A 2% increase of almost nothing is not something to downplay.
A 2% increase of almost nothing is not something to downplay.
I feel as if a decrease from 41.9% to 40.3% is not really indicative of a trend, not yet anyway. It could very well be within the margin of error.
I mean it’s pretty obvious that the Democrats are more in line with what the Republicans were 10-15 years ago.
Honestly, I’m kinda digging the look. Is it functional to have the radio like that?
They already had the Golan Heights. They just yoinked a buffer zone for their buffer zone.
Around 57% of college students polled by China Population News said they did not want to fall in love, mainly because they did not know how to allocate time to balance the relationship between study and love, the publication said.
Is it too much to address this issue?
I mean sure, but redrawing them based on ethnic backgrounds isn’t the way to go either.
Idk that sounds a lot like just creating more regional division. At the end of the day they are all Syrian, regardless of religion or ethnicity. I’m not knowledgeable enough to say your solution won’t work or is a bad idea, just a bit doubtful.
Given HTS historical ties to exteemist groups like Al Qaeda I do hope this is a good thing for all Syrians. Time will tell.
The bounty is still on his head, no?
A promising development for the Shia in the region. I remember this was a big reason Hezbolllah stepped into Syria in 2012 given the importance of the shrine.
I wonder what the new Syria will be like with Israel. How much will they cozy up to them? I feel as if there are a lot of unknowns.
That’s both a powerful and incredibly sombre quote.
Buffer for the buffer. How do you think Israel has been growing for the past 80 years? Taking land one crisis at a time.
Holy shit it’s Jason Bourne.
Unironically, are you dyslexic? You keep saying we say things we haven’t said. If you’re gonna have a discussion with people, please relate to what is actually being said, rather than what you would like had been said instead.
I was referring to this part of the users comment where the user agreed it was an OK source.
Wheatcroft (who you have already cited) and Davies have some good overviews based on thr archives.
I told you wikipedia wasn’t useful. You asked what you should read instead. I gave you some good places to start for a basic education.
And I actually took a brief look at them did I not? I didn’t read every single book you gave me as I didn’t have the time yesterday but I did take a look at some of them.
I then made sure to make it very clear that no single source would every function as a panacea for ignorance
I mean sure and I agreed with you on that but I also pointed out the sources irrelevance on the discussion of Stalins body count which is what we’re actually discussing. I told you, it looked to be an interesting read based on the first few pages and some snippets I’ve read. And I’m sure I’ll learn a lot by reading it, if I ever find the time to do so.
Blackshirts and reds looked go be a much more relevant source to discuss and I actually read a bit of it. Not all of it, admittedly, but enough to get an idea. So once again, thank you for giving me a reading list that hopefully I will actually have time to read one day. I never mentioned it but I did actually save your comment so I can have the list handy.
Yet you keep talking about this interaction as if what happened was that you made some statement like “Stalin ordered the death of 2.7 million people, of which less than half were wehrmacht soldiers. This is found in sources [1] [2] [3]” And I then came in and said “oh yeah, what about source X Y Z?”
Yeah and I looked at some of them. Like I’ve said repeatedly. I literally asked you for them and took a look. I wasnt being sarcastic or rhetorical when asking. I’m not against reading and learning new material so stop pushing that narrative. It’s getting old.
On top of that you, for some reason, lend more credence to second hand sources rather than first hand sources, which is laughable. ON TOP OF THAT the only “source” you’ve posted was a pretty obvious asspull from a wikipedia article, where you didn’t even have the common decency to admit that was what it was.
I never denied that. I admitted to it when you called me out on it here. I decided to use the direct source instead of just quoting wikipedia since you and so many other seemed to have an issue with the site. So I figured this would be more accepted by the majority of people here. I’m not ashamed to say the bulk of what I learned about the USSR and its history is from wikipedia. And I never pretended to be some expert on the topic. All I said was some off-handed comment on Stalin killing a lot more than CEOs which sparked this whole discussion. And when asked on where I learned it I openly said wikipedia. I never tried to hide or deny that fact.
What? You haven’t quoted any numbers my guy
I was talking about this comment. I realize I wasn’t replying to you but you stepped in and replied to it so I figured you’d know what I was talking about.
You’re being incredibly unspecific, as it serves your agenda to be so.
I’m really not. I literally told you exactly where and how I got my understanding of Stalin and why I think the way I did. You said I should read alternate sources, so I asked what. You gave them to me. I took a look at them and said they’re good reads but they don’t exactly contradict what I was saying. You and others have mentioned that there was additional context that could be gleamed from reading these books and I never denied that. At most I said, to another user, that even after learning said context it wouldn’t exactly invalidate my statement or change it.
He killed a lot of political rivals or potential rivals as well as military figures. There was the Purge that happed in the late 30s. He didn’t just kill Nazis.
Not a lawyer, but isn’t this circumstantial at best? Unless there’s more to the document than this.