Ukraine: Russia has launched 'full-scale invasion'

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Bosch said:
Not sure where his errors are tbh. Could you clarify, please
Click to expand...
Ok. Why do politicians refer to history? To show they they are consistent. Why is it important to them ? Because it shows fairness, or, what communists and historians of 19th century called, “historical determinism”. Because it is logical and you can easily fall into the trap of the false logic that may lead you to even more evil deeds
I don’t believe into political fairness because the political arena is anarchy. And the politics is always relative. For example, we know that we live in a developed world and we belong to the world elite. Who do we equate in the world 2000 years ago, particularly Rome where 25% of the world population belonged? Slave owners simply because we are elite of the world. What do you think of people who own slaves? Hope it is negative, but 2000 years ago you won’t have this stance. Now, if you leap forward , what do you think people would think of our attitudes in year 4024? There might be intergalactical migrants, who cares about petty migrants across English Channel? The world will change, they will think of us the same way as we think of people who owned slaves 2000 years ago - because our values are relative, not absolute. That’s why being democratic is not an argument - relative to what? Is it really a big deal? For many it is as petty as wearing red clothes vs blue
Therefore, I prefer my stance: this war is a Gladiators championship, and shame on people who takes any side - no side is right, there is no humanity on either side
To make it more complicated :

The Hottest Places in Hell Are Reserved for Those Who in a Period of Moral Crisis Maintain Their Neutrality​

 
Omega said:
Ok. Why do politicians refer to history? To show they they are consistent. Why is it important to them ? Because it shows fairness, or, what communists and historians of 19th century called, “historical determinism”. Because it is logical and you can easily fall into the trap of the false logic that may lead you to even more evil deeds
I don’t believe into political fairness because the political arena is anarchy. And the politics is always relative. For example, we know that we live in a developed world and we belong to the world elite. Who do we equate in the world 2000 years ago, particularly Rome where 25% of the world population belonged? Slave owners simply because we are elite of the world. What do you think of people who own slaves? Hope it is negative, but 2000 years ago you won’t have this stance. Now, if you leap forward , what do you think people would think of our attitudes in year 4024? There might be intergalactical migrants, who cares about petty migrants across English Channel? The world will change, they will think of us the same way as we think of people who owned slaves 2000 years ago - because our values are relative, not absolute. That’s why being democratic is not an argument - relative to what? Is it really a big deal? For many it is as petty as wearing red clothes vs blue
Therefore, I prefer my stance: this war is a Gladiators championship, and shame on people who takes any side - no side is right, there is no humanity on either side
To make it more complicated :

The Hottest Places in Hell Are Reserved for Those Who in a Period of Moral Crisis Maintain Their Neutrality​

Click to expand...
Sorry, I meant what points he made in the video Tom Holland made were errors. Could you be more specific, please? Thank you
 
Bosch said:
Holland's point, that you cant put modern ethno/religious sensibilities of medieval states on modern states is a fact you really cannot argue, in my opinion.

Also that the Soviet Union was a defacto ally of Nazi Germay until Operation Barbarossa is a comonly accepted historical fact
Click to expand...
If you watched Putin’s interview then it is quite contrary - Britain and France were allies of Nazis. And he gave copies of historical documents to support this hypothesis to Carlson right on the interview
I do not know the value of this argument though - it is relative as there were so many thing going at the same time. However, I came across it many time. Though most sources were not in English, so it may find it hard to validate it. I just gave up as I don’t trust politicians 😀
 
Omega said:
If you watched Putin’s interview then it is quite contrary - Britain and France were allies of Nazis. And he gave copies of historical documents to support this hypothesis to Carlson right on the interview
I do not know the value of this argument though - it is relative as there were so many thing going at the same time. However, I came across it many time. Though most sources were not in English, so it may find it hard to validate it. I just gave up as I don’t trust politicians 😀
Click to expand...
Britain and France were aliies of the Nazis? Can you please illuminate me here please.
I am no fan of the British empire, but for all it's flaws, it was never an ally of Nazi Germany (unlike the Soviet Union).
 
As an aside, @Omega , why does me stating that Ireland was England's first colony resulted in an 🤣 emoji, please clarify your point of view. Thank you
 
Bosch said:
Sorry, I meant what points he made in the video Tom Holland made were errors. Could you be more specific, please? Thank you
Click to expand...
Ok. Tom uses Western paradigm of ethnicity. Who said it is right? I am not saying that Putin is right - I actually think he is mainly wrong - but Tom's paradigm of ethnicity is not absolute and not proven (so is Putin's). My argument to Putin would be (to support Tom) would be that Arabs populate several countries, they share the same language, culture and religion, but they are different countries. Or Latin American countries. And I know what Putin will reply - they are not Russians and will refer to American President Wilson's point 14 in his Fourteen Points (it is so vague that can be easily misinterpreted by anyone). And he does not have to explain anything because historically Russian culture expanded very differently from European, so you cannot apply the same rules
And Tom's argument about what was happening in 1939 before WW2 is not fully correct. I am not saying he is wrong, I am saying he is not fully correct. Why? Putin gave documents to Carlson to support this historical hypothesis and this is a significant move because now Russian media can always argue that we have all documents to check the fallacy of historical events, but ignored it for convenience. Moreover, this documentation was available for a number of years, but was ignored. There are many precedents when Western history had to be rewritten under pressure of the facts: for example, declassified documents on Cuban crisis disagree how it all happened - until recently, it was always claimed that "Khrushev blinked first" under the pressure of Kennedy, but it turned out that Krushev made Kennedy committed to move out nuclear weapons from Turkey before he moved out his nuclear weapons from Cuba. Nobody still even touches why our troops had to run away from Afghanistan so suddenly in August 2021, but I think some people can link it now to Ukraine - Russia allowed us supply our troops there, but then we suddenly we became very vulnerable
To make is confusing I wanted here to post a video where Putin, with Tony Blair nest to him, is talking about joining NATO, but I cannot find this video any more, though I saw it.
Still, my opinion of Putin did not change much - he is a weak politician who can only fight defensively, though with a lot of energy. Now he is in the corner and I don't like this as he know he won't get out of there alive
 
Bosch said:
As an aside, @Omega , why does me stating that Ireland was England's first colony resulted in an 🤣 emoji, please clarify your point of view. Thank you
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you will need someone more sober than me for such a discussion - I am near to finish my bottle of wine :tongue: (wow, it improved in taste so much since I kept it in storage! I am impressed myself athumb..)
 
Bosch said:
Britain and France were aliies of the Nazis? Can you please illuminate me here please.
I am no fan of the British empire, but for all it's flaws, it was never an ally of Nazi Germany (unlike the Soviet Union).
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you need to ask Carlson for the document he got from Putin wink....You can find it on YouTube too, but, sorry, I won't help you there wink...
 
Omega said:
Ok. Tom uses Western paradigm of ethnicity. Who said it is right? I am not saying that Putin is right - I actually think he is mainly wrong - but Tom's paradigm of ethnicity is not absolute and not proven (so is Putin's). My argument to Putin would be (to support Tom) would be that Arabs populate several countries, they share the same language, culture and religion, but they are different countries. Or Latin American countries. And I know what Putin will reply - they are not Russians and will refer to American President Wilson's point 14 in his Fourteen Points (it is so vague that can be easily misinterpreted by anyone). And he does not have to explain anything because historically Russian culture expanded very differently from European, so you cannot apply the same rules
And Tom's argument about what was happening in 1939 before WW2 is not fully correct. I am not saying he is wrong, I am saying he is not fully correct. Why? Putin gave documents to Carlson to support this historical hypothesis and this is a significant move because now Russian media can always argue that we have all documents to check the fallacy of historical events, but ignored it for convenience. Moreover, this documentation was available for a number of years, but was ignored. There are many precedents when Western history had to be rewritten under pressure of the facts: for example, declassified documents on Cuban crisis disagree how it all happened - until recently, it was always claimed that "Khrushev blinked first" under the pressure of Kennedy, but it turned out that Krushev made Kennedy committed to move out nuclear weapons from Turkey before he moved out his nuclear weapons from Cuba. Nobody still even touches why our troops had to run away from Afghanistan so suddenly in August 2021, but I think some people can link it now to Ukraine - Russia allowed us supply our troops there, but then we suddenly we became very vulnerable
To make is confusing I wanted here to post a video where Putin, with Tony Blair nest to him, is talking about joining NATO, but I cannot find this video any more, though I saw it.
Still, my opinion of Putin did not change much - he is a weak politician who can only fight defensively, though with a lot of energy. Now he is in the corner and I don't like this as he know he won't get out of there alive
Click to expand...
Sorry, I am not sure where you have proven Holland wrong in any of your points
 
Omega said:
Sorry, but you will need someone more sober than me for such a discussion - I am near to finish my bottle of wine :tongue: (wow, it improved in taste so much since I kept it in storage! I am impressed myself athumb..)
Click to expand...
That is ok, Please explain you 🤣 emoji when you are sober, thank you.
 
Omega said:
Sorry, but you need to ask Carlson for the document he got from Putin wink....You can find it on YouTube too, but, sorry, I won't help you there wink...
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you stated Britain and France were Nazi allies (i assume between 1931-1939), where is the proof please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chippy_Tea
Russia election
Replies
1
Views
136
Bosch
Bosch
Chippy_Tea
Russia-Ukraine crisis: UK nationals told to leave Ukraine
Replies
6
Views
1K
Covrich
Covrich
Chippy_Tea
Ukraine crisis: World leaders step up talks amid invasion fears
Replies
18
Views
1K
Leon103
Leon103

Latest posts

Back
Top