Russia - worrying?

[gringo]

    That not one of the NATO apologists questions the "moral authority" of the self styled "defenders of human rights" to carry out any invasion, interference, coup, sanctions or bombing to enforce their rules is telling. The colonialist mindset and supremacism at the heart of that attitude is a cancer on the world and is being brought to an end. 

[guest29835]

Gringo:

Most of the people commenting on this thread would wear masks on their faces all day long and accept injections into their arms if somebody on TV told them to.

They believe what the TV tells them.  That's before we get into the possibility of an ethnic bias.  David admits he is Jewish.  Nothing wrong with that, but he is obviously biased (to his credit, he has more or less accepted this in a previous thread on here).  I believe one or two others here belong to that ethnicity as well.  There is a perception among Jews that Putin is anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic or anti-Israel or something along those lines.  This is clearly a load of rubbish, as is the demonisation and monsterisation of Putin, which is over-blown to a cartoonish level; but what you have to understand is that an unnuanced, Manichean approach to debate is to expected from people whose core essential identity is built around a self-perception of victimhood and persecution, etc. 

Lookout, Steve and David are determined to make what happens in the Ukraine the business of Britain.  To you and me and any other normal person, this is ludicrous, as we cannot possibly grasp the nuances and complexities of a foreign dispute, and it is deeply condescending (as well as dangerously stupid and ignorant) to pretend that we can. But they won't listen.

It's impossible to conduct a sensible discussion with such people.  It is up to you, and for all I know you may be Jewish yourself, but in any event I think all the points that need to be made to counter their nonsense have been made in the thread.  They just ignore it.  You're wasting your own valuable time.  Just let them talk to each other.

[gringo]

Gringo:

Most of the people commenting on this thread would wear masks on their faces all day long and accept injections into their arms if somebody on TV told them to.

They believe what the TV tells them.  That's before we get into the possibility of an ethnic bias.  David admits he is Jewish.  Nothing wrong with that, but he is obviously biased (to his credit, he has more or less accepted this in a previous thread on here).  I believe one or two others here belong to that ethnicity as well.  There is a perception among Jews that Putin is anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic or anti-Israel or something along those lines.  This is clearly a load of rubbish, as is the demonisation and monsterisation of Putin, which is over-blown to a cartoonish level; but what you have to understand is that an unnuanced, Manichean approach to debate is to expected from people whose core essential identity is built around a self-perception of victimhood and persecution, etc. 

Lookout, Steve and David are determined to make what happens in the Ukraine the business of Britain.  To you and me and any other normal person, this is ludicrous, as we cannot possibly grasp the nuances and complexities of a foreign dispute, and it is deeply condescending (as well as dangerously stupid and ignorant) to pretend that we can. But they won't listen.

It's impossible to conduct a sensible discussion with such people.  It is up to you, and for all I know you may be Jewish yourself, but in any event I think all the points that need to be made to counter their nonsense have been made in the thread.  They just ignore it.  You're wasting your own valuable time.  Just let them talk to each other.

    I appreciate all of that, Gascoigne, and am under no illusions regarding the ability of ILB, David and Steve(aka the three wise monkeys) to see, hear or speak any evil when it comes to world affairs and NATO/US/UK criminality.
     They are merely useful idiots and foils for raising relevant history and context to events. They will be the last to learn but the idiotic points they raise allow for more context to be added to ill understood events for those that are interested.

[David1819]

https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/response_conflict-reponse_conflits/crisis-crises/ukraine-fact-fait.aspx?lang=eng&

[Roch]

https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/response_conflict-reponse_conflits/crisis-crises/ukraine-fact-fait.aspx?lang=eng&

Pity we are not allowed to see Russian claims for ourselves. Even though we are arming Ukraine, officially we are not at war with Russia. But we are not allowed to read or watch Russian news? Sites blocked etc.

Why do I need somebody to block Russian claims and then tell me that the Russian claims being blocked are false?

Sorry but that is massive alarm bells for me.

[David1819]

Pity we are not allowed to see Russian claims for ourselves. Even though we are arming Ukraine, officially we are not at war with Russia. But we are not allowed to read or watch Russian news? Sites blocked etc.

Why do I need somebody to block Russian claims and then tell me that the Russian claims being blocked are false?

Sorry but that is massive alarm bells for me.

Knock yourself out.

https://wwitv.com/television/174.htm

[gringo]

Pity we are not allowed to see Russian claims for ourselves. Even though we are arming Ukraine, officially we are not at war with Russia. But we are not allowed to read or watch Russian news? Sites blocked etc.

Why do I need somebody to block Russian claims and then tell me that the Russian claims being blocked are false?

Sorry but that is massive alarm bells for me.

    Download Opera or Tor browser, Roch. Both come with VPN and allow access to all sites by hiding your IP and accessing sites from India or wherever. Internet and information controls are imposed mostly in the "free west".
     

[gringo]

Why do I need somebody to block Russian claims and then tell me that the Russian claims being blocked are false?

    Answers itself doesn't it, Roch.
    Julian Assange's predicament does the rest. He acts as a warning to others who might harbour ideas of doing proper journalism rather than acting as stenographers for Western Intel agencies.

[David1819]

Meanwhile in Stockholm. A protest against Sweden joining NATO. About 12 people showed up lol

[David1819]

Gringo:

Most of the people commenting on this thread would wear masks on their faces all day long and accept injections into their arms if somebody on TV told them to.

They believe what the TV tells them.  That's before we get into the possibility of an ethnic bias.  David admits he is Jewish.  Nothing wrong with that, but he is obviously biased (to his credit, he has more or less accepted this in a previous thread on here).  I believe one or two others here belong to that ethnicity as well.  There is a perception among Jews that Putin is anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic or anti-Israel or something along those lines.  This is clearly a load of rubbish, as is the demonisation and monsterisation of Putin, which is over-blown to a cartoonish level; but what you have to understand is that an unnuanced, Manichean approach to debate is to expected from people whose core essential identity is built around a self-perception of victimhood and persecution, etc. 

Lookout, Steve and David are determined to make what happens in the Ukraine the business of Britain.  To you and me and any other normal person, this is ludicrous, as we cannot possibly grasp the nuances and complexities of a foreign dispute, and it is deeply condescending (as well as dangerously stupid and ignorant) to pretend that we can. But they won't listen.

It's impossible to conduct a sensible discussion with such people.  It is up to you, and for all I know you may be Jewish yourself, but in any event I think all the points that need to be made to counter their nonsense have been made in the thread.  They just ignore it.  You're wasting your own valuable time.  Just let them talk to each other.

Being a former National Font member. I guess most your coverage of the Ukraine war is Nick Griffins live Templar Reports. The only UK politician that is supporting and praising the Russian invasion. 

[guest29835]

Being a former National Font member. I guess most your coverage of the Ukraine war is Nick Griffins live Templar Reports. The only UK politician that is supporting and praising the Russian invasion. 

I haven't paid attention to Nick Griffin in something like 20 years.  What's he up to nowadays?  I once met him and wasn't impressed.  Can't deny it though: he gave you lot a fright, didn't he. 

My views about Russia and Ukraine are formed on my own, independently.  I can think for myself.  I don't outsource my thinking functions to celebrities, podcasters, left-liberals, and the mainstream media.

To be clear, again, I support neutrality.  I do not see any British national interest engaged by the demonisation of Vladimir Putin or support for the Ukraine.  Quite the opposite.  I also recognise that ethnic Russians have suffered persecution under the Kiev government.  I further recognise the historical complexity of the issue: many Russians and Ukrainians alike do not see the Ukraine as a separate country to Russia. 

The Crimea keeps being brought up here, but the Crimea is Russian in character and Russia does have a solid claim to sovereignty over the Crimea. If it didn't, they wouldn't have re-occupied it.

Somebody mentioned a 'full-scale invasion' of the Ukraine, but the objective was not to occupy the entirety of the Ukraine.  The primary issues for Putin are (i). the geopolitical threat of NATO to Russia (in blatant disregard of promises given by the United States in the early 1990s) and (ii). the persecution of Russian minorities in the eastern Ukraine.  No doubt there are also more selfish objectives on Russia's part, such as access to energy resources and so on, but primarily this is about Russia's security and the treatment of Russian minorities in the Ukraine itself.

Now, here I want to emphasise two very important caveats! 

1. I do NOT necessarily like or support Vladimir Putin and his style of government, but I am non-committal on the matter because I do not see how Putin is any more abusive or cynical than any other world leader, including any Western leader.  Some of you are hypnotised by words like 'democracy' and 'equality' and fail to recognise the flaws in these systems. 

2. I do NOT necessarily support Russia.  Nor do I support the Ukraine.  I don't need to support either.  I take what - as far as I can see - is the rational position for a disinterested third party: neutrality.  I would only add that if NATO prevails and continues to threaten Russia, we will have a very dangerous situation, and it will be down to people like we have on this thread who believe what the TV tells them.

I believe the core of this issue is not Russia or Ukraine itself, but Germany.  Germany is a sleeping giant in defence and is projecting its geopolitical ambitions through the EU and NATO.  I think it is inevitable that Germany (perhaps through the EU) and Russia will end up in a new cold war and this needs to be addressed head-on.  The best outcome is for the Ukraine, the EU, NATO, the United States and Russia to come to a security agreement that limits NATO/EU defence ambitions for the next 50 years to western Europe, which I would define as the eastern borders of Germany, Austria, and Italy, while Russia confines its influence to the former CIS states, with a shared land border between Norway and Russia.  The old Western European Union could be reformed for defence purposes and Eastern Europe, including its EU member states, would become a neutral bloc, in effect a buffer zone between Russia and Germany.  Anyway, that's one suggestion.  NATO and the EU won't agree to such a thing of course, as it would mean withdrawal of US/NATO facilities in eastern Europe.

I'm going against my own advice to Gringo. I expect this is a waste of time, but I suppose there's no harm in posting a rebuttal to your propaganda every now and then.

[gringo]

I haven't paid attention to Nick Griffin in something like 20 years.  What's he up to nowadays?  I once met him and wasn't impressed.  Can't deny it though: he gave you lot a fright, didn't he. 

My views about Russia and Ukraine are formed on my own, independently.  I can think for myself.  I don't outsource my thinking functions to celebrities, podcasters, left-liberals, and the mainstream media.

To be clear, again, I support neutrality.  I do not see any British national interest engaged by the demonisation of Vladimir Putin or support for the Ukraine.  Quite the opposite.  I also recognise that ethnic Russians have suffered persecution under the Kiev government.  I further recognise the historical complexity of the issue: many Russians and Ukrainians alike do not see the Ukraine as a separate country to Russia. 

The Crimea keeps being brought up here, but the Crimea is Russian in character and Russia does have a solid claim to sovereignty over the Crimea. If it didn't, they wouldn't have re-occupied it.

Somebody mentioned a 'full-scale invasion' of the Ukraine, but the objective was not to occupy the entirety of the Ukraine.  The primary issues for Putin are (i). the geopolitical threat of NATO to Russia (in blatant disregard of promises given by the United States in the early 1990s) and (ii). the persecution of Russian minorities in the eastern Ukraine.  No doubt there are also more selfish objectives on Russia's part, such as access to energy resources and so on, but primarily this is about Russia's security and the treatment of Russian minorities in the Ukraine itself.

Now, here I want to emphasise two very important caveats! 

1. I do NOT necessarily like or support Vladimir Putin and his style of government, but I am non-committal on the matter because I do not see how Putin is any more abusive or cynical than any other world leader, including any Western leader.  Some of you are hypnotised by words like 'democracy' and 'equality' and fail to recognise the flaws in these systems. 

2. I do NOT necessarily support Russia.  Nor do I support the Ukraine.  I don't need to support either.  I take what - as far as I can see - is the rational position for a disinterested third party: neutrality.  I would only add that if NATO prevails and continues to threaten Russia, we will have a very dangerous situation, and it will be down to people like we have on this thread who believe what the TV tells them.

I believe the core of this issue is not Russia or Ukraine itself, but Germany.  Germany is a sleeping giant in defence and is projecting its geopolitical ambitions through the EU and NATO.  I think it is inevitable that Germany (perhaps through the EU) and Russia will end up in a new cold war and this needs to be addressed head-on.  The best outcome is for the Ukraine, the EU, NATO, the United States and Russia to come to a security agreement that limits NATO/EU defence ambitions for the next 50 years to western Europe, which I would define as the eastern borders of Germany, Austria, and Italy, while Russia confines its influence to the former CIS states, with a shared land border between Norway and Russia.  The old Western European Union could be reformed for defence purposes and Eastern Europe, including its EU member states, would become a neutral bloc, in effect a buffer zone between Russia and Germany.  Anyway, that's one suggestion.  NATO and the EU won't agree to such a thing of course, as it would mean withdrawal of US/NATO facilities in eastern Europe.

I'm going against my own advice to Gringo. I expect this is a waste of time, but I suppose there's no harm in posting a rebuttal to your propaganda every now and then.

    Your rebuttal is a waste of time for the 3 wise monkeys but other posters/lurkers also read. It is apparent to any neutral or undecided readers which posters have an understanding of what is going on . It is also apparent who are the posters incapable of debate.
      You can at least articulate and support your opinion.
      The 3 wise monkeys, on the other hand, simply repeat context free soundbites which are coincidentally the same context free talking points repeated ad nauseam in the media that they definitely aren't indoctrinated by.

[gringo]

You could get sentenced to death for dropping the Iraqi Dinah note - ILB

    Got any examples of this ILB? People getting sentenced to death for dropping money?! Thought not.
    And you are not indoctrinated.
   " Just wait till I become president. Il be crueller than my father ever was. Trust me you will yearn for the days of Saddam Hussein"  quote by Uday hussein

    And a quote that you think you heard on a documentary.
    Wars launched by Bush, Blair, Obama et al were far more brutal and destructive than anything Saddam ever did.
    Should NATO invade US/UK?

   
   

[ILB]

You could get sentenced to death for dropping the Iraqi Dinah note - ILB

    Got any examples of this ILB? People getting sentenced to death for dropping money?! Thought not.
    And you are not indoctrinated.
   " Just wait till I become president. Il be crueller than my father ever was. Trust me you will yearn for the days of Saddam Hussein"  quote by Uday hussein

    And a quote that you think you heard on a documentary.
    Wars launched by Bush, Blair, Obama et al were far more brutal and destructive than anything Saddam ever did.
    Should NATO invade US/UK?

   
   

I am well aware of the lifestyle of citizens under Saddam in Iraq. I have many good Iraqi friends one of whom happened to attend Baghdad international school with mr Uday hussein in the 1970s. Saddam's wife, sadjida was headmistress of the school.

Did bush or Blair..

Gas their own people?

Routinely kidnap women and little girls off the streets to brutally rape and kill them?

Eradicate any political party. ?

Torture political opponents?

Kill people for the slightest action that would be deemed disloyalty?

Torture sportsmen for competition losses?

Be thankful you live in a democracy son

The US supported Saddam in 1979 because they were worried about the revolution and khomeni. Saddam at the time although head defacto behind the scenes since the early 70s had only become president in an official capacity since July 79. He was officially a clean skin. And the invasion never got very far. The war which costs s high number of deaths over the eight year period was basically a warzone stalemate.

Do you even know why Saddam invaded kuwait in 1990? Forget because it's the 19th province of iraq

[gringo]

      A head scratcher for Steve, David and ILB, the resident apologists for war criminals.  Saudi Arabia last month executed 81 people in amass execution. Here is an excerpt from Amnesty about it below;

The Ministry of Interior on Saturday announced the execution of 81 people, all of whom had been convicted of a wide range of offences, including “terrorism”- related crimes, murder, armed robbery and arms smuggling. A number of those executed were also convicted of charges such as “disrupting the social fabric and national cohesion” and “participating in and inciting sit-ins and protests” which describe acts that are protected by the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association.

Forty-one of those executed on Saturday are from Saudi Arabia’s Shi’a minority, the latest demonstration of Saudi Arabia’s politicized use of the death penalty to silence dissent in the Eastern Province.

“This execution spree is all the more chilling in light of Saudi Arabia’s deeply flawed justice system, which metes out death sentences following trials that are grossly and blatantly unfair, including basing verdicts on “confessions” extracted under torture or other ill-treatment,” said Lynn Maalouf, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa.


    They are also bombing one of the poorest countries in the world, along with the UAE and US/UK assistance arming training etc. This bombing campaign led to the a cholera outbreak because of the above named protagonists targeting vital civilian infrastructure leading to the "largest man made humanitarian crisis" according to the UN.
     The UN estimate 377,000 deaths by the end of 2021. More than 60% of these deaths resulting from hunger, lack of healthcare and lack of access to clean water.
     All caused by US sanctions and a brutal 8 year bombing campaign.
     Read those numbers. Then ask yourselves why none of the above even registers in your tiny minds but you feign outrage at Russia's actions in Ukraine, which are not remotely comparable in terms of brutality.

     Does this mean that NATO should immediately invade Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates?
     It appears to pass the criteria that the resident 3 wise monkeys suggest should prompt an invasion by NATO.
     Again NATO would also have to invade its own members. What elaborate webs they weave....
     Would China and Russia be justified in invading US/UK for their crimes in Yemen?
     Are they allowed to be judge, jury and executioner in punishing US/UK?
     Can only NATO do this?
     Show your reasoning!