Moonbox

The Nazi argument is low effort garbage - the same thing as the satanic pedophile cabals. Point at the "others", call them the worst thing you can possibly think of, then see how many susceptible and gullible mooks bite. Even the Russian soldiers in Ukraine don't believe it, else they'd have more than a thimble-full of fighting spirit and would have done more than surrender, retreat or stall for the last 4 months. ?

They are different people by simple virtue of the fact that the Ukrainians consider themselves different and don't want to be part of the Russosphere. That alone proves the foolishness of your lousy reductionism, nevermind the absolute absurdity of the logic if applied elsewhere in the world. The Western media is certainly biased in the conflict, but that's an unremarkable truism and a bias or spin doesn't mean fake. If you think Russia, Syria, Belarus, North Korea, India or China are more reliable sources then you're lost to us.

It's been accepted by everyone but Hungary (who have absolutely no clout whatsoever and will ratify eventually after some limp Viktor posturing) and then Turkey, who will jockey for the next year or so but also also accede. Finland and Sweden will be part of NATO within the next 2-3 years max and if by some bizarre twist Turkey and Hungary decide to go rogue, a new defensive apparatus can always be assembled which they'll be left out of. Yet they're not sitting on their hands, and so they very obviously don't have to do anything you're saying ?. Except virtually every country in the alliance disagrees with that assessment, despite your complaints. Too bad.

Follow the logic. Since no gas was flowing anyways, what changed by blowing up the pipeline? What money are we following? How can you get less than zero gas from these pipelines? Your accusations might have a chance of landing if you could actually explain what's been misrepresented. If you can't do that, then spare your breath. ? Easy to say that after the fact. This sort of revisionism is always funny, where your successor follows your general plan and then you blame them when it turns out awful. How do you figure the US was going to operate a major air base in Afghanistan surrounded by the Taliban on all sides? The fact that the Poles are among the most anti-Russian people in Europe seems to be lost on you. As usual, you'll believe what you prefer and little else. You copied a headline off your 4chan feed but obviously don't know anything about the guy. The fact that you'd quote him here as an expert on European geopolitics but then (unprompted by anyone and totally unrelated) go off against the Liberal Green BS that he's been promoting for years is quite funny.

We disagree one a lot of things, but I can certainly acknowledge you're not one of the silly goof here just looking to pwn people with click-bait and one-liners. I know you're looking for intelligent debate. Again, you're really misunderstanding the word. Extreme is just "very very very something". The ideology can be anything (good or bad). Terrorism, however, is not an ideology in itself. It's the result of an ideology pushed to the furthest extremes and over the brink. However extreme you are, you can always get more extreme. I don't think blocking the world's most lucrative trade artery for 6 days because you don't believe in a pandemic that's killed millions is best described as "a little whacky". This was a targeted escalation not meant to create awareness or display discontent, but rather to inflict max pain on the people that disagreed with them. As far as economic blackmail goes, that's about as extreme as you can get without actually bombing the bridge. Bringing up BLM over and over isn't helpful for your argument. You're just demonstrating your bias. "But but but BLM!" isn't an argument. It's a deflection and it's totally unrelated. That's because your personal meaning for the word is made-up, self-defeating and arbitrary. The word "extremists" didn't change the debate. There were plenty of other perjoratives used to describe the truckers, and none of them invoked accusations of terrorism either. You getting upset about a word that was never intended as you described is purely a you problem and you're kind of just screaming into the wind.

and now Finland is joining and Russia also can't do anything about it. Why they should have is self-evident. Russia's lost the majority of their professional army and loads of equipment and gained almost nothing from 8 months of war. NATO don't have to sit on their hands and let Russia bully who they please. They just don't. Sure, but the only madman who'd risk starting one is Putin, and he's the one you should be worried about. The threat that he may start one is not logical rationale for acquiescing to his will either. Letting villains and dictators take what they please because they threaten to push the red button is a blueprint for a shittier world, following the same logic as "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

They already had. Nord 2 never even started operating, and Nord 1 had been shut down for over a month. Russia therefore had two useless heaps of metal strung out over thousands of kilometers, and literally nothing better to do with them than psyops. Joe said he can make sure Nordstream 2 never operates. It never has. Political pressure from outside and at home in Germany made sure that pipeline was never turned on, no sabotage required. Blinken never said what you say he did either. His actual quote was: “It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs.” These conversations would go a lot better for you if you would read beyond the click-bait headlines saying what you want to hear. Donald Trump negotiated the terms and timeline of the Afghanistan withdrawal. That's a fact. Joe Biden pushed the timeline back from May 1 to August, and it was still an absolute disaster. Poland is one of the most anti-Putin states in Europe, and will stoicly bear the discomfort. Don't worry about them. but then you're quoting die-hard green economists like Jeffrey Sachs to support your pro-Russian argument for Ukraine.

We may never know. It could have been the US. It could have been Russia. It could have been China. It could have been Switzerland. The pipeline was only 70 meters deep. Recreational divers go 40 meters. Technical divers can go over 100. Robotic/drone submersibles are available commercially that go further. Anyone was capable of doing it. The question is who was most likely. I look at the US and weigh the opportunity (what they had to gain) vs the risk. If it was them, they blew up 50 meters of a pipeline that was shut down already and not likely to transport gas anytime in the near future. It's not terribly to difficult to fix either, so what did this accomplish? Balanced against that is the risk of getting caught blowing up allied infrastructure and causing an international incident. As for Russia, they had nothing to lose. They'd already refused to send gas and they have a second pipeline sitting there at zero capacity as well. If they get caught, what happens? Does Europe get more angry with them than they already are? ? Balanced against this is the confusion, suspicion and angst they cause in the EU who they obviously consider(ed?) fractious and soft. Given the efforts made in the West to align themselves against China over the last few years, I'm not sure how you can convince yourself that western virologist are all in cahoots with the Chinese, or that their research concluding COVID 19 didn't come from a lab is falsified. These sorts of contradictions, however, never seem to bother you. How do you feel about climate change, by the way? You should look up how Jeff Sachs feels about this since he's so world-renowned and credible.

The actual FACT is that NATO is already on Russia's border and has been for a long time (peacefully), and that Putin's actions this year have directly led to Finland joining and therefore more than doubling Russia's direct abutment to NATO. Russia cannot and will not stop this. He's also succeeded in making a generational enemy out of Ukraine, who he's failed to conquer, and cemented Russia's status as a pariah state in Europe for at least as long as he remains in power. This is unfortunate for Russians because 75% of the Federation's population and urban centres are in Europe. Russia trying to replace European trade through Asia would be like Canada trying to replace all of it's US trade overseas (not possible). All of these are FACTS. TLDR: Everything Putin's done lately has accomplished the exact opposite of what he intended.

Point of interest on your point of interest. Nordstream 1 was running at 25% capacity as of June. As of August, it was completely shut down, with the Russians citing "maintenance" (though we know it was retaliation for sanctions and EU support for Ukraine). By September 26, when the pipeline was blown, neither Nordstream pipeline hadn't been transporting any natural gas for over a month and the EU had already firmly committed to anti-Russian sanctions and weaning themselves off Russian gas. Jeffery Sachs' theory went cold because he provided no evidence for it, like he does with a lot of stuff he says. Like with his claims of COVID-19 coming from Chinese bioweapon labs, he is more than happy to promote theories that cannot be supported. This is why his economic "renown' is much diminished from 15-20 years ago, since the implementation of his economic theories have generally led to disaster around the world.

I really don't understand what you're saying. I'm not American. Saigon fell. Vietnam has been a communist state ever since. China (the major regional power) is also communist. The Americans lost the war in Vietnam because they were never going to commit the lives and resources necessary to fight millions of communists there. Anyways, I still don't really get what you're trying communicate in this thread.

I don't get the impression you were really open to being convinced, honestly. My definition is the actual definition, but I suppose it's easier to just have your own personal opinions on what words mean as it suits you. I very clearly explained the difference between what you think the word means and what it actually means. I gave you an example twice that highlighted that difference, and you casually shrugged it off without even acknowledging it. Being "a little nuts" is a surefire predictor of extremism. I'll concede to you at least that the EMA wasn't necessary to deal with the trucker protest, but in the same way that I don't think the army needs to be called to deal with Green Peace extremists.

Ah okay then. Basically what you're saying is that all of the different mainstream media outlets around the world all follow the "leftist liberal globalist narrative and agenda" (what a mouthful!) and they're always wrong...until they're saying something you agree with. Got it! ?? "It is a well known fact that..." is conspiracy theory copypasta that prefaces the launching of goofy rants beyond counting. The problem is that it's almost never actually a fact (nor "well-known"), but rather something you folks hear on 4chan etc and then repeat to each other so many times you actually believe it. So again, you're literally telling us that the MSM is only right when they're saying what you already want to hear and already believe. That's literally the definition of an echo chamber, but at least you acknowledge it. ?

You're tripping over semantics. When I referred to "extreme ideology, whatever that may be," I was saying that it can span any number of different worldviews. I explained the term. I explained the differences between what you think it means and what it actually means. I even gave you a really clear example (the feminist flasher) and compared her to an ISIS suicide bomber. Both are extremists, only one is a terrorist. If that doesn't register with you, I'm afraid this is purely a you problem. The only thing that's over the top is your insistence on misunderstanding the term and applying unintended meaning towards it as a source for your outrage. That's actually a really good question, but one (probably) without a satisfying answer. The base word "extreme" is inherently subjective and relative, so it's very much a matter of perspective and degrees. Being an anti-abortionist doesn't make you an extremist, for example, but spending your time heckling women at abortion clinics and telling them they're going to burn in hell for it (IMO) does.

Extremism isn't an ideology itself. It refers to and describes extreme ideology, whatever that may be. You could be a feminist extremist and insist on parading yourself naked in public spaces because you figure that's it's your body and that's your "right", but you'd have literally nothing in common with an Islamic terrorist/extremist, would you? It's not over the top. The word extremism is self-describing, and you're using it wrong. Folks like Tamara Lich or Pat King aren't just everyday Canadians who disagreed with the vaccine mandates. Those two clowns are extremists. If your protest/convoy/whatever is being led and organized by people like that, it's not unreasonable or surprising for the whole movement to get lumped in with that brand. I had a lot of sympathy for folks who disagreed with vaccine mandates on an economic basis. At a certain point I think the cost exceeded the benefit of keeping things locked down for 2 years. When that argument gets co-opted by a bunch of idiots telling everyone that COVID is fake and a conspiracy from the WEF or whatever, that's unfortunate, but they could have avoided it.

It's a very poor argument. Extremist isn't the same word as terrorist, nor should it be considered as such. Extremism describes ideology. Terrorism describes violence, particularly for intimidation purposes. You can be an extremist without being a terrorist, though it's unlikely you'd be a terrorist without extremist ideology. This is a you thing, in that you the person (rather than "us the people") can't/won't make the distinction. Pat King and Tamara Lich can be fairly described as extremists. They cannot be described as terrorists, nor do I think anyone actually thinks they could be. When we consider clowns like these, we aren't worried they're going to bomb parliament. We just think they're idiots.

I'm wrong that dumb posts don't need counterpoints? ? Your reply serves as an example of exactly what I was talking about - an unfocused and hyperbole-filled rant that wasted everyone's time reading. It's certainly not worth much of a response. Yet here you are, still furiously pounding on your keyboard after more than 11,000 posts worth of overly emotional hyperbole. ?

First, look up the definitions for the word before you say that, genius. ? Second, he randomly delivered a list of wildly off-topic opinions that nobody asked for...as if his programming got stumped and he just defaulted back to his list of Trumpian talking points. He may as well have copy-pasted a MAGA Mom's angry Facebook feed for how relevant and insightful it was. Dumb posts don't need counterpoints. They speak for themselves. Listing ten hyperbole-laden opinions in bullet format with no further explanation is just word-vomit

Treebeard if you say things loudly and repeat them enough times, you can fool even yourself into believing them, doncha know?

Show us where it's been explained, at any point. You keep making accusations, but refuse to qualify them at every step. The reason is obvious - because you can't. ?

? The point I was making, which you so quickly lost before launching yourself into another rambling diatribe, was that the MSM posts all sorts of stuff criticizing things like pedophiles, which makes you look pretty stupid when you say foolish stuff like, "I support anything the MSM criticizes". Slow down. Think before you post.

Yet you can't/won't explain who cheated or lied anywhere ? Your inability to articulate your points and your tendency towards fragile emotional outbursts does far more harm to your credibility than anything I have to say. We can just sort of sit back and comment on your string of goofy face-plants. Tell us more about your emotional state please. How does this make you feel. ?

My excuse for what? but that's not all you've said... Your energy has been spent condemning everyone but Putin, the guy who launched the invasion. It's everyone's fault here BUT the aggressor. ? Cheating how? You still haven't explained how quoting you is dishonest. You keep saying it's "out of context" but it's not. I've invited you numerous times to provide the whole quote and explain how the context changes anything. You've not done so, preferring to pout about "dishonesty". You said: You just want people to "stay out of" Putin getting his way, because he represents the limp macho energy you think the world needs or...something. Thanks for the hysterical, wandering and mostly off-topic manifesto. ?

How are you this oblivious? Your recent posting history (and apparently a conversation with the moderator) confirms your poor behavior. You're really in no place to comment on anyone else's intelligence either, considering you can't even keep your own posts straight or avoid contradicting yourself. This is the part of your conspiracy worldview that I find so spectacularly absurd, because your theories, predictions and claims so consistently fail to bear out in reality (or even basic tests of scrutiny), but still you obstinately push forward to the next without learning anything. Ignorance and self-deception seem to be your superpower.

I don't understand your OP and what you're even trying to say. That terrifies you? ? I'm not American, and don't think dropping two bombs on Japan was good for necessary or good for anyone considering Japan was already finished. Japan notably surrendered after the Soviet Union declared war on them, rather than after they were bombed. The Americans lost the Vietnam war, and managed a stalemate in Korea. American is still (by far) the largest military in the world and that status has probably been cemented by the revelation that Russia's is a hollow, ineffective force. So I have to ask, what are you trying to say in this thread, specifically?