Posts by loneskipper3

Mexicans are whining about how their Russian brothers aren't looking out for them anymore—as if they haven't realized that watching the Ukrainians actually come out on top proves they might have dodged a bullet after all. 😁

bonaventuraduda As I was saying:
Let’s be realistic here—the forces mobilized for an offensive, numbering somewhere in the ballpark of 150,000 to 170,000 soldiers, simply aren't enough to actually "conquer" a country of this scale. It just isn't mathematically feasible. But then again, looking at the broader strategic picture, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that total conquest wasn't even the primary objective to begin with, was it?

The only thing that’s abundantly clear at this point—if we're being honest with ourselves—is that things are absolutely not going according to plan.

The ultimate objective here is to keep Kyiv under constant pressure—to squeeze them just enough that both that comedian and his boxer buddy finally decide to back off and save their people and their country.

Komedijas was elected by the people—and right now, he’s busy running for his life through pure chaos. It’s a tragicomedy playing out in real time, with the clown sitting in the Kremlin, though I honestly couldn't tell you whose seat is shaking harder at this exact moment.

Does everything really require an "occupation" of all of Ukraine? One has to wonder if the scale of the response is ever actually proportional to the situation at hand.

It’s a necessity—because clearly, whether you’re looking at the South or the East, there isn't a single soul willing to buckle under a Russian boot, let alone in the heart of the country or out West.

Furthermore, let’s be honest—nobody actually has a clear line of sight on what is happening on the ground right now. It’s all guesswork and speculation. And that brings us to a rather striking realization: unlike the pattern we saw with American interventions in places like Iraq or Syria, this situation introduces a completely new variable that we haven't dealt with before.

During those initial days of American wars, things were nothing short of chaotic—absolute mayhem, really. It’s one of those situations where the fog of war is thick enough to cut with a knife. Honestly, the longer you wait and let the dust settle, the clearer the picture becomes; you finally start to grasp what is actually happening once the immediate madness subsides.

It would be incredibly naive to swallow the nonsense being peddled by our mainstream news outlets—those pundits who seem convinced that because this operation isn't unfolding exactly according to their predictable little scripts by day three, it somehow isn't going according to plan.

It is frankly naive to believe that a limited "military operation against a fascist regime"—which supposedly isn't directed at a brotherly people—could ever actually look like this.

You don't just wake up one morning and decide to pull off an operation like this—it isn't something that gets sketched out on a napkin over coffee. A maneuver of this magnitude requires at least three to four weeks of meticulous, behind-the-scenes planning.

Even Putin can't seem to manage even a single month of sustained warfare against his "brotherly" neighbors in Ukraine.

Even back in Chechnya—during that second war that the Russians eventually won—it didn't even last five or six days...

It ended up dragging on five times longer than anyone had originally anticipated—and if you ask me, the sheer scale of the destruction was easily ten times worse than what was initially projected.

It seems the Russians haven't even begun to roll out their second or third waves of assault forces just yet—if my read on the situation is correct.

It’s the truth. Honestly, the Russians haven't even begun their offensive against those regions where people are fighting most fiercely to avoid living under the Russian boot.

Will they actually push all the way into the heart of Kyiv? And if they do, are they planning to just hold them there in a sort of encirclement? Honestly, at this stage, nobody really knows.

The downtown core should have been under their control by now—every single unit was focused on hitting that specific objective as quickly as possible. And honestly, let’s be real: seizing control of the capital's center is pretty much the textbook first step for any "military operation" aimed at toppling a "fascist regime." It’s all part of a lightning strike strategy where time is the one thing the Russians simply can't afford to lose.

When it comes to casualties, let’s be realistic—there are losses on both sides. This is a war, after all, not a ballet recital.

It’s a tragedy, really.

Kevin Murphy7 said:Mexicans posted a video showing Russians being crucified on a cross
Anyone seen any proof this clip is actually legit?
It's blowing up on Twitter right now, no clue why it hasn't been taken down yet

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me one bit; in every single war, psychopaths from both sides inevitably find their playground.

Betty Carter3 said:I’ve already asked where those Ukrainian psychiatric wards from Femen are located—I mean, are they getting equal representation on the front lines too?

Perhaps you should be asking why the women from the soldier mother organization are barely even heard in Russia anymore—despite how influential and media-savvy they used to be.

bluemason3 said:Between Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and the Israeli Prime Minister, we’ve had plenty of female leaders in the modern era. If you look back through history, there are enough examples to go around. They haven't led nearly as many wars, mostly just because they haven't been in power as long, but honestly, most of the claims about that are just baseless myths.

The reality is that both Thatcher and Meir certainly showed their teeth once they were provoked—think the Falklands or the Yom Kippur War.

Joseph Clark95 said:If you look at how things played out in Syria and then compare it to what’s happening in Ukraine, it becomes painfully obvious what "the West" actually means when they talk about "democracy."
The constant stream of propaganda and fake news being pumped into the airwaves—and the endless denials that follow—isn't just noise. It's a calculated media war designed to shape public opinion and justify their colonial ambitions.

Between the staged scenes on Snake Island, the convoys of charred remains coming out of the Azov region, and the actual reality on the ground...

Ukraine is doing everything in its power to drag the whole of Europe into this conflict, but more importantly, they want to pull the neutral Ukrainian population along with them.
To pull that off, they need civilian casualties. They need those classic propaganda pamphlets—think of the chemical attack narratives used in Syria—and an army of internet trolls to flood the web with lies.

Putin’s biggest challenge here is resolving this crisis without sacrificing neutral Ukrainians and actually returning Ukraine to the Ukrainians.
It’s a localized conflict that is costing the Russians lives, but if this turns into a full-scale confrontation, we’re looking at a massive restructuring of borders—maybe even a literal takeover of Ukraine, depending on how many Ukrainians decide to side with Russia.

And predictably, the usual script from Ukraine: "We’ll retake Crimea, we’ll liberate Donbas, we’ll defend Kyiv."
Crimea is Russia, Donbas is Russia. Let's just keep watching...

And who exactly is stopping you from spreading nonsense on social media? Have you actually tried living under the press restrictions in Russia or China? (And let’s be honest, when they report on things like Syria, the coverage is often nothing short of catastrophic.)

Michelle King2 said:Index really needs to start facing some draconian penalties for this kind of nonsense—and I don't just mean regarding this Ukraine-Russia conflict, but in general.

It’s especially egregious when you consider how they unearth two or three massive corruption scandals every single year, not to mention the blatant cronyism that seems to happen on a near-daily basis. Honestly, how are people supposed to keep embezzling millions or carving out cushy government jobs for their cousins and buddies if they can't be certain that some investigative journalist won't eventually sniff it out?

Justin Kern67 said:This simply serves as further evidence of how the Russians act as brutal occupiers, aggressors, and killers.

Brutal occupiers? Well, yes—because wherever the boot of Putin's soldier lands, prosperity and freedom tend to vanish instantly. I mean, really, what exactly is your grievance? Why shouldn't we be throwing flower petals at the troops of this Moscow despot?

Gustavo said:If this wraps up within a month or two, it would be an incredible win for Russia—and a massive headache for the entire West.

The supposed "liberators" from addicts and fascists should have been greeted with flowers by their own kin—instead, we're looking at a grueling two-month struggle where a major superpower is fighting a much smaller neighbor, which apparently counts as a victory for Russia.😁

Joseph Cruz said:I’m reading reports suggesting that Zelenskyy has supposedly ordered a withdrawal from the Donbas to bolster defenses around Kyiv and Kharkiv. Doesn't that strike anyone else as a questionable move? They seem to have established solid, entrenched positions in the Donbas, but if they abandon those fortifications to move out onto open roads or exposed terrain, won't they just become much easier targets for the Russians?

They need to regroup—honestly, if they actually can pull off regroupping most of their troops, that's arguably good news. Let's be realistic: they aren't in a position to hold the entire country anyway. The priority is to survive as a sovereign state, maintaining control over enough major cities and keeping this government intact. If they can just hold out until the moment when it becomes glaringly obvious to the Russians that the cost is simply too high—whether that takes seven, ten, or fourteen days—then that constitutes a victory and a massive failure for Putin (though, given his track record, I find it unlikely he'll allow that to happen easily).

urbanotter said:Honestly, what's the real difference between a Russian dictatorship and our own version of democracy, where you can't even open your mouth without facing consequences?

Putko might have cleaned things up a bit, but he never even bothered telling the secretary to handle the termination notices or resignations.

And what exactly are we doing here on this forum, then?

Would something like CNN—which seems to uncover one massive scandal every single week—even exist in Russia? Half of their investigative journalists would have been murdered by now—and I mean that quite literally.

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

vividtiger72 said:When was the last time the West even viewed Russia as the good guy? Was it when they dealt with Napoleon? Or back when they pushed the Canadians out of Vienna during the Spring of Nations?

Because 1945 certainly wasn't it, and ever since then... khm. 😁

In Germany, you can find almost daily—it feels constant—these sweeping, romanticized documentaries about Russia. They cover everything: the landscapes, the local characters, even deep dives into German atrocities, followed by three-year-long sagas regarding the agony of Saint Petersburg or Russian heroism. Then, without warning, they pivot back to the Siberian rivers—and I mean there are countless episodes on this, covering the Ob, the Yenisei, the Lena, and the Amur, each one running at least 45 minutes, focusing on the people working the riverboats and such. It’s always paired with that heavy, dramatic-yet-romantic musical score, featuring interesting, likable people, ancient traditions, the Trans-Siberian Railway, and God knows what else—Sakhalin volcanoes, icebreakers in the Arctic Sea, you name it. Honestly, I’ve lost count of how many of these I've watched. No joke, I’d estimate at least 25 just on geography and culture, and if you include the historical ones, we’re looking at another 40—and that’s not even counting all the reruns, which happen constantly since these shows stay in rotation for years.

Justin Kern67 said:Lavrentiy Beria was Georgian. Yagoda and Yezhov were Jews. And how does their responsibility as high-ranking Soviet officials reflect on the Russians of today?

Furthermore, you failed to address the point: if Americans today bear responsibility for Soviet crimes against Poles, why don't Ukrainians also bear responsibility for committing the largest massacre against Poles in history? Believe it or not, that wasn't Katyn.

If we're talking about Katyn, the primary culprit was Russian Bolshevism—plain and simple. But does that somehow dictate the character of modern Russians or Ukrainians? Of course not. You’ve started pulling at threads that don't belong here, trying to link things to Nationalists and Partisans, Roy.

urbanotter said:It will probably happen sooner rather than later.

It isn't really surprising when you take a look at the massive gap in military strength.

And honestly, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that even the Ukrainians themselves aren't exactly eager to lose their lives just to serve someone else's interests.
Now they're talking about mobilizing people over 70,
though I can't help but wonder if this is just more media hype designed to grab headlines.

Primarily, they are acting on their own survival instinct—to ensure they don't spend another fifty years under the boot of the CIA clique. There is zero prosperity under that kind of rule, a fact they understand perhaps even better than Poles or Romanians... who, in turn, know it better than we do, who again, think we know it best.

Just accept it already: you aren't the only people on this planet who have sniffed out the "dirty games" played by global powers. In many other places, the experience with these power plays has been far more painful than what we've seen, yet those nations still maintain their own agency. I realize it might be hard for some to wrap their heads around the idea that a nation could actually renounce its "brotherly" ties to Russia—which, let's be honest, supposedly only wants to "protect" them from Western decadence—especially when the West is viewed by some as merely wanting to use them as "cannon fodder in a war against Russia," or simply as a tool to weaken Russia.

Lukaku vs Lewandowski
Pogba vs Thiago

Who would you even pick to be the chairman of the Communist Party—not that anyone needs to bother checking the polls when the result is always going to be a landslide 99-1.

Before the World Cup even kicked off, folks back in Argentina were making quite the demand—they basically said if Messi wants to be considered a legend in their eyes, he’d have to lead the national team to a championship right there in the shadow of Maradona. It implies that for Messi to truly earn that GOAT status, he has to achieve it away from home. 😁

Larry Allen34 said:I think you’ve posted in the wrong thread—this is an appeal regarding subforum moderation, not a debate over whether something actually exists....

Yeah, my bad. I messed up.

Regarding Bold—I should probably point out that back in the late '70s, Breuss's method was already being practiced by certain doctors in Germany before the whole thing was abruptly shut down because Breuss ended up in court.... What isn't widely known, however, is that all the charges against Breuss were dismissed (it wasn't some major news release, but everyone was talking about it when the trial started) despite the fact that Big Pharma teamed up with the media—essentially acting through the state prosecutor—to go after him. And do you know how those charges were tossed? They were dismissed because his patients showed up in court—the very people he saved—one by one, presenting their diagnoses before therapy and their recovery afterward. I hardly need to mention that many of them would have been considered terminal by medical standards; essentially, mainstream medicine had given up on them...

Oh, really? 😁 Like the guy who was diagnosed with prostate cancer at age 63 (back in 2001)—a condition affecting over 50% of men his age—who then proceeded to sell Breuss's books after trying juice therapy?😁

There you go, since you're such a fan of "facts."

She said... she claimed... and then, with a completely straight face, "facts." 😁

Look, German institutions can be incredibly lenient for historical reasons, and just because a lawsuit fails doesn't mean the defendant's stance or his "method" was ever validated. Years ago, some proponent of alternative medicine publicly declared that there was still no proof of the existence of the measles virus, even offering to pay someone $100,000 if they could show him evidence. A microbiologist presented the proof, leading to a court case where the judges, naturally, confirmed the microbiologist was right—but the defendant wasn't ordered to pay due to technicalities. Of course, that individual had no shame about advertising it as a win for himself, claiming "the court confirmed there is no evidence." 😁

Do you have any serious sources detailing what the actual lawsuit was about, which specific documented cases involve patients he supposedly "saved" with juices 😁, or the actual reasoning behind the court's decision?

- and finally, here is a 2015 study that tested Breuss's doctrine in combination with minimal doses of chemotherapy after decades of being taboo.... and of course, the results are promising....

A "study," you say? This paper hasn't been cited once in three years—well, maybe three times, if you count the author themselves—yet it supposedly contains such sensational content. And the quality of the journal? It’s right up there with those publications used to push agendas for promoted Republicans. 😁

Look, the idea of a diet for a few days prior to chemotherapy isn't exactly groundbreaking or revolutionary; it's based on the biological fact that certain healthy cells reduce their metabolic rate during periods of nutrient deprivation to increase the organism's overall chances of survival. Since tumor cells lack this specific mechanism, they end up consuming more of the cytotoxic drugs while the healthy cells sit tight—which doesn't necessarily boost the efficacy of the chemo itself, but it does improve the damage-to-benefit ratio regarding healthy tissue (that is, of course, a very superficial explanation, given that there isn't just one single type of tumor and there are various types of cytostatics, but I suppose for someone who subscribes to Breuss, it might be considered too detailed). Some studies haven't confirmed this effect, but certain oncologists—in Germany, for instance—have had positive experiences using it as a complementary therapy, so larger studies are being conducted to see whether or not a significant effect can be measured against control groups (just so we don't end up relying on mere hearsay 😁). As for how much this has to do with Breuss's method? About as much as holy water has to do with an energy drink.

Now we just have to wait for the time when someone dares to conduct this under controlled conditions without the use of cytostatics....

It just keeps getting better and better 😁

Look, if someone actually intends to try this without chemotherapy, then they haven't grasped the concept at all—it's like trying to build an electric plane but leaving out the wings. 😁

And as for this perpetual refrain from you people—that chemotherapy doesn't cure severely ill patients—do you honestly think oncologists don't know that? I mean, millions of them worldwide spend ten hours a day dealing with this, and you believe they are all collectively conspiring to hide information just so they can squeeze out more profit? You can find information on any official government health resource—take the German Cancer Information Service, for example—stating that chemotherapy rarely "cures" an advanced-stage tumor in the sense of total eradication; rather, it most often serves to halt or slow growth, or to destroy any remaining traces of a primary tumor after surgery. Chemotherapy is most effective either immediately before or after surgical intervention, provided the discovery is early enough to destroy potential tumor cells that have already migrated from the primary site, thereby preventing metastases (which, at that stage, obviously cannot be diagnosed because they simply aren't visible yet on a CT, MRI, or ultrasound). But again, that depends entirely on the type of cancer, doesn't it? There is no such thing as a singular disease called "cancer." With breast cancer, for example, the decision-making process often hinges on the patient's age or the aggressiveness of the malignancy.

But in that situation, advising a patient to run away from their oncologist or from mainstream medicine is nothing short of criminal. That is why this topic needs to be kept under wraps, and "alternative medicine"—when it is tolerated at all—should really be renamed "complementary." If you ask me, it should be renamed "Middle Ages medicine, voodoo, and hocus pocus."

As for the pharmaceutical industry—yes, it certainly possesses some mafia-like structures. For instance, only one in six new drugs actually demonstrates scientifically proven efficacy that is superior to existing medications for the same purpose (most of these are just so-called "lifestyle pills" targeting things like libido and other trivialities). Now, don't go drawing the conclusion from that fact that several million people—or let's say hundreds of thousands of researchers at universities, institutes, and within the pharma industry itself—are hiding something from us so effectively that even the most powerful people, billionaires, and influential politicians, along with their own children, die of cancer. That would be quite a formidable conspiracy, wouldn't it?

There is still one thing I simply cannot wrap my head around. Have you actually sat down and read a single page of Breuss’s books—or even just his basic maxims? Are you truly aware of how he describes bodily processes, and more importantly, how his followers continue to parrot those exact descriptions today? Honestly, where is the maturity? At this point, claiming aliens built the pyramids sounds more "rational" than what you're doing. Do you realize how much you diminish your own intellectual standing whenever you invoke names like Breuss or Glidden? Seriously, why doesn't someone just pack up and move to a tropical island to run a legitimate study? Take 200 patients—all between 50 and 60 years old, all facing the same type of cancer at a similar stage (and there are plenty of people willing to participate)—and split them up. Let 100 follow Group A, using Breuss's juice protocols, and let 100 follow Group B, utilizing standard medical practice. If they could demonstrate that after five or ten years, the survival rate in Group A is significantly higher than in Group B—with a p-value of at least < 0.05—they wouldn't need to hide. They wouldn't even have to flee; the patients—or rather, the victims—would gladly keep their "treatment" locations a secret if it meant following the trend. They would be celebrated more widely than Newton, Fleming, Koch, or even Einstein. But no—it’s always some obscure book, some hearsay from an old lady, or a handful of patients from 1970s court cases who supposedly "were saved by everything."

If an adult can be this incredibly naive, I really don't know what to tell you.

I accidentally stumbled into the alternative medicine section, and the topic of "cancer treatment" immediately jumped out at me—because, obviously, you wouldn't expect to see something like that permitted on a public forum with this much traffic. My intention was to find some rational discussion regarding alternative health research—you know, those niche fields that have yielded interesting preliminary results but still suffer from small sample sizes or methodological gaps. But what I actually found there? Unbelievable. You have people earnestly citing charlatans like Breuss and "Dr." Glidden (do yourselves a favor and Google them; their pseudo-scientific theories on the human body and healing make religious dogma look modest), all while users on this very forum are handing out advice that is genuinely life-threatening. To any doctor or scientist, it’s painfully obvious that the people posting here haven't even grasped the basics of first-semester biology or chemistry, let alone anything remotely related to actual medicine or the scientific method.

I’m not entirely sure how the laws work here in the States, but it wouldn't surprise me if a major site like Reddit or even a local community board could run into serious legal trouble for providing an unregulated platform to these scammers without any oversight or the long-overdue intervention they clearly need.