Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:"sources," eh? "US officials" you say? (Score 2) 81

"Never the less, Stalin was very, very angry with the United States and with the United Kingdom as his country lost territory and people to the Germans while he perceived the US and UK as not helping with the war itself. He was also very angry that technical assistance to the Soviet Union was limited; heavy bombers and other large war machines were not sent to the Soviet Union. "

Um, no:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The USSR received a phenomenal amount of support from Britain and the US. As anyone who has read my posts on this topic knows I'm incredibly critical of modern day Russia, but to give the Russian's credit where it's due, they even recognise this to this day, even under the current staunchly anti-Western regime:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...

The Arctic convoys and equipment delivered is something that Russia has always been deeply grateful for and is one of the few things that is actually not a bone of contention between America/Britain and Russia.

In fact, even after the war, relations weren't terribly bad, and this led to one of the biggest mistakes we in the UK made before things turned sour - we sold Russia our world leading jet engine technology, allowing them to create the MiG-15.

Most of the tension between Russia and the West came about with the way Russia was managing territory it had seized after World War II, the politics of the early UN and the whole Korea thing rather than anything that happened before Germany and Japan's surrender.

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 465

If that's how you want to weasel out of saying something stupid and wrong then sure. But let's be clear - circletimessquare also read your post in the exact same way, and as such it's pretty clear that you simply said something that was wrong and are now desperately trying to weasel out of it all you want.

If pretending it's someone elses fault that you can't express your opinion and opt to persist in posting on a topic you admit that you have simply no understanding of is your way of dealing with being wrong then I guess it sucks to be you.

I see you did the exact same thing with him though - made a bunch of idiotic comments, had it pointed out to you why they're idiotic, and then decided to pretend you'd never said those things.

So given the fact that this seems to happen with you, you should really reconsider your way of coping with it - pretending it's someone elses fault, rather than the blatant reality that you're full of shit and can't cope with being wrong even though it's obvious you know you are deep down from the simple fact you have to repeatedly disown your own comments and pretend you never said them when they're there in black and white:

"Well, it sure as hell impressed opportunistic American politicians who have been expanding NATO for 20 years without seemingly any sort of awareness of the provocation towards Russia it entailed"

Yes, you never said it was America's fault NATO expanded eastwards indeed. Unfortunately you can't disown things when you've published them to the internet, what you said is there clearly for all to see.

Do yourself a favour, grow some balls and own up to your comments or admit to being wrong, rather than simply saying things and then pretending you never did to everyone that points out successfully why you are completely wrong, just as I have over and over in this discussion.

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 465

People have to be actually saying something to be worth listening to. You're still just spouting drivel about what you didn't say and justifying what you didn't say, whilst failing to actually say anything at all. The implications of your comments are clear, but you're denying making those implications, yet it's impossible to separate the factual implications of your comments from what you said. For those implications to not exist, as you're claiming, you'd have had to say many different things to what you actually did say. Perhaps you're just incredibly bad at expressing the point you want to make, perhaps you realised you were full of shit and want to backtrack without explicitly doing so. Either way, you've still failed to put across any meaningful point so far.

I've gone back as you suggested and don't see anything different- your original post was still a suggestion that America is wholly at fault for expanding NATO eastwards, rather than Russia being at fault for forcing it's neighbours into a choice between joining NATO, or face territorial annexation, or defacto annexation as Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia have. You only dug this anti-American hole of yours deeper in subsequent posts.

So please, just state clearly. What point exactly are you trying to make?

Comment Re:What is the evidence? (Score 1) 272

Probably just confirming by additional serial numbers of subcomponents, and possibly even doing more detailed forensic tests on the materials- it might be possible that trace elements in the compounds used to build some of the components can verify which batch of flaperons this was built in, and therefore which plane or planes it ended up on.

The issue is that to get to those serial numbers and such they've probably got to take the thing apart, and they wouldn't be able to do that until they'd got it to a place where they can take it apart in a forensically sound manner, not destroying or losing evidence in the process and meticulously documenting as they go. At the beach the best they could probably hope to do is look for visible serial numbers on exposed parts, maybe use an endoscope to look inside as far as they can, but probably not much more than that.

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 465

"Oh now you're going to resort to argue over dictionary definitions?"

Well when you're failing to understand basic English, it's kind of necessary that I have to explain meanings to you. Again, don't try and turn your failings around on me, it's not my fault you can't interpret English, or wilfully choose not to because it's inconvenient for your nonsense speak.

Alternative histories are great to explore, but using them to try and argue a point that is false is nonsensical. You're just inventing a history that suits your bias.

"Another unfalsifiable statement. If I read Russia Today, then I'm brainwashed. If I don't read Russia Today, then I'm uninformed. You are so good at these!"

Again, thinking doesn't seem to be your strong point. No, you can read Russia Today to get an idea of Russian thinking perfectly well, but if you then parrot mindlessly and unquestioningly their propaganda then that's when it's a problem - you're doing the latter, you'll simply parroting the Russian government line, even when it's demonstrably false. All media should be evaluated, but it's important to weed out what is propaganda by contrasting, comparing, and comparing against verifiable facts. Even Fox News is a good indicator of what the current neo-con thinking is, but that doesn't mean you have to believe everything they say and take it as fact - only recognise what they're saying to understand what their view is. That's why you can read Russia Today to understand what Putin's thinking is, but accepting what he says as gospel when it's verifiably false is obviously stupid. If he says MH17 was shot by a Ukrainian fighter based on released satellite images for example we can take from that that his aim is to blame the Ukraine, we know however that the satellite images didn't make sense and were clearly doctored (the scale of the aircraft was all wrong relative to the ground), so we know not to also believe he's right, even though we are able to interpret away his intentions and goals.

"I've never said or implied that NATO is the bad guy. It's not my fault if you chose to interpret something I've said that way. "

Actually that's been the implication of your entire argument - the suggestion that NATO is at fault because it would immediately resort to nukes in response to Russian aggression against a member state. You ignore the fact that it wouldn't, and that the real focus of scorn in such an event should be Russia for invading a foreign sovereign state in the first place, rather than NATO for responding. You blame NATO for increasing membership in Eastern Europe, rather than Russia for pushing Eastern Europe into the arms of NATO because they want to be able to keep their sovereignty and independence from Russia secure. You should really be blaming Russia for having such an interfering and aggressive stance towards it's neighbours. The fact your not shows your clear pro-Russian bias. The fact that you blame the US like NATO is some wholly US controlled entity that gets forced on people further demonstrates this.

But really at this point your whole argument now seems to be that you never argued anything. I shall assume therefore that this is your desperate attempt to wriggle out of your own bullshit now that I've demonstrate why it's a load of tosh.

Don't worry, I wont ask for an apology for getting in over your head and trying to make a point that you couldn't in any way back up other than by making stuff up. I know you're too proud for that.

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 465

"No, that's not what a hypothetical scenario is."

Yes it is, a hypothesis demands that you hypothesise about something that could be. Something in the past that simply was not by definition cannot be. You seem to be failing at even basic English now in a desperate attempt to defend your unreality which you use to justify your pro-Russian bias.

"No, that's not what a hypothetical scenario is. See, this right here is the problem. You're incapable of engaging in abstract reasoning like "what if A had happened instead of B?" That's why you will never understand what I'm saying. You will never understand what it means to imagine "what if the Warsaw pact had extended to the US borders", so you will never be able to imagine a perspective that isn't your own."

No, I'm actually more than capable of engaging in fantasy thinking. But questions like "What if this unreality was actually a reality?" are absolutely meaningless unless you want to, say, write a fiction book. They tell us nothing about the reality, and about the now, and that's why your world view is fundamentally broken- you're too caught up in your fantasy world, and wholly oblivious to reality and the worst part is, you consciously choose to be so by deflecting from the issue of you failing to do any research whatsoever about the reality. You have this made up idea that NATO would always use nuclear weapons as a first strike response even though that runs counter to everything NATO has ever said and done (they're a last resort - a "If we're going to lose everything, then we'll make sure you do to" type weapon). Ironically, Putin has been making a noise involving nuclear threats lately though- you wouldn't know this though, as you just like to defend Russia without having a clue about what it's doing or saying.

"By the way, it's been almost 10 years since I've read or seen anything from a Russian news source, including Russia Today. "

That's probably really part the problem then, and at least explains why you're not aware of basically everything Putin has been saying, and everything about Russian thinking over the last decade. The irony is you talk about the Russian perspective, but you now admit you've no idea what that even is. It's not surprising then that you're arguing based wholly on things that never happened, and arguing against things that simply are.

So I still don't really know what your point is - you still seem determined to argue that your fantasy alternative universe makes NATO the bad guy. That's great, in your fantasy alternative universe. But what relevance does this have to reality still exactly? The fact that you have to invent a la-la land just to make a point shows what a complete load of codswallop you're talking. You've all but explicitly admitted at this point that you don't have the slightest clue about the situation, so why are you continuing? why are you insisting that it's important that I pay any attention whatsoever to your unreality? If I wanted to do that, I'd at least go and read or watch a film about one that's at least somewhat interesting.

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 465

"Meaning, you agree with me that the mutual defense clause is a sham."

No, I'm saying that a conventional response from the world's largest combined military force by a factor of 20x is just as effective a deterrent as the nuclear option which you assume is the first option.

"I guess even your vocabulary is fundamentally incapable of allowing you to see things from somebody else's perspective."

Again, I apologise if more than the most basic English confuses me, I keep forgetting how undereducated you apparently are. But no, a hypothetical scenario is something that could actually happen, the things you're proposing are historical and didn't happen but are using to drive an argument as if they did, and are therefore non-realities.

"Well yeah, that's my whole fucking point. When the Soviet Union stationed nukes in Cuba, the US responded to that provocative action by bringing the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation."

But again, you give lie to your pro-Russian bias in the way you phrase this, you claim it's the US that brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation by threatening, not Russia by actually deploying and aiming nukes. This is why you're incapable of offering any rational point to this discussion - from the very outset you have this ISIS style "US is the great satan" outlook whilst implying Russia is just an innocent bystander. That's obviously false.

"When the US expanded NATO all the way to the Russian border"

You do it again here, this is just broken. The US didn't expand anything, NATO grew when countries asked, off their own democratic back to join. Your whole world view is based around this idea that Russia gets to decide what everyone can and cannot do. Rather than realise that these countries asked to join NATO off their own back precisely because Russia had been dicks to them for decades and that that's Russia's own fault, you instead try and argue that the US expanded NATO as if the US somehow forced these countries to join, and as if it's anyone other than Russia's fault that they chose to join the West, rather than continue to sit under the East. NATO is not at fault for Russia's hostility and trampling of it's neighbours pushing them West.

"What research is that? Research disproving things your little strawman told you? I'm not him, I have no interest in understanding how wrong his viewpoints are. If you want to keep talking to him, go stand in front of a mirror and stop bothering me."

And finally deflection, refusing to confront your non-realities and broken world view by simply refusing to actually take the time to research the subject you're talking about. You're deflecting because it's too painful for you to read even a small amount of the plethora of evidence highlighting how wrong you are about things like Putin's awareness of his own military strength.

So here we are still, you're refusing to leave your non-realities behind, you still push your broken worldview, and show nothing but a massive inability to be objective, only looking at things from the Russia Today world view. So no, you can't contribute to this discussion because you highlight time and time again that you neither have a grasp of the subject material at hand, nor are you willing to even research it. Instead you post things over and over that are frankly just Russian propaganda like "The US expanded NATO" - this isn't surprising though, when you're stuck with the Russian Imperialist mindset it's not surprising that you think the only way an organisation can expand is by force, because that's how Russia works. You're oblivious to the way the West works, and that's by bringing people on side by simply giving them the advantages of being independent wealthy states. You can't understand that countries join NATO because they want to because all you know is the Russian way- and that's to make countries join your pact by outright invading them and installing a puppet dictator and secret police force to keep the population oppressed.

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 465

"Mutual defense means an obligation to respond to any attack as if it was on the home soil of any member. If Russian tanks were rolling towards the white house, would there not be an escalation to nuclear war? For fuck's sake man, the only reason the cold war didn't end with nuclear war is because both powers avoided attacking each other directly."

Er. Yes. Exactly. So why do you think that would change now? This is exactly my point, it's like you realise it whilst refusing to realise it.

You still don't get it - you still don't understand that what America would do to defend it's own soil isn't inherently what it has to do to defend foreign soil under NATO. Hell, it's not even clear if Russia did invade US soil that they'd use nuclear weapons, America has the firm military advantage so could win without doing so, thus Russia is the only party likely to do a first strike, and NATO wont use nukes unless Russia does first - it has no need for starters.

But importantly, NATO isn't touching Russian soil, so your argument is wholly meaningless, Russia is however touching foreign soil, albeit not NATO soil yet. Your argument seems to be that NATO nations shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves against Russian aggression - that's great for you as you're a Putin apologist, but you're simultaneously claiming it's not fair if NATO were to do the same to Russia, no shit, so how is it justified that Russia is the only one doing it?

"Yeah, my fragile little brain is too weak to logically argue the position of the strawman in your head."

Anger wont resolve the inherent paradoxes your irrational position has created. You'll need to try harder than that to fix your broken world view.

"You're right, I wasn't aware that the Warsaw pact included Mexico and Canada and Brazil. That's definitely news to me, and it completely invalidates everything I've said."

It doesn't have to, it's irrelevant, your whole argument makes no sense and is built on fantastical non-realities, non-realities you've had to create to counter the fact that your nonsensical ideas don't make sense in the context of actual reality.

"and the American response to that was to bring the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust"

This highlights the hypocrisy of your viewpoint, Russia stations nukes on America's border, pointing at America, and America has created an almost nuclear holocaust. What? Any rational human being can see that both sides escalated that one, I'm pretty sure the Americans didn't ask for those nukes to be positioned there and pointed at them.

So carry on apologising for Putin, being wrong, and talking about non-realities that justify your otherwise non-points. But you still haven't done any of that research I suggested, so you're continuing to be completely wrong and continuing to talk nonsense. Not much of a surprise.

Comment Re:Oh Great! More Central Planning! Just what we n (Score 1) 413

"we dont drive small death traps like the rest of the world"

Um, the US has an 11.6 per 100,000 people death rate on the road, vs. France's 4.9, Germany's 4.3, or the UK's 3.5.

So people driving those "death traps" in the rest of the world are half as likely to die as you Americans are in your gigantic gas guzzlers. We typically get 50mpg and they tend to even let us drive faster too.

So yeah, nicer cars, faster journeys, less likely to die, and more money left over at the end of it.

Remind me why you think blowing cash on a fugly car that only gets 21mpg is a good thing again?

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 465

"Then what's the point of NATO? You just wiped your ass with the mutual defense clause"

Mutual defence, doesn't imply immediate escalation to nuclear defence. You're still entirely making that up. It just means mutual defence. Your rhetoric about guaranteed nuclear war is still nonsense, because the fact that world came out of the cold war nuclear war free is still proof of that. I don't know why you're even engaging in this discussion when you demonstrate exactly no knowledge of the cold war.

"Hahaha, that's awesome, basically your argument is that anything they did is evidence of your position. They didn't invade anyone? Obviously they couldn't! They invaded someone? Obviously imperialists! They stopped invading anyone? Obviously they realized they couldn't! You've set yourself up a nice little unfalsifiable fort there. Rocket science indeed."

No, my argument is that there is an incredibly vast body of proof and analysis on the topic, including statements from Putin himself admitting that his forces weren't up to it in Georgia that highlight this. Again, your lack of knowledge of this topic is wholly your problem, not mine. Don't try and spin it any other way - it's not my fault if you've no idea what you're talking about.

"How is it paranoia when the 25 years since the fall of the union have confirmed all their worst fears?"

Russia's worst fears are that it's neighbours wanted nothing to do with them? That's NATO's fault why exactly? You can't blame anyone but Russia for the fact that everyone around them wants to get as far away from them as possible.

"Haha that reminds me of those overly vague endings from Grey's Anatomy that were just sort of rambling without really saying anything relevant."

It's okay, you don't need to hurt your simple mind any further by failing to understand common words. I understand that things like paradoxes and fallacies are too complicated for you, so I didn't expect you to understand - if you did you'd be able to see why your worldview is so broken and paradoxical in the first place. It's pretty clear from everything you've said that your entire broken world view is built on the fact that you simply have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. You weren't aware of the Warsaw pact, you seem oblivious to the entirety of the cold war, and you are ignorant of the very things even Putin himself has said both about his history, his ideals, and his understanding of his own military,

Try as you might, you've proven that point that you simply can't argue from a point of ignorance- you've tried to argue, but you've yet to say anything that makes any sense, all because you have a complete lack of a grasp of basic facts.

Come back when you actually understand the topic and have managed to stop making such a repeated fool of yourself.

If nothing else go and have a read of the Russian leadership's own comments on it's military decay and the subsequent realisation from Georgia that they still weren't as prepared for war as they thought. I don't even need propaganda because pretty much everything I've said has been self-admitted by the Russian's themselves. Learn about Putin's speeches, such as where he declares the collapse of the USSR one of the greatest tragedies of our era. When you've come back, then tell me again that Putin doesn't lust for a return of Russia's imperial past, and that Putin wasn't aware that he was militarily crippled, and was surprised that they still weren't prepared in 2008.

You wont be able to of course, because by that point, having done that, you'll realise you were wrong. Well, that or just a reality denier, but you wont realise that, you'll just keep on being wrong. When even the folks you're trying to defend have contradicted you with your own words, normally you should know it's time to give up, apparently you don't though, so my bet is on reality denier.

Comment Re:i love infrastructure (Score 1) 465

"Haha, I should have known that would go over your head."

It went over my head because it makes absolutely no sense. Your argument is that NATO's only response to a Russian invasion is nuclear. That's obviously nonsense, if Russia carries out an invasion of a NATO nation in this manner NATO can simply respond in kind, either by say, fuelling Chechen separatism, or by similarly supporting the Estonians - mostly just giving enough weaponry to make such an invasion costly enough for the Russians to change their mind is sufficient. This basically describes pretty much every proxy battle in the cold war - nuclear war didn't happen, why do you think that's different now and the nuclear option is the only option? It isn't, you're simply spouting nonsense.

"Yes, and children are "involved" in their parents' decision making. I don't think that level of autonomy is something particularly attractive to most Russians."

Yes, as we've seen with Putin's regime, Russians prefer something much more restrictive and dictatorial. At least you got that bit right.

"Plus, how could something Putin learned when invading Georgia in 2008 have prevented him from doing something
before that? Does he have a time machine or something?"

No, but obviously if nothing else, Putin isn't stupid. Before 2008 he knew full well his military wasn't upto it, he assumed it would be in 2008 and found that it still wasn't. This isn't really rocket science, I'm amazed you're struggling with it. The average person wouldn't, much less someone with even a modicum of intelligence above that.

"Yeah, but your refusal to consider another perspective has "Made in USA" printed on it in red, white, and blue."

Here's the real problem - you're the only one bringing the USA into this over and over. You're the typical type of person whose view is formed something like "Afghanistan and Iraq were bad, therefore, the US is bad. Russia hates the US, therefore, Russia is good". Obviously that's the height of ignorant dumb-think because it's a fundamental fallacy. But you're excelling at demonstrating that in your oh so binary world that the only factors are either loving Russia and hating the US, or loving the US and hating Russia. Some of us are capable of seeing the billion shades of grey in between - don't think all of us are constrained by the same type of binary dumb-think that you are clearly displaying. It's perfectly possible for someone to think that both Russia and the US have done a lot wrong - the fact you don't get that shows you're a personal that suffers from serious problems of bias, ignorance and partisanship.

"He's a guy that wants democratic reform. Of course he doesn't like Putin, why would he. But what does that have to do with what we're talking about? "

Oh keep up. You asked how I could know what Putin's thoughts are - I point out it's quite simple, you simply read things from people whom he has expressed them to and who is aware of them. I pointed to one such person, again, it's not difficult.

"Unless what you're saying is that it would be preferable to you if Russia was run by people who didn't care about their strategic weaknesses and security, which I guess I agree with. I mean, lots of people would be really happy if some of the pre-Soviet imperial conquests broke off."

Honestly, I don't care what Russia does as long as it only acts either within it's borders, or outside it's borders with consent. I think the US invasion of Iraq was completely and utterly wrong, and I despise the US for it because it's clear the fucking mess in that part of the middle east still stems from that. Similarly however I despise the fact Russia has invaded and annexed the territory of a foreign sovereign nation, whilst simultaneously admitting to committing war crimes in the process (putting civilians at risk by pretending your soldiers are civilian is a self-admitted breach of the Geneva convention by Putin).

If Russians want to sit all paranoid that's fine, but that doesn't give them the right to dictate what their neighbours can and cannot do any more than the US can - if you have a problem with the US but not with Russia, then your worldview is fundamentally broken, because Russia is guilty of all the US' wrongs and then some.

But when your worldview is fundamentally broken in that way, it's not terribly surprising that you're also saying things that are either naive to what went on during the cold war, or simply make no sense requiring the enforcement of false choices. Fallacies are of course the only way you can fix the paradoxes in your mind that your broken, nonsensical and hypocritical worldview has inherently created.

Comment Re:Both sides of argument conveniently slanting... (Score 1) 528

To be fair also, someone posted a Google Maps satellite photo of the guys home. There's basically nothing behind his house (certainly no adjoining property) so the chance of the birdshot falling on anything other than grass is basically zero by the looks of it.

Given that there is so much empty space behind the property it does seem a little odd that the drone owner insisted on flying over the properties (we know this because it fell inside the property boundaries once shot down) rather than over the wealth of empty space behind the properties.

Given all this it seems pretty clear the drone operator was focussing on people's properties to spy on them, rather than just passing through.

Comment Re:What a deal! (Score 1) 413

Yeah but look on the bright side, that cost of billions will be more than made up for the fact that you no longer have to invade oil rich states where you create enemy combatants by fucking over their country and where your troops can desert in the first place.

So it seems to suit your own argument just fine- billions to become energy independent is a bargain compared to trillion dollar wars to maintain oil dependence.

Comment Re:Who cares! (Score 1) 75

Didn't Google get hammered by Apple users for ignoring some Safari setting and tracking them anyway though? If so why are other ad companies special, are they not just a similar court case away from a costly payout?

It seems that if your browser says "Do Not Track" and they track you, then they're flagrantly violating your privacy.

Sounds like it just needs people willing to take these guys to court just as Google was hauled through the courts.

The only difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman is that the car salesman knows he's lying.

Working...