Let's Invade Russia!

[LordKiran]

More corrupted than oppressive/murderous. And oppressive is a direct result of US trying to undermine it.

But again, that's a very different matter. I was talking about your assessment about why Russia has its nukes ready.

Russia has nukes because USSR had them, and USSR had them to defend from US nukes. Do I have to remind you that we now know that US had first strike plans and that USSR have never had them?

Yes, breaking a deal means eventual war (with invasion) The whole reason for that deal which reversed these long standing sanctions was a fact that sanctions were not working - Iran was not complying with international laws regarding nuclear stuff, in other words they were working on nuclear bomb.

No, breaking the deal does not mean war. The US would not be forced to attack without the deal. And in fact, it might - for example - put pressure on Iran to improve inspections (i.e., call for a better deal), and try to back that up with sanctions. It's a bad idea because the US position is pretty weak, but there is no way it would force the US to attack, just as no deal would not force Iran to actually make nukes.

And a war, again, would not entail an invasion. They might choose to bomb (for example), even using anti-bunker weapons, and only after the defenses are very weak, maybe use ground forces to destroy targets that resist aerial attacks, but only in those limited scenarios.
And in any event, an invasion would not entail (and would not involve, as a policy) the targeting of civilians.

Well, I don't see much difference, but from what I read war with Iran will necessitate invasion.
And again, no deal means war, there is no other way.

There will likely be no war with Iran. Iran is a growing power in that part of the world and will likely prove important as an ally to US interests. This is the groundwork I believe Obama was trying to lay before the the repub-tards fucked everything up, because they're not what you would call "Big Picture Thinkers."

 

[Elixir]

More corrupted than oppressive/murderous. And oppressive is a direct result of US trying to undermine it.

Russia has nukes because USSR had them, and USSR had them to defend from US nukes. Do I have to remind you that we now know that US had first strike plans and that USSR have never had them?

Yes, breaking a deal means eventual war (with invasion) The whole reason for that deal which reversed these long standing sanctions was a fact that sanctions were not working - Iran was not complying with international laws regarding nuclear stuff, in other words they were working on nuclear bomb.

No, breaking the deal does not mean war. The US would not be forced to attack without the deal. And in fact, it might - for example - put pressure on Iran to improve inspections (i.e., call for a better deal), and try to back that up with sanctions. It's a bad idea because the US position is pretty weak, but there is no way it would force the US to attack, just as no deal would not force Iran to actually make nukes.

And a war, again, would not entail an invasion. They might choose to bomb (for example), even using anti-bunker weapons, and only after the defenses are very weak, maybe use ground forces to destroy targets that resist aerial attacks, but only in those limited scenarios.
And in any event, an invasion would not entail (and would not involve, as a policy) the targeting of civilians.

Well, I don't see much difference, but from what I read war with Iran will necessitate invasion.
And again, no deal means war, there is no other way.

There will likely be no war with Iran. Iran is a growing power in that part of the world and will likely prove important as an ally to US interests.

US interests have nothing to do with it. Trump will go to war with Iran - or anyone else (except Russia) - if he needs more distractions from his cabal's treasonous behavior. And he will.

 

[barbos]

US interests have nothing to do with it. Trump will go to war with Iran - or anyone else (except Russia) - if he needs more distractions from his cabal's treasonous behavior. And he will.

Hopefully, adults in his administration will distract him from that with something.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

More corrupted than oppressive/murderous. And oppressive is a direct result of US trying to undermine it.

It's oppressive as a result of the decision of Putin and other people in Russia to be oppressive. The US had zero to do with the decision of the Russian government to, say, persecute political opponents who are perceived as having the potential to become a significant challenge, pass a "gay propaganda" law, or very probably commit fraud in elections, making Putin win by a much bigger margin than he would have otherwise, etc.

And it's murderous as well: There's the very probable murder of Alexander Litvinenko and a few others, and additionally, in Syria the Russian military dropped a number of different kinds of non-precision bombs in civilian areas, repeatedly. So, at least, they don't take minimum reasonable precautions to avoid hitting civilians. But it appears they very probably did. For example, how probably is it that they would strike a hospital repeatedly, in different bombing raids and more than once in a single bombing raid, while not targeting it? ( https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/01/russia/syria-war-crimes-month-bombing-aleppo ; https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-re...ces-targeting-hospitals-as-a-strategy-of-war/ )

While none of the sources is good on its own, counting all of the reports (not just those, but all), there is plenty of evidence.


There's also Chechnya:

For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Katyr-Yurt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elistanzhi_cluster_bomb_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny_ballistic_missile_attack

And there is Ukraine, where the Russian government denies direct involvement, but it's lying.

Russia has nukes because USSR had them, and USSR had them to defend from US nukes. Do I have to remind you that we now know that US had first strike plans and that USSR have never had them?

There were no plans to attack the USSR before the USSR developed nukes. In fact, there weren't any until they were developed as a response to the risk of a USSR attack. On the other hand, the US and the USSR both made an absurd number of nukes. But in any case, that's not what we were discussing. You had said before that Russia kept their nukes ready in order to prevent the sort of attack+invassion described in a hypothetical scenario by LordKiran (who was not claiming it was a realistic scenario), namely "Campaign during the spring and summer, mass saturation bombing of significant infrastructure civil or otherwise in the winter. This is of course assuming you care nothing for hearts and minds.". This is what I was challenging.

Well, I don't see much difference, but from what I read war with Iran will necessitate invasion.
And again, no deal means war, there is no other way.

Of course there is another way. Who would force the US government to start a war?
And even if they started a war, who would force them to invade?
In any event, the fact remains that Iran has not been invaded, and it's very unlikely that it will be invaded. But even if the US invaded, there is no way they would launch a campaign targeting civilians.

 

[barbos]

It's oppressive as a result of the decision of Putin and other people in Russia to be oppressive. The US had zero to do with the decision of the Russian government to, say, persecute political opponents who are perceived as having the potential to become a significant challenge, pass a "gay propaganda" law, or very probably commit fraud in elections, making Putin win by a much bigger margin than he would have otherwise, etc.

And it's murderous as well: There's the very probable murder of Alexander Litvinenko and a few others, and additionally, in Syria the Russian military dropped a number of different kinds of non-precision bombs in civilian areas, repeatedly. So, at least, they don't take minimum reasonable precautions to avoid hitting civilians. But it appears they very probably did. For example, how probably is it that they would strike a hospital repeatedly, in different bombing raids and more than once in a single bombing raid, while not targeting it? ( https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/01/russia/syria-war-crimes-month-bombing-aleppo ; https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-re...ces-targeting-hospitals-as-a-strategy-of-war/ )

While none of the sources is good on its own, counting all of the reports (not just those, but all), there is plenty of evidence.


There's also Chechnya:

For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Katyr-Yurt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elistanzhi_cluster_bomb_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny_ballistic_missile_attack

And there is Ukraine, where the Russian government denies direct involvement, but it's lying.


There were no plans to attack the USSR before the USSR developed nukes. In fact, there weren't any until they were developed as a response to the risk of a USSR attack. On the other hand, the US and the USSR both made an absurd number of nukes. But in any case, that's not what we were discussing. You had said before that Russia kept their nukes ready in order to prevent the sort of attack+invassion described in a hypothetical scenario by LordKiran (who was not claiming it was a realistic scenario), namely "Campaign during the spring and summer, mass saturation bombing of significant infrastructure civil or otherwise in the winter. This is of course assuming you care nothing for hearts and minds.". This is what I was challenging.

Well, I don't see much difference, but from what I read war with Iran will necessitate invasion.
And again, no deal means war, there is no other way.

Of course there is another way. Who would force the US government to start a war?
And even if they started a war, who would force them to invade?
In any event, the fact remains that Iran has not been invaded, and it's very unlikely that it will be invaded. But even if the US invaded, there is no way they would launch a campaign targeting civilians.

You carefully repeated standard set of western propaganda points without any nuances.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's oppressive as a result of the decision of Putin and other people in Russia to be oppressive. The US had zero to do with the decision of the Russian government to, say, persecute political opponents who are perceived as having the potential to become a significant challenge, pass a "gay propaganda" law, or very probably commit fraud in elections, making Putin win by a much bigger margin than he would have otherwise, etc.

And it's murderous as well: There's the very probable murder of Alexander Litvinenko and a few others, and additionally, in Syria the Russian military dropped a number of different kinds of non-precision bombs in civilian areas, repeatedly. So, at least, they don't take minimum reasonable precautions to avoid hitting civilians. But it appears they very probably did. For example, how probably is it that they would strike a hospital repeatedly, in different bombing raids and more than once in a single bombing raid, while not targeting it? ( https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/01/russia/syria-war-crimes-month-bombing-aleppo ; https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-re...ces-targeting-hospitals-as-a-strategy-of-war/ )

While none of the sources is good on its own, counting all of the reports (not just those, but all), there is plenty of evidence.


There's also Chechnya:

For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Katyr-Yurt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elistanzhi_cluster_bomb_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny_ballistic_missile_attack

And there is Ukraine, where the Russian government denies direct involvement, but it's lying.


There were no plans to attack the USSR before the USSR developed nukes. In fact, there weren't any until they were developed as a response to the risk of a USSR attack. On the other hand, the US and the USSR both made an absurd number of nukes. But in any case, that's not what we were discussing. You had said before that Russia kept their nukes ready in order to prevent the sort of attack+invassion described in a hypothetical scenario by LordKiran (who was not claiming it was a realistic scenario), namely "Campaign during the spring and summer, mass saturation bombing of significant infrastructure civil or otherwise in the winter. This is of course assuming you care nothing for hearts and minds.". This is what I was challenging.

Well, I don't see much difference, but from what I read war with Iran will necessitate invasion.
And again, no deal means war, there is no other way.

Of course there is another way. Who would force the US government to start a war?
And even if they started a war, who would force them to invade?
In any event, the fact remains that Iran has not been invaded, and it's very unlikely that it will be invaded. But even if the US invaded, there is no way they would launch a campaign targeting civilians.

You carefully repeated standard set of western propaganda points without any nuances.

That's not at all the case. I take a look at the available evidence. You can always reply "propaganda", of course. But that's not a reasonable assessment of the evidence.

 

[barbos]

It's oppressive as a result of the decision of Putin and other people in Russia to be oppressive. The US had zero to do with the decision of the Russian government to, say, persecute political opponents who are perceived as having the potential to become a significant challenge, pass a "gay propaganda" law, or very probably commit fraud in elections, making Putin win by a much bigger margin than he would have otherwise, etc.

And it's murderous as well: There's the very probable murder of Alexander Litvinenko and a few others, and additionally, in Syria the Russian military dropped a number of different kinds of non-precision bombs in civilian areas, repeatedly. So, at least, they don't take minimum reasonable precautions to avoid hitting civilians. But it appears they very probably did. For example, how probably is it that they would strike a hospital repeatedly, in different bombing raids and more than once in a single bombing raid, while not targeting it? ( https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/01/russia/syria-war-crimes-month-bombing-aleppo ; https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-re...ces-targeting-hospitals-as-a-strategy-of-war/ )

While none of the sources is good on its own, counting all of the reports (not just those, but all), there is plenty of evidence.


There's also Chechnya:

For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Katyr-Yurt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elistanzhi_cluster_bomb_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny_ballistic_missile_attack

And there is Ukraine, where the Russian government denies direct involvement, but it's lying.


There were no plans to attack the USSR before the USSR developed nukes. In fact, there weren't any until they were developed as a response to the risk of a USSR attack. On the other hand, the US and the USSR both made an absurd number of nukes. But in any case, that's not what we were discussing. You had said before that Russia kept their nukes ready in order to prevent the sort of attack+invassion described in a hypothetical scenario by LordKiran (who was not claiming it was a realistic scenario), namely "Campaign during the spring and summer, mass saturation bombing of significant infrastructure civil or otherwise in the winter. This is of course assuming you care nothing for hearts and minds.". This is what I was challenging.


Of course there is another way. Who would force the US government to start a war?
And even if they started a war, who would force them to invade?
In any event, the fact remains that Iran has not been invaded, and it's very unlikely that it will be invaded. But even if the US invaded, there is no way they would launch a campaign targeting civilians.

You carefully repeated standard set of western propaganda points without any nuances.

That's not at all the case.

I am sure of it.

I take a look at the available evidence.

That's a thing, what is available to you was made available to you by people with agenda.

You can always reply "propaganda", of course. But that's not a reasonable assessment of the evidence.

More reasonable than taking it without any filter or background.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't take claims without filters or background. And you have no good reason to believe I do. The fact that I disagree with some of the policies of the governments of the US or other countries, with the claims made by any media you outlet you may pick, etc., is also good evidence that I don't take any propaganda (though lack of evidence that I do take it should be enough for you not to believe I do; but whatever).

I take a look at the claims and make probabilistic assessments in the context in which they happen. Sources like HRW or Amnesty International aren't always right, but they're also not on the level of absurdity of RT or Sputnik - which I also read; it would be mind-boggling that many so people buy into the absurds claims they systematically make, if it weren't for the fact that large numbers of people buy into other similarly absurd claims, including religion, ideology, and so on, so in context, it's just more human irrationality. The fact that you can't see that the Russian government is murderous and oppressive shows a similar shortcoming on your part, given that you too can read what different people claim, the news as presented by different media outlets, etc.

Now, I don't buy something just because HRW or Amnesty claim so. But those are pieces of evidence, among a lot of them - and, in fact, I provided more sources, purely for example, but there is plenty more. The Russian government is definitely both oppressive and murderous, and is in the business of stealing territory from other countries - as it did with Crimea and would have done with much of Ukraine if they'd been able to. Maybe they can still pull that off, though it seems improbable now.

 

[barbos]

Now, I don't buy something just because HRW or Amnesty claim so. But those are pieces of evidence, among a lot of them - and, in fact, I provided more sources, purely for example, but there is plenty more. The Russian government is definitely both oppressive and murderous, and is in the business of stealing territory from other countries - as it did with Crimea and would have done with much of Ukraine if they'd been able to. Maybe they can still pull that off, though it seems improbable now.

Cool, explain why former US ambassador to Russia agrees with Putin? Why there is this tendency for former CIA&etc guys to side with russian viewpoint?
Why EU journalists experience a surprise when they decide to visit and see for themselves what is happening in Crimea?

Has CNN reported on this http://eng.lsm.lv/article/economy/transport/lithuania-fined-over-missing-latvia-rail-link.a252296/ ?
This should be a real scandal, instead of imaginary russian planes violating some air space (they don't)

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Now, I don't buy something just because HRW or Amnesty claim so. But those are pieces of evidence, among a lot of them - and, in fact, I provided more sources, purely for example, but there is plenty more. The Russian government is definitely both oppressive and murderous, and is in the business of stealing territory from other countries - as it did with Crimea and would have done with much of Ukraine if they'd been able to. Maybe they can still pull that off, though it seems improbable now.

Cool, explain why former US ambassador to Russia agrees with Putin? Why there is this tendency for former CIA&etc guys to side with russian viewpoint?
Why EU journalists experience a surprise when they decide to visit and see for themselves what is happening in Crimea?

I don't know the specific motivations of specific individuals. I look at the whole picture. But I would ask for evidence of your claims. I don't mean evidence that some former CIA operatives agree with the viewpoint of Russia (on what?), but rather, that there is a tendency, something suggesting a considerable number of analysts. Also, I would like for clarification about the alleged agreement. Agreement on what, exactly?

At any rate, I would ask for the evidence on which you base your assessments (i.e., links, or references, or something).

 

[barbos]

Now, I don't buy something just because HRW or Amnesty claim so. But those are pieces of evidence, among a lot of them - and, in fact, I provided more sources, purely for example, but there is plenty more. The Russian government is definitely both oppressive and murderous, and is in the business of stealing territory from other countries - as it did with Crimea and would have done with much of Ukraine if they'd been able to. Maybe they can still pull that off, though it seems improbable now.

Cool, explain why former US ambassador to Russia agrees with Putin? Why there is this tendency for former CIA&etc guys to side with russian viewpoint?
Why EU journalists experience a surprise when they decide to visit and see for themselves what is happening in Crimea?

I don't know the specific motivations of specific individuals.

Motivation/individual my ass. He is a fucking (former) ambassador and career one at that, this thing alone should give you a pause.

I look at the whole picture. But I would ask for evidence of your claims. I don't mean evidence that some former CIA operatives agree with the viewpoint of Russia (on what?), but rather, that there is a tendency, something suggesting a considerable number of analysts. Also, I would like for clarification about the alleged agreement. Agreement on what, exactly?

At any rate, I would ask for the evidence on which you base your assessments (i.e., links, or references, or something).

I gather you have not even heard about it. Which is not surprising considering that western media likes to ignore the real and unbiased (cause they are retired) experts.

 

[DrZoidberg]

More corrupted than oppressive/murderous. And oppressive is a direct result of US trying to undermine it.

Russia has nukes because USSR had them, and USSR had them to defend from US nukes. Do I have to remind you that we now know that US had first strike plans and that USSR have never had them?

Yes, breaking a deal means eventual war (with invasion) The whole reason for that deal which reversed these long standing sanctions was a fact that sanctions were not working - Iran was not complying with international laws regarding nuclear stuff, in other words they were working on nuclear bomb.

No, breaking the deal does not mean war. The US would not be forced to attack without the deal. And in fact, it might - for example - put pressure on Iran to improve inspections (i.e., call for a better deal), and try to back that up with sanctions. It's a bad idea because the US position is pretty weak, but there is no way it would force the US to attack, just as no deal would not force Iran to actually make nukes.

And a war, again, would not entail an invasion. They might choose to bomb (for example), even using anti-bunker weapons, and only after the defenses are very weak, maybe use ground forces to destroy targets that resist aerial attacks, but only in those limited scenarios.
And in any event, an invasion would not entail (and would not involve, as a policy) the targeting of civilians.

Well, I don't see much difference, but from what I read war with Iran will necessitate invasion.
And again, no deal means war, there is no other way.

There will likely be no war with Iran. Iran is a growing power in that part of the world and will likely prove important as an ally to US interests. This is the groundwork I believe Obama was trying to lay before the the repub-tards fucked everything up, because they're not what you would call "Big Picture Thinkers."

Too late. Iran is a beligerent in the Syrian war. The Syrian civil war is basically a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. That Iran is winning.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Motivation/individual my ass. He is a fucking (former) ambassador and career one at that, this thing alone should give you a pause.

You haven't identified the person, but you have made it clear it's one. Could you be more specific, please?
Who? What does he agree with Russia about?
The evidence that it's an oppressive and murderous government comes from many different sources, incidents, etc. It's not something a single person can overturn. But still, I'm asking you to present links, references, anything at all.

I gather you have not even heard about it. Which is not surprising considering that western media likes to ignore the real and unbiased (cause they are retired) experts.

Are we talking Litvinenko? Katyr Yurt? Grozny? Syria? Ukraine? The evidence is all over the place. Could you at least say what you're talking about?

All I can found is that Matlock seems to support Russia on the issue of whom Crimea belongs to. Even assuming for the sake of the argument he's right about that, the Russian government remains oppressive and murderous, and the evidence is all over the place. Is it someone else? If you want to discuss the matter, you'd have to explain at least what you're talking about.

 

[barbos]

Motivation/individual my ass. He is a fucking (former) ambassador and career one at that, this thing alone should give you a pause.

You haven't identified the person, but you have made it clear it's one. Could you be more specific, please?
Who? What does he agree with Russia about?
The evidence that it's an oppressive and murderous government comes from many different sources, incidents, etc. It's not something a single person can overturn. But still, I'm asking you to present links, references, anything at all.

I gather you have not even heard about it. Which is not surprising considering that western media likes to ignore the real and unbiased (cause they are retired) experts.

Are we talking Litvinenko? Katyr Yurt? Grozny? Syria? Ukraine? The evidence is all over the place. Could you at least say what you're talking about?

Iran-Contras, Blackwater, Snowden, Railroad in Litvinia, Black Lives Matter.

All I can found is that Matlock seems to support Russia on the issue of whom Crimea belongs to. Even assuming for the sake of the argument he's right about that, the Russian government remains oppressive and murderous, and the evidence is all over the place. Is it someone else? If you want to discuss the matter, you'd have to explain at least what you're talking about.

I explained it already, the matter is that you keep repeating western propaganda points without listening.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Iran-Contras, Blackwater, Snowden, Railroad in Litvinia, Black Lives Matter.

But then you're missing the points entirely, since the evidence that the Russian government is murderous and oppressive does not depend on any of that.

I explained it already, the matter is that you keep repeating western propaganda points without listening.

That's false. You claimed that already. And it was unwarranted of your part to believe that. And when you made further claims, I asked you for sources, links, or references, or anything to support your counterclaims. You did not provide anything. You did not even name the ambassador who was supposed to be so important, despite my repeated requests for you to tell me who you were even talking about. But I searched for anything that resembled that. Again, Matlock seems to support Russia on the issue of whom Crimea belongs to. Even assuming for the sake of the argument he's right about that, the Russian government remains oppressive and murderous, and the evidence is all over the place.

But let's begin with a couple of examples (there is plenty more, but just to focus on something):

You implied that the Russian government is not murderous. The case of Litvinenko is a probable example of murder sanctioned by the Russian government. If that were the only case, it would be unwarranted to conclude that the Russian government is murderous. It would be warranted to say it's probably so, but not to be sure. Of course, that's not at all the only piece of evidence. But on the other hand, that case is enough to make the claim that the Russian government is not murderous unwarranted.


Let's consider just a couple of cases, when it comes to oppressiveness:

1. Navalny.
A prominent opposition politician, he's being persecuted. Is it really because of corruption? There seems to be no clear evidence of that, and at least some of the procedures against him are arbitrary. Putin and several of his allies are corrupt and are left alone.

2. "Gay propaganda" law.

 

[barbos]

Iran-Contras, Blackwater, Snowden, Railroad in Litvinia, Black Lives Matter.

But then you're missing the points entirely, since the evidence that the Russian government is murderous and oppressive does not depend on any of that.

But what if it is not more murderous than US or average western country? What would that do to your singling out Russian government?

I explained it already, the matter is that you keep repeating western propaganda points without listening.

That's false. You claimed that already. And it was unwarranted of your part to believe that. And when you made further claims, I asked you for sources, links, or references, or anything to support your counterclaims. You did not provide anything. You did not even name the ambassador who was supposed to be so important, despite my repeated requests for you to tell me who you were even talking about. But I searched for anything that resembled that. Again, Matlock seems to support Russia on the issue of whom Crimea belongs to. Even assuming for the sake of the argument he's right about that, the Russian government remains oppressive and murderous, and the evidence is all over the place.

But let's begin with a couple of examples (there is plenty more, but just to focus on something):

You implied that the Russian government is not murderous. The case of Litvinenko is a probable example of murder sanctioned by the Russian government. If that were the only case, it would be unwarranted to conclude that the Russian government is murderous. It would be warranted to say it's probably so, but not to be sure. Of course, that's not at all the only piece of evidence. But on the other hand, that case is enough to make the claim that the Russian government is not murderous unwarranted.

Litvinenko is the best case you have. Well, actually there is a better case, remember that chechen "freedom figter" in Qatar which was blown up in his car? Russian government does not even deny it. But western media does not harass Putin about that dead "freedom fighter"

Let's consider just a couple of cases, when it comes to oppressiveness:

1. Navalny.
A prominent opposition politician, he's being persecuted. Is it really because of corruption? There seems to be no clear evidence of that, and at least some of the procedures against him are arbitrary. Putin and several of his allies are corrupt and are left alone.

Well, Navalniy is all about corruption, it's really his whole political platform. Having said that, I am not entirely convinced that his conviction is entirely baseless. His career before going to politics strikes me as a classical case of average low level russian "businessman" which is inseparable from corruption. And yes, Russian government is more corrupted than the most (not all) EU countries or US. So yeah, that's a real thing

2. "Gay propaganda" law.

I am not sure why it got on your list. Government has little to do with that law. Some clowns in Parliament suggested it and nobody there wanted (for obvious reasons) to vote against it. So yeah, there is a "eugh" factor at play and gay parades are now illegal. But from the government point of view it's for the best, because any gay parade would end up in government spending money on protecting it from pogroms from orthodox christian crowd. Russia is not ready for gay parades yet, financially at least

All these issues you brought up (except maybe Litvinenko which was grave mistake) are distractions.
Real issue is corruption, specifically in justice system. One can say it all starts with political system, I will not argue with that but will point out that history shows that changing the system the way West suggests will bring utter chaos.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But what if it is not more murderous than US or average western country? What would that do to your singling out Russian government?

If it's not more murderous than the US or an average Western country (whatever that is), then the US or the average Western country is also murderous. I do not think this is likely the case, though, but the reason I brought up Russia is that you said earlier that "Nope, It's US who is making improper assessment that Russia and especially with nukes is a threat.", and I pointed out that Russia was a threat to many people, and that it was murderous and oppressive, to which you responded that it wasn't, but was instead corrupt, so we ended up debating that. It was actually a side issue with respect to the exchange up to that point.

Litvinenko is the best case you have. Well, actually there is a better case, remember that chechen "freedom figter" in Qatar which was blown up in his car? Russian government does not even deny it. But western media does not harass Putin about that dead "freedom fighter"

Actually, Litvinenko is not the best case there is, though it's not bad. Better cases are a few of the attacks on civilian areas. For example, while many of them involve just lack of concern for civilian lives rather than actual targeting them, others (such as repeated attacks on hospitals) make up a pretty solid case. It's very difficult to accidentally drop bombs on the same hospital repeatedly in the same bombing run and in more than one bombing runs without actually targeting them (leaving aside a scorch earth tactic where so many bombs are dropped that pretty much everything is repeatedly hit, but that's not what we saw; the bombing was in a significant scale but not that scale).

As for Yandarbiyev, the case is different from that of Litvinenko because there is a good case to be made that he was a terrorist and a threat to Russian civilians. The question becomes whether the method was acceptable, given that his son was also killed, and also given that the bombing could well have killed civilians around the explossion. But similar issues can be raised against some of Israel's actions, or the actions of the US. The Western media does not "harass" Russia over Litvinenko, and while I don't know the reasons behind the decisions of every single media outlet, it seems clear that in general, all other things equal:

1. An assassination that happens in London will likely draw a lot more attention from Western media than one that happens in Qatar.
2. An assassination with radiation will likely draw a lot more attention from Western media than one that happens with non-nuclear devices (at least, as long as there aren't many fatalities).
3. The assassination of a person for denouncing a government will likely draw a lot more attention from Western media than one for terrorism.

If you put all of those together, it's unsurprising that Litvinenko draws more attention. Then again, the media tends to be fickle also when it comes to which is picked as newsworthy, so I don't claim to know the whole picture.
However, that's not the issue. The Russian government isn't more or less murderous depending on media coverage.

Well, Navalniy is all about corruption, it's really his whole political platform.

Yes, but what I meant is: is it true that he's being tried, convicted, etc., because he is corrupt?
That seems very improbable. The reason he's being tried, convicted, etc., is very probably because he denounces corruption in the government, he was becoming a serious political challenge, etc., and that's oppressive behavior.

Having said that, I am not entirely convinced that his conviction is entirely baseless. His career before going to politics strikes me as a classical case of average low level russian "businessman" which is inseparable from corruption. And yes, Russian government is more corrupted than the most (not all) EU countries or US. So yeah, that's a real thing.

Right, but even if he is corrupt, that's very probably not why they're after him.

I am not sure why it got on your list. Government has little to do with that law. Some clowns in Parliament suggested it and nobody there wanted (for obvious reasons) to vote against it. So yeah, there is a "eugh" factor at play and gay parades are now illegal. But from the government point of view it's for the best, because any gay parade would end up in government spending money on protecting it from pogroms from orthodox christian crowd. Russia is not ready for gay parades yet, financially at least

It's on the list because it was a piece of evidence in support of the claim of oppressiveness.
Now, there are of course different degrees of oppression. This is not on its own enough to make a government generally oppressive if everything else were fine. It would make it oppressive on a very narrow issue. But I had to start somewhere, given that you weren't focusing on anything in particular but disagreed with my assessment. After we've discussed this one, we may consider other issues.

Also, you say that the government has little to do with it. Stipulating that Parliament does not count as part of the government, it remains the case that lawmakers in Putin's party vote for whatever he decides. If he had told them to vote against it, they would have voted against it. Moreover, even after the law passed, the government could have vetoed the law. He didn't, but moreover, he publicly defended it.

As for parades, well sure, money should be spent protecting them from fanatics. But if the state is unable to protect them or if they believe it's too expensive, they should say that it's too expensive to defend the parades against Christian fanatics, rather than criminalize the parades themselves, let alone support the reasons for the criminalization given by the fanatics. That is oppressive - it's siding with the fanatics, and it encourages and justifies in the eyes of many such violence.

But additionally, the law is not about parades alone. It's much wider than that. It criminalizes presenting "distorted ideas about the equal social value of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships.". That's aside for any parades.

All these issues you brought up (except maybe Litvinenko which was grave mistake) are distractions.
Real issue is corruption, specifically in justice system. One can say it all starts with political system, I will not argue with that but will point out that history shows that changing the system the way West suggests will bring utter chaos.

I'm not sure what way you have in mind when you say "the way West suggests". I would need more information. But let's say that it would bring utter chaos. That does not make the government not murderous or oppressive, and does not make Russia not a threat to many people, which is what I had said earlier, before we started this part of the discussion.

 

[barbos]

If it's not more murderous than the US or an average Western country (whatever that is), then the US or the average Western country is also murderous. I do not think this is likely the case, though, but the reason I brought up Russia is that you said earlier that "Nope, It's US who is making improper assessment that Russia and especially with nukes is a threat.", and I pointed out that Russia was a threat to many people, and that it was murderous and oppressive, to which you responded that it wasn't, but was instead corrupt, so we ended up debating that. It was actually a side issue with respect to the exchange up to that point.


Actually, Litvinenko is not the best case there is, though it's not bad. Better cases are a few of the attacks on civilian areas. For example, while many of them involve just lack of concern for civilian lives rather than actual targeting them, others (such as repeated attacks on hospitals) make up a pretty solid case. It's very difficult to accidentally drop bombs on the same hospital repeatedly in the same bombing run and in more than one bombing runs without actually targeting them (leaving aside a scorch earth tactic where so many bombs are dropped that pretty much everything is repeatedly hit, but that's not what we saw; the bombing was in a significant scale but not that scale).

What hospitals? Are you talking about Syria? If so then it was shown that most of these accusations had no basis in reality they were basically lies, at the same time US has had a number of real fuckups.

As for Yandarbiyev, the case is different from that of Litvinenko because there is a good case to be made that he was a terrorist and a threat to Russian civilians. The question becomes whether the method was acceptable, given that his son was also killed, and also given that the bombing could well have killed civilians around the explossion. But similar issues can be raised against some of Israel's actions, or the actions of the US. The Western media does not "harass" Russia over Litvinenko, and while I don't know the reasons behind the decisions of every single media outlet, it seems clear that in general, all other things equal:

1. An assassination that happens in London will likely draw a lot more attention from Western media than one that happens in Qatar.
2. An assassination with radiation will likely draw a lot more attention from Western media than one that happens with non-nuclear devices (at least, as long as there aren't many fatalities).
3. The assassination of a person for denouncing a government will likely draw a lot more attention from Western media than one for terrorism.

If you put all of those together, it's unsurprising that Litvinenko draws more attention. Then again, the media tends to be fickle also when it comes to which is picked as newsworthy, so I don't claim to know the whole picture.
However, that's not the issue. The Russian government isn't more or less murderous depending on media coverage.

Well, Navalniy is all about corruption, it's really his whole political platform.

Yes, but what I meant is: is it true that he's being tried, convicted, etc., because he is corrupt?
That seems very improbable. The reason he's being tried, convicted, etc., is very probably because he denounces corruption in the government, he was becoming a serious political challenge, etc., and that's oppressive behavior.

Most likely yes. But I have the same question about US motives for harassing Russia. Do they have real concerns about all that crap they say they have concerns or they simply consider Russia a threat? Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other ME allies of US are utter shitholes by any metric, yet US does not seem harass them. Why is that?

Having said that, I am not entirely convinced that his conviction is entirely baseless. His career before going to politics strikes me as a classical case of average low level russian "businessman" which is inseparable from corruption. And yes, Russian government is more corrupted than the most (not all) EU countries or US. So yeah, that's a real thing.

Right, but even if he is corrupt, that's very probably not why they're after him.

I am not sure why it got on your list. Government has little to do with that law. Some clowns in Parliament suggested it and nobody there wanted (for obvious reasons) to vote against it. So yeah, there is a "eugh" factor at play and gay parades are now illegal. But from the government point of view it's for the best, because any gay parade would end up in government spending money on protecting it from pogroms from orthodox christian crowd. Russia is not ready for gay parades yet, financially at least

It's on the list because it was a piece of evidence in support of the claim of oppressiveness.
Now, there are of course different degrees of oppression. This is not on its own enough to make a government generally oppressive if everything else were fine. It would make it oppressive on a very narrow issue. But I had to start somewhere, given that you weren't focusing on anything in particular but disagreed with my assessment. After we've discussed this one, we may consider other issues.

Also, you say that the government has little to do with it. Stipulating that Parliament does not count as part of the government, it remains the case that lawmakers in Putin's party vote for whatever he decides.

Sure, But they also improvise a lot. I can assure you that Putin was not the one with the idea.

If he had told them to vote against it, they would have voted against it.

Why would he tell them that?

Moreover, even after the law passed, the government could have vetoed the law. He didn't, but moreover, he publicly defended it.

As for parades, well sure, money should be spent protecting them from fanatics. But if the state is unable to protect them or if they believe it's too expensive, they should say that it's too expensive to defend the parades against Christian fanatics, rather than criminalize the parades themselves, let alone support the reasons for the criminalization given by the fanatics. That is oppressive - it's siding with the fanatics, and it encourages and justifies in the eyes of many such violence.

That's all good, but not practical in present time. According to your logic US "Don't ask, don't tell" was oppressive too.

But additionally, the law is not about parades alone. It's much wider than that. It criminalizes presenting "distorted ideas about the equal social value of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships.". That's aside for any parades.

Yes, so? It's very amusing how westerners are so quick at criticizing others forgetting where they were just few decades ago in gay rights area.
One day they legalize gay marriage or something and the very next day they go around and teaching others as if they have had gay marriages for centuries. When in reality government was chemically castrating gays what? 30-40 years ago?

All these issues you brought up (except maybe Litvinenko which was grave mistake) are distractions.
Real issue is corruption, specifically in justice system. One can say it all starts with political system, I will not argue with that but will point out that history shows that changing the system the way West suggests will bring utter chaos.

I'm not sure what way you have in mind when you say "the way West suggests". I would need more information. But let's say that it would bring utter chaos. That does not make the government not murderous or oppressive, and does not make Russia not a threat to many people, which is what I had said earlier, before we started this part of the discussion.

West harass Russia because Russia is an existential threat, not because gays, murders and other official reasons for harassment.
And all of that has an opposite effect on gays and all other oppressed minorities because isolated Russian government sees no need to answer to criticism . But then again, maybe this IS the goal of all that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What hospitals? Are you talking about Syria? If so then it was shown that most of these accusations had no basis in reality they were basically lies, at the same time US has had a number of real fuckups.

Where was it shown?
The US did kill many civilians, though not on the same scale as Russia. However, it's clear that the US is not targeting civilans, and in fact attempts to reduce civilian casualties. On the other hand, Russia does not seem to care much about civilian casualties (if at all), and sometimes, it seems they're targeting civilians too.

But we can discuss the matter.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/r...s-led-airstrikes-on-syrians-as-bad-as-russias

Granted, the Guardian is not an unbiased source. But it's biased against America as well, and yet they reckon the two sides are fighting different wars when it comes to civilian casualties - and that's what reports on the ground, from different organizations and many people, say (and you can find sources there too).

On the more direct issue of targeting hospitals:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...ces-targeting-hospitals-as-a-strategy-of-war/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ed-since-russian-airstrikes-began-doctors-say

http://www.msf.org/article/syria-st...ernational-president-médecins-sans-frontières

These are not US or other Western propaganda outlets. They are outlets usually biased against the US, and which cite multiple sources on the ground. Now, people sometimes lie, and one should take a look at other sources, if there are any. But the other sources are the US (which concurs) and Russia (which of course denies), and neither of them is very credible. In particular, Russia is fighting a war alongside the Syrian regime - their ally - which has murdered more people than any of the other parties involved, and engages regularly in targeting civilians, mass torture, use of chemical weapons, barrel bombs against civilian populations, etc. So, the Russian side does not appear very credible.

Now, you say that "it was shown that most of these accusations had no basis in reality they were basically lies". Okay, could you please provide evidence showing that those are lies? I'm listening, and I'm willing to take a look at your sources and make an assessment. But I need to know what your sources are in order to do so.

Most likely yes. But I have the same question about US motives for harassing Russia. Do they have real concerns about all that crap they say they have concerns or they simply consider Russia a threat? Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other ME allies of US are utter shitholes by any metric, yet US does not seem harass them. Why is that?

Even if the people in the US government denounces Russia not because they care about their victims or the immorality of the behavior of their leaders but because of some other motive, that would not make the US oppressive, or Russia not oppressive. It's apparent that the US government is far less oppressive than Russia's, and in fact, it's generally not an oppressive government. A similar assessment can be made about Western European countries. This is not to say that they don't engage in some oppressive actions, but that's on a different scale from Russia's.
Now, Saudi Arabia is in fact considerably more oppressive than Russia, Cuba and probably even Iran. It's also murderous. Qatar doesn't seem to be as bad as Saudi Arabia, though it's also pretty bad.
The US does denounce some of their evil actions:

https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2004/35507.htm
https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2016/nea/265516.htm

On the other hand, the US says nothing about other actions. Do they denounce Russia because they care about the victims, or because they reckon it's in their interest to denounce Russia?
I think this probably depends on the person. Not everyone acts on the same motivation. But can you imagine Russia denouncing their allies in a similar fashion?
Which is not to say that the US is all good. It has a tendency to engage in military actions with disastrous results. Moreover, they keep selling weapons to Saudi Arabia despite the disastrous campaign it carries out in Yemen, and its own general oppresive nature. So, some of the things the US does is pretty bad. But again, we're not in the same league here. And in terms of domestic freedom, it's worlds apart.

A few other Western countries do better, given that they are far less inclined (or not inclined at all) to engage in military campaigns with really bad outcomes.

Sure, But they also improvise a lot. I can assure you that Putin was not the one with the idea.

But he saw a strategic opportunity to further boost his popularity, and he took it, at the expense of the victims of the law.

Why would he tell them that?

Well, if he cared about not oppressing innocent people, for that reason. But then again, I do think he probably had no reason from the perspective of his goals. That's not the issue, though. I pointed that out because you said the government was not involved, and I was saying Putin supported the bill even if it wasn't his idea, did not tell them to vote against it, and did not veto it.

That's all good, but not practical in present time. According to your logic US "Don't ask, don't tell" was oppressive too.

First, "Don't ask, don't tell", applied to military personnel, not to the general population. As long as military personnel wasn't drafted, "oppressive" probably isn't the right word, though it was unjust.
Second, "Don't ask, don't tell" was an improvement over the previous situation. The propaganda law makes things worse, no better. And the rationale given to support it is not "well, we need to have this law in order not to have violent Christian fanatics attack innocent gay people" (though that rationale would not have been acceptable, either, since the law goes well beyond the parades, and since Russia had ways to protect gay people other then criminalizing some of their free expressions).

Yes, so? It's very amusing how westerners are so quick at criticizing others forgetting where they were just few decades ago in gay rights area.
One day they legalize gay marriage or something and the very next day they go around and teaching others as if they have had gay marriages for centuries. When in reality government was chemically castrating gays what? 30-40 years ago?

Do I count as a Westerner?
I don't know. But no matter, sure, the government of the US in the past was considerably oppressive to gay people. In fact, in that regard, it was more oppressive than Russia is today.
And it was even worse for, say, Japanase Americans. And it was much worse for Black people. And so were many other governments. But that does not make Russia any better.

West harass Russia because Russia is an existential threat, not because gays, murders and other official reasons for harassment.

First, what do you mean by "harass"?
Second, "West" is not a person. Different people in Western countries do different things for different reasons.
Third, many people in the media, human rights organizations, etc., denounce Russia because of gays, murders, and so on, not because it's an existencial threat.

Fourth, why is Russia an existencial threat?

And all of that has an opposite effect on gays and all other oppressed minorities because isolated Russian government sees no need to answer to criticism .

Maybe, but it seems more likely that the Russian goverment not care either way. More precisely, Putin will remain in power as long as he's alive or mentally fit, and won't allow challlengers to beat him in a fair election, regardless of what people in the West might say.

But then again, maybe this IS the goal of all that.

The goal of what?
You would have to be more precise. When people like those in HRW, Amnesty International, the Guardian, etc., denounce the actions of Russia, surely they do not intend to make things worse for Russian political opponents, gays, etc.
So, who are you talking about, more precisely? Do you think that's the goal of, say, Democrats who criticize Russia? Or Republicans like McCain?

 

[barbos]

Where was it shown?

It was shown in reality. You should research more.

The US did kill many civilians, though not on the same scale as Russia.

That's debatable. And if it is true then so what? Important thing whether or not Russian targets civilians and they don't. There is simply no benefit for Putin to target civilians. The whole thing was devised largely for propaganda purposes for the the World, to show that Russia can do it and do it clean. Was it absolutely clean, most likely now, but what western propaganda reports was largely one sided lies.

However, it's clear that the US is not targeting civilans,

True, they don't intend to bomb weddings, yet it's pretty much weekly occurrence.

and in fact attempts to reduce civilian casualties. On the other hand, Russia does not seem to care much about civilian casualties (if at all), and sometimes, it seems they're targeting civilians too.

That's a ridiculous lie.

But we can discuss the matter.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/r...s-led-airstrikes-on-syrians-as-bad-as-russias

Granted, the Guardian is not an unbiased source. But it's biased against America as well, and yet they reckon the two sides are fighting different wars when it comes to civilian casualties - and that's what reports on the ground, from different organizations and many people, say (and you can find sources there too).

On the more direct issue of targeting hospitals:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...ces-targeting-hospitals-as-a-strategy-of-war/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ed-since-russian-airstrikes-began-doctors-say

http://www.msf.org/article/syria-st...ernational-president-médecins-sans-frontières

These reports are not worth a shit.

These are not US or other Western propaganda outlets.

They are based on reports from terrorists themselves.

They are outlets usually biased against the US, and which cite multiple sources on the ground. Now, people sometimes lie, and one should take a look at other sources, if there are any. But the other sources are the US (which concurs) and Russia (which of course denies), and neither of them is very credible. In particular, Russia is fighting a war alongside the Syrian regime - their ally - which has murdered more people than any of the other parties involved, and engages regularly in targeting civilians, mass torture, use of chemical weapons, barrel bombs against civilian populations, etc. So, the Russian side does not appear very credible.

You are repeating anti-russian propaganda verbatim.

Now, you say that "it was shown that most of these accusations had no basis in reality they were basically lies". Okay, could you please provide evidence showing that those are lies?

You have got to be kidding me, I am going to end this whole discussion with you. We are done here.
Until you rethink your approach and start processing all information critically I see no point in responding to your propaganda rebroadcasts. Seriously what's the point? You keep ignoring everything I say and just repeat propaganda which is not even supposed to work on me cause I live in Russia.