Off Topic Ukraine

[colognehornet]

Sorry, I meant to post the link:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm

I see that they comdemned Russia for extending recognition to the separatist regions of the eastern Ukraine. Apparently they broke international law by recognizing the independence of these states. If that is the case then several EU states also broke international law with the recognition of the unilateral independence claims of Slovenia and Croatia which kicked of the war in Yugoslavia. It appears that 'international law' is only talked about in association with some states but not with others.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

Whatever the status of the Ukraine in relationship to NATO it doesn't give Russia the right to invade, destroy property and kill people. The Cubian crisis was resolved by a blockade of the island, {sanctions?} and although it was a close call, no invasion took place. This is different. Invade first and attempt to impose your will by force.

 

[yorkshirehornet]

NOTHING justifies what Putin's army is doing in Ukraine......

 

[Scullion]

I make no apology for "offending" the religious. Offence is only taken and they do not have the right not to be offended. Indeed agnostic, atheist and anti-theist politicians are far too far and few between, let alone apistevists (the rejection of Faith) like me.

I agree, whilst I would not wish to offend anyone who has a religious belief, why is inoffensive criticism of it seemingly off limits? Everyone should have a right to express their views on it just like we can give opinions about political views, music, how Watford play etc.

Does the monarch have to be head of the CofE? What if we get a monarch who is athiest? Are all politicians really religious or do they just pay lip service to it for their own ends? Why do we have to listen to what the Archbishop of Canterbury or York has to say and not criticise it?

I am incredulous that so many people more intelligent than me actually believes this stuff when there is really no evidence to back it up apart from a book of stories.

Anyway I am going off topic as this is about the appalling events taking place in Ukraine orchestrated by one man and his cronies.

 

[colognehornet]

I agree, whilst I would not wish to offend anyone who has a religious belief, why is inoffensive criticism of it seemingly off limits? Everyone should have a right to express their views on it just like we can give opinions about political views, music, how Watford play etc.

Does the monarch have to be head of the CofE? What if we get a monarch who is athiest? Are all politicians really religious or do they just pay lip service to it for their own ends? Why do we have to listen to what the Archbishop of Canterbury or York has to say and not criticise it?

I am incredulous that so many people more intelligent than me actually believes this stuff when there is really no evidence to back it up apart from a book of stories.

Anyway I am going off topic as this is about the appalling events taking place in Ukraine orchestrated by one man and his cronies.

Actually the ''book of stories'' is very interesting if read in its unabridged form Scully. Very revolutionary in fact - so much so that most of the churches have spent most of their time stopping people from reading it literally and in its entirety. So in a sense the main business of most of the churches of this World has been to stop people being Christian. However one of its most avid readers was Tony Benn - who found more revolution there than in Marx. In all of the descriptions of how Christians should live with each other found in the Bible it describes a utopian Communism. But the powers of today will hold fast with the narrative that Communism began with Marx and quickly moved on to Stalin, it suits their narrative to do that - and that is the great fairy tale ! I appear to have taken a neutral view on here in finding reasons for Putin's actions but this does not place me on his side - any more than being an opponent of the Iraq war placed me in bed with Saddam. The problem with Marxism was that they believed that the end justified the means - it doesn't, if your end (or goal) is good then there will be a good way of getting there and if there isn't then you should question your goal. Putin believes that the end justifies the means (this is the only thing he has in common with Marxism) but I am doubtfull about his 'end' and horrified by his means.

 

[Hornet-Fez]

Fez, the Russian conditions for withdrawal from the Ukraine include a written guarantee as to the long term neutrality of that country ie. that they will never join Nato or have US military establishments stationed there. So this discussion automatically involves enlargement of the debate to discuss the role of Nato in the World and whether we see it as a truly peace keeping defensive organisation or as a kind of catspaw serving the interests of the USA. For an organization which professes to be only a defensive one it has been involved in enough invasions of other countries sovereignty for the Russians to see it as a threat.

Russian strategy seems to be to raze Ukraine to the ground, dictate terms from a bully's position of power. What's to stop them doing this again? And again? And yet again? I'd put my money on putin suffering from roid rage, paranoia, or being just a plain socio/psychopath (absolute power corrupts absolutely) long before NATO threatens Russia.

 

[Hornet-Fez]

Actually the ''book of stories'' is very interesting if read in its unabridged form Scully. Very revolutionary in fact - so much so that most of the churches have spent most of their time stopping people from reading it literally and in its entirety. So in a sense the main business of most of the churches of this World has been to stop people being Christian. However one of its most avid readers was Tony Benn - who found more revolution there than in Marx. In all of the descriptions of how Christians should live with each other found in the Bible it describes a utopian Communism. But the powers of today will hold fast with the narrative that Communism began with Marx and quickly moved on to Stalin, it suits their narrative to do that - and that is the great fairy tale ! I appear to have taken a neutral view on here in finding reasons for Putin's actions but this does not place me on his side - any more than being an opponent of the Iraq war placed me in bed with Saddam. The problem with Marxism was that they believed that the end justified the means - it doesn't, if your end (or goal) is good then there will be a good way of getting there and if there isn't then you should question your goal. Putin believes that the end justifies the means (this is the only thing he has in common with Marxism) but I am doubtfull about his 'end' and horrified by his means.

The road to atheism is littered with properly read bibles. If jesus ever lived, and I suspect he didn't as the independent evidence is minimal and tenuous at best, he would indeed have been a socialist. Them there evangelicals really do not like to be reminded of that, especially them there southern baptist types as I know first hand from discussions long before I lost my faith.

 

[J T Bodbo]

The road to atheism is littered with properly read bibles. If jesus ever lived, and I suspect he didn't as the independent evidence is minimal and tenuous at best, he would indeed have been a socialist. Them there evangelicals really do not like to be reminded of that, especially them there southern baptist types as I know first hand from discussions long before I lost my faith.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'independent evidence'. I realise this is the wrong thread , but may I suggest you read a book called 'Who Moved the stone' by Frank Morison.

 

[Scullion]

Actually the ''book of stories'' is very interesting if read in its unabridged form Scully. Very revolutionary in fact - so much so that most of the churches have spent most of their time stopping people from reading it literally and in its entirety. So in a sense the main business of most of the churches of this World has been to stop people being Christian. However one of its most avid readers was Tony Benn - who found more revolution there than in Marx. In all of the descriptions of how Christians should live with each other found in the Bible it describes a utopian Communism. But the powers of today will hold fast with the narrative that Communism began with Marx and quickly moved on to Stalin, it suits their narrative to do that - and that is the great fairy tale ! I appear to have taken a neutral view on here in finding reasons for Putin's actions but this does not place me on his side - any more than being an opponent of the Iraq war placed me in bed with Saddam. The problem with Marxism was that they believed that the end justified the means - it doesn't, if your end (or goal) is good then there will be a good way of getting there and if there isn't then you should question your goal. Putin believes that the end justifies the means (this is the only thing he has in common with Marxism) but I am doubtfull about his 'end' and horrified by his means.

I agree the Bible is a philosophical work suggesting how people should lead their lives and there is much in this philosophy that many on here would agree with and live their lives by. This is not religion. Only the idea that there is a God is.

 

[andytoprankin]

Whatever the status of the Ukraine in relationship to NATO it doesn't give Russia the right to invade, destroy property and kill people. The Cubian crisis was resolved by a blockade of the island, {sanctions?} and although it was a close call, no invasion took place. This is different. Invade first and attempt to impose your will by force.

The Americans still hold land in Cuba, the Cubans claim illegally. The ‘Bay of Pigs’ invasion was a US-backed invasion, trying to impose US will by force. The invasion of Iraq was an illegal invasion, ostensibly to find and destroy WMDs, but we all know it was to impose a puppet government and so acquire Iraqi oil. Sorry to be arguing the point with you, ofh, , but the Russians are not alone in this sort of action.

 

[andytoprankin]

Russian strategy seems to be to raze Ukraine to the ground, dictate terms from a bully's position of power. What's to stop them doing this again? And again? And yet again? I'd put my money on putin suffering from roid rage, paranoia, or being just a plain socio/psychopath (absolute power corrupts absolutely) long before NATO threatens Russia.

I would agree with this. It works. It’s been the tactic of many governments over the years. And whilst I would agree on the possibility of Putin being all the things you say, I regretfully think he is a strategic master compared to the buffoons who lead us.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

The Americans still hold land in Cuba, the Cubans claim illegally. The ‘Bay of Pigs’ invasion was a US-backed invasion, trying to impose US will by force. The invasion of Iraq was an illegal invasion, ostensibly to find and destroy WMDs, but we all know it was to impose a puppet government and so acquire Iraqi oil. Sorry to be arguing the point with you, ofh, , but the Russians are not alone in this sort of action.

Like a debate andy, so no problems. I am never sure just how far back in history we should go, for example people pulling down statues of slave traders. I would never wish to wash clean history, but possibly life has moved on, we see things differently now. Even reading how news is presented here compared with the UK, I realise that there are not that many occasions when things are black and white. What is quite wrong is Putin trying the bully boy approach, and on that both sides of the Channel seem to agree.

 

[Hornet-Fez]

I would agree with this. It works. It’s been the tactic of many governments over the years. And whilst I would agree on the possibility of Putin being all the things you say, I regretfully think he is a strategic master compared to the buffoons who lead us.

Putin was a Colonel in the KGB as far as I recall so, strategically speaking, he is streets ahead. Alas it shows.

 

[Hornet-Fez]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'independent evidence'. I realise this is the wrong thread , but may I suggest you read a book called 'Who Moved the stone' by Frank Morison.

Take Josephus and Tacitus flimsy, contradictory, and non-contemporary accounts out of the equation and there's really nothing much left. More likely there was no stone as most of those crucified were thrown into mass graves. Even the gospels, the story gets more embellished in turn, can't agree on a timeline. Bart Ehrman is a good source for looking at these things and he believes Jesus did exist.

 

[colognehornet]

Take Josephus and Tacitus flimsy, contradictory, and non-contemporary accounts out of the equation and there's really nothing much left. More likely there was no stone as most of those crucified were thrown into mass graves. Even the gospels, the story gets more embellished in turn, can't agree on a timeline. Bart Ehrman is a good source for looking at these things and he believes Jesus did exist.

There's not much doubt about the existence of Jesus Fez - the Mexican and Spanish national teams both have one playing for them

 

[Hornet-Fez]

There's not much doubt about the existence of Jesus Fez - the Mexican and Spanish national teams both have one playing for them

 

[andytoprankin]

There's not much doubt about the existence of Jesus Fez - the Mexican and Spanish national teams both have one playing for them

Jesus Fez? Never heard of ‘im.

 

[Hornet-Fez]

Jesus Fez? Never heard of ‘im.

I missed that!

 

[Bolton's Boots]

Marina Ovsyannikova is editor of the "Channel One" broadcaster in Russia. She'll doubtless go down in history for photo bombing the anchor as she was reading out the channel's p̶r̶o̶p̶a̶g̶a̶n̶d̶a̶ news to Russian viewers. Her placard reads “Stop the war, don’t believe the propaganda, they are lying to us here” - for that she is facing a 15 year prison sentence.

Some people deserve the respect of the whole world.

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Hornet-Fez]

Mrs Fez and I registered our interest last night. Whether we're deemed "acceptable" to host a refugee or two remains to be seen, but we are prepared to do so and are doing (for us) what we consider to be the right thing.
We are like: chalk and cheese; Arsenal and Watford; slightly right of centre and left of centre; a christian act and a humanist act...
The government are shifting the responsibility away from themselves to put it on the people for sure. Well f*** them and their pitiful idea of morals, we think we have the space and this is the right thing to do and frankly we're going to try and do it.
Bit of space arranging and tidying up to do, mind!