Russian bogeyman continues to be a useful tool

[The Romulan Republic]

You took the thread off-topic in the very first post by trying to equate this claim to the claims that Russia hacked the DNC to help Trump. So while you may technically be correct that the discussion on Syria is off-topic, my sympathy is very, very limited.

And once again, someone trying to turn deflect any criticism of Russia with an attack on America. I wonder why that is?

[aerius]

A topic about a very nebulous claim that Russia might organise refugees to go rape German women to swing the election against Merkel gets changed into one about Russia's actions in Syria.

Goes to show how universally useful the Russian bogeyman is. Blame anything and everything on Russia and call anyone who disagrees a Russian apologist. Then throw an incoherent rage fit.

[mr friendly guy]

You took the thread off-topic in the very first post by trying to equate this claim to the claims that Russia hacked the DNC to help Trump. So while you may technically be correct that the discussion on Syria is off-topic, my sympathy is very, very limited.

Read the fucking title. Russian bogeyman continues to be a useful tool. What the fuck do you think words "bogeyman", and "continues" mean. Does it mean this is the first time the Russian bogeyman was used to set up a narrative, or its not the first time, because you know, that's what continues imply. And if its not the first time, I wonder what example can I give where the Russian bogeyman was used. Hmmm.

And once again, someone trying to turn deflect any criticism of Russia with an attack on America. I wonder why that is?

If you think I did this, demonstrate it. If you KNOW I didn't, and its someone else, why bring it up in reply to my point.

Edit - its also relevant to bring up the hacking DNC claim in this context, because both have similarities. That is Russia was accused of doing a particular action to help win elections for people who are either pro Russian or less anti Russian. As I said in the OP.

[Flagg]

The sad part is I think the Russians probably did fuck with the election, but a certain someone goes so far over the top I'm forced to argue in Russia's favor. It's that bad.

[The Romulan Republic]

You took the thread off-topic in the very first post by trying to equate this claim to the claims that Russia hacked the DNC to help Trump. So while you may technically be correct that the discussion on Syria is off-topic, my sympathy is very, very limited.

Read the fucking title. Russian bogeyman continues to be a useful tool. What the fuck do you think words "bogeyman", and "continues" mean. Does it mean this is the first time the Russian bogeyman was used to set up a narrative, or its not the first time, because you know, that's what continues imply. And if its not the first time, I wonder what example can I give where the Russian bogeyman was used. Hmmm.

And once again, someone trying to turn deflect any criticism of Russia with an attack on America. I wonder why that is?

If you think I did this, demonstrate it. If you KNOW I didn't, and its someone else, why bring it up in reply to my point.

Edit - its also relevant to bring up the hacking DNC claim in this context, because both have similarities. That is Russia was accused of doing a particular action to help win elections for people who are either pro Russian or less anti Russian. As I said in the OP.

Okay. Then if its not too far off-topic, you will provide credible sources to support the argument that the hacking allegations are a "bogeyman".

[mr friendly guy]

Okay. Then if its not too far off-topic, you will provide credible sources to support the argument that the hacking allegations are a "bogeyman".

Well firstly I said that Russia is the bogeyman, not hacking allegations, but since you asked that instead of Russia here is my response.

You do know that bogeyman refers to "a person or thing that is widely regarded as an object of fear," right? Are you seriously suggesting that the US is not afraid of having its services or computers in the country hacked? So not afraid they spend $14 billion on cybersecurity. Jesus fucking Christ man. Its like you're now asking me to provide credible sources for the definitions of commonly used words.

[The Romulan Republic]

Okay. Then if its not too far off-topic, you will provide credible sources to support the argument that the hacking allegations are a "bogeyman".

Well firstly I said that Russia is the bogeyman, not hacking allegations, but since you asked that instead of Russia here is my response.

You do know that bogeyman refers to "a person or thing that is widely regarded as an object of fear," right? Are you seriously suggesting that the US is not afraid of having its services or computers in the country hacked? So not afraid they spend $14 billion on cybersecurity. Jesus fucking Christ man. Its like you're now asking me to provide credible sources for the definitions of commonly used words.

The term "bogeyman" is not, in my experience, generally applied to fears that are considered well-founded or reasonable, especially since a "bogeyman" is a thing that doesn't actually exist.

But if you want to argue on semantical nitpickery, that's your call.

A topic about a very nebulous claim that Russia might organise refugees to go rape German women to swing the election against Merkel gets changed into one about Russia's actions in Syria.

Goes to show how universally useful the Russian bogeyman is. Blame anything and everything on Russia and call anyone who disagrees a Russian apologist. Then throw an incoherent rage fit.

I don't blame everything on Russia.

Just the shit they do, like killing journalists, and bombing hospitals, and rigging elections. And yes, I'll stand by the "apologist" label for anyone who tries to deny, downplay, or justify those crimes. Its apt.

And yes, I blame America when it does that shit too, not that its really relevant to the topic currently at hand.

[Shroom Man 777]

And I wonder just where exactly these people were when Sunni extremists were exterminating villages in Iraq, eastern Syria and slaughtering the Kurds in the north of Syria?..

To be fair the Western interventionists did engage and are engaging ISIS in those parts. Who were the USAF bombing in the parts of Syria no longer in Assad hands? Who armed and aided the Kurds? It wasn't Assad or the Russians who provide relief to the Yazidis...

Even your example of Edrogan... the US didn't even help him during the coup, he thinks the US betrayed him, he's shifting towards Russia... and for the decades before Edrogan, the West was very fine with the more secular-leaning Turkish governments and juntas and such.

At the risk of digressing further, would you have been fine if the US just backed Mubarak in Egypt and allowed him to crush dissenters, including the Muslim Brotherhood? Wouldn't you have condemned that too?

[mr friendly guy]

The term "bogeyman" is not, in my experience, generally applied to fears that are considered well-founded or reasonable, especially since a "bogeyman" is a thing that doesn't actually exist.

But if you want to argue on semantical nitpickery, that's your call.

The definition I gave was ones which appeared in google when you type bogeyman definition, as definition 2. The other was an allusion to mythical creatures, which clearly isn't used in the context of politics. For example nuclear power is the environmentalist's bogeyman, whereas nuclear power is clearly real. So clearly political discussion using the term bogeyman are using the second definition.

Going on, fear that Russia may act in a way which may oppose US geopolitical interests is reasonable (whether those US interests are themselves reasonable is another matter). For example Russia's actions in Syria are opposite a lot of US interests.

The point isn't that Russia is not real, or that Russia acting against US interest's isn't real, but that Russia used as an excuse for things which the evidence for them doing it is piss poor, for the purpose of crafting a narrative. Broadly speaking the narrative is that its Russia's fault instead of our own. If Merkel loses, why its Russia encouraging refugees to rape, instead of asylum seekers doing it on their own volition and her policy unpopular with certain segments of the German population. When Hilary lost, its not because the democrats selected someone who just wasn't that popular with the public compared to Obama, its because Russia hacked the DNC. Hence why the Russian bogeyman is a useful tool.

[Flagg]

And I wonder just where exactly these people were when Sunni extremists were exterminating villages in Iraq, eastern Syria and slaughtering the Kurds in the north of Syria?..

To be fair the Western interventionists did engage and are engaging ISIS in those parts. Who were the USAF bombing in the parts of Syria no longer in Assad hands? Who armed and aided the Kurds? It wasn't Assad or the Russians who provide relief to the Yazidis...

Even your example of Edrogan... the US didn't even help him during the coup, he thinks the US betrayed him, he's shifting towards Russia... and for the decades before Edrogan, the West was very fine with the more secular-leaning Turkish governments and juntas and such.

At the risk of digressing further, would you have been fine if the US just backed Mubarak in Egypt and allowed him to crush dissenters, including the Muslim Brotherhood? Wouldn't you have condemned that too?

That's in a nutshell the problem with major powers fucking around with people they just don't understand.

[K. A. Pital]

At the risk of digressing further, would you have been fine if the US just backed Mubarak in Egypt and allowed him to crush dissenters, including the Muslim Brotherhood? Wouldn't you have condemned that too?

No, I would not have been fine. It would once again be meddling in someone else's house. But I am not sure the outcome would be so much worse to be worth massively condemning it. Sisi's secular authoritarian rule is not a big change from that of Mubarak, but the disruption in Egypt and neighboring nations was massive and it allowed the Saudis to further expand their influence.

Actually, my general idea is that greater powers should just stay away.

Who armed and aided the Kurds?

Seems like it was not just the US:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-purs ... 1461239887
But this does not mean I approve.

[Shroom Man 777]

Mubarak was the product of US support of the region and Sisi inherited that apparatus.

This is crazy. The removal of the US-supported but secular and anti-Islamist Mubarak (who murderously killed protesters) causes destabilization because of the infiltration of Islamists backed by Saudis who are US-supported and who are also murderous killers of protesters.

I guess it's a dilemma. The botched invasion of Iraq was horrible and worsened Iraq's situation. But like... it was the horribly done US removal of... a horribly-done US-emplaced secular dictator. They're condemning the worsening of conditions, the US' meddling destabilization of a previously more-stable condition... brought on by the US' meddling.

[Flagg]

Mubarak was the product of US support of the region and Sisi inherited that apparatus.

This is crazy. The removal of the US-supported but secular and anti-Islamist Mubarak (who murderously killed protesters) causes destabilization because of the infiltration of Islamists backed by Saudis who are US-supported and who are also murderous killers of protesters.

I guess it's a dilemma. The botched invasion of Iraq was horrible and worsened Iraq's situation. But like... it was the horribly done US removal of... a horribly-done US-emplaced secular dictator. They're condemning the worsening of conditions, the US' meddling destabilization of a previously more-stable condition... brought on by the US' meddling.

It's so fucking out-there, evil, and mind boggling what the US has done in the ME that if you made a movie starting with the overthrow of the Iranian government by the CIA in 1955 and ending with the state of affairs today, 90% of the audience would walk out and the remaining 10% would be laughing at it thinking it satire.

[K. A. Pital]

Mubarak was the product of US support of the region and Sisi inherited that apparatus.

This is crazy. The removal of the US-supported but secular and anti-Islamist Mubarak (who murderously killed protesters) causes destabilization because of the infiltration of Islamists backed by Saudis who are US-supported and who are also murderous killers of protesters.

I guess it's a dilemma. The botched invasion of Iraq was horrible and worsened Iraq's situation. But like... it was the horribly done US removal of... a horribly-done US-emplaced secular dictator. They're condemning the worsening of conditions, the US' meddling destabilization of a previously more-stable condition... brought on by the US' meddling.

Pretty much.

It is actually the same problem Russia has with Ukraine. Once you start meddling in the affairs of another state, there is no easy way out. Imperialism springs up from economic ambition, but it ends perpetuating itself and generating a multitude of crises after the initial involvement.

Russian involvement in Syria will still bite them in the ass, although it would be easier for Russia to disengage than for Iran, who are stuck there deep with their volunteers and special forces.

I can't help but wonder, what is worse - living in a nation or rump state which is well on track to become an Iranian satellite or puppet (both Iraq and Syria's Alawite coast are), or living in Sharia-land? I'm not stupid enough to think that a secular Sunni state is even a remote possibility now.

And I personally think that even though being in Iran's shadow is horrible, the alternative is even worse.

[Shroom Man 777]

I don't know. At least Lebanon has fucking rave parties.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't know. At least Lebanon has fucking rave parties.

Lebanon is an... unusual situation for the Mid East. It's one of the few examples where confessionalism actually works. It is still far from becoming a real nation, but I guess it is closer to it than most other multi-confessional states in ME.

[Shroom Man 777]

What is confessionalism?

[K. A. Pital]

What is confessionalism?

Distribution of political power based on religious adherence. I think the President of Lebanon is a Christian, while the PM is a Sunni muslim and there's also a post reserved for Shia. Forgot what it is.

[Shroom Man 777]

Ah... like Nigeria's alternating arrangement?

[K. A. Pital]

Ah... like Nigeria's alternating arrangement?

I guess better than this... Nigeria has an unwritten rule, but Lebanon has official documents to that end, if my memory does not fail me.

It is a totally alien approach for the West. I guess that is also why many Western "democracy building" attempts failed. Under such conditions as in ME, one person one vote does not work terribly well.

[Mange]

Wrong thread.

[Honorius]

That is not a defence and I'm not defending shit. You guys let a fucking theocratic slaver rape cult take over half of Syria and Iraq. I'm positively sure that of course nobody among the architects of "Saudi Arabia first" and other smart ass policies will want to take the blame now, but that's what they are, "intelligence agencies" - spineless cowards who never take blame when the whole blows up in their face.

Assad and Maliki let a theocratic rape state take over half of Syria and Iraq. They did so by running theocratic rape states cloaked in secularist language and not allowing democracy and accountability.

No one but Assad and Maliki are to blame for the revival of IS which was essentially defeated in 09 by the US or did everyone just take a collective memory dump except the Long War Journal and independent researchers such as myself?

And K.A. Pital , you are defending war crimes straight up and for all your racist railing against "Islamists" you seem to have no problem with your President Putin giving air support to Shia Islamist Terrorist Groups no different from IS.

Your entire argument is based on blaming a rape victim for fighting back.

So help me out here and explain:

1. Why bombing Hospitals, UN Aide Convoys, White Helmets, Bread Factories, and Market Places is necessary when Russia has PGMs and Syrian Rebel Positions are clearly marked, on Social Media no less, and far from these areas to the point they mass large troop concentrations in the open?

2. Why its okay to support Shia Terror Groups who upload their beheadings, rapings, lootings, torturings, etc crimes to social media sites?

3. Why Erdogan who is elected, transformed Turkey into a first world nation, enfranchised Kurds and now allows them to legally speak the Kurdish Language and teach it in schools, returned property stolen from Armenians back to their descendants and repealed a law that makes it illegal to talk about the genocide or speak the Armenian language, and has not passed one Sharia Law or allowed one to be passed and keeps the AKP Secularist, is an Islamist?

4. Why is Assad who has Sharia Law as the basis of the Civil Code, requires the President to be a Muslim, doesn't allow Alawi Women to marry outside the faith, has given Shia Islamist Terror Groups free rein in his country, and openly professes his Alawite Faith now, is not an Islamist?

Explain please.

[wautd]

Here I thought Trump's characterisation of China raping the US was bad. But nope, Russia's just been accused of worse. Because you see, Russia doesn't just metaphorically "rape", no you see, they "may" be organising actual rapes. To help win elections of course. Just like how they hacked the DNC to help Trump.

linky

Russia may organise migrant sex attacks in Europe to make Angela Merkel lose German elections, EU experts claim


THE secret services in Russia and Syria may encourage refugees to carry out orchestrated sex attacks on German women in a sick bid to oust Angela Merkel from office, it’s been claimed.
According to The Sun,

Yeah... I rather feel like stop reading after this point. It seems rather far fetched. I mean, if this was true, it would implicate that Russia would do the same in Sweden as there's cases of mass rapings there too. It's just sad a consequence of importing young, single men from misogynist cultures into countries were women and men have equal rights.

[Civil War Man]

Mubarak was the product of US support of the region and Sisi inherited that apparatus.

This is crazy. The removal of the US-supported but secular and anti-Islamist Mubarak (who murderously killed protesters) causes destabilization because of the infiltration of Islamists backed by Saudis who are US-supported and who are also murderous killers of protesters.

I guess it's a dilemma. The botched invasion of Iraq was horrible and worsened Iraq's situation. But like... it was the horribly done US removal of... a horribly-done US-emplaced secular dictator. They're condemning the worsening of conditions, the US' meddling destabilization of a previously more-stable condition... brought on by the US' meddling.

Yeah, with the Middle East in particular, the US has basically been fighting a proxy war against itself for years now, with various levels of success. I think a lot of it boils down to a tendency to not recognize that religions are not monolithic blocs (typically not recognizing the differences between different flavors of Islam, but some people also seem to fail to realize that not all Christians believe the same things).