Where the bloody hell did I say that I am advocating on Putin's behalf?
Your entire position / argument thus far has been in support of Russian actions 0 From the annexation of Crimea, to the dreamed up coup in Kiev.
when your position mimics Putin's, and you do nothing to make a distinction, what should be assumed? I find it improbable that you can take a
position that is Putin's position and argue you don't support what he has done. It would be like supporting Adolph Hitler while arguing your not a
At that point, the distinction is lost.
I am not Russian, my cause has nothing to do with furthering Russian nationalism. And I do not really idolize Putin, although he is certainly the top
politician in the world right now.
None of my posts have attacked anyone for having a nationality other than American or Russian. As a matter of fact it does not factor into my posts
or my position. A person can be British and make an educated argument as to why Ireland should be a united country.
My issue comes in when people chose a position not based on facts, but because the country in question is one they don't like. Its like Frances
foreign policy through the cold war. Pretty much any position the US took, the French government chose the other side. The bulk of those actions
were not based on anything more than choosing the side they did simply because it was the opposite of the US position.
When we get into those mindsets, its becomes extremely dangerous. It means people are willing to overlook damning information simply because its
focused on a country they don't like. They don't think about the broader ramifications or the fact that it could very well be applied inside
against them later on down the road.
We see this argument unfolding with the Russian governments action towards Russian media outlets / Professors who voice disagreement with the Russian
exactly at what point does the person supporting those actions become a criminal against the state while having the exact standard used on them? If
Russia were to impose a tighter fire wall, preventing Russians from accessing this site, would those Russians on this site who support Russian actions
be ok with the sudden restriction?
My cause is anti-fascism. This includes the neo-nazis threatening stability on the ground in Ukraine, along with the western deep state governments
that bolster such movements to further their own geopolitical agendas.
As is mine but I refuse to accept that every member of the Ukraine government is a fascist. Secondly, history deserves a proper place in these
arguments - after all the US government was also considered terrorists by Britain.
Our issues was with the Crowns policies towards the colonies. Should that translate into every single member of the government of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland being labeled a terrorist?
President Yanukovych's party in Parliament supported him. Then they stopped supporting him because they did not agree with his handling of the
situation. Exactly how does it make those members fascists? Members of Parliament are in fact elected by the Ukrainian people so I also fail to see
the argument of a coup.
Or are the labels based on nothing more than they didn't support the side of the argument you / others are on? Because they don't share your view,
they are terrorists or fascists?
And when I talk about countries as political entities, I am referring to the state, not the government. There's a huge difference. When I say
Russia, I don't mean Putin.
Is that understood?
Its irrelevant... The leadership of a government is in fact representing their nation when they officially act. So while Putin ordered the Russian
military invasion of Ukraine, Russia as a nation is held to account. A position others in this thread have taken when referring to actions taken by
the United States.
Our Constitution actually states our President is the United States when dealing with foreign nations.
Does it mean the government, Obama or Putin, are acting with complete support of the population? NOPE. not even close.
That is the distinction that should be taken into account when crafting responses to whatever.