British-Trained Soldiers ‘Trounce’ Russian Military In Ukraine; UK-Led Europe ‘Leads’ The US With Operation Interflex

Eurasian Times ^ | 18/5/23 | Prakash Nanda

[Firehath]

for the dnc gays - biden

bakhmut is San Francisco

this is the Russian BORDER

300 miles from moscow

[JonPreston]

They fought to end slavery? Tell that to the Irish ☘️ who they worked to death then starved to death. A true holocaust.

[Eleutheria5]

African slave trade. Look it up. I never said that Britain was a paragon of virtue in all things. I could list the White Paper and the sinking of the Struma just for starters, before going on to the concentration camps in South Africa and the massacre at Amritsar.

But is it your contention that the many past faults of the British empire makes them unfit to offer any help against newly revived Russian imperial aspirations to its present-day victims? Nonsense. If you want to play comparative empires, the Czars and the Soviets can’t shake a stick at Britain vis a vis morality, least of all Vladimir Putin’s kleptocratic dictatorship.

[JonPreston]

Any nation that embraces a eugenicist like Churchill, is racist to the core.

[delta7]

beyond Russian commanders who rely solely on massed artillery.
———
…and Kinzals, cheap drones, thermobarics, unlimited manpower and arms, Wagner group, Kadyrov troops, reverse sanctions, a rising Ruble,etc…..much much more to war than a dwindling supply of effective soldiers. By the way, Vlad did destroy a huge section of our donated Patriot batteries.

https://theduran.locals.com/index.php

[Hiddigeigei]

"Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred."

"Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred."

[Eleutheria5]

Churchill was no eugenicist, and in fact he stood alone against the real eugenicists as they bombed London and threatened the whole world. Oh, and even back then Britain had already been mean to the Irish during the potato famine, so I guess Britain had no right to say ‘boo’ to Hitler’s invasion of Poland, either, according to your twisted view of history. Your splinter-in-the-eye-of-Britain-outweighs-the-beam-in-the-eye of-Russia attitude smacks of CRT and woke-ism, and it stinks.

[PIF]

You keep on spouting Russian propaganda, it becomes you.

[JonPreston]

He certainly was a eugenicist in the mold of his contemporary with that funny little mustache. Look it up or don’t. Ignorance is bliss for many 👍

[Eleutheria5]

I’ve already looked it up a long time ago. He admired Hitler’s revival of the German economy and society, and said so in Berlin to a representative of Hitler with whom he met. But then he told that representative that he found it entirely unacceptable to target an entire people on the basis of their race, explicitly mentioning the Jewish people, at which point Hitler’s representative left Churchill in a huff, leaving Churchill alone at the restaurant at which they had met at his invitation. The Third Reich never again attempted a parlay with then MP Churchill, seeing that he was hopelessly opposed to their world view. I’ve got the entire account, and will give you the book’s author, chapter and verse, when I find it.

But this is all a red herring. Your underlying premise, that Britain’s past misdeeds make them ineligible to say ‘boo’ in world affairs, and should allow Putin to run rampant in Eastern Europe yet again, is the underlying assumption of CRT and woke-ism, which goes as follows: America stole land and exterminated Indian tribes, enslaved blacks, and did racist stuff, so it is fundamentally immoral even today, and had better just shut up and pay reparations, and all white people should wear sack cloth and ashes forevermore.

Britain was once a mighty empire. America is a mighty empire at present. Russia was once a mighty empire. So was France and Rome and Greece and Persia and Babylon. Mighty empires, over the centuries, do many things, some of them great and wonderful, and some of them odious and criminal. But, as deTocqueville points out, nations are not like men. A man who commits crimes must be punished for them, or atone for them, and can’t go on from there. A nation, however, can start anew with each generation, even without tearing down statues of Jefferson and Jackson, or Churchill, all of whom were as complex as the nations they led, and who committed many terrible things, too, in addition to the great things that they undoubtedly did.

So blather on about how evil Britain supposedly is because of the potato famine, the Struma, Amritsar, or whatever. Those were in past generations. Right now, Russia is committing criminal acts and trying to destroy and absorb a smaller nation. Britain can and should help that nation defend itself, racist past or not.

Or, if you want, blather on about Ukrainians collaborating with Hitler, and the statues of Banderas and Khmelnicky. There’s also a monument memorializing the dead of Babi-Yar as well.

There is no moral justification for Putin’s invasion. There is no moral impediment to another nation helping Ukraine defend against Putin’s invasion. Period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XObKJrz8Sjg

[JonPreston]

🧵1. A thread about racism in the British Empire and its denial today:
i. Nationalist-conservative commentators are now arguing a) that British colonialism was not 'essentially' racist, and b) that saying that people of colour were culturally backward ...— Alan Lester (@aljhlester) May 11, 2023

[JonPreston]

Oh, and even back then Britain had already been mean to the Irish during the potato famine

So you describe the enslavement, murder and subsequent forced emigration of Irish peasants is the British being "mean"?

Are there any other holocausts that you deny?

[linMcHlp]

“Ukrainian troops are learning Combined Mobile Breach tactics”

Correct

[JonPreston]

5) Winston Churchill.

Winston Churchill, a giant of the 20th century, was wildly pro-eugenics but ironically became the man who would stand up to Adolf Hitler, the tyrant who brought all the logical conclusions of eugenics into horrific reality.

In a letter, Churchill advocated the sterilization of the "feeble minded and insane."

He wrote: "The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate. I am convinced that the multiplication of the Feeble-Minded, which is proceeding now at an artificial rate, unchecked by any of the old restraints of nature, and actually fostered by civilised conditions, is a terrible danger to the race."

He called sterilization a "simple surgical operation so the inferior could be permitted freely in the world without causing much inconvenience to others."

In February 1911, Churchill urged the House of Commons to introduce compulsory labour camps for "mental defectives." The labor camps would also have plenty of room for "tramps and wastrels," to make them "realize their duty to the State." One of the chief opponents of a similar bill was GK Chesterton.

[Eleutheria5]

You know, I’m not going to bother. Your underlying premise is inherently bogus, for the reasons already stated in my last post. I invited you to yammer on, if you want, so you do. Even assuming that Churchill at one time advocated labor camps and forced sterilization for the feeble minded, as did SCOTUS at one time, you have failed to support your fake conclusion, that therefore Britain is so racist, they better just let Russia run roughshod over Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe. You don’t even address that point, because you can’t.

Forgive me if I’m getting short tempered, but I posted an article about training being provided in the UK and EU, and how this is giving Ukraine an edge on the battlefield, and you can’t get your head around that highly-relevant substance, because you have a bug up your a@@ about Churchill. I wish you and that bug a happy life in the past, yammering to your heart’s content.

[Eleutheria5]

But so long as you mention it, forced labor camps for tramps and wastrels, as well as illegal immigrants sounds like a wonderful idea for this age, even though Churchill was advocating it back in 1911. It would definitely improve the inner cities of major metro areas. Go, Churchill!

[Eleutheria5]

You’re giving dullards a bad name, Preston. That’s called “ironic understatement,” and I use it quite a lot. Makes me feel more British, eh, wot;-?

[BroJoeK]

JonPreston: "Winston Churchill, a giant of the 20th century, was wildly pro-eugenics but ironically became the man who would stand up to Adolf Hitler, the tyrant who brought all the logical conclusions of eugenics into horrific reality."

From this article on the subject.

Eugenics had its day in the sun, in the early 1900s it was state-of-the-art science, positing that "mental deficiencies" were strictly genetically caused and therefore preventing the "mentally deficient" from reproducing would increase a country's overall wellbeing.

Many in the USA believed it, resulting in over 60,000 sterilizations from 1907 to 1981.
The Brits estimated they had 120,000 "mentally deficient" people and some proposed they should be forcibly sterilized.
One of those in 1911 was a rising young politician named Winston Churchill, then Home Secretary.
And for several years the Brits considered several different proposals, and found sterilization was strongly opposed by the church and other religious leaders.
Finally Parliament decided against sterilization and in favor of confinement, depending on how severe each condition was.

In the many years since, the whole idea of eugenics has been discredited as, first of all, junk science and second, unethical.
But in the early 1900s it had its day and sparked the imaginations of many who wanted to improve the lives of their fellow countrymen & women.
In the US it led to over 60,000 sterilizations and in Germany... well...
The Brits took a few years to think it over, and after Churchill had moved on from the Home Office to become First Lord of the Admiralty, they decided sterilization was not the right answer, and that confinement would depend on individual conditions.

So, by the time Churchill met with Hitler's representative in Berlin, in 1932, Churchill's scientific and ethical world had moved on past eugenics, just as the political realm was about to demonstrate what a ghastly horror it really is.

[Eleutheria5]

He wants to change the subject to how horrible England is because of some of the many horrible things that they did, without acknowledging any of the wonderful things that England did, because:

1. He's a paid Putin shill;
2. He's obsessed with the Irish potato famine, and can't get past it, due to the fact that his ancestors were in it;
3. Both of the above; or
4. He thinks I'm making light of England's past misdeeds, even though I've made it clear that I am not.

I stand by my prior conclusion, which should have sufficed for the entire argument, except that he either never read it, or is studiously ignoring it. Either way, here it is again:

But this is all a red herring. Your underlying premise, that Britain’s past misdeeds make them ineligible to say ‘boo’ in world affairs, and should allow Putin to run rampant in Eastern Europe yet again, is the underlying assumption of CRT and woke-ism, which goes as follows: America stole land and exterminated Indian tribes, enslaved blacks, and did racist stuff, so it is fundamentally immoral even today, and had better just shut up and pay reparations, and all white people should wear sack cloth and ashes forevermore.

Britain was once a mighty empire. America is a mighty empire at present. Russia was once a mighty empire. So was France and Rome and Greece and Persia and Babylon. Mighty empires, over the centuries, do many things, some of them great and wonderful, and some of them odious and criminal. But, as deTocqueville points out, nations are not like men. A man who commits crimes must be punished for them, or atone for them, and can’t go on from there. A nation, however, can start anew with each generation, even without tearing down statues of Jefferson and Jackson, or Churchill, all of whom were as complex as the nations they led, and who committed many terrible things, too, in addition to the great things that they undoubtedly did.

So blather on about how evil Britain supposedly is because of the potato famine, the Struma, Amritsar, or whatever. Those were in past generations. Right now, Russia is committing criminal acts and trying to destroy and absorb a smaller nation. Britain can and should help that nation defend itself, racist past or not.

Or, if you want, blather on about Ukrainians collaborating with Hitler, and the statues of Banderas and Khmelnicky. There’s also a monument memorializing the dead of Babi-Yar as well.

There is no moral justification for Putin’s invasion. There is no moral impediment to another nation helping Ukraine defend against Putin’s invasion. Period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XObKJrz8Sjg

Child in need of a CGM system.

https://gofund.me/6452dbf1

Pip pip. Cheerio, Preston. Have a good 'un.

[Eleutheria5]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XObKJrz8Sjg

https://gofund.me/6452dbf1