West in "medieval Crusade", Putin

reply to post by JAGx1981


Perhaps you are right, it seems to me we have enough problems in England and the US to keep both countries occupied for some time. Our intervention is only met with score and hate just like our actions to help, so there is no real difference on how the world will see us either way. Perhaps it is better to handle our own affairs and let the rest of the world sort it out for themselves. I never thought that I would believe that until today.

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by USAisSatanic

 

Off course it is. The leaders in the west are as much Nutz as Gadaffe is. And we as the wetern poplations just roll over and accept what they tell us.

Putin also has double standards,after what he did in Georgia.

Putin defended South Ossetia from the Georgians attack i guess Georgie in your view has the right to kill innocent civilians?

To me sounds you like watched to much CNN its an eye for eye what NATO did in 1999.

www.youtube.com...


And your defending Saakashvili ? whose a crowd

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by USAisSatanic

 

Lolz look back at Russias history of mass massacres before you even try to criticse mines. They are just as bad. As was said pot calling the kettle black here

Oh yes maybe you should look back at your country's UK history of mass massacres around the world? remember india? China? middle east?

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


So that absolves what the Russians did?

reply to post by USAisSatanic


Very true Britain spoon feeds propaganda i saw this when BBC did not even mention the mass protests of Tamils in the UK and other western countries against the genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka.This is because they supported and gave money and weapons to Sri Lankan government.

This is why i don't use BBC or even Sky for that matter.
Capitalists were heavily against soviets at that time proof for this ask any British or American what they see when you say Communism the answer is negative.

reply to post by Laurauk


NATO and the U.N. are two sides of the same coin any better

This is some good ol' fashioned grandstanding by Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin. Apparently, Putin is out for some international attention since he has been off the radar for a while. It is highly probable that he will once again seek the role of President of the Russian Federation in the 2012 elections.

Perhaps, this is another flamboyant political statement to further ingratiate himself to the former communists, and anti-west establishment in Russia? Personally, I have been opposed from the start to this UN resolution and foreign intervention in Libya, and especially in the case of US military assets being used to augment the efforts of other participating nations. However, that is for another time, but I would not put much stock into what Putin said about this being a "medieval Crusade."

The particular parties showing objections like China and Russia had an opportunity to make their concerns or objections known before this resolution passed in the UN Security Council. Moreover, they had a vote to either pass or veto the resolution. They along with China neither voted up or down on the UN Security Council resolution.

Medvedev and Putin clash over Libya

The tone of Mr Putin’s remarks had surprised western observers as Russia was one of five countries, including Brazil, China, India and Germany, that abstained in last week’s UN vote endorsing a no-fly zone over Libya.

This is just rhetoric Russia, and a reason to let off some steam as they tend to do from time to time. Someone on here already posted an article with President, Dmitry Medvedev, denouncing his statement and reiterated Russia's official stance on this resolution. That statement alone should say that Putin is doing nothing more than seeking attention and grandstanding with his off-the-cuff remark about this UN military action in Libya. Moreover, as I have followed the relationship between the tandem of Medvedev and Putin, it seems the two are butting heads with each other as the 2012 elections loom.

Apparently, Medvedev is not the puppet or the ceremonial holder of the office of President as some political analyst have thought? This could only mean that he may be indeed seeking to challenge Putin in the elections? I thought I would put that out there for added context to understand why Putin made such an outrageous remark. As far as I am concerned, he can say whatever he wants.

reply to post by Jakes51



I almost agree completely with your reply except this bit here...

Originally posted by Jakes51
This some good ol' fashioned grandstanding by Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin. Apparently, Putin is out for some international attention since he has been off the radar for a while. It is highly probable that he will once again seek the role of President of the Russian Federation in the 2012 elections.

If Putin wants the Russian Presidency he will simply take it IMO.

The rest of your reply is dead on...

reply to post by SLAYER69


I agree that Vladimir Putin will pull out all the stops to see that if he is elected it will appear to be above board. We all know that will be the furthest thing from the truth. It seems his influence among all things Russian goes both far and wide? A true political strongman. However, I see a riff taking place between Medvedev and Putin, and this latest spat over his remark is clearly obvious. Medvedev may indeed be priming himself for a run against the strong man?

Medvedev and Putin clash over Libya

. . . Mr Putin’s outburst reflected resentment that Mr Medvedev was becoming increasingly independent in the run-up to Russia’s presidential poll next year. Mr Putin has said that he and Mr Medvedev will decide among themselves who will stand for the presidency in 2012.

“This is about the balance of influence inside the tandem before a final decision about the next constellation of power in Russia has been taken,” Mr Lukyanov said.

I find it odd that two are going to have a sit down to decide who will run in the election. That alone seems kind of fishy, and I expect some heavy leaning from Putin who has a monopoly of clout against Medvedev. Still, the two seldom disagree on anything, and if this disagreement is legitimate, it would signal schism taking place between the two? The Russians are clever politicians, and this could merely be another stage play? In the west our politicians play checkers, whereas, their Russian counterparts play chess when it comes to strategy.

Medvedev and Putin clash over Libya

Analysts in Russia differ over whether apparent clashes between the president and prime minister are genuine, or stage-managed to give the impression of diversity within the leadership and appeal to different constituencies.

I suppose the jury is still out?

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by USAisSatanic

 

You call them terroists, I call them freedom fighters. Different opinions, you are entitled to that as am I.

So Chechnya terrorists are freedom fighters here on ATS i guess you wouldnt mind living in an Islamic state
I guess you also supported chechnyan terrorists bombing of the russian school your kind makes me sick to end


Want me to buy you tickets to Chechnya ?

Not the entire West.

However, there is a sub-set of people who are most certainly pursuing an agenda of re-igniting "the crusade."

**Some** of the people with power, particularly in the US, are doing things which create polarization in the Islamic world. Not prosecuting people who are committing real war crimes.

Ignoring "the good" fights, and instead pursuing the fights which are known horse# to the point that people cannot even tell when they are doing the right thing anymore. (Ignored multiple real supported reasons to take out Saddam, then use a trumped up ridiculous reason based on Afghanistan for it....ridiculous, untrustworthy, manipulative.)

What their opponents are doing may not be good. Their opponents can be downright barbaric. It doesn't matter. They aren't trying to sell themselves as anything except God's Barbarians. This isn't the case for the West. Doing things the right way is a necessity when most of your war is in information. Being seen doing the right thing is actually more important for the long term strategy than the unique fights in between.

And because these men in power KNOW this, they know it strategically, they know it morally, they know it politically, they know it for propaganda, then when they are actively NOT acting in a manner to be seen to be doing the right thing for the right reasons, then they are doing so **intentionally**.

There is sub-set of the political and military leaders who are intentionally feeding polarization, because they WANT the Islamic nations to pack up. They want to create the circumstances that lead and feed into a Pan-Islamic State. They want to have their soldiers believe they are fighting a religious war.

Just because your enemy is fighting a religious war doesn't mean that *you* are. Allowing your enemy to dictate the terms of engagement is just about the first mistake any strategist learns about. I doubt these men are so stupid they've forgotten the first lesson on strategy.

It isn't everyone. However, this sub-set are connected to each other and they clearly have a plan. The rest of the political and military leaders around them do not have an agenda of trying to create a specific atmosphere - they are just trying to do their jobs as well as possible. A directed agenda makes headway over an undirected hoard of do-gooders.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


There is a difference between terrorists and freedom fighters.

Freedom Fighters target Armies and military infrastructure who attack their own people.

Terrorists target civilians to cause panic and psychologically attack governments

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

So that absolves what the Russians did?

So Why does Georgie have the right to attack South Ossetia? with artillery and tanks killing innocent civilians in the process? so i guess the russians dont have the right to defend South Ossetia because they are russians?


Stop watching the western news SLAYER69.

Originally posted by SKOR-TJ
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

There is a difference between terrorists and freedom fighters.

Freedom Fighters target Armies and military infrastructure who attack their own people.

Terrorists target civilians to cause panic and psychologically attack governments

So i guess the chechnyan terrorists whom are supported by the West can go ahead and kill innocent russian civilians because they want an Islamic state?

The chechnyan fighters are aren't freedom fighters they are terrorists what a double standard here on ATS

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Arab countries were involved, they were the ones who asked for a no fly zone. They never asked for military intervention that was something the UN cooked up, which is wrong IMO. I think countries should deal with what is in their region and help out only if the countries in that region ask them to. You can't just bomb countries because half the nation is upset with their leader. That doesn't make any sense!

Let the Arab countries govern the Arab people. Let the Europeans govern the Europeans. And let each region govern its own people.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Stop watching the western news SLAYER69.

I get my news and informative insight from reading your replies.
No wonder many call me ignorant...

Everybody is responsible for their own actions. The Russians, Chinese, the US/UN everybody and now esp Qaddafi who is presently reaping from the horrors on the Libyan people he has sewn.

P.S. You're not the first nor will you be the last to add me to their FOE list

reply to post by Equinox99


I agree with your sentiment, but I was trying to point out that a NFZ is military intervention. It requires the neutralizing of the Libyan air defense systems, which mean targeting military establishments radar sites and missile launchers. Surely the Arab League knew what the establishment of a NFZ would entail. I have no idea about the military , but know that a NFZ requires a lot more than the use of planes to shoot down other aircraft.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by SKOR-TJ
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

There is a difference between terrorists and freedom fighters.

Freedom Fighters target Armies and military infrastructure who attack their own people.

Terrorists target civilians to cause panic and psychologically attack governments

So i guess the chechnyan terrorists whom are supported by the West can go ahead and kill innocent russian civilians because they want an Islamic state?

The chechnyan fighters are aren't freedom fighters they are terrorists what a double standard here on ATS

Since they killed innocent civilians i class them as Terrorists too i wasn't saying you was wrong i just wanted people to understand the difference as USA and other countries class Freedom Fighters as terrorists which is unfair

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Erm. I've been calling the whole anti-Islam thing a Crusade for a few years now.

But whatever it's called - it's still about resources - a colonization war, using religion as the marketing pitch.

You make the assumption that "the West" are "bad guys" and the Islamic nations are all "victims."

Are you really under the impression that the sub-set of people who are trying to fullfill the end-times prophecies, and the identity of the descendents of Ishmael and Issac, exist ONLY in the West?

Because, that sub-set exists and has most of the power in the Islamic nations. That sub-set is MOST of the powerful and the religious establishment in the Islamic nations, not just a small sub-set that is well organized as it is in the West.

Your IDENTITY and beliefs drive your actions. If that is your identity as a people, a nation, a religion ..... you really think that means that there are no antecedent hostile consequences derived from those beliefs?

"Establishment" and "Anti-Establishment" really aren't the only thought options you have. If you're going to bother to challenge the established truth, the opposite of what they are telling you isn't necesarily the truth either.