Ukraine and Endless War for Profit

[william.scherk]

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The reason that particular bombing happened was because the Pentagon argued that the Syrian government had gassed its citizens.

There was many more than one chemical weapons attack within Syria by the Syrian regime ,and more than one that brought an off-shore missile strike inside Syria.

What do we remember about the attack that led to Williams saying 'beautiful'? Is it the first such US reaction during the Trump presidency?

The most punishing weapon of the Syrian state secret chemical complex was Sarin.  After the first reaction to Syria's attacks on its citizens, the long story short is that Syria gave up or destroyed all of its stock and productive ability.  

Since that first Sarin attack shocked the world, it took some years for full investigations to be completed. I am in no doubt that the Syrian regime was responsible for every Sarin nerve agent attack.

In later years, after Syria and the OPCW finished the dismantling of the chemical programme, Syria was fingered in having been responsible for numerous attacks of chlorine 'bombs' (like so-called "Barrel Bombs," entirely unsophisticated munitions).

The Aaron Mate, Max Blumenthal wing of "The Party" has made an awful, cynical hash of the entire Syria file.  They misreport and don't give a fuck.  

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

They misled President Trump at the time because that was later proven to be a false flag event staged by the rebels, not by the Syrian government.

How do you support this offhand statement? I question the first part about "They" misleading. He was in no doubt then and in no doubt now about banned weapon use in Syria. 

I disagree strongly with the second part -- not just for "staged by the rebels" but mostly for "proven to be a false flag event."

This in my opinion is wrong. Who "proved" this and who has taken a judicious approach to sorting false claims from truth ... ?

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

 (Does anyone really think the Pentagon's endless war for profit machine was fooled?)

"Endless war for profit" seems almost like it's becoming a bumper sticker or place-holder.

If the question is posed as more like "Does anyone believe that the Pentagon (machine) was 'fooled'?" where the predicate is [fooled by: 'rebel false flag staging'] ... I question accepting the premise of a rebel false-flag.  This is contested.

If we are going to throw out pertinent false Pentagon (or other) intelligence findings about Syria's chemical weapons use and misuse, we need a contest, a trial, a discussion, a tribunal, professionals. 

On the other hand, the OPCW did all that shit, so ...

Nobody is the ultimate magistrate here, but we do like public disputes!

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

People who said it was a false flag at the time were scoffed at and called every name in the book by the mainstream media.

"Every name in the book" for me would be cognates for "Unwarranted" and "Unsupported by evidence" and "Wrong."

I think I have mentioned the Party hounds or Sarin Truthers in a couple or three postings on OL.  "Unreliable" is bland but not every name in the book is throbbing with emotion ...

Edited April 8, 2022 by william.scherk
Added 'file'

[anthony]

7 hours ago, Peter said:

Russia should just get out and stop killing people. When you go "across the zone you might have been protecting" and start killing innocents you are committing genocide. 

What if Putin had invaded the Brits, or South Africans, or Americans? Why in the hell is this any way different? How is he any different than the butchers who ran the USSR, or Nazi Germany?  

Russia–Ukraine border

 

"The Russia–Ukraine border is the international state border between the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Over land the border outlines five oblasts (regions) of Ukraine and five oblasts of the Russian Federation. The modern border issue has been ongoing ever since the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917..."

 

----------

"One interpretation of the name “Ukraine” is borderland. This needs to be taken seriously.

Borderlands are all about diversity and competing understandings of community and nation. They are always mixtures of people with different languages, religions and customs. Some will think of themselves as kin to the people on one side of the border; some look to the other side.

In Ukraine, the West (Europe) is one side of the border, the East (Russia) the other.

Among those in the eastern parts of Ukraine (Donetsk, Luhansk) who tend to look East are descendants of the Russian peasants, like the parents of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who around the turn of the 20th century came to work in the Donbass mines.

In borderlands like Ukraine, there are generally competing origin stories.

Ukrainians tell a story of the origins of the Ukrainian nation going back to 11th century Kyiv, surviving centuries of oppression by Russia and Poland, and, finally, emerging out of the wreckage of the Soviet Union as a sovereign Ukrainian state in 1991.

For the Russians, the various western and southern provinces now called “Ukraine” were populated by Slavic border people (Ukrainians) who were essentially Russian. They considered this land as a part of the Russian Empire for centuries.

The Australian press has been treating the Ukrainian origin story as “truth” and the Russian one as “lies,” but things are never that simple. Like all origin stories, both are a mixture of historical fact and political imagination".

[anthony]

17 hours ago, Peter said:

Russia should just get out and stop killing people. When you go "across the zone you might have been protecting" and start killing innocents you are committing genocide. 

What if Putin had invaded the Brits, or South Africans, or Americans? Why in the hell is this any way different? How is he any different than the butchers who ran the USSR, or Nazi Germany?  

Disputed borders. Dividing lines on 'a map'. Sometimes delineated by a river, or a dead straight line cutting across hundreds of miles.

Often originally regardless of the people on each side of the line. Territories 'decided' once or many times, by wars and treaties, contrived by the old, imperial-colonial powers and even paid for by individuals and Gvts.

I suppose it would be good, if like the modern, civilized and freely settled West, all borders were recognized to be fixed and final. As though there were never any land disputes and none in future.

That's not true in the early days of even western countries. E.g you could consider the fluidity, mid-1800's, of the border between US southern states and Mexico.

(What is historical to the New World looking back two hundred years is regarded as just the other day, to Europeans and Russians. The 11th century? "now that's history"). 

So we get and will see again, the 'same people' (families, farmlands - a common culture, language, tradition, religion, ethnicity, common loyalty to ancestry, myths, stories and place, etc.) - basically split apart by man-made borders. While, in their own country, there'll be those people of another "culture ...", etc..

Tribalist and 'land-mystical' I say of people there (and the Middle East and Africa), who cater to all of that, but that's stubborn pre-modernist perception - and stubborn human nature.

Which partly explains the highly mobile nature of Ukraine's borders, territory and "oblasts", only in the last century, I think.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjVnIzOw4T3AhXAQEEAHcoLDTgQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.britannica.com%2Fstory%2Fhow-the-border-between-the-united-states-and-mexico-was-established&usg=AOvVaw1TztZ77o2Dxzw9yYtTDJA4

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The Aaron Mate, Max Blumenthal wing of "The Party" has made an awful, cynical hash of the entire Syria file.  They misreport and don't give a fuck.  

William,

Blah blah blah...

No predator class propaganda happened, right?

Nobody made dark money from the false flag, right?

Yeah, right...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, Peter said:

Russia should just get out and stop killing people.

Peter,

I agree with this.

Do you agree that standard also needs to apply to Ukraine and the Deep State?

I don't like killing people.

Michael

[tmj]

And it’s not happening now, predatory class propaganda , ‘genocide’?

The massacre in Bucha ? Given the timing of the deaths ‘documented’ by satellite ‘evidence’ , those bodies are most likely the results of the area being shelled , the civilians died in their own town from artillery fire . Were the Russian forces that occupied the area shelling themselves ?

[anthony]

19 hours ago, Peter said:

Russia should just get out and stop killing people. When you go "across the zone you might have been protecting" and start killing innocents you are committing genocide. 

What if Putin had invaded the Brits, or South Africans, or Americans? Why in the hell is this any way different? How is he any different than the butchers who ran the USSR, or Nazi Germany?  

You remain unconvinced of the basic fact.

That war did not start this year.

Kyiv launched it against the East, against their own citizens - after the people dared to hold a referendum for separation from Ukraine ~ 2014.

Resoundingly voted in favor.

A little war which killed 6,000* Eastern civilians pre-invasion (and would have had some atrocities and no angels on either side, no doubt).

There should rationally be no causal - deterministic -  factor from the first part of this conflict to Putin deciding to invade - but - there WAS a precedent of force set by Kyiv.

Putin took advantage, with his eye on the territories' prizes, and also (I do think), protective of the easterners from Kyiv's military.

Is there any inherent human distinction between West-leaning Ukrainian civilian dead and Russia-leaning Ukrainian dead?

When researched independently, there's a lot more background than the superficial package the media presents for swallowing. 

I.e. : equally cynical connivings from Moscow and Kyiv (and NATO) you won't hear about in their Narrative. "No angels" in that country, only the innocents.

---

*Up to date casualty report - since invasion:

(I'm sick of "massacre", "killing innocents" and other emotive, incendiary words used commonly and glibly to make out, by people who don't understand warfare, this is Moscow/Putin's spree intended to annihilate innocents. That's a falsehood. not because the Kremlin regularly claim they do not, but deducible by any rational person from the facts and figures.

I think also it's a cynical, anti-individualist era where greater 'numbers' of dead and injured determine one's (self-righteous) moral judgment . As if one dead isn't already too many to someone).

However, since this numbers method of allocating blame rules the public, here:

*There were more civilian deaths attributed to Kyiv's battalions in the Donbas, than to Putin's invasion so far*.

And when Zelensky and his Govt. and the media exaggerate and lie -even- about 'the numbers' someone has to say so:

[In short, 1611 civilians dead until yesterday. Believe or don't believe, as you will]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiR0KD61IT3AhUOYcAKHQwmCpcQFnoECBgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ohchr.org%2Fen%2Fnews%2F2022%2F04%2Fukraine-civilian-casualty-update-7-april-2022&usg=AOvVaw0Eitk66l1zafqvqZw_YmZi

 

[Peter]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

The Australian press has been treating the Ukrainian origin story as “truth” and the Russian one as “lies,” but things are never that simple. Like all origin stories, both are a mixture of historical fact and political imagination".

History is a long, winding, and tiring road. As a kid I enjoyed the Disney TV version about the annexation of Mexican territory in what is now the state of Texas. "Remember the Alamo!" The U.S. also had some conflicts with our good neighbors, Canada. But now? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the initiation of force. I do agree there are gray areas, as when some Ukrainian citizens want to become Russian citizens. Yet, the vast amount of the world agrees with this ‘current assessment” and Russia will suffer repercussions for a long, long time . . . until history stretches a hundred more years into the future. More Russian atrocities are being shown at the news at noon. Ukraine did not invade Russia. Slovakia is joining the civilized world by donating munitions to Ukraine Peter    

Notes Remember the Alamo: The Persistence of Myth by Ron Briley Mr. Briley is Assistant Headmaster, Sandia Preparatory School. A vivid memory from my childhood is a birthday party in which my wish for Davy Crockett merchandise was granted. I trotted off to a small Texas Panhandle school with Davy Crockett lunch box, coonskin cap, buckskin shirt, and replica of Crockett's musket, affectionately named "Ole' Betsy." Until late in the evening, I would reenact Crockett's last stand at the Alamo; a most unusual childhood game culminating in the heroic fantasy death of myself and my playmates. Of course, we all insisted on portraying the defenders of the Alamo, while the Mexican forces of General Lopez de Santa Anna remained only imaginary characters.

[tmj]

50 minutes ago, Peter said:

. More Russian atrocities are being shown at the news at noon. Ukraine did not invade Russia. Slovakia is joining the civilized world by donating munitions to Ukraine 

One audience’s ‘atrocities’ is another audience’s triumphant ‘shock and awe’, or wait ..same audience.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The only reason this situation exists is because of the Deep State's deception and Biden's incompetence.

This would have never happened under Trump.

How on earth will these clowns be able to fix this mess? The Deep State salivates for unwinnable wars for profit and Biden doesn't know the day of the week.

So let's give them a war to manage?

Hell no.

btw - China's loving it...

Michael

[william.scherk]

7 hours ago, anthony said:

[In short, 1611 civilians dead until yesterday. Believe or don't believe, as you will]

[Link to United Nations OHCHR report: Ukraine: civilian casualty update 7 April 2022]

From the page:

Quote

[...] Most of the civilian casualties recorded were caused by the use of explosive weapons with a wide impact area, including shelling from heavy artillery and multiple launch rocket systems, and missile and air strikes.

OHCHR believes that the actual figures are considerably higher, as the receipt of information from some locations where intense hostilities have been going on has been delayed and many reports are still pending corroboration. This concerns, for example, Mariupol and Volnovakha (Donetsk region), Izium (Kharkiv region), Popasna (Luhansk region), and Borodianka (Kyiv region), where there are allegations of numerous civilian casualties. These figures are being further corroborated and are not included in the above statistics.

OHCHR notes the report of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine, according to which as of 8 a.m. 7 April (local time), 167 children had been killed and at least 297 injured.

The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine

Since 2014, OHCHR has been documenting civilian casualties in Ukraine. Reports are based on information that the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) collected through interviews with victims and their relatives; witnesses; analysis of corroborating material confidentially shared with HRMMU; official records; open-source documents, photo and video materials; forensic records and reports; criminal investigation materials; court documents; reports by international and national non-governmental organisations; public reports by law enforcement and military actors; data from medical facilities and local authorities. All sources and information are assessed for their relevance and credibility and cross-checked against other information. In some instances, corroboration may take time. This may mean that conclusions on civilian casualties may be revised as more information becomes available and numbers may change as new information emerges over time.

Since 24 February 2022, in the context of the Russian Federation’s military action in Ukraine, HRMMU has been unable to visit places of incidents and interview victims and witnesses there. All other sources of information have been extensively used, including HRMMU contact persons and partners in places where civilian casualties occurred. Statistics presented in the current update are based on individual civilian casualty records where the “reasonable grounds to believe” standard of proof was met, namely where, based on a body of verified information, an ordinarily prudent observer would have reasonable grounds to believe that the casualty took place as described.

[...]

 

Live Updates: At Least 50 Killed in Strike on Train Station, Ukraine Says, as Thousands Flee From East - The New York Times

WWW.NYTIMES.COM

Foggy days at OL ...

[anthony]

 "As thousands flee from East" reads the headline. Christ. Now what? (By whom?)

Suggests, Russian-Ukranians exiting Donbas for Russia were shelled by Kyiv forces? 

 

And William, a reminder of such urban conflicts, how a portion of civilians will also get injured and killed by 'friendly fire'. Shelling, bombardment, missiles and small arms.

Identical to inadvertent and mis-aimed firepower by Putin forces.

All causes contribute to the Numbers.

 

[anthony]

8 hours ago, Peter said:

   

Notes Remember the Alamo: The Persistence of Myth by Ron Briley Mr. Briley is Assistant Headmaster, Sandia Preparatory School. A vivid memory from my childhood is a birthday party in which my wish for Davy Crockett merchandise was granted. I trotted off to a small Texas Panhandle school with Davy Crockett lunch box, coonskin cap, buckskin shirt, and replica of Crockett's musket, affectionately named "Ole' Betsy." Until late in the evening, I would reenact Crockett's last stand at the Alamo; a most unusual childhood game culminating in the heroic fantasy death of myself and my playmates. Of course, we all insisted on portraying the defenders of the Alamo, while the Mexican forces of General Lopez de Santa Anna remained only imaginary characters.

I knew when a kid in Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) more about The Alamo and Davy Crockett than any local battles. Had the coonskin cap, same games. Born on a mountain top in Tennessee, greenest state in the land of...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

23 minutes ago, anthony said:

"As thousands flee from East" reads the headline. Christ. Now what? Who?

Tony,

I'm going to say something not very popular in O-Land.

Do we really know what happened?

 

I, for one, don't believe a damn thing coming from the mainstream press. I do know everyone is yacking up a storm in self-righteous posturing.

That's about all I know right now.

In other words, I don't know anything about this event, but I do know something about the mainstream news people who talk about it. And I know how they influence others.

So I didn't pay any attention to this piece of news yet. I have to wait a few days for when the fog of war vision disperses, at least some.

I will pay attention later, and, who knows? The mainstream media might be correct. But then again it might be wrong.

What standard of truth can I use on the mainstream media to judge?

The fact is: there is no standard of truth the mainstream media uses.

None. They constantly say one thing and do another.

It's all whim, going along with others, emotional outbursts, attempts to fool everyone, marching orders from bosses, fear mongering, making shit up, anything and everything except reality focus on the topic being reported.

 

I am as close to using Peikoff's doctrine of the arbitrary assertion on the mainstream news as I have ever been on anything in my entire life.

What the mainstream news tells me about war facts literally has no cognitive value to me. None at all. Not true. Not false. Not anything.

It's like listening to beach sounds, or traffic noise, or TV static, or a hog grunting... 

These things tell me about themselves, but contribute no knowledge about a war event. That's about the best way I can describe the mainstream news.

 

After a while, I'll be able to look at other places and see if people I trust have anything to say about this story. And even then, I will need to use my brain. My rational brain. I will no longer believe anyone by default about this. 

Michael

[anthony]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

I'm going to say something not very popular in O-Land.

Do we really know what happened?

 

 

 

After a while, I'll be able to look at other places and see if people I trust have anything to say about this story. And even then, I will need to use my brain. My rational brain. I will no longer believe anyone by default about this. 

Michael

Michael, exactly. We are not being told everything. It's deliberate. I don't think there has been such a war, where so little is revealed although with vastly better available technology - not even, say, the candid admission that each side is sometimes screwing up, or is contravening Geneva etc. A sign of proper, honest reportage is hearing temporarily conflicting reports and argued, contradictory opinions. But no, there's only been one side loudly broadcast and glorified. Realists, not present, understand how things will happen in wars.

For "O-Land", I've many times seen how there's an amazing amount of conviction in the main media's reporting (especially, opinionating) that strikes me as naive and unquestioning by thinkers. Simply, in general the msm has lost most impartial trustworthiness and much public trust in recent times, deservedly.

(btw, I will say, noticing the signs in the US media back to the end of Obama's terms, alerted me that something was "going wrong" (misrepresented, distorted and manipulated, about America, by the somebodies). What and how, where it would go, I had no clue. All I knew, the media I placed fairly high credibility in, (allowing for political/cultural differences) were pumping out something untruthfullly vile even then - for some unknown ends. I wised up a lot, since).

Return to the present, see how - with only that last Russell Brand-reported expose of proven connections and "bellicose" articles - the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, the once greatest of newspapers, exemplified in my Press days, have abandoned journalistic integrity and been corrupted and dirtied for money, politics and ideology (not necessarily, in that order) - now - encouraging a prolonged and certainly bigger war. That will kill more.

So it's not what few facts there are, or I don't have, or what I think. I can totally switch off this mess (and watch little of the newest news). If not for one thing that keeps me involved: It's what others, not me, have allowed themselves to blindly absorb and emote. And believe. That's ominous, because then that majority-power can be used to directly affect any others thinking and decent who aspire to individual freedom, and so the nations themselves, and indirectly, my own freedom such as it is.

You can see the methodology: the propaganda stream that's been steadily priming 'us' for what 'they' believe they can - and must - do next. Actions will follow and have followed the shaped images and words, according to their script, once the majority of gullible audiences have been brought in line. (The total pandemic control/obedience, conveniently a precursor to this stage).

Doesn't need to be planned, while conspiring people and organizations there have certainly been - these events might only be opportunistic to those people. But once a public-opinion tipping point is passed, they must feel they'll have a free hand to do what they always wished for. Ultimate control "for your good". At this unprecedented level of brainwashing, via misinforming, censorship, fear and outrage, there has to be some huge outcome, they reckon in store for all of us. Who knows, perhaps broad destruction or even annihilation is a necessary step to "our good"?

[Abiding Dude]

13 hours ago, anthony said:

You remain unconvinced of the basic fact.

That war did not start this year.

Kyiv launched it against the East, against their own citizens - after the people dared to hold a referendum for separation from Ukraine ~ 2014.

Resoundingly voted in favor.

A little war which killed 6,000* Eastern civilians pre-invasion (and would have had some atrocities and no angels on either side, no doubt).

There should rationally be no causal - deterministic -  factor from the first part of this conflict to Putin deciding to invade - but - there WAS a precedent of force set by Kyiv.

Putin took advantage, with his eye on the territories' prizes, and also I do think, protective of the easterners from Kyiv's military.

 

Euromaidan, protests against pro-Russian actions by the president against the decisions of Parliament, took place from November 2013 to February 2014. After Yanukovich fled on 21 February, Russia invaded Crimea on 23 February; at the same time, pro-Russian demonstrations started in Donetsk and Luhansk. There was already war against Russian forces on Ukrainian territory, in other words, and the events in the separatist regions were exactly parallel to what Russia was doing in Crimea. The Crimean referendum was held on 16 March; all the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk were after that--the first supposed referendum in Donetsk was on 6 April, but that was basically an attempted putsch that failed miserably; the referendum that Russia backed was on 11 May. Don't forget: Russia attacked Ukraine two days after their puppet president ran away, and the same things that Russia engineered in Crimea were happening at the same time in Donetsk and Luhansk. All of these events were driven by Russia, following the same divide-and-conquer techniques Russia had already practiced in Georgia.

[Abiding Dude]

9 hours ago, Peter said:

History is a long, winding, and tiring road. As a kid I enjoyed the Disney TV version about the annexation of Mexican territory in what is now the state of Texas. "Remember the Alamo!" The U.S. also had some conflicts with our good neighbors, Canada. But now? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the initiation of force. I do agree there are gray areas, as when some Ukrainian citizens want to become Russian citizens. Yet, the vast amount of the world agrees with this ‘current assessment” and Russia will suffer repercussions for a long, long time . . . until history stretches a hundred more years into the future. More Russian atrocities are being shown at the news at noon. Ukraine did not invade Russia. Slovakia is joining the civilized world by donating munitions to Ukraine Peter    

Notes Remember the Alamo: The Persistence of Myth by Ron Briley Mr. Briley is Assistant Headmaster, Sandia Preparatory School. A vivid memory from my childhood is a birthday party in which my wish for Davy Crockett merchandise was granted. I trotted off to a small Texas Panhandle school with Davy Crockett lunch box, coonskin cap, buckskin shirt, and replica of Crockett's musket, affectionately named "Ole' Betsy." Until late in the evening, I would reenact Crockett's last stand at the Alamo; a most unusual childhood game culminating in the heroic fantasy death of myself and my playmates. Of course, we all insisted on portraying the defenders of the Alamo, while the Mexican forces of General Lopez de Santa Anna remained only imaginary characters.

That's a pretty good review, but there's more to the story than even that, though that would perhaps be out of place in that review. He hints at it here: "As the film suggests, Santa Anna was quick to execute those who rose in rebellion against him, but he also conscripted many poor young Mexican peasants into the army that assaulted the Alamo." And many Mexicans rose in rebellion against Santa Anna, not just in Texas--at least 15 of the Mexican states rebelled against Santa Anna's policies of a centralized, pro-Catholic republic in 1835 (the preceding liberal administration had implemented policies of selling off church lands, among other measures) and his repeal of the Mexican Constitution, and in fact Santa Anna didn't march against Texas until after he'd put down rebellion in Zacatecas. The defense of slavery was one factor in the Texas Revolution, but the major cause was precisely the repeal of the constitution to which the Texans had taken an oath to become Mexican citizens.

More generally, throughout the period after 1821, Mexico was torn between the federalists and the centralists, and the stalemate between them was the major factor in Mexican history until Diaz (read about the Reform War, for example). The history of Texas as (part of) a Mexican state and of the Texas Revolution was shaped by the fact that Texians (Anglo-American settlers) were staunchly on the federalist side; and the fact that Texas remained independent until 1844-1845 (treaty of annexation in 1844, finally enacted in 1845) was due fundamentally to the fact that the federalists and centralists in Mexico distrusted each other too much for a consistent policy to be adopted (though Santa Anna did gin up an army that attacked Texas in 1842; it massacred a bunch of people and strengthened Texan desires to join the US). It might be too strong to say Mexico was a failed state at that time (some historians have argued that), but it was certainly a weak and divided state.

It's also worth comparing it to the situation in Ukraine. Texas rebelled after the constitution was repealed; the Russian separatists rebelled after a pro-Russian president fled to Russia. Texas received American volunteers but no official American military aid; Russia sent its armies into Ukraine two days after Yanukovich ran away. Texas was one of numerous states of Mexico rebelling against a dictator wanna-be who repealed the constitution; Donetsk and Luhansk rebelled against parliamentary acts in accordance with the constitution. If the Ukraine separatists are in the right, then Texas independence was peachy keen and smells like a rose by their standards; if Texas independence was wrong, then there's not much right about Donetsk-Luhansk independence.

[Abiding Dude]

12 hours ago, tmj said:

And it’s not happening now, predatory class propaganda , ‘genocide’?

The massacre in Bucha ? Given the timing of the deaths ‘documented’ by satellite ‘evidence’ , those bodies are most likely the results of the area being shelled , the civilians died in their own town from artillery fire . Were the Russian forces that occupied the area shelling themselves ?

A good survey of the information about Bucha is available from Meduza here. As they state, "After Russian troops captured the city, the active fighting stopped; judging by the state of the buildings (which were largely left intact compared to those in other Ukrainian cities), artillery fire happened relatively infrequently. This was confirmed by NASA’s global fire map, FIRMS, which uses satellite imagery: most of the fires in the city were recorded in late February, when Russian troops were first entering the city and Ukrainian troops were firing at them. From March 5 to the end of the month, less than ten large fires were recorded in Bucha, while dozens were recorded in Irpin. This suggests that the Bucha residents who died in the second half of March did not die as a result of ongoing military activity."

[Abiding Dude]

4 hours ago, anthony said:

And William, a reminder of such urban conflicts, how a portion of civilians will also get injured and killed by 'friendly fire'. Shelling, bombardment, missiles and small arms.

Another interesting article by Meduza reporting their analysis of Ukrainian drone footage of the bodies during the time Bucha was under Russian occupation, not when there was fighting:

"Meduza has not only obtained additional evidence that corroborates Maxar’s imagery — showing that Russian forces were present in Bucha when the civilian killings took place — but we have also independently confirmed when this footage was recorded."

[Peter]

AD wrote: . . . “their analysis of Ukrainian drone footage of the bodies during the time Bucha was under Russian occupation, not when there was fighting:”

So . . . the Ukrainians are faking it all? I will consider the proposition that they fake some footage. But one last question? Is Ukraine in the wrong to fight against invading monsters? Oddly enough, some of you can’t figure that out. Has OL been taken over by moronic Russian hackers?

[Abiding Dude]

7 minutes ago, Peter said:

AD wrote: . . . “their analysis of Ukrainian drone footage of the bodies during the time Bucha was under Russian occupation, not when there was fighting:”

So . . . the Ukrainians are faking it all? I will consider the proposition that they fake some footage. But one last question? Is Ukraine in the wrong to fight against invading monsters? Oddly enough, some of you can’t figure that out. Has OL been taken over by moronic Russian hackers?

No. Read the article. The civilians appear to have been shot by Russian soldiers when they had control of the city, not, as claimed by Anthony, killed as collateral damage by Ukrainian bombing.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Is Ukraine in the wrong to fight against invading monsters? Oddly enough, some of you can’t figure that out.

Peter,

Who has said Ukraine is wrong to fight invaders?

No one here on OL, that's who.

Here on OL, I and others say it is wrong for AMERICANS to fight in that invasion.

Especially seeing how this is a fight between gangsters.

Maybe you favor one gangster over the other? And get pissed because few agree with your choice of gangster?

I don't agree with your choice of gangster. I think a gangster is a gangster and I'm not interested in fighting for that way of life.

I've already asked before, but I'll ask again. Which young Americans would you choose to die for Ukraine?

John, who wants to be a university professor in math?

Joe, who is so glad to get out of the ghetto, he dreams of building a life after the military so he can get his family out?

Sam, who is studying hard to be a doctor, but had to take time off to make money through a military job?

Helen, who can't wait until she can work on wildlife preserves? 

They are all in their early 20s. They smile. They look to their futures and believe this is possible for them.

Which of those lives would you sacrifice to a gangster?

Whether you realize it or not, that is the result of taking on stupid wars.

 

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Has OL been taken over by moronic Russian hackers?

I don't know.

Given this inaccuracy, I'll look into your account backstage and see if moronic Russian hackers are posting under your name.

   

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote: “I don't agree with your choice of gangster. I think a gangster is a gangster and I'm not interested in fighting for that way of life.”

I am not so sure that Rand’s characterization that the adult citizens of a bad regime deserve what they get because they have not changed the regime. When Rand was a citizen of the Soviet Union did some of its evil rub off on her? Many of those killed are “innocents.” I have no doubt, even before the “invasion” by Russia many Ukrainians wanted to fix their country or to immigrate. Is this guilt by association? My argument reminds me of the current Biden probe here in America. Are Americans dirty if the Biden’s took dirty money? I am not. Americans don’t think that way and neither should Ukrainians.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 3/8/2022 at 4:09 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It's no longer speculation.

It's confirmed.

The sons of bitches on our side have been funding bioweapons in Ukraine.

Just to throw some gasoline on this fire, here's one hell of a report. Granted, Francis Boyle sounds just as partisan as the anti-Putin people do, but boy does he bash neocons going all the way back to Reagan. And neocons are anything but pro-Putin. So calling this guy a Putin apologist is just plain vanilla wrong on the identification (cognitive) level. 

The most important point, though, is that he cuts through all the bullshit word salads about about setting up a large number of labs to "study" and design the manufacture of pathogens that can wipe out humanity. And, yes, many of these are set up in Ukraine.

Except there's a twist. A lot of these studies are targeted to specific genetic configurations like race and others. Put simply, these sons of bitches are trying to design a bug that will wipe out, say, all Asian people, but leave the other races alone. Or vice-versa (hello China....)

The Pentagon has been paying for this for a long time. And this shit has to stop. Read the article below by Dr. Mercola, watch the video, and come to your own conclusion.

 

The report

Bioweapons Expert Speaks Out About US Biolabs in Ukraine

Bioweapons Expert Speaks Out About US Biolabs in Ukraine

NOQREPORT.COM

---

STORY AT-A-GLANCE According to bioweapons expert Francis Boyle, Russia’s accusation that Ukraine is conducting U.S.-funded bioweapons research appears to be accurate If true, everyone involved is subject...

Some quotes:

Quote

For decades, Boyle has advocated against the development and use of bioweapons. In fact, he was the one who called for biowarfare legislation at the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972. He then went on to draft the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, which was passed unanimously by both houses of Congress and signed into law by then-president George Bush Sr. in May 1989.

While the U.S. has vehemently denied Russia’s accusations, Boyle says that based on what he’s discovered so far, the labs in Ukraine are all conducting biological warfare research — including ethnic-specific biological weapons — at the behest of the U.S. Pentagon, just as Russian authorities are claiming.

“The Pentagon does not do missionary work,” he says. “They kill people, and that’s why they are there.” 

. . .

... the official narrative surrounding the Ukraine biolabs has undergone multiple iterations over the past few weeks. It began with a flat denial of there being U.S. biolabs in Ukraine.

But within days, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland blew a hole in that denial by admitting before Congress that “biological research laboratories” in Ukraine have been funded and operated under the direction of the U.S., and that she was “very concerned” about the contents of those labs being used as bioweapons by the Russians.

Despite Nuland’s concern about the pathogens being used in warfare, the Western media have tried to claim the labs were set up to destroy bioweapons from the Soviet era, or to “secure” old Soviet bioweapons, or that they’re diagnostic labs, “health labs,” biodefense laboratories, or that they’re used for vaccine development. The story changes depending on who’s telling it.

. . .

The problem with making a distinction between “biodefense” and “biowarfare” is that, basically, there is none.

All dual use research can be used for military purposes, and often is. As explained by Boyle, the idea behind “biodefense” research is that there might be a natural pathogen out there that can cause a pandemic, or someone might release an engineered biological weapon, that we need to prepare a cure for.

But to create the cure — the vaccine — they must first create that imagined threat, be it a souped-up natural pathogen through gain-of-function or a synthetic bioweapon. So, all of this work is “offensive” in that it can be used for military purposes. No biodefense research is purely defensive, because to do biodefense work, you’re automatically engaged in the creation of biological weapons.

To put this in my rhetoric, this is a program to sophisticate the culling of human livestock by the predator class.

 

The video

I suspected the video Dr. Mercola linked to was old, so I did some sleuthing. It's from last month (March 2022) so it's recent. Below are two direct links to the video with time stamps. The first is at the Banned video site itself (which does not embed) and the second is on BitChute. They are both the same even though the titles are different.

Exclusive: Biological Weapons Expert Exposes Labs In Ukraine And China Run By U.S. Government

and

DR. FRANCIS BOYLE IS BACK!

Dr. Francis Boyle IS BACK!

WWW.BITCHUTE.COM

 

Ayn Rand

Do you want an Ayn Rand quote to go with all this? I have a doozy.

Let's not forget that all the partisans are going to be screaming bloody murder about Putin, Ukraine, invasion, no proof of bioweapons word salads, and on and on and one in self-righteous indignation (which, of course, is the engineered result of the propaganda).

But there is a hidden meaning under the hood. And, as usual, Ayn Rand nailed it.

She was discussing Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley. The quote is from The Art of Fiction, Chapter 11 - Special Forms of Literature, Fantasy.

Rand had just finished mentioning how Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as a great example in art of "what in fact happens to bad premises: at first they might be hidden or controlled, but if unchecked, they take control of a personality." She then said, "The issue of the story is rationally applicable to human life, and very important."

And now the money quote (my bold):

Quote

A similar example is Frankenstein, the story of a man who creates a monster that gets out of his control. The meaning of the story is valid: a man must bear the consequences of his actions and should be careful not to create monsters that destroy him. This is a profound message, which is why the name Frankenstein has become almost a generic word (like Babbitt).

Let's repeat that so their is no brushing it aside by the lathered up state one gets into from propaganda hollering.

"A man must bear the consequences of his actions and should be careful not to create monsters that destroy him."

Notice that Rand said this message was profound.

Well, it is.

 

Bioweapons, thy name is Frankenstein monster

Now apply that to the Pentagon's bioweapons program and ask why that should be decided by propaganda instead of rational investigation and dismantling. Yes, even in the middle of a thorny situation like the Ukraine invasion.

We have to stop this shit now. We can deal with who is right and wrong in the Ukraine mess after that.

For the priority-challenged in epistemology (hierarchical; knowledge), if all humans get destroyed (even by accident), the issue of Putin and Ukraine also gets destroyed. There is is nothing to get angry about, to be right about, since there will be no one to get angry or be right.

Michael

[Abiding Dude]

On 4/9/2022 at 12:49 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The most important point, though, is that he cuts through all the bullshit word salads about about setting up a large number of labs to "study" and design the manufacture of pathogens that can wipe out humanity. And, yes, many of these are set up in Ukraine.

Except there's a twist. A lot of these studies are targeted to specific genetic configurations like race and others. Put simply, these sons of bitches are trying to design a bug that will wipe out, say, all Asian people, but leave the other races alone. Or vice-versa (hello China....)

From the article you linked to: Despite Nuland’s concern about the pathogens being used in warfare, the Western media have tried to claim the labs were set up to destroy bioweapons from the Soviet era, or to “secure” old Soviet bioweapons, or that they’re diagnostic labs, “health labs,” biodefense laboratories, or that they’re used for vaccine development. The story changes depending on who’s telling it.

No, they're all true. They were set up to destroy Soviet bioweapons; they are also used for all of the purposes above. These are not mutually exclusive, and they are not even secret; as I mentioned before, I learned about them from reading about Russian propaganda about a similar lab in Georgia.

The Soviets did build bioweapons labs in those now-independent countries. The US Defense Department and other organizations did get involved in securing them and in using them to conduct epidemiological research. (There are many zoonotic diseases--diseases infectious to both animals and humans--in that part of the world, such as anthrax, the plague, and on and on, that pose a grave threat to human health--this interesting overview of naturally occurring anthrax risks gives an idea why such research is pursued: We estimate that 1.83 billion people...live within regions of anthrax risk, but most of that population faces little occupational exposure. More informatively, a global total of 63.8 million poor livestock keepers...and 1.1 billion livestock...live within vulnerable regions).

(Partly this was as a means of keeping former bioweapons scientists gainfully employed instead of set free to become bioweapons producers for groups and rogue states that might want to create them).

Moreover, some have been used for vaccine development. It's not an ever-changing story, it's all different parts of the same story.

The article continues, But to create the cure — the vaccine — they must first create that imagined threat, be it a souped-up natural pathogen through gain-of-function or a synthetic bioweapon. So, all of this work is “offensive” in that it can be used for military purposes.

1. "Having the possibility of use as a bioweapon" is not the definition of "offensive" in bioweapons terminology, which is the development, production, and stockpiling of bioweapons for offensive use. It does not include studying them for biodefense purposes. This is included in the very law that Boyle crows about drafting and that either he or this author misrepresents:

"Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both." (emphasis added; in other words, if you look at what the law actually says, this article--probably deliberately--confounds "biological agent" and "bioweapon" and ignores the requirement of mens rea stated in the law)

2. By this view, any development of vaccines (or, for that matter, the collection of samples of biological agents for epidemiological research, which the labs in question have conducted) is inherently offensive bioweapons research, since you have to collect, cultivate, and test against a pathogen, which means that they might possibly be used in a different process as bioweapons. So when that article writes, The problem with making a distinction between “biodefense” and “biowarfare” is that, basically, there is none, by the same token there's no distinction between vaccine research, epidemiological research, and bioweapons.

3. You write, Except there's a twist. A lot of these studies are targeted to specific genetic configurations like race and others. So what? They haven't shown that any of this research is offensive bioweapons research, and there is a lot of research on genetic factors in disease susceptibility. (Think of sickle cell anemia for why.) This is positive and important research (...)

And note this inconsistency: He points out that the United States is the only country in the world that has not abided by the law to get rid of all its biological weapons (The United States has in fact gotten rid of bioweapons, starting in 1972 under Nixon, though not biological agents for biodefense work--again, the article deliberately confuses the two), but oh wait, The U.S. is not alone in creating dangerous biological weapons, of course. “The British are also a part of this, the French, the Israelis. We have a network and a cult of Nazi biowarfare death scientists,” Boyle says. So which is it, only the US or everyone?

Note--I'm not saying there's not bioweapons research; perhaps there is, though the claims that there are are just Russian continuations of Soviet smear campaigns since 1949. What I am saying is that articles like this are ridiculous: It doesn't make a case plausible to anyone who's actually followed any of this (...)