• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Biden offered Putin 20% of Ukraine to end the war?

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I am not defending him.
But I do understand there was a war in Donbas prior to the invasion (or special military operation as they call it.)
So he didn't invade Ukraine just like that.

Europe wants peace. No matter the cost.
You did defend him with the apology of the woman being charged for murder after killing her rapist.
And, yes, he did just invade like that. He is the invader, he is the rapist, and you are the one telling the woman to take it easy on him and maybe go ahead and just let him do a little raping.
And Europe and Europeans aren't a homogeneous group.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
You did defend him with the apology of the woman being charged for murder after killing her rapist.
And, yes, he did just invade like that. He is the invader, he is the rapist, and you are the one telling the woman to take it easy on him and maybe go ahead and just let him do a little raping.
And Europe and Europeans aren't a homogeneous group.

No, I never defended Putin. I said that there was a war in Donbas prior to the invasion, and the Donbas people were being persecuted by militias. The Kiev Government was intolerant towards the Russian minorities, that's why Crimea decided to join the Russian Federation.

War is never a solution. If the US want to fight this war in Ukraine, well..it's their choice. But I know for certain that the European Union will not join them. Because I know what's going on in the EU, and what Germany (and Italy and France) think about the conflict.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
They didn't decide and everyone but Putin and his apologist do not accept that annexation as valid.

You've been defending him over the entire course if his war if aggression, just as you did in this post.

Speaking of the metaphor of the raped girl: she should have called the police first, instead of killing him.
But I do understand why she killed that rapist.

So I didn't justify Putin, but I do understand why he invaded: he shouldn't have.
He should have used other methods, other than the war. Considering that Austrians, Germans, Italians, Romanians, Serbians would have supported him, somehow, in other methods.
And by the way, the war was not unexpected. There was a very long escalation.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
You've been defending him over the entire course if his war if aggression, just as you did in this post.

I didn't take any side. Never. Considering that I do want Ukrainian refugees to be welcomed in Europe. And I want Russians (who don't want to fight this war) to be welcomed, as well.
To me Ukrainians and Russians are equal.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
No, I never defended Putin.
Everybody here knows you defend him and other such fascists who would murder you for being trans. Everybody here has seen you putting forth pro-Putin positions over the course of this nearly year-long invasion. It especially shines through with things like thinking the Crimean annexation was valid, and sympathizing with pro-Russian people in Ukraine and seeing recent annexations as valid. Outside of a pro-Putin bubble where his wickedness is defended and celebrated as good, no one views those annexations as valid. Because, no matter what those cleaning Putin's rear with their tongues say, elections held at gun point and under the threat of violence and conducted at the behest of an invader are not valid and not a democratic vote.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Using conspiracy theories as justification for a war of aggression that has killed tens of thousands of people and led to war crimes is a luxury of the couch-loving elite. Perhaps they should listen to the people who don't want a foreign power invading and annexing their land.

Vox populi, eh? ("Eh" is bad Latin, but I don't care.)
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Everybody here knows you defend him and other such fascists who would murder you for being trans. Everybody here has seen you putting forth pro-Putin positions over the course of this nearly year-long invasion. It especially shines through with things like thinking the Crimean annexation was valid, and sympathizing with pro-Russian people in Ukraine and seeing recent annexations as valid. Outside of a pro-Putin bubble where his wickedness is defended and celebrated as good, no one views those annexations as valid. Because, no matter what those cleaning Putin's rear with their tongues say, elections held at gun point and under the threat of violence and conducted at the behest of an invader are not valid and not a democratic vote.

What did I say in the past? That Putin is 100 times better than Obama.
Yes, I reaffirm that.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
What did I say in the past? That Putin is 100 times better than Obama.
Yes, I reaffirm that.
Even in this thread you've repeated his claims that the Crimean annexation is valid and legit and that he's not a bad guy or instigator in things like the conflicts in Donbas.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
What did I say in the past? That Putin is 100 times better than Obama.
Yes, I reaffirm that.
I confess, I find that a ghastly comparison -- totally beyond my comprehension. Just as a tiny example, I don't believe that Obama has personally ordered the murders of anyone -- Putin most certainly has. (For the record, you will understand that I don't think that political disagreements between individuals, parties or nations justifies wanton killing. That's just a personal opinion, but I think I'll stay with it.)
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Even in this thread you've repeated his claims that the Crimean annexation is valid and legit and that he's not a bad guy or instigator in things like the conflicts in Donbas.
Here in Toronto, we have a very, very large Ukranian population (and they are almost 4% of Canada's population overall). I attend the Ukranian street festival every year in early Fall, and enjoy myself immensely (the Polish festival happens close by at the same time, so I typically do both -- explaining at least a little of my struggles with weight gain).

I can say this, though it's only anecdotal -- I have never heard a Ukranian-Canadian say they think the annexation of Crimea was legal or valid. Not one.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
What did I say in the past? That Putin is 100 times better than Obama.
Yes, I reaffirm that.
So, you approve of political dissidents being tortured, imprisoned, and/or assassinated? Of LGBTs being subjected to discrimination and violence? Of war crimes against innocent civilians, including rape, torture, and murder of children? Of the institutionalized rape within Russia's military? Of tyranny, bloodshed, and human rights abuses?
Hang your head in shame, then drop to your knees and pray profusely to Christ for forgiveness.

Let's be serious: Putin's nothing but trash, unworthy of licking Obama's boots.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Just as a tiny example, I don't believe that Obama has personally ordered the murders of anyone -- Putin most certainly has.

He did, and one of them was an American citizen who had never been tried. Obama effectively ordered his execution without trial:

ACLU Statement on Killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi | American Civil Liberties Union

Also:

Obama claims US drones strikes have killed up to 116 civilians

Obama's Weak Defense of His Record on Drone Killings

Obama’s covert drone war in numbers: ten times more strikes than Bush

But yes, I agree Obama is nowhere near as bad as Putin. He's far from innocent, however.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
He did, and one of them was an American citizen who had never been tried. Obama effectively ordered his execution without trial:

ACLU Statement on Killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi | American Civil Liberties Union

Also:

Obama claims US drones strikes have killed up to 116 civilians

Obama's Weak Defense of His Record on Drone Killings

Obama’s covert drone war in numbers: ten times more strikes than Bush

But yes, I agree Obama is nowhere near as bad as Putin. He's far from innocent, however.
I can't help but wonder if there are not other, possibly quite justified, interpretations of things like Anwar Al-Aulaqi than "execution without trial." I mean, was he not actively engaged in terrorist activities? Had he not been already convicted of other crimes, including by the government of Yemen? Thus, could he not be considered as much of a justifiable target as Osama bin Laden?

Think about this: would it be wrong to treat an American citizen who declared war on the US from some other nation as an armed enemy, and treat him according to the rules of war? Would it be technically required to NOT kill him, and instead spend billions trying to capture him and bring him home for a "fair trial?"

Among the primary duties of an American President, as I understand it, is the protection of America and its citizens.

Further, it was only really a year, maybe a year-and-a-half, into Obama's Presidency that drones became really useful, really technically controlable, in a way that Bush simply didn't have. To say that the side with the most guns did the most killing with guns doesn't make them any more guilty of killing than the side with only swords and bows and arrows, who killed as many as they could with those weapons.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I can't help but wonder if there are not other, possibly quite justified, interpretations of things like Anwar Al-Aulaqi than "execution without trial." I mean, was he not actively engaged in terrorist activities? Had he not been already convicted of other crimes, including by the government of Yemen? Thus, could he not be considered as much of a justifiable target as Osama bin Laden?

Think about this: would it be wrong to treat an American citizen who declared war on the US from some other nation as an armed enemy, and treat him according to the rules of war? Would it be technically required to NOT kill him, and instead spend billions trying to capture him and bring him home for a "fair trial?"

Among the primary duties of an American President, as I understand it, is the protection of America and its citizens.

Further, it was only really a year, maybe a year-and-a-half, into Obama's Presidency that drones became really useful, really technically controlable, in a way that Bush simply didn't have. To say that the side with the most guns did the most killing with guns doesn't make them any more guilty of killing than the side with only swords and bows and arrows, who killed as many as they could with those weapons.

There are many facets to consider on the topic of Obama's drone strikes. The targeting of al-Awlaki has also been controversial ever since it happened among legal experts and laypeople alike. Said facets would require multiple threads to discuss, not just one.

The point I wanted to make was that Obama wasn't innocent, even though he's incomparable to Putin. At the end of the day, I think that's what matters most in this specific thread: saying that Putin is better than Obama is an overwhelmingly faulty diversion that minimizes the extent of Putin's brutality and crimes. Whatever Obama did has no bearing on Putin's current actions and imperialist aspirations.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
There are many facets to consider on the topic of Obama's drone strikes. The targeting of al-Awlaki has also been controversial ever since it happened among legal experts and laypeople alike. Said facets would require multiple threads to discuss, not just one.

The point I wanted to make was that Obama wasn't innocent, even though he's incomparable to Putin. At the end of the day, I think that's what matters most in this specific thread: saying that Putin is better than Obama is an overwhelmingly faulty diversion that minimizes the extent of Putin's brutality and crimes. Whatever Obama did has no bearing on Putin's current actions and imperialist aspirations.
One of the problems of high office in a world that is anything but unified is that one may be required to order what would -- in ordinary circumstances -- be considered horribly sinful.

Look at the death of a Pope, for example. There are 9 days (novemdiales) of exequies, each of which includes an absolution. Why would "His Holiness" need so many more absolutions than we more common folk? Because, having been "greater in life, he may have greater need." (That's a quote from The Shoes of the Fisherman, by Morris West.)
 
Top