How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

**Dragonfly** · 01-11-2015, 02:24 AM

see in western propaganda it's bad when you bomb your own people, but perfectly acceptable if someone else bomb them for you

the world is really upside down, with fuckwits like kerry, holland and Cameron trying to play war games to pay for their next political campaign

**MrG** · 01-11-2015, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by MrG

And what's the point of this game?

Tit for tat of some sort, I would say.

the entire incident took place in international waters, making the approach completely legal

Where is the tat that called for the tit.

If all you can focus on is the legality of flying in international waters, you are eithr being a coy little thing or you've clearly missed the point. I suspect the former.

Using your warplanes to buzz another country's warship in international waters is clearly povocative. The question remain's; what's Shirtless Wonder up to.

**Neverna** · 01-11-2015, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by MrG

And what's the point of this game?

Tit for tat of some sort, I would say.

the entire incident took place in international waters, making the approach completely legal

Where is the tat that called for the tit.

If all you can focus on is the legality of flying in international waters, you are eithr being a coy little thing or you've clearly missed the point. I suspect the former.

Using your warplanes to buzz another country's warship in international waters is clearly povocative. The question remain's; what's Shirtless Wonder up to.

It all depends on your viewpoint (and here I don't mean mine or yours, I mean the likes of Russia, China and the USA). Geopolitical power posturing. Here's one recent example. (China/USA, not Russia)

South China Sea: Beijing calls US Navy warship's route a 'provocation'

Beijing has accused the United States of threatening its sovereignty in a "deliberate provocation" by sending a US Navy warship through disputed waters in the South China Sea, in a direct challenge to China's territorial claims.

The manoeuvre comes after months of deliberation in Washington and is designed to uphold the principles of freedom of navigation in international waters ...

South China Sea: Beijing calls US Navy warship's route a 'provocation'

**MrG** · 01-11-2015, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by MrG

And what's the point of this game?

Tit for tat of some sort, I would say.

the entire incident took place in international waters, making the approach completely legal

Where is the tat that called for the tit.

If all you can focus on is the legality of flying in international waters, you are eithr being a coy little thing or you've clearly missed the point. I suspect the former.

Using your warplanes to buzz another country's warship in international waters is clearly povocative. The question remain's; what's Shirtless Wonder up to.

It all depends on your viewpoint (and here I don't mean mine or yours, I mean the likes of Russia, China and the USA). Geopolitical power posturing. Here's one recent example. (China/USA, not Russia)

South China Sea: Beijing calls US Navy warship's route a 'provocation'

Beijing has accused the United States of threatening its sovereignty in a "deliberate provocation" by sending a US Navy warship through disputed waters in the South China Sea, in a direct challenge to China's territorial claims.

The manoeuvre comes after months of deliberation in Washington and is designed to uphold the principles of freedom of navigation in international waters ...

South China Sea: Beijing calls US Navy warship's route a 'provocation'

I would call that two different things.

One is making a clear point that China's claim of territorial waters in what are long established international waters is illegitimate and will not be recognized. It would be more appropriate to call China's building on the disputed islands as power posturing. The US, any nation for that matter, has a right to sail in international waters. The US is not alone in this; it's just big enough to balance China.

Russia's buzzing a military craft of another country, on the other hand, is a pointless stick in the eye. It is designed to accomplish what...?

Again, what is Vlad the Bad up to here? What is his POV that would call for this kind of provocation?

**Neo** · 01-11-2015, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by MrG

China's claim of territorial waters in what are long established international waters is illegitimate

I agree that it's illegitimate, the boundaries of international waters cannot be disputed. However the rulebook for international legitimacy has you must agree been torn up since 2001. Not saying two wrongs make a right, but if you want to consider it's legitimacy it has to be in a current, not historical, context.

Originally Posted by MrG

Russia's buzzing a military craft of another country, on the other hand, is a pointless stick in the eye. It is designed to accomplish what...?

If I remember correctly the Bear is a lumbering beast of a plane and certainly no threat at 500 feet... a few supersonic jet fighters coming in out of the sun, that's a threat.

China is going to be the dominant nation of the 21st century, the political maneuvering toward them in the last few weeks proves the reality behind the posturing.

Russia doesn't need much, just enough natural resources to keep it's oligarchs in caviar and fuck the general population. History has proved the folly of invading such a pitiful land.

If the US goes to war with China it's society will totally implode, it just doesn't have what China does and it's society is already on the verge of disintegration.

And let's face, is it the US or EU public calling for aggressive confrontation?
No, it's the cabal of weapons manufacturers and lobbyist led governments that are driving it. This year China and Russia have clearly stated their goal of development and integration in their regional sphere through finance and resources. Their benevolence is far from benign, but it's better than expansion down the barrel of a gun.

Bottom line is, the US doesn't have any moral high ground left nor any credibility when it comes to calling wolf.

**MrG** · 01-11-2015, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Neo

I agree that it's illegitimate, the boundaries of international waters cannot be disputed. However the rulebook for international legitimacy has you must agree been torn up since 2001.

That's a new one on me. Is it officially torn up or just a new rule based on....? Please inform.

Originally Posted by Neo

If I remember correctly the Bear is a lumbering beast of a plane and certainly no threat at 500 feet... a few supersonic jet fighters coming in out of the sun, that's a threat.

Bullshit.
Any nation's military aircraft approaching another nation's military craft without warning or radio contact (I didn't hear of any) is a possible threat by any measure in any country and should be treated as one. Even lumbering Bears can drop things. If you were the captain of that ship, would you have second guessed those airplanes or taken responsible action.
And the question still isn't adressed: What's Vlad up to?

Originally Posted by Neo

And let's face, is it the US or EU public calling for aggressive confrontation?
No, it's the cabal of weapons manufacturers and lobbyist led governments that are driving it.

More sure of that in the US than in Russia, but overall I have to agree with you there.

Originally Posted by Neo

Bottom line is, the US doesn't have any moral high ground left nor any credibility when it comes to calling wolf

It doesn't have anything to do with moral high ground. International law is international law.
Who is calling wolf?

**Neo** · 01-11-2015, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by MrG

That's a new one on me. Is it officially torn up or just a new rule based on....? Please inform.

Semantics

Originally Posted by MrG

International law is international law.

It is, there's no disputing it, but it's worth as a standard has been systematically eroded since 2001

Originally Posted by MrG

Who is calling wolf?

US foreign policy 101, it is unfortunately the only game they know.

**MrG** · 01-11-2015, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Neo

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG International law is international law.
NEO REPLIES It is, there's no disputing it, but it's worth as a standard has been systematically eroded since 2001 Quote:

I still don't know what you are referring to in 2001.

Originally Posted by Neo

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG Who is calling wolf?
NEO REPLIES: US foreign policy 101, it is unfortunately the only game they know.

Not meaning any offense, sincerely, but that's one crappy "bail-out" post. The US calls wolf for the sake of it's own population--lotsa cash back from the worried mob. The only game? No, just one of many, and some are deadly.

**Neo** · 01-11-2015, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by MrG

International law is international law.

Originally Posted by Neo

It is, there's no disputing it, but it's worth as a standard has been systematically eroded since 2001

I still don't know what you are referring to in 2001.

Get back to me when you've sobered up

**MrG** · 01-11-2015, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by MrG

International law is international law.

Originally Posted by Neo

It is, there's no disputing it, but it's worth as a standard has been systematically eroded since 2001

I still don't know what you are referring to in 2001.

Get back to me when you've sobered up

Another crap post. Are you refering to the Invasion of Iraq...? That was 2003, I beleive. It looks like you posted a picture, but it doesn't come up.

I'll make you a deal. You sober up and get back to me.

**bsnub** · 01-11-2015, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Neo

China is going to be the dominant nation of the 21st century, the political maneuvering toward them in the last few weeks proves the reality behind the posturing.

Once again you prove just how ill informed you really are. China is rife with many problems internally and could collapse itself. Its government is a cobbled together mess and has been prone to instability. Its economy is dependent on exports to the US. The last thing China wants is a war with the US. It may be a power regionally but as historical precedent has shown China's internal problems will be the main focus of that nation in the 21st century.

Originally Posted by Neo

if the US goes to war with China it's society will totally implode, it just doesn't have what China does and it's society is already on the verge of disintegration.

You are on a role with these absurd and utterly laughable posts. The US will implode if it goes to war with China?

People have said that about America before.

What does China have that the US doesn't? Maybe pollution? It sure is not minerals, natural gas, or oil. So what is it? Plastic widgets? Rubber dog shit?

A good war has always been a uniting factor in the US driving patriotic fervor into the stratosphere. For better or worse.

A united United States is not an enemy any rational nation would want to face.

**Neverna** · 01-11-2015, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by MrG

And what's the point of this game?

Tit for tat of some sort, I would say.

Where is the tat that called for the tit.

If all you can focus on is the legality of flying in international waters, you are eithr being a coy little thing or you've clearly missed the point. I suspect the former.

Using your warplanes to buzz another country's warship in international waters is clearly povocative. The question remain's; what's Shirtless Wonder up to.

It all depends on your viewpoint (and here I don't mean mine or yours, I mean the likes of Russia, China and the USA). Geopolitical power posturing. Here's one recent example. (China/USA, not Russia)

South China Sea: Beijing calls US Navy warship's route a 'provocation'

Beijing has accused the United States of threatening its sovereignty in a "deliberate provocation" by sending a US Navy warship through disputed waters in the South China Sea, in a direct challenge to China's territorial claims.

The manoeuvre comes after months of deliberation in Washington and is designed to uphold the principles of freedom of navigation in international waters ...

South China Sea: Beijing calls US Navy warship's route a 'provocation'

I would call that two different things.

As I posted, it's not what you or I think, it's how the powers involved view it. In both cases, one side sees a provocation whereas the other presumably does not.

**Neverna** · 01-11-2015, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Neo

the boundaries of international waters cannot be disputed.

Get real, Neo. They have been disputed, they are disputed and I have no doubt they will continue to be disputed in various locations throughout the world.

**OhOh** · 01-11-2015, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Who the fuck added that shit?

It's a "feature" of the site. I understand than anyone may edit the article, subject to the sites owners approval. It's been going on for years. Which is why it's integrity is somewhat dubious.

**bsnub** · 01-11-2015, 11:21 AM

^ Not as dubious as many of your sources.

**OhOh** · 01-11-2015, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by MrG

Using your warplanes to buzz another country's warship in international waters is clearly povocative. The question remain's; what's Shirtless Wonder up to.

Collection intel, that's the primary use of that type of plane.

Originally Posted by MrG

in what are long established international waters is illegitimate and will not be recognized

When the Americans actually become a signatory of the UN laws governing international waters maybe they will be able to gain some protection from them. Until then they have no backing in international laws.

Originally Posted by Neo

if you want to consider it's legitimacy it has to be in a current, not historical, context.

No, the ownership of land/sea rules have been established over centuries. If the new legitimacy is only to be measured to any particular countries yardstick chaos will reign.

Originally Posted by MrG

Even lumbering Bears can drop things.

As above the prime use is for intel gathering. The particular plane also can carry weapons, bombs, torpedoes, guns and cruise missiles. The plane if it wanted to attack a carrier group would, I suggest as a non military strategist, use a cruise missile. To suggest that the "lumbering 1940's plane" flying at 500ft above the sea as a threat is farcical.

Originally Posted by MrG

International law is international law.

Applicable and supported by and to those countries who have signed the agreement, signifying acceptance and obeying it's usage.

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ Not as dubious as many of your sources.

When one quotes evidence from a named government minister it has some weight behind it, along with some responsibility, in my opinion. As such one of you latest postings, which quoted an unnamed source as the basis of a newspaper allegation of guilt, falls to me into the unreliable box. When you start quoting:

"The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which collects information from a network of sources on the ground, said the Russian strikes had killed 185 civilians and 410 fighters from various insurgent groups."

As a source for facts you unfortunately lose credence.

As you accept many of my sources are linked to "reliable" sources. I will try harder at providing links to all the sources I post.

Originally Posted by bsnub

A good war

**bsnub** · 01-11-2015, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

When one quotes evidence from a named government minister it has some weight behind it, along with some responsibility, in my opinion.

America does not have "ministers". If you are quoting Rand Paul then you have quoted him out of context I have pointed this out to you before but you continue to twist facts to fit your twisted narrative.

Originally Posted by OhOh

As you accept many of my sources are linked to "reliable" sources. I will try harder at providing links to all the sources I post.

I have almost never seen you quote any sources other then state controlled mouthpieces like RT, press tv and Fars. Nothing remotely credible there.

I know people like yourself have an agenda. It is to spread misinformation that fits your narrative. You would like people to believe that the Russians have killed not one civilian in their bombing raids using unguided Soviet era ordnance. You would like people to believe that Assad is a good leader supported by his people who never gassed or dropped barrel bombs on civilians.

What a joke.

**OhOh** · 01-11-2015, 12:45 PM

When the announcement was made, to withdraw Americans troops from a ME war, the POTUSE broadcast it to the American public hence it had some reliability.

Notice when America announces troop deployment to the Syria ME War, it is left to a "press announcement".

Oh how the mighty have fallen. No ramrod in their backs.

US Sends Troops To Syria: Here Are The Questions The Media Should Be Asking | Zero Hedge

Originally Posted by bsnub

to you before but you continue to twist facts to fit your twisted narrative

No facts twisting from me. The words printed are direct quotes from Government Ministers. Any unattributable quotes are preceded with the word "allegedly".

Originally Posted by bsnub

I have almost never seen you quote any sources other then state controlled mouthpieces like RT, press tv and Fars. Nothing remotely credible there.

I makes no difference where the story is printed or published on their web site, IF the quotes by the relevant person are attributed. A statement of record is created, not like a "reporters" opinion or the opinion of one of your unnamed sources, or a source who "cannot be identified because he is not authorised" - a favourite American press get out clause. Some with authority use plain English, or is translated, those who wish to hide spend 45 minutes repeating the days "buzz" words and actually say nothing of substance.

Is it that the words they print/publish are maybe lies? Maybe they want to set the agenda for a topic but know their lies will, eventually, been seen for what they really are, LIES. But by then, the sheeple, will have had their opinion solidified in their minds by the constant lies.

**bsnub** · 01-11-2015, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

No facts twisting from me.

You do not have to your sources already have done that for you.

Originally Posted by OhOh

The words printed are direct quotes from Government Ministers.

The last people to tell the truth.

Originally Posted by OhOh

I makes no difference where the story is printed or published on their web site, IF the quotes by the relevant person are attributed.

The sources you use that I pointed out in the previous post rarely quote sources at all. It is pure propaganda generated by the nation state of origin.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Maybe they want to set the agenda for a topic but know their lies will, eventually, been seen for what they really are, LIES.

The only lies I see about Syria right now are the lies claiming the Russians have not killed any civilians using unguided ordnance (dumb bombs).

Ohdoh you wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you in the face.

**OhOh** · 01-11-2015, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

I have almost never seen you quote any sources other then state controlled mouthpieces like RT, press tv and Fars. Nothing remotely credible there.

If you believe Yutub and your own politicians here is a spoon fed "source" for you.

"With each passing week, more and more people are beginning to ask the kinds of questions the Pentagon and CIA most assuredly do not want to answer and now, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is out calling Washington’s effort to oust Assad both “counterproductive” and “illegal.”

In the following priceless video clip, Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting “World War III.” "

Here for you is the video of an American politician, CNN I believe, happy?

and "opinions" printed here:

Congresswoman Calls US Effort To Oust Assad "Illegal," Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists | Zero Hedge

But then maybe she is too far down the pecking order to receive the "secret" intel

to have an "informed" opinion. Although presumably her vote is just as valid in Congress or the Senate, wherever she sits, when the decisions are made eh?

I do offer a service to manage a persons private wealth. If you are interested just send me a mail.

**bsnub** · 01-11-2015, 01:09 PM

^ You clearly know nothing about the US government. That is opinion and nothing more. She does not have access to anything more than you or I do. She is an islamophobe and it is well known in the US. Far from a smoking gun Ohdoh.

Once again you are shooting blanks.

**bsnub** · 01-11-2015, 01:12 PM

^ Well I can assure you the first thing I would be doing if bombs were raining down on me would be shooting pictures and video. How about you?

There are not many videos of civilians being bombed in the Iraq and Afgan wars but you would never question that it happened. Many because the US admits to it instead of trying to deny that it is happening.

I posted this article up a couple of pages back. It is chalk full of legitimate sources in Syria who say it is happening. I challenge you or Ohdoh to debunk it.

Four Syrian hospitals bombed since Russian airstrikes began, doctors say | World news | The Guardian

*Well this post was in response to Neverna's post which appears to have been deleted.

**bsnub** · 01-11-2015, 01:38 PM

Here is some of the footage that Neverna claims doesnt exist. It is graphic. Warplanes are clearly heard overhead.

From the video;

"This is the last video that was recorded by photographer Gomaa Al-Ahmed, also known as Abou Al-Nour. He documented 3 attacks and during the 4th one, his lens was shut forever."

**harrybarracuda** · 01-11-2015, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Who the fuck added that shit?

It's a "feature" of the site. I understand than anyone may edit the article, subject to the sites owners approval. It's been going on for years. Which is why it's integrity is somewhat dubious.

I know; it's useful for scientific or cultural info, but anything controversial is entirely untrustworthy.

Edits to Wikipedia pages on Bell, Garner, Diallo traced to 1 Police Plaza | POLITICO

**harrybarracuda** · 01-11-2015, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Neverna

The Daraa offensive (June–July 2015) was a rebel operation in the Daraa Governorate, during the Syrian Civil War. It was led by the Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army and also included the Army of Conquest "southern sector", of which the Al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham are part of, against Syrian government forces defending Daraa city and surrounding town.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daraa_...0%93July_2015)

Who the fuck added that shit?

"of which the blah blah blah are part of"?

Most likely carefully edited by a Syrian intelligence agent with poor English skills.

Perhaps the quality of the English in the International Business Times is more to your liking.

Syrian Rebel Groups Merge To Take On Assad In Dera’a, But Deep Divisions Remain
June 26 2015
Syrian rebels launched a major joint offensive Wednesday against President Bashar Assad’s forces in Dera’a, south of the capital Damascus, where the revolution began in 2011. The two main factions now fighting together against the regime there are among the strongest opposition groups in the country, and they may have a chance to inflict severe damage on the Assad’s forces. Yet, even though they were formed from the remnants of the original Free Syrian Army (FSA), they have different ideologies and are not ready to share leadership, fighters with both factions told International Business Times.

Jaysh al Fatah (Arabic for “Army of Conquest”) partnered with the group known as the Southern Front -- as well as with some battalions in the al Qaeda offshoot in Syria, known as Jabhat al Nusra or the Nusra Front -- in a new offensive called Southern Storm.
Syrian Rebel Groups Merge To Take On Assad In Dera?a, But Deep Divisions Remain

Or perhaps they used the same source you did.

All of which originates from Iranian and Syrian propaganda to justify their assault on civilian areas or those that harbour Syrian rebels fighting to free themselves from the genocidal dictator.

Haven't you ever watched Press TV? Or Syrian TV?

Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions