Many presumptions about Russia-Ukraine are wrong. The coup of Feb 2014 is not figured in, as are not the Minsk accords by Putin trying to avoid further military action against the coup. The fact that the coup chased the legally elected President out to Russia, leaves open the possibility that especially the Crimean occupation by Russia may have been authorized by the deposed President.
That may be so, but firing rockets at innocent civilians is no way to right wrongs, if Putin thinks he's been wronged. There are proper ways to deal with breaches of international agreements, if agreements there were. There is no presumption about sending tanks over someone else's border: that stands as fact.
Many of the world's problems stem from a "presumption" that it's okay to kill people in order to prove you're right.
What makes you think he fires rockets at innocent civilians? Do you only believe the news we get? I try to listen to Alex Mercouris' daily "Good Day" battlefield reports on YouTube, because, although he, like me. is a Russian sympathizer, he's no propagandist like our media is universally. I mean that. If Alex Jones hadn't copyrighted "InfoWars" before the Pentagon could, it would be the name of the news nowadays. Victories in the information war made Biden (and Blinken) claim that Russia has already lost (like Biden did embarrassingly at Vilnius at the NATO summit a few months ago. I call it "wall-to-wall" public relations, the way the US establishment has corrupted the MSM. One night during the Russian attack on Bakhmut, I listened to L.A.'s news radio station KNX report "massive Russian casualties" caused by futile "human wave attacks", and I knew (as Alex Mercouris confirmed with his battlefield news aggregation the next day) that I must treat our MSM like Soviet news, and believe the exact opposite -- that it was the Ukrainians who were suffering massive casualties in their futile attacks, which was the truth. Putin cares about his troops NOT suffering massive casualties. That's why the Russians hunkered down behind Gen'l Surovikin's fortifications last spring, after withdrawing from their bridgehead over the Dnieper in Kherson, letting the Ukrainians brag about "capturing" Kherson City (this being a militarily rationalized retreat/withdrawal rather than the politically rationalized (to demonstrate Russian good faith in the negotiations initialed by Ukraine (in more bad faith like their ones in the Minsk Accords) in Turkey in March/April 2022. That is why I think the alleged war crimes against Russians in Bucha are propaganda, because the victims could very well have been fraternizing with the Russian occupiers, and massacred in punishment therefore by Ukrainian "Natsi" Azov forces. I know you are not like me, an American with immigrant background from Western Ukraine (and Slovakia) who knows just how nationalistic Ruthenians became, and how Victoria Nuland mobilized shooters from L'viv to demoralize the police at the Maidan on February 22, 2014 as they drove out the democratically elected president Janukovych. They were the tip of the spear for NATO's advance (Drang?) to the East. They actually began to scare Obama, when he found out that they were white supremacists. That's why he refused to give them military aid. When they get to the States, they are 2A gun-nuts, like my cousin back East.
I notice you making a vague reference to "international agreements." You obviously are not informed about events in the Ukraine post-coup, how they attacked Russians in Donetsk and Luchansk, and were only stopped (not repelled) with Russian help. Putin negotiated the Minsk Accords with Macron and Merkel to stop the Ukrainian attacks on the Donbass. Merkel admitted in the past year that the Minsk Accord negotiations were only shams made to gain the Ukrainians time to arm and train their military (because they couldn't stop Russian occupation of Crimea back in 2014). Zelensky ordered Ukrainian military to retake Crimea in the Summer of 2021, which was why Putin began the build-up of forces. Putin knows a lot of history (Have you read anything of his? Or listened to his speeches? I am his age, and I have an M.A. in European History from UCLA, and I have to admit that Putin knows as much as me. I will never forget his address to the Poles about the August 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact, when he commented that it was merely the last "non-aggression" treaty with Germany, when Poland had already signed the first (Beck Treaty in 1935). Recently Putin made a long speech out of his anger with himself for the inadequate military operation, and how the Russian people want him to press the war more aggressively. He reassured Poland (and Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania) that Russia will not guarantee Western Ukrainian (Ruthenian) territorial integrity (especially what Stalin had annexed at the end of WWII) against them. Russia is interested only in the destruction of the Ukrainian military, and does not want the political headache that Western Ukraine posed since Stalin's expansion to the West. Its pure NATO warmonger-propaganda that the Russians intend to invade Western Europe (although Tucker Carlson said to Catturd. that after we blew up the German economy at Nord Strom, what could the Russians do that would be worse?). Please Graham Vincent, inform yourself and stop falling for the head-fake that our MIC keeps making to get more of our money.
How lucky I am to have happened upon such a fount of knowledge. Thank you, J Jack Artz. So, the world is just all running tickety-boo to plan. I'm reassured.
Thank you Graham, a very interesting dialogue. Cutting the basic:: 1) In several online messages, beginning in November and continuing into January (on the platform Twitter) Trump implored his supporters to come to a gathering on January 6, 2021. In itself this was not illegal.
2) during the course of his harangue he implored them, to march to the Capitol, (Congressional Building) to stop the steal; fight like hell; hope Mike Pence was sufficiently loyal to refuse to count the legally sworn Electoral College ballots from the 50 States; fight to keep their country. Free speech is covered by Amendment 1 [incidently, once Amendments are ratified by 3/4 of the States they are then recognized as part of the Constitution and can only be removed by the ratification of another Amendment - this happened once, when Amendment 18 (supporting prohibition of the sale and use of alcohol) was made void by Amendment 21. - Amendment 14 has never been removed in all or part] But freedom of speech ends at inciting and urging an insurrection against your own government.
3) He watched on television for more than 3 hours, while the insurrectionists, attacked the Capitol Police force and members of the DC Metro Police force, injuring some 140 officers of said forces.; smashed windows, broke doors; these insurrectionists desecrated the building; entered the chambers of the House of Representatives, which although the Legislators fled in fear of their lives, was still technically in session for the Ceremonial counting of votes; they then proceeded to break into offices, steal items, including laptops, flags, and anything that struck their fancy. "The word insurrection refers to “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government” 123. It is a serious offense and can lead to severe legal consequences.
4) When Trump was finally prevailed upon to call off his minions he told them "he loved them, and they should go home.
After the Chamber was set in order, that same evening, the ballots were finally counted and accepted by 388 members of Congress. 147 MAGAs voted no.
5) Trump has publicly declared his intention IF HE IS ELECTED to pardon all those who were found guilty of insurrection, except for those who testified against him in the Congressional Hearing.
This is considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In our Country people who destroy Government property, attempt to disrupt a governmental procedure, and steal or desecrate government are considered enemies of the people.
The only reason Trump was not at the Capitol urging his minions on, was the Secret Service detail refused to drive him there. But inciting, directing and encouraging should be sufficient to hold him guilty.
I did watch the entire mess unfold. I happened to be off work that day. I was home in California, so I watched from about 8:30 AM to nearly midnight.
Quite a "comment", Fay: you're clearly a student! Cutting to the basic can, however, obviate the need to examine how it was that you got to the "basic".
Let me respond quickly to your very interesting points.
1) Yes, even if he'd marched down Pennsylvania Avenue with "Ban The Bomb" placards, it would at most have contravened a local police statute.
2) You identify the tipping point here: a demonstration seeks to convey its message as forcefully as possible (within legal bounds).
A harangue is a passionate speech given, typically, at a demo. It sets out the nature of the complaint and uses facts mixed with hyperbole, to fulfil the demo's purpose: convey the message.
"Fight like hell" is, in the end, fairly common parlance. It means "Be determined, do not relent". Even Nelson's semaphore "England expects that every man will do his duty" is a harangue of sorts. Unlike at the Battle of Trafalgar, however, it rarely means "engage in physical blows".
When the invective tipped into actual trespass and blows, was that as a result of the words "fight like hell"?
Maybe. I'm sure the SCOTUS will tell us. And, even if it was, I'm not convinced that the crowd tipped into insurrection and, more so, whether Mr Trump did.
3) Does watching on TV constitute insurrection? Maybe he was frightened he'd get hit; or that, by stopping a demo that had overflowed, he's blamed for starting it (which he wanted to avoid, especially if he believes he didn't start it). Maybe he wanted to see them actually achieve their mission, like watching a moon landing; maybe he was intrigued: "This is getting very interesting!", like with binge-viewing Downton Abbey. Maybe, unwilling to be seen as Delacroix's "Liberté guidant le peuple", he stayed distant to avoid "crime by association."
Hmm, the 3 hours watching TV angle is ... I don't know what it *is*, but is *that* insurrection?
4) "I love you." I really do, Fay, sincerely.
I watched Harvey Fierstein in Torch Song Trilogy the other day. He gives this soliloquy:
"In my life I've slept with more men than are named and numbered in the Bible, Old and New Testaments put together. And not once has someone said, 'Arnold, I love you,' (that I could believe). And I ask myself, 'Do you really care?' You know, the only honest answer I can give myself is, 'Yes. I care. I care a great deal. But not enough.'"
"I love you" is, sadly, as trite as "fight like hell". If pop singers say it to audiences of 20,000 concert-goers, does that make Donald an insurrectionist? Does it make Taylor Swift an insurrectionist?
5) This is kinda the point, isn't it?
If he achieves office again, then, by definition, he is not an insurrectionist. If he isn't, then the others aren't either. Ergo, they SHOULD be pardoned.
If he *is* an insurrectionist, he'll never get to where he can exercise his prerogative of pardon, anyway.
What would make NO sense is for the insurrection argument to be swept from the table, for Trump to assume office and for those in prison to remain there. He doesn't even need to win the election for that logic to apply: if he's allowed to *stand* in the election, those imprisoned on charges of insurrection must be pardoned (for their "insurrection" charges, not the charges of assault and so on). In fact, pardons don't even really come into it (a pardon is for a crime you actually commit; if there was no crime, the conviction is "overturned"). But, remember, insurrection isn't here a criminal charge, it's a finding in fact.
In sum:
Depending on how the light hits it, the insurrection angle can give every appearance of being a smoking gun, a trusty old Smith & Wesson from 1868. But, from other angles, that smoke may just be someone blowing off a little dust.
Thank you, for your considerate reply. We have never met in person so I don't know if I would like you enough to love you as a friend, what I will say is I enjoy your considered and well thought responses.
So in response I will say, Trump only watched the insurrection on TV because his Secret Service detail refused to drive him to the Capitol. We know he had no fear of the insurrectionists, because when the Secret Service Detail tried to prevent armed people (they used magnetometers to identify weapons) from entering the inner circle, Trump angrily responded. they are my people they would not harm me let them in. This also proves he knew they were armed when he sent them (verbally) to the Capitol Building.
Hi we love you, was in the same vein as Taylor Swift telling thousands of people in her live audience that she loves them - all of us (people with a modicum of intellect) know it means I am flattered by your attention. As to the insurrection itself, it was not "peaceful". The insurrectionists used flagpoles with pointed ends to smash windows and glass doors to enter. They forcefully broke doors to enter private offices, and they desecrated the walls with human feces. This is not hearsay on my part. I watched the entire event starting at about halfway through trump's speech, until after the votes were counted and admitted by a majority of 388 to 147 votes. The reason we refer to this as an insurrection instead of a revolution is it was instigated, happened, and ended (at least the violence itself) in the course of one day. It was more than a raid - far, far, more violent than a "peaceful visitation by tourists" hence the term insurrection. Trump and his minions planned for this starting in November when he lost the election. His lawyers filed 61 lawsuits, one was thrown out without hearing, 60 were heard and denied.
He sent at least 3 tweets that I have read encouraging his minions to come to Washington on January 6th - the day the electoral college votes would be ceremonially counted and entered into posterity. It is considered ceremonial because it lacks real meaning, the results were known back in November when the votes were first counted.
His hope apparently, rested on substituting false slates of electoral college votes, why anyone of intelligence would think this would work is beyond me (but I am not an attorney) because the real slates were dutifully signed by the Governor of each State.
Many presumptions about Russia-Ukraine are wrong. The coup of Feb 2014 is not figured in, as are not the Minsk accords by Putin trying to avoid further military action against the coup. The fact that the coup chased the legally elected President out to Russia, leaves open the possibility that especially the Crimean occupation by Russia may have been authorized by the deposed President.
That may be so, but firing rockets at innocent civilians is no way to right wrongs, if Putin thinks he's been wronged. There are proper ways to deal with breaches of international agreements, if agreements there were. There is no presumption about sending tanks over someone else's border: that stands as fact.
Many of the world's problems stem from a "presumption" that it's okay to kill people in order to prove you're right.
What makes you think he fires rockets at innocent civilians? Do you only believe the news we get? I try to listen to Alex Mercouris' daily "Good Day" battlefield reports on YouTube, because, although he, like me. is a Russian sympathizer, he's no propagandist like our media is universally. I mean that. If Alex Jones hadn't copyrighted "InfoWars" before the Pentagon could, it would be the name of the news nowadays. Victories in the information war made Biden (and Blinken) claim that Russia has already lost (like Biden did embarrassingly at Vilnius at the NATO summit a few months ago. I call it "wall-to-wall" public relations, the way the US establishment has corrupted the MSM. One night during the Russian attack on Bakhmut, I listened to L.A.'s news radio station KNX report "massive Russian casualties" caused by futile "human wave attacks", and I knew (as Alex Mercouris confirmed with his battlefield news aggregation the next day) that I must treat our MSM like Soviet news, and believe the exact opposite -- that it was the Ukrainians who were suffering massive casualties in their futile attacks, which was the truth. Putin cares about his troops NOT suffering massive casualties. That's why the Russians hunkered down behind Gen'l Surovikin's fortifications last spring, after withdrawing from their bridgehead over the Dnieper in Kherson, letting the Ukrainians brag about "capturing" Kherson City (this being a militarily rationalized retreat/withdrawal rather than the politically rationalized (to demonstrate Russian good faith in the negotiations initialed by Ukraine (in more bad faith like their ones in the Minsk Accords) in Turkey in March/April 2022. That is why I think the alleged war crimes against Russians in Bucha are propaganda, because the victims could very well have been fraternizing with the Russian occupiers, and massacred in punishment therefore by Ukrainian "Natsi" Azov forces. I know you are not like me, an American with immigrant background from Western Ukraine (and Slovakia) who knows just how nationalistic Ruthenians became, and how Victoria Nuland mobilized shooters from L'viv to demoralize the police at the Maidan on February 22, 2014 as they drove out the democratically elected president Janukovych. They were the tip of the spear for NATO's advance (Drang?) to the East. They actually began to scare Obama, when he found out that they were white supremacists. That's why he refused to give them military aid. When they get to the States, they are 2A gun-nuts, like my cousin back East.
I notice you making a vague reference to "international agreements." You obviously are not informed about events in the Ukraine post-coup, how they attacked Russians in Donetsk and Luchansk, and were only stopped (not repelled) with Russian help. Putin negotiated the Minsk Accords with Macron and Merkel to stop the Ukrainian attacks on the Donbass. Merkel admitted in the past year that the Minsk Accord negotiations were only shams made to gain the Ukrainians time to arm and train their military (because they couldn't stop Russian occupation of Crimea back in 2014). Zelensky ordered Ukrainian military to retake Crimea in the Summer of 2021, which was why Putin began the build-up of forces. Putin knows a lot of history (Have you read anything of his? Or listened to his speeches? I am his age, and I have an M.A. in European History from UCLA, and I have to admit that Putin knows as much as me. I will never forget his address to the Poles about the August 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact, when he commented that it was merely the last "non-aggression" treaty with Germany, when Poland had already signed the first (Beck Treaty in 1935). Recently Putin made a long speech out of his anger with himself for the inadequate military operation, and how the Russian people want him to press the war more aggressively. He reassured Poland (and Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania) that Russia will not guarantee Western Ukrainian (Ruthenian) territorial integrity (especially what Stalin had annexed at the end of WWII) against them. Russia is interested only in the destruction of the Ukrainian military, and does not want the political headache that Western Ukraine posed since Stalin's expansion to the West. Its pure NATO warmonger-propaganda that the Russians intend to invade Western Europe (although Tucker Carlson said to Catturd. that after we blew up the German economy at Nord Strom, what could the Russians do that would be worse?). Please Graham Vincent, inform yourself and stop falling for the head-fake that our MIC keeps making to get more of our money.
How lucky I am to have happened upon such a fount of knowledge. Thank you, J Jack Artz. So, the world is just all running tickety-boo to plan. I'm reassured.
Thank you Graham, a very interesting dialogue. Cutting the basic:: 1) In several online messages, beginning in November and continuing into January (on the platform Twitter) Trump implored his supporters to come to a gathering on January 6, 2021. In itself this was not illegal.
2) during the course of his harangue he implored them, to march to the Capitol, (Congressional Building) to stop the steal; fight like hell; hope Mike Pence was sufficiently loyal to refuse to count the legally sworn Electoral College ballots from the 50 States; fight to keep their country. Free speech is covered by Amendment 1 [incidently, once Amendments are ratified by 3/4 of the States they are then recognized as part of the Constitution and can only be removed by the ratification of another Amendment - this happened once, when Amendment 18 (supporting prohibition of the sale and use of alcohol) was made void by Amendment 21. - Amendment 14 has never been removed in all or part] But freedom of speech ends at inciting and urging an insurrection against your own government.
3) He watched on television for more than 3 hours, while the insurrectionists, attacked the Capitol Police force and members of the DC Metro Police force, injuring some 140 officers of said forces.; smashed windows, broke doors; these insurrectionists desecrated the building; entered the chambers of the House of Representatives, which although the Legislators fled in fear of their lives, was still technically in session for the Ceremonial counting of votes; they then proceeded to break into offices, steal items, including laptops, flags, and anything that struck their fancy. "The word insurrection refers to “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government” 123. It is a serious offense and can lead to severe legal consequences.
4) When Trump was finally prevailed upon to call off his minions he told them "he loved them, and they should go home.
After the Chamber was set in order, that same evening, the ballots were finally counted and accepted by 388 members of Congress. 147 MAGAs voted no.
5) Trump has publicly declared his intention IF HE IS ELECTED to pardon all those who were found guilty of insurrection, except for those who testified against him in the Congressional Hearing.
This is considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In our Country people who destroy Government property, attempt to disrupt a governmental procedure, and steal or desecrate government are considered enemies of the people.
The only reason Trump was not at the Capitol urging his minions on, was the Secret Service detail refused to drive him there. But inciting, directing and encouraging should be sufficient to hold him guilty.
I did watch the entire mess unfold. I happened to be off work that day. I was home in California, so I watched from about 8:30 AM to nearly midnight.
Quite a "comment", Fay: you're clearly a student! Cutting to the basic can, however, obviate the need to examine how it was that you got to the "basic".
Let me respond quickly to your very interesting points.
1) Yes, even if he'd marched down Pennsylvania Avenue with "Ban The Bomb" placards, it would at most have contravened a local police statute.
2) You identify the tipping point here: a demonstration seeks to convey its message as forcefully as possible (within legal bounds).
A harangue is a passionate speech given, typically, at a demo. It sets out the nature of the complaint and uses facts mixed with hyperbole, to fulfil the demo's purpose: convey the message.
"Fight like hell" is, in the end, fairly common parlance. It means "Be determined, do not relent". Even Nelson's semaphore "England expects that every man will do his duty" is a harangue of sorts. Unlike at the Battle of Trafalgar, however, it rarely means "engage in physical blows".
When the invective tipped into actual trespass and blows, was that as a result of the words "fight like hell"?
Maybe. I'm sure the SCOTUS will tell us. And, even if it was, I'm not convinced that the crowd tipped into insurrection and, more so, whether Mr Trump did.
3) Does watching on TV constitute insurrection? Maybe he was frightened he'd get hit; or that, by stopping a demo that had overflowed, he's blamed for starting it (which he wanted to avoid, especially if he believes he didn't start it). Maybe he wanted to see them actually achieve their mission, like watching a moon landing; maybe he was intrigued: "This is getting very interesting!", like with binge-viewing Downton Abbey. Maybe, unwilling to be seen as Delacroix's "Liberté guidant le peuple", he stayed distant to avoid "crime by association."
Hmm, the 3 hours watching TV angle is ... I don't know what it *is*, but is *that* insurrection?
4) "I love you." I really do, Fay, sincerely.
I watched Harvey Fierstein in Torch Song Trilogy the other day. He gives this soliloquy:
"In my life I've slept with more men than are named and numbered in the Bible, Old and New Testaments put together. And not once has someone said, 'Arnold, I love you,' (that I could believe). And I ask myself, 'Do you really care?' You know, the only honest answer I can give myself is, 'Yes. I care. I care a great deal. But not enough.'"
"I love you" is, sadly, as trite as "fight like hell". If pop singers say it to audiences of 20,000 concert-goers, does that make Donald an insurrectionist? Does it make Taylor Swift an insurrectionist?
5) This is kinda the point, isn't it?
If he achieves office again, then, by definition, he is not an insurrectionist. If he isn't, then the others aren't either. Ergo, they SHOULD be pardoned.
If he *is* an insurrectionist, he'll never get to where he can exercise his prerogative of pardon, anyway.
What would make NO sense is for the insurrection argument to be swept from the table, for Trump to assume office and for those in prison to remain there. He doesn't even need to win the election for that logic to apply: if he's allowed to *stand* in the election, those imprisoned on charges of insurrection must be pardoned (for their "insurrection" charges, not the charges of assault and so on). In fact, pardons don't even really come into it (a pardon is for a crime you actually commit; if there was no crime, the conviction is "overturned"). But, remember, insurrection isn't here a criminal charge, it's a finding in fact.
In sum:
Depending on how the light hits it, the insurrection angle can give every appearance of being a smoking gun, a trusty old Smith & Wesson from 1868. But, from other angles, that smoke may just be someone blowing off a little dust.
Thank you, for your considerate reply. We have never met in person so I don't know if I would like you enough to love you as a friend, what I will say is I enjoy your considered and well thought responses.
So in response I will say, Trump only watched the insurrection on TV because his Secret Service detail refused to drive him to the Capitol. We know he had no fear of the insurrectionists, because when the Secret Service Detail tried to prevent armed people (they used magnetometers to identify weapons) from entering the inner circle, Trump angrily responded. they are my people they would not harm me let them in. This also proves he knew they were armed when he sent them (verbally) to the Capitol Building.
Hi we love you, was in the same vein as Taylor Swift telling thousands of people in her live audience that she loves them - all of us (people with a modicum of intellect) know it means I am flattered by your attention. As to the insurrection itself, it was not "peaceful". The insurrectionists used flagpoles with pointed ends to smash windows and glass doors to enter. They forcefully broke doors to enter private offices, and they desecrated the walls with human feces. This is not hearsay on my part. I watched the entire event starting at about halfway through trump's speech, until after the votes were counted and admitted by a majority of 388 to 147 votes. The reason we refer to this as an insurrection instead of a revolution is it was instigated, happened, and ended (at least the violence itself) in the course of one day. It was more than a raid - far, far, more violent than a "peaceful visitation by tourists" hence the term insurrection. Trump and his minions planned for this starting in November when he lost the election. His lawyers filed 61 lawsuits, one was thrown out without hearing, 60 were heard and denied.
He sent at least 3 tweets that I have read encouraging his minions to come to Washington on January 6th - the day the electoral college votes would be ceremonially counted and entered into posterity. It is considered ceremonial because it lacks real meaning, the results were known back in November when the votes were first counted.
His hope apparently, rested on substituting false slates of electoral college votes, why anyone of intelligence would think this would work is beyond me (but I am not an attorney) because the real slates were dutifully signed by the Governor of each State.