RugbyRebels

rowan wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

Precisely. Mohammed Daoud did push through some meritorious reforms after usurping his cousin, but it remained an oppressive dictatorship nonetheless, and he was still royalty. That's why the Socialists got rid of him. Now Sandy might wish to compare that to Assad. Well, I'd have no problem with a coup from within Syria replacing Assad, although he is certainly not the Hitler-of-the-Month the West has decided to portay him as (following bin Laden, Saddam, Gaddafi et al). What I don't agree with is America invading these countries on the other side of the world, either directly, by proxy or otherwise, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civlians, if not millions, and trying to tell us it was all in the name of freedom and democracy and everyone else was to blame - especially the Russians...

The regime after the coup wasn't so much better mind. Radical Stalinists, who pushed through reforms that would never be accepted by the Muslim population. Raising age of marriage, banning polygamy, outlawing dowry, etc. Now these are all commendable policies, but they were rejected by the population, and Amin's response was repression, and that included his socialist former partners the Parchamis.

I've read they were a progressive government, which gave women equal rights across the board, as the picture below seems to indicate. I can't claim to be an expert on the rest of their policies.

rowan wrote:Socialist Afghanistan before Washington sent in the Mujahideen:

rowan wrote:I've read they were a progressive government, which gave women equal rights across the board, as the picture below seems to indicate. I can't claim to be an expert on the rest of their policies.

rowan wrote:Socialist Afghanistan before Washington sent in the Mujahideen:

Totalitarian and progressive if that makes sense. Daoud too supported women's rights.

Indeed. Meanwhile, interesting read here:

Besides Syria, Ukraine is the current radix of conflict between Russia and the West, one defined not only by incompatible narratives, but also by the lack of any mechanism for arbitration of the truth (as in South Africa’s “Truth Commission”). Instead, the situation is ruled by the “alternative facts” of strategic power, by the overriding imperative of the West to complete the extension of its power – through NATO – to contain Russia.

With the seditious eclipse of truth by power, the very ethos and spirit of the United Nations Charter – the reciprocity between nations – is displaced by unilateralist assertions of power.

The tragedy of Ukraine, like that of Syria, results from the unwillingness of the US to acknowledge in good faith its role in the catastrophe. This unwillingness is continuously manufactured and enforced by the hegemony of the national security state.

In the terrible face of the national security establishment, the people must demand a politics of truth oriented to the democratic negotiation of a new concept of national security and a mobilisation to end to the national security state and its unaccountable permanent organizations and operations. America must resist the fatal temptation of empire.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/09/ ... ropaganda/

I'd say the rest of the article was more interesting...or telling.

Never ceases to amaze me how much weight these opinion pieces carry.

WaspInWales wrote:I'd say the rest of the article was more interesting...or telling.

Never ceases to amaze me how much weight these opinion pieces carry.

Conversely, I'm surprised how little attention they receive, relatively-speaking.

Zhivago wrote:

rowan wrote:I've read they were a progressive government, which gave women equal rights across the board, as the picture below seems to indicate. I can't claim to be an expert on the rest of their policies.

rowan wrote:Socialist Afghanistan before Washington sent in the Mujahideen:

Totalitarian and progressive if that makes sense. Daoud too supported women's rights.

Yes he did. Until he was removed for daring to move an inch away from Moscow.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:
What a silly fellow you are, Sandy. Don't you know that Afghanistan had a progressive socialist government in place in the 1970s before the US sent in the Mujahideen to destroy it, and from that chaos the Taliban emerged? But somehow you want to blame Russia...

40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

After 5 years I suppose you could call it something else, but it was the government in place and the Soviets still decided to overthrow it. I'd agree with you that the King was more legitimate, but the key point here is why the Soviets were interfering in another country and overthrowing a regime.

rowan wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

Precisely. Mohammed Daoud did push through some meritorious reforms after usurping his cousin, but it remained an oppressive dictatorship nonetheless, and he was still royalty. That's why the Socialists got rid of him. Now Sandy might wish to compare that to Assad. Well, I'd have no problem with a coup from within Syria replacing Assad, although he is certainly not the Hitler-of-the-Month the West has decided to portay him as (following bin Laden, Saddam, Gaddafi et al). What I don't agree with is America invading these countries on the other side of the world, either directly, by proxy or otherwise, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civlians, if not millions, and trying to tell us it was all in the name of freedom and democracy and everyone else was to blame - especially the Russians...

Moscow removed Doaud because he wasn't toeing the line with them like he used to. If you are putting his repressive regime (which was no worse than the one that followed it) as a reason for his removal, then surely the West had every right to remove Assad who was using chemical weapons against his own people? Does that logic get through to you or shall I get some crayons out/

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

rowan wrote:I've read they were a progressive government, which gave women equal rights across the board, as the picture below seems to indicate. I can't claim to be an expert on the rest of their policies.

Totalitarian and progressive if that makes sense. Daoud too supported women's rights.

Yes he did. Until he was removed for daring to move an inch away from Moscow.

Nothing to do with him being a dictator from within the royal family then? Guess that's all fine in Sandy Land...

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Totalitarian and progressive if that makes sense. Daoud too supported women's rights.

Yes he did. Until he was removed for daring to move an inch away from Moscow.

Nothing to do with him being a dictator from within the royal family then? Guess that's all fine in Sandy Land...

For that read Assad. In practical terms not a great deal of difference and the point still holds - what right did the USSR have to assist regime change and then spark a major rebellion?

Guess this is all fine in letting Rowan land where THE WEST IS BAD, regardless of the facts.

Edit:\
Ill add a little smilie. It seems appropriate

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

After 5 years I suppose you could call it something else, but it was the government in place and the Soviets still decided to overthrow it. I'd agree with you that the King was more legitimate, but the key point here is why the Soviets were interfering in another country and overthrowing a regime.

They didnt overthrow it - they did not orchestrate the coup.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

After 5 years I suppose you could call it something else, but it was the government in place and the Soviets still decided to overthrow it. I'd agree with you that the King was more legitimate, but the key point here is why the Soviets were interfering in another country and overthrowing a regime.

So you're a monarchist then? Monarchy being the most absolute form of dictatorship. This king you regard as more legitimate was building castles and mansions for himself and his family while the nation went through famine. Women's rights were also very limited under his rule. Few would argue Daoud was an improvement on that, but he was nonetheless a dictator and it really does say a lot about you that you don't seem to have a problem with this. But a progressive Socialist government that gave full rights to women and happens to be allied to Moscow is scandalous in Sandy Land! Meanwhile, interfering in other nations is equally outrageous (in Sandy Land) when it's the Soviets or Russia allegedly interfering in neighboring countries. Of course, America & Britain have never interfered in other countries have they? Neither historically nor currently. Neither neighbours or on other continents and the other side of the world . . .

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Yes he did. Until he was removed for daring to move an inch away from Moscow.

Nothing to do with him being a dictator from within the royal family then? Guess that's all fine in Sandy Land...

For that read Assad. In practical terms not a great deal of difference and the point still holds - what right did the USSR have to assist regime change and then spark a major rebellion?

Guess this is all fine in letting Rowan land where THE WEST IS BAD, regardless of the facts.

Edit:\
Ill add a little smilie. It seems appropriate

Not sure if it escaped your notice but I've already stated I would not have a problem with a coup from within Syria overthrowing Assad, though he is certainly not the monster the West has attempted to portary him as, and less than one thousandth as evil as the likes of Bush, Obama, Blair and Cameron. What I do object to is invasions and proxy wars that kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to remove leaders on the other side of the planet that Washington does not see eye to eye with. That should be quite clear to anyone with a modicum of sense.

A coup from within Syria. You mean the uprising as it actually started then? And Assad isn't as bad as we make him out to be. Of course he isn't, Im sure the poor wee dab really isn't aware of all those awful war crimes his troops have committed, you know the ones that the UN has highlighted. Bless.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

Precisely. Mohammed Daoud did push through some meritorious reforms after usurping his cousin, but it remained an oppressive dictatorship nonetheless, and he was still royalty. That's why the Socialists got rid of him. Now Sandy might wish to compare that to Assad. Well, I'd have no problem with a coup from within Syria replacing Assad, although he is certainly not the Hitler-of-the-Month the West has decided to portay him as (following bin Laden, Saddam, Gaddafi et al). What I don't agree with is America invading these countries on the other side of the world, either directly, by proxy or otherwise, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civlians, if not millions, and trying to tell us it was all in the name of freedom and democracy and everyone else was to blame - especially the Russians...

Moscow removed Doaud because he wasn't toeing the line with them like he used to. If you are putting his repressive regime (which was no worse than the one that followed it) as a reason for his removal, then surely the West had every right to remove Assad who was using chemical weapons against his own people? Does that logic get through to you or shall I get some crayons out/

Moscow didn't remove Daoud.

Sandydragon wrote:A coup from within Syria. You mean the uprising as it actually started then? And Assad isn't as bad as we make him out to be. Of course he isn't, Im sure the poor wee dab really isn't aware of all those awful war crimes his troops have committed, you know the ones that the UN has highlighted. Bless.

The UN has accused America, Britain and Israel of far greater war crimes than it has accused Syria of. There was no uprising from within Syria. Even Obama admitted the US was arming rebels & (indirectly) terrorists, and that many of these were coming in from other nations. That can not remotely be regarded as an internal coup. But don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions. & if Assad has always been such a big war criminal how is it that he was sipping tea with your own queen in Buckingham Palace not so long ago? His crimes, at worst, are no more than a fraction of Washington's and London's.

Prior to the American-orchestrated proxy war in Syria, during which the government was not only forced but obliged to defend its country, the crimes the Assads are regarded by the West to have committed mostly involve the Muslim Brotherhood, which many Western governments regard as terrorists. No problem for your queen at the time, of course, but when Assad started to get off-side with Washington and its allies on certain issues, suddenly these were dredged up and re-packaged to transform him into their latest Hitler-of-the-month. & why hasn't the US invaded Saudi Arabia yet

More vile rhetoric here. http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-magnitsky ... 82907.html

That wouldn't even make the press in Turkey, where informing on government corruption is regarded as treason:

Turkey Sentences 2 Journalists Who Reported on Arms Shipments to Syrian Rebels

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/worl ... .html?_r=0

& let's not forget . . .

David Christopher Kelly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kel ... ns_expert)

& we all knows what happens to America's informers:



& if you really want to get into conspiracy theories:

Bill and Hillary's 'friends' fall off buildings, crash planes, die in freak accidents
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/clinton-deat ... 7B65ETT.99

http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/clinton-deat ... ing-cases/


But when it's the Russians it seems all the more believable and sinister because everyone knows they are evil and inhuman, right . . .

Russia courts faced possibly with some political pressure have jailed an opposition party politician for peacefully protesting systemic corruption across government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39404985

Given there are quite strict rules on protesting in Russia, even peacefully, there's probably little doubt he broke some law, though in theory Russia also has some free speech statutes, just not so much in practice. Worth noting the crowd was very young, and so a great many of the people picked up by police are actually school kids

At least they don't get shot like Palestinians and Kurds, among others.

Meanwhile, kudos to the Guardian for at least showing some degree of impartiality with this report:

America and the UK condemned Russian airstrikes that killed or injured hundreds of civilians during last autumn’s siege of Aleppo, accusing Vladimir Putin of war crimes. The question now is whether the US, backed by British air power, is committing similar atrocities against civilians in Mosul.

Addressing the UN security council in September, Matthew Rycroft, Britain’s ambassador, said Russia had “unleashed a new hell” on Aleppo. “Russia is partnering with the Syrian regime to carry out war crimes,” he said. The US accused Putin of “barbarism”.

Theresa May climbed aboard this righteous bandwagon in December, joining Barack Obama and European leaders in lambasting Russia for causing a humanitarian disaster that “is taking place before our very eyes”.

Fast-forward to Mosul in northern Iraq last week, where misdirected US airstrikes caused a massive explosion that reportedly killed at least 150 civilians sheltering in a basement. The Americans say they were targeting Islamic State fighters. The Russians said much the same about Aleppo – that they were attacking jihadi terrorists. Many people, not least the relatives of the Mosul dead, will struggle to see the difference.

American spokesmen do not deny the US launched airstrikes in the Jadida neighbourhood of Mosul. As to who was responsible for the civilian casualties, “at the moment the answer is we don’t know”, Colonel John Thomas said.

But Iraqi commanders said the deaths followed an Iraqi army request for US air support to clear Isis snipers atop three buildings. They said they did not realise civilians were sheltering beneath, and it may have been a deliberate Isis trap.

Trap or not, the high death toll places the Mosul carnage, if confirmed, among the worst such incidents since the US invasion in 2003. It also serves to highlight a new pattern of behaviour by US forces since Donald Trump took office in January. Since then, the monthly total of recorded civilian deaths from coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria has more than doubled, according to independent monitors.

US spokesmen deny rules of engagement have changed. But the Mosul strike, and two similar, recent attacks in Syria, suggest Trump has fulfilled his campaign promise to let field commanders off the leash. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, 49 people were killed on 16 March by a US strike on a complex that included the Omar ibn al-Khattab mosque.

Last Tuesday at least 30 Syrian civilians died in another American airstrike, on Mansoura, in Raqqa province. The American planes hit a school. The raid was one of 19 coalition missions that day, ordered in preparation for the expected assault on the Isis headquarters in Raqqa city itself.

The pace and scale of fighting in Iraq and Syria is picking up as the US-led coalition scents final victory over Isis. Trump recently approved an expanded deployment of US ground forces in Syria. But human rights groups say increased combat intensity does not excuse or justify fatal carelessness with civilian lives. Such “own goals” hand propaganda victories to Isis and may also motivate its followers to commit terrorist acts.

Trump has frequently vowed to exterminate Isis by all means. It is one of his few clearly stated foreign policy aims. The White House accused Obama of micromanaging operations. Trump, in contrast, appears to have delegated most control to Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis, the former general appointed Pentagon chief.

The first results of Trump’s laissez-faire approach were seen in January when he authorised a special forces raid in Yemen over dinner. The attack on al-Qaida went disastrously wrong, causing dozens of civilian deaths and one US military fatality.

Now Iraq and Syria are bearing the brunt of Trump’s brash bellicosity. Putin will certainly be watching. It may not be long before the US president faces war crimes allegations, too. And what will May say then?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... amic-state

It's Trump's fault.

Zhivago wrote:It's Trump's fault.

Bush-Obama-Trump, Donald-Hillary, makes no difference. This is the nature of imperialism. The presidents do not make these decisions. But as I said during the elections, at least if Trump wins, they're not going to gloss over it any more. Had Hillary won, they'd just be talking about her sense of fashion right now . . .

It's a curious thing that you believe that Israel is the benchmark to which Russia's Civil Rights record should be measured.