Aye, he's such a manly man and his rampant Homophobia is a facade. Guy who prances around like he does has to be smelling of lavender.
Syria
- Thread starter Ciaran
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Aye, he's such a manly man and his rampant Homophobia is a facade. Guy who prances around like he does has to be smelling of lavender.
You want to believe the results of that poll, carry on
there were 6 prior polls over a 6 year period, carried out by ukraine, germany and the UN, that all show a substantial majority of crimeans voting for an aspiration for crimea to leave ukraine and join russia.
what authority are you to declare them wrong and to laugh at the assertion that russia did not "bully" crimea into joining with them ?
please explain what knowledge you have that makes you a better authority on the will of the crimean people, than the crimean people themselves.
I don't get how people fall for this narrative put out by western governments and media, that recent major conflicts are due to Russian imperial expansion adventurism.
The two main recent areas of conflict which Russia has been involved in, are in Ukraine and Syria.
Syria
The Syrian conflict is presented by western governments, and to an extent western media, as a simple battle of good v evil.
The good guys are :
- the United States, and their western allies including Britain and France
- The United Nations
- Saudi Arabia, and their gulf state allies
- The Syrian rebels (except for Isis)
- The Syrian 'people'
The bad guys are :
- the Syrian army
- Russia and Iran
- (and most evil of all) Assad ("the butcher", as David Cameron has called him)
In this cartoon like presentation of the conflict that we have been spoon fed for 4 years, the evil bad guy 'Assad' and his 'regime', is at "war with his own people". The storyline is, that the JohnWaynelike US of A will save the day, when Assad is defeated, and the Syrian people have been rescued from his evil clutches.
Well, surprise surprise, the situation is slightly more complicated than that presented by the west. In fact, there are many issues at play, and none of them is that the Syrian government is at war with its people. Essentially, there are 4 broad strands to the conflict, all of which can be said to be caused by external parties :
- the international power battle between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Musilms (Saudi v Iran) being fought as a proxy war in Syrian territory
- the international power battle beween Iran & Russia and the US, as the US (and its allie Israel), as seeks to increase its sphere of influence in the region, and to undermine its regional adversary of the last 35 years - Iran.
- the natural resources battle, as 1) Saudi and the EU, want to be supplied natural resources from Saudi, to compete with Russia, and 2) as Saudi and the West enviously eyes the vast natural resources likely to be capable of being tapped this century in Syria's neighbour and cloest allie, Iran.
- the domestic conflict between disaffected factions of Sunni Muslims encouraged by external events and influences to seek to rebel against the authorities, and the authorities and the elements of society which do not feel dissafected, and which support the government, such as Shiite Muslims, other minority groups such as Christians, succesful Sunnis.
In all of this, its Syria, and its people who suffer, as the US, Saudi and others, seek geopolitical and financial gain, whilst Syria and its population is used as collatoral, and the Syrian government portrayed - which seeks to maintain and restore the order that it's brought to this potential firekeg of a region for the 50 years or so it maintained power without external interference - is portrayed in western properganda as the cause of all the destruction.
Russia has had direct interests and military presence in its near neighbour Syria for decades. It is now merely attempting to maintain the status quo on behalf of its allie, in light of very clear imperialist adventurism and interference from distant powers, seeking to expand their influence in the region, by invading and destroying a sovereign state.
Ukraine
Ukraine is not only a direct neighbour of Russia, but a former part of it (or at least of its predecessor, the USSR), and has remained pretty much within its sphere of influence since independence.
Furthermore, a substantial proportion of the inhabitants of the eastern half of Ukraine are of Russian origin, and a majority of that 'half' of the country has traditionally supported Russian leaning parties and policies in recent decades, and are far more ethnically and culturally similar to Russia than they are to the western influences who appear hell bent on trying to interfere to ensure the denigration of Russia's sphere of influence.
Russia's involvement in conflict on its own doorstep has arisen as a result of the western half of Ukraine wanting to move politically towards Europe, and of the direct encouragement given by western powers for the whole country to move away from Russia's influence, and clearly not because of any attempts on Russia's part to increase its sphere of influence. This is clear, because what Russia is trying to do, is maintain its existing sphere of influence, in the face of western expansionism. And yet in spite of this very simple and obvious fact, people still fall for the Russian expansionist narrative, when clearly the opposite is true.
It strikes me as pretty obvious that Russia is neither the aggressor nor the adventurist in either theatre, but the defender attempting to maintain the existing order in its sphere of influence in the face of interference from distant opportunists, wishing to shift the balance of power and reduce Russia's influence.
The fact that people buy the line from the west that Russia is the adventurist and they (the west) are involved merely to temper that adventurism, strikes me as evidence of how effective concerted propaganda can be, because to me, when you think about it, the Russian adventurism narrative makes no sense in the circumstances, and in fact the converse appears to be true.
The two main recent areas of conflict which Russia has been involved in, are in Ukraine and Syria.
Syria
The Syrian conflict is presented by western governments, and to an extent western media, as a simple battle of good v evil.
The good guys are :
- the United States, and their western allies including Britain and France
- The United Nations
- Saudi Arabia, and their gulf state allies
- The Syrian rebels (except for Isis)
- The Syrian 'people'
The bad guys are :
- the Syrian army
- Russia and Iran
- (and most evil of all) Assad ("the butcher", as David Cameron has called him)
In this cartoon like presentation of the conflict that we have been spoon fed for 4 years, the evil bad guy 'Assad' and his 'regime', is at "war with his own people". The storyline is, that the JohnWaynelike US of A will save the day, when Assad is defeated, and the Syrian people have been rescued from his evil clutches.
Well, surprise surprise, the situation is slightly more complicated than that presented by the west. In fact, there are many issues at play, and none of them is that the Syrian government is at war with its people. Essentially, there are 4 broad strands to the conflict, all of which can be said to be caused by external parties :
- the international power battle between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Musilms (Saudi v Iran) being fought as a proxy war in Syrian territory
- the international power battle beween Iran & Russia and the US, as the US (and its allie Israel), as seeks to increase its sphere of influence in the region, and to undermine its regional adversary of the last 35 years - Iran.
- the natural resources battle, as 1) Saudi and the EU, want to be supplied natural resources from Saudi, to compete with Russia, and 2) as Saudi and the West enviously eyes the vast natural resources likely to be capable of being tapped this century in Syria's neighbour and cloest allie, Iran.
- the domestic conflict between disaffected factions of Sunni Muslims encouraged by external events and influences to seek to rebel against the authorities, and the authorities and the elements of society which do not feel dissafected, and which support the government, such as Shiite Muslims, other minority groups such as Christians, succesful Sunnis.
In all of this, its Syria, and its people who suffer, as the US, Saudi and others, seek geopolitical and financial gain, whilst Syria and its population is used as collatoral, and the Syrian government portrayed - which seeks to maintain and restore the order that it's brought to this potential firekeg of a region for the 50 years or so it maintained power without external interference - is portrayed in western properganda as the cause of all the destruction.
Russia has had direct interests and military presence in its near neighbour Syria for decades. It is now merely attempting to maintain the status quo on behalf of its allie, in light of very clear imperialist adventurism and interference from distant powers, seeking to expand their influence in the region, by invading and destroying a sovereign state.
Ukraine
Ukraine is not only a direct neighbour of Russia, but a former part of it (or at least of its predecessor, the USSR), and has remained pretty much within its sphere of influence since independence.
Furthermore, a substantial proportion of the inhabitants of the eastern half of Ukraine are of Russian origin, and a majority of that 'half' of the country has traditionally supported Russian leaning parties and policies in recent decades, and are far more ethnically and culturally similar to Russia than they are to the western influences who appear hell bent on trying to interfere to ensure the denigration of Russia's sphere of influence.
Russia's involvement in conflict on its own doorstep has arisen as a result of the western half of Ukraine wanting to move politically towards Europe, and of the direct encouragement given by western powers for the whole country to move away from Russia's influence, and clearly not because of any attempts on Russia's part to increase its sphere of influence. This is clear, because what Russia is trying to do, is maintain its existing sphere of influence, in the face of western expansionism. And yet in spite of this very simple and obvious fact, people still fall for the Russian expansionist narrative, when clearly the opposite is true.
It strikes me as pretty obvious that Russia is neither the aggressor nor the adventurist in either theatre, but the defender attempting to maintain the existing order in its sphere of influence in the face of interference from distant opportunists, wishing to shift the balance of power and reduce Russia's influence.
The fact that people buy the line from the west that Russia is the adventurist and they (the west) are involved merely to temper that adventurism, strikes me as evidence of how effective concerted propaganda can be, because to me, when you think about it, the Russian adventurism narrative makes no sense in the circumstances, and in fact the converse appears to be true.
Last edited:
Concise and to the point, just how we like It
After you explain why anyone outside of Russia should actually believe the people of the Crimea voted at all?
I don't like Putin but you'd have to be pretty stupid to believe the Crimeans are anything but pleased they're part of Russia again. I reckon parts of Eastern Ukraine want to be annexed as well. Donetsk and Luhansk will be next. NATO wouldn't dare take military action against Russia in Ukraine; Poland and the Baltics, yeah, but I don't think Putin's that dumb.
You must be right because according to the poll, 97% of the population voted to join Russia. Must be legit then.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo...-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/
'In June 2014, a Gallup poll with the Broadcasting Board of Governors asked Crimeans if the results in the March 16, 2014 referendum to secede reflected the views of the people. A total of 82.8% of Crimeans said yes. When broken down by ethnicity, 93.6% of ethnic Russians said they believed the vote to secede was legitimate, while 68.4% of Ukrainians felt so. Moreover, when asked if joining Russia will ultimately make life better for them and their family, 73.9% said yes while 5.5% said no.'
'In February 2015, a poll by German polling firm GfK revealed that attitudes have not changed. When asked “Do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea?”, a total of 82% of the respondents answered “yes, definitely,” and another 11% answered “yes, for the most part.” Only 2% said they didn’t know, and another 2% said no. Three percent did not specify their position.'
Crimeans like Russia more than Ukraine. Get over it.
And ad hominem attacks on people who happen to have a different opinion to that of yours is always a good basis on which to start a debate.
In other words I don't care what you think.
Does that clarify?
Stopped halfway through denying it... Realised he actually does.
What's to get over?
I'm simply telling you I don't believe the poll result. Nothing you or anyone else can say will alter my opinion.
Should I then tell you to get over it?
Oh, okay then. You're not religious by any chance, are you? It's just religious people tend to remain stubborn in their views even when facts rebuke them.
You must log in or register to see images
* Ballot paper offers no choice for staying with status quo
* Both options lead to Crimea passing under Russian control
KIEV, March 11 (Reuters) - Sunday's vote in Ukraine's Crimea is being officially billed as a chance for the peninsula's peoples to decide fairly and freely their future - but in fact there is no room on the ballot paper for voting "Nyet" to control by Russia.
The Crimean voter will have the right to choose only one of two options in the March 16 referendum which the region's pro-Russian leadership, protected by Russian forces, announced earlier this month. According to a format of the ballot paper, published on the parliament's website, the first question will ask: "Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of the Russian Federation?"
The second asks: "Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?"
Oh, okay then. You're not religious by any chance, are you? It's just religious people tend to remain stubborn in their views even when facts rebuke them.
Facts eh?
Tell me more, please.
I'm joking, please don't.
Yeah, the referendum was dodgy. Has there been any protests or uprisings since the annexation? No. Have polls undertaken by Western polling groups proved that Crimeans are happy under Russian rule? Yes, overwhelmingly so.
I'm sure the Crimeans are absolutely gutted you don't think they should be part of Russia. Bet it keeps them all up at night.