Anti-Russian rhetoric

[canta_brian]

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

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

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

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

[rowan]

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

So who's the hypocrite here?

[rowan]

Patrick Cockburn on misreporting in Syria and Iraq:

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

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

[morepork]

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

So who's the hypocrite here?

You take yourself far too seriously mate.

[cashead]

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

So who's the hypocrite here?

That's not really what you were doing from around page 4 onwards was it, though?

[Digby]

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

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

[rowan]

Putin's popularity soars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rowan]

Oh dear . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sandydragon]

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

[rowan]

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

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

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

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

[rowan]

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

Andre Vltchek

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

Fidel Castro

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

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

[Zhivago]

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

Andre Vltchek

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

Fidel Castro

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

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

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

[rowan]

The general Russia approach that Democrats now routinely depict as treasonous – avoiding confrontation with and even accommodating Russian interests, not just in Ukraine but also in Syria – was one of the defining traits of Obama’s foreign policy. This fact shouldn’t be overstated: Obama engaged in provocative acts such as moves to further expand NATO, non-lethal aid to Ukraine, and deploying “missile defense” weaponry in Romania. But he rejected most calls to confront Russia. That is one of the primary reasons the “foreign policy elite” – which, recall, Obama came into office denouncing and vowing to repudiate – was so dissatisfied with his presidency.

A new, long article by Politico foreign affairs correspondent Susan Glasser – on the war being waged against Trump by Washington’s “foreign policy elite” – makes this point very potently. Say what you will about Politico, but one thing they are very adept at doing is giving voice to cowardly Washington insiders by accommodating their cowardice and thus routinely granting them anonymity to express themselves. As journalistically dubious as it is to shield the world’s most powerful people with anonymity, this practice sometimes ends up revealing what careerist denizens of Washington power really think but are too scared to say. Glasser’s article, which largely consists of conveying the views of anonymous high-level Obama officials, contains this remarkable passage:


In other words, Democrats are now waging war on, and are depicting as treasonous, one of Barack Obama’s central and most steadfastly held foreign policy positions, one that he clung to despite attacks from leading members of both parties as well as the DC National Security Community. That’s not Noam Chomsky drawing that comparison; it’s an Obama appointee.

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/06/dem ... hampioned/

[rowan]

Another good read:

Wild, melodramatic claims about hidden Russian plotting and Trump collusion are routinely and constantly hyped by leading media outlets based on nothing but their imaginations or, at best, coordinated whispers from intelligence officials utterly insusceptible to verification, from operatives trained in disinformation. As she writes:

The backbone of the rapidly yet endlessly developing Trump-Putin story is leaks from intelligence agencies, and this is its most troublesome aspect. Virtually none of the information can be independently corroborated. The context, sequence, and timing of the leaks is determined by people unknown to the public, which is expected to accept anonymous stories on faith; nor have we yet been given any hard evidence of active collusion by Trump officials. . . .

The dream fueling the Russia frenzy is that it will eventually create a dark enough cloud of suspicion around Trump that Congress will find the will and the grounds to impeach him. If that happens, it will have resulted largely from a media campaign orchestrated by members of the intelligence community—setting a dangerous political precedent that will have corrupted the public sphere and promoted paranoia. And that is the best-case outcome. . . . More likely, the Russia allegations will not bring down Trump.

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/lea ... ing-trump/

[rowan]

Ah yes, the infamous KGB. Can anything good be said about a person associated with such an organization? We wouldn’t like it if a US president had a background with anything like that. Oh, wait, a president of the United States was not merely a CIA “colonel”, but was the Director of the CIA! I of course speak of George Herbert Walker Bush. And as far as butchery and thuggery … How many Americans remember the December 1989 bombing and invasion of the people of Panama carried out by the same Mr. Bush? Many thousands killed or wounded; thousands more left homeless.

Try and match that, Vladimir!

And in case you’re wondering for what good reason all this was perpetrated? Officially, to arrest dictator Manuel Noriega on drug charges. How is that for a rationalization for widespread devastation and slaughter? It should surprise no one that only shortly before the invasion Noriega had been on the CIA payroll.

Since the end of World War 2, the United States has:

+ Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.

+ Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.

+ Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.

+ Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.

+ Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/08/ ... 1917-2017/

[WaspInWales]

And the 20 million!

[Sandydragon]

Of course,Russia arming the Taleban, in opposition to the western backed government in Kabul, is just fair game. no criticism of that I'm guessing.

[rowan]

Of course,Russia arming the Taleban, in opposition to the western backed government in Kabul, is just fair game. no criticism of that I'm guessing.

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

[Zhivago]

Of course,Russia arming the Taleban, in opposition to the western backed government in Kabul, is just fair game. no criticism of that I'm guessing.

You should know your history better than that.

[rowan]

A powerful letter from a former Guardian reader. Please share this widely. Perhaps this will inspire others to question the Guardian's 'journalism'.
===
After several decades of buying the Guardian Weekly, I have decided not to renew my subscription.
The Guardian always had its faults, but one tolerated them because it also offered high-quality journalism. This is no longer the case. What was once a serious newspaper with high standards has degenerated into little more than a propaganda sheet. One can still occasionally find quality reporting in its pages, but not when it comes to the crucial issues of our time.
On those crucial issues - such as Russia, Ukraine, Greece, US/NATO provocations and interventions in other countries, the Guardian's bias is extreme, without even a pretense of balance or objectivity. Its campaign of vilification against Jeremy Corbyn has been nothing short of disgusting.
Why would I pay for a subscription to the Guardian when I could -- if I wanted to -- get the same level of 'journalism' for free on Fox News or the Mirror website? Why would I pay money to help pay for the salaries of people like Jonathan Freeland?
I made my final decision not to renew my subscription when the Weekly published a fawning piece about Tony Blair in the February 24 issue, followed three days later by the Guardian editorial praising George W. Bush's return as an elder statesman. At the same time, the Guardian's subscription solicitation urged that "You'll help us hold the powerful to account." When a newspaper has arrived at the point of praising war criminals while deluding itself that it is holding the powerful to account, I know that it's not a newspaper that I want to keep receiving.
Sincerely,
Ulli Diemer
Toronto, Canada

[Zhivago]

Of course,Russia arming the Taleban, in opposition to the western backed government in Kabul, is just fair game. no criticism of that I'm guessing.

You should know your history better than that.

I know it better than you ever will, Zhivago.

A powerful letter from a former Guardian reader. Please share this widely. Perhaps this will inspire others to question the Guardian's 'journalism'.
===
After several decades of buying the Guardian Weekly, I have decided not to renew my subscription.
The Guardian always had its faults, but one tolerated them because it also offered high-quality journalism. This is no longer the case. What was once a serious newspaper with high standards has degenerated into little more than a propaganda sheet. One can still occasionally find quality reporting in its pages, but not when it comes to the crucial issues of our time.
On those crucial issues - such as Russia, Ukraine, Greece, US/NATO provocations and interventions in other countries, the Guardian's bias is extreme, without even a pretense of balance or objectivity. Its campaign of vilification against Jeremy Corbyn has been nothing short of disgusting.
Why would I pay for a subscription to the Guardian when I could -- if I wanted to -- get the same level of 'journalism' for free on Fox News or the Mirror website? Why would I pay money to help pay for the salaries of people like Jonathan Freeland?
I made my final decision not to renew my subscription when the Weekly published a fawning piece about Tony Blair in the February 24 issue, followed three days later by the Guardian editorial praising George W. Bush's return as an elder statesman. At the same time, the Guardian's subscription solicitation urged that "You'll help us hold the powerful to account." When a newspaper has arrived at the point of praising war criminals while deluding itself that it is holding the powerful to account, I know that it's not a newspaper that I want to keep receiving.
Sincerely,
Ulli Diemer
Toronto, Canada

Wasn't talking to you...

[rowan]

Sorry, my mistake.

[rowan]

Even Hillary Clinton blames the US for creating the Taliban. What's missing from this story, though, is that the Soviets the Taliban were created to fight had been drawn into the conflict by America's earlier use of the Mujahideen to bring down a progressive Socialist government in Kabul which, among other things, had given women equal rights:

WASHINGTON, April 24 Two days of continuous congressional hearings on the Obama administration's foreign policy brought a rare concession from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who acknowledged that the United States too had a share in creating the problem that plagues Pakistan today.

In an appearance before a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday, Mrs Clinton explained how the militancy in Pakistan was linked to the US-backed proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

“We can point fingers at the Pakistanis. I did some yesterday frankly. And it's merited because we are wondering why they just don't go out there and deal with these people,” said Mrs Clinton while referring to an earlier hearing in which she said that Pakistan posed a “mortal threat” to the world.

“But the problems we face now to some extent we have to take responsibility for, having contributed to it. We also have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan,” she said.

“Let's remember here... the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago... and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.

“They invaded Afghanistan... and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work... and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea... let's deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let's go recruit these mujahideen.

“And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.

“And guess what ... they (Soviets) retreated ... they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“So there is a very strong argument which is... it wasn't a bad investment in terms of Soviet Union but let's be careful with what we sow... because we will harvest.

“So we then left Pakistan ... We said okay fine you deal with the Stingers that we left all over your country... you deal with the mines that are along the border and... by the way we don't want to have anything to do with you... in fact we're sanctioning you... So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we now are making up for a lot of lost time.”

It was question from Congressman Adam Shciff, a California Democrat that spurred Secretary Clinton to delve into history and come out with an answer that other US politicians have avoided in the past.

The congressman noted that while the US had provided “a phenomenal amount of military support for Pakistan,” they had not changed the paradigm.

“And more pernicious, there are elements within the Pakistani intelligence services, the ISI that may be working at cross-purposes with us.

“How we can possibly be funding the Pakistani military if elements of the military or intelligence services are actually working against us and having the effect of killing our troops next door?” he asked.

https://www.dawn.com/news/847153

[rowan]

Socialist Afghanistan before Washington sent in the Mujahideen:

[Sandydragon]

And women rights is one thing the western governments looked to ensure - something the Taliban are trying to undo again, with the help of Russia. Do keep up.