It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Belarus Is About To Get Interesting

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: DJW001

'My own source' is part of the food chain of the OP and thus worth the same.
I'm glad you appreciate it for what it's worth.


So you agree that spreading democracy and opposing corruption is necessarily anti-Russian?




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Do you know the difference between a liberator and an invader ?
The main one is that the liberator is welcomed by the target population.

America and Russia have different considerations on how to be a liberator.

In America, first, you shape the domestic public opinion in order to be sure they are convince that the intervention is righteous. No need to mention the real motives as long a the public opinion agrees with whole move. No need either to consider what the soon-to-be-liberated have in mind, it's not as if they will vote for the next US election.
Then, you move in with full force, better totally disproportionate, in order to 'secure' an area full of 'auxiliary objectives' with the supposed blessing of the locals. Then after a while, you find yourself stuck in an asymmetric war against a bunch locals, immediately relabelled as terrorist for more convenient media use.
Asymmetric war can then be brought everywhere thanks to 'lone-wolf' like acting individuals on home territory triggering further interventionism.

Russia, first, is less interventionist than the US.
Then, the Russians don't shift alliance nor dump their former allied puppet leaders as often as the US.
In the case of Crimea, the Russians moved in because they knew the local would welcome them. They didn't had to convince their public opinion it was so. How many shot did the Russians fired when they liberated Crimea, how many did the US shot in the ME or Afghanistan ?
The Russians are not dealing with terrorist action against their presence in Crimea, and the Crimeans voted yesterday at the Russian regional elections.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


In the case of Crimea, the Russians moved in because they knew the local would welcome them.


Because Russia was their main source of income. But you still haven't answered why you think being pro-Democracy and anti-corruption makes something anti-Russian.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

And I won't if that's the one thing to do to mute you.
I already discussed with you the reason why Russia is not fascist in a tread you started. Where you proved this whole concept of 'Russia is fascist' is only sustainable if you embrace double-language and hypocrisy.

Crimea's #1 source of income is Russia thus the Russians were already handing them money. It's not like the countries the US 'liberated' in order to secure their cheap oil sources.


originally posted by: DJW001
Nope. The Cuban government was nationalizing property owned by American interests, Crimea was not nationalizing Russian property. If the Bay of Pigs were successful, Cuba would have remained independent under a government freely elected by Cubans. Russia annexed Crimea and is governing it from Moscow. See the differences? Why do you admire any imperialism but American imperialism?


With this other brilliant post, you made clear that the US governments always considered the safety of their foreign assets more important than the sovereignty of foreign countries or the fate of their population. It was true at the time of the bay of the pigs, it's still true today.



edit on 14-9-2015 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: filled out



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Worth watching indeed..



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


And I won't if that's the one thing to do to mute you.
I already discussed with you the reason why Russia is not fascist in a tread you started. Where you proved this whole concept of 'Russia is fascist' is only sustainable if you embrace double-language and hypocrisy.


Really? Where do you do that? Did you refute the fact that the State controls the media, imprisons the political opposition, uses religion to manipulate the masses, appoints regional and local governments from the centralized government, and has given total. veto-proof executive power to a single individual? I don't remember you doing that.


Crimea's #1 source of income is Russia thus the Russians were already handing them money. It's not like the countries the US 'liberated' in order to secure their cheap oil sources.


Crimea's economy depended on Russian tourism and the money spent by the Russian sailors and airmen living on the bases there. Russia "liberated" Crimea because they were protecting these military assets.


originally posted by: DJW001
Nope. The Cuban government was nationalizing property owned by American interests, Crimea was not nationalizing Russian property. If the Bay of Pigs were successful, Cuba would have remained independent under a government freely elected by Cubans. Russia annexed Crimea and is governing it from Moscow. See the differences? Why do you admire any imperialism but American imperialism?




With this other brilliant post, you made clear that the US governments always considered the safety of their foreign assets more important than the sovereignty of foreign countries or the fate of their population. It was true at the time of the bay of the pigs, it's still true today.


Why shouldn't a government take responsibility for the assets of its citizens overseas? Isn't that one of the functions of government? Russia seized Crimea to protect its assets there. Do you have a problem with that? Who cares if the Crimeans no longer have any say in the way they are governed, at least Russian sailors are still getting drunk and spreading their money around.
edit on 14-9-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Do yourself a favour ...
Stop making it obvious you're paid by Soros.

I'm not working for Putin, I just don't gobble the mascarade of Democracy you pretend to be fighting for and that is being advocated by your employer. The claim that those sites act in the name of democracy is like Amazon selling snake oil.
Soros is active in all place where anti-Russianism finds local leaders ready to switch their national allegiance for his own pseudo-democracy system where the coercive power of money is guaranteed through lobbying.
I understand that this perspective suits you well since, you seemed to suggest that the only way to ensure that something is legit is because you paid for it. Same goes for political power in your consideration of things I guess. This is a return to the original/primitive form of democracy where full access to citizenship and civil rights were conditioned by the citizen's personal wealth.

The goal of the information reported by the OP is just to warn the world that George Soros is now keeping an eye on Minsk after Kiev, Skopje and other places. And all these places have in common to experience civil troubles and an army of foreign-backed MSM reporters booing Russia.

Putin got his legitimacy from the Russian elections, where did Soros got his ?
Wants to say something about democracy in Crimea ? Why don't you try yourself at an analysis of the results of latest regional poll ?


edit on 14-9-2015 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: filled out



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Just because you are incapable of refuting the fact that Putin's Russia is a Fascist state, you have to accuse me of being a paid disinformation agent. Why don't you make life easier for yourself and just be proud to be a Fascist?



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I'm pro-democracy and lucid enough to acknowledge that the system we are both living in is nothing but a corrupt oligarchy.
Advocating it as 'democracy' is a farce.



Does his statement make Jimmy Carter a pro-Putin fascist ?



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Speaking for the US it is not a democracy and has never been one. It IS a Constitutional Representative Republic and there is a fundamental difference between that system and a Democracy.

Just as Belgium is not a Democracy either but a Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy with appointed minister and Senators.


None of which has to do with the topic, which is Belarus, A Russian military base and the threat that if Belarus refuses the base Russia will destabilize the current government to get its way. If Ukraine is any indication Belarus would then most likely be annexed / occupied by Russian forces.
edit on 14-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Ask DJW001 why he is shy of commenting about George Soros activities. Since Soros is the sponsor of your OP source, that seems to be perfectly on-topic for me.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: Xcathdra

Ask DJW001 why he is shy of commenting about George Soros activities. Since Soros is the sponsor of your OP source, that seems to be perfectly on-topic for me.


Because I personally don't know George Soros, all I know is what he professes. I'm all for spreading liberal democratic values... and that is what his foundations claim to be doing. If you have information to the contrary that does not come from a Fascist propaganda organ I'd be delighted to see it!
edit on 14-9-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: letscit

YOU do know that what happens is NOT as we want it right?
WE are just trying to explain it more factually, as to WHAT they do and posibly WHY the'll do it.
WE hold different values,some of us because OUR butts have had to do it.
The term "WAR MONGER" is a misnomer unless you are RUNNING things anyway.
edit on 14-9-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

You saw it, you skipped it ... as usual.
"Putin got his legitimacy from the Russian elections, where did Soros got his ?" - Let's just start with that one.
I picked a news article - let me know if your fascist detector gets irritated by it :

George Soros: An American Oligarch‘s Dirty Tale of Corruption

Given the amount of news sources controlled or sponsored by the guy, don't expect anything nasty/objective in the MSM.

You are accusing me of being fascist because I oppose someone who proactively claims he is pro-democracy.
You admit you don't know about the guy but see his pseudo-pro-democracy destabilisation campaign as a positive thing for the target populations despite the casualties caused by the troubles.
North Korea proactively labelled itself 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' do you take that for granted as a proof of democracy ?

About Soros and Belarus, I'm confident, the guy has a long list of failures in his previous attempts in the area.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Which has what, again, to do with the topic?



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


You saw it, you skipped it ... as usual.
"Putin got his legitimacy from the Russian elections, where did Soros got his ?" -


Putin is posing as an elected official; he requires legitimacy. The sham elections lull people into believing he has it. In fact, his power comes from terror. He presides over a police state that imprisons dissenters and is surrounded by oligarchs who understand that they can be destroyed if they betray him. George Soros is a private citizen. He does not require "legitimacy." The fact that you don't understand these simple distinctions is very telling.


I picked a news article - let me know if your fascist detector gets irritated by it :

George Soros: An American Oligarch‘s Dirty Tale of Corruption


My fascist detector went off the scale! Who wrote this article? F. William Engdahl, hate monger. Where does he get his information?


The hacker group CyberBerkut has published online letters allegedly written by Soros


CyberBerkut! An unapologetic Neo-Nazi group!



www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And especially here.


Given the amount of news sources controlled or sponsored by the guy, don't expect anything nasty/objective in the MSM.


Why is it you feel the need to launder your sources? It only took a couple of mouse clicks to see that your source was parroting globalresearch.com, a known Kremlin propaganda organ, which was quoting, in turn, a posting from cyberberkut which was proven to be a deliberate misrepresentation, remember?

www.abovetopsecret.com...




You are accusing me of being fascist because I oppose someone who proactively claims he is pro-democracy.


No, I am pointing out that, since you consistently support totalitarian states, admire totalitarian leaders, and seem to get most of your news from fascist propaganda sources, you would probably cut a more admirable figure if you boldly proclaimed yourself a Fascist instead of half-heartedly pretending to be pro-democracy.


You admit you don't know about the guy but see his pseudo-pro-democracy destabilisation campaign as a positive thing for the target populations despite the casualties caused by the troubles.


You have never provided any evidence that there is a connection between his organization's educational work and the violence perpetrated by right wing pro-Russian Nazis.


North Korea proactively labelled itself 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' do you take that for granted as a proof of democracy ?


No, of course not. Yet you seem to believe that the sham referendum in Crimea was democratic, even though the only observers who said it was were Fascist.


About Soros and Belarus, I'm confident, the guy has a long list of failures in his previous attempts in the area.


What would constitute a failure? Losing to Russia?
edit on 15-9-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   
www.kyivpost.com...
More trouble in the near abroad for Russia in Tadjikistan. War everywhere......



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ufoorbhunter


More trouble in the near abroad for Russia in Tadjikistan. War everywhere......


That's not trouble, it's part of the plan! Putin's goal is to incorporate the "near abroad" back into the Russian Empire Federation.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ufoorbhunter


More trouble in the near abroad for Russia in Tadjikistan. War everywhere......


That's not trouble, it's part of the plan! Putin's goal is to incorporate the "near abroad" back into the Russian Empire Federation.


That is "the plan" for sure. The Islamics are helping him achieve this all the way, Russia seen by moderates in the near abroad as protection against terror. Makes one wonder if this is all by chance or is Russia actually the one behind Isis?



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ufoorbhunter


Makes one wonder if this is all by chance or is Russia actually the one behind Isis?


It has provided Russia with an excuse to send troops to Syria... but, no they are genuine fanatics.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join