Alph

8 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

They're gaslighting the rest of the world akin to those same people who are still flailing about blaming 'NATO expansionism' without seemingly possessing the first understanding of the difference between offensive and defensive realism in International relations. NATO expansionism as a threat only makes sense if you believe Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, Poland, Romania etc. are actually threats against Russia.. something which pretty much everyone knows to be more than a dubious proposition. It makes far more sense that these countries are joining for defensive purposes due to both historical and increasingly present threats that have and are being made against their sovereignty.

You've also got the tricky situation of nation-state sovereignty... a principle that has been enshrined internationally for a little while. There are very few reasons why a state may be presumed internationally to cede its sovereignty (aggression against its neighbours, crimes against humanity, genocide, and ethnic cleansing) and joining NATO is definitely not one of them. Putin cannot and should not be allowed to dictate if other countries want to join what is in that area of the world a defensive alliance. Again, I'm not sure why this is hard to grasp for some people but seemingly it is. 

Ditto with the 'but we invaded Iraq' crew who can't seem to grasp the difference between a war that may have lacked international support and been legally questionable and an outright annexation of a democratic neighbour for the purposes of territorial expansionism. Those two things are not legitimate equivalent actions in any way shape or form. The equivalent would have been in Trump had invaded Mexico on the pretence that Americans were being discriminated against and really wanted to be part of America. This is how bad Putin's actions are. 

No it wouldn't. For all your talk of wrong comparisons that's a shocker. 

The 'we invaded Iraq crew' didn't make comparisons between the objectives of each war. Only that both are disgusting invasions. 

Keep implying everybody that doesn't agree with you must be dumb. You're wearing that arrogance well. 

I noticed when Highgate pointed out the bombing of the Al Jazeera tower that you pointed straight to the small print (which by the way was as pathetic excuse as some of Putin's claims) 

I guess the Gulf Of Tonkin incident didn't happen because somebody from America said it didn't too

Thank God America are in Nato to stop a country that uses chemical weapons and has a total disregard for civilians from joining. 

This is why the thread went off to the points Putin has made/people saying others are apologists or justifying the invasion

Nato aggression is a thing. 

I note that now there's talks how Donbas needs to hold a referendum for independence. Are we going to pretend it's the first time? 

"What is wrong with my battery!!!

Nothing. 

THERE IS!!"... 

Won't lie, hearing Verstappen do his teenager's bedroom door slamming voice is a touch satisfying. 

2 hours ago, Ramarena said:

True, I think the west may end up doing business with Russia by proxy if China props up Putin in the way he’s asking. 

I think Xi will be relatively content with how things have gone, he will now be looking to navigate the path between utilising Russias desperation and keeping the west onside. Not an easy task, but a very profitable one if he gets it right!

Yeah 100%

This has played out very well for China. 

1 hour ago, Ramarena said:

The west must also not turn its back and return to more normal relations either. We just stay on high alert.

They'll end up in bed with China/ Saudi Arabia instead. Who will do business with Russia

On 18/03/2022 at 11:06, PistoldPete said:

The problem with America being the most powerful nation in the world is that this does bring a lot of responsibility. If America and the west does nothing then bad things happen. If they get involved they get criticised . Damned if they do damned if they don’t.

Plenty of bad things happen when America do get involved. 

A nation constantly in military conflicts and funding it's agenda through proxy wars that has an alarming disregard for civilian casualties shouldn't get to play world police. 

It's a good job they get to write the news and tell the stories in Hollywood.

On 16/03/2022 at 13:59, AndyinLiverpool said:

I don't know who Christian Horner is (some relation of Little Jack?) but I'm guessing the comparison is an unflattering one.

Imagine a man who's extremely successful due to his tireless work ethic and his determination to be the best. 

Well, forget that guy and imagine man who's extremely successful due to his spitefulness and bitterness and his determination to rub everyone's noses in the dirt in the hope that it will make him feel good (spoiler! It never does). 

You've got one bullet. Putin or Gibson?

You thought about it for a split second though, dintya?

1 minute ago, Tyler Durden said:

That's because they are playing in the Premiership and have won the Champions League, Europa League and Premiership title in the past 5-6 years. We're haven't been in the Premiership for the last 15 odd years we are just insignificant.

Sunderland whom have been in League 1 for the past 4 years have far higher levels of support than we do but they are even less significant. People don't give a rats ass unless you're in the Premiership end of.

Morris tried that and stuck all his money (and other people's coincidentally) on red and it came up black, happy days. 

No buyer is interested in a club with history or a decent fanbase especially if they are doomed to enter League 1 with no squad and you're paying for the debts that someone else decided to rack up then piss off without honouring. 

You'd have to be totally off your rocker. And people moan about Quantuma and why the takeover is taking too long. Really?

Depressing that I agree. 

So they're kidnapping the odd mayor or two. 

Spare a though for the conscript that draws the Vitali Klitschko straw

1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Why has Russia introduced a narrative now about chemical weapons?

If there's deployment of Syrian /Arab fighters on behalf of Russia, should nato intervene....tit for tat

Why is our government such a disgrace about the refugee system. Was it true that "extra home office resources deployed in calais"  turned out to be a couple of junior staff at a table handing out kit kats and crisps? 

Possibly to justify any future use or possibly just another threat and pressure on Zelensky. Russian media is running stories on biolabs in Ukraine. So yeah, it's like chess being playing by a moron

Too many threats being made for Nato to intervene. Russia said it will be a declaration of war. They went down the route of Nato attack - ww3 - ww3 eventually leads to Nuclear war. Of course this is just logical thinking and not at all a threat. Nope. Not a threat at all. Nuh huh. No sir. 

If Nato intervene any more than they have then we have to be prepared to go to war. Britain has to be prepared to go to war with Russia. And this isn't the other side of the world. This is a war that we wouldn't be able to just pick up on the news. It could have huge consequences for every one of us. Should we risk it for Ukraine? 

What do you mean we are a disgrace?

All we're asking is that these Ukranians fleeing their country being bombed into oblivion is that they log in online with all necessary proof of how long they've lived in Ukraine, what family they have here, upload all necessary documents, create an appointment, be up to date on their jabs and then please hold the line you are number... 1,960,836... in the queue. Our operators are currently experiencing technical difficulties and will be with you shortly. 

Anyway, Russia has offered to take them. ?‍♂️

Looking at some of the videos. 

We've got Ukrainian soldiers beating and executing a civilian in the street. Are they Ukranian soldiers?

We've got a "Russian tank" swerving to run over a civilian car (with someone inside). The tank actually seems to be Ukranian armored vehicle and the full video shows it to be in combat with another Ukranian armored vehicle. Both firing at each other the whole time.

Then transport truck being driven by a Ukranian soldier being shot at by Ukranian soldiers who obviously think he's a Russian saboteur. 

Both sides accuse each other of using the evacuation corridors to advance. 

Russia are suggesting that Ukraine are framing them. Ukraine are suggesting that its Russian saboteurs. 

@rammieibmentioned why can't Nato intervene on the basis of War Crimes. And I think someone from the UN put forward a plan of US troops going in purely for humanitarian aid. But it seems such a mess and so much information coming out that can't be confirmed. 

I don't see how US or UN troops can be deployed and it not be a declaration of war. The chances of them ending up fighting Russian or "Ukranian" infantry is extremely high in urban combat. 

It's pretty clear that talk of Nuclear weapons is a thinly veiled threat if Nato intervene in that capacity. They responded to Liz Truss by mobilising (or whatever they called it) their nuclear deterrent. Then Lavrov said WW3 must be avoided as it would end up a Nuclear war. These are threats surely?

1 hour ago, David said:

I agree with a lot of what you have written in this topic, the only thing I would disagree with you on is the timing of when to discuss previous innocent victims of war.

A school or hospital being bombed in Kabul, Palestine is no different to one in Kyiv, targeted or accidental, it’s horrific and should never happen and I’m sure nobody would disagree with that.

As the owner of this forum I have to acknowledge my role in preventing discussions such as these at the time as I introduced a ban on political discussions, the forum has developed far beyond the vision I had and wasn’t prepared enough to moderate effectively. Poor old Gboro was left to handle it on his own as some of the moderators were tired of the arguments that take place, and still are.

The existence of this topic is from a vote that took place in the moderators room, a vote that was very close I should add.

You will be well aware that prior to this war we removed your Palestine profile picture, not as I support the actions of Israel, it was done under the rules at the time, rules which are still in place now and need reviewing with the moderating team to make an exception for wars and other conflicts that are taking place globally.

Celtic were punished for the fans show of support for Palestine, whilst now we have players walking out draped in Ukraine flags, the hypocrisy is there for all to see, why? I don’t know, but I do know that as the owner of this forum I will as I say review the rules with the moderation team to allow topics where the situation in Palestine can be discussed, even if it means adding to the moderation team people with an interest those discussions.

The here and now of this topic, when a maternity hospital in Ukraine is bombed, it’s a development in a current war where the ripples have already reached our shores with the economic sanctions in place. 

It’s a development that may push NATO a step closer to taking military action, which in turn increases the threat of this turning into a nuclear war, that would be the natural path of this discussion rather than simple Putin is bad back patting.

It’s a threat that saw a demand for this topic to be allowed and this is why you are seeing the accusations of whataboutery.

Leave it with me and I will work on allowing you separate topics to discuss Palestine and other conflicts, whilst allowing those that are here to discuss the situation in Ukraine rather than the previous actions of America.

By the way, you will definitely be refused that Visa if anyone from the offices over there read this topic! 

I apologise if i have come across insensitive. 

And I agree I overstepped the mark. 

Obviously it curls my stomach seeing what's happening in Ukraine and I shouldn't be using this to shine the light on America/West/Nato conflicts elsewhere at different times. It never seems the right time to talk about it anywhere. Not to grab the attention of enough people. But yeah, now isn't that time and I'll stop. 

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

I don't accept that everything is a matter of opinion, there are such things as facts and there are some opinions that have no grounding in logic or reasonable assumptions which therefore are given less weight.  I have to judge arguments and regularly mark students' work which requires me to say certain opinions are poorly developed or argued, the logic is faulty and/or the evidence doesn't stack up. Sometimes, I have to say something is incorrect because sometimes some statements and views are simply flat out wrong.  I specifically corrected you on a list you made and gave details for why you were wrong on each claim, you just ignored it and began a similar line of argumentation later on in the thread. 

I don't believe it's right or balanced or fair-minded to compare the Russian annexation of a sovereign territory that they don't recognise and want to claim as their own whilst they deliberately targeting nurseries and hospitals with the invasion of Iraq. I don't believe that's fair-minded or nuanced but is the worst kind of pseudointellectual whataboutery masquerading as a mature opinion. You are entitled to hold it, and I am entitled to call it out and say I'm not surprised that the false equivalences are once again being delivered and crucial differences between events are being ignored. 

I don't believe your kind of consequentialism is helpful. There is massive moral difference between a deliberate attack on a hospital aimed to inspire terror and an accidental bombing of a hospital for instance. I simply asked for evidence for the American drone actions that what you claimed was deliberate as well, again you never responded directly but decided to post that I don't accept other opinions. Deliberately targeting a hospital is a tactic and that will happen again and again as it's a matter of policy and is constituted a war crime. An accidental attack that is conducted either because of bad intelligence or a weapon gone awry that is not a policy is not an equivalent action for me. 

The list I gave was a list of military conflicts USA has directly been involved in since WW2. I said some of them have fair reasons directly underneath the list. Some, like Iraq, do not. 

I don't support Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Never have. I do however understand why Putin sees threats to Russian security. That's doesn't justify a war. Just like Blair and Bush had no justification for the Iraq war. 

His disregard for civilian life is sickening. But you're choosing to say he's purposely targeting hospitals. I'm not sure if he is, but for arguments sake I'll go with it. 

But then you're saying that's different from American weapons gone awry. From accidental civilian deaths

I agree. 100%

But I don't think you can call civilian deaths accidental if they're targeted strikes at a hospital, believed without proof, that Taliban fighters are being treated there along with children and civilians. That's not an accident. That's collateral damage. And they acted on that without proof and killed only civilians. 

The same with the aid worker. They had bad intel. They acted on bad Intel. And again, collateral damage. 

America is absolutely no stranger to war crimes. You can find any number of them and the huge criticism internationally at America's attempt to cover them up.

So yes, I accept weapons gone awry is unfortunate. But there are hundreds of instances made public by the New York Times that shows an absolute blatant disregard for civilians in it's military strikes

It's comparable because we aren't talking about accidental deaths. 

As for the whataboutism. I addressed into my response to Eddie.

I do understand the "whataboutism" when it comes to what happens during war. We are going off topic on that and bringing up a hospital in Kabul after todays tragedy is insensitive. The point I made and the only point I wished to make was that "this is war" and I hope we hold our own leaders up to such scrutiny. 

Because as a pro Palestinian supporter and with a general interest in the Middle East conflicts I've seen all these tragedies/conflicts unfold without international condemnation on anything like this level. So, I admit there's a part of me that is "well what about when..." 

But our world doesn't really stop to talk about any of this. So while Putin is pointing the finger at American aggression in the world then I felt that it is worth bringing it up.

Obviously he's doing it to justify his war. That's the problem 

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Good old whataboutism can always be relied on.

I'm not interested in debating the whys and wherefores. I leave that to those who claim to 'understand the reasons behind the conflict'.

No, not "whataboutism" 

Nobody here is justifying the invasion. You've said that 4 times now and it's still not true. 

Putin has given reasons for invading Ukraine. I've not seen anybody agree that his reasons are good enough. For the 4th time. 

However, we have discussed IF his concerns actually have something behind them. And that is debatable. That doesn't mean if you recognise some of his concerns that you support his reaction. It doesn't. I know you'd like to pretend it does so you can come for a 5th time suggesting people are supporting his war. But it doesn't. 

Nato expansion is real. Proxy wars are real. And those are in discussion. 

On the Western side you have America that has 750 military bases in 80 countries. It has been in conflict for 91% of its existence and has been directly involved in almost 400 military conflicts. This threat, this expansion, this world power is entirely relevant to Putin's claims. It's not "whataboutism". It's relevant discussion to the thread. Otherwise the thread is nothing more than news updates you can get from BBC. 

You're not into debating other perspectives? Well it's a good job the people in power are because otherwise we'll be in WW3. There needs to be an understanding. 

When is a good time to mention the thousands upon thousands of civilians killed by America? When is a good time to bring up these war crimes? Never? Feck the Middle East? Feck the Palestinians humanitarian aid as USA sends billions to Israel? No, I'm sure you don't think like that. 

So, if you've witnessed the utter carnage brought upon people by American direct and indirect military conflicts then now, while people are in touch with the human cost of war, would be a good time to mention the Napalm strikes, Agent Orange, Atomic bombs, hospitals, schools, community centers bombed, the capture and torture of the likes of Abu Zubaydah, the drone strikes that kill only civilians.

Because we all agree this war in Ukraine is wrong. So there's little point to keep patting each other on the back in agreement. 

But does Putin raise some valid concerns? That is something we can discuss. And are doing until someone comes along pretending that if you say "yes" then you're loving Ukrainian kids being bombed. 

What do we do with our warmonger? We call him "sir"

100% if you felt double standards were being applied to you, you would question it. That's not whataboutism. That's understanding the rules we're playing by. 

So when Putin talks about liberating the Donbass republics who voted for independence and he talks about activity such as that by Azov Battallion... we call that ******** excuses. But when America goes to war in Vietnam then it's to fight for democracy and freedom. Nothing to do with fear of communist domino effect America feared and the controversial Gulf of Tonkin incident. 

America and Russia have opposed each other since the Dinosaurs. They oppose each other in conflicts all across the globe over the decades. They're enemies. It's surely all relevant? The Cuban Missile Crisis is relevant. You say whataboutism... yes, West and East have been playing this game forever. It's all relevant. 

Russia can not allow enemies to infiltrate Ukraine any more than America can allow it in Cuba or Vietnam. 

And I still think invading Ukraine was insane. But we will all understand WHY he did it. Because Ukraine will be neutral, it won't be Nato, DPR and LPR will be annexed/become Russia. Crimea too. It will be controversial. But that's the why. 

Is it Russia's Vietnam? I dunno. I'm not smart enough to answer 

12 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Because some have been posting those kinds of equivalences throughout this topic, conflating things that can't be conflated and either deliberately or accidentally posting the same stuff even once it's been corrected. 

I genuinely think you don't accept some opinions. 

The Iraq war was an unnecessary war. It was deemed unnecessary in an inquiry. It cost Iraq 13,000 civilian lives to Coalition forces at least. Anything north of 185,000 innocent people died. It was an invasion. 

You're opinion on whether America is right in the majority of its near 400 conflicts and proxy wars I can completely respect. I can happily agree to disagree. 

But being told its a fact that none of it has any correlation or relevance to this current atrocity being committed by Russia.... no. I don't feel I've been "corrected". 

You said you're in the minority on the Iraq war. Cool. You have reasons you believe it was the correct decision to go into that military conflicts. Cool. I disagree but Cool. 

You can't though decide that it's fact that America did the right thing and nobody can draw parallels to this war. 

There's war crimes committed in the name of freedom and democracy. As there are in this war in the name of freedom for voted independence of DPR, LPR and "de-nazification"

Doesn't matter what you do it in the name of. It matters what you do? A dead innocent child isn't acceptable whether they were killed by Russian bombs or American. 

8 minutes ago, jono said:

It’s a war. One nation invades another by force of arms. This isn’t an action trying to root out extremists who were attacking you . This is war. 
 

If it isn’t war on earth are you going to call it ? A special operation ? 
 

Were multiple organised Ukrainians or the Ukrainian state  involved in violence against Russia ? Did either invade their sovereign territory ? 
 

Russia didn’t like where it thought Ukrainian was going politically. So it crossed their border with soldiers, artillery and tanks and attacked the civilian population. That is called war. 

I think he means it's not a war as it's not a conflict Ukraine have a choice in.

It's an attack. Not even really an escalation. Although this has been bubbling for years and has been little surprise that we got here... how quick we got here did, I think, shock everyone. It was brought forward by weak Western leadership, Brexit, Covid etc that Putin seized his "chance". 

25 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

Indeed. I, like you and many others are more than happy to call out the west when they do the same. 

I don’t often go on protest marches, but made sure I did a bunch of times The Iraq/Afghanistan wars which were more about imperialism than “humanitarianism”.

However here we are now with this invasion………what’s come before isn’t all that relevant in the here and now. Then we have this sad atrocity at a children’s hospital, which needs highlighting and calling out.

One thing I will say is that this invasion (I won’t call it a war, as it’s not) is bit different in that the Russians have been indiscriminately shelling civilian areas with “dumb” munitions. It’s like we’ve gone back to WW2 style warfare, where you just level areas to try and advance. Civilians definitely seem like fair game across the board in this, that’s something that is definitely different from most modern western invasions.

Can't argue too much with that. I'm just genuinely not 100% sure they're targeting civilians. I'm not saying they're not. I'm just not sure why they would. They're certainly OK with civilians casualties while trying to destroy the Ukranian defence. 

They accuse Ukranians of hiding amongst civilians 

But yeah, the blood is on Putins hands regardless. 

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

It's called "Terrorism".

Just add that to the list of Putin's war crimes.

Is it called terrorism when it's drone strikes in the Middle East? 

That's why I asked if there's any reason to believe it's not an accident

I don't actually want to believe Russia or America intend to kill any innocents. But I think you have to believe that they both accept collateral damage. You don't kill this amount of civilians by accident. 

You don't go into near 400 military conflicts without knowing the cost of war. 

It was a genuine question about the children's hospital. 

47 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I'm not surprised some people can't tell the difference between an error in combat operations such as mistaken identity 

Why are you not surprised?

41 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I'm not surprised some people can't tell the difference between an error in combat operations such as mistaken identity (which does happen unfortunately and probably cannot be completely prevented) and the deliberate destruction of hospitals and schools resulting in the murder of civilians constituting a war crime. This is nothing new to the Russians, they've been doing the same in Syria for years, similar to the 'ceasefires' that they then break and the 'humanitarian corridors' that are no such thing. 

I'm not saying you're wrong. But is there any reason that the destruction on a children's hospital is on purpose? 

I'm not defending the actions of Putin. I'm comparing it to the bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan and the drone strike on an aid worker surrounded by civilians though

Why is the hospital attack an intended war crime but many of the other instances an unfortunate error.

Trump revoked a law that meant the US do not have to publish the number of civilians killed in drone strikes. 

"The unearthing of these strikes in Syria came only months after the U.S. military admitted that a high-profile drone strike in Afghanistan last August killed ten civilians, including seven children—and not a suspected terrorist, as the Pentagon first claimed. And in December, the Times released a trove of Defense Department documents that reveal careless targeting, years of civilian deaths, and little accountability in Washington. Together, these events underscore that the U.S. military’s overall record on civilian harm is shameful. Many of these newly revealed strikes appear to be violations of the laws of armed conflict; others represent possible war crimes. Worse yet, many of the problems now coming to light are the same ones that Human Rights Watch, where I work now, and other groups have been documenting for years—to little avail." https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/25/lost-innocents#

1 hour ago, Ramarena said:

Looks like Mariupol Children’s hospital has been destroyed……..errrr I mean de-nazified!

 

This is nothing new to war unfortunately 

Kunduz hospital in Afghanistan was destroyed/liberated. 

Of course it doesn't justify any of it. But this is nothing new. It's just now we're being shown the human cost of war more than in previous years. 

I'm obviously not saying feck the Ukranian kids. 

But it goes back to a point made previously. When it's Western cities being leveled and civilians being killed you have far more care and concern from your average Joe. And the media is more interested in talking about the horrors of war. 

Spend some time looking into America's reckless behaviour in military campaigns. You'll see cover ups exposed too. Hellfire missiles killing an aid worker and civilians in a case of mistaken identity and drone strikes taking little to no consideration of the civilian losses

That's the cost of war. Even wars that some will say are for freedom and democracy. Necessary casualties? 

When Putin declared war on Ukraine he condemned innocent children and every day folk to death, homelessness and tragedy.

I can't justify that. 

But it's interesting to see how some look more now at the cost of war than ever before. I hope its something that people continue to do because the info is all out there if they want to go beyond western propaganda. 

I predict though that the general public will go back to thinking we're the good guys fighting the good fight and beyond our borders it's all wild barbarians. The wars across the globe are just filler for the ITV news at 10.

Will we put our leaders under such scrutiny? I doubt it. But we should. We absolutely should. Especially as we're the "free world" we should hold them to the highest standard. 

We won't because not enough of the general public care. And our leaders know that which is why you can tell most of them Putin is evil and they just eat it up. 

Maybe Putin is evil. I don't know or even care about judging him. Who gives a feck what I think. But I think people should try to gain much better understanding of the history and situation before they start broadcasting opinions over social media etc. Because social media is insanely powerful tool as much we mock it.

(Actually I don't think Putin is evil. Extremely dangerous idealist. Like Trump. Imagine Trump in power for 20 years.)

It's hard to imagine that Russia wasn't given some guarantees before all this. 

It's up there with "how do we stop high school shootings"

"Arm the teachers".

I nearly choked on my bleach

41 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I didn't mean 'funny' as in haha rather I meant it in the sense that is odd or difficult to explain. As you say it's clear there is no point engaging on the topic but factually you can't lay the blame i.e., the first move at a lot of those conflicts you listed (or even non-conflicts) at America's door. That is what i took issue with as that's not an opinion (which we can discuss) but a matter of fact. 

If we stayed on the topic, Putin's 'security concerns' directly affect the democratic sovereign rights of an independent nation. The key term being democratic here I think. There are circumstances when a state can cede its sovereignty internationally but this isn't one of them.  It's just yet another aggressive action by Putin in the name of defence on a neighbouring country that makes everyone understand exactly why those nations want to be in NATO. The Ukrainians definitely need our support as the sheer number of Russian forces shall make it difficult for them to hold out. It's possible to make sense of but this  

A nation that drops atomic bombs, Napalm strikes and kills thousands of civilians in war crimes committed in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan including detaining and torturing people without reasonable cause gets to play world police. 

The country that's sent billions of dollars in aid to Israel. 

This nation has been in almost 400 military conflicts, has spent more than 90% of its existence involved in a conflict, has 750 military bases in 80 countries. 

It picks and chooses who and where deserves it humanitarian aid (fact). 

It is consistently involved in Proxy wars. Including the support of rebellions in Afghanistan (including via Pakistan) supplying military equipment from late 1970's. Interestingly supporting Islamist group who shared good relations with Osama Bin Laden. 

This among other proxy wars and destabilisation.

This is a nation I "factually" can't blame for starting fights? 

To me it sounds like I actually can. Because the issues are far too complex for you to just shut down an opinion. And it's an opinion shared by many in the evil East and a few within American politics. 

I'm happy to disagree. But what you call facts, I don't. There's many way to initiate conflicts without firing the first bullet.