Anti-Russian rhetoric

[Digby]

I think you may be missing the point on this one. I found it amusing that you didn't want any dissenting voices on a thread about a country that comes down very hard on dissenting voices.

Only with things like polonium though, nothing serious

[Sandydragon]

How very apt that a thread about Russia is only allowed to contain posts in support of Russia.

Haplessly missing the point also. It's not for me to decide, but I'd say that posts critical of Russia are certainly allowed here and everywhere else. But on a thread set up to address Russophobian sentiment, Russophobian comments are not going to go unchallenged. That's a delusion.

So who's the hypocrite here?

I think you may be missing the point on this one. I found it amusing that you didn't want any dissenting voices on a thread about a country that comes down very hard on dissenting voices.

You need to read the title of the thread, chum. It's clear as daylight. I'm addressing anti-Russian rhetoric. You're generating it then attempting to defend it with yet more anti-Russian rhetoric. That's because you have been brainwashed into a state of Russophobic hatred. That's not healthy - not for you nor anyone.

To put it bluntly, what gives you the arrogance to assume that we have all been brainwashed yet you have not?

[Mellsblue]

How very apt that a thread about Russia is only allowed to contain posts in support of Russia.

Haplessly missing the point also. It's not for me to decide, but I'd say that posts critical of Russia are certainly allowed here and everywhere else. But on a thread set up to address Russophobian sentiment, Russophobian comments are not going to go unchallenged. That's a delusion.

So who's the hypocrite here?

I think you may be missing the point on this one. I found it amusing that you didn't want any dissenting voices on a thread about a country that comes down very hard on dissenting voices.

You need to read the title of the thread, chum. It's clear as daylight. I'm addressing anti-Russian rhetoric. You're generating it then attempting to defend it with yet more anti-Russian rhetoric. That's because you have been brainwashed into a state of Russophobic hatred. That's not healthy - not for you nor anyone.

I can read it. It reads 'Anti-Russian rhetoric'. Not 'A thread to solely discuss pro-Russian rhetoric'. If we're being honest, it sounds like an invitation to post anti-Russian rhetoric that we've been brainwashed with since nursery.
Regardless, it made me chuckle. Which it pretty much the only thing a sane person would take from most of the threads on the politics board.

[rowan]

To put it bluntly, what gives you the arrogance to assume that we have all been brainwashed yet you have not?

Your comments, for one. Your media, for another. I read both.


If we're being honest, it sounds like an invitation to post anti-Russian rhetoric that we've been brainwashed with since nursery

If that were the case, and it clearly isn't, it would be a paradoxical cause, self-defeating by nature, and full value for all the criticism it receives.

[morepork]

Rowan, I'm curious as to what it would take for you to recognise that people on here can acknowledge your point of view without necessarily having to agree with it. It just seems as though you have a stock narrative that you are determined to deliver whatever the input from other sources. It's almost Asperger's-like

[rowan]

Rowan, I'm curious as to what it would take for you to recognise that people on here can acknowledge your point of view without necessarily having to agree with it. It just seems as though you have a stock narrative that you are determined to deliver whatever the input from other sources. It's almost Asperger's-like

That's not the case here at all, and you know it. The case is that a thread set up to address the issue of anti-Russian rhetoric is being filled up with actual anti-Russian rhetoric, and when I challenge that in accordance with the spirit of the thread I am accused of being unduly protective of Russia. So the failure to recognize that people on here can disagree lies with those who object to their Russophobic views being challenged on a thread designed expressly for that purpose.

So who's the hypocrite here?

[morepork]

There's that stock footage again.

Are you saying I am a hypocrite? A Russsophobe? Both? Neither?

Prease help.

[rowan]

Stop trying to police what other people post, you smarmy fuck.

It was a suggestion, not an order. I'm simply pointing out that if you post criticism of Russia on a thread intended to address anti-Russian rhetoric, expect your views to be challenged. That's the point you're so haplessly missing.

Is that why your first post in this thread - the 3rd post made in this thread after it was started - was a pro-Russian talking point?

It's funny how you immediately have a whine about how people are "missing the point of the thread," when someone talks shit about Russia, while apparently it's OK to do a written handjob on Poots. Who the fuck do you think you are to try to constantly police what others are writing?

Discussions always shift focus sooner or later. Get used to it, you fucking crybaby.

Now there is the definition of irony as Cashead, hapless as ever, once again misses the point. It's not me trying to police what's being written on here. That was you. The moment I started challenging your Russophobic views in accordance with the theme of this thread - which you still haven't grasped - you began to challenge my very right to challenge Russophobic views. & your derogatory comments about anything written on this forum that is not critical of Russia or its leader clearly indicate it is you who is attempting to police what others are writing.

So who's the hypocrite here?

[Donny osmond]

It was a suggestion, not an order. I'm simply pointing out that if you post criticism of Russia on a thread intended to address anti-Russian rhetoric, expect your views to be challenged. That's the point you're so haplessly missing.

Is that why your first post in this thread - the 3rd post made in this thread after it was started - was a pro-Russian talking point?

It's funny how you immediately have a whine about how people are "missing the point of the thread," when someone talks shit about Russia, while apparently it's OK to do a written handjob on Poots. Who the fuck do you think you are to try to constantly police what others are writing?

Discussions always shift focus sooner or later. Get used to it, you fucking crybaby.

Now there is the definition of irony as Cashead, hapless as ever, once again misses the point. It's not me trying to police what's being written on here. That was you. The moment I started challenging your Russophobic views in accordance with the theme of this thread - which you still haven't grasped - you began to challenge my very right to challenge Russophobic views. & your derogatory comments about anything written on this forum that is not critical of Russia or its leader clearly indicate it is you who is attempting to police what others are writing.

So who's the hypocrite here?

You keep posting that same question. Is the answer, the guy with the neverending whataboutery?

[WaspInWales]

As the author of the thread 'Anti-Russian rhetoric' (WaspInWales, 2016), I hereby give anyone the right to argue for, and against, anti-Russian rhetoric*

Fill your boots.

*-If this goes against the board rules, then I concede my authoritah (deliberate spelling) to the higher power

RugbyRebels (2016) ‘Anti-Russian rhetoric’, Politics and stuff [Online]. Available at ‘http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... =17&t=1097’ (Accessed 1 February 2017).

[Mellsblue]

As the author of the thread 'Anti-Russian rhetoric' (WaspInWales, 2016), I hereby give anyone the right to argue for, and against, anti-Russian rhetoric*

Fill your boots.

*-If this goes against the board rules, then I concede my authoritah (deliberate spelling) to the higher power

RugbyRebels (2016) ‘Anti-Russian rhetoric’, Politics and stuff [Online]. Available at ‘http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... =17&t=1097’ (Accessed 1 February 2017).

You hypocrite.

[rowan]

Get a brain, Mellsblue. It's you and that hapless Cashead who have been getting angry over having their anti-Russian views questioned on a thread about anti-Russian views. Of course we can argue for and against, but the criticism I've received has been about doing precisely that, challenging your anti-Russian views; not attempting to silence them. That's what you and the hapless Cashead have been doing, clearly. Wasps has simply confirmed that, and I suggest you go back and read his original post on this thread to get a handle on the spirit it was intended in (certainly not an invite to fill it up with anti-Russian views, I would suggest).

So who's the hypocrite here?

[Mellsblue]

Get a brain, Mellsblue. It's you and that hapless Cashead who have been getting angry over having their anti-Russian views questioned on a thread about anti-Russian views. Of course we can argue for and against, but the criticism I've received has been about doing precisely that, challenging your anti-Russian views; not attempting to silence them. That's what you and the hapless Cashead have been doing, clearly. Wasps has simply confirmed that, and I suggest you go back and read his original post on this thread to get a handle on the spirit it was intended in (certainly not an invite to fill it up with anti-Russian views, I would suggest).

So who's the hypocrite here?

I'm not getting angry, only amused.

I've already said that WiW is the hypocrite.

[WaspInWales]

As the author of the thread 'Anti-Russian rhetoric' (WaspInWales, 2016), I hereby give anyone the right to argue for, and against, anti-Russian rhetoric*

Fill your boots.

*-If this goes against the board rules, then I concede my authoritah (deliberate spelling) to the higher power

RugbyRebels (2016) ‘Anti-Russian rhetoric’, Politics and stuff [Online]. Available at ‘http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... =17&t=1097’ (Accessed 1 February 2017).

You hypocrite.

[Mellsblue]

As the author of the thread 'Anti-Russian rhetoric' (WaspInWales, 2016), I hereby give anyone the right to argue for, and against, anti-Russian rhetoric*

Fill your boots.

*-If this goes against the board rules, then I concede my authoritah (deliberate spelling) to the higher power

RugbyRebels (2016) ‘Anti-Russian rhetoric’, Politics and stuff [Online]. Available at ‘http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... =17&t=1097’ (Accessed 1 February 2017).

You hypocrite.

Whoa, whoa. I thought porn wasn't allowed on rugby rebels.

[canta_brian]

Rowan, the thread is about Anti-Russian Rhetoric. It will obviously contain some anti Russian statements. Where you appear to be at odds with the rest of the world is in your belief that all anti-Russian comment is automatically rhetoric. You defend all statements critical of Russia regardless of their source. Even when you clearly see that the criticism is valid you simply attempt to deflect the criticism onto another country. For instance the domestic abuse and murder rate comments that have been posted. Stats from the Russian government suggest that around 36000 women suffer domestic abuse daily in Russia and respected NGOs believe around 14000 women are murdered by their partners each year. Your response was to say that murder also happens in the west. Let's take the western country in which I live and have a bit of a look.

Russia has a population on 143 million or so.
Great Britain has a population of 64.1 million and therefore has 45% of the population of Russia.
45% of 14000 is 6300. So to be roughly equivalent the UK would need to have 6300 domestic abuse murders to sit along side Russia.
Total Murders of all types (2013/2014 - the latest ONS stats I could find) was 619. That is all murders as there was no breakdown of the stats.

All UK murders total less than 10% of the murders that occur within relationships in Russia according to government stats. I am not quite sure where the rhetoric lies.

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports ... ce-uk.html

[rowan]

No, I think what you would like to do is fill this thread up with anti-Russian rhetoric which goes unchallenged. I reserve the right to challenge it in accordance with the spirit of the thread. The hapless Cashead regards this as 'policing' the forum, which is precisely what his own comment is clearly designed to do.

So who's the hypocrite here?

[rowan]

Patrick Cockburn on misreporting in Syria and Iraq:

There are many similarities between the sieges of Mosul and East Aleppo, but they were reported very differently. When civilians are killed or their houses destroyed during the US-led bombardment of Mosul, it is Islamic State that is said to be responsible for their deaths: they were being deployed as human shields. When Russia or Syria targets buildings in East Aleppo, Russia or Syria is blamed: the rebels have nothing to do with it. Heartrending images from East Aleppo showing dead, wounded and shellshocked children were broadcast around the world. But when, on 12 January, a video was posted online showing people searching for bodies in the ruins of a building in Mosul that appeared to have been destroyed by a US-led coalition airstrike, no Western television station carried the pictures.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n03/patrick-c ... s-the-news

[morepork]

No, I think what you would like to do is fill this thread up with anti-Russian rhetoric which goes unchallenged. I reserve the right to challenge it in accordance with the spirit of the thread. The hapless Cashead regards this as 'policing' the forum, which is precisely what his own comment is clearly designed to do.

So who's the hypocrite here?

You take yourself far too seriously mate.

[Digby]

Despite being the BBC they've come up with this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08dnryy

If anything one could argue they've gone a little far the other way in not hearing from voices against Putin, or perhaps not hearing from the far right who rather like Putin's social conservatism and nationalist agenda which would in its way also speak against Putin. But it's likely fair enough that this is simply a way to present a series of views that one doesn't always hear, and it's not bad actually.

[rowan]

Putin's popularity soars

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s weekly average approval rating has soared to a record high since the beginning of the year, the All-Russia Public Opinion Research Center said in a statement commenting on its daily polls.

According to the survey results, during the last week of February, Putin’s credibility rating rose from 51.1 percent to 52.6 percent. Among those ranking high in the credibility ratings, the president is followed by Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu (according to the poll’s results, 21.1 percent of respondents trust him compared to 16.4 percent a week before) and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev (with an approval rating of 18.4 percent compared to 17.9 percent the week before last).

The president’s approval rating was 86.1 percent in the last week of February. "It is the highest weekly rate recorded this year," the pollster’s statement reads.

By comparison, in the first week of February, as many as 85 percent of those polled said they trusted the head of state, while in January, the rate remained the same.

As for the prime minister, 60.7 percent of respondents praised his activities, while in the beginning of February that figure came to 57.4 percent. The government’s approval rating has also grown from 60.9 percent to 64 percent.

The daily polls are conducted among 600 respondents residing in at least 80 regions of Russia, results represent an average rating based on seven-day polls involving a total of 4,200 people.

http://rbth.com/news/2017/03/02/poll-sh ... 017_711993

[rowan]

Oh dear . . .

McCarthyist-style hysteria was in full force again on Thursday, as Democrats continue to scramble to link members of the Trump administration to Russia.

After collecting the scalp of General Michael Flynn, the Democrats have now set their sights on Attorney General Jeff Sessions — attempting to have him ousted for speaking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during his time in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator Claire McCaskill has landed herself in hot water for chiming in, tweeting that she had never once met with a Russian ambassador during her time in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“I’ve been on the Armed Services Committee for 10 years,” McCaskill asserted. “No call or meeting with Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Relations Committee.”

Unfortunately for the Missouri Senator, the internet does not forget. It was quickly pointed out that she has twice tweeted about the Russian ambassador — in 2013 and 2015.

https://wearechange.org/democrats-cant- ... ssia-ties/

[Sandydragon]

I assume that the UN is no longer impartial either, as they have called Russian actions in the Syrian Civil War as War Crimes. More rhetoric?

[rowan]

I assume that the UN is no longer impartial either, as they have called Russian actions in the Syrian Civil War as War Crimes. More rhetoric?

Amazingly partial view of it, given the UN - which invariably panders to Washington - actually accused all sides of war crimes. The Western media interpreted this as meaning Syria and Russia and the rebels. Of course, it also referred to the US, Saudis, Turks, British, French, Israelis and so on.

So I imagine you are actually quite disappointed and attempting to cover your embarrassment here, because the findings of the UN are as damning a condemnation of the US and its cronies as the feeble Washington-influenced organization is ever likely to give.

& that is because Washington and its cronies began the proxy war by sending in the rebels/terrorists to destabilize a Middle Eastern nation not yet under their control, with Saudi looking to break up the Shia crescent running from Iran to the Mediterranean, Qatar hoping to build a pipeline direct to Turkey, Turkey wanting to have a crack at the Kurds beyond its borders, and Israel still pissed that the UN ruled against it on the Golan Heights border dispute.

[rowan]

“Since the beginning, the US presidents (all of European stock, of course), had been promoting slavery, extermination campaigns against the native population of North America, barbaric wars of aggression against Mexico, and other Latin American countries, the Philippines, etc. Has anything changed now? I highly doubt it. Donald Trump is horrendous, but he is also honest. Both Presidents Clinton and Obama were great speakers, but unrepentant mass murderers.”

Andre Vltchek

“The solutions put forth by imperialism are the quintessence of simplicity…When they speak of the problems of population and birth, they are in no way moved by concepts related to the interests of the family or of society…Just when science and technology are making incredible advances in all fields, they resort to technology to suppress revolutions and ask the help of science to prevent population growth. In short, the peoples are not to make revolutions, and women are not to give birth. This sums up the philosophy of imperialism.”

Fidel Castro

The strange sight of liberal America participating in a neo-McCarthyite assault on Trump appointees, not on the grounds of their inherent racism and stupidity, but because they have contacts with Russia, is among the more surreal spectacles of modern political history. At what point did Russia become the official enemy of the U.S.? Wasn’t it just yesterday that Bush Jr looked into Putin’s eyes and declared him a honorable man? The truth is, of course, that Russia never stopped being the enemy. The internalized ethos of the cold war, the anti communist hysteria of post WW2 has always been there. The resentful flinty heart of America tolerates no disobedience. No country exhibiting the slightest autonomy is allowed to escape punishment and censure. The shining light on the hill symbolism is one that demands nobody else dare to exhibit anything that resembles their own leadership role globally.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/06/ ... mir-putin/