Trouble in South Ossetia escalates

[Netko]

No, you stupid shit, I stated those reasons are invalidated by the fact that the fucking Bosniaks worshiped the ideal of the SS Hanjar Division and other vile nazi-era crimes their fathers had committed, and wanted to impose Sharia law on all of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Wait, what?!?

Out of which piece of shit right wing pro-Serbian rag or waste of space did you get this little gem of Serbian propaganda. As far as I know, nobody significant (discounting the usual possibility of individual idiots) was proud of the Hanjar Division during the wars in the '90ies. Why exactly would they be? If you didn't notice, the Bosniaks were fighting for a unified BiH, dominated by them, including fighting Croats during '93 - somehow, I don't think that they would particularly want to recall their fathers' prowess in a unit jointly formed by the Nazis and the Independent State of Croatia. I guess the Serbian propagandists couldn't find a suitable WW2 faction to demonize the Bosniaks with (unlike the Croat Ustaša), so they had to settle with a division.

And as far as the Sharia claim goes - are you fucking nuts?!? The Bosniaks are the most liberal indigenous Muslims around. The only difference between an Amira and an Ivana during the summer on the Croatian coast is in their names and a slightly different accent and vocabulary (Bosnian has a far larger number of Turkish loan words). They both wear bikinis, sunglasses and all the other trendy shit and get hit on by the local galebs (cro. segull - term for local boys who hit on tourist women who are looking for a good time while on vacation). Alcohol is flowing at the same rate in Bosnia as everywhere else in the Balkans (a pretty good rate). If you want a good example, there is a brilliant scene based on real events in the BBC miniseries Warriors where the British officers get invited by a Bosniak family to dinner and they are having problems finding a suitable gift to bring since they're afraid they'll offend their hosts if they bring alcohol. Finally they settle on some bananas, only to be offered some home-made Šljivovica (plum cherry) as a hospitality drink after arriving at their hosts' house. About the only Islamic ban that is even roughly adhered to is the one on pork, but even that is relatively routinely broken.

If you think anyone was going to impose Sharia under those circumstances, you're crazy. Not to mention that, in recent years, the Islamic Community in Bosnia has been fighting the spread of fundamentalism (almost none of which is domestic, but rather imported during the war with foreign volunteer fighters who were given BiH citizenship as a reward for their services), doing things like trowing Wahhabists out of their mosques. I suppose the right wing rag from which you got your "information" probably handwaved something about Izetbegović who did publish a number of works on the relationship of Western civilization and Islam, and of modern Islamic states, but which are overall very moderate and analytical, but, do to the subject matter, contain certain sentences and paragraphs that the propagandists used out of context to portray him as some sort of Islamic fundamentalist.

Sorry for going off-topic (not that there wasn't already plenty of that in the thread), but this bald-faced piece of propaganda had to be addressed.

[Broomstick]

Tibet is a distinct ethnic and cultural entity, for all your wanking of empires.

It's not distinct, it's called the Sino-Tibetan language family, the Sino-Tibetan sociographic/cultural spectrum etc for a reason.

So... because English is part of the Germanic language family it doesn't exist and England is part of Germany?

Notice how it doesn't say Sino-Korean or Sino-Vietnamese, but Sino-Tibetan, and that these peoples share a common ancestry and form of speech, which has been backed up by the fact they've been part of the same nation for centuries.

Ethnic Tibetans are genetically distinct from other human beings, most notably in their tolerance for high altitudes which is NOT shared by any other group on Earth, including Andean natives (they have different genetically based adaptations). Among other facts, Tibetans - you know, those people you say are "really" Chinese - are routinely capable of giving birth to children at altitudes at which Han Chinese having difficult even conceiving, much less carrying a child to term. These adaptations can be found in the cardiovascular system (enabling mothers to oxygenate a fetus in a low-oxygen environment, as well as affecting oxygenation of the entire body), respiratory system (non-Tibetans at high altitude breathe inefficiently, particularly during sleep, whereas Tibetans maintain a more normal breathing pattern), and skin (Tibetans sweat less than other people, which helps prevent dehydration in cold, thin air). In other words, Tibetans and Chinese are NOT the same.

For that matter, "Chinese" are ethnically diverse as well, even if the Han are the most numerous group.

I have already addressed this notion that Tibet has "always been" part of China, and as for being part of China for "centuries" - well, from mid-19th Century to mid-20th it wasn't. Again, are you going to argue that Ireland doesn't exist, since it was controlled by England for so many centuries?

Will you next argue that we should give Spain back to the Arabs because at one point it was part of a Muslim empire?

Why the hell does this have anything to do with Tibet, which is currently already a part of China?

You're arguing that because Tibet is occupied it is and will always be part of China. Spain was occupied by Muslims for quite some time. By that argument, shouldn't it still belong to the Muslims?

Although, upon reflection, Ireland is a better example.

You arrogant little bitch - who are YOU to determine the morality of entire nations? Not to mention that bit in the prior post where, oh, let's just give away Estonia and Latvia to Russia, oh, well because Russia is so fucking wonderful...

Well, I'd practice realpolitik if I ran a country, because it would be my job to do so for the good of my citizens. The morality of nations can however be evaluated just like the morality of, say, God. If Mike can condemn God for firebombing Sodom and Gamorrah, despite his being God, I can condemn Georgia for filling civilian neighborhoods in Tskhanvali with rocket fire, despite Georgia being a nation-state.

Of course, rather than just assume Georgia has been slaughtering civilians I'm willing to wait until the dust settles for a more realistic tally. Unquestionably people have died, but let's face it, neither side's figures are trustworthy while the shooting is going on.

Bullshit, you little asshole. Produce evidence of this genocide or retract that statement.

It was reported on Russia Today, and on several Russian-language sites, and is the official position of the Russian government. None of which will sway your mind, because they're Russian sources.

It's not because they're Russian sources, it's because they're one of two warring parties. I would look upon Georgian sources with equal suspicion. It is stupid to pretend the Russians are somehow unbiased in this matter. As such, their claims must be independently verified to be credible.

However it's been repeatedly proved in this thread beyond a reasonable doubt that the Georgians did start the war with surprise rocket artillery attacks on civilians, and isn't that immoral enough for you?

I though it was a surprise attack on peacekeepers - but perhaps there is confusion here. In fact, I'm sure of it, as there was all that shooting going on.

Yes, unprovoked attacks on civilians are immoral. Subverting another nation is also immoral, as it appears Russia may have been doing. I'm sorry, Marina, but both sides are dirty, here, as usual, and while Georgia started the shooting THIS time let's not pretend the Russians are innocents.

By that argument, what right does Russia have to its current borders? Got news for you honey - whether you like it or not, the USSR was a recognized and "legitimate" government. You don't get to decide who is and isn't a "legitimate" nation based on what YOU like. That is, in fact, one of the most unsavory traits of an American, the arrogance of passing moral judgment on other nations and either building them up or destroying them based on your personal bias. In that, you and Dubya are twins and you'd fit right in with the Bush clan.

Oh holy fucking shit, you feel like you can make such comparisons when the Soviets KILLED TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE and RESETTLED TENS OF MILLIONS MORE BY FORCE?

I didn't say I LIKE it, just that it's a fact - the USSR did exist. Your distaste does not make that uncomfortable fact go away.

How many people did Ancient Rome oppress, kill, or otherwise treat horribly? Are you going to say that wasn't a legitimate empire or nation? How about the British Empire? Are you going to claim it didn't exist?

The morality of a nation or its government is not what determines whether or not it exists.

Get off it. The modern Russian borders are incorrect, anyway, Russia has full right to all the Russian-language areas on its borders that were part of its territory from the 1500s and 1600s straight into the 1990s until the USSR collapsed. Why should those Russians be massively oppressed by those states just because the Soviets incorporated them in their arbitrary boundaries? Because you say so?

No, because history is a son of a bitch. Why NOT the current borders? Which time period would you declare to have the "correct" borders for Russia?

Due to history, the map of Eastern Europe is a hopeless mess. There is nowhere to draw the boundaries without pissing people off. Either the people there will figure out a way to deal with this unpleasant fact or else warfare will continue indefinitely. The rest of Europe has figured out how to disagree without shooting each other, why can't this region?

Thank you - you really should reflect on the idea that, from what you have told us, your family IS a bunch of abusive bastards and you should re-examine the fantasy notions of life under a king (or Tsar) they have instilled in you.

Which I don't hold to. I've said on numerous occasions on this board that SUCH A SYSTEM WILL NEVER AGAIN EXIST BECAUSE IT IS FOUNDED ON TRADITION AND THE TRADITIONS ARE DEAD.

And good riddance I say - the system was only good for the small sliver on top and sucked for everyone else. It belongs on the trash heap of history, along with the soviet system that succeeded it.

I didn't say you were "high nobility" or "extremely upper class" - you were upper class, that is, above the VAST majority of the populace who were peasants that were treated like absolute shit most of the time. In other words, your family's experience was atypical.

Conceded in part, though my grandfather ended up working in a woolen mill to support his family after ending up in exile, so we haven't lived a life of idle riches since about 1916 or so.

Poor baby.

My family arrived here with literally just the clothes on their backs, as refugees. Cry me a river about your grandfather needing to work in a woolen mill. My family would have killed to have that opportunity when they first arrived here.

No, I see you as a despised misfit. How much tolerance do you think authoritarian systems have for transsexuals? Authoritarians like everything to fit in nice, neat boundaries and your very existence violates boundaries. Tell me, what was the fate of homosexuals, bisexuals, crossdressers, and other gender benders in Tsarist Russia? Your intelligence will not save you from prejudice based upon your gender.

Well, actually, in the late 19th century the Russian government was more or less run by a clique of homosexual bureaucrats, and the nobleman who coordinated for the assassination of and himself assassinated Rasputin was a noted transvestite.

Please provide evidence for those claims.

Well THANK YOU bitch for telling my I'm not what I am. Yes, we were Russian peasants. I'm sorry if you find that incomprehensible. Of course, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Jews to intermarry with human beings, being a separate species of animal. And, of course, it was perfectly OK for the Russians to do horrible things to Jews who were those nasty, alien invaders because life was such a fucking paradise for Orthodox Russian peasants. Germans never intermarried with Russians, no one ever crossed religious lines, and there's no Mongol blood in my ancestry, just ignore my relatives with epicanthal eye folds.[/sarcasm] Of course, that fits into your fantasy of a pure Russia rather than the actual messy facts of history.

What the hell? I was providing a listing of Tsarist crimes to you in a ready admission of the regime's tyranny and evil, and you turn that around into my being a member of the Black Hundreds or something? Which one of us has gone off the deep-end tonight, exactly? So eager to see things in me that you won't see what I'm saying?

YOU said that you had the "impression" my family was Jewish and that by that fact we weren't really Russia or something. Fuck that noise. Try making fewer assumptions.

And I don't need a listing of Tsarist crimes from you - I was aware of their abuses when you were still in diapers. In fact, doing the math, I was aware of them before you even were born.

Please stop denying the existence of a quarter of my ancestry and I'll stop being such a bitch about it.

Marina - shut the fuck up. You are pissing me off and you're talking shit. Seriously, you have issues with my heritage being BOTH Jewish and Russian? Is it THAT totally incomprehensible to you? Has it occurred to you that there was a REASON we fled the damn country, like someone sufficiently violated law and custom as to come under threat of death?

I was providing a litany of how the government treated you which included their refusal to recognize you as Russians,

YOU FUCKSTICK - TOLD YOU WE WERE BOTH - or do you think I only had ONE ancestor? What the FUCK is wrong with you? Is it BEYOND your comprehension that Jews and Russians intermarried from time to time REGARDLESS of law or custom? Is it THAT unfathomable to you? Do you think the Russians in my ancestry were retroactively made Jewish or some such nonsense? Are you that fucking retarded on these issues? Who the FUCK are you to deny my Russian relatives? Bad enough those who remained in Russia were exterminated in WWII, now you deny they ever existed. Fuck you.

Again - why the FUCK do you think NATO would want Georgia?

Because the USA, which leads NATO, is actively campaigning for Georgian membership in NATO.

But since Georgia is NOT part of NATO clearly the US isn't the only one who has an opinion that matters. If the rest of NATO doesn't want them I don't think they'll get to join. If they persist in provoking the Russians the US might easily change its mind as well, because frankly we don't need that sort of "ally".

I want to know since when in this thread, in what alternative universe, did I start singing Zhanna Bichevskaya songs and going around on a horse killing random Jews with a sword. Because that's sure as hell what you're making me out to be when I was the one readily pointing out the evils and crimes of the Tsarist regime which my idiot fucking family supported.

Oh, poor baby - YOU'RE the one denying the existence of significant portion of my family. OH, some of my relatives are Jews so they must all be Jewish. As I said, are you retarded or something tonight? Explain to me again why it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to be BOTH Jewish and Russian in ancestry - because short of claiming Jews and Russians are two different species I got news for you, it IS possible. It's because it IS possible that the Russians felt it necessary to physically isolate those pesky Jews because, goddammit, they kept leaking their genes into the Russian side of the pool! It's not the Jewish part of my family you're metaphorically killing off, it's everybody else!

[Broomstick]

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Do you think it's actually reasonable to turn back the clock, to a time when nationhood was synonymous with ethnicity?

Marina is trying to justify Russia annexing South Ossetia based on the population being ethnic Russians... and you're calling ME on the carpet?

Yes, because you seem to place excessive weight upon ethnicity as a determining factor.

Ethnicity is ONE factor among many. Certainly, there are examples of successful and internally peaceful multi-ethnic nations, just as there are examples of homogeneous nations splitting into bloody factions.

Personally, I am more and more coming to the conclusion that Tibet was a theocratic shithole before the current Chinese invasion, but I digress...

As far as Tibet being "part" of China - in 600's AD it was an independent kingdom. Said kingdom's troops briefly occupied part of China in 763... maybe it's China that's part of Tibet? As early as 821 or 822 (record keeping being somewhat ambiguous at the time) a treaty was enacted between the two separate nations of China and Tibet. In the 18th Century Tibet was under Chinese control. By 1850 Tibet had supposedly expelled all foreigners and was once again a separate entity. In 1913 the Dalai Lama explicitly declared Tibet and independent nation. In 1950 the Chinese invaded and ran off the Dalai Lama and ushered in the current state of affairs.

OK, so that makes the situation at least as well-established as that of Israel. And I would make the point that during the period when China lost control of Tibet, the Europeans were raping China. If not for that particular circumstance, it's rather doubtful that China would have lost control.

I am inclined to agree with that statement, however, history played out with China losing control of Tibet. So... China lost control and Tibet wound up with a government of its own. Doesn't that make it an independent nation?

And, with your comparison with Israel... if Israel is recognized as a nation shouldn't Tibet be? Of course, not everyone recognizes Israel...

What makes a nation sovereign? Near as I can tell, these days it's a matter of the rest of the world coming to a consensus and occupation is 90% of the game in many instances.

In other words, Tibet, like many other nations, has at times been an independent nation and at times been a vassal of another nation. One could just as easily argue that Poland doesn't exist, or Finland, based on a similar history of on-again off-again sovereignty.

Yeah, well, an awful lot of stuff changed in the middle of the twentieth century for obvious reasons. That was a period of serious turmoil, but attempting to restore the prior situation is an absurd goal. Especially when the prior situation has no more intrinsic moral weight than the current situation.

Especially since a lot of maps got redrawn in the in 19th Century (and the 18th), too, so the "prior situation" has a "prior situation" of its own.

[Steve]

Broomstick, I think you're inferring things that aren't there. I mean, it seems to me Marina's commenting on how crappy it was for Russian Jews back in those days, and you're coming out of it with her supposedly trying to say you're not Russian because you're Jewish or vice versa?

[Broomstick]

1) I'm not Jewish (although I have Jewish ancestry). I am not Jewish under Jewish law. I have never practiced that religion. Are we clear on this now?

2) I have Jewish ancestors, yes. I also happen to have NON-Jewish ancestors. As it happens, some of them from both sorts came from Russia. I fail to see why people can't comprehend that Jews and non-Jews can mate and produce viable offspring.

3) Marina is insisting that because I have SOME Jewish ancestry I can have NO ancestors from any other background, and because I'm of Jewish descent I can't also be of Russian descent. It's like saying that because Barak Obama is identified as black his mother can't be white. Um... she is. Likewise, my Russian ancestors come from BOTH the Jews and the non-Jews.

Is anyone still confused on this matter?

[Steve]

1) I'm not Jewish (although I have Jewish ancestry). I am not Jewish under Jewish law. I have never practiced that religion. Are we clear on this now?

Yes.

2) I have Jewish ancestors, yes. I also happen to have NON-Jewish ancestors. As it happens, some of them from both sorts came from Russia. I fail to see why people can't comprehend that Jews and non-Jews can mate and produce viable offspring.

I don't see how this was claimed. I think you were reading things into it.

3) Marina is insisting that because I have SOME Jewish ancestry I can have NO ancestors from any other background, and because I'm of Jewish descent I can't also be of Russian descent. It's like saying that because Barak Obama is identified as black his mother can't be white. Um... she is. Likewise, my Russian ancestors come from BOTH the Jews and the non-Jews.

She said:
"I got the impression that your family was Jewish, not at all Russian by the Russian view of things, which means it was horrifically repressed...."

"By the Russian view of things" was the key part of that phrase. She wasn't saying that because some of your family was Jewish that they were not Russian, she was saying that at the time the Russians themselves did not consider them Russians because they were Jews. IOW, she was remarking on one of the sad beliefs of those times, then remarked on the further indignities visited upon Russian Jews by their countrymen.

You read entirely too much into that statement, and from there you launched into a tangent that was unmerited, twisting things up as you became unnecessarily violent from your own misconception and probably confused quite a few people as to just want set you off.

We get the idea. A part of your family background is from Russian Jews, another part is from Russian Gentiles. You need not scream it.

Is anyone still confused on this matter?

I don't think so any longer, but again, it didn't help that you went berserk and started screaming (figuratively speaking) over what you thought you read.

[Broomstick]

You're right, I let Marina's obsession with authority and her adoration of the Russians to get under my skin.

(I still think she's full of shit on a lot of issues here, but I'll refrain until I get some sleep)

[Steve]

Yes, sleep would be wise.

I cannot speak completely for Marina save as her friend and chat companion, but I can say that among chatniks there is a feeling, more pervasive in some than in others, that modern society has gone wrong. That somewhere American or Western society as it is took the wrong turn and has become something it should not be. And when you feel that way your mind eventually turns to solutions or alternatives and not all of them seem agreeable.

[Tiriol]

Somewhere down the line Duchess said that Finland didn't revolt when "they" ran things. That is true, but there are more to it than that.

"They" - Russian nobility and upper class, I presume - never ran things in Finland in earnest. Finland had its own laws and customs, own money and own post office and to US the Czar was the "Grand Duke of Finland" in addition of being "The Czar of Russia". We were as autonomous as possible. We didn't serve the Russian empire, we served the Czar directly. And when Russification began, Finland started to counter it and since the Czar didn't do anything about it, he lost his popularity (one legal argument during Finland's independence movement was that the Czar had sworn to protect Finland and to uphold its laws as the Grand Duke and clearly he had now violated that most fundamental oath to us). General-Governor Bobrikov was shot by a Finnish terrorist (August Schumann, I believe). When the call for arms came, so few answered that the empire decided it wasn't worth the bother. And when the Czar was defeated and the temporary government after that, Finland did secceed.

So historically, the Russian nobility never had any say in Finland after it had become an autonomous part of the empire (and we still retained our own nobility). We didn't revolt, like so many other vassal states, but when we perceived that our rights and pleas for justice were ignored, we did start a rather passive resistance movement. That was the moment when Czar lost his most loyal vassal due to nobility's politics. So, in effect, the Russian nobility and upper class were responsible for Finland's outrage at its treatment, NOT for its relative peacefulness and stability.

[Darth Hoth]

All the business it pleases to have, in particular based on the fact that the borders of Georgia are by no means legitimate and are fully open to revision.

By all means, do tell why they would be more or less legitimate and more open to revision than any other in the post-Soviet sphere.

Based on mere secession? certainly. Based on slaveholding, no, you stupid shit. The war was fought over slavery, not over secession.

In other words, as long as some shit can be dug up on a country, there will always be a legitimate casus belli. You must be a great fan of the Iraq War - Saddam was MUCH worse than the slaveowners.

If the Ossetians were eating babies, I'd be cheering the Georgians. But here, it's the Georgians who are executing all adult Ossetians they find.

What the flying fuck? Do provide a source supporting that there is a genocide going on that is not controlled or sponsored by the authoritarian Russian government. Or do we also take Doctor Goebbels's claims of Polish aggression and genocide at face value? It is nice to be consistent in one's standards of evidence. What ever comes out of the major Russian media channels that is not government-approved?

No, you stupid shit, I stated those reasons are invalidated by the fact that the fucking Bosniaks worshiped the ideal of the SS Hanjar Division and other vile nazi-era crimes their fathers had committed, and wanted to impose Sharia law on all of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

"And that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes our excerpt from Radio Slavophilia's morale-raising broadcast to the Serbian Armed Forces. Our hopes are with you."

Are you really this dishonest or just fucking insane? Evidence, from neutral sources, or withdraw this shit. Why would Bosnian nationalists support SS units working with Pavelic's "Independent" State of Croatia to purge them with sword and flame? Now, I was never all that supportive of NATO's bombing of the Serbs, believe it or not, since I did and do consider them to have violated Serbia's national rights by interfering in an internal conflict, but painting the Serbs as being flawless victims of Nazi-ish Bosnian aggression. . . just wow. Those bastards were genociding; would that not "make them unethical", as you like to say? Both sides were shit in that war; it was not T3h 3v0l M0sl3ms against T3h 6r34t Sl4vs.

Georgia has no real right to its present sovereign borders, as those were established by fiat by the fundamentally illegitimate Soviet government.

Oh, but borders drawn up on fiat by the perfectly legitimate Tsarist government make sense? Go figure. You know, Georgia should perhaps not be independent at all . . . after all, it is just one more "disaffected fringe minority" in the great glory that was the Russian Empire! And I am sure the Russian government could kill off that discontent in a generation or two, as you-as-Hitler would have done with the Czechs.

I do wonder, though, would you give Karelia back to Finland? That is just as much a border established by "the illegitimate Soviet government". But here it is, incidentally, drawn in Russia's favour, so I do not think you would be inclined to protest it.

No worse than America, where we now are going to be locking people up indefinitely AFTER they've served their sentences, shitcock.

I take it, then, that you would rather live in Russia as of today than in the US, because you have greater faith in their legal system? Also, red herring; just because the US gets worse, how does that make Russia any better? I personally find it lamentable that a democratic country stoops to the depths of post-Communist authoritarian barbarism.

It's more about what they're doing RIGHT NOW. The Georgians lost their right to South Ossetia, you dumbshit, the moment they decided it was moral to use rocket artillery to slaughter civilians in their homes, fuckwad!

And of course, here we have the objective evidence that that is what really happened! Oh, wait. . .

Not that this is consistent with your earlier talk of the Ossetians' Russian identity/citizenship automatically granting them the right to rebel. . .

A polyglot nation which has been unified for centuries and which has a coherent national identity shared by all but two or three disaffected fringe minorities on the outerlands, comprising a fraction of a percent of the population, and which was developed before the illegitimate communist regime came to power.

You really like to stress how the Commies were illegitimate, right? Well, what makes the post-Commie regime now any more so? If we go by your definition of legitimacy, which appears to differ from the international consensus, should we reinstitute the Romanovs?

[Apollonius]

So, what would be an ideal exit strategy out of this mess now?
And what would should we realistically expect?

It seems to me, Georgia is aiming for deescalation, likely because they didn't receive the international support they probably expected. On the other hand, it seems extremely unlikely to me that Russia would settle with a return to a status quo ante. Who's gonna stop them? Abkhazia and S. Ossetia are definitely lost for Georgia.

The questions are:
- Is the Georgian leadership aware of that, or are they hoping for a miracle, or are they determined to go down fighting to their last breath? Since they commited the suicidal stupidity of trying to reposess the breakaway provinces, I pretty much expect them to carry on making shortsighted decisions. What would you do if you were the president of Georgia? Surrender, killing your political career but saving your country from destruction (that's what I would have done at this point now), or keep fighting and hope for some ally to show up?
- Will Russia be content with this "castration" of Georgia, or will they go even further and march into Georgian heartland?
- What are the aims of the Abkhazian and S. Ossetian leaders? Do they want independence? Incorporation into the Russian Federation?
- How popular is this whole affair with the Russian people? The press seems to support it, but then, freedom of press isn't exactly what Russia is famous for. What are the people thinking?

T3h 3v0l M0sl3ms against T3h 6r34t Sl4vs.

Actually, Bosnians are Slavs too.

[Darth Hoth]

Yes, but they are Moslems, which automatically makes them Sharia fanatics and enemies of civilisation, especially the great and glorious Russian-Orthodox Slavdom.

People who take this literally instead of seeing the sarcasm and actually need to read this line to get it can sod off.

[[R_H]]

I found a hilarious article by some neocon columnist, titled "RAPING GEORGIA: RUSSIA INVADES AN AMERICAN ALLY"

New York Post

AS I write, Russian tanks grind into a brave and isolated democratic state.

Assuming that the world's attention would focus on Beijing, Moscow stage-managed an elaborate act of aggression against Georgia.

But the world has changed since Soviet tanks rolled unchallenged into Afghanistan at Christmastime 29 years ago. Global communications now spotlight aggression instantly.

Yesterday, the world didn't watch the Olympic opening ceremonies (the Chinese must be furious at the Russians). Instead, we saw images of Soviet - sorry, I meant Russian - aircraft pounding Georgian territory as Russian armor rolled over the Caucasus Mountains.

The Kremlin is determined to break Georgia's will - and keep the feisty republic out of NATO.

Russia, you see, still believes it's entitled to all of its former empire. And, tragically, "Old Europe" is back: Yesterday, Germany and other nervous European states bought the Russian line that Georgia is the aggressor. Wouldn't want to anger Moscow . . .

The background: When a fellow officer and I drove through the region in 1991, Georgian patriots and Russian "peacekeepers" were already facing off. As the USSR collapsed, its security services leapt to foment separatist (pro-Moscow) movements in the newly independent states. In Georgia's case, that meant instigating rebellions in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and - unsuccessfully - Adjaria (the Caucasus is a crazy quilt of obscure identities). If Georgians insisted on independence, the Kremlin intended to dissect the country.

But then Russia found itself bogged down in a series of botched wars in Chechnya as its military rotted and the Yeltsin government floundered.

Now, however, the petrodollar-powered Russia of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and his straight man, President Dmitri Medvedev, is swaggering - and determined to punish Georgia, to make it an example to other defiant neighbors.

What just happened? The Kremlin decided it was time to act, since Georgia was only growing stronger under its democratically elected government. Although NATO has been hemming and hawing about admitting Georgia, the Russians didn't want to take any chances. (Just last month, 1,000 US troops were in Georgia for an exercise.)

Calculating that the media and world leaders would be partying in Beijing, the Russians ordered North Ossetian militiamen, backed by Russian "peacekeepers" and mercenaries, to provoke the Georgians earlier this month.

Weary of the Russian presence on their soil, the Georgians took the bait. President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered his US-trained military to respond.

That was the excuse the Kremlin wanted. Immediately, a tank brigade from Russia's 58th Army (the butchers of Chechnya) crossed the international border into Poland - sorry, I meant Georgia.

How do I know that the Russians set a trap? Simple: Given the wretched state of Russian military readiness, that brigade could never have shot out of its motor pool on short notice. The Russians obviously "task-organized" the force in advance to make sure it would have working tanks with competent crews.

Otherwise, broken-down vehicles would've lined those mountain roads.

The Russians planned it. And they hope to push it to the limit.

What happens next? This is a fight between a very small David and a very large Goliath. That said, the Russians may be surprised at how fiercely the Georgians defend their homeland. At least two, and possibly four, Russian jets have been shot down while attacking Georgian bases close to the capital city, Tbilisi.

As of last night, the Georgians had retaken Tskhinvali, South Ossetia's capital. I'd bet American veterans helped Georgia with contingency planning for just such a situation (it worked in Bosnia).

Meanwhile, hundreds of civilians and dozens of militiamen, Kremlin-funded mercenaries and Russian "peacekeepers" have been killed, along with tens of Georgian troops. This fighting is serious. And, unless Moscow pulls out all the stops, its forces just might take a surprise beating.

The Russian view: If I were a Russian staff planner (and sober), I wouldn't expect to drive all the way to the Georgian capital - that would be too much for the West to stomach (although Russia's greatest strength today is that it doesn't care about world opinion).

My objective would be to retake Tskhinvali, then strike due south to cut Georgia's lifelines to the world - the strategic highway, parallel rail line and international pipeline that connect Georgia's eastern interior with its western ports.

(Incidentally, such an offensive would take the Kremlin's tanks to the aptly named city of Gori, birthplace of Josef Stalin.)

If the Russian invaders can sever those links, they'll cut Georgia in half. Control of that road-rail-pipeline complex would not only bring the Georgian economy to a standstill - it would also allow the Kremlin's other clients in Abkhazia, on the Black Sea, to renew their attempt to devour Georgian territory.

Russian generals have always been good planners. The problems crop up in the execution.

And the Russians have several vulnerabilities:

* They have only a single route over the rugged Caucasus range. If Georgian commandos interdict it, the Russians will feel the supply pinch quickly. And any major Russian military operations need to be wrapped up before autumn snows close the passes - if there isn't a cease-fire sooner.

* The Russians also need a local airfield to sustain their efforts - that could lure them closer to Georgia's capital.

* Finally, the Russian army still relies on brute force - sophisticated combat operations are not its specialty.

We don't know how this will develop. A Russian humiliation? A Kremlin success as the world wrings its hands but looks away? A destructive, bloody standoff?

The only thing that's 100 percent clear is which side we should be on.

Ralph Peters' latest book, "Looking For Trouble," takes readers through Georgia.

Among other things, why is he babbling about "mercenaries"? Who are the se "mercenaries"? [/url]

[Vympel]

It's Ralph Peters. I don't even need to click the link (or get to the last line) to know that whackjob when I read him.

[Axis Kast]

All the business it pleases to have, in particular based on the fact that the borders of Georgia are by no means legitimate and are fully open to revision.

Having read ahead, I know you’re about to explain your personal formula for legitimate nationhood – longevity. I also know that I’m about to laugh, again, as I rebut it.

Not to mention that the principle of international recognition is the accepted manner of going about these things, or that Russia supposedly adheres to this ideal, which is the important thing here, above and beyond your special definitions.

Based on mere secession? certainly. Based on slaveholding, no, you stupid shit. The war was fought over slavery, not over secession. If the Ossetians were eating babies, I'd be cheering the Georgians. But here, it's the Georgians who are executing all adult Ossetians they find.

Actually, the Federal government would have prosecuted the Civil War whether or not slavery was at issue. For Lincoln, the issue was avowedly one of states’ rights.

And, about those summary executions, how about an English-language source that doesn’t use strictly Russian reporting?

Try as you might, you’re not going to convince me that Putin’s little land of liberty, where journalists have been dying left and right, is cranking out veritas.

And before you throw a fit about how nobody likes your precious Russia, let me preempt you by saying that I’ve got the same faith – i.e., none – in Georgian post.

No, you stupid shit, I stated those reasons are invalidated by the fact that the fucking Bosniaks worshiped the ideal of the SS Hanjar Division and other vile nazi-era crimes their fathers had committed, and wanted to impose Sharia law on all of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Your position here has been aptly revealed as a steaming load of bullshit by several others.

I will simply remind you that minorities under Serbian rule suffered horribly. Not least from regular incidents of ethnic cleansing and rape by Serb forces. This wasn’t simply the lamentable effects of every anarchic situation – i.e., the deplorable criminal behavior of just a few.

Georgia has no real right to its present sovereign borders, as those were established by fiat by the fundamentally illegitimate Soviet government.

So, too, were the borders of a dozen successor states, not to mention Russia itself.

In fact, many of the nations you bluntly admitted that you’d like to eliminate from the map were fairly straightforward in their popular desires for independence in 1991. Just like, oh, say, the South Ossetians?

No worse than America, where we now are going to be locking people up indefinitely AFTER they've served their sentences, shitcock.

Did you seriously just use one case of abuse of executive power to render equal moral comparison between the business of American government and the business of Russian? After defending indiscriminate Russian attacks on Chechens, simply because they are Muslims?

It's more about what they're doing RIGHT NOW. The Georgians lost their right to South Ossetia, you dumbshit, the moment they decided it was moral to use rocket artillery to slaughter civilians in their homes, fuckwad!

That’s one way to play the counter-insurgency warfare game. I don’t find it especially relevant to the question of right-to-rule. Bombarding civilian targets has been pretty routine throughout history when conducting a war of almost any sort – and on a consistent basis, too.

A polyglot nation which has been unified for centuries and which has a coherent national identity shared by all but two or three disaffected fringe minorities on the outerlands, comprising a fraction of a percent of the population, and which was developed before the illegitimate communist regime came to power.

As Broomstick pointed out, plenty of empires and entities have “existed for centuries,” many of them with degrees of identity that could be considered high or persistent within historical context.

Also, Russia has only been a polyglot nation through conquest and repression of those who did not especially welcome what was then considered subjugation to a foreign power. If Russia managed to quash unrest and survive, I don’t see why Georgia does not have the same rights.

I support the complete union of the Chinese State--Tibet has been a part of China for centuries, and will continue to be a part of China, so, you are quite right.

Do you listen to yourself?

The Chinese State was established by conquest. Most Uighurs and Tibetans would prefer self-rule. People are arbitrarily imprisoned in the PRC; they are also forbidden freedom-of-expression. Tibet will continue to be part of China because of the weight of the Peoples’ Liberation Army – which doesn’t hesitate to commit outrages against civilians.

I have returned from the future to fix your glaring quote errors use only " in quoting from now on.- Bean

[hongi]

Damn quoting function...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I am not going to respond to that fucking retard until he cleans up his quotes so I can see what the fucking shit he's actually saying.

[Axis Kast]

You can see exactly what I'm saying.

I'm not the Beautification Corps, to have to make my posts look all pretty for you.

The truth of the matter is that I don't think you have viable responses for any of the points I've made. Thanks for the concession.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You can see exactly what I'm saying.

I'm not the Beautification Corps, to have to make my posts look all pretty for you.

The truth of the matter is that I don't think you have viable responses for any of the points I've made. Thanks for the concession.

Fix your fucking quotes you retarded little dipshit.

[[R_H]]

Bush-Putin argument at Opening ceremony

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd witnessed a heated discussion between US President George W. Bush and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, over Russia's invasion of a tiny neighbouring country as athletes paraded before them in the Opening Ceremony on Friday night.

Mr Rudd revealed in an interview with Beijing Now in Beijing on Saturday that he was sitting just two rows behind Mr Bush when an "animated" discussion between he and Mr Putin broke out over Russia's advance into South Ossetia, a breakaway region in neighbouring Georgia.

"The President and Mr Putin were in animated conversation two seats in front of us and I imagine they had a few things on their agenda," Mr Rudd said.

Mr Rudd said that Mr Bush appeared to be making a strong point to the Russian Prime Minister, even as the world's elite athletes filed into Beijing's Bird's Nest stadium.

Mr Rudd backed the US President's position.

"Our position, like the Americans, is that it's important for peace and stability to return to this part of Georgia," he said.

"We recognise and continue to recognise Georgia's soverignty over Ossetia and therefore it's important that Russia cease its military involvement.

"This problem in Ossetia has been brewing for quite some time. Certainly the timing of the actions on the part of the Russians, that's a question best put to them. What I know is the international community is speaking with one voice in support of the cessation of hostilities by the Russians."

Russia and Georgia are locked in a bloody battle over the independent territory, with reports of 1400 people killed.

Georgian security officials said that Russian planes had bombed a military base outside the Georgian capital Tbilisi, killing three Georgian soldiers.

The tiny territory consists of just 70,000 people but the issue threatens to develop into a full-blown crisis after President Bush backed Georgia and warned Russia to roll back its tank fleets.

Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili, who has forged close ties with the West, warned that other European countries could follow if South Ossetia were allowed to fall.

"What Russia is doing in Georgia is open, unhidden aggression and a challenge to the whole world," he said.

"If the whole world does not stop Russia today, then Russian tanks will be able to reach any other European capital."

His warning was backed by the might of the US, with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice sending a stern message to the former Cold War foe.

"We call on Russia to cease attacks on Georgia by aircraft and missiles, respect Georgia's territorial integrity, and withdraw its ground combat forces from Georgian soil," she said.

Mr Rudd met Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing yesterday and raised with him Russia's act of aggression at a time when the world has its head turned towards the Olympics.

"It is a matter of deep concern ... China is a global force and I anticipate it will be part of our discussions," he said.

Mr Rudd left Beijing for South Korea this morning, but not before taking in the Opals women's basketball team's opening round victory over Belarus yesterday and the Australian swimming team's first heats in the pool last night.

The presence of former prime minister John Howard at the Games threatened to overshadow Mr Rudd's visit, but he laughed off any talk of tension.

"This is team Australia, so it was good to have the former Prime Minister and Mrs Howard,'' he said.

"Therese and I were very pleased to see them. One thing about Australian sport, it should be above and beyond party politics."

Mr Rudd, although not a renowned sports lover, rejected the suggestion that Mr Howard was a greater authority on the subject as Prime Minister.

"I've watched every Olympics since '68 and I have sat glued to the television set for every Games since then ... even the disaster in Montreal,'' he said.

"I'm passionate about how our athletes perform. It is so much part and parcel of how Australia is seen."

Mr Rudd was well aware that Malcom Fraser was the last previous Prime Minister to travel abroad for an Olympics, in 1976, to the Montreal Games in which Australia did not win a single gold medal.

He said that Australia was now an Olympic heavyweight, admitting that more funding was needed to keep up with countries such as Britain, France and Germany.

"I was talking to (Australian Olympic Committee president) John Coates about this today," he said.

"However Australia goes at these Olympics, he's proposing a national summit of the major sports to look at their plans for 2012 and 2016 ... and what further investment may be necessary from Government.

"The truth is we're up against Britain, France, Germany and Italy. These are countries which are three times, four times the size of Australia in terms of population, in terms of resources.

"For us to remain ahead of the game, we are going to have to continue to take things to the next level - that's what Coatesy's on about and that's what the Government's on about."

[The Duchess of Zeon]

To explain what's going on, you brainless spawn of retards, dumbly flopping across the ground like a fish out of water, you have some kind of retarded programme (do you use IE or something?) which has succeeded in transforming all of the quotation marks into those "stylish" curved quotation marks in the quote tags.. which don't work in making the quotes lock. You need to replace the curvy quotation marks with normal straight ones to make the reply format correctly.

I will, ultimately, reply, but I'll do so whenever the fuck I feel like it without ceding the argument (say, tomorrow, or the day after), if you're to much of a stupid dipshit to fucking use fucking quote tags properly. Jesus fucking christ, someone should add a "use bbs code correctly" posting rule to go along with the one about proper english.

[loomer]

You can see exactly what I'm saying.

I'm not the Beautification Corps, to have to make my posts look all pretty for you.

The truth of the matter is that I don't think you have viable responses for any of the points I've made. Thanks for the concession.

Alright, man, seriously. Just fix the goddamn quotes, trying to read that made my head hurt, and I'm a mostly unbiased third party.

[Aaron]

Alright, man, seriously. Just fix the goddamn quotes, trying to read that made my head hurt, and I'm a mostly unbiased third party.

He can't without making another post, editing is disabled in N&P except for Senators and the mods IIRC.

[loomer]

Ah, if that's the case then fair enough.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Alright, man, seriously. Just fix the goddamn quotes, trying to read that made my head hurt, and I'm a mostly unbiased third party.

He can't without making another post, editing is disabled in N&P except for Senators and the mods IIRC.

God damn it, I completely forget about that. Fine, he can repost, then.