think he just needs to believe the Soviet Union behaved "honourably" when it invaded Poland, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was justified, so Hitler was somehow right to invade Poland. Of course when Hitler broke the pact and attacked Russia he was very bad. Maybe that is the history they teach in Russian schools for all I know.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
There's such a thing as being the wrong sort of Christian. It's no good being baptised into the C of S if you want to change your mind and be a RC. It needs to be done all over again. No idea what the C of E position is on this.
They will accept any member of any recognised church without need for further confirmation. Any practising Christian who wishes may partake of Holy Communion.
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
That’s not what he said.
We also have left wing labour MPs suspended for saying far less.
In your world it is all fake offence from so called PB Tories. However there is offence across the political divide at, what are, offensive comments.
His comments were offensive but not anti -Semitic .
At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will result in accusations of anti-Semitism !
Accusing Netenyahu and the IDF of allowing an attack or not assisting quickly enough to aid the people effected so you can then pulverize Gaza is just that .
The fault is with those not the Jewish people as a whole .
How does that square with your comment:
"The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti-Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet."
Because some people can’t distinguish between the actions of a corrupt cesspit administration and the wider Jewish population.
Which is my point. And why Netenyahu is a handmaiden for anti-Semitism.
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
NPXMP was saying something sensible along the lines of the first part of your final paragraph.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
All wars end with either total defeat of one side or a compromise. Ukraine needs some belief that if it agreed to cede territory to the bully, the bully wouldn't be back in a few years time.
Like paying Danegeld only led to a need to pay more Danegeld.
And yet, what can they do if they run out of troops? Conscription (have they already done this?) Call up women too? (Have they already done this?)
They have conscription, but the minimum age for conscription is something like 29. This is because the age cohort of the 20s is particularly small, so it would be demographically catastrophic to suffer heavy casualties in that age cohort.
This is one of the things behind Zelenskyy replacing Zaluzhny - disagreements about the future of conscription.
Again, the more in the way of ammunition, long-range weaponry, etc, that we provide, then the lower will be Ukraine's casualties. Being able to fire fewer artillery shells than Russia is not helpful when trying to minimise their own casualties. Being forbidden from firing NATO munitions at targets in Russia does not help Ukraine minimise their casualties. Being denied long-range weapons does not help Ukraine to minimise their casualties.
I want Ukraine to have its best chance of decreasing Russia so that any other dictator tempted to invade a democratic neighbour will reconsider. There is more that we could do to improve Ukraine's chances.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
There's such a thing as being the wrong sort of Christian. It's no good being baptised into the C of S if you want to change your mind and be a RC. It needs to be done all over again. No idea what the C of E position is on this.
They will accept any member of any recognised church without need for further confirmation. Any practising Christian who wishes may partake of Holy Communion.
Thanks. Thinking of Baptists and adult baptism being needed even if one was done as a baby, but that's not very likely in the current political context.
Ferguson writes for effect, rather than from analysis (who does that remind us of?), but the central arguments of his piece - that we underestimate the extent to which most people go along with occupation, we underestimate the chance of geopolitical events snowballing into a major crisis, and that the memory of occupation or threat of invasion colours how that and the following generation perceive things for many decades afterwards, are all sound.
The scenario of China making a move (itself or by proxy) and the US backing down and retreating into isolationism is certainly credible. But the final leap in his article, to some foreign (Russian, is implied) occupation of the US is neither credible nor explained. More likely, assuming the series of events he posits came to pass, is that the US falls into the same sort of position that the UK found itself during WWII. The question then being whether it gives up on the rest of the world, as fortress America, or seeks to rescue it (us).
I'd also take issue with any of the alternative history of Germany winning WW2 as garbage, and that includes both SS-GB and Fatherland. Currently reading James Holland's excellent 'The war in the west, part 2' and it is striking just how poorly prepared Germany was for a long war. Everything was gambled on a quick win, and it worked right up to until they tried to invade the USSR. But in the Russia there was endless space and limitless men, so a quick win was never a possibility. And as for the invasion scare for the UK in 1940 - would never have succeeded. The home fleet would have massacred the pathetic cobbled together flotilla the Germans were trying to assemble.
And after failing to knock out both the UK and then the USSR, the madness of declaring war on the industrial powerhouse that was the USA.
Germany did not realise that that the conquest of Western Europe, at a cost of 50,000 dead, was a fluke. The casualties in the USSR were the norm.
It was a case of whoever can run faster, wins. Germany was qualitatively better than France in 1940, and the UK for that matter, but that's not saying much: it's economic base was poor and mechanisation way behind.
On paper French forces were stronger than German. It should have been able to compete or stall them for months, if not years. But it seemed to have a complete collapse of national confidence even before the first shot was fired. And then they were so ashamed and bitter at their rapid defeat and, worse, that Britain fought on that their answer to this was to turn their collaboration up to 11 to manage their self-esteem thereafter.
I've never really got to the bottom of this, or what happened to France in the 1930s. They don't ever talk about it.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
They couldn't be and shouldn't be, conversions should be focused on the domestic English population only already resident here. Not Muslims seeking a temporary conversion for a passport for economic reasons before going back to Islam again
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
That’s not what he said.
We also have left wing labour MPs suspended for saying far less.
In your world it is all fake offence from so called PB Tories. However there is offence across the political divide at, what are, offensive comments.
His comments were offensive but not anti -Semitic .
At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will result in accusations of anti-Semitism !
Accusing Netenyahu and the IDF of allowing an attack or not assisting quickly enough to aid the people effected so you can then pulverize Gaza is just that .
The fault is with those not the Jewish people as a whole .
How does that square with your comment:
"The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti-Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet."
Because some people can’t distinguish between the actions of a corrupt cesspit administration and the wider Jewish population.
Which is my point. And why Netenyahu is a handmaiden for anti-Semitism.
There's a contrary angle to this: anti-Semitism is a handmaiden for Netenyahu and his fellow travellers. As long as Jewish people feel they don't have anywhere safe in the world, the desire for a 'safe' Israel will exist.
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
That’s not what he said.
We also have left wing labour MPs suspended for saying far less.
In your world it is all fake offence from so called PB Tories. However there is offence across the political divide at, what are, offensive comments.
His comments were offensive but not anti -Semitic .
At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will result in accusations of anti-Semitism !
Accusing Netenyahu and the IDF of allowing an attack or not assisting quickly enough to aid the people effected so you can then pulverize Gaza is just that .
The fault is with those not the Jewish people as a whole .
How does that square with your comment:
"The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti-Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet."
Because some people can’t distinguish between the actions of a corrupt cesspit administration and the wider Jewish population.
Which is my point. And why Netenyahu is a handmaiden for anti-Semitism.
Ridiculous. Because we have been told by everyone on here in particular that criticism of Israel is obviously not criticism of Jews but here you are saying that it could be seen that way.
Not by you, obviously, you just point out the danger.
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
France doesn't, nor does Germany, Italy, Spain or Canada
It's a red herring. Does the US spend more on defence because it's a member of NATO, compared with if it wasn't? Unlikely. Do America's NATO commitments distract from other priorities? Hypothetically possible but America's NATO allies in recent years have contributed more to American projects than the other way round. Also Trump doesn't seem particularly keen on those commitments. So the US is getting a lot of benefit from NATO for a minimal net input. It shouldn't be wholly transactional, and I don't think it is, but if you go down that route, America is the beneficiary right now.
If Russia invaded France and Germany it certainly wouldn't be the US the beneficiary of NATO
Umm I think the idea is that there is an absolute commitment to mutual defence and that deters attacks, so the commitment itself saves everyone a lot of trouble. Seems to have worked so far, in the sense that Russia, for example, has invaded a few neighbours, but not any that are members of NATO no matter how small the country or how big a Russian minority they have.
NATO's Article 5 has only been invoked once - after the Sept 11 attacks on the USA.
True but the US could have invaded Afghanistan on its own and indeed it was US Navy Seals who killed Bin Laden.
Indeed the US could defeat any other nation on its own, including Russia, except perhaps China
The USA cannot defeat Russia, or China, or indeed North Korea probably, because nukes
It could defeat a Russian invasion most likely, nukes would likely only be used by Moscow to defend themselves.
Though again on that basis even if that was not the case the US, UK and France could defend themselves as they have nukes as a last resort so Russia would not risk invading them unlike the rest of NATO
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
If only one part of the Christian trinitarian god had ever spoken of supporting those from other cultures or beliefs if they were in need. Like, regardless of whether they were an enemy or not. Like a Good Someone.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Ukraine has close to one million men under arms.
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
You've always been a cheerleader for Ukraine (and fair enough), but your many predictions of their advances and successes have not come true, have they? Not since early 2023
The counter offensive was a complete failure, and they lost 100,000s of men killed and injured, for no significant territorial gain whatsoever
Given that, how do you suggest they proceed? There is no way for them to win a ground offensive, but they can maybe defend what they have
But if all they are doing is defending what they have, then they might as well seek a truce or an armistice no? Then rebuild, and save all those lives
The only alternative I can see is that they try and hold their ground AND fight Russia in more unconventional ways, attacking the navy (as they have done with great success), maybe fomenting unrest in Russia (much less successful)
But all that risks Russia slowly grinding them down and Russia is still bombing Ukrainian cities daily, it has not run out of drones and missiles, as we have been assured was immiment, every week since about November 2022
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
So revelation is not proof of religious belief?
For asylum seekers it shouldn't be no
So Christianity is inexplicably linked to knowledge of the Bible? Sounds like Bibliolatry - no true Christian would endorse that.
For asylum yes, otherwise anybody could start speaking gibberish and pretend it was Christian revelation
So if a preacher came to China or Iran, sans Bible (because they're illegal), and told parables (in ways that fit in with Chinese or Iranian traditions, to better help them understand the messages - as Paul did to the gentiles) and the people who listened to those parables and took them to heart and were then persecuted because of it - that's not good enough for you? Not real conversion, not real faith?
Yes not real Christianity just parables in the Iranian or Chinese tradition
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Another fatuous error
As of today, in its present wartime borders, Ukraine's population is estimated at about 31 million; it is severely reduced from pre-war times due to refugees, lost land, war time deaths, and draft dodgers
But both cases have seen a fair few people trying to escape: either rich Russians fleeing the draft and sanctions; or Ukrainians fleeing Russian fascism.
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
That’s not what he said.
We also have left wing labour MPs suspended for saying far less.
In your world it is all fake offence from so called PB Tories. However there is offence across the political divide at, what are, offensive comments.
His comments were offensive but not anti -Semitic .
At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will result in accusations of anti-Semitism !
Accusing Netenyahu and the IDF of allowing an attack or not assisting quickly enough to aid the people effected so you can then pulverize Gaza is just that .
The fault is with those not the Jewish people as a whole .
How does that square with your comment:
"The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti-Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet."
I mean, this is a sentiment I've heard echoed by many Jewish people - because Netenyahu himself equates Israel to Judaism inherently, it does act as a form of "justification" for others who erroneously believe that.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
There's such a thing as being the wrong sort of Christian. It's no good being baptised into the C of S if you want to change your mind and be a RC. It needs to be done all over again. No idea what the C of E position is on this.
They will accept any member of any recognised church without need for further confirmation. Any practising Christian who wishes may partake of Holy Communion.
Thanks. Thinking of Baptists and adult baptism being needed even if one was done as a baby, but that's not very likely in the current political context.
It doesn't go the other way, much like your example of the Church of Scotland not counting for the Catholics, but it is based in the idea the Church of England as the 'national' church should set an example of ecumenicalism.
In Wales it would go further and ordained ministers of the four Covenanted Churches (plus some independent Baptists) are recognised as ministers for the purpose of taking services in other denominations.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Ukraine has close to one million men under arms.
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
It's funny: @Leon is absolutely right to point out that many people are blind to Ukraine's problems.
But he fails to apply the same analysis to his own views.
Like almost everyone on here, he's blind in one eye. His is just a different eye.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
So revelation is not proof of religious belief?
For asylum seekers it shouldn't be no
So Christianity is inexplicably linked to knowledge of the Bible? Sounds like Bibliolatry - no true Christian would endorse that.
For asylum yes, otherwise anybody could start speaking gibberish and pretend it was Christian revelation
So if a preacher came to China or Iran, sans Bible (because they're illegal), and told parables (in ways that fit in with Chinese or Iranian traditions, to better help them understand the messages - as Paul did to the gentiles) and the people who listened to those parables and took them to heart and were then persecuted because of it - that's not good enough for you? Not real conversion, not real faith?
Yes not real Christianity just parables in the Iranian or Chinese tradition
Okay - so you dislike Paulite theology; you don't sound like a real Christian to me HYUFD.
Do you think my son wasn't afraid? I was afraid too, when he went. Everyone's afraid of dying," she answers, when I wonder what she thinks of those who avoid signing up to fight.
"But maybe being enslaved by Russia is more frightening? Now we see death. It's very difficult. Very difficult. But there is no way back. We can't give up."
What do you expect a grieving mother to say?
"Yeah, the war is lost, my son died in vain, it was all pointless"
Ummm:
You'll find plenty of people who will say "my son died on a foreign field all for the leader's vanity".
This guy died on Ukrainian soil, for Ukraine, so your example is fatuous
You say you like your referendums. Have you forgotten the Ukrainian Independence Referendum of 1991?
Yes 92% No 8%
Turnout 84%
Every single Ukrainian region (even Crimea, tho it was much closer there) backed Independence.
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
That’s not what he said.
We also have left wing labour MPs suspended for saying far less.
In your world it is all fake offence from so called PB Tories. However there is offence across the political divide at, what are, offensive comments.
His comments were offensive but not anti -Semitic .
At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will result in accusations of anti-Semitism !
Accusing Netenyahu and the IDF of allowing an attack or not assisting quickly enough to aid the people effected so you can then pulverize Gaza is just that .
The fault is with those not the Jewish people as a whole .
How does that square with your comment:
"The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti-Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet."
Because some people can’t distinguish between the actions of a corrupt cesspit administration and the wider Jewish population.
Which is my point. And why Netenyahu is a handmaiden for anti-Semitism.
Ridiculous. Because we have been told by everyone on here in particular that criticism of Israel is obviously not criticism of Jews but here you are saying that it could be seen that way.
Not by you, obviously, you just point out the danger.
I’m pointing out that the actions of the Israeli government can effect the perception of the wider Jewish community . Unfortunately some people don’t make the distinction and clump both together .
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
There's such a thing as being the wrong sort of Christian. It's no good being baptised into the C of S if you want to change your mind and be a RC. It needs to be done all over again. No idea what the C of E position is on this.
They will accept any member of any recognised church without need for further confirmation. Any practising Christian who wishes may partake of Holy Communion.
My daughter took up bellringing, and now visits lots of churches to ring their bells. She may also have become religious; certainly she is making the most of being part of the church community.
I visited her recently and went to church with her to hear the bells ring, and stayed for the service, singing the hymns. If I'd wanted to take communion, no-one would have checked, or asked me about my church membership.
Maybe it's naiveté on their part, but compared to every other part of life, where one has to constantly prove who you are and whether you're "genuine", I found it a refreshing break from the constant suspicion and challenge. And did it harm them to have a polite atheist in their midst?
Do you think my son wasn't afraid? I was afraid too, when he went. Everyone's afraid of dying," she answers, when I wonder what she thinks of those who avoid signing up to fight.
"But maybe being enslaved by Russia is more frightening? Now we see death. It's very difficult. Very difficult. But there is no way back. We can't give up."
What do you expect a grieving mother to say?
"Yeah, the war is lost, my son died in vain, it was all pointless"
Ummm:
You'll find plenty of people who will say "my son died on a foreign field all for the leader's vanity".
This guy died on Ukrainian soil, for Ukraine, so your example is fatuous
That sound you heard, that was my point whistling over your head.
I was pointing out that that is how RUSSIAN MOTHERS will about their DEAD CHILDREN.
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
NPXMP was saying something sensible along the lines of the first part of your final paragraph.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
All wars end with either total defeat of one side or a compromise. Ukraine needs some belief that if it agreed to cede territory to the bully, the bully wouldn't be back in a few years time.
Like paying Danegeld only led to a need to pay more Danegeld.
And yet, what can they do if they run out of troops? Conscription (have they already done this?) Call up women too? (Have they already done this?)
They have conscription, but the minimum age for conscription is something like 29. This is because the age cohort of the 20s is particularly small, so it would be demographically catastrophic to suffer heavy casualties in that age cohort.
This is one of the things behind Zelenskyy replacing Zaluzhny - disagreements about the future of conscription.
Again, the more in the way of ammunition, long-range weaponry, etc, that we provide, then the lower will be Ukraine's casualties. Being able to fire fewer artillery shells than Russia is not helpful when trying to minimise their own casualties. Being forbidden from firing NATO munitions at targets in Russia does not help Ukraine minimise their casualties. Being denied long-range weapons does not help Ukraine to minimise their casualties.
I want Ukraine to have its best chance of decreasing Russia so that any other dictator tempted to invade a democratic neighbour will reconsider. There is more that we could do to improve Ukraine's chances.
The minimum age for conscription in Ukraine is 27. Or so I was told by Ukrainians, in Ukraine, coming up to their 27th birthdays
They've run out of men and the war is lost. To the extent that it can no longer be won. We are now asking them to sacrifice the last cohort of young people for..... what exactly?
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
There's such a thing as being the wrong sort of Christian. It's no good being baptised into the C of S if you want to change your mind and be a RC. It needs to be done all over again. No idea what the C of E position is on this.
They will accept any member of any recognised church without need for further confirmation. Any practising Christian who wishes may partake of Holy Communion.
My daughter took up bellringing, and now visits lots of churches to ring their bells. She may also have become religious; certainly she is making the most of being part of the church community.
I visited her recently and went to church with her to hear the bells ring, and stayed for the service, singing the hymns. If I'd wanted to take communion, no-one would have checked, or asked me about my church membership.
Maybe it's naiveté on their part, but compared to every other part of life, where one has to constantly prove who you are and whether you're "genuine", I found it a refreshing break from the constant suspicion and challenge. And did it harm them to have a polite atheist in their midst?
Welcoming the likes of Ezedi and helping them get UK citizenship however is a different matter
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
So revelation is not proof of religious belief?
For asylum seekers it shouldn't be no
So Christianity is inexplicably linked to knowledge of the Bible? Sounds like Bibliolatry - no true Christian would endorse that.
For asylum yes, otherwise anybody could start speaking gibberish and pretend it was Christian revelation
So if a preacher came to China or Iran, sans Bible (because they're illegal), and told parables (in ways that fit in with Chinese or Iranian traditions, to better help them understand the messages - as Paul did to the gentiles) and the people who listened to those parables and took them to heart and were then persecuted because of it - that's not good enough for you? Not real conversion, not real faith?
Yes not real Christianity just parables in the Iranian or Chinese tradition
Okay - so you dislike Paulite theology; you don't sound like a real Christian to me HYUFD.
It is Christianity not Paulianity and even Paulite theology can be found in the Bible
(The only person on that list who is in any way religious, so far as I know, is McGrath.)
It is worth noting that all of these are blog posts of one description or another. That is because to my knowledge there has only ever been one review of his book in an actual academic journal, which compared his knowledge to a first year theology undergraduate and his writing style to evangelical apologetics. Petterson's review is available here: https://relegere.org/relegere/article/view/702
In response Carrier accused her of being a Christian out to get him, which led the editor of Relegere to clarify Petterson is an atheist.
Useful.
Very short guide as to Jesus being real historical figure: move from undisputed material not from mythological overlay.
1) Paul believed Jesus existed, though he didn't meet him ('born of a woman'). Undisputed.
2) Paul personally knew Jesus's brother, James, and Peter, both followers of Jesus, (both of whom were martyred by the way). Undisputed.
3) It is not credible that James and Peter were followers of a person they knew had not existed, and also that Paul was ignorant of this.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Another fatuous error
As of today, in its present wartime borders, Ukraine's population is estimated at about 31 million; it is severely reduced from pre-war times due to refugees, lost land, war time deaths, and draft dodgers
So Russia is actually nearly five times larger, not three
The vast majority of Ukrainans who have fled in the last two years, want to return once the war is over. That may not be true for those who have made it to the UK, but most are in Poland and Germany and they see their residency very much as temporary.
'Rishi Sunak has to call an election in 6 weeks - he has no other choice' The Prime Minister cannot wait until Autumn to call a vote, says Fleet Street Fox. There'll be no-one left in Downing Street by then
Here are some facts. There hasn't been an October election since 1974. Ten of the last 11 elections have all been held in spring or summer. There are local elections planned for May 2, and the spring budget date has been moved to a week or two earlier than expected, on March 6.
And here's an assumption: the Conservative Party is going to be utterly decimated in the locals. Reform will make good ground among motivated anti-immigration voters, Labour will sweep the board in the north and midlands, and even Ed Davey's dire record on the Post Office scandal won't stop the Lib Dems cleaning up in the south.
The question that would furrow Sunak's brow, if he cared about any of this, is: who's going to campaign for him in October? Who's going to stuff leaflets, who's going to give old ladies a lift to the polling station, who's going to stand in rainy high streets saying "vote Tory"? Not a single Conservative councillor, who will either have lost their seats five months previous or have scraped through by pretending not to have anything to do with That Lot In Westminster.
She’s nothing to do with me. She puts the argument so partisan and weakly. Not only not the strongest reasoning, there’s no reasoning there to add to the list!
She is right though in knowing they realistically didn’t have the whole year to choose from, six months ago when they decided it was either May 2nd or October, and they chose May 2nd.
Worth saying they do need to decide by or on March 25th. If they announce it a day later the election date would be May 9th as you need 25 working days and Easter makes that calculation slightly more complex.
Parliament closes on the 26th March, we will know days before then. Probably told Monday following the budget when the old lectern - no the new one 4ft lower - will appear and media told to expect announcement. But we will know before then because the weekend papers will be full of it. In fact we will know before the weekend papers are full of it, as there will be subtle moves on infrastructure and contracts.
Yes, the announcement would be no later than Monday 18th March, with a few days of mopping up before parliament prorogues on Thursday 21st.
It would need the budget debated and all the giveaways and good news voted through, before Parliament closes.
The last election didn’t have a fiscally responsible option for the voters, but thanks to Reeves the Relentless now taking control of the Labour Party, voters will get stark choice between belt tightening and going without for the next 5 years of hard labour, and the upbeat sunny optimism and money in our pockets courtesy of Hunt and Sunak.
Do you think my son wasn't afraid? I was afraid too, when he went. Everyone's afraid of dying," she answers, when I wonder what she thinks of those who avoid signing up to fight.
"But maybe being enslaved by Russia is more frightening? Now we see death. It's very difficult. Very difficult. But there is no way back. We can't give up."
What do you expect a grieving mother to say?
"Yeah, the war is lost, my son died in vain, it was all pointless"
Ummm:
You'll find plenty of people who will say "my son died on a foreign field all for the leader's vanity".
This guy died on Ukrainian soil, for Ukraine, so your example is fatuous
That sound you heard, that was my point whistling over your head.
I was pointing out that that is how RUSSIAN MOTHERS will about their DEAD CHILDREN.
But the example cited, and which I was debating, was a Ukrainian mother
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
There's such a thing as being the wrong sort of Christian. It's no good being baptised into the C of S if you want to change your mind and be a RC. It needs to be done all over again. No idea what the C of E position is on this.
They will accept any member of any recognised church without need for further confirmation. Any practising Christian who wishes may partake of Holy Communion.
Thanks. Thinking of Baptists and adult baptism being needed even if one was done as a baby, but that's not very likely in the current political context.
It doesn't go the other way, much like your example of the Church of Scotland not counting for the Catholics, but it is based in the idea the Church of England as the 'national' church should set an example of ecumenicalism.
In Wales it would go further and ordained ministers of the four Covenanted Churches (plus some independent Baptists) are recognised as ministers for the purpose of taking services in other denominations.
Thanks again. (It was marriage that I was thinking of as regards the RCs, I now realise. But that's a different matter.)
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
NPXMP was saying something sensible along the lines of the first part of your final paragraph.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
All wars end with either total defeat of one side or a compromise. Ukraine needs some belief that if it agreed to cede territory to the bully, the bully wouldn't be back in a few years time.
Like paying Danegeld only led to a need to pay more Danegeld.
And yet, what can they do if they run out of troops? Conscription (have they already done this?) Call up women too? (Have they already done this?)
They have conscription, but the minimum age for conscription is something like 29. This is because the age cohort of the 20s is particularly small, so it would be demographically catastrophic to suffer heavy casualties in that age cohort.
This is one of the things behind Zelenskyy replacing Zaluzhny - disagreements about the future of conscription.
Again, the more in the way of ammunition, long-range weaponry, etc, that we provide, then the lower will be Ukraine's casualties. Being able to fire fewer artillery shells than Russia is not helpful when trying to minimise their own casualties. Being forbidden from firing NATO munitions at targets in Russia does not help Ukraine minimise their casualties. Being denied long-range weapons does not help Ukraine to minimise their casualties.
I want Ukraine to have its best chance of decreasing Russia so that any other dictator tempted to invade a democratic neighbour will reconsider. There is more that we could do to improve Ukraine's chances.
The minimum age for conscription in Ukraine is 27. Or so I was told by Ukrainians, in Ukraine, coming up to their 27th birthdays
They've run out of men and the war is lost. To the extent that it can no longer be won. We are now asking them to sacrifice the last cohort of young people for..... what exactly?
I'm sorry: we're asking them?
This isn't our war. We're not fighting. We're not choosing to fight.
Even if the war is utterly futile, it's their fight.
And when they give in, and the Russian troops come in, and they round up those who supported the war and shoot them? And when they rape the women?
Will that have been a perfectly reasonable price to pay?
They are fighting so the flame of their country is not estinguished, so they can avoid the brutal occupation of the Russians.
We are not fighting. And we are certainly not forcing them to fight.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
I thought the Word was God - he spake and thus created all. Revelation was the means by which people knew Jesus and God prior to the bible - the bible was only cobbled together by Nicaea. So no Christians prior to 325AD?
Not for asylum claims no and as you say we have now had a written Bible for millennia
So revelation is not proof of religious belief?
For asylum seekers it shouldn't be no
So Christianity is inexplicably linked to knowledge of the Bible? Sounds like Bibliolatry - no true Christian would endorse that.
For asylum yes, otherwise anybody could start speaking gibberish and pretend it was Christian revelation
So if a preacher came to China or Iran, sans Bible (because they're illegal), and told parables (in ways that fit in with Chinese or Iranian traditions, to better help them understand the messages - as Paul did to the gentiles) and the people who listened to those parables and took them to heart and were then persecuted because of it - that's not good enough for you? Not real conversion, not real faith?
Yes not real Christianity just parables in the Iranian or Chinese tradition
Okay - so you dislike Paulite theology; you don't sound like a real Christian to me HYUFD.
It is Christianity not Paulianity and even Paulite theology can be found in the Bible
I mean, sure - again, if only Christ supposedly said that everyone is a brother or sister in Christ, that acts are not needed and belief is enough, and that people should help people regardless of them being of the same faith. If only.
Do you think my son wasn't afraid? I was afraid too, when he went. Everyone's afraid of dying," she answers, when I wonder what she thinks of those who avoid signing up to fight.
"But maybe being enslaved by Russia is more frightening? Now we see death. It's very difficult. Very difficult. But there is no way back. We can't give up."
What do you expect a grieving mother to say?
"Yeah, the war is lost, my son died in vain, it was all pointless"
Ummm:
You'll find plenty of people who will say "my son died on a foreign field all for the leader's vanity".
This guy died on Ukrainian soil, for Ukraine, so your example is fatuous
That sound you heard, that was my point whistling over your head.
I was pointing out that that is how RUSSIAN MOTHERS will about their DEAD CHILDREN.
But the example cited, and which I was debating, was a Ukrainian mother
So then your point is otiose, if not fatuous
No.
My point is that the will of the invader is almost always less.
It's much easier to throw away your life to prevent your mother and sister being raped, and your Uncle being shot for being a politican, than it is because your leader believes some corner of a foreign field is Russian.
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
NPXMP was saying something sensible along the lines of the first part of your final paragraph.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
All wars end with either total defeat of one side or a compromise. Ukraine needs some belief that if it agreed to cede territory to the bully, the bully wouldn't be back in a few years time.
Like paying Danegeld only led to a need to pay more Danegeld.
And yet, what can they do if they run out of troops? Conscription (have they already done this?) Call up women too? (Have they already done this?)
They have conscription, but the minimum age for conscription is something like 29. This is because the age cohort of the 20s is particularly small, so it would be demographically catastrophic to suffer heavy casualties in that age cohort.
This is one of the things behind Zelenskyy replacing Zaluzhny - disagreements about the future of conscription.
Again, the more in the way of ammunition, long-range weaponry, etc, that we provide, then the lower will be Ukraine's casualties. Being able to fire fewer artillery shells than Russia is not helpful when trying to minimise their own casualties. Being forbidden from firing NATO munitions at targets in Russia does not help Ukraine minimise their casualties. Being denied long-range weapons does not help Ukraine to minimise their casualties.
I want Ukraine to have its best chance of decreasing Russia so that any other dictator tempted to invade a democratic neighbour will reconsider. There is more that we could do to improve Ukraine's chances.
The minimum age for conscription in Ukraine is 27. Or so I was told by Ukrainians, in Ukraine, coming up to their 27th birthdays
They've run out of men and the war is lost. To the extent that it can no longer be won. We are now asking them to sacrifice the last cohort of young people for..... what exactly?
I'm not asking them to do anything. They are asking us for support so that they can defend themselves against Russia.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Ukraine has close to one million men under arms.
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
It's funny: @Leon is absolutely right to point out that many people are blind to Ukraine's problems.
But he fails to apply the same analysis to his own views.
Like almost everyone on here, he's blind in one eye. His is just a different eye.
I'd love to see Putin defeated and Ukraine triumphant. I still have a Ukrainian flag hanging from my London balcony. It's been there so long it's probably on Google Street View (I might actually check in a moment)
But I am also a realist. Ukraine cannot WIN this war, for reasons I have pointing out for a year. Lack of men
I made this comment back in April '23, I stand by it. I will be delighted if I am wrong and Zelensky pushes Putin out of Ukraine entirely
"It’s gonna end in a muddy and angry armistice roughly where it is now. Like Korea"
'Rishi Sunak has to call an election in 6 weeks - he has no other choice' The Prime Minister cannot wait until Autumn to call a vote, says Fleet Street Fox. There'll be no-one left in Downing Street by then
Here are some facts. There hasn't been an October election since 1974. Ten of the last 11 elections have all been held in spring or summer. There are local elections planned for May 2, and the spring budget date has been moved to a week or two earlier than expected, on March 6.
And here's an assumption: the Conservative Party is going to be utterly decimated in the locals. Reform will make good ground among motivated anti-immigration voters, Labour will sweep the board in the north and midlands, and even Ed Davey's dire record on the Post Office scandal won't stop the Lib Dems cleaning up in the south.
The question that would furrow Sunak's brow, if he cared about any of this, is: who's going to campaign for him in October? Who's going to stuff leaflets, who's going to give old ladies a lift to the polling station, who's going to stand in rainy high streets saying "vote Tory"? Not a single Conservative councillor, who will either have lost their seats five months previous or have scraped through by pretending not to have anything to do with That Lot In Westminster.
She’s nothing to do with me. She puts the argument so partisan and weakly. Not only not the strongest reasoning, there’s no reasoning there to add to the list!
She is right though in knowing they realistically didn’t have the whole year to choose from, six months ago when they decided it was either May 2nd or October, and they chose May 2nd.
Worth saying they do need to decide by or on March 25th. If they announce it a day later the election date would be May 9th as you need 25 working days and Easter makes that calculation slightly more complex.
Parliament closes on the 26th March, we will know days before then. Probably told Monday following the budget when the old lectern - no the new one 4ft lower - will appear and media told to expect announcement. But we will know before then because the weekend papers will be full of it. In fact we will know before the weekend papers are full of it, as there will be subtle moves on infrastructure and contracts.
Yes, the announcement would be no later than Monday 18th March, with a few days of mopping up before parliament prorogues on Thursday 21st.
It would need the budget debated and all the giveaways and good news voted through, before Parliament closes.
The last election didn’t have a fiscally responsible option for the voters, but thanks to Reeves the Relentless now taking control of the Labour Party, voters will get stark choice between belt tightening and going without for the next 5 years of hard labour, and the upbeat sunny optimism and money in our pockets courtesy of Hunt and Sunak.
Good afternoon
I have never considered it likely that Sunak will call a May election, but it seems the middle east conflict especially through the Rochdale debacle is becoming a problem for Starmer and it could be that May is a possibility now and if so @MoonRabbit deserves considerable credit
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
The issue was ascribing motive
I would agree - but I wouldn't consider that ascribing of motive to be anti-Semitic as just generally cynical of state intelligence apparatus.
Cynical of state intelligence apparatus would be they missed it / overlooked it / didn’t believe it. That’s what I suspect happened.
That isn’t what he said. He said that they deliberately allowed the attack to happen to give them an excuse for their subsequent actions in Gaza.
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
That’s not what he said.
We also have left wing labour MPs suspended for saying far less.
In your world it is all fake offence from so called PB Tories. However there is offence across the political divide at, what are, offensive comments.
His comments were offensive but not anti -Semitic .
At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will result in accusations of anti-Semitism !
Accusing Netenyahu and the IDF of allowing an attack or not assisting quickly enough to aid the people effected so you can then pulverize Gaza is just that .
The fault is with those not the Jewish people as a whole .
How does that square with your comment:
"The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti-Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet."
Because some people can’t distinguish between the actions of a corrupt cesspit administration and the wider Jewish population.
Which is my point. And why Netenyahu is a handmaiden for anti-Semitism.
There's a contrary angle to this: anti-Semitism is a handmaiden for Netenyahu and his fellow travellers. As long as Jewish people feel they don't have anywhere safe in the world, the desire for a 'safe' Israel will exist.
Do you believe that Netanyahu makes Israel safer?
Do you believe that when Palestinians are turfed out of their homes for another settlement, that makes the State of Israel more secure?
Or do you think it radicalizes yet another Muslin to hate Israel with all consuming passion.
I'm not saying - obviously - that anti-semitism would disappear if the settlement building did. But I strongly believe that if the Palestinian people have no hope, then any energy they have will be channeled into hurting who they see as the source of that hopelessness.
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
NPXMP was saying something sensible along the lines of the first part of your final paragraph.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
All wars end with either total defeat of one side or a compromise. Ukraine needs some belief that if it agreed to cede territory to the bully, the bully wouldn't be back in a few years time.
Like paying Danegeld only led to a need to pay more Danegeld.
And yet, what can they do if they run out of troops? Conscription (have they already done this?) Call up women too? (Have they already done this?)
They have conscription, but the minimum age for conscription is something like 29. This is because the age cohort of the 20s is particularly small, so it would be demographically catastrophic to suffer heavy casualties in that age cohort.
This is one of the things behind Zelenskyy replacing Zaluzhny - disagreements about the future of conscription.
Again, the more in the way of ammunition, long-range weaponry, etc, that we provide, then the lower will be Ukraine's casualties. Being able to fire fewer artillery shells than Russia is not helpful when trying to minimise their own casualties. Being forbidden from firing NATO munitions at targets in Russia does not help Ukraine minimise their casualties. Being denied long-range weapons does not help Ukraine to minimise their casualties.
I want Ukraine to have its best chance of decreasing Russia so that any other dictator tempted to invade a democratic neighbour will reconsider. There is more that we could do to improve Ukraine's chances.
The minimum age for conscription in Ukraine is 27. Or so I was told by Ukrainians, in Ukraine, coming up to their 27th birthdays
They've run out of men and the war is lost. To the extent that it can no longer be won. We are now asking them to sacrifice the last cohort of young people for..... what exactly?
I'm sorry: we're asking them?
This isn't our war. We're not fighting. We're not choosing to fight.
Even if the war is utterly futile, it's their fight.
And when they give in, and the Russian troops come in, and they round up those who supported the war and shoot them? And when they rape the women?
Will that have been a perfectly reasonable price to pay?
They are fighting so the flame of their country is not estinguished, so they can avoid the brutal occupation of the Russians.
We are not fighting. And we are certainly not forcing them to fight.
Stirring words, and all true in a way, but this is realpolitik
They cannot win, as I see it. Let's say I am right for the purposes of this argument
If they come to us as their allies, and ask our advice, what should we say? Urge them to fight on, even though we know they cannot win? Is that moral?
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
The issue was ascribing motive
I would agree - but I wouldn't consider that ascribing of motive to be anti-Semitic as just generally cynical of state intelligence apparatus.
Cynical of state intelligence apparatus would be they missed it / overlooked it / didn’t believe it. That’s what I suspect happened.
That isn’t what he said. He said that they deliberately allowed the attack to happen to give them an excuse for their subsequent actions in Gaza.
That is very different to cynicism
To me it's on par with "Bush let 9/11 happen to do the war on terror / invade Iraq / do security state shit" - clearly stupid conspiracy stuff but I don't think it, by itself, falls into anti-Semitism. It's something lots of people have said about lots of countries during / prior to conflict - it isn't a trope specific to Jewish people or Judaism.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Ukraine has close to one million men under arms.
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
It's funny: @Leon is absolutely right to point out that many people are blind to Ukraine's problems.
But he fails to apply the same analysis to his own views.
Like almost everyone on here, he's blind in one eye. His is just a different eye.
I'd love to see Putin defeated and Ukraine triumphant. I still have a Ukrainian flag hanging from my London balcony. It's been there so long it's probably on Google Street View (I might actually check in a moment)
But I am also a realist. Ukraine cannot WIN this war, for reasons I have pointing out for a year. Lack of men
I made this comment back in April '23, I stand by it. I will be delighted if I am wrong and Zelensky pushes Putin out of Ukraine entirely
"It’s gonna end in a muddy and angry armistice roughly where it is now. Like Korea"
And I've said many times, that's entirely possible.
But nothing is written in stone.
The Ukrainians, despite your moaning are still fighting. And just as with the Russians in the second world war, you will be staggered to discover how deep a state can dig to find soldiers when its very existence is under threat.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Ukraine has close to one million men under arms.
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
It's funny: @Leon is absolutely right to point out that many people are blind to Ukraine's problems.
But he fails to apply the same analysis to his own views.
Like almost everyone on here, he's blind in one eye. His is just a different eye.
I'd love to see Putin defeated and Ukraine triumphant. I still have a Ukrainian flag hanging from my London balcony. It's been there so long it's probably on Google Street View (I might actually check in a moment)
But I am also a realist. Ukraine cannot WIN this war, for reasons I have pointing out for a year. Lack of men
I made this comment back in April '23, I stand by it. I will be delighted if I am wrong and Zelensky pushes Putin out of Ukraine entirely
"It’s gonna end in a muddy and angry armistice roughly where it is now. Like Korea"
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
NPXMP was saying something sensible along the lines of the first part of your final paragraph.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
All wars end with either total defeat of one side or a compromise. Ukraine needs some belief that if it agreed to cede territory to the bully, the bully wouldn't be back in a few years time.
Like paying Danegeld only led to a need to pay more Danegeld.
And yet, what can they do if they run out of troops? Conscription (have they already done this?) Call up women too? (Have they already done this?)
They have conscription, but the minimum age for conscription is something like 29. This is because the age cohort of the 20s is particularly small, so it would be demographically catastrophic to suffer heavy casualties in that age cohort.
This is one of the things behind Zelenskyy replacing Zaluzhny - disagreements about the future of conscription.
Again, the more in the way of ammunition, long-range weaponry, etc, that we provide, then the lower will be Ukraine's casualties. Being able to fire fewer artillery shells than Russia is not helpful when trying to minimise their own casualties. Being forbidden from firing NATO munitions at targets in Russia does not heThey'lp Ukraine minimise their casualties. Being denied long-range weapons does not help Ukraine to minimise their casualties.
I want Ukraine to have its best chance of decreasing Russia so that any other dictator tempted to invade a democratic neighbour will reconsider. There is more that we could do to improve Ukraine's chances.
The minimum age for conscription in Ukraine is 27. Or so I was told by Ukrainians, in Ukraine, coming up to their 27th birthdays
They've run out of men and the war is lost. To the extent that it can no longer be won. We are now asking them to sacrifice the last cohort of young people for..... what exactly?
I'm sorry: we're asking them?
This isn't our war. We're not fighting. We're not choosing to fight.
Even if the war is utterly futile, it's their fight.
And when they give in, and the Russian troops come in, and they round up those who supported the war and shoot them? And when they rape the women?
Will that have been a perfectly reasonable price to pay?
They are fighting so the flame of their country is not estinguished, so they can avoid the brutal occupation of the Russians.
We are not fighting. And we are certainly not forcing them to fight.
Stirring words, and all true in a way, but this is realpolitik
They cannot win, as I see it. Let's say I am right for the purposes of this argument
If they come to us as their allies, and ask our advice, what should we say? Urge them to fight on, even though we know they cannot win? Is that moral?
They're not coming to us for advice, they're coming to us for aid.
And so long as they keep fighting and asking, we should keep giving.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Ukraine has close to one million men under arms.
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
It's funny: @Leon is absolutely right to point out that many people are blind to Ukraine's problems.
But he fails to apply the same analysis to his own views.
Like almost everyone on here, he's blind in one eye. His is just a different eye.
I'd love to see Putin defeated and Ukraine triumphant. I still have a Ukrainian flag hanging from my London balcony. It's been there so long it's probably on Google Street View (I might actually check in a moment)
But I am also a realist. Ukraine cannot WIN this war, for reasons I have pointing out for a year. Lack of men
I made this comment back in April '23, I stand by it. I will be delighted if I am wrong and Zelensky pushes Putin out of Ukraine entirely
"It’s gonna end in a muddy and angry armistice roughly where it is now. Like Korea"
One of the reasons wars often carry on for a long time is that it takes time for both sides to accept that they cannot make any further military gains.
You seem to be arguing that we should not provide Ukraine with further support and instead encourage them to agree a ceasefire with Russia. But if the situation for Ukraine is as bad as you say, and we attempt such a coercion, then what incentive does Russia have to agree?
If they stick at it in such circumstances then they might make it to Kyiv after all.
So what do we do? What action gives us the best possible outcome?
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
There's such a thing as being the wrong sort of Christian. It's no good being baptised into the C of S if you want to change your mind and be a RC. It needs to be done all over again. No idea what the C of E position is on this.
They will accept any member of any recognised church without need for further confirmation. Any practising Christian who wishes may partake of Holy Communion.
My daughter took up bellringing, and now visits lots of churches to ring their bells. She may also have become religious; certainly she is making the most of being part of the church community.
I visited her recently and went to church with her to hear the bells ring, and stayed for the service, singing the hymns. If I'd wanted to take communion, no-one would have checked, or asked me about my church membership.
Maybe it's naiveté on their part, but compared to every other part of life, where one has to constantly prove who you are and whether you're "genuine", I found it a refreshing break from the constant suspicion and challenge. And did it harm them to have a polite atheist in their midst?
In my experience the majority of bellingers are non-religious. They do like their beer though.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
The issue was ascribing motive
I would agree - but I wouldn't consider that ascribing of motive to be anti-Semitic as just generally cynical of state intelligence apparatus.
Cynical of state intelligence apparatus would be they missed it / overlooked it / didn’t believe it. That’s what I suspect happened.
That isn’t what he said. He said that they deliberately allowed the attack to happen to give them an excuse for their subsequent actions in Gaza.
That is very different to cynicism
"They were Israel's 'eyes on the border' - but their Hamas warnings went unheard"
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
That’s not what he said.
We also have left wing labour MPs suspended for saying far less.
In your world it is all fake offence from so called PB Tories. However there is offence across the political divide at, what are, offensive comments.
His comments were offensive but not anti -Semitic .
At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will result in accusations of anti-Semitism !
Accusing Netenyahu and the IDF of allowing an attack or not assisting quickly enough to aid the people effected so you can then pulverize Gaza is just that .
The fault is with those not the Jewish people as a whole .
How does that square with your comment:
"The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti-Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet."
Because some people can’t distinguish between the actions of a corrupt cesspit administration and the wider Jewish population.
Which is my point. And why Netenyahu is a handmaiden for anti-Semitism.
There's a contrary angle to this: anti-Semitism is a handmaiden for Netenyahu and his fellow travellers. As long as Jewish people feel they don't have anywhere safe in the world, the desire for a 'safe' Israel will exist.
Do you believe that Netanyahu makes Israel safer?
Do you believe that when Palestinians are turfed out of their homes for another settlement, that makes the State of Israel more secure?
Or do you think it radicalizes yet another Muslin to hate Israel with all consuming passion.
I'm not saying - obviously - that anti-semitism would disappear if the settlement building did. But I strongly believe that if the Palestinian people have no hope, then any energy they have will be channeled into hurting who they see as the source of that hopelessness.
That is - I believe - an unstable equilibrium.
They were given Gaza as a test case. I would have to google how often/long missiles have been fired at Israel since 2006 but I would guess it pre-dates October 6th.
I absolutely think that illegal settlements should be stopped, dismantled even, in the West Bank but it seems that throughout history Israel has adopted the sheep/lamb approach. If nothing they do is going to make a difference then fuck it, they might as well go for broke. They did this in the wars of 1947-48 and seem to be doing it again now.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
Dire TFR, lots of emigration and I expect life expectancy also falling.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Ukraine has close to one million men under arms.
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
It's funny: @Leon is absolutely right to point out that many people are blind to Ukraine's problems.
But he fails to apply the same analysis to his own views.
Like almost everyone on here, he's blind in one eye. His is just a different eye.
I'd love to see Putin defeated and Ukraine triumphant. I still have a Ukrainian flag hanging from my London balcony. It's been there so long it's probably on Google Street View (I might actually check in a moment)
But I am also a realist. Ukraine cannot WIN this war, for reasons I have pointing out for a year. Lack of men
I made this comment back in April '23, I stand by it. I will be delighted if I am wrong and Zelensky pushes Putin out of Ukraine entirely
"It’s gonna end in a muddy and angry armistice roughly where it is now. Like Korea"
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
This is interesting - especially in light of Putin's recent (dud of) an interview with Carlson. I was listening to a review of the interview that noted that it didn't seem to serve the shared purposes of the two people involved - namely saying all the talking points needed for the American right to get on board with Trump doing exactly this when he wins again, and instead was much more of Putin doing some historical revisionism and occasionally insulting Carlson, with Carlson seeming mostly confused, trying to get Putin to join him in his talking points (how Russia is the real defender of the West and Christendom and is fighting against the international deep state) with the occasional real journalistic question in seemingly out of a belief that Putin was having the conversation in good faith. Maybe that was Putin just recognising that he can win a war of attrition with Ukraine and starting his victory lap, or maybe Putin didn't feel he needed to play the propaganda game as he thinks Trump has it in the bag?
I suspect Putin is just out of touch, like most dictators. He had a great opportunity to directly influence American (and to a lesser extent European) public opinion, and he completely fluffed it.
I mean, about the only specific thing I learnt from this interview is that Putin said "Poland forced Hitler to invade." This kind of crap isn't going to help nurture the suspicion that Putin is actually sadly misunderstood.
And even Harper of PB complained the interview was boring.
You would have thought Putin's and Carlson's teams would have discussed this before hand.
Preparation probably beneath Putin, he already thinks the history of Ukraine is his specialist subject. Carlson is just a chancer.
It did occur to me that maybe the only Germans Putin is in touch with these days are the more extreme AfD types, so he thought having a bit of sympathy for Hitler's case against Poland would go down well in Germany. But I think he just needs to believe the Soviet Union behaved "honourably" when it invaded Poland, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was justified, so Hitler was somehow right to invade Poland. Of course when Hitler broke the pact and attacked Russia he was very bad. Maybe that is the history they teach in Russian schools for all I know.
By Putin's logic, it was perfectly reasonable for the Nazis to want to regain the Polish Corridor and Danzig in 1939, being lost territories of the Second Reich, just as Eastern Poland, the Baltics, Finland and Bessarabia were lost Russian territories.
German and Russian expansionist have the same roots, as indeed does Hungarian longing for the lost territories of Greater Hungary from before 1918.
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
NPXMP was saying something sensible along the lines of the first part of your final paragraph.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
All wars end with either total defeat of one side or a compromise. Ukraine needs some belief that if it agreed to cede territory to the bully, the bully wouldn't be back in a few years time.
Like paying Danegeld only led to a need to pay more Danegeld.
And yet, what can they do if they run out of troops? Conscription (have they already done this?) Call up women too? (Have they already done this?)
They have conscription, but the minimum age for conscription is something like 29. This is because the age cohort of the 20s is particularly small, so it would be demographically catastrophic to suffer heavy casualties in that age cohort.
This is one of the things behind Zelenskyy replacing Zaluzhny - disagreements about the future of conscription.
Again, the more in the way of ammunition, long-range weaponry, etc, that we provide, then the lower will be Ukraine's casualties. Being able to fire fewer artillery shells than Russia is not helpful when trying to minimise their own casualties. Being forbidden from firing NATO munitions at targets in Russia does not heThey'lp Ukraine minimise their casualties. Being denied long-range weapons does not help Ukraine to minimise their casualties.
I want Ukraine to have its best chance of decreasing Russia so that any other dictator tempted to invade a democratic neighbour will reconsider. There is more that we could do to improve Ukraine's chances.
The minimum age for conscription in Ukraine is 27. Or so I was told by Ukrainians, in Ukraine, coming up to their 27th birthdays
They've run out of men and the war is lost. To the extent that it can no longer be won. We are now asking them to sacrifice the last cohort of young people for..... what exactly?
I'm sorry: we're asking them?
This isn't our war. We're not fighting. We're not choosing to fight.
Even if the war is utterly futile, it's their fight.
And when they give in, and the Russian troops come in, and they round up those who supported the war and shoot them? And when they rape the women?
Will that have been a perfectly reasonable price to pay?
They are fighting so the flame of their country is not estinguished, so they can avoid the brutal occupation of the Russians.
We are not fighting. And we are certainly not forcing them to fight.
Stirring words, and all true in a way, but this is realpolitik
They cannot win, as I see it. Let's say I am right for the purposes of this argument
If they come to us as their allies, and ask our advice, what should we say? Urge them to fight on, even though we know they cannot win? Is that moral?
They're not coming to us for advice, they're coming to us for aid.
And so long as they keep fighting and asking, we should keep giving.
But what if they do seek our advice?
Look at it this way
Imagine Ukraine is your best friend at school and he's in a fight.He's already had a leg broken and lost a few teeth, but he will survive. He is incredibly brave, and the attack on him was unprovoked. Unfortunately he is fighting an absolute lying thug who is three times his size and known for brutal cruelty
The fighting has reached a stalemate, the thug is hinting at calling it a draw, but if it kicks off again it is much more likely your friend will lose both eyes and an arm, rather than the thug losing . The friend turns to you and asks for advice. You are his friend. What do you say? Maybe nothing? Say: it's up to you?
Or as a good friend is it better to say, Look, you're gonna lose both eyes if you fight on, take the draw for now and then we can go home and I will teach you judo
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
There's such a thing as being the wrong sort of Christian. It's no good being baptised into the C of S if you want to change your mind and be a RC. It needs to be done all over again. No idea what the C of E position is on this.
They will accept any member of any recognised church without need for further confirmation. Any practising Christian who wishes may partake of Holy Communion.
My daughter took up bellringing, and now visits lots of churches to ring their bells. She may also have become religious; certainly she is making the most of being part of the church community.
I visited her recently and went to church with her to hear the bells ring, and stayed for the service, singing the hymns. If I'd wanted to take communion, no-one would have checked, or asked me about my church membership.
Maybe it's naiveté on their part, but compared to every other part of life, where one has to constantly prove who you are and whether you're "genuine", I found it a refreshing break from the constant suspicion and challenge. And did it harm them to have a polite atheist in their midst?
In my experience the majority of bellingers are non-religious. They do like their beer though.
I used to be a bell-ringer, and can confirm Phil's observation - though I would also say that on average bell-ringers are more likely to be Christian, and more actively Christian, than the population at large. But yes, the correlation between bell ringers and real ale drinkers is approaching 100%, and is much, much stronger than that between bell ringers and Christians/churchgoers.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
The issue was ascribing motive
I would agree - but I wouldn't consider that ascribing of motive to be anti-Semitic as just generally cynical of state intelligence apparatus.
Cynical of state intelligence apparatus would be they missed it / overlooked it / didn’t believe it. That’s what I suspect happened.
That isn’t what he said. He said that they deliberately allowed the attack to happen to give them an excuse for their subsequent actions in Gaza.
That is very different to cynicism
To me it's on par with "Bush let 9/11 happen to do the war on terror / invade Iraq / do security state shit" - clearly stupid conspiracy stuff but I don't think it, by itself, falls into anti-Semitism. It's something lots of people have said about lots of countries during / prior to conflict - it isn't a trope specific to Jewish people or Judaism.
But I think we would have been similarly alarmed if in late 2001 a prospective by-eelction candidate was making that point.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Ukraine has close to one million men under arms.
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
You've always been a cheerleader for Ukraine (and fair enough), but your many predictions of their advances and successes have not come true, have they? Not since early 2023
The counter offensive was a complete failure, and they lost 100,000s of men killed and injured, for no significant territorial gain whatsoever
Given that, how do you suggest they proceed? There is no way for them to win a ground offensive, but they can maybe defend what they have
But if all they are doing is defending what they have, then they might as well seek a truce or an armistice no? Then rebuild, and save all those lives
The only alternative I can see is that they try and hold their ground AND fight Russia in more unconventional ways, attacking the navy (as they have done with great success), maybe fomenting unrest in Russia (much less successful)
But all that risks Russia slowly grinding them down and Russia is still bombing Ukrainian cities daily, it has not run out of drones and missiles, as we have been assured was immiment, every week since about November 2022
Plenty of invaded nations have kept going in terrible circumstances, and have emerged victorious. Invading is harder than defending, and eventually they sicken the invader.
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
NPXMP was saying something sensible along the lines of the first part of your final paragraph.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
All wars end with either total defeat of one side or a compromise. Ukraine needs some belief that if it agreed to cede territory to the bully, the bully wouldn't be back in a few years time.
Like paying Danegeld only led to a need to pay more Danegeld.
And yet, what can they do if they run out of troops? Conscription (have they already done this?) Call up women too? (Have they already done this?)
They have conscription, but the minimum age for conscription is something like 29. This is because the age cohort of the 20s is particularly small, so it would be demographically catastrophic to suffer heavy casualties in that age cohort.
This is one of the things behind Zelenskyy replacing Zaluzhny - disagreements about the future of conscription.
Again, the more in the way of ammunition, long-range weaponry, etc, that we provide, then the lower will be Ukraine's casualties. Being able to fire fewer artillery shells than Russia is not helpful when trying to minimise their own casualties. Being forbidden from firing NATO munitions at targets in Russia does not heThey'lp Ukraine minimise their casualties. Being denied long-range weapons does not help Ukraine to minimise their casualties.
I want Ukraine to have its best chance of decreasing Russia so that any other dictator tempted to invade a democratic neighbour will reconsider. There is more that we could do to improve Ukraine's chances.
The minimum age for conscription in Ukraine is 27. Or so I was told by Ukrainians, in Ukraine, coming up to their 27th birthdays
They've run out of men and the war is lost. To the extent that it can no longer be won. We are now asking them to sacrifice the last cohort of young people for..... what exactly?
I'm sorry: we're asking them?
This isn't our war. We're not fighting. We're not choosing to fight.
Even if the war is utterly futile, it's their fight.
And when they give in, and the Russian troops come in, and they round up those who supported the war and shoot them? And when they rape the women?
Will that have been a perfectly reasonable price to pay?
They are fighting so the flame of their country is not estinguished, so they can avoid the brutal occupation of the Russians.
We are not fighting. And we are certainly not forcing them to fight.
Stirring words, and all true in a way, but this is realpolitik
They cannot win, as I see it. Let's say I am right for the purposes of this argument
If they come to us as their allies, and ask our advice, what should we say? Urge them to fight on, even though we know they cannot win? Is that moral?
They're not coming to us for advice, they're coming to us for aid.
And so long as they keep fighting and asking, we should keep giving.
But what if they do seek our advice?
Look at it this way
Imagine Ukraine is your best friend at school and he's in a fight.He's already had a leg broken and lost a few teeth, but he will survive. He is incredibly brave, and the attack on him was unprovoked. Unfortunately he is fighting an absolute lying thug who is three times his size and known for brutal cruelty
The fighting has reached a stalemate, the thug is hinting at calling it a draw, but if it kicks off again it is much more likely your friend will lose both eyes and an arm, rather than the thug losing . The friend turns to you and asks for advice. You are his friend. What do you say? Maybe nothing? Say: it's up to you?
Or as a good friend is it better to say, Look, you're gonna lose both eyes if you fight on, take the draw for now and then we can go home and I will teach you judo
That's a massive fucking *if* that you are hanging your entire premise off.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
The issue was ascribing motive
I would agree - but I wouldn't consider that ascribing of motive to be anti-Semitic as just generally cynical of state intelligence apparatus.
Cynical of state intelligence apparatus would be they missed it / overlooked it / didn’t believe it. That’s what I suspect happened.
That isn’t what he said. He said that they deliberately allowed the attack to happen to give them an excuse for their subsequent actions in Gaza.
That is very different to cynicism
"They were Israel's 'eyes on the border' - but their Hamas warnings went unheard"
The framing of this makes me so angry - they're just young women doing something fun for the good of the nation, not at all soldiers in an army doing a brutal oppression.
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
NPXMP was saying something sensible along the lines of the first part of your final paragraph.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
All wars end with either total defeat of one side or a compromise. Ukraine needs some belief that if it agreed to cede territory to the bully, the bully wouldn't be back in a few years time.
Like paying Danegeld only led to a need to pay more Danegeld.
And yet, what can they do if they run out of troops? Conscription (have they already done this?) Call up women too? (Have they already done this?)
They have conscription, but the minimum age for conscription is something like 29. This is because the age cohort of the 20s is particularly small, so it would be demographically catastrophic to suffer heavy casualties in that age cohort.
This is one of the things behind Zelenskyy replacing Zaluzhny - disagreements about the future of conscription.
Again, the more in the way of ammunition, long-range weaponry, etc, that we provide, then the lower will be Ukraine's casualties. Being able to fire fewer artillery shells than Russia is not helpful when trying to minimise their own casualties. Being forbidden from firing NATO munitions at targets in Russia does not heThey'lp Ukraine minimise their casualties. Being denied long-range weapons does not help Ukraine to minimise their casualties.
I want Ukraine to have its best chance of decreasing Russia so that any other dictator tempted to invade a democratic neighbour will reconsider. There is more that we could do to improve Ukraine's chances.
The minimum age for conscription in Ukraine is 27. Or so I was told by Ukrainians, in Ukraine, coming up to their 27th birthdays
They've run out of men and the war is lost. To the extent that it can no longer be won. We are now asking them to sacrifice the last cohort of young people for..... what exactly?
I'm sorry: we're asking them?
This isn't our war. We're not fighting. We're not choosing to fight.
Even if the war is utterly futile, it's their fight.
And when they give in, and the Russian troops come in, and they round up those who supported the war and shoot them? And when they rape the women?
Will that have been a perfectly reasonable price to pay?
They are fighting so the flame of their country is not estinguished, so they can avoid the brutal occupation of the Russians.
We are not fighting. And we are certainly not forcing them to fight.
Stirring words, and all true in a way, but this is realpolitik
They cannot win, as I see it. Let's say I am right for the purposes of this argument
If they come to us as their allies, and ask our advice, what should we say? Urge them to fight on, even though we know they cannot win? Is that moral?
They're not coming to us for advice, they're coming to us for aid.
And so long as they keep fighting and asking, we should keep giving.
But what if they do seek our advice?
Look at it this way
Imagine Ukraine is your best friend at school and he's in a fight.He's already had a leg broken and lost a few teeth, but he will survive. He is incredibly brave, and the attack on him was unprovoked. Unfortunately he is fighting an absolute lying thug who is three times his size and known for brutal cruelty
The fighting has reached a stalemate, the thug is hinting at calling it a draw, but if it kicks off again it is much more likely your friend will lose both eyes and an arm, rather than the thug losing . The friend turns to you and asks for advice. You are his friend. What do you say? Maybe nothing? Say: it's up to you?
Or as a good friend is it better to say, Look, you're gonna lose both eyes if you fight on, take the draw for now and then we can go home and I will teach you judo
And, if the bullying thug makes clear that he's going to beat the crap out of your friend, and his relative that he already has in his power, what then?
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
The issue was ascribing motive
I would agree - but I wouldn't consider that ascribing of motive to be anti-Semitic as just generally cynical of state intelligence apparatus.
Cynical of state intelligence apparatus would be they missed it / overlooked it / didn’t believe it. That’s what I suspect happened.
That isn’t what he said. He said that they deliberately allowed the attack to happen to give them an excuse for their subsequent actions in Gaza.
That is very different to cynicism
To me it's on par with "Bush let 9/11 happen to do the war on terror / invade Iraq / do security state shit" - clearly stupid conspiracy stuff but I don't think it, by itself, falls into anti-Semitism. It's something lots of people have said about lots of countries during / prior to conflict - it isn't a trope specific to Jewish people or Judaism.
But I think we would have been similarly alarmed if in late 2001 a prospective by-eelction candidate was making that point.
Sure - but that's different to immediately having a conversation about anti-Semitism.
Little waves on a sky blue sea, under a cloudless blue sky; what a beautiful day. One could almost believe that spring is here already.
Since my early 30s, I have been increasingly aware of - and enjoyed - the season of late winter. The first evidence of nature waking up; the occasional mildness; the feeling that the darkest days are finally behind us. This morning was the first weekday this year I have got up in the light. It's not spring yet; but winter's days are clearly numbered.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Ukraine has close to one million men under arms.
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
It's funny: @Leon is absolutely right to point out that many people are blind to Ukraine's problems.
But he fails to apply the same analysis to his own views.
Like almost everyone on here, he's blind in one eye. His is just a different eye.
I'd love to see Putin defeated and Ukraine triumphant. I still have a Ukrainian flag hanging from my London balcony. It's been there so long it's probably on Google Street View (I might actually check in a moment)
But I am also a realist. Ukraine cannot WIN this war, for reasons I have pointing out for a year. Lack of men
I made this comment back in April '23, I stand by it. I will be delighted if I am wrong and Zelensky pushes Putin out of Ukraine entirely
"It’s gonna end in a muddy and angry armistice roughly where it is now. Like Korea"
One of the reasons wars often carry on for a long time is that it takes time for both sides to accept that they cannot make any further military gains.
You seem to be arguing that we should not provide Ukraine with further support and instead encourage them to agree a ceasefire with Russia. But if the situation for Ukraine is as bad as you say, and we attempt such a coercion, then what incentive does Russia have to agree?
If they stick at it in such circumstances then they might make it to Kyiv after all.
So what do we do? What action gives us the best possible outcome?
Providing as much support to Ukraine as possible.
You can do both. Arm them and help them defend themselves, but accept that the war is unwinnable for now, and partition is inevitable: armistice
This is exactly what we did in Korea, and there has been a grisly peace ever since. Not nice for the North Koreans, but excellent for South Korea and it surely saved millioms of lives on all sides
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead widens to eighteen points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 27% (-) Lab 45% (+2) Lib Dem 8% (-2) Other 19% (-1) Fieldwork: 9th - 12th February 2024 Sample: 1,977 GB adults (Changes from 2nd - 5th February 2024)
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
This is interesting - especially in light of Putin's recent (dud of) an interview with Carlson. I was listening to a review of the interview that noted that it didn't seem to serve the shared purposes of the two people involved - namely saying all the talking points needed for the American right to get on board with Trump doing exactly this when he wins again, and instead was much more of Putin doing some historical revisionism and occasionally insulting Carlson, with Carlson seeming mostly confused, trying to get Putin to join him in his talking points (how Russia is the real defender of the West and Christendom and is fighting against the international deep state) with the occasional real journalistic question in seemingly out of a belief that Putin was having the conversation in good faith. Maybe that was Putin just recognising that he can win a war of attrition with Ukraine and starting his victory lap, or maybe Putin didn't feel he needed to play the propaganda game as he thinks Trump has it in the bag?
I suspect Putin is just out of touch, like most dictators. He had a great opportunity to directly influence American (and to a lesser extent European) public opinion, and he completely fluffed it.
I mean, about the only specific thing I learnt from this interview is that Putin said "Poland forced Hitler to invade." This kind of crap isn't going to help nurture the suspicion that Putin is actually sadly misunderstood.
And even Harper of PB complained the interview was boring.
You would have thought Putin's and Carlson's teams would have discussed this before hand.
Preparation probably beneath Putin, he already thinks the history of Ukraine is his specialist subject. Carlson is just a chancer.
It did occur to me that maybe the only Germans Putin is in touch with these days are the more extreme AfD types, so he thought having a bit of sympathy for Hitler's case against Poland would go down well in Germany. But I think he just needs to believe the Soviet Union behaved "honourably" when it invaded Poland, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was justified, so Hitler was somehow right to invade Poland. Of course when Hitler broke the pact and attacked Russia he was very bad. Maybe that is the history they teach in Russian schools for all I know.
By Putin's logic, it was perfectly reasonable for the Nazis to want to regain the Polish Corridor and Danzig in 1939, being lost territories of the Second Reich, just as Eastern Poland, the Baltics, Finland and Bessarabia were lost Russian territories.
German and Russian expansionist have the same roots, as indeed does Hungarian longing for the lost territories of Greater Hungary from before 1918.
It wasn't just the Nazis who wanted to regain Danzig, and even after WW2 it was a relatively mainstream position in Germany that the territories they had lost in the east should eventually be returned.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
They couldn't be and shouldn't be, conversions should be focused on the domestic English population only already resident here. Not Muslims seeking a temporary conversion for a passport for economic reasons before going back to Islam again
In the Times article, a priest recommended judging the sincerity of people's belief by using their willingness to do unpaid work as a shibboleth. Another said he'd had good success by soaking people with cold water in the winter.
By tutting at these easily-fooled liberals and crying that ducking stools sound a bit woke, you are rather missing the point. None of this stuff works. There's no way to tell whether people are sincere or not.
England tried this with the Test Acts for about seventy years. It didn't work. Today, there are more Catholics than Anglicans in England. In Ireland, the laws were harsher and in place for longer. The last of the Penal Laws was only lifted in 1829. But they still didn't work. Today, there are more than eight times more Catholics than Anglicans in Ireland.
Francis Bacon told us in the 16th century that Elizabeth I was unable to "make windows into men's hearts and secret thoughts". They were right.
How about focussing the asylum debate on things that can actually be measured and factors that we are able to control?
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Ukraine has close to one million men under arms.
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
You've always been a cheerleader for Ukraine (and fair enough), but your many predictions of their advances and successes have not come true, have they? Not since early 2023
The counter offensive was a complete failure, and they lost 100,000s of men killed and injured, for no significant territorial gain whatsoever
Given that, how do you suggest they proceed? There is no way for them to win a ground offensive, but they can maybe defend what they have
But if all they are doing is defending what they have, then they might as well seek a truce or an armistice no? Then rebuild, and save all those lives
The only alternative I can see is that they try and hold their ground AND fight Russia in more unconventional ways, attacking the navy (as they have done with great success), maybe fomenting unrest in Russia (much less successful)
But all that risks Russia slowly grinding them down and Russia is still bombing Ukrainian cities daily, it has not run out of drones and missiles, as we have been assured was immiment, every week since about November 2022
This is, in actual fact, exactly what is happening.
The ground war has effectively been fought to a bloody stalemate, with Russia barely able to push into a town (Adviivka) only a km or two beyond the border they’ve held since 2014 & a city (Donetsk) that has a railhead for supplies. Likewise the Ukrainians seem unable to break through Russian lines in the face of drone defenses & dense minefields.
I do wonder exactly how much Russian oil infrastructure the Ukrainians can credibly threaten. Wipe out enough & Russia has real problems; would that be enough to force Putin’s hand?
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Ukraine has close to one million men under arms.
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
It's funny: @Leon is absolutely right to point out that many people are blind to Ukraine's problems.
But he fails to apply the same analysis to his own views.
Like almost everyone on here, he's blind in one eye. His is just a different eye.
I'd love to see Putin defeated and Ukraine triumphant. I still have a Ukrainian flag hanging from my London balcony. It's been there so long it's probably on Google Street View (I might actually check in a moment)
But I am also a realist. Ukraine cannot WIN this war, for reasons I have pointing out for a year. Lack of men
I made this comment back in April '23, I stand by it. I will be delighted if I am wrong and Zelensky pushes Putin out of Ukraine entirely
"It’s gonna end in a muddy and angry armistice roughly where it is now. Like Korea"
The big question for the West is this: what if the only way to push Russia out of Ukraine is to send men and not just weapons?
That's not going to happen. 1) because that would cause huge issues at home for many countries and 2) because the moment a NATO member state is at war with Russia, all NATO states are at war with Russia, and that means people getting scared of the nukes flying and 3) because nobody is quite sure what China would do.
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
That’s not what he said.
We also have left wing labour MPs suspended for saying far less.
In your world it is all fake offence from so called PB Tories. However there is offence across the political divide at, what are, offensive comments.
His comments were offensive but not anti -Semitic .
At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will result in accusations of anti-Semitism !
Accusing Netenyahu and the IDF of allowing an attack or not assisting quickly enough to aid the people effected so you can then pulverize Gaza is just that .
The fault is with those not the Jewish people as a whole .
How does that square with your comment:
"The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti-Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet."
Because some people can’t distinguish between the actions of a corrupt cesspit administration and the wider Jewish population.
Which is my point. And why Netenyahu is a handmaiden for anti-Semitism.
There's a contrary angle to this: anti-Semitism is a handmaiden for Netenyahu and his fellow travellers. As long as Jewish people feel they don't have anywhere safe in the world, the desire for a 'safe' Israel will exist.
Do you believe that Netanyahu makes Israel safer?
Do you believe that when Palestinians are turfed out of their homes for another settlement, that makes the State of Israel more secure?
Or do you think it radicalizes yet another Muslin to hate Israel with all consuming passion.
I'm not saying - obviously - that anti-semitism would disappear if the settlement building did. But I strongly believe that if the Palestinian people have no hope, then any energy they have will be channeled into hurting who they see as the source of that hopelessness.
That is - I believe - an unstable equilibrium.
They were given Gaza as a test case. I would have to google how often/long missiles have been fired at Israel since 2006 but I would guess it pre-dates October 6th.
I absolutely think that illegal settlements should be stopped, dismantled even, in the West Bank but it seems that throughout history Israel has adopted the sheep/lamb approach. If nothing they do is going to make a difference then fuck it, they might as well go for broke. They did this in the wars of 1947-48 and seem to be doing it again now.
Oh, I'm not saying it's easy.
In fact, it absolutely sucks for Israel, for the Israeli people, and for Jews worldwide.
It also sucks to be a Palestinian in the West Bank. And it sucks to be a Palestinian in Gaza. It doubly sucks when the Israeli government secretly channels money to Hamas in Gaza, because it helps Bibi domestically to have an implacable foe.
My personal belief is that you can buy temporary security through force of arms. But it is only temporary. Because you are creating new enemies every day.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Ukraine has close to one million men under arms.
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
It's funny: @Leon is absolutely right to point out that many people are blind to Ukraine's problems.
But he fails to apply the same analysis to his own views.
Like almost everyone on here, he's blind in one eye. His is just a different eye.
I'd love to see Putin defeated and Ukraine triumphant. I still have a Ukrainian flag hanging from my London balcony. It's been there so long it's probably on Google Street View (I might actually check in a moment)
But I am also a realist. Ukraine cannot WIN this war, for reasons I have pointing out for a year. Lack of men
I made this comment back in April '23, I stand by it. I will be delighted if I am wrong and Zelensky pushes Putin out of Ukraine entirely
"It’s gonna end in a muddy and angry armistice roughly where it is now. Like Korea"
The big question for the West is this: what if the only way to push Russia out of Ukraine is to send men and not just weapons?
That's not going to happen. 1) because that would cause huge issues at home for many countries and 2) because the moment a NATO member state is at war with Russia, all NATO states are at war with Russia, and that means people getting scared of the nukes flying and 3) because nobody is quite sure what China would do.
Point two isn't actually true. Article Five doesn't automatically mean all of NATO would be 'at war' with Russia. It provides for the option of taking military action if one member state is attacked, but it would also be entirely consistent with Article Five to help in the same way we are helping Ukraine.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
But they have so many more
I have found a debate from August last year when I painstakingly tried to explain all this to PB. Lots of PB-ers accused me of mongering doom-porn
"Because you are continuously purveying doom porn.
Claims that Ukraine are running out of people just isn't backed by reality and is Putinist propaganda we should get from those registering on a Saturday for 15-40 posts in before the ban, not you"
Leon replied: . "I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve seen all the men on crutches, missing limbs, etc. They are now sending men in their 50s to the front line. They are absolutely having difficulties with manpower
Because Russia is 3-4 times as big in population, and now Ukraine is trying to attack through the worst minefields in military history"
That's right: Ukraine is struggling to get troops to fill the front line.
But so is Russia.
You are absolutely right to point out Ukraine's difficulties, but you are curiously blind to Russia's.
And defeat is so much worse for Ukraine than for Russia, that I suspect you will find they will keep being able to find men and women - exhausted and elderly and injured etc - for far, far longer than you might expect.
Is Russia undermanned? Maybe, but
"Serhiy was injured last autumn in Avdiivka, where the fighting has been fierce and even Ukrainian officials admit their army is outgunned and outmanned.
One source put the difference at 8-1, in Russia's favour."
Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has, and rely on Ukraine to give up, out of sheer exhaustion, because Ukraine no longer has the manpower or strength to mount another large offensive
The war is frozen, and Ukraine cannot win. They might as well seek a ceasefire and save what few soldiers they have left
Russia is only 3x bigger than Ukraine.
And holding territory you've captured is not free. You need troops to hold down the (unhappy) local population. Look at Northern Ireland: even though 55% of the population want us (against - what - 10% in Ukraine), it was incredibly expensive for us.
Ukraine has close to one million men under arms.
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
You've always been a cheerleader for Ukraine (and fair enough), but your many predictions of their advances and successes have not come true, have they? Not since early 2023
The counter offensive was a complete failure, and they lost 100,000s of men killed and injured, for no significant territorial gain whatsoever
Given that, how do you suggest they proceed? There is no way for them to win a ground offensive, but they can maybe defend what they have
But if all they are doing is defending what they have, then they might as well seek a truce or an armistice no? Then rebuild, and save all those lives
The only alternative I can see is that they try and hold their ground AND fight Russia in more unconventional ways, attacking the navy (as they have done with great success), maybe fomenting unrest in Russia (much less successful)
But all that risks Russia slowly grinding them down and Russia is still bombing Ukrainian cities daily, it has not run out of drones and missiles, as we have been assured was immiment, every week since about November 2022
Plenty of invaded nations have kept going in terrible circumstances, and have emerged victorious. Invading is harder than defending, and eventually they sicken the invader.
Given the choice for Ukranians is to flee as refugees, submit to the butchers of Bucha or fight on, then none of the options is great.
War weariness doesn't always make for a desire to surrender, in the absence of military defeat. All the major powers in 1917 had it to some degree, but all bar Russia fought on.
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
NPXMP was saying something sensible along the lines of the first part of your final paragraph.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
All wars end with either total defeat of one side or a compromise. Ukraine needs some belief that if it agreed to cede territory to the bully, the bully wouldn't be back in a few years time.
Like paying Danegeld only led to a need to pay more Danegeld.
And yet, what can they do if they run out of troops? Conscription (have they already done this?) Call up women too? (Have they already done this?)
They have conscription, but the minimum age for conscription is something like 29. This is because the age cohort of the 20s is particularly small, so it would be demographically catastrophic to suffer heavy casualties in that age cohort.
This is one of the things behind Zelenskyy replacing Zaluzhny - disagreements about the future of conscription.
Again, the more in the way of ammunition, long-range weaponry, etc, that we provide, then the lower will be Ukraine's casualties. Being able to fire fewer artillery shells than Russia is not helpful when trying to minimise their own casualties. Being forbidden from firing NATO munitions at targets in Russia does not heThey'lp Ukraine minimise their casualties. Being denied long-range weapons does not help Ukraine to minimise their casualties.
I want Ukraine to have its best chance of decreasing Russia so that any other dictator tempted to invade a democratic neighbour will reconsider. There is more that we could do to improve Ukraine's chances.
The minimum age for conscription in Ukraine is 27. Or so I was told by Ukrainians, in Ukraine, coming up to their 27th birthdays
They've run out of men and the war is lost. To the extent that it can no longer be won. We are now asking them to sacrifice the last cohort of young people for..... what exactly?
I'm sorry: we're asking them?
This isn't our war. We're not fighting. We're not choosing to fight.
Even if the war is utterly futile, it's their fight.
And when they give in, and the Russian troops come in, and they round up those who supported the war and shoot them? And when they rape the women?
Will that have been a perfectly reasonable price to pay?
They are fighting so the flame of their country is not estinguished, so they can avoid the brutal occupation of the Russians.
We are not fighting. And we are certainly not forcing them to fight.
Stirring words, and all true in a way, but this is realpolitik
They cannot win, as I see it. Let's say I am right for the purposes of this argument
If they come to us as their allies, and ask our advice, what should we say? Urge them to fight on, even though we know they cannot win? Is that moral?
They're not coming to us for advice, they're coming to us for aid.
And so long as they keep fighting and asking, we should keep giving.
But what if they do seek our advice?
Look at it this way
Imagine Ukraine is your best friend at school and he's in a fight.He's already had a leg broken and lost a few teeth, but he will survive. He is incredibly brave, and the attack on him was unprovoked. Unfortunately he is fighting an absolute lying thug who is three times his size and known for brutal cruelty
The fighting has reached a stalemate, the thug is hinting at calling it a draw, but if it kicks off again it is much more likely your friend will lose both eyes and an arm, rather than the thug losing . The friend turns to you and asks for advice. You are his friend. What do you say? Maybe nothing? Say: it's up to you?
Or as a good friend is it better to say, Look, you're gonna lose both eyes if you fight on, take the draw for now and then we can go home and I will teach you judo
And, if the bullying thug makes clear that he's going to beat the crap out of your friend, and his relative that he already has in his power, what then?
You tell your friend to take the draw, then secretly give him a gun
I am not suggesting we appease Putin, he is a c*nt
I am suggesting there may be cleverer ways of tackling him than this trench warfare in Ukraine which is slowly killing all the men in Ukraine
I have now said, several times, we should let Poland acquire nukes. And we should (I think it will happen anyway)
That will stop Putin going anywhere near Eastern Europe. The idea that if we let Putin keep the Donbas he will immediately seize Estonia is nonsense. We have options
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
NPXMP was saying something sensible along the lines of the first part of your final paragraph.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
All wars end with either total defeat of one side or a compromise. Ukraine needs some belief that if it agreed to cede territory to the bully, the bully wouldn't be back in a few years time.
Like paying Danegeld only led to a need to pay more Danegeld.
And yet, what can they do if they run out of troops? Conscription (have they already done this?) Call up women too? (Have they already done this?)
They have conscription, but the minimum age for conscription is something like 29. This is because the age cohort of the 20s is particularly small, so it would be demographically catastrophic to suffer heavy casualties in that age cohort.
This is one of the things behind Zelenskyy replacing Zaluzhny - disagreements about the future of conscription.
Again, the more in the way of ammunition, long-range weaponry, etc, that we provide, then the lower will be Ukraine's casualties. Being able to fire fewer artillery shells than Russia is not helpful when trying to minimise their own casualties. Being forbidden from firing NATO munitions at targets in Russia does not heThey'lp Ukraine minimise their casualties. Being denied long-range weapons does not help Ukraine to minimise their casualties.
I want Ukraine to have its best chance of decreasing Russia so that any other dictator tempted to invade a democratic neighbour will reconsider. There is more that we could do to improve Ukraine's chances.
The minimum age for conscription in Ukraine is 27. Or so I was told by Ukrainians, in Ukraine, coming up to their 27th birthdays
They've run out of men and the war is lost. To the extent that it can no longer be won. We are now asking them to sacrifice the last cohort of young people for..... what exactly?
I'm sorry: we're asking them?
This isn't our war. We're not fighting. We're not choosing to fight.
Even if the war is utterly futile, it's their fight.
And when they give in, and the Russian troops come in, and they round up those who supported the war and shoot them? And when they rape the women?
Will that have been a perfectly reasonable price to pay?
They are fighting so the flame of their country is not estinguished, so they can avoid the brutal occupation of the Russians.
We are not fighting. And we are certainly not forcing them to fight.
Stirring words, and all true in a way, but this is realpolitik
They cannot win, as I see it. Let's say I am right for the purposes of this argument
If they come to us as their allies, and ask our advice, what should we say? Urge them to fight on, even though we know they cannot win? Is that moral?
They're not coming to us for advice, they're coming to us for aid.
And so long as they keep fighting and asking, we should keep giving.
But what if they do seek our advice?
Look at it this way
Imagine Ukraine is your best friend at school and he's in a fight.He's already had a leg broken and lost a few teeth, but he will survive. He is incredibly brave, and the attack on him was unprovoked. Unfortunately he is fighting an absolute lying thug who is three times his size and known for brutal cruelty
The fighting has reached a stalemate, the thug is hinting at calling it a draw, but if it kicks off again it is much more likely your friend will lose both eyes and an arm, rather than the thug losing . The friend turns to you and asks for advice. You are his friend. What do you say? Maybe nothing? Say: it's up to you?
Or as a good friend is it better to say, Look, you're gonna lose both eyes if you fight on, take the draw for now and then we can go home and I will teach you judo
That's a massive fucking *if* that you are hanging your entire premise off.
Is it? I am pretty sure there are top people in Kyiv who want the advice of the best military and strategic experts in the west. Why would they not? They are now in deep shit, and the leadership is split on how to proceed (hence Zelensky sacking his hero general)
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This can’t be right. According to the PB labour fanatics the only anger over this is synthetic Tory anger.
Netenyahu desperately wanting a reason to destroy Gaza isn’t that far fetched. Ali’s comments will resonate with quite a few voters even though it might seem unpalatable !
That’s not what he said.
We also have left wing labour MPs suspended for saying far less.
In your world it is all fake offence from so called PB Tories. However there is offence across the political divide at, what are, offensive comments.
His comments were offensive but not anti -Semitic .
At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will result in accusations of anti-Semitism !
Accusing Netenyahu and the IDF of allowing an attack or not assisting quickly enough to aid the people effected so you can then pulverize Gaza is just that .
The fault is with those not the Jewish people as a whole .
How does that square with your comment:
"The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti-Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet."
Because some people can’t distinguish between the actions of a corrupt cesspit administration and the wider Jewish population.
Which is my point. And why Netenyahu is a handmaiden for anti-Semitism.
There's a contrary angle to this: anti-Semitism is a handmaiden for Netenyahu and his fellow travellers. As long as Jewish people feel they don't have anywhere safe in the world, the desire for a 'safe' Israel will exist.
Do you believe that Netanyahu makes Israel safer?
Do you believe that when Palestinians are turfed out of their homes for another settlement, that makes the State of Israel more secure?
Or do you think it radicalizes yet another Muslin to hate Israel with all consuming passion.
I'm not saying - obviously - that anti-semitism would disappear if the settlement building did. But I strongly believe that if the Palestinian people have no hope, then any energy they have will be channeled into hurting who they see as the source of that hopelessness.
That is - I believe - an unstable equilibrium.
I agree with all of that - in that Bibi is not making Israel 'safer'; that the Israeli settlers are utterly and totally in the wrong; that what's happening radicalises people (though I'd alter it to say on both sides); and that Palestinians need to have hope - and see a way forward.
Comments
Eventually she said, snootily, 'Mr Davies, I don't believe you're a true Christian, you've never seen Jesus.'
And Mr Davies, very miffed, fired back, 'You don't know what I've seen when I've had a couple of pints.'
I've always thought it a brilliant summary of the problem with the argument from religious experience.
(In case anyone wonders - he got the sack.)
But (cueing @Dura_Ace) : the information space is filled with contradictory information. And if you favour Russia, you might choose pro-Russian figures.
"Moreover, Putin doesn't really need to attack. He can defend what he has"
Yet oddly, Russia is attacking. There are obvious reasons (and one major reason) why.
At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will result in accusations of anti-Semitism !
Accusing Netenyahu and the IDF of allowing an attack or not assisting quickly enough to aid the people effected so you can then pulverize Gaza is just that .
The fault is with those not the Jewish people as a whole .
Also Lady Day, so linked to Easter.
As of today, in its present wartime borders, Ukraine's population is estimated at about 31 million; it is severely reduced from pre-war times due to refugees, lost land, war time deaths, and draft dodgers
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/ukraines-demography-second-year-full-fledged-war
Russia's population is 144 million
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/russia-population/
So Russia is actually nearly five times larger, not three
Like paying Danegeld only led to a need to pay more Danegeld.
And yet, what can they do if they run out of troops? Conscription (have they already done this?) Call up women too? (Have they already done this?)
A few weeks ago, the BBC reported that at the start of the war, the typical Russian death was a 21 year old professional soldier. Now, it's a 34 year old convict.
No army recruits convicts, unless it has no alternative.
But I think she was the really massive organ involved...
Edit: but I forget, it's been like that for ages for banks and landlords and employers ... . Though it's not been enshrined in law that the state church should also conform. Or will it be?
"The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti-Semitism is Netenyahu and his disgusting cabinet."
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
It did occur to me that maybe the only Germans Putin is in touch with these days are the more extreme AfD types, so he thought having a bit of sympathy for Hitler's case against Poland would go down well in Germany. But I think he just needs to believe the Soviet Union behaved "honourably" when it invaded Poland, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was justified, so Hitler was somehow right to invade Poland. Of course when Hitler broke the pact and attacked Russia he was very bad. Maybe that is the history they teach in Russian schools for all I know.
Which is my point. And why Netenyahu is a handmaiden for anti-Semitism.
This is one of the things behind Zelenskyy replacing Zaluzhny - disagreements about the future of conscription.
Again, the more in the way of ammunition, long-range weaponry, etc, that we provide, then the lower will be Ukraine's casualties. Being able to fire fewer artillery shells than Russia is not helpful when trying to minimise their own casualties. Being forbidden from firing NATO munitions at targets in Russia does not help Ukraine minimise their casualties. Being denied long-range weapons does not help Ukraine to minimise their casualties.
I want Ukraine to have its best chance of decreasing Russia so that any other dictator tempted to invade a democratic neighbour will reconsider. There is more that we could do to improve Ukraine's chances.
On paper French forces were stronger than German. It should have been able to compete or stall them for months, if not years. But it seemed to have a complete collapse of national confidence even before the first shot was fired. And then they were so ashamed and bitter at their rapid defeat and, worse, that Britain fought on that their answer to this was to turn their collaboration up to 11 to manage their self-esteem thereafter.
I've never really got to the bottom of this, or what happened to France in the 1930s. They don't ever talk about it.
Not by you, obviously, you just point out the danger.
Though again on that basis even if that was not the case the US, UK and France could defend themselves as they have nukes as a last resort so Russia would not risk invading them unlike the rest of NATO
The counter offensive was a complete failure, and they lost 100,000s of men killed and injured, for no significant territorial gain whatsoever
Given that, how do you suggest they proceed? There is no way for them to win a ground offensive, but they can maybe defend what they have
But if all they are doing is defending what they have, then they might as well seek a truce or an armistice no? Then rebuild, and save all those lives
The only alternative I can see is that they try and hold their ground AND fight Russia in more unconventional ways, attacking the navy (as they have done with great success), maybe fomenting unrest in Russia (much less successful)
But all that risks Russia slowly grinding them down and Russia is still bombing Ukrainian cities daily, it has not run out of drones and missiles, as we have been assured was immiment, every week since about November 2022
Russia: 141,698,923 (2023 est.)
Ukraine: 43,306,477 (2023 est.)
But both cases have seen a fair few people trying to escape: either rich Russians fleeing the draft and sanctions; or Ukrainians fleeing Russian fascism.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/population/
In Wales it would go further and ordained ministers of the four Covenanted Churches (plus some independent Baptists) are recognised as ministers for the purpose of taking services in other denominations.
But he fails to apply the same analysis to his own views.
Like almost everyone on here, he's blind in one eye. His is just a different eye.
Yes 92%
No 8%
Turnout 84%
Every single Ukrainian region (even Crimea, tho it was much closer there) backed Independence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum
I visited her recently and went to church with her to hear the bells ring, and stayed for the service, singing the hymns. If I'd wanted to take communion, no-one would have checked, or asked me about my church membership.
Maybe it's naiveté on their part, but compared to every other part of life, where one has to constantly prove who you are and whether you're "genuine", I found it a refreshing break from the constant suspicion and challenge. And did it harm them to have a polite atheist in their midst?
I was pointing out that that is how RUSSIAN MOTHERS will about their DEAD CHILDREN.
They've run out of men and the war is lost. To the extent that it can no longer be won. We are now asking them to sacrifice the last cohort of young people for..... what exactly?
Very short guide as to Jesus being real historical figure: move from undisputed material not from mythological overlay.
1) Paul believed Jesus existed, though he didn't meet him ('born of a woman'). Undisputed.
2) Paul personally knew Jesus's brother, James, and Peter, both followers of Jesus, (both of whom were martyred by the way). Undisputed.
3) It is not credible that James and Peter were followers of a person they knew had not existed, and also that Paul was ignorant of this.
The last election didn’t have a fiscally responsible option for the voters, but thanks to Reeves the Relentless now taking control of the Labour Party, voters will get stark choice between belt tightening and going without for the next 5 years of hard labour, and the upbeat sunny optimism and money in our pockets courtesy of Hunt and Sunak.
So then your point is otiose, if not fatuous
This isn't our war. We're not fighting. We're not choosing to fight.
Even if the war is utterly futile, it's their fight.
And when they give in, and the Russian troops come in, and they round up those who supported the war and shoot them? And when they rape the women?
Will that have been a perfectly reasonable price to pay?
They are fighting so the flame of their country is not estinguished, so they can avoid the brutal occupation of the Russians.
We are not fighting. And we are certainly not forcing them to fight.
My point is that the will of the invader is almost always less.
It's much easier to throw away your life to prevent your mother and sister being raped, and your Uncle being shot for being a politican, than it is because your leader believes some corner of a foreign field is Russian.
Not complicated.
But I am also a realist. Ukraine cannot WIN this war, for reasons I have pointing out for a year. Lack of men
I made this comment back in April '23, I stand by it. I will be delighted if I am wrong and Zelensky pushes Putin out of Ukraine entirely
"It’s gonna end in a muddy and angry armistice roughly where it is now. Like Korea"
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4505437#Comment_4505437
I have never considered it likely that Sunak will call a May election, but it seems the middle east conflict especially through the Rochdale debacle is becoming a problem for Starmer and it could be that May is a possibility now and if so @MoonRabbit deserves considerable credit
(This is not to deny the current reality on the front. War is hell, etc.)
That isn’t what he said. He said that they deliberately allowed the attack to happen to give them an excuse for their subsequent actions in Gaza.
That is very different to cynicism
Do you believe that when Palestinians are turfed out of their homes for another settlement, that makes the State of Israel more secure?
Or do you think it radicalizes yet another Muslin to hate Israel with all consuming passion.
I'm not saying - obviously - that anti-semitism would disappear if the settlement building did. But I strongly believe that if the Palestinian people have no hope, then any energy they have will be channeled into hurting who they see as the source of that hopelessness.
That is - I believe - an unstable equilibrium.
They cannot win, as I see it. Let's say I am right for the purposes of this argument
If they come to us as their allies, and ask our advice, what should we say? Urge them to fight on, even though we know they cannot win? Is that moral?
But nothing is written in stone.
The Ukrainians, despite your moaning are still fighting. And just as with the Russians in the second world war, you will be staggered to discover how deep a state can dig to find soldiers when its very existence is under threat.
And so long as they keep fighting and asking, we should keep giving.
You seem to be arguing that we should not provide Ukraine with further support and instead encourage them to agree a ceasefire with Russia. But if the situation for Ukraine is as bad as you say, and we attempt such a coercion, then what incentive does Russia have to agree?
If they stick at it in such circumstances then they might make it to Kyiv after all.
So what do we do? What action gives us the best possible outcome?
Providing as much support to Ukraine as possible.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67958260
I absolutely think that illegal settlements should be stopped, dismantled even, in the West Bank but it seems that throughout history Israel has adopted the sheep/lamb approach. If nothing they do is going to make a difference then fuck it, they might as well go for broke. They did this in the wars of 1947-48 and seem to be doing it again now.
German and Russian expansionist have the same roots, as indeed does Hungarian longing for the lost territories of Greater Hungary from before 1918.
Look at it this way
Imagine Ukraine is your best friend at school and he's in a fight.He's already had a leg broken and lost a few teeth, but he will survive. He is incredibly brave, and the attack on him was unprovoked. Unfortunately he is fighting an absolute lying thug who is three times his size and known for brutal cruelty
The fighting has reached a stalemate, the thug is hinting at calling it a draw, but if it kicks off again it is much more likely your friend will lose both eyes and an arm, rather than the thug losing
.
The friend turns to you and asks for advice. You are his friend. What do you say? Maybe nothing? Say: it's up to you?
Or as a good friend is it better to say, Look, you're gonna lose both eyes if you fight on, take the draw for now and then we can go home and I will teach you judo
But yes, the correlation between bell ringers and real ale drinkers is approaching 100%, and is much, much stronger than that between bell ringers and Christians/churchgoers.
This is exactly what we did in Korea, and there has been a grisly peace ever since. Not nice for the North Koreans, but excellent for South Korea and it surely saved millioms of lives on all sides
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
Labour lead widens to eighteen points in the latest results from Deltapoll.
Con 27% (-)
Lab 45% (+2)
Lib Dem 8% (-2)
Other 19% (-1)
Fieldwork: 9th - 12th February 2024
Sample: 1,977 GB adults
(Changes from 2nd - 5th February 2024)
By tutting at these easily-fooled liberals and crying that ducking stools sound a bit woke, you are rather missing the point. None of this stuff works. There's no way to tell whether people are sincere or not.
England tried this with the Test Acts for about seventy years. It didn't work. Today, there are more Catholics than Anglicans in England.
In Ireland, the laws were harsher and in place for longer. The last of the Penal Laws was only lifted in 1829. But they still didn't work. Today, there are more than eight times more Catholics than Anglicans in Ireland.
Francis Bacon told us in the 16th century that Elizabeth I was unable to "make windows into men's hearts and secret thoughts". They were right.
How about focussing the asylum debate on things that can actually be measured and factors that we are able to control?
The ground war has effectively been fought to a bloody stalemate, with Russia barely able to push into a town (Adviivka) only a km or two beyond the border they’ve held since 2014 & a city (Donetsk) that has a railhead for supplies. Likewise the Ukrainians seem unable to break through Russian lines in the face of drone defenses & dense minefields.
Behind the lines meanwhile, the Ukranians appear to be hitting Russian infrastructure 100s of km from the border: https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1755765561156321427
I do wonder exactly how much Russian oil infrastructure the Ukrainians can credibly threaten. Wipe out enough & Russia has real problems; would that be enough to force Putin’s hand?
In fact, it absolutely sucks for Israel, for the Israeli people, and for Jews worldwide.
It also sucks to be a Palestinian in the West Bank. And it sucks to be a Palestinian in Gaza. It doubly sucks when the Israeli government secretly channels money to Hamas in Gaza, because it helps Bibi domestically to have an implacable foe.
My personal belief is that you can buy temporary security through force of arms. But it is only temporary. Because you are creating new enemies every day.
War weariness doesn't always make for a desire to surrender, in the absence of military defeat. All the major powers in 1917 had it to some degree, but all bar Russia fought on.
I am not suggesting we appease Putin, he is a c*nt
I am suggesting there may be cleverer ways of tackling him than this trench warfare in Ukraine which is slowly killing all the men in Ukraine
I have now said, several times, we should let Poland acquire nukes. And we should (I think it will happen anyway)
That will stop Putin going anywhere near Eastern Europe. The idea that if we let Putin keep the Donbas he will immediately seize Estonia is nonsense. We have options