80 replies to this topic

[Cossack]

First of all, I think there is a bit too much blame being put onto Russia right now. Everytime I turn on CNN the Georgian president is on the line pleading his case to the american public. If I were the president of a country in as shitty of a position as Georgia right now I think I'd have more important things to do than talk to american news networks all the time. Seems like he's trying to get some political gain out of all of this.

We can't forget that Georgia did initiate attacks on South Ossetia, and according to the Russians, broke a previous peace agreement while at the same time killing russian peacekeepers. This isn't to say that Russia isn't also in the wrong...if all there doing is trying to repel the Geogians back out of the seperatist regions, what the hell are they doing bombing Tblisi?

The fact, however, remains that if the Georgian president is so concerned about "democracy" and "freedom" why was he so concered with militarily re-uniting the seperatist regions against the will of the civilian population?...doesn't sound very democratic to me.

Whether I support the most of the Western world's policies or not, I have to say this situation, along with many others, just shows how the nations of the west no longer have any moral responsibility or authority. The west will fight for their "democracy" and "freedom" when they have an easy opponent and can get some sort of gain out of it, but when it comes to actually defending thier values, if there is any risk to them, they've got no balls.

[Casen]

You know, come to think of it, South Ossetia is technically part of Georgia.

I now view this like Kosovo. Kosovo is Serbia and Ossetia is Georgia. Serbia had every right to try and stop Kosovo from rebelling, and Georgia has every right to stop Ossetia from rebelling.

Bush is right to criticize Putin for interfering, however he is rendered a hypocrite by having helped Kosovo achieve independence last year, and visa-versa for Putin, to condemn Kosovo independence but also to help the Ossetians.

The world is run by hypocrites. -_-;

[MSpencer]

In truth it seems that Georgian troops have been killing ethnic Russians in South Ossetia. I'm hardly surprised Russia decided to lean a little hard. On the one hand, the land is officially Georgian territory, on the other, most of those killed are, officially, at least dual citizens with Russia and Georgia.

South Ossetia's been a possible flashpoint ever since the Soviet Union started spinning off its SSRs. The people identify more strongly with the Russians, were historically nearly always part of a larger union with Russia, and there's always been a strong separation movement which has been recognized by the UN. It was a matter of time until some jumpy, trigger happy soldier began shooting, and then things simply got out of hand. The Russians simply responded, and probably saved a lot more lives in the long run. They also achieved one of their secondary goals of destroying the main Su-25 plant, thus dealing a bit of a blow to the Georgian arms industry.

You know, come to think of it, South Ossetia is technically part of Georgia.

I now view this like Kosovo. Kosovo is Serbia and Ossetia is Georgia. Serbia had every right to try and stop Kosovo from rebelling, and Georgia has every right to stop Ossetia from rebelling.

Bush is right to criticize Putin for interfering, however he is rendered a hypocrite by having helped Kosovo achieve independence last year, and visa-versa for Putin, to condemn Kosovo independence but also to help the Ossetians.

The world is run by hypocrites. -_-;

For the first and last time, South Ossetia is not Kosovo. A majority of South Ossetians have been angling for independence ever since Georgia was formed out of the ashes of the Soviet Union. They've traditionally always been a part of a larger union with Russia. South Ossetia is not technically a part of Georgia, it is a part of Georgia by law. South Ossetia also has one of the largest and long-standing independence movements in recent memory. The solution to both Kosovo and South Ossetia is, again, not to go in shooting people.
I just don't understand how you see the solution to a territory wanting independence as being as simple as driving in with tanks and killing people. It's just... not morally correct.

[Phil]

Speaking of moral correctness, check out the link to the "loyalist party" in our beloved co-member's signature. I found that site quite interesting.

For those too lazy to look for it:

[Casen]

Speaking of moral correctness, check out the link to the "loyalist party" in our beloved co-member's signature. I found that site quite interesting.

For those too lazy to look for it:

I like them because they're one of the few parties I've ever found that realized that the neo-cons are muslim collaberators and just as bad as the democrats.

In addition, they aren't run by Christian fundamentalist christfuckers.

Also:

http://fumpr.com/ima...25j20sykl0q.png

Typical southerner. Lol.

"TAINT THE ROOSHANS. IT'S THEM YANKEES COMING TO ATLANTA WITH A BIG BOX `O MATCHES!"

Edited by Kacen, 12 August 2008 - 10:52 PM.

[Cossack]

I gotta say that yahoo questions link was pretty funny. The guy's probably not serious but it still made me laugh.

Anyways, about your little loyalist party: Have you ever wondered why nobody shares your point of view on anything Kacen...I think its the same reason why one of the goals of the loyalist party is to get 1-2 percent in the 2012 elections (what grand aspirations eh?...maybe they realize how rediculous they are)

Its probably because the majority of human minds work properly and realize that when you fight extremism with extremism you will simply get more extremism...its innefective to fight hate with hate. Its because the majority realize that, contary to the loyalist party, Barack Obama is not a muslim trying to infiltrate the government, and that the real threat to america is not illegal aliens and muslims but is the religious right and neoliberal capitalists.

Blaming muslims and mexicans is just a way that the government distracts you from who is really destroying your country.

Btw, if you want to give this guy political power, yet you are afraid of this guy you have serious issues.

[Casen]

I don't think Obama is a Muslim, in fact I think McCain is at the very least equal in how terrible he is.

However Obama is just a fucking celebrity, he constantly chants change change change.

I want the troops out of Iraq because I think defending Muslims from other Muslims is stupid, let them kill each other and save us the work so our innocent soldiers don't die.

So in a sense, Obama is less worse than McCain, but he still won't point us in the direction I want to go. We should completely boycott anything coming from Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic theocracy. The people who constantly demonize Israel while not saying jack shit about Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, or whatever piss me off to the extent I want them executed by firing squad.

And to be honest, I'm semi-indifferent on the Mexican issue, though I do find it interesting how they try so hard to get here yet burn our flags and say they hate us, makes little sense. I primarily like that party for it's anti-islamic goals and the realization that the neo-cons collaborate with Muslims too.

[Phil]

Well, I guess the world can be happy that people like you, who don't understand shit about how the world works and what the real problems are that we face today, are a serious minority (still).
Just to have it mentioned once more, it's people like you who made the Third Reich possible. Congrats, I think we all know how good that turned out. Although, I'm quite sure that from your point of view you'd even find a way to idolise Hitler and company.

If you want to fight "islamofascism" with western fascism, then I don't quite see why you're fighting it at all. The only marginal difference is that in one camp, they shout "Allahu akbar!" and in the other "Praised be America!" or something of that sort. In your idiotic struggle for freedom and civil rights and what else you claim it to be, you just destroy the very thing you claim to protect. IMO, I'd rather have fascists like you "executed by firing squads" than people who criticise Israel, as you are by far the bigger threat to humanity.

I recommend once more that you go and get some psychological help to stop thinking about the world on a base of distorted emotional reactions (wait, that's not even thinking at all), but maybe start using what we call logic and reason. To correctly identify a problem in its whole complexity and think of a proper solution, not the first stupid idea that comes to your mind in the style of "let's nuke 'em!". It's that black-and-white view of the world and those archaic emotional reactions that put our entire species to shame, which we claim to be so intelligent.

[/rant]

[Casen]

How do I not understand how the world works?

I just have different beliefs on how to approach things.

And you didn't even address what I said, nothing, you just ranted in general.

How do you recommend fighting Islam, then?



Best explanation I've seen.

Edited by Kacen, 14 August 2008 - 08:39 AM.

[Alias]

How do you recommend fighting Islam, then?

By not fighting at all, perchance?

[Vortigern]

Islam doesn't need fighting. The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. Your Loyalist Party is full of factually inaccurate, scaremongering bullshit.

The two have been closely intertwined since Mohammed wrote his violence-filled manifesto known as the Koran.

Untrue. Firstly, Mohammed did not write the Qu'ran, he became a prophet because he could not read or write and was reputed to have awoken one morning and known the entire book back to front and inside out. Ipso facto, it was written before his time. Second, the Qu'ran is not violence-filled. There are fewer violent incidents and tales in the Qu'ran than in the Old Testament alone. Thirdly, there is no evidence whatsoever that Islam and terrorism have been closely connected for any length of time at all, or indeed if they still are. The western concept of Jihad is incorrect; Jihad translates as 'inner struggle', or similar, and is supposed to be the fight between good and evil within a single mind. It has been corrupted over the years by forces both Western and Eastern into a war machine, but Islam is no more aggressive a foundation than Christianity, and less so than Judaism.

It also tells them... that non-Muslims are destined for hell and that Islam is superior to all other religions.

Wow, that's so unlike Christianity and every other religion ever.

The U.S., like the U.K. and France, now has urban ghettos where Muslims intimidate non-Muslims.

This is, admittedly, true. But it's no worse than black ghettoes, Polish ghettoes or any other kind. How many white people do we, collectively, know who live in Harlem? Are you familiar with the phrase 'birds of a feather flock together'? It means like-minded people will feel more comfortable around each other. There is no denying it. It is intimidating to walk through an area of a city populated entirely by people of one cultural or ethnic group.

People can no longer criticize Islam the way they criticize other religions or ideologies.

Yes they can. It's just that we're not allowed to criticise anyone any more. Islam is just the same. The business with the Danish Mohammed cartoons a while back was forged entirely by extreme Muslims, and I have heard far more examples of people being hated and slated for 'inappropriate' depictions of Jesus. This happens. It's called satire. And political correctness is just something in the way which means Boris Johnson occasionally has to apologise.

Vote for the BNP, the Loyalist Party, the Dutch People’s party. These are the only movements that are brave enough to stop the Islamization of our way of life.

DO NOT VOTE FOR THE BNP. I met the BNP party member who ran for our constituency seat and I heard him mutter to his colleagues that I and the Arabic man sitting next to me were probably terrorists together. The only reason I can think of for this is that I was sitting next to a man who looked like a Muslim, and I have long hair and piercings and thus look like an 'undesirable' to him, to reuse Hitler's word.

Islam is not a threat to you, Kacen. There are far more significant threats to your life and liberty, and they're inside your own country.

NB: All quotes are taken from The Loyalist Party Website.

Edited by Vortigern, 14 August 2008 - 12:48 PM.

[duke_Qa]

It seems that everyone here was quick to take anti-Russian positions without taking care to know all the facts. I consider myself responsible to fill the gap. Here i try to explain things from the "other side". If you do not want to hear any of it (which may be very likely, considering what i saw in this thread), please, ignore my post.

Good to see the advantages of the internet to get someone from the other side to speak up at times. This thread has somehow fallen together a bit towards the end here, but i found this reply interesting. We are from the west, our allegiances will be biased.

In general many western media sources have more Georgian-oriented positions, despite the fact that 80% of Georgian journalists are members of agitation brigades, rather than independent observers. But even thus i think that you are not being honest with yourselves, since, despite some unfortunate examples, most western newspapers do not distort facts, the difference between them and Russian-ones is largely in tone.

Considering the more western-oriented government and the recent rose-revolution or whatever it was called, Georgia has gained alot of popular support in the west as an example of an developing democracy. This is just me bullshitting a bit naturally because there are naturally bigger things at play than just some pictures on the tv.

Oil pipelines, Having a pro-western country in the caucasus region to make life troublesome for the Russians in somewhat the same way that South America is making life hard for the Americans right now, Seeing Russia using military force as a political tool in a time where the western world still remember the somewhat dubious elections, the assassinations of journalists and dissenters abroad, the Gazprom troubles with that bastard being put into prison in the interest of the Russian leadership, rich rich people that have risen in a dog-eat-dog capitalistic frontier after the collapse of the USSR and have WAY TOO MUCH MONEY to spend on anything useful(40lbs of gold that, on a frikkin car).

Russia is turning into the evil twin brother of the US. Thats my biggest worry here. we don't need two superpowers who run around the world trying to control it, especially when they are based on alot of the same ideology: making money and gaining power.

Speaking of this article in particular, it doesn't say all the truth. For example it says that more than thousand people have been killed, while it doesn't say that those people were civilians, they were killed in the first day of conflict, killed by Georgian military, most of them had Russian citizenship, and that was the reason why did Russian army had to invade Ossetia.
As you can see, it is not a prepared attempt to annex anything, it's a matter of prestige. How do you think US would behave if, say, Mexican military would start to deliberately kill Americans? Russia didn't actually make any choices - response was automatic.
This is not the only thing being kept from the public eyes. Saakashvilli several times claimed to give seizefire orders, while today Georgian military opened fire at humanitarian convoy. Should russian forces withdraw from Ossetia - there would start a slaughter of such scale that things in Serbia and Iraq will simply fade in its shadow.
Also. Article says that "If an increasingly assertive Kremlin succeeds in imposing its will on its tiny neighbour, it might be encouraged to do the same elsewhere in the former Soviet Union". This however does not have anything to do with the actual situation. Also, such passage should not exist in the article of a trusted newsteller. News that contain opinions served as facts instead of actual facts should be considered propaganda.
As for the Ossetins -it is much more simple. I believe that nation has the right to chose whether to belong to the certain state, or not. Especially it matters when nation does not belong to the given state's major nationality, and if this state has nationalist tendencies.
USA holds politics of double standards as it supports independence when it is suitable for USA, and doesn't when it's not. Nobody actually cares about people of breakaway republics.

My main concern right now with the conflict in Georgia and south Ossettia is that we got a lose-lose-lose situation. the Georgians claim that the attack was based upon more and more guerilla attacks from south-ossetian separatists or whatever, and when Russia started moving large amounts of tanks over the borders they apparently figured that as a gesture of support for the local south ossetians shooting at them. This causes them for some reason to attack big, in Georgian standards, to try to get rid of as many ossettians militants before they can't do shit.
Naturally Russia can't have this going on, so they start shooting back. Unfortunately some hawks in Russia naturally wants to make a big a boom as possible, making the retaliation way bigger than it could have been. Which is bad for Public relations. Georgians get pwnt well back over the borders and even Gori gets taken over.
Now the south-Ossetians militants are looking for blood, and with tons of Russian military around to protect them once some georgian military might find them on Georgian soil, it sounds like a good time to wreak havoc. It's a paper-scissor-rock game working like an evil spiral of death, and it doesn't really give victory to anyone.


People shooting on the wrong targets is not surprising to me in this situation. you got bad-guys looking for revenge on all 3 sides. journalists are getting peppered while driving or reporting news live, some columns of support should expect to be hit just as much.


It is highly unlikely that South Ossetia will ever become a part of Georgia now, but i personally feel that Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia and Abkasia is like putting Hitler in charge of the Gaza strip. Its obvious that Russia has motives for these parts, and how can there be reconciliation when the peacekeepers themselves are encouraging separation and patriotism to Russia? South Ossetian militants are more than likely supported with munitions by Russia, thus giving the fanatics a good way of starting this entire mess. one of the better options imo would be to get UN peacekeepers from China or some neutral country to take over the russian peacekeeping mission.


Double standards requires an situation that are virtually the same. The war in Bosnia was a much more horrible situation than we are looking at here. Hundreds of thousands exterminated because of religion, changes in demographics, and hundreds of years with grudges. By the sound of things, we can expect a maximum of 4-5000 killed in this rather quick war in a conflict that has been around for less than a 100 years, where the separatists have somehow always opposed whatever tried to integrate them. When the Soviets tried they resisted them, when they went back to Georgia Russia somehow turned into their biggest friend? what is this, some sort of anarchistic rebellion against anyone who somehow has gained authority over them? South Ossetia seems to me like its some emo-kid who hates its parents, and whenever the parents gets divorced it hates the step-parents even more.

I'll tell you what happen. Country A, run by the government that either was not elected properly, or claimed the power, has totally lost it, and on a nationalist whim started to eliminate certain national minority within it's borders. Country B, being both outraged with A actions and having it's own selfish interests in the region conducts a military operation against A. It happens from time to time. All the same. The only difference is that when A is Iraq, and B is USA it is called justice, but when A is Georgia, and B is Russia it is called aggression.

Well i personally consider the elections in Georgia more valid than in Russia, no offense. Naturally i could also say that i prefer Saddam's election numbers compared to those of Bush. But hey, we get those leaders we deserve by voting on them. Even though someone has biased our voting habits by greasing the wheels with alot of cash.

We can pick up the topic of giving Russian citizenships to South-Ossetians(so that Georgians would be attacking Russians and not South-ossetians if they try to stop someone from shooting over the borders): Personally to me thats like the 3d-visualizations of Saddams gas-trucks that drive around Iraq making weapons of mass-destruction a few weeks before the Invasion of Iraq. It's Bullshit made up to have an excuse, and it will become more and more obvious that was the case.

To sum this one up, i would call Russias military activity in Georgia unnecessary and disproportional, and just as unjustifiable as the invasion of Iraq. But, what is done is done, and its practically impossible to put the blame on any one thing and go back to the good-old days. This is a sad event that will darken the political mood between Russia and the west, the same way that the invasion of Iraq dampened the mood towards the US in many middle-eastern countries.


disclaimer: whatever i wrote here might be mad ramblings and pretty irrelevant as i didnt notice this reply before now. it looks acceptable for an reply imo, but i might be a bit sleepy so forgive small errors.

[Dexter]

Thank you for your responce, duke_Qa. Unfortunately i am in no mood to answer to your post completely, i am way too exhausted with all kinds of disputes over this subject. However i can say that i am agree at least with the half of your statements, you at least seem to be an intelligent person. Thank you again. However i can't help but answer to one call:

Well i personally consider the elections in Georgia more valid than in Russia, no offense.

I simply would like to hear why. Saakashvilli came to power through the revolution, when people didn't know what to expect from him, and after he came to full power he turned Georgia into a totalitarian state. The last elections were premature, during it election free media was largely suppressed, and most meetings of opposition followers were met with special weapons assault teams. Besides, there were no real independent observers during the election. In Russia things were much more logical. In the beginning of his rule Putin promised strong army and economic prosperity, which to the large degree he accomplished. How could we not vote for his apprentice? My vote went for Medvedev by the way. Personally i would like to see Ivanov as a president, but due to some issues in the party he could not offer himself as a candidate. In US on the other hand people don't even get to vote for their candidates, so what the heck?

Also, this could be interesting.

Note that youtube keeps deleting comments and they have stopped watch counter. It should be several million by now.

Edited by Dexter, 16 August 2008 - 12:14 PM.

[partyzanPaulZy]

This is maybe old a bit: Russian Black Sea Squadron sinked whole Georgian Navy! One ship...

EDIT: Saashasvilli is dictator, it's common secret. USA isn't right example for modern democracy, what I know, USA have just 2 parties (others cannot get into congress doesn't matter how hard they try), both rightwingers, poor social net (medical help not for everybody like it should be), 3rd world areas (slums), religious prejudice. Even it looks like they follow leader like hairpiece sheeps. Real democratical country is Sweden for example, but not USA.

Russia isn't less democratical then USA. But if Russia will be democratical, it won't be larger than Canada.

Edited by partyzanPaulZy, 17 August 2008 - 12:40 PM.

[Casen]

Actually, we have many parties.

It's just that people are so used to voting Republican or Democrat they are afraid of change...

[Elvenlord]

Point is, we only have two parties with any real power

[duke_Qa]

Yeah when i make long replies i don't expect people to start answering them point by point, because there is usually alot of air vented through them.

I simply would like to hear why. Saakashvilli came to power through the revolution, when people didn't know what to expect from him, and after he came to full power he turned Georgia into a totalitarian state. The last elections were premature, during it election free media was largely suppressed, and most meetings of opposition followers were met with special weapons assault teams. Besides, there were no real independent observers during the election. In Russia things were much more logical. In the beginning of his rule Putin promised strong army and economic prosperity, which to the large degree he accomplished. How could we not vote for his apprentice? My vote went for Medvedev by the way. Personally i would like to see Ivanov as a president, but due to some issues in the party he could not offer himself as a candidate. In US on the other hand people don't even get to vote for their candidates, so what the heck?

You can't expect a flawless democracy from the first election. In any democracy there will be the "dictatorship of the majority", because thats how the numbers works. I've never said that the Georgian government is a perfect one because thats impossible in the best of democracies. The difference on Georgia and Russia imo is that Georgia has a upgoing curve while Russia has a downgoing curve. If the Georgian government is bad right now but doing its best to get better, I applaud that more than the Russian government that seems to be covertly doing its best to make one political party the only choice real choice. Also, with all the western sympathies Georgia is getting right now, any journalist that takes a bit of care, can make articles that forces the Georgian politicians to keep up democratizing: Or else they will lose face and sympathy and support from the west and be more exposed to Russia again.

Independent election observers is also something Russia is good at dragging their feet on. I expect both Georgia and Russia to do their best in future elections to get better at letting them in.

I'm not very disappointed with Medvedev as president, he is a more moderate person than Putin and i think he has a good chance of becoming a great leader of Russia. The problems was that Putin did use alot of connections to make sure nobody but his apprentice was an viable option. And it was made apparent once again by the current conflict in Georgia that Putin is still the big boss. Basically, Russia looks like very unfertile soil for alternative political parties, and thats something i consider a bad sign. Georgia is still fresh from its previous revolution and needs more time before we can read the nuances and say whats going wrong. Russia is big and have had nearly 20 years to recuperate from its fall. its good that its finally returning to a place of power, but its bad that it does so in such an antagonizing way where there should be cooperation.

I'm not American and i can't say to know much about the American presidential election system beyond what i read on the internetz. I don't like the two-party system and have said so many times before. I come from a country where we have 8 major parties, but people still have a tendency to vote for the biggest that fits their perspective on the world, which is somewhat annoying. Democracy is not perfect, but its better than most other ruling systems.


All i really want in this world is that things that does not work for the best of people should be updated as much as possible, be it Russian, Georgian or American problems. as long as people are open to criticism there is always room for improvement.

Edited by duke_Qa, 17 August 2008 - 05:40 PM.

[partyzanPaulZy]

Umm to totalitarian thesis, I don't think it's general rule. 1st president of Czechs and Slovaks and Ruthenians was T. G. Masaryk. He was nationalist but I don't think he was real dictator, even though he got elected 3 times (as the President Liberator he could). Maybe it was because he was old man when he went to power in 1918 and from this date we have been parlamentary democracy (except occupation and soviet satellite era - included stalinistic regime eras 1948-1953 and 1968-1989).

BTW, Belarus and Russia are in duty-free union*, although some years before collapse of the USSR big soviet nations disliked each other (they mostly disliked Russians, the main soviet nation).

I wonder what will happen with *The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (Russian: Содружество Независимых Государств (СНГ), transliterated Sodruzhestvo Nezavisimykh Gosudarstv). 1st: Georgia has left, Belarus will be more closer to Russia, -stans will trade with Russia, Moldava will call for help, Ukraine will probably trade with Russia like now if they won't follow Georgia (probability 40% they will follow Georgia). Russia is richest of these countries.

Edited by partyzanPaulZy, 18 August 2008 - 04:55 PM.

[Romanul]

*Moldova

Moldova shouldn't ask for help from the Russians,but from the Romanians.

I mean,if they go the east,an big opposition will appear,I can guarantee you this.Romanians are seen there as westerners(And I really like it )They want an union with us,but the politicians say no...

Plus,bad relations with Russia due to Transdniester

Trans-Dniester will be an zone were Romanian troops should move in case of conflict.

Few countries will be against the Russians,but the -stan's and Belarus will surely join the Russians.

And so,we get back at Imperial Russia.