• freagle
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Have you even heard of the Boeing 737? There’s an entire wikipedia entry just on one model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_737

    I like how you have to resort to future casting from a WaPo article as opposed to just leaving the content of that propaganda rag to stand on it’s own though. Also, is your point that the West is engaged in collective punishment of civilians through sanctions? Because as the article you referenced says.

    “Of course sanctions affect flight safety,” said Russian aviation analyst Andrei Menshenin in an interview. “They can’t not affect it.”

    It’s really shocking how your reasoning works. The USA, the country with the unilateral power to collectively punish nearly 80% of the world’s human population can’t produce healthy aircraft. Meanwhile, the civilian population of Russia purchases those planes on false USian promises of quality, and then the USA enacts collective punishment on those civilians by denying them the ability to buy parts for the US made aircraft which are made like garbage, and you think that’s evidence that Russia is not doing well? You even put it up against literally the ability to make steel in one of the world’s two dominant historical steel centers (Germany is the other one).

    You’re a hoot.

      • freagle
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Ah the false equivalency of the unreasonable metaphor. What a useful technique to avoid your rhetorical failings.

              • ☭ 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗘𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 ☭A
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                17
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                The West stole 300 billion dollars and imposed illegal “sanctions”, after which Russia decided not to return a few planes; quite a difference in scale. And yes, “freezing” money is still theft – if you steal something and refuse to return it, “I promise I won’t do anything with it” is not a valid excuse

                  • ☭ 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗘𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 ☭A
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    14
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    “Permissible”? Not according to international law, but if your adversaries completely ignore the law and receive no punishment for doing so, why should you continue to follow it? (Worth noting that Russia kept NordStream open despite the sanctions because they wanted to honour contracts with European countries, despite the latter’s hostility)

          • freagle
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            factual terms

            industrial sector dropping by 2% in 2023

            It’s just little data points

            Make up your mind. You don’t get to decide which facts matter and which don’t. Every fact you’ve thrown out has been devoid of the critical context. Every fact I’ve thrown out you have said “doesn’t matter because it isn’t the right fact”.

            I’m interested in your explanation for this: When everything kicked off, Russia simply kept any airliners it had leased, effectively stealing them from the West.

            You’re right, Russia should have returned every one of those planes immediately. What a doofus you are.

            That’s a big part of why they’re fucked on maintenance, because any goodwill they might have had to get some help keeping them in the air is permanently gone

            No you fuckwit. It’s the sanctions. Goodwill doesn’t allow US companies to sell parts to Russia under fucking sanctions.

            The West is still examining the legal options for confiscating frozen Russian sanction-money and using it to fund the war, but it hasn’t done so yet. Why not? How would you compare and contrast these two actions (assuming that you acknowledge them both as reality)?

            LOL, sanction-money. You’re so delusional. The West is still trying to figure out if it should STEAL the money and assets of Russian citizens that were held in accounts in Western institutions. It hasn’t done so because it has no international legal basis for doing so, and if they did it would open up precedent for retaliation by every colonized country in the world to seize US assets. That money, however, while not seized, is still frozen, so from the Russian perspective it literally doesn’t matter because the assets are unusable while they remain frozen. The USA is not doing it because of a desire to maintain goodwill. They already collectively punished Russian citizens by freezing the assets. The seizure would create so much backlash from the rest of the world, it’s a self-preservation technique. Seizing assets in German institutions would actually violate the German constitution.

            You’re the one constantly trying to craft narratives from decontextualized facts. It blows my mind that you don’t see it.

              • freagle
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                What was the international legal basis for keeping the planes?

                HOW DO YOU RETURN PLANES DURING A HOT WAR? Listen to your fucking self. The legal basis for keeping the planes is that LEASES are nothing but contracts and international contract law relies on good standing between the parties. Without a court that would be willing to actual rule on the contracts, the contracts are essentially nullified during a hot war and it will only be AFTER the war that the winning court system will decide on how to proceed with the violation of a private agreement across international borders with completely different legal regimes.

                like I say, I think this style of argumentation is mostly a waste of time.

                It is, but not for the reason you believe, though.

                I came in more or less agreeing with you on a topic we should be roughly on the same side of, but you clearly don’t want that – I think you just want someone to play to role of your enemy so you can be hostile at them.

                You’re psychologizing me, creating a fantasy of who am I and how I think and what I want so that you can make sense of why someone would be so irate with someone like you, who clearly has faults but never really deserves to be pushed so hard, because your heart is in the right place. Fuck off.