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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Martial law is not necessary to imprison these people if they are aiding the Russians.
Time will reveal whether he is truly good or just a very good actor.
What do you mean by “supporting Putin”? Do you mean helping to murder Ukrainian children?
Reporter have done that.
I think it means people need to wake up, ask questions, and seek to know what is really going on because we have been led from one crisis to another, with our information controlled and censored, our perceptions manipulated and our thoughts directed on who we are to hate.
It's not being honest nor assessing objectively. It's trying to imply Zelenskyy is corrupt and doing so without acknowledging the circumstances of the war. It's not looking at Zelenskyy's history of being honest, as we saw what trump tried to exploit him "for a favor". Zelenskyy didn't go for the corruption, he exposed trump's corruption even if it meant uncertainty for his nation's defense. So the source you cited is highly suspicious in trying to sell a perspective that isn't based on the full extent of evidence.
I would say it depends on who decides which sources are valid or bias. I have no doubt you lean toward sources which support your own views. We are all prone to that. I read sources form both left, right or in between. I am more concerned with getting at the truth than whether I agree completely with the political leanings of the source.
Two months ago you would have an argument.
The factual content and objective nature of reporting is what determines whether a source is reliable and credible. Ethical people recognize these high standards.
My views are objective and factual reporting. I avoid biased sources. I have a bit of an advantage over most in that I was in journalism in high school and college and the lessons we were taught is objectivity and ethics. I look for these in reporting.
If you are an ethical, honest, and open minded person your bias will be towards reputable and credible sources. The source in the OP is not reputable, and is highly biased. The name of the website is highly biased itself, and no doubt is biased to attract those who have a certain far right Christian set of beliefs. What is their aim, the End Times? It's almost comical that you aren't ashamed to cite it.
You haven't presented anything to question Zelenskyy's integrity. The question about martial law has been explained as a way to help maintain order during a war. This has occurred by many democratic governments during war. If anything it suggests a high degree of competency on Zelenskyy's part. This is how having a good knowledge base helps assess and understand current affairs.
New world order? This sounds like right wing fear nonsense. What the EU and NATO have endeavored to do, and done so successfully, is help establish consistency, stability, and order to avoid war and political conflicts. This has resulted in a fantastic era of peace and economic growth in the world, mostly the West. Cooperation and compromises has led to this. The far right Christians seem eager to be in the End Times. They thought the 9-11 attacks was it. Nope. Now they think the Ukraine invasion is. The rest of the planet wants peace and stability, and to get on with life, not this right wing destruction. Let's note Putin is a far right authoritarian leader who is for the most part a fascist. He wants to act via his own rules, and is doing so from a Christian perspective according to some reports. The danger is if the far right Christian base in America will back Putin, and support this extremism in American politics. No doubt, certain Christians are confused and divided. That has been the long term problem with Christianity, it is a confused religion with many massive political and social and dogmatic divisions.
Of course not. I get bombarded with BBC push alerts and it's mentioned nothing of this.
How does he do it? It's called being invaded by a much larger nation and being presented with a real existentialist threat. If they are pro-Russia that does mean pro-those who are aggressively invading.
False. Quite the contrary. The right wing in the USA is totalitarian, and I'm very liberal, and advocate for expanded liberties. That government has to protect and defend the liberties of the marginalized should not be confused as totalitarian.
They are aggressively invading. Yes, they have very real consequences for not following orders, but to be frank **** their side of the story.
How, in a thread that has Putin as a subject, can you claim the American Right is totalitarian? Yes, some are, but they themselves aren't. Try talking to some Russians who lost their job due to being against this war what a totalitarian regime is actually like.