And for your information, Putin does not have any account or money in all those panama papers, only friends of his.
Yes, that's how you launder money.
Random News Article Discussion II
-
-
it was Meethz http://www.venusbuzz.com/archives/60479/indonesian-copywriter-dies-overworked/
Damn…
That puts one of her older posts into perspective too.
@meethz:I'm sort of lamenting the new year. I'll be 25 this year and I'm thinking about all the things I haven't done in my life. Like 'bungee jump' and 'play ukulele on a beach'. T.T
-
Except small Iceland not even a single westerner's name?
What? EVERY big european bank is involved in this, including their touchiest clients. Over 20 banks in Germany alone.
-
@MDL:
Damn…
That puts one of her older posts into perspective too.
her tumblr is heart breaking http://fictionfriction.tumblr.com/
-
Except small Iceland not even a single westerner's name? And for your information, Putin does not have any account or money in all those panama papers, only friends of his. All this story is target him and him alone, because all the other names are people who have already been overthrown, tortured and murdered, or Putin, where as I said not a single appearance of his name, but it seems, it doesn't matter.
One: You're extremely wrong. The names of heads of government from over 40 countries can be found, including 33 people on the international blacklist for dealings with North Korea, Iran, and Hezbollah.
Two: I'm not gonna waste my own words correcting a naive idiot who believes Russia's state-controlled media, so have some wikipedia:Early reports noted financial and power connections between multiple high-ranking political figures and their relatives.[1][7][19] For example, the Argentine President Mauricio Macri was listed as a leader of a Bahamas-based trading company that he did not disclose during his tenure as Mayor of Buenos Aires; it is not clear whether disclosure of non-equity directorships was then required.[19] The leak revealed an extensive conflict of interest connection between a member of theFIFA Ethics Committee and former FIFA vice president Eugenio Figueredo.[20] Several other current national leaders have been named in the Panama Papers, including presidents Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates, Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, as well as the Prime Minister of Iceland Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson.[1] Among former country leaders, there were the Sudanese President Ahmed al-Mirghani, the Emir of Qatar Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, as well as prime ministers of Georgia (Bidzina Ivanishvili), Iraq (Ayad Allawi), Jordan (Ali Abu al-Ragheb), Qatar (Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani), Ukraine (Pavlo Lazarenko),[1] and Moldova (Ion Sturza).[21]
According to TeleSUR, United Arab Emirates President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan "used the services of Mossack Fonseca to establish at least 30 companies in the British Virgin Islands that owned and operated US$1.7 billion worth of commercial and residential assets for the Sheikh in high-end neighborhoods in the United Kingdom."[22]
Government officials, as well as close relatives and close associates of various heads of government from well over 40 different countries have also been named, including those from Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Botswana, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada,[23] Chile, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Malta, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Russia, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Syria, Taiwan, United Kingdom, Venezuela and Zambia.[1] Although initially noted that there were no people from the United States in the Panama papers,[24] this is incorrect.[25][26]
The leaked files identified 61 family members and associates of prime ministers, presidents and kings,[27] including the brother-in-law of China's paramount leader Xi Jinping,[1] the father of British Prime Minister David Cameron,[28] the son ofMalaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak,[1] children of Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif,[1] the family of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev,[1] the nephew of South African President Jacob Zuma,[29] the grandson of Kazakh PresidentNursultan Nazarbayev,[1] the personal secretary of Moroccan King Mohammed VI,[1] and the "favourite contractor" of Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto.[1]
The name of Vladimir Putin does not appear in any of the records. However, the Papers indicate that close friends and business associates of Putin, including construction billionaires Arkady and Boris Rotenberg, professional musician Sergei Roldugin, and business magnate Alisher Usmanov, had handled assets worth billions of dollars.[30][31] Political scientist Karen Dawisha said that it was "inconceivable" that the men would have acquired such wealth in the absence of Putin's patronage.[30] The documents indicate that Roldugin, Putin’s "best friend",[30] who in September 2014 said "I don’t have millions",[32] has acquired assets worth at least $100 million, including a 12.5% stake in Video International, Russia's largest television advertising firm.Other documents reveal movements of companies "offshore" related to the family of Chinese President Xi Jinping, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, and the late father of British Prime Minister David Cameron. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko had promised voters he would sell his candy business, Roshen, when he ran for office in 2014, but the leaked documents indicated that instead he set up an offshore holding company to move his business to the British Virgin Islands, possibly saving millions of dollars in Ukrainian taxes.[41] North Korean official, Kim Chol Sam and Nigel Cowie, a British banker created a shell company called " DCB Finance" to go around sanctions, and help sell arms and expand its nuclear weapons programme.[42]
The data also brought to light that Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson had an undeclared interest in his country's failed banks, held through an offshore company. Leaked documents show that he and his wife bought offshore company Wintris Inc. in 2007. The ICIJ said that they bought it "from Mossack Fonseca through the Luxembourg branch of Landsbanki, one of Iceland’s three big banks".[43] He did not declare an interest in the company when entering parliament in 2009, and sold his 50% of Wintris to his wife, eight months later, for $1,[44] before "a new Icelandic law took effect that would have required him to declare the ownership […] as a conflict of interest."[45] Sigmundur Davíð faced calls for his resignation following the revelations, with reports suggesting between 22,000 and 24,000 attending a large protest outside the Icelandic parliament on April 4, 2016, with Edward Snowden asking in a tweet if this did not constitute the "largest protest by percentage of population in history".[46][47][48] But on April 4, 2016 he announced on live television that he would not be resigning in the wake of the Panama Papers revelations, calling its content "nothing new".[49] He said he had not broken any rules, and his wife did not benefit financially from his decisions.[44] But on April 5 Prime Minister Gunnlaugsson asked the President of Iceland to dissolve Parliament and call for a general election, which request the President denied, saying it was not clear that other parties supported the move.[50] Finally, on April 5, Gunnlaugsson announced his resignation.[3]
Several high-profile individuals named in the leak are connected with the world governing body of association football, FIFA, including former President of CONMEBOLEugenio Figueredo,[20] former President of UEFAMichel Platini,[51]former Secretary General of FIFA Jérôme Valcke,[51] current Argentine player Lionel Messi, and from Italy, the head manager of "Metro" Antonio Guglielmi.[20] Popular Indian celebrities such as Amitabh Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan are involved, along with DLF owner Kushal Pal Singh and nine of his family members, and Gautam Adani’s elder brother Vinod Adani.[52] Politicians on the list include Shishir Bajoria from West Bengal and Anurag Kejriwal, the former chief of the Delhi unit of Loksatta Party.[53] Actor Jackie Chan has been mentioned in the leaks as a shareholder of six companies all based in the British Virgin Islands.[54] -
@Silence: Brazil is in this mess? Why am I not surprised ? ¬¬
Brazilian news:
[hide]Poitics:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/brazil-vice-president-michel-temer-impeachment-dilma-rousseff
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/brazil/2016/04/1757592-brazil-attorney-general-denounces-coup-and-questions-legitimacy-of-future-government.shtmlZika virus:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-zika-qanda-factbox-idUSKCN0X22TY[/hide] -
About eleven million documents from Panamanian law firm Mossack Foncesca were leaked and among them were documents revealing how the company helped people launder money or evade taxes. Clients that include seventy-two former or current world leaders and the families; among them, the Mubaraks, Gaddafis, Bashar al-Assad, and Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson, the sitting Prime Minister of Iceland.
It also revealed the existence of a massive money laundering ring involving Bank Rossiya and several close friends of Vladimir Putin.
Hot damn .
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
What are the chances some of our more well known U.S. politicians will end up on that list? One in particular.
Everything's Eventual…
-
What are the chances some of our more well known U.S. politicians will end up on that list? One in particular.
There's really not that many people from the United States on there; in no small part because it's much easier to do this sort of thing in the US legally than it is in other places. Plus we have also have trade agreements with Panama that would require the latter to provide information on who owns Panamanian businesses as well as people connected to those businesses.
If you want to hide money illegally, you'd want to do it in a country that doesn't make it easy to trace your connections to it.
-
But but I'm not sleepy…..and hearing that doesn't make it easy to put one's
mind to rest. -
What? EVERY big european bank is involved in this, including their touchiest clients. Over 20 banks in Germany alone.
Really? How come all the newspaper around the world were showing Putin on the front page. Is there any US citizen or any US bank?
@Cyan:
Yes, that's how you launder money.
Let get this right. So when the UK prime minister's father is in the list, father not a friend, there is no money laundering.
When the present french president's friend is in the list, it is not money laundering.
When the former french president's friend is in the list, it is not money laundering. Funny fact, it is Sarkozy who removed Panama from Tax Haven blacklist.
When the name of the present king of Saudi Arabia is in the list, it is not money laundering.
But for Putin, it is money laundering even though his name is nowhere in the list. And funnier than this, in all these countries, in the US, in Europe, it is Putin's face on the front pages. I mean, in the UK, Cameron's father is in the list, but not a single newspaper put him on the front. If it's not manipulation, I don't know what it is. -
Really? How come all the newspaper around the world were showing Putin on the front page
Because he's a well known world leader that may have laundered upwards of two billion dollars and even that amount is potentially the tip of the iceberg?
-
Because he's a well known world leader that may have laundered upwards of two billion dollars and even that amount is potentially the tip of the iceberg?
Yeah, but that's only interesting if you are concerned about it, which means you're Russian. If you are French, then may be you're more interested about the French money and politicians, if you're a UK citizen you'd be concerned with UK money and politicians but still all these people were showing Putin. And again, Putin's friends are the culprits not him, and yet. Come on, today in France and in many other countries people are starting to feel they are being tricked by this whole story. And do not get me started about who worked on these leaks and who support them.
-
Really? How come all the newspaper around the world were showing Putin on the front page. Is there any US citizen or any US bank?
Let get this right. So when the UK prime minister's father is in the list, father not a friend, there is no money laundering.
When the present french president's friend is in the list, it is not money laundering.
When the former french president's friend is in the list, it is not money laundering. Funny fact, it is Sarkozy who removed Panama from Tax Haven blacklist.
When the name of the present king of Saudi Arabia is in the list, it is not money laundering.
But for Putin, it is money laundering even though his name is nowhere in the list. And funnier than this, in all these countries, in the US, in Europe, it is Putin's face on the front pages. I mean, in the UK, Cameron's father is in the list, but not a single newspaper put him on the front. If it's not manipulation, I don't know what it is.Pootin is the reason they're putting the information out in the first place he is at odds with the US goverment and european union since he supports the rivals of the US its in their best interests to post as much shit or should say pootin about him lol.
-
@sanji''s_dad:
Pootin is the reason they're putting the information out in the first place he is at odds with the US goverment and european union since he supports the rivals of the US its in their best interests to post as much shit or should say pootin about him lol.
Ok, I totally agree. The whole thing is for Putin.
-
Ok, I totally agree. The whole thing is for Putin.
That would make sense if you think Putin would be affected by this. There isn't any point in conspiring up a leak against Putin if everyone knows that it isn't going to affect him
-
Known corrupt mafia jackass Vladimir S. Putin now has additional corrupt mafia shit to his name, more at 11.
-
@xan:
That would make sense if you think Putin would be affected by this. There isn't any point in conspiring up a leak against Putin if everyone knows that it isn't going to affect him
They are not trying to affect Putin, but Putin is very unpopular with EU governments but quite popular with people. And also, elections are closing in, in Russia, so the goal is not affecting him but affect the people who might think good of him.
-
They are not trying to affect Putin, but Putin is very unpopular with EU governments but quite popular with people. And also, elections are closing in, in Russia, so the goal is not affecting him but affect the people who might think good of him.
You are severely underestimating the freedom of press under Putin. I highly doubt if Russian citizens even get to hear in detail about the panama leak and hence alter their views over Putin.
-
@xan:
You are severely underestimating the freedom of press under Putin. I highly doubt if Russian citizens even get to hear in detail about the panama leak and hence alter their views over Putin.
You are severely overestimating the grasp Putin has over the press. And even if you were right, Russians are not different from other earthlings, they have also Internet access. And you missed the part where I talked about European people as a whole not only Russians. You must understand that European citizens are not happy about what happened to middle-east Christians, they are not at all happy about the migrant crisis, they are not happy about the terrorist attacks and Isis, they are not happy with the deal with Turkey , Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and most of those unhappy people think highly of Putin, hence this wonderful yet absurd manipulation.
-
You are severely overestimating the grasp Putin has over the press. And even if you were right, Russians are not different from other earthlings, they have also Internet access. And you missed the part where I talked about European people as a whole not only Russians. You must understand that European citizens are not happy about what happened to middle-east Christians, they are not at all happy about the migrant crisis, they are not happy about the terrorist attacks and Isis, they are not happy with the deal with Turkey , Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and most of those unhappy people think highly of Putin, hence this wonderful yet absurd manipulation.
Both this and this would give a better idea over the press control in Russia as compared to other countries. Internet is still a bit more restricted to the normal citizens but yeah not as much as some others but yet considerably restrictive. Considering the amount of propaganda against the western countries, it would be very difficult for western media to actually make an impact in Russia against the gov't. Not only Europe, Asia still has a huge hard on for Putin and loves him for his "toughness" more than anything. Something like money corruption isn't going to hamper their love for him because he never stood out to them for being a honest man of some sort. He was known for his constant maverick behavior along with his tough stances against whatever the west throws towards him. Something like "corrupt Putin" isn't going to hamper the fan base behind the "tough guy Putin" in any ways.
-
HAte monger Ann Coulter speaks out in Trump's defence=
Trump will protect women from 'Latin American rape culture'
So… he would take action against Latin Americans but not take action against White's "rape culture"? You know there's one Ann. Mel think its okay because "she's dressed that way" if she wore a fitting top or that "she was asking for it" when passed out drunk.
It doesn't matter what culture rape happens in, if someone is speaking against rape, it should against all rape, not just a specific culture. But that's too much to ask for from a hate-monger like Ann to say. She's always saying something inflammatory against other races or Democrats.
-
Except small Iceland not even a single westerner's name? And for your information, Putin does not have any account or money in all those panama papers, only friends of his. All this story is target him and him alone, because all the other names are people who have already been overthrown, tortured and murdered, or Putin, where as I said not a single appearance of his name, but it seems, it doesn't matter.
The narrative that "surely the tsar is innocent and only the boyars are corrupt" is alive and well in the year of the lord 2016.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
They are not trying to affect Putin, but Putin is very unpopular with EU governments but quite popular with people.
If those people are Russian? Sure. Putin is absolutely unpopular with the rest of Europe, both west and east. Especially especially the east.
Though a few places that are generally pro-Russia are probably exceptions (Serbia, Greece, Cyprus), and those places are going to react just like you are with incredulity for some reason.
Everyone in Europe already thinks of Russia as a corrupt mafia state, and Putin as the mafia don. He and his country do not have an image to attack. It's already bad. Russia has like…never had a good rep in Europe. Even before the Communists.Now maybe you're trying to say Russians are the one's trying to be effected. Well to that I'd say "lollll" because western media has no power or influence in Russia, and even if it did get viewed widespread it would be denied by those same Russians in the exact same way you are doing now. Which as I mentioned is a centuries old trend in Russia (and some other places) where you have the idealized tsar, and criticism and anger at the government gets circulated toward the officials and cronies instead.
And also, elections are closing in, in Russia, so the goal is not affecting him but affect the people who might think good of him.
Russia doesn't hold free and fair elections. They're pretty much pageantry. So lol if you think the CIA/Mossad/James Bond is trying to effect Russian elections. There's not much to effect.
Iran has more real democracy in action than Russia. Even China has a healthier somewhat more diversified political scene even without any real democracy in it. Russia has a modern day personality cult under one man who really dominates everything with no real factions and competition of note. -
Dutch people overwhelmingly vote in a referendum against the association pact with Ukraine that started the whole mess to begin with, with the 30% validity treshold being passed by an extremely tiny margin. Xenophobia, paranoia and hysterics won today. And Putin too.
I'm sorry, Lef. We failed you. :(
-
You are severely overestimating the grasp Putin has over the press.
No he's not. Russia has a highly sophisticated and extremely well funded system of media control. They're experts at it, even with a strong aim at foreign audiences at the same time with a few different outfits (namely RT).
And even if you were right, Russians are not different from other earthlings, they have also Internet access.
Not to the whole internet they don't. And even so…so what? If they're bombarded all the time irl with certain narratives from day to day, the internet doesn't change anything.
They just react again..like you do. By handwaving western (or other) media as being propaganda against them. And there's plenty on the internet they can use to reinforce their views, including more of the Russian media.
Also to an extent you don't seem to grasp the situation in Russia. Like I said there's a siege mentality going on, a sort of reactive nationalism. Putin's narratives play into this. In a way so many Russians already want to believe the sort of things fed to them.
Which yes, is very typical of earthlings.
The psychological profile and situation in Russia right now in fact reminds me a lot of the Bush era in the US. Of the Republicans at the time anyway. World media (and some of our own) reported rightly many issues and problems leading into and after with the Iraq War. And the people flying the Bush flag? Didn't matter. They brushed it all away and clung to Fox News, conservative radio, and conservative internet.
If we had the level of media control Russia did perhaps the majority of Americans would have been like that instead of our conservative half.And you missed the part where I talked about European people as a whole not only Russians.
Europeans don't like Putin. Honestly it doesn't look like many people in the world do lol. I guess the Vietnamese do though. In fact you would be very unwise to make this assertion in public in some countries like Poland.
You know how the Middle East where you live is always sort of in the midst of intense distrust and memory of violence and control associated with the US?
Well that's Russia for Eastern Europe.You must understand that European citizens are not happy about what happened to middle-east Christians,
They're also not happy about the scary mafia strongman who runs the absolutely gigantic country that frames their continent on nearly it's entire east.
they are not at all happy about the migrant crisis, they are not happy about the terrorist attacks and Isis, they are not happy with the deal with Turkey , Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and most of those unhappy people think highly of Putin, hence this wonderful yet absurd manipulation.
Eastern Europeans are pretty fond of the huge bully country who had a gun to their heads as recently as 30 years ago and still acts belligerent toward them.
And Western Europeans really like strongman politics, social conservatism, and militarism.
I'm not sure you understand either half of Europe.
I mean even the few countries that are friendly toward Russia in Europe or nearby you don't really get. They just have old cultural ties via Orthodox Christianity that make them feel brotherly. And that's just the Orthodox countries Russia hasn't pissed off in recent history. So like…four countries. -
I don't know if my opinion counts, but I don't think anyone likes Putin here for example. Even if we have some ties and history with Russians and even if we can be friendly with people themselves. Also, some people are wary of US, for example, and stuff but still, majority of people (like me) don't even imagine anyone outside liking Putin. Like, honestly, why would anyone.
P.S. My best friend lives there, maybe I should ask him about media and stuff, not sure if he reads/watches much though. -
@Monkey:
…
I am not saying he is innocent. All I am saying is what the newspaper were saying, his name does not appear, but his friends. Now if he is judged by his friends, then it's fine, just do it for all the others, which is not the case.
Putin is absolutely unpopular with the rest of Europe
You're wrong, totally wrong. You don't seem to follow EU parliament discussions, French parliament and German parliament discussions. You don't follow oppositions supporting the Russian foreign policy. You've never seen French farmers huge movement against sanctions applied to Russia. Kaiolino's post may help you get the idea.
@Monkey:
…
As I said many times, I am not Russian. I have nothing to do with Russians or Putin. So, he is not my tsar and I have no tsar. But I don't understand double standards, no matter what they are. You are fine with them good.
The psychological profile and situation in Russia right now in fact reminds me a lot of the Bush era in the US. Of the Republicans at the time anyway. World media (and some of our own) reported rightly many issues and problems leading into and after with the Iraq War. And the people flying the Bush flag?
The thing is that nothing has changed from that era when it comes to US victims. Lybia is a mess created by the US and Nato. Syria is mess created by the US and Nato at least if we consider the chaos made in Iraq. US allies do whatever they want because they have been given permission to do so: Saudi Arabia destroying the poorest country in the world: Yemen. Isreal and Turkey doing shit on daily basis and I am not even talking about the "human" way to kill people with drones on a daily basis: men, women and children. But it must be easier for you to think that things have changed with Obama. And will surely improve with Hillary when she becomes the president and more human lives will be destroyed, more, more, more in a never ending cycle because she is thirsty for our blood or should I say gold and other ressources. But we do not count, we are not worthy to exist on this planet.
-
This reminds me of that scene in Wolf of Wall Street where Jordan Belfort uses his wife's aunt to launder his money for him with one of his friends doing the transport.
Except with Putin, and Jackie Chan also appears in the scene as well
-
I am not saying he is innocent. All I am saying is what the newspaper were saying, his name does not appear, but his friends. Now if he is judged by his friends, then it's fine, just do it for all the others, which is not the case.
I'm pretty sure the subtext of all those stories is in fact casting a light on the guy in question. But yes there does appear to be a difference in how there is more care taken toward those guys and not Putin.
But recall most of the other examples you used was one person. Not a whole ton of them.
And in Russia one has to mention this is tied into an entire system that has had countless stories and suspicions like this. There is far less reason to hold back in assumptions. Massively less. Unless we were talking an Italian politician that is lol.
It's not like this is anything Russia specific. In the US there are certain cities and people who also have bad reputations regarding corruption, the same rules apply. People are much less likely to hold back punches when stories surface that don't look good when they involve subjects that have a bad reputation to begin with.You're wrong, totally wrong.
Ok I posted my source. Here it is again. Where's yours?
You don't seem to follow EU parliament discussions, French parliament and German parliament discussions.
People being reluctant to get involved in the Ukrainian crisis isn't remotely the same thing as liking Putin a lot.
Also the existence of pro-Putin elements in Europe does not mean he's popular in Europe.
Take note that those pro-Putin elements that do exist are extremist parties on BOTH the right and left. Not the mainstream by a long-shot unless we're talking Hungary.You don't follow oppositions supporting the Russian foreign policy.
The European far-right aside from a few places has yet to prove itself exactly mainstream opinion.
You've never seen French farmers huge movement against sanctions applied to Russia.
lollll, are you serious dude?
I don't like being harsh in here but come on.
Farmers protesting sanctions. Hmm. Gee. Wonder why people who make a living selling commonly exported goods would protest sanctions.
It must be that they really like Vladimir Putin.Kaiolino's post may help you get the idea.
So apparently yes, you do in fact view the reluctance of Western Europe to get involved in the Ukrainian crisis as a sign that they're big fans of Putin and Russian foreign policy.
Congratulations on this bizarre and poorly thought out conclusion.As I said many times, I am not Russian.
Yes I know, you're Algerian. I never said or implied you were Russian. People outside of Russia can also buy into the Russian government narrative and be effected by it's products. I explicitly mentioned that this is actually a big part of what the Russian media does. There are quite a few people around the world in probably all countries that have something of this mindset. Usually reflecting that same extreme framing I mentioned in regards to Europe. Far-left, and far-right. Far-left usually from some sort of anti-american contrarian logic or feeling that Russia is the successor of the USSR in a ideological way. The far-right meanwhile are actually paying attention to Putins policies basically lol.
In some regions like the middle east and north africa where there is a general sentiment of distrust and disregard of the west, it's probably much more common to have that same feeling the far-left does that Russia is a nice counterbalance to the west. So they're inclined to defend and give it more trust. Which would fit your personal profile.
It's not a bad thing to be critical of the west, as one should be critical of everywhere. Why one needs Russia to do that I have no idea. Why one would turn a blind eye to the corrupt increasingly nationalist mafia state that it is in the process I'm particularly confused about.–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I don't know if my opinion counts, but I don't think anyone likes Putin here for example. Even if we have some ties and history with Russians and even if we can be friendly with people themselves. Also, some people are wary of US, for example, and stuff but still, majority of people (like me) don't even imagine anyone outside liking Putin. Like, honestly, why would anyone.
P.S. My best friend lives there, maybe I should ask him about media and stuff, not sure if he reads/watches much though.Georgia is one of the last countries that I think would be profiled as liking Putin. You may not be Eastern Europe but you basically fit the profile otherwise in terms of your relationship with Russia. Former imperial subject of some sort that has even recently been pushed around by them.
See Also:
-Poland
-Estonia
-Latvia
-Lithuania
-Romania
-Moldova
-Ukraine
-Belarus (hard to say what Belarusians think of Russia though given their circumstances and vague national identity)
-Hungary
-Bulgaria
-Slovakia
-Czech Republic
@Smoker-San:The thing is that nothing has changed from that era when it comes to US victims.
This is an unrelated debate that has nothing to do with Russia. I merely used that period as an example to show how precisely I'm not treating the Russians as aliens. If I was from Laos or whatever I'd have used a Laotian example.
Lybia is a mess created by the US and Nato.
I think Gaddafi might have had something to do with that conflict starting.
Syria is mess created by the US and Nato at least if we consider the chaos made in Iraq.
Iraq being a different country I'm going to have to say no, this makes no sense. Unless you think ISIS took over Mosul from within Iraq, which they didn't, they drove across the Syrian border from Syria.
Also ISIS became a power like four years after the war started in Syria, they have nothing to do with why it started or even how it was sustained for awhile. So even if you somehow credit the west with creating ISIS, that has nothing do with the Syrian civil war starting and raging on.US allies do whatever they want because they have been given permission to do so:
What does this have to do with Russia again?
-
to be fair usa mid east strategy is same as russia
make wars sell weapon make money
just with diffrence that us justify it better
syria libya iraq is ruined now
all this freedom issue in iran is thanks to iran iraq war -
Brazilian news:
[hide]Politics:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/07/brazil-dilma-rousseff-should-be-impeached-congressional-investigator-sayshttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-politics-idUSKCN0X32G8
Zika Virus:
http://www.globalpost.com/article/6755996/2016/04/06/nobody-completely-sure-which-mosquito-spreads-zika-brazil[/hide] -
to be fair usa mid east strategy is same as russia
Really? How many lives taken by Russian drones? How many wars for democracy started by the Russians? How many countries got destroyed by Russia? How many "colorful" revolution did Russia start in Iran and elsewhere? How many scientists got killed in Iran by Russia? Who imposed sanctions against the Iranian people? Who was paying for the Iraq-Iran war and who asked for it? I may be stupid, but no, no and no, people in our region are dying by the hands of US military, drones, weapons and allies.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Monkey:
But recall most of the other examples you used was one person. Not a whole ton of them.
Yeah, and why is that? Because all these journalists of this consortium decided to release data only on Putin's friends. The other examples I gave happened to be already know for their actions. The narrative is clear and the target is there to see. And honestly, except here, everywhere, people are doubting them.
@Monkey:
Ok I posted my source. Here it is again. Where's yours?
Really? And of course, people loving the USA and Obama in middle-east more than Russia is believable to you? And Asia as well? I mean the part of the world where China and India are?
@Monkey:
The European far-right aside from a few places has yet to prove itself exactly mainstream opinion.
The thing you don't want to grasp is that the far right in all Europe is rising and rising fast. They are mainstream now. Even with the complete continuous bashing of the mainstream media, they continue to rise. By the way, in France, one of the targets of these leaks is far-right party: Le Front National, to nobody's surprise, they now know how the mainstream media work.
@Monkey:
People being reluctant to get involved in the Ukrainian crisis isn't remotely the same thing as liking Putin a lot.
I am not saying people like Putin the person. I am saying they like his foreign policies and positions. It's not personal.
In some regions like the middle east and north africa where there is a general sentiment of distrust and disregard of the west,
No, no. It's not a sentiment. It's not a sentiment that people are dying by western weapons, military and alliances. It's not a sentiment that hundreds of thousands of children died form US embargo in Iraq. It's not a sentiment that Israel can wage wars on us whenever they want with the complete financial, technical and political backup form the US and the west. It's not a sentiment that our lives depend on Obama and his drones, these are facts. It's not a sentiment that Colin Powell and the whole bush administration lied in front of the world and killed hundred of thousands in Iraq and destabilized the whole region with no consequences at all. It's not a sentiment that the people in Sahel region of Africa are dying because the west destroyed Libya.
I can understand that it's a sentiment for you, you see these only in news and you may feel sorry for us, but it's not a sentiment at all for us.And I have said it to you many times, I never watch RT… But you keep on insisting on them. Well western mass media is not any better. You know I can see Fox news and if they lie about their own president, they lie about the democrats, I doubt they will like Putin. The same can be said about any mass media network. Because simply they belong to financial groups, military industry groups, oil companies. Their independance is always questionable. You talk about freedom of speech, but how US congress men and senators cannot criticize Israel. And I am not even talking about media. I mean, for a person to be a president in the US, he or she must swear allegiance to a foreign country. How cool is that? The point the most powerful people in the world are not independent, how can you think the mass media to be independent?
-
@smoker
you just need to read iran history once to know what russia is
and this is gonna be my last post for 3 months -
Really? How many lives taken by Russian drones? How many wars for democracy started by the Russians? How many countries got destroyed by Russia? How many "colorful" revolution did Russia start in Iran and elsewhere? How many scientists got killed in Iran by Russia? Who imposed sanctions against the Iranian people? Who was paying for the Iraq-Iran war and who asked for it? I may be stupid, but no, no and no, people in our region are dying by the hands of US military, drones, weapons and allies.
Why are you mentioning only about Iran/Iraq here? And are you not aware of the damage done to Syria right after Russians bombed the place out now? I am not saying the US or its allies haven't done any damage there (of course). I am saying Russia isn't as angelic as you portray them to be.
Russia has had its very own Vietnam in Chechnya decades back which has caused a lot more problems than imagined. Where do you think ISIS gets its bulk of commanders from? The core fighters for ISIS aren't just Arabs but battle hardened Chechens who have extensive experience as strategists involved in the insurgencies in Chechnya years back
Are you also forgetting how Afghanistan has ended up now? If there was blame given to US and its allies who provided support to the extremist forces there, equal, if not, more blame needs to be given to Russia for ravaging onto the region too.
Another case was during the Bangladesh liberation war where there was almost a full fledged clash between Indo-Russian and Pak-US forces if not for Pakistan losing out pretty quickly.
Rewinding back a bit more, "The Great Game" which has shaped up the modern world we know now with the influence of Russia and Britain curtailing western & southern asia's progress is well known throughout history
-
@smoker
and this is gonna be my last post for 3 monthsGet back to us fine. Bye.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@xan:
Why are you mentioning only about Iran/Iraq here?
Because that's what shaped the whole region. Because that's what started Shia/Sunni conflict that never existed before. For centuries they were living along each other, along with other minorities that existed until recent days.
@xan:
And are you not aware of the damage done to Syria right after Russians bombed the place out now?
Yes, but after five years of US, France, UK financing and training terrorist groups and mercenaries to destroy Syria. Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar directly doing shit in Syria. You can see that they are not Russia's allies. And more importantly, in the U.N there is a legitimate Syrian government that asked them for help.
@xan:
I am saying Russia isn't as angelic as you portray them to be.
Where did I exactly say that?
@xan:
Russia has had its very own Vietnam in Chechnya decades back which has caused a lot more problems than imagined. Where do you think ISIS gets its bulk of commanders from? The core fighters for ISIS aren't just Arabs but battle hardened Chechens who have extensive experience as strategists involved in the insurgencies in Chechnya years back
Really? Are you serious? Chechnya is part of Russia. And yes, that's exactly why Russia had to hit hard in Syria, because they know whom against they are fighting. They are fighting against people related ideologically to Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi brach. Don't tell me you think chechen terrorists love Russia?
@xan:
Are you also forgetting how Afghanistan has ended up now? If there was blame given to US and its allies who provided support to the extremist forces there, equal, if not, more blame needs to be given to Russia for ravaging onto the region too.
I'll let the one who served as a counselor to President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1966–68 and was President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor from 1977–81, answer you:
! Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. Is this period, you were the national security advisor to President Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?
! Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [emphasis added throughout].
! Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into the war and looked for a way to provoke it?
B: It wasn’t quite like that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q : When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret US involvement in Afghanistan , nobody believed them . However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war." Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime , a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
! Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B : What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q : “Some agitated Moslems”? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today…
! B: Nonsense! It is said that the West has a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid: There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner, without demagoguery or emotionalism. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among fundamentalist Saudi Arabia , moderate Morocco, militarist Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt, or secularist Central Asia? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries…
Source.The fact is that this political radical Islamism was created by the USA/Saudi Arabia against Russia and communism. And now it is used as the main enemy to promote wars against innocent people in the muslim world. It is as simple as that.
-
Because that's what shaped the whole region. Because that's what started Shia/Sunni conflict that never existed before. For centuries they were living along each other, along with other minorities that existed until recent days.
Hunh? Shia-sunni conflict has been going on for centuries. Minorities did live peacefully but the "peace" we refer to might not exactly be the "peace" centuries back. Historical timeline relevance blurs that definition in various ways
Where did I exactly say that?
The entire post of yours which I quoted pretty much absolves the Russians of any sins or at least makes them seem nothing compared to the ones done by the west. You can't compare two grave crimes and consider one to be of less importance because it has happened in a particular region you can relate with
Really? Are you serious? Chechnya is part of Russia. And yes, that's exactly why Russia had to hit hard in Syria, because they know whom against they are fighting. They are fighting against people related ideologically to Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi brach. Don't tell me you think chechen terrorists love Russia?
Chechnya wasn't part of Russia before the 2nd chechnen war. The reason Russia invaded Chechnya is a different topic altogether but the fundamental reason was that they wanted to annex the places they lost after the disintegration of USSR. If you think that is justified, I would be curious to know your thoughts on the Ukraine crisis too. They were fighting against Wahhabists but think about why they came to Chechnya in the first place. Wherever crisis occurs, we see extremists crop up so you need to give at least some blame to Russia for destabilizing the region that just got out as an independance region
I'll let the one who served as a counselor to President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1966–68 and was President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor from 1977–81, answer you:
! Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. Is this period, you were the national security advisor to President Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?
! Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [emphasis added throughout].
! Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into the war and looked for a way to provoke it?
B: It wasn’t quite like that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q : When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret US involvement in Afghanistan , nobody believed them . However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war." Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime , a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
! Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B : What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q : “Some agitated Moslems”? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today…
! B: Nonsense! It is said that the West has a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid: There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner, without demagoguery or emotionalism. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among fundamentalist Saudi Arabia , moderate Morocco, militarist Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt, or secularist Central Asia? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries...
Source.The fact is that this political radical Islamism was created by the USA/Saudi Arabia against Russia and communism. And now it is used as the main enemy to promote wars against innocent people in the muslim world. It is as simple as that.
Umm but I am not denying the involvement of US as I had mentioned before did I? The whole point of this argument is how you have denied that Russia had a similar strategy in the middle east like USA which I think they had. It's just that the strategy was based out of a different set of ideology one which suited the US at that time more than Russia. If there was no USA trying to manipulate the extremist forces here, there would have been a pro-Russian result there with an Assad-ish sort of dictators trying to run their countries under the guise of communism. There probably wouldn't have been an OPEC or perhaps an OPEC controlled more by Russia than Saudi with the oil craving world on its feet. Whether THAT would have caused a severe devastation in its wake as how it is now, we can only imagine
Also, Wahhabism was already popular by the time WW1 ended. The chances of that toning down with the millions oil boom was providing wouldn't have been possible. However, I do agree that the ideology was exploited by western gov'ts without realizing the harm it would bring just for the sake of them preventing communism which was considered a bigger evil against the moral codes of capitalism under which the countries were run.
-
@xan:
However, I do agree that the ideology was exploited by western gov'ts without realizing the harm it would bring just for the sake of them preventing communism which was considered a bigger evil against the moral codes of capitalism under which the countries were run.
It's not that they are not realizing. They are fully aware of its harm, they need it to promote wars. They need it to keep hammering, spoiling and controling the 1.5 billion muslims around the world. They need it to make us the cartoonish evil when compared to "waging war Israel". They need it to create fear in European people to implement more and more restrictive laws. They need it, so they are maintaining it and helping it. Once again, for the last 25 years, middle east and north Africa people are being killed by US/Isreal/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/France/UK: Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria. Not the Russians, not the Chinese, not the Indians, only : US/Isreal/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/France/UK. How can you even deny this?
-
It's not that they are not realizing. They are fully aware of its harm, they need it to promote wars. They need it to keep hammering, spoiling and controling the 1.5 billion muslims around the world. They need it to make us the cartoonish evil when compared to "waging war Israel". They need it to create fear in European people to implement more and more restrictive laws. They need it, so they are maintaining it and helping it. Once again, for the last 25 years, middle east and north Africa people are being killed by US/Isreal/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/France/UK: Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria. Not the Russians, not the Chinese, not the Indians, only : US/Isreal/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/France/UK. How can you even deny this?
I think when it comes to the underlying politics, it goes beyond the categorization or bias with respect to a religion but rather lies in the power play altogether. Agreed that the paranoia against Islam is on the rise but it is not subdued by many Islamic nations (or probably just Saudi) themselves which throws in the question as to what gain do they have from it? Although the thought which discriminates against Islam or against Muslims was born from the populistic and the dire chaos of the era, the real idea behind it lies under the guise of politicans who crave to secure their own bag of resources and vote banks. If the Middle East wasn't a haven for fuel, would it have been targeted by so many foreign nations is a predictable answer? I don't think so. If people pander to the whims of a bunch of haters, wouldn't they secure votes to come to power sometime? If the bunch increase, so do their votes and their chances of wielding more power keeps increasing.
If they really were bent on controlling the muslims as you have mentioned, they would ideally have to start with Indonesia, Pakistan and India which has the top 3 largest Muslim population. They are nowhere near them to make that thought a reality because these countries don't really have things to offer to them nor are they in a crisis to begin with. If they were, China would be glad to take a look first due to the obvious geographical advantage. To counter the entity of China, the west and Russia maintain their good relations with the aforementioned countries. The Indians and the Chinese have traditionally not colonized much because of their already rich natural conditions. Capitalism reached very slowly to these countries and slow enough to not make them hungry to look outside for exploitable opportunities YET
Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
-
Please allow to bring one remark. When I say Saudi Arabia, US, Turkey, Israel and such, I am talking about governments, not people.
@xan:…(or probably just Saudi) themselves which throws in the question as to what gain do they have from it?
They gain the possibility to stay as a ruling family. If not for the United states, the Saouds would have been loooooooooooooooooooooooog gone. The very existence of the kingdom relies on the US military power. So they have to obey, they do not have much of a choice.
@xan:
…it goes beyond the categorization or bias with respect to a religion but rather lies in the power play altogether...
I agree, but it happens that we have the oil and we are neighbors to Isreal. And as I said, a huge imaginary enemy is needed for them to continue promoting wars and having their death industries making money all the time.
@xan:
…Pakistan...
Actually, Pakistan has been and is a part of the whole Islamic radicalism. It is through them and through secret services ISI that the "freedom fighters" were handled and still. They are completely under control. Up to day, drone attacks are going on in Pakistan regularly. If they are not under control, how would you call a nation having nuclear power having their space regularly entered by drones and targeting Pakistani citizens?
@xan:
…Indonesia... India ....
These are nice people with their own problems and they never go against west's interests anyway, why would they bother controlling them.
@xan:
… the disintegration of USSR.
That's it. Even after winning over the USSR. Politically, economically and militarily Russia was completely wrecked. Did it stop Nato from continuously messing with Russia, not at all. That's when they decided they are weak enough to have the world for them and them alone. We know what happened after the fall of the USSR. We had shattering of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen…
-
Actually, Pakistan has been and is a part of the whole Islamic radicalism. It is through them and through secret services ISI that the "freedom fighters" were handled and still. They are completely under control. Up to day, drone attacks are going on in Pakistan regularly. If they are not under control, how would you call a nation having nuclear power having their space regularly entered by drones and targeting Pakistani citizens?
Pakistan is a bit complicated when it comes to the world trying to handle it. Nobody knows who is in charge at any point of the year in the country. The reason Pakistan lets the countries run through it's western areas with a mild amount of resistance is even they are aware of the al qaeda problem inside their country. They find it difficult to get rid of it due to the various dependancies they have with them and the fact that ISI heavily needs their assistance if things go bad to their east. On the contrary to what you said, Pakistan uses the US a lot more than you can imagine. In turn, they provided the valuable nuances of intelligence from the Middle East that even the CIA can't penetrate
These are nice people with their own problems and they never go against west's interests anyway, why would they bother controlling them.
There is no concept of nice or not nice in politics. It's more of whether they are needed or not. They require protection in the Indian ocean where major trade occurs. They also need an anchor in the south asian area where only China reigns unchallenged.
That's it. Even after winning over the USSR. Politically, economically and militarily Russia was completely wrecked. Did it stop Nato from continuously messing with Russia, not at all. That's when they decided they are weak enough to have the world for them and them alone. We know what happened after the fall of the USSR. We had shattering of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen…
Again, you give the impression that Russia has been victimized by the west. If they really were victimized, I don't get why they keep probing their neighbors. Iraq was a blunder and Syria became one of its side effects. Some were fallouts from the Arab Spring and some had genuine problems that caused internal crises. Connecting all the dots to the west is perhaps a bit much. Revolutions did occur in Asia and other parts of the world over the past 20 years. Nobody is pointing that too to are they?
-
@xan:
There is no concept of nice or not nice in politics…
Of course. I explained what I meant by "nice".
@xan:
Again, you give the impression that Russia has been victimized by the west. If they really were victimized, I don't get why they keep probing their neighbors. Iraq was a blunder and Syria became one of its side effects. Some were fallouts from the Arab Spring and some had genuine problems that caused internal crises. Connecting all the dots to the west is perhaps a bit much. Revolutions did occur in Asia and other parts of the world over the past 20 years. Nobody is pointing that too to are they?
I really don't understand, what does Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya have to do with Russia. i am talking about middle-east and north Africa and you take to other regions of the world. So, Russia victimized by or not is irrelevant. What is it for you hard to see that I am talking about the milatary who are killing innocent people. Does Gaza have anything to do with Russia? Does Somalia have anything to do with Russia? does Yemen has anything to do with Russia? Does Libya have anything to do with russia? Does Iraq have anything to do Russia? I am talking about lives and countries destroyed by US and Nato and you bring in Russia. I don't know why?
@xan:
…Some were fallouts from the Arab Spring and some had genuine problems that caused internal crises...
There is no such a thing. The uprisings have been prepared by foreign secret services for months. You can take a look for your selves, Hillary's emails are there in the open for your to read.
-
I really don't understand, what does Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya have to do with Russia. i am talking about middle-east and north Africa and you take to other regions of the world. So, Russia victimized by or not is irrelevant.
I was referring only to the first part of that point where you mentioned about Nato trying to keep poking Russia. The rest was related to the breaking of nations after USSR you had mentioned
-
Really? How many lives taken by Russian drones?
Lots of civilians have been killed by the Russians in Syria, by manned planes. Also insanely large amounts of dead civilians have been killed and rendered refugees by the regime they are supporting.
Also the civilians deaths in Ukraine through their troops and allied militias, such as a passenger plane full of Dutch people you might have heard of?How many wars for democracy started by the Russians?
They started the fighting in Ukraine over losing influence in the government there, and literally annexed part of the country with the threat of violence.
How many countries got destroyed by Russia?
Ukraine is in really bad shape right now. Moldova too (the worst place in Europe). Georgia has loads of problems. These are countries Russia has (since 1991) supported and sustained breakaway regions in. With some accompanied severe ethnic cleansing in some cases at least as concerns Abkhazia in Georgia. The policy as regards Ukraine seems to be Putin essentially seeking to keep them weak and bedeviled so that their ability to look into joining the EU or NATO is impossible. Also to keep their economy chaotic and uncertain.
How many "colorful" revolution did Russia start in Iran and elsewhere?
The same amount as the US. Zero.
They're really good at cracking down on them though.
The Iranians don't like Russia much btw, as our resident Iranian has already mentioned. They don't exactly have a friendly history.How many scientists got killed in Iran by Russia?
None. But if Iran needs to have any journalists or opposition politicians poisoned or gunned down mysteriously, Putin's their man.
Who was paying for the Iraq-Iran war and who asked for it?
Oh wait so we're counting the USSR? Well for starters, paying for the Iraq-Iran war, yes actually the Soviets were doing that too. Against Iran.
But man, if we're counting the USSR I can add all sorts more examples to the earlier stuff.I may be stupid, but no, no and no, people in our region are dying by the hands of US military, drones, weapons and allies.
Russians are killing many middle eastern people in Syria, civilian or otherise. While supporting a government doing an obscenely large amount of the same.
Also their colonial policies as the USSR (we're counting this according to you) has birthed the Nagorno-Kharabak (sp) conflict that still smolders in Azerbaijan. And the frozen conflict zones (yes plural) in Georgia. Which are by most accounts also in the region.Yeah, and why is that? Because all these journalists of this consortium decided to release data only on Putin's friends.
But wait….you posted stories about data on the associates of western leaders...
The other examples I gave happened to be already know for their actions.
"Already know" in what sense.
The narrative is clear and the target is there to see. And honestly, except here, everywhere, people are doubting them.
You say this every time you post. But it's never really true.
Really? And of course, people loving the USA and Obama in middle-east more than Russia is believable to you?
In case your missing it Russia has chosen to support a (kinda) Shia regime that is fighting and killing it's majority Sunni population. Maybe in your corner of Algeria this isn't registering for some reason.
And Asia as well? I mean the part of the world where China and India are?
Why exactly does that surprise you? It's not like most of the world suffers from Neo Cold-War policies like the Middle East anymore. India has nothing against the US, Central Asia doesn't really either. East Asia? Well the US has good relations with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. And our relations with China are pretty ok mostly really.
Southeast Asia meanwhile I think likes us quite a lot. Those countries that are scared of China and being bugged by them (Vietnam, Philippines) are pretty damn happy with us. Heck Filipinos have a long history with America, we go wayyyy back (our only real colony we ever had).
Indonesia is fine with us for the most part. Thailand too.
I think Pakistan hates us a lot though. But yeah not sure why you thought Asia outside the middeast had some huge thing against the US.We haven't done anything to make them go "WHOA WTF" for awhile. Russia has. It's pretty simple. Most people around the world don't see helping the Libyan rebels as some terrible thing. And also we're barely involved in Syria in spite of what you may think.
It's been awhile since Iraq. Ukraine is still going on.The thing you don't want to grasp is that the far right in all Europe is rising and rising fast.
Well in some places yeah. But then they already seem to be receding a bit. They remain fringe.
Even with the complete continuous bashing of the mainstream media, they continue to rise.
Those poor European far-right parties. Do you seriously feel bad for the European far-right??
You're an Algerian for godsakes. These are the same people who were refusing to let you become independent and almost and sort of pulling a coup in France over it 50 years ago. They're also coming to power where they are largely on the back of anti-Arab and anti-islamic sentiments. You're worried about these people being treated bad by the media??By the way, in France, one of the targets of these leaks is far-right party: Le Front National, to nobody's surprise, they now know how the mainstream media work.
Does OroJackson have a political forum? Just thinking out loud.
I am not saying people like Putin the person. I am saying they like his foreign policies and positions. It's not personal.
That doesn't remotely indicate that whatsoever.
Western Europeans live in a plush first world wonderland and look at trouble happening in Eastern Europe (or your region) as shit they want to forget and ignore. Not wanting to get involved with Ukraine is because they don't like getting involved period. Especially if it hurts them economically.This you think means they support Putin annexing
the SudentenlandI mean the Donbass and Crimea?? Huh??No, no. It's not a sentiment.
Please look up the first definition of "sentiment".
It's not a sentiment that people are dying by western weapons, military and alliances. It's not a sentiment that hundreds of thousands of children died form US embargo in Iraq. It's not a sentiment that Israel can wage wars on us whenever they want with the complete financial, technical and political backup form the US and the west. It's not a sentiment that our lives depend on Obama and his drones, these are facts. It's not a sentiment that Colin Powell and the whole bush administration lied in front of the world and killed hundred of thousands in Iraq and destabilized the whole region with no consequences at all.
Yes, and by the definition of sentiment you're going off it's not a sentiment in regard to any of those things with Russia either. Yet you have this instinct to defend them…. why?
It's not a sentiment that the people in Sahel region of Africa are dying because the west destroyed Libya.
People in the Sahel are mostly dying because they live in the shittiest region on earth outside of the Congo basin. Desertification and all that.
Is this a reference to the ultimately passing storm that was the Mali war a few years back? The US has nothing to do with conflict in Sudan or Chad, or the C.A.R.And I have said it to you many times, I never watch RT… But you keep on insisting on them.
It doesn't matter if you watch RT or not. I was talking about Russia having a sophisticated network of international media and other such things. And RT is the most famous example, so I mentioned it.
Well western mass media is not any better.
Yeah it is.
You know I can see Fox news and if they lie about their own president, they lie about the democrats,
Fox News is terrible and biased. But it's still not as bad as RT or the other Russian outlets.
Fox News is also one network in a free press climate with dozens if not hundreds of other news sources freely available in the US.
Whereas in Russia the media news is dominated by one narrative from the government. The press is absolutely NOT free in Russia.I doubt they will like Putin.
So what news outlet would make me like Putin. Because aside from Russian state media and maybe Chinese state media I can't think of any.
Because simply they belong to financial groups, military industry groups, oil companies. Their independance is always questionable.
Thankfully there are so many options to look around when you think one is crap. But not in Russia.
You talk about freedom of speech, but how US congress men and senators cannot criticize Israel.
They can. They probably choose not to usually because people might be unhappy and they might not get re-elected.
I'm not sure you understand free speech.I mean, for a person to be a president in the US, he or she must swear allegiance to a foreign country.
He doesn't have to do that though.
The point the most powerful people in the world are not independent, how can you think the mass media to be independent?
The media has it way easier than elected officials because they don't have to worry about elections. It's not exactly hard to find news stories, history books, or academic reports about the negatives of Israeli actions. Yeah maybe your boss could fire you, but if your a journalist ready to be critical of Israel you're probably applying to jobs at places that you know wouldn't do that.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Because that's what shaped the whole region.
Uh? No it didn't.
Because that's what started Shia/Sunni conflict that never existed before.
That's nonsense.
There has always been existent tensions between the two. Sectarian tensions within religions are almost a given. Do you have any idea how much blood has been shed between different types of Christians? There's even some elements of that tension in the Ukrainian conflict buried deep down.
Why do you think Saddam was so spooked and aggressive after the Iranian revolution? Because Iraq has a plurality Shia population, and he was worried they would get restive too. The very fact that the populations are historically separate in places like Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia etc speaks to this.For centuries they were living along each other, along with other minorities that existed until recent days.
And many times in those centuries there were episodes of violence. Lots of those little unorthodox Islamic groups (or closely related ones) existed as persecuted minorities for centuries. The history of the Alawites, Druz, Alevis etc is exactly that.
Well then again so is the history of humanity when different "tribes" exist alongside eachother. Always there is conflict at points. What you're saying if anything is that magically for once in history the Shia and Sunni didn't have this. Or any of the smaller sub-groups. Until the 1980's that is? Uh….no.
Are you going to also try and tell us that violence between Catholics and Orthodox Christians was forced into existence by the US in Yugoslavia?And more importantly, in the U.N there is a legitimate Syrian government that asked them for help.
That legitimate Syrian government has been conducting a policy of basically genocide against the Sunni Arab population of the country. A population that happens to be the majority, so that's quite a lot of people.
Really? Are you serious? Chechnya is part of Russia.
And Algeria was part of France. Literally, not as a colony like India for the UK. For longer than Chechnya had been part of Russia by your point of independence to boot.
And yes, that's exactly why Russia had to hit hard in Syria, because they know whom against they are fighting.
Radicalized independence fighters from a conflict they actively antagonized into a more and more radical state.
They are fighting against people related ideologically to Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi brach. Don't tell me you think chechen terrorists love Russia?
The Chechen conflict didn't start out radicalized, the brutality of the second Russian war on it destroyed most of the more moderate elements and radicalized the remainder. So it ended up going from a nationalist conflict (like the Kurds are fighting for) into a radical islamist one. It's almost like brutal government crackdowns tend to produce that result. Much as in Syria.
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [emphasis added throughout].
Then you don't know what was going on that caused the Russian intervention. It was an unstable native communist regime (backed by the USSR) that had pulled a coup on the previous government in 1978 and then started wobbling around with internal coups shifting the leader a couple of times. The Soviets even assassinated the second leader themselves. This government was already unpopular and causing rebellions from local forces, which would be the people the CIA was aiding.
Does that absolve the US of involvement? No. But he wasn't saying that was he. You're talking like the Russians weren't involved and came in to…do something to stop the US aided rebels against something... but that something was a Soviet backed regime. A regime that had come to power from communist insurgents that had (naturally) been supported by the USSR for years by 1978.
This thing, going around supporting revolutions in other peoples countries. I believe you think of it as very bad and problem causing no?Q : When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret US involvement in Afghanistan , nobody believed them . However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this today?
How dare the US fund radicals against our pet government formed by radicals that we funded!
The fact is that this political radical Islamism was created by the USA/Saudi Arabia against Russia and communism. It is as simple as that.
It wasn't created by the US. The CIA was funding already existent radicals, both the natives ones who rebelled against the communist regime, and the mujahideen who flocked to Afghanistan to fight the Russians. Is that still bad and risky? Yep! But as usual you're mischaracterizing things in a ridiculous manner.
And now it is used as the main enemy to promote wars against innocent people in the muslim world.
And then there's cuckoo land where I can't even bother to follow you.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
It's not that they are not realizing. They are fully aware of its harm, they need it to promote wars.
The nasty policies of the US during the Cold War just like those existed in Latin America and throughout Asia. And even a little bit in Europe where it was relevant enough (basically tolerating and allying with the regimes in Spain/Portugal/Greece).
The Cold War ended, and all of that more or less stopped pretty abruptly. Latin America has largely recovered, and Asia has certainly moved on. Both the former Russian/Chinese clients (aside from North Korea the communist regimes either dissolved or reformed into vanilla authoritarian states), and the former US clients (democracy arriving in Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea and Indonesia). Most of Europe has moved on too. As well as Africa below the Sahara.The Middle East alone continues to be a place where policy and tension has the feel of the Cold War. If American policy is still rotten in some respects there you're going to need to think a little harder than "they just love wars and client militants".
They need it to keep hammering, spoiling and controling the 1.5 billion muslims around the world.
Most of whom live outside the middle east but ok I guess. I imagine any Indonesians reading this are probably like "wtf".
Also here's a thing to roll your head a bit. I know you don't like American military interventions much. Well what about those two times in the 1990's when the US intervened (with NATO) to stop genocidal actions against Muslim populations. The first time in Bosnia, the second time in Kosovo. The second time even resulted in an independent majority Muslim state. Neither of these Muslim populations btw are radicalized, in the case of Bosnia in particular they could hardly be more secular.
So how exactly does this fit the (insane) thing you're saying?Also why? Why would this even be a policy? Why would it have been planned long term since the 1980's. Why isn't there a political sub-forum on OroJackson?
They need it to make us the cartoonish evil when compared to "waging war Israel".
Have you decided yet if the US is puppeteering Israel, or if Israel is puppeteering the US. You seem to wildly swing back and forth every post.
They need it to create fear in European people to implement more and more restrictive laws.
Why would the US give a crap what Europeans are doing to control their immigration and security.
Once again, for the last 25 years, middle east and north Africa people are being killed by US/Isreal/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/France/UK:
So can I have the motives of Turkey and Saudi Arabia for waging war against the Muslims they apparently hate. Is it to support their best friend Israel?
Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria.
What about Georgia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, the Kurds, Bosnia, Kosovo, Moldova, Ukraine etc.
Not the Russians, not the Chinese, not the Indians, only : US/Isreal/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/France/UK. How can you even deny this?
Fun Fact: Israel was almost a Russian ally state, the Soviets were planning on it. But the socialist nature of the early Israeli politicians didn't end up left enough and that never gelled. Pissed Stalin off a bit.
-
Those poor European far-right parties. Do you seriously feel bad for the European far-right??
You're an Algerian for godsakes. These are the same people who were refusing to let you become independent and almost and sort of pulling a coup in France over it 50 years ago. They're also coming to power where they are largely on the back of anti-Arab and anti-islamic sentiments. You're worried about these people being treated bad by the media??You're wrong, they never tried to pull a coup in France, never. And these people are anti-islam and anti-arabs in their countries. They are free. But if that's the price to be left alone in peace and in one piece in my country then it is fine by me.Le front national is against these bombings to bring democracy and it is fine by me. They are for stability in our countries to not have to deal with us migrants. It is fine by me. It is waaaaay better then having my life and my sons' lives decided by Obama and his drones.
Please look up the first definition of "sentiment".
It's a feeling or emotion. I told you people are dying from US drones, military and allies, they are not getting the feeling they are dying. With a bonus, we have also the hate you've been blaming on the far-right.
People in the Sahel are mostly dying because they live in the shittiest region on earth outside of the Congo basin. Desertification and all that.
Is this a reference to the ultimately passing storm that was the Mali war a few years back? The US has nothing to do with conflict in Sudan or Chad, or the C.A.R.Come on, please go read Hilary's comments about the weapons proliferation in the Sahel region after Libya's destruction. I mean, if she admitted it, you can at least acknowledge that. The source is not Russian. Or here.
….they live in the shittiest region on earth…
Really? Well the people at west point seem to disagree with you. The climate is not good, but the Uranium and gold are very very very good. French energetic independence depends on it, as you may or may not know, France depend heavily on Nuclear plants and their uranium is from there. Please take a close look to the title, the terrorist group threatens the whole west, not France's energy. Where does it involve the Russians here? And now I am talking about the part I am in.
They can. They probably choose not to usually because people might be unhappy and they might not get re-elected.
I'm not sure you understand free speech.Ah ok, so auto-censoring is also freedom of speech. I thought this was the worst of not freedom of speech, when you cannot tell the truth.
He doesn't have to do that though.
Really? My bad, I always thought the Aipac thing to be important. So a foreign prime minister to have almost the same or more influence over the congress/Senate than the president himself is not a big deal.
Why isn't there a political sub-forum on OroJackson?
Sorry if I am annoying you. I am stopping here to let you enjoy your time here.
-
You're wrong, they never tried to pull a coup in France, never.
Actually rather than never, it was twice.
The ultra-conservatives in the French military did yes.
The first time they pulled a soft coup, a very soft coup. Basically the military felt the French government was showing signs that were too conciliatory to the Algerian rebels, so they sent them a letter or something like that which said they had to dissolve the government and let Charles DeGaulle come back to power, or the military would overthrow the government themselves.
And the French government did exactly that.
This isn't some minor incident or something, this is what ended the French Fourth Republic. How you deny this happened is absolutely beyond me.
It wasn't a physical coup, but it was a coup in the sense that they issued a threat to the government to step down and the government listened. They would have pulled a physical coup if the government hadn't.The second coup didn't actually happened, but it was like a repeat of the first one. Basically once again ultra-conservatives in the French military were unsatisfied with Charles DeGaulle and also thought he wasn't handling Algeria right. And they also planned a coup, and even began taking over stuff in Algeria. But it didn't take off, and also DeGaulle mobilized against it really well. Including making a big speech on TV calling it out and rallying the population against it. So it never got off the ground, was aborted amid birth.
We don't have many French people on the forum, but if any of them stop by to read this they're going to pop their eyes out at you denying these happened.
Now maybe your rejecting the idea that these military officers were far-right wing. Which is absolutely absurd, that's precisely what they were. The far right in Europe is now and always has been all about getting really angry about losing territory of any kind, and wanting to get it back. Don't think that's still modern? Well aside from the Russian attitude toward the former USSR, just look at the powerful far right in Hungary. Ever heard of the treaty of Trianon? Well they'll tell you alllll about it.
And Golden Dawn in Greece sure wants Istanbul and then some. Yessir.And these people are anti-islam and anti-arabs in their countries.
That's really bad.
But if that's the price to be left alone in peace and in one piece in my country then it is fine by me.
I too will bet on the nature of the European far right as being isolationist and un-militarist. History (and literally modern events) certainly show that as being the case.
You seem to be basing this argument btw on them being influenced by Putin. Who I guess you consider an isolationist.
Maybe you can remind me how Moldova, Georgia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Syria are inside Russia's borders like Chechnya is. Oh and before you say anything, the former USSR countries listed had the Russian interventions after independence.Le front national is against these bombings to bring democracy and it is fine by me.
They are appealing to an anti-establishment feeling, but lol if you that has anything to do with foundational policy. You should shudder to think what a far-right president of France would have done following the Paris attacks.
They are for stability in our countries to not have to deal with us migrants.
You are not a migrant, and don't think you can speak for them. Especially not the refugees.
It is fine by me. It is waaaaay better then having my life and my sons' lives decided by Obama and his drones.
So are there drones in Algeria? Is America even doing anything in Algeria? Is anyone?
With a bonus, we have also the hate you've been blaming on the far-right.
You're nationalist racists?
Come on, please go read Hilary's comments about the weapons proliferation in the Sahel region after Libya's destruction. I mean, if she admitted it, you can at least acknowledge that. The source is not Russian. Or here.
And you said the Sahel was burning. The conflicts in Chad and Sudan have been going on for decades, they have nothing to do with Libya. The CAR does not even border anywhere near Libya. It's practically in the Congo basin.
A thing happened a few years back in Mali, and there's been some low level this and that there and Niger since. That's hardly the apocalypse you were speaking about. I don't think anything is going on in Senegal meanwhile.Really?
Consistently among the absolute bottom ranks of the Human Development Index. So yes. Mali isn't near as bad, but Chad and Niger are total basket cases. CAR too.
Well the people at
west point seem to disagree with you. The climate is not good, but the Uranium and gold are very very very good. French energetic independence depends on it, as you may or may not know, France depend heavily on Nuclear plants and their uranium is from there.
It opens with "Already one of the most volatile and impoverished regions of the world" so I rest my case with your help I guess.
Where does it involve the Russians here?
Good question. Why did you bring it up? Why are you bringing up the West at all? Are you completely unable to talk about Russia on it's own merits or lack thereof?
Ah ok, so auto-censoring is also freedom of speech.
Choosing not to say something, or maybe deciding you should anyway in a social context is a basic part of human discourse. I don't have the slightest idea what it has to do with freedom of speech. Again I'll have to guess you don't really know what it is.
I thought this was the worst of not freedom of speech, when you cannot tell the truth.
They can say whatever the hell they want. But you see, politicians they are known for saying what people want to hear. Because they like to be elected by those same people. Also they may genuinely believe what they do about Israel, plenty of Republicans certainly do.
Really? My bad, I always thought the Aipac thing to be important.
It's a lobbyist group. I take it you don't know what those are.
So a foreign prime minister to have almost the same or more influence over the congress/Senate than the president himself is not a big deal.
It's influence exercised through legal means of rallying supporters of their own volition. Not puppet master control lol.
You have a total and complete inability to understand that influence works through people already inclined to do that work.–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Please allow to bring one remark. When I say Saudi Arabia, US, Turkey, Israel and such, I am talking about governments, not people.
So you think the strong personalities in charge of those places are in perfect agreement, and have been for decades. Ok.
They gain the possibility to stay as a ruling family. If not for the United states, the Saouds would have been loooooooooooooooooooooooog gone. The very existence of the kingdom relies on the US military power. So they have to obey, they do not have much of a choice.
The existence of the kingdom relies on oil money. I think they may buy weapons from the US, but we are not defending them no.
Also lol, the Saudis have half the world by the balls through that oil.I agree, but it happens that we have the oil and we are neighbors to Isreal.
Do you seriously imagine the US Israel policy is so massive as to involve a global conspiracy against Muslims?
And as I said, a huge imaginary enemy is needed for them to continue promoting wars and having their death industries making money all the time.
Which is why war and military dictatorship continues to rage in Latin America and Asia.
Actually, Pakistan has been and is a part of the whole Islamic radicalism. It is through them and through secret services ISI that the "freedom fighters" were handled and still. They are completely under control.
Pakistan is so under control that they set up their own rebel forces in the Afghan war separate from the CIA in order to gain more influence there of their own. And so under control that they are constantly making inroads with China on all sorts of matters.
Up to day, drone attacks are going on in Pakistan regularly. If they are not under control, how would you call a nation having nuclear power having their space regularly entered by drones and targeting Pakistani citizens?
Those Pakistani citizens are in the tribal Pashtun mountain regions. Out of sight and mind of the vast majority of Pakistan's population, and involving none of it's dominant ethnic groups. With a stated goal of hurting enemies of the Pakistani state (the Pakistani Taliban). So it's actually quite easy to see why the government is plenty fine with the drone program. The population isn't, but not because they're being attacked themselves so much as they naturally hate the feeling of national violation it involves. And the usual humanitarian concerns of course.
You seem to think the US is attacking Pakistan itself in a direct sense, and using drones willy nilly all over the place. That's not the case. It's the equivalent of a US drone program in Algeria operating deep in the Sahara way in the south.These are nice people with their own problems and they never go against west's interests anyway, why would they bother controlling them.
Because Muslims. Which was what you said was the issue.
That's it. Even after winning over the USSR. Politically, economically and militarily Russia was completely wrecked. Did it stop Nato from continuously messing with Russia, not at all.
I'm consistently amazed at how pigheaded you are. You spent a paragraph lambasting me for possibly maybe questioning (I wasn't) why the middle east has deep distrust and anger toward the United States. Yet you still buy into the utter bullshit about NATO expansion being an attack on poor little Russia.
Do you know why NATO kept expanding? Because more and more countries kept asking to join and filing their paperwork.
Do you know why they were doing this? Because these are countries every bit as untrusting and traumatized historically by Russia as the middle east is by the US. In fact in many cases much more. Do we need to walk together into the modern history of Poland? The Baltic States? The Ukraine? Hungary? Czechoslovakia in it's now two parts? Romania? Bulgaria? They experienced occupation, annexations, invasion, genocidal events, ethnic cleansing, and general all encompassing domination by Russia. In some cases for centuries. With things FAR worse than anything the modern middle east has suffered as a result of US actions. Had a Holodomor yet?
And you of all people have the nerve to suggest NATO expansion was about Russia as a victim.Go ahead. Make another comment to Xan or me or anyone that your aren't whitewashing eastern european history and making Russia out to be innocent. Just go right on ahead and lie to us again. Lay on another comment too about how truly it is I who doesn't understand how Europeans think, guy who has never encountered a Non-Russian eastern European in his entire life. That region hates Russia, in a way that you should completely be able to understand and empathize with.
But no. You somehow can't do that.We had shattering of Yugoslavia,
Tell me ALL about how that went down. You seem so knowledgeable about these things. Gimme the breakdown. I can't wait to see your next pivot where you whitewash over genocide and ethnic cleansing of Muslims.
Like I don't even know why I'm responsing to you. Someone could probably create a bot that just takes literally whatever stance puts it in opposition to the United States.
Let's see where we can go with that!
Hey! The United States surrrre didn't like that Confederacy! Who should have won the American Civil War?
Hey! The United States joined the side in WW2 that was against the Nazis! What's your feeling on that?
Hey! Obama enjoys Al Green's music! Could you enjoy Al Green?Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen…
JACKSON MISSISSIPPI
-
@Monkey:
Just go right on ahead and lie to us again
Lie to you? I am a liar now for having different views than yours. That's it. Bye.
-
Lie to you? I am a liar now for having different views than yours. That's it. Bye.
For saying one thing and doing another directly in front of our eyes. Consistently and over a variety of posts.
If it wasn't such a common cliche when it comes to the subject I'd say I'm shocked. -
-
Hilarious.
No important western leaders being reported on for trouble involving this. No sir.
(David Cameron has crossed America somehow, and retroactively the British are righteous and sinless now in the process as well, Irish Potato Famine a lie, India was "borrowed", British food is actually really delicious UNLIKE HAMBURGER) -
@Monkey:
British food is actually really delicious UNLIKE HAMBURGER)
I beg to differ. I went to UK before and the lack of sauce and generally non-existent taste disturbed me greatly. I like the cookies tho. No offense to uk people here.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/malaysian-opposition-mp/2676698.html
bah.
↑Biological Weaopn of Doom and Destruction
-
@le:
I beg to differ. I went to UK before and the lack of sauce and generally non-existent taste disturbed me greatly. I like the cookies tho. No offense to uk people here.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/malaysian-opposition-mp/2676698.html
bah.i like eating food right away instead of having to waste time by adding sauce/salt,ect to it to make it taste better.
Good food does not need stuff added to it since it tastes good enough as it's.
 
