Monday, March 29, 2010

Update on the Moscow Terror Attack

The explosions at two Moscow metro stations early this morning, which killed at least 37 people, were the result of suicide bomb attacks by two female terrorists. No terror group has yet claimed responsibility, but the attacks are believed to be the work of Muslim separatists from the North Caucasus.

The excerpts below are from The Daily Mail. Be warned: the original article includes graphic photos. Sensitive readers are advised not to click the link.

Hunt for ‘Black Widow’ Terror Gang After Female Suicide Bombers Kill at Least 37 in Bomb Attacks on Moscow Trains

Police in Moscow were tonight searching for female accomplices of two women suicide bombers who killed at least 37 people and injured 65 by targeting two packed tube trains during the busy rush hour.

President Dmitry Medvedev declared Russia would act ‘without compromise’ to root out terrorists as he ordered airports to be put on alert and security to be stepped up throughout the country.

The two bombs are the worst attack on the Russian capital for six years and no group has yet claimed responsibility.

But suspicion has fallen on Muslim militants from the North Caucasus, where the Kremlin is fighting a growing Islamist insurgency spreading from Chechnya to neighbouring Dagestan and Ingushetia.

Alexander Bortnikov, head of Russia’s Federal Security Service, said the terrorists were likely to have been ‘black widows’, Muslim women radicalised by the situation in the North Caucasus.

‘Body parts belonging to two female suicide bombers were found and, according to initial data, these persons are linked to the north Caucasus,’ he said.

Police are tonight expected to publish CCTV images of the suicide bombers, along with two women of ‘Slav appearance’ who accompanied them.
- - - - - - - - -
Witnesses spoke of panic at the two underground stations this morning after the blasts as people fell over each other in dense smoke and dust, trying to escape.

[…]

The first explosion tore through the second carriage of a metro train just before 8am as it stood at the Lubyanka station, close to the headquarters of Russia’s main domestic security service FSB. It killed at least 23 people.

About 40 minutes later, another blast in the second carriage of a train waiting at the Park Kultury metro station, opposite Gorky Park, killed 12 to 14 more people.

Both bombers wore explosive belts packed with bolts and iron rods to maximise casualties.

The bombers have believed to have been identified from surveillance videos inside the Red Arrow underground trains.

Analysis of footage from other cameras in Moscow Metro stations has also helped identify the faces of two women and a man.

The report also quoted a source saying earlier that the female suicide bombers boarded the train at Yugo-Zapadnaya station in southwest Moscow.

[…]

Surveillance camera footage posted on the internet showed several motionless bodies lying on the floor or slumped against the wall in Lubyanka station lobby and emergency workers crouched over victims, trying to treat them.

Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov told reporters that female suicide bombers had carried out the attacks.

Prosecutors said they had opened a ‘terrorism investigation’ after forensic experts found the remains of a female bomber.

The Russian rouble fell to 34.25 from 34.13 against the central bank’s euro-dollar basket, on concern the blasts could indicate the start of a bombing campaign against Russian cities.

Russian equity markets were little changed, with the rouble denominated MICEX index up 0.04 percent.

[…]

The current death toll makes it the worst attack on Moscow since February 2004, when a suicide bombing killed at least 39 people and wounded more than 100 on a metro train.

Chechen separatists were blamed for that attack and suspicions are likely to focus on the North Caucasus where rebel leader Doku Umarov, who is fighting for an Islamic emirate embracing the whole region, vowed on Feb 15 to take the war to Russian cities.

‘Blood will no longer be limited to our (Caucasus) cities and towns. The war is coming to their cities,’ the Chechen rebel leader said in an interview on the unofficial Islamist website.


Hat tip: JD.

79 comments:

Michael said...

Rather than the women being "Muslim women radicalised by the situation in the North Caucasus", I suspect it more likely that they were women given a choice between "honor killing" for some perceived transgression and becoming a suicide bomber and getting a quick death.

Zenster said...

My heart goes out to the Russian people.

That said, Russia continues to support and encourage global terrorism and reaps its rich reward in the process. One cannot play both sides of the Islamic street and emerge unscathed. Muslims are the most thankless bastards on earth and will cheerfully bite any hand that feeds them at the first opprotunity.

Russia's supposed efforts to combat Islamic terrorism cannot be taken seriously until it halts all export of nuclear technology and expertise to Iran along with eliminating its arms sales to Muslim terrorists.

Robin Shadowes said...

No matter what, they should be fkushed out and taken care of.The only good thing in this case is the russians are well known for not using kid gloves compared to western forces. Something the chechens ought to be very aware of.

Rocha said...

Tank god Russia has a heatier view of islam and terrorism.

Not not everything is gold. Russia could (specially after Kosovo and Georgia) have recognized Nagorgo-Karabakh. Azerbaijan is building it's military with oil money and with turkish help that could spell another real disaster (Like the Cyprus one). Russia could do more, christians would be pleased.

Félicie said...

38 now. :(

EscapeVelocity said...

I read somewhere that the majority of Russia's military are Muslim, is that true?

Robin Shadowes said...

I've read somewhere that it is about 50% which is utterly disturbing.

rebelliousvanilla said...

EV, it's not even half Muslim, but the Russians, unlike us, aren't acting like little girls. In the last 15 years, 2 million Muslims converted to Orthodox Christianity, while only 3000 Russians converted to Islam. 70% of the marriages in between a Muslim and a Christian have the Muslim convert to Christianity.

As a Romanian, I can't believe I'm rooting for Russia on this one. :P

Armance said...

One cannot play both sides of the Islamic street and emerge unscathed.

Sure, like the US of A which helped creating two Muslim states in the heart of Europe and ruthlessly bombed a white Christian nation for the courage the defend its historic territory in front of Islamic aggression.
Or like the US of A which continues the push the accession of Turkey in the EU (regardless of administration, Democrat or Republican) with a passion that surpasses the Euro-crats themselves.

Actually, I'm wrong: there's no realistic resemblance between USA and Russia. Because Russia has never, NEVER sided with the Muslims against an European country, Eastern or Western. That's the privilege of the craven and traitorous US and EU.

doom-and-gloom said...

RV,

"In the last 15 years, 2 million Muslims converted to Orthodox Christianity"

Seriously? How did the Russians do it? Only through "marriage conversion"?

EscapeVelocity said...

In the last 15 years, 2 million Muslims converted to Orthodox Christianity, while only 3000 Russians converted to Islam. -- RV

I find that hard to believe. Do you have any handy links to sources?

LAW Wells said...

The 50% Muslim army is actually only confined to one area (which would most probably lie in the regions that are currently experiancing unrest), a single unit (I can't recall the size). Suffice to say, the rest of the army is mostly Orthodox.

With regards to the bombings, certainly it is appalling. If this sort of thing keeps up, then Russia will really start getting mad.

Just like Georgia, anyone in that region who picks a fight with Russia will get themselves smashed.

A prayer for those who have died.

Gary Rumain said...

RV, we all have to take sides sometimes. I'm supporting the Russians too - if they take the required action. But they didn't after Belsen. Perhaps this will wake them up.

Dymphna said...

I saw this at the CBS news site this morning but can't find the link:

Prime Minister Putin, who built much of his political capital by directing a fierce war with Chechen separatists a decade ago, vowed Monday that "terrorists will be destroyed."

Moscow is unlikely to hit back at the rebels with massive firepower: the Kremlin has installed loyal leaders in the areas where the militants operate, making bombing campaigns of the kind used in the 1990s Chechen wars out of the question.

The Kremlin is already engaged in a huge escalation of its operations to smash the rebels, and it is difficult to see what more it could do.

CBS News' Svetlana Berdnikova reports that police stepped up patrols around Moscow's subway stations following Monday's attacks, including stop-and-search checks of random civilians.

Monday's blasts revived anti-Muslim sentiments in Moscow, aimed primarily at migrants from the former Soviet republics, says Berdnikova.

The last confirmed terrorist attack in Moscow was in August 2004, when a suicide bomber blew herself up outside a subway station, killing 10 people. Responsibility for that blast was claimed by Chechen rebels.

A more devastating attack took place in February of that year, when a suicide bomber from the North Caucasus set off explosives during morning rush hour as it traveled between stations. More than 40 people were killed and more than 100 wounded.

Russian police have killed several Islamic militant leaders in the North Caucasus recently, including one last week in the Kabardino-Balkariya region, which have raised fears of retaliatory strikes by the militants
.

As for the figures of Muslim apostasy in the various parts of the Imperium, I think you'd have to take it on a case by case basis.

Here is a wiki. Doesn't seem very "objective" but it has some interesting information:

A History of Orthodox Missions Among the Muslims

Interestingly, the various Orthodox Churches are growing in the US. And they have growing pains as they become more "Americanized".

Our son knows several converts, and at least one of our readers has joined.

Of course, "Orthodox" includes Russian, Greek, Assyrian,Coptic etc. IOW, all those who were not Roman Orthodox and had theological differences with the papacy in Rome.

I look for these numbers to increase in America as the celibate clergy in Roman Catholicism proves to have remained well past its sell-by date and the Episcopal Church becomes ever more marginalized and cultic. How many gay bishops can you fit on the head of a pin.

Those two events will lead to the growth of various Orthodox denominiations in the US. We remain a religious country -- i.e., not just "spiritual" but full of people who want to go to church on Sunday and who actually like the ritual -- the incense, the prayers, the sacred music.

This phenomenon must be difficult for any European, who is so past "all that" to comprehend such yearning, but there it is anyway. And the more the Chattering class makes it difficult to practice patriotism, the more will people show up in church without necessarily realizing what has driven them to participate in the search for transcendence.

The irony is that the Europeans wrote the best books on the subject.

dr_rhubarb said...

Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. There is purported to be a $60 million dollar bounty on his head. He is responsible for large numbers of Muslim conversions to Christianity. I don't have the links to show how many conversions he claims, but it must be large numbers to warrent so great a bounty. You can find info about him & his mission on the internet.

linbetwin said...

Here's some old news regarding Muslims converting to Christianity:

According to Al-Jazeerah's interview with Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, the president of The Companions Lighthouse for the Science of Islamic Law in Libya, In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity.

You can watch the video here, although I would take it with many a grain of salt. If this were true and the trend holds, Islam would disappear in less than 2 centuries - which is highly unlikely, to say the least.

However, I do think that many Muslims, especially young ones, are looking into other faiths or intro secularism. It is known that, for example, the jihad in Darfur made tens of thousands of Muslims convert to Christianity horrified by the "Religion of Peace".

I also think that one of the causes of the desperate push for sharia madness in the Muslim world is the fear by the religious elites of losing control over a modernizing, Internet-empowered population. I also think that, even though the jihadis seem to enjoy enthusiastic support, they also face growing, but silent, opposition from Muslims who do not dare to challenge them.

Henrik R Clausen said...

I've seen those conversion numbers also, and am finding them credible. Any religion was de facto outlawed during the Communist time, and when the Commies were gone, Christianity rose strongly, attracting many with only a vague identification with being Muslims.

Raw Evil is on the lose in Russia. We need to document the roots for that.

Also, I'm wondering how fast Putin can ban the burqa :)

rebelliousvanilla said...

EV, I don't remember where I found that figure, you can google it. The thing is, the Russians find the Russian way superior(which is the same in my country and the Muslims here aren't terrorist nuts) and normative. Probably the converts are those who move out of the Muslim areas.

Why do you think that Muslims in the West are staying Muslim? Because they are moving together and each new wave brings some true Islam from home.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Actually, I'm wrong: there's no realistic resemblance between USA and Russia. Because Russia has never, NEVER sided with the Muslims against an European country, Eastern or Western. That's the privilege of the craven and traitorous US and EU."

Zenster, for you, safe between the Atlantic and the Pacific and with very few muslims in America (Farrakhan types do not count, but still I believe it would be fewer than in my country, which has very few muslims), that difference may sound superficial.

But it is not. It is indeed not.

I'd say that America will not suffer with a Nuclear Iran. Russia, on the other hand, would be in a very difficult situation.
So, are you real about your fears of a Russian armed Nuclear Iran?

Have you heard of "Persian-Turkish" culture? Well... it goes from the Balkans up to Central Asia. That is the Russian underbelly.

Do you really thing the Russians will give arms to their potential enemies?

Come on! Kill your Russophobia! The Cold War is over, now we have Russia again.
And, when there are Romanians who can side with Russia, I can't see why Americans cannot.

laine said...

"And, when there are Romanians who can side with Russia, I can't see why Americans cannot".

Big picture answer (when not talking about Russian push back to Muslims that occurs only when Russians themselves are attacked)... because Russian communism did not die but went to live in Western academia and spread from there in one of the Hydra head longterm plans put in motion by the KGB (refer to Yuri Bezmenov whose eye opening revelation of the plan has been highlighted here many times). That plan of undermining western institutions and the morale of its people is now coming to fruition. Another huge success was the communist behind the scenes manipulation of the Palestinian issue in the Mid-East discussed here on another thread.

Only a fool embraces his poisoner.

That's not to say some pragmatic temporary alliance can't be made if Muslims are stupid enough to attack one of their main benefactors and Iranian arms providers (Russia)but why go all starry-eyed? We are living the leftist takeover of the West that is the actual disease. As the Baron keeps saying, the Muslims are just an opportunistic infection on a body sapped of immunity and energy by leftist poison.

Without the KGB orchestrated leftist sapping, the West could have shrugged off the Muslims like the pestilential barbarians they are. Who opened the Gates of the West to them? It all goes back to the communist plan for world domination.

Afonso Henriques said...

Laine,

"because Russian communism did not die but went to live in Western academia and spread from there..."

"Only a fool embraces his poisoner."


Ok Lane. So, hate the Communists, not the Russians.

You see, not to mention that it was the Westerners who have alowed "Russian Communism to live in Western Academia" and not Russia, some Americans seem to have a hard time differentiating the deceased Soviet Union from the new revived Russian Federation.

There's no Soviet Union.

That would be the same as to say that Canada is part of Britain as a British dominion.

... or to refer to the present United States as the 13 British Colonies...

It makes no sense!

And Laine you seem to fail to account the "Westerners" as responsible. No matter how powerfull the KGB was, the infiltration in our societies was permitted by us. The blame should rest on us and not the KGB or the Russians.

And meanwhile, the problems that affect most of the West in terms of leftist craze are not as hard in the parts of Eastern Europe that were once under Communist rule, "including Russia".

-----------------------------

But honnestly, I don't think that's a topic worth discussion or that there are much to discuss there.

What I wanted to see discussed is what would be optimal to do and what is likely to be done in the light of this recent attacks on the Moscovite populace and the Russian Nation.

My feeling is that most don't grasp the full seriousness of the situation. There are Republics in the Caucasus that are indeed Islamic. There, the Russians have only (potential) military power as they have been pratically erradicated through ethnic cleansing.

Life there in the Caucasus is hell. The Russians have already kick ass there, and the Russians are not little girls when it comes to kick asses.

But those Islamic peoples are worse than the Russians, and they are now used to kick and be kicked. Another intervention there will not result in much.

So, what should be done? And...
What will be done?

The situation in the Northeastern Caucasus is so divorced from Russia proper that the allmighty Russia Today can't go there. I've noticed that all recent reports made by Russia Today concerning the region are made by nearby Tshkinvali in North Ossetia. Sure, it may sound "Caucasian" and "exotic" for the average Russian, but still North Ossetia is the only region of the North Caucasus which is majority Christian and seems to be confined to the European Civilisation.

Here are my questions, maybe some will want to answer, maybe no one will.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Afonso, I still despise Russia for their foreign policy and trying to infringe the sovereignity of other countries and for a lot of other things they did to my country. I doubt that this will ever change, unless they do the impossible. On the other hand, I have no problem with them as a people and whatever.

laine, Russian communism came from the West. Marx and Engles aren't Russian, last time I checked. Also, the Frankfurt school wasn't full of Russians, was it? You have to realize that there's a reason why the KGB was successful and that's because they played you like a guitar - and no offense, the West already wanted all this stuff. It's not like you can force your way on a people and they'll cheer for you.

Russians imported communism from the Western academia, fyi. Also, Russia is a lot less leftist than a lot of European countries - at least on terms of nationalities. And yes, Muslims aren't the problem because we'd crush them if we weren't infected and had no immunity. There are a lot of reasons why we got here and the KGB isn't the reason, it's just a blip. Why can't the KGB brainwash the Chechens into peace like they brainwashed the West, since you think they're so successful?

Christian ethics, classic liberalism, French revolution, social liberalism, Frankfurt school, leftism with MC/PC, feminism are just a progression. There's a reason why it's happening to us and it's not the KGB by far. The KGB just played on feelings that the West already had.

laine said...

How does cautioning not embracing the Russians, giving good reasons for not doing so while saying an alliance with eyes wide open if it's useful to us constitute "hating the Russians"? There's no reason to have a love affair with them either.

This enemy of my enemy thing is a tinderbox and needs a cool realistic head, not an unjustified Russophilia. They are not our saviors but our sappers. They'll be lucky if they can save themselves all the while making as much mischief for the USA as possible to the bitter end. And what's their excuse now with Obama in the White House sending secret mash notes to Putin that Putin disdainfully made public? Obama followed up by sending Hillary as his intermediary with a ribbon-wrapped "reset" button that with the new American INcompetence actually said "overcharged/overloaded". This valentine was followed by caving in to Putin's demands to withdraw plans for a nuclear defense system in American allies Poland and Hungary leaving them hung out to dry followed by yet more cringing noises about decreasing nuclear capability (while turning a blind eye to impending Iranian nuclear capability and Russia's part in that). Despite this one sided cascade of presents from Obama, petulant Putin's contemptuous behavior increases. He's just not that into you, Obama.

Russians like Muslims, like all totalitarianism lovers respect only a strong horse, not a tame obsequious one. Putin the KGB underling came to power through the Russian cult of "the strong man" that still sees approval of mass murderer Stalin whom Putin is rehabilitating including to school children. Imagine German kids being taught that Hitler may have made some "mistakes" but was a strong man promoting the motherland worthy of respect. Well Stalin's "mistakes outnumbered" Hitler's victims tenfold.

Putin burnishes his own strong man credentials by shooting tigers to "save" villagers, sub-marining, riding horseback Cossack style (all carefully staged photo-ops with midriff flab airbrushed out) and smashing Chechens for public consumption while making deals with their nefarious leaders.

Russians are no wiser than Americans in being bamboozled by a mythical leader tailored to their culture's preferences. They have their little "strong man" and Americans have their black hope and changey conciliator. Both are ruthless would be dictators underneath, with Obama probably the more communist of the two re the economy!

Afonso Henriques said...

RV

If you have not much to do and find it thought provoking, I defy you to answer the questions I rose on my previous comment.



And less seriously...
... and one special question for you because I haven't had the audacity to ask the Eastern Europeans I've known:
Are the South Eastern European Gyspies Christians?
It's just a curiosity I have... The ones who've lived among us could almost have their own sect of Christianity because they de facto do, but de jure they never wanted to disturb the powers that be.

Afonso Henriques said...

Laine, I now have to go. But I will return to answer you properly, as you diserve.

I will for now just focus on what I believe to be more important to clear out now, which in the bigger picture is indeed the more superficial. I don't want to make you a Russophile. And my Russophilia is not important here because I believe I didn't show any. And I deliberately tried not to stay very pro Russia in this.

But the question is, are we prepared to embrace Russia as "one of us", as a full member of European Civilisation?
Is Russia one of "us", or "one of the others"?

I thought about it and I came to believe that TODAY the main reasons why Russia is shown as not one of us in Europe is because it is not on the radar to become a member of the European Union.
And in America, the same happens in relation to NATO.

I understand the complicated past, I understand that in relation to America, there is a power contest but... is that really a reason to consider that their place is out of Europe?

I mean, what's the difference between the Russians and the Ukrainians, Belarussians, and even the different Baltics which are 20 to 33% Russian?

The difference is power.

But, as I see it, it is no reason to consider Russia to be Mongolian or something.

And if indeed the reason is power, when Germany, Austria, England, France and Spain were powerfull I believe we all agreed they were still European powers members of the same Civilisation.

So, I am not having a love affair with Russia. I just believe we don't have to exclude them because they are somewhat powerfull. And America under Bush followed a policy of "surrounding" Russia and keep it under control, which ended up ultimately with Saakashvili and the disaster in Georgia.

I don't want to make you fall for Russia! I just want you to give them a chance and realise that the threat of the Soviet Union has disappeard.

Now I'm already late, but I'll return to answer your comment Laine as you deserve, in full.

P.S. - Of course if I were Eastern European, with a 140 million gigant close to my borders, I wouldn't be as much Russophile as I am.

Zenster said...

Good work, laine! Due to work obligations I cannot contribute as I would like to in this thread.

Russia is so much like the USSR's oligarchic kleptocracy that you can barely spit between the difference. It's goals remain largely unchanged and its tactics are almost identical as well.

Russia is a net exporter of terrorism. What about this is unclear?

Russia continues to destabilize the global community and, at the very least, continues to encourage the spread of Marxism through benign neglect.

Someone please name the upside to Russia's meddling in global politics.

EscapeVelocity said...

Found it on Wikipedia

The Russians are using the Ann Coulter formulation. I like it.

Armance said...

The Russians are using the Ann Coulter formulation. I like it.

Ha! Good observation. "We should invade them, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." So, Ann Coulter is the female Putin. And Putin uses the Ann Coulter strategy in dealing with Muslims. Such a pity that Ann was born in the wrong country - she's got stronger cojones than half of the USA. She could have been president. Actually, not, I don't like women presidents and women leaders in general. But if she had been born in Russia, she would have been the perfect wife and inspiration for Vladimir. Nice couple.

Yes, yes. That's the answer: the Ann Coulter strategy.

Afonso Henriques said...

Escape Velocity, ths was on what you found:

"Notable Russian converts to Islam include Vladimir Khodov and ALEXANDER LITVINENKO, a defector from Russian intelligence, who converted on his deathbed."

Hmm...

Now, @ Laine (and Zenster):

Laine, I am all for your "alliance with eyes wide open" in relation to the Russians.
And I deeply believe that any alliance with closed eyes is a deeply idotic one.

The relation between Russia and the United States does not have to be one of confrontation. You can get along with China, you can get alinf with Saudi Arabia, but you can't get along with Russia? Why!?

Because they demand some recognition on their "near abroad"? What are your interests on the Near Abroad of Russia? Why does America support a man like Saakashvili in Georgia??

Why do you need a Missile Shield in Eastern Europe??
Can't you see that you will only destabilise Europe for the supposed safety of some Eastern European peoples who do not have a good History with Russia?
The Missile Shield is not needed, really.

Why do you believe that Russia has any interest in arming Iran, when Iran is right south of Russia and on the other side of the World of the United States... Why!??!?

Stalin was a mass murderer. Sure.
But he was also the mass murderer who saved the Russian homeland from the Nazis and putted the Russian troops to conquer Berlin.
It's natural that they feel attached to that leader of very difficult times.
I don't understand what's the big problem with that.

It seems that some people would prefer the Russians to maintain the Lenine cult...

And Putin...I'm a fan!
It's not that the Russians live well, but they have developed. And are still full of potential.

And why do you same that the goals of Russia are the same goals of the Soviet Union?? Please, explain me.

And how is Russia a net exporter of terrorism? I don't understand that either. Especially a "net exporter" when we have had Beslan, the Theatre incident... and blows on the tube every now and then...

"Russia continues to destabilize the global community and, at the very least, continues to encourage the spread of Marxism through benign neglect."

This is utter nonsense, I remind you we're not talking of the United States.

Why can't you Zenster be balanced on Russia?

EscapeVelocity said...

The problem with Russia, is that they dont want to be a part of the EU. They like Turkey want to dominate the EU as their empire.

France & Germany are the same really, especially France.

The EU is an imperial project, and 3 powers wish to be the Imperialists. France/Germany, Turkey(Islam), and Russia.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Zenster, the biggest exporter of cultural Marxism is the US itself, not Russia and I can say this because I can tell you where we are importing it form.

laine, I never claimed that I find Russia as an ally on everything, I just said I support them related to this. I agree with you that we shouldn't have a love affair with them, it's just that pointless fighting with each other led to the success of Islam in the past too. Also, I have far more respect for Putin than for Obama, even though I dislike both. Basically, Putin outplayed Obama on foreign politics. Also, I don't see why a weak horse should be respected - exactly this is our problem, but yes, I agree about the totalitarian side of Russia, but again, the US isn't 100 times better in this regard considering how it involves itself in the domestic policy of so many countries and I say this as someone who loves what the US once was and a Russia despiser.

Afonso, I missed the questions. If you want an answer for what it should be done, I think I said that. If I was Menvedev, I would send the Russian army into the regions these women were from and plow their towns to dust. Basically, the Russians didn't really do this. They jump around the solution just like the US does in Iraq or Afghanistan. About gypsies, they're Christian, yes. They do have their own customs, like marrying their daughters when they're kids to the highest bidder or to people with which they forge alliances(it's funny, but they even have their little virginity cult too just like the Muslims) - sort of like Muslims. But again Romanains have different customs, even though we are Christian too. For example, we even have some specific food we are supposed to eat on certain holidays and just on those holidays. About Russia, the threat didn't disappear. They're just not strong enough anymore. I also don't see why Russia gives a damn about the missile shield, unless it plans to use bombs against Eastern Europe. Actually, their reaction to it made me realize that we need one. It's not like the US gave us nukes. This whole debacle made me sad that we didn't get a nuke even if it would have been a costly idiocy. But again, provided that the US won't give us a missle shield, I want the US troops out of my country and us to withdraw from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

EV, the EU is the problem. Who dominates it is irrelevant. Also, the biggest imperial power right now is the US itself. The way I see it, the US actually had an active hand in creating the EU and it's backing it up with the army, not Russia nor Turkey. Germany can't dominate the EU, considering it's under US occupation.

Armance, look Yaron Brooks up on wikipedia. That's my foreign policy. :P

EscapeVelocity said...

EV, the EU is the problem. Who dominates it is irrelevant. Also, the biggest imperial power right now is the US itself. The way I see it, the US actually had an active hand in creating the EU and it's backing it up with the army, not Russia nor Turkey. Germany can't dominate the EU, considering it's under US occupation. --- RV

As we can see with Greece, Germany can dominate the EU.

You dont seem to understand the dynamics of US military power. Germany is free and so is South Korea, and Japan, even though large US military contingents are in each country, in service of defense of those countries.

You would much prefer US to Turkish or Russian "military protection," methinks. But you are young, and time to learn.

rebelliousvanilla said...

EV, I didn't say I'd prefer Russian or Turkish military protection, but I doubt Germany needs military protection. Actually, a large part of the emasculation in Europe is due to the protection thing.

If Germany is free, when did the occupation end, considering it started at the end of WW2? What will the US do if a sovereign country that has military troops of the US in it that the US doesn't agree with? I mean, just check Yugoslavia. I didn't say that the US is totally evil by the way. How do you define an imperial power?

EscapeVelocity said...

I agree that the nations of Europe should bolster there own defense and security.

The US signs Status of Forces agreements with lots of countries and pays rents for land used for bases.

The force in Germany and Japan and a 100 other countries are not occupying forces.

Zenster said...

My request still stands:

Someone please name the upside to Russia's meddling in global politics.

Zenster: "Russia continues to destabilize the global community and, at the very least, continues to encourage the spread of Marxism through benign neglect."

Afonso: This is utter nonsense, I remind you we're not talking of the United States.

How is it nonsense that Russia continues to burnish its image by rehabilitating one of the world's worst mass murderers, Josef Stalin? Is this not, at least, a "benign" form of validating Communism?

Shouldn't Russia, that almost perished as a whole beneath the jackboot of Communism, be the first and foremost in discrediting this massive fraud against humanity?

rebelliousvanilla: Zenster, the biggest exporter of cultural Marxism is the US itself, not Russia and I can say this because I can tell you where we are importing it form.

Where have I denied this?

Of far more importance, where did Cultural Marxism originate? Isn't this something of sufficient evil whereby it should be attacked at its source?

Why isn't Russia, fully cognizant of how exceptionally evil that Marxism is, doing anything to stem the spread of this noxious and toxic ideology? Is it because this fits in with Russia's overall plans to continue destabilizing the global heirarchy?

Finally, much as I despise altruism, at present it must serve as some sort of yardstick by which to compare against each other members of the global community.

When has Russia EVER interceded in a major disaster, be it natural or man made, the way that America routinely does, even in the case of our own sworn enemies (e.g., the Bam earthquake in Iran or the tsunami in Aceh)?

Russia, China and Saudi Arabia typically sit by idly and watch America bleed itself white, not just helping other nations in times of need, but also in fighting Islamic terrorism. Furthermore, all of them cheerfully finance or arm terrorists with the explicit intention of triangulating against America and harming the global community's security.

We are not talking about some puny backwater scumbags like the Balkan Muslims. We are talking about the biggest players in international terrorism, like Iran and its proxy terror organizations.

rebelliousvanilla: ... the US isn't 100 times better in this regard considering how it involves itself in the domestic policy of so many countries and I say this as someone who loves what the US once was and a Russia despiser.

I suggest that you more carefully review the role of America in recent world history. For all of its ham fisted efforts and tragic mistakes, its track record is so often in the winning column.

Now, examine closely the record of Soviet Russia and even the Russia of today. Notice how Russia has already begun to blackmail Western Europe over the natural gas supplies it recently started to deliver? Is this, in any large measure, different from the USSR's methodology? Notice my comments in the "Explosion at the Lubyanka Station" thread? Notice my link to "Russia's sponsorship of the Taliban and al-Qayda"?

AFTER THE BESLAN ATROCITY, WHY ON EARTH WOULD RUSSIA BE FINANCING AL QAEDA?

Armance said...

When has Russia EVER interceded in a major disaster, be it natural or man made, the way that America routinely does, even in the case of our own sworn enemies (e.g., the Bam earthquake in Iran or the tsunami in Aceh)?

My sides are splitting with laughter.
But this is the very example of American stupidity: why do you help your sworn enemies in time of natural or man-made disasters?
Yes, Russia didn't help Haitians, Iranians or Indonesians because they place first and foremost ethnic Russians - in Georgia, Dagestan or Chechnya.
And this is the sacred and historical duty of the Russian state: to protect ethnic Russians wherever they are, not natives of Bora-Bora after an earthquake.
Which means the Russians are sane, and the Americans are out of their minds.
Global community is a joke, an abstraction; first of all you should be able to protect American citizens in Detroit and Mexifornia. You fail, miserably.

The tsunami in Aceh? Heck, think locally: the greatest tsunami you ever faced since the fall of Communism was the ObamaCare tsunami in Washington DC. "Defeated" - that's the epitaph. But it's still a consolation for the Americans: you will help the natives, with your hard-earned dollars under a Socialist administration, after the next hurricane in Patagonia.

Afonso Henriques said...

Answering...

RV, "If I was Menvedev, I would send the Russian army into the regions these women were from and plow their towns to dust. Basically, the Russians didn't really do this."

But those regions are already hell. Russia has already done that, twice only in the recent years.
And that attitude in this particular case seems to be "wrong" and non productive. They've already tryed it and they failed. In the Northeastern Caucasus life is no game. If Russia intrevenes militarly down there, Russia will suffer much casualities. Not to mention that this kind of radicalisation in Russia's muslims comes only from the peoples of the Northeastern Caucasus, which is a pretty clear sign to me that this kind of Islamic radicalisation is a product of "Russian opression" (or whatever you want to call it) in the Northeastern Caucasus.

Russia's multiculturalism is a lot different than that of the West.
And I know you are going to say that there's no wrong in the survival game but... Are you going to tell me that it is "ok" to destroy the Chechens in their own Chechnya while maintaining Chechnya does no good to Russia or the Russians?
(I am not omniscient but it seems to me that Russia doesn't gain much withv keeping Chechnya)

"Basically, the Russians didn't really do this."

They did. They tried to do much worse, failed, and just did that. Grozny was pretty much hard stuck as you certainly know. And not only that! They putted the other Chechn bad ass guy as the absolute ruller of Chechnya, to serve the goals of Moscow while applying the violence "in the Chechen way". He's a man who knows deeply about how it all works down there, and he's a violent terrorist.


Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to due with the Northeastern Caucasus and simply cannot serve as a comparison with it in any way I can imagine.

Thanks about the Gypsie related information RV. It pretty much follows what I've seen from the local Gypsies.

"About Russia, the threat didn't disappear. They're just not strong enough anymore."

Or Ukraine is first. But honestly, all relations of power between countries are like that. But nowadays, I don't see any reason for Russia to harm Romania. Well, I've heard of a missile shield thing that Romanians shouldn't support but the future will tell.

The missile shield is a blow on Russia's power. I trust more on Russia than in the United States / NATO and I'm surprised how you, who live more or less in the Balkans, feel such a need for the missile shield.
Specially if one thinks that one little missile shield will not stop the Russian army, nukes, or missiles to do whatever they want.

"Actually, their reaction to it made me realize that we need one."

No, nobody needs it. But I would be pleased to read your thoughts about this here or on your own blog.

And no, I don't want Romania to have nukes.
But when I look at the map of Europe it becomes evident that in the next 20 to 50 years (depending on the weakness of the E.U.) Poland and Romania will want to play as big powers, and who knows... maybe pursue nuclear armament.

My view on Afghanistan and Iraq is a mixture of four different positions interlinked with one another and as such it is a very complex item to be debated here and now.
But I can say in a nutshell that I don't know what America's doing in Iraq and that or you take Afghanistan seriously and move out quickly, or you give Afghanistan to the Talibans and move out quickly. Afghanistan has become a shamefull incident.

Afonso Henriques said...

Zenster,

"that Russia continues (...) rehabilitating (...) Stalin? Is this not (...) a "benign" form of validating Communism?"

No it's not. What is Communism, Zenster?
Is it Communism to defend "the Motherland" from a vicious enemy during "the Great Patriotic War"?

Also, after WWII, under Stalin, the Russians got a more stable life under Communism.
Stalin in Russia is not rehabililtated because of the famine on Ukraine or the purges, or mass murdering or due to "Communism".

He's rehabilitated because during the XX century, the actual best period in Russian History is the one created by Stalin after the second world war. The epoch of 1945 onwards (up to the late 70s) was a much better time to live in Russia than it was during the period 1917-1945. Isn't that easy to see and simple to understand?

And more, after WWII the Soviet Union actually became a super power, somewhat accepted in the West which exherted a strong influence world wide. Yes, mainly due to Communism, but the truth is that the rehabilitation of Stalin in Russia is not derived from "Communism" but the power the Soviet Union enjoyed as that: as a feared power.

Stalin is probabily the most important leader of the Russian XXI century, it's he or Leine. And it seems they're focusing in Stalin rather than Lenine (as the Communists always did) exactly because they want some distance from the Communist experience.

Stalin is liked in Russia more or less in the same way that Roosevelt in the United States. And this is amplyfied because the War in the East Slavic lands was much more dramatic than in the USA.

"Shouldn't Russia (...) be the first (...) in discrediting (Communism)?"

That's exactly the same thinking that has kept Germany on its knees up to today.
But although I am truly tempted to agree with you, I would say that Russia as the successor state of the ~75 years long Soviet state it is the state most likely to look back and see something positive amongst that great misery.
About Communism, we shouldn't forget also that the average Russian peasent gained much in quality of living if we count the material aspect.

"(...) where did Cultural Marxism originate? Isn't this something of sufficient evil whereby it should be attacked at its source?"

If you think of Moscow as the source of Communism, you're wrong.

"Why isn't Russia (...) doing anything to stem the spread of this noxious and toxic ideology?"

Because it is not their business. And, as the sucessor state of the Soviet Union and precieved as a counter balance to America, they have great relations with Chavez or Castro.

Is just me or are you criticising Russia for not being charitable enough?

And you're take at Iran is not the optimal. As I've said, you don't make any effort to see the world from Moscow.
But if you want, I tell you that Iran is not anti-American per se. It is just against any American meddling into islamic business (from Israel to the oil).

And Zenster your link talks of "Communists". As if we're still in the Cold War. Do you really want me to take that seriously?? Also, it was too long. I tryed to read it but it was referring to the Cold War so I gave it up. And considering that it was the United States that made Bin Laden, what's the point on pointing the finger to Communists?

Afonso Henriques said...

"Someone please name the upside to Russia's meddling in global politics."

Stopping the Georgian attack on South Ossetia?
But the fun is that Russia is not meddling much in World politics...

Zenster, let us be honest and focus on the point: Why do you dislike Russia so much?
It seems to me that it is mainly due to:

1) You believe the Cold War is still on.

2) You believe Russia is arming muslims to attack America.

3) It appears to you that Russia tries constantly to undermine the United States for no reason.

Am I right?
Because it would be easier to discuss this seperate points and come to conclusions together based on facts.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Zenster, cultural Marxism didn't start in Russia. I can tell you this for sure because my country was a socialist republic under Moscow's influence and we aren't and weren't cultural Marxist one bit. Cultural Marxism started in the same place as Marxism did - in the West.

If you are American, you should know that you can't build a nation from the ground up since your country tried it over and over again. If Russia denounced cultural Marxism, the West would just demonize Russia, especially since they didn't create it. And I don't consider altruism a yardstick to compare members of the global community by. The altruism that fueled the birth rates in the third world is good? Since this is the type of thing you'd have as yardstick.

The whole idea of global community is the problem, by the way. There is no such thing. Also, if Russia was the superpower, you don't think that the US would arm terrorists in order to triangulate against Russia? I mean, you did it before. And I despise the way Russia does things, but it's not that much different.

And about blackmails, please. Want me to recall to you the blackmail of the US against the UK with the war debt? And being a winner doesn't make it different.

Also, Armance is right. Helping non-ethnics in times of need is stupid. Taxing ethnic people to help non-ethnic people is utterly moronic and this is why we are being replaced in our own lands. Actually, in any sane time this would be classified as treason.

Afonso, you don't understand how wars work. Russia isn't doing what I said. I would do what the Romans did to Carthage. Demolish every single home, school and mosque and then plow the land and poison it so that they can't even plant things on it. And I would make a public statement that this would happen for every terrorist attack that takes place. Also, the people in those towns would lose any aid from the Russian government. Now, this is the message that would be in the back of every one of these people's minds and when they'll hear of people plotting, they'll ratt them out. I didn't advocate that the Russians should kill off the Chechens. This kind of Islamic radicalization is the result of them not being executed or sent to forced labour for this kind of stuff - this is why it was unheard of before 1989.

What was the reason Russia occupied and forced communism on my country from 1945 until 1963 then? It's called sphere of influence and I prefer my country to be independent. And I trust the Americans FAR MORE than the Russians. And why is it a blow to Russia's power if they don't want to expand anyway? You're not making sense. The only reason why I support my country being in NATO is Russia. If I follow your logic, my country doesn't need an army and we should disband it completely since we can't compete anyway. And I want my country to have a nuke just so that if Russia attacks it to erase Moscow off the map. What, now you mind shields and so on? So let me get this straight, if Spain and France were a single country and an imperial one at that, wanting to expand and bully Portugal, you'd advise your country to not get nukes and to not have a ballisic shield?

Also, Stalin was a communist. And you have no idea what communism did to Russia or why Germany is down. Germany is down because of the EU and NATO, not because they renounced an ideology they used for a couple of decades. There's more to a civilization than 20-70 years.

And the #2 and #3 might be truthful and they have a reason and it's called competition.

Afonso Henriques said...

RV,

Proportionate Response!!!
I will not abdicate morality (I don't like the word by the way because morality comes from "mores" mainly meaning "costumes" or "habbits". Julius Evola called "Virtue" to what I want to invoke here through morality).

So, for what I wrote in the parenthesis, I say that I will not abdicate Virtue, which would be a divine derived metaphysical "strenght", hold by those who are objectively good and right.

So, I am no moral relativist. I believe that there is *a superior good*.
I can be stupid and altruistic sometimes for believing in this good. But I think we'll both agree that we need to uphold some vallues, some "Virtue". I abhore those who live and act without vallues or virtue.
And now we're entering in a touchy subject that is my (fascinating - lol) personality, and I don't want to go down that path now.

So, I am not a moral relativist and there is indeed a "Good" to be uphold. The Tragedy is that sometimes the greater good commands us to do less virtuous things.

Thus, in this light:

"What, now you mind shields and so on? So let me get this straight, if Spain and France were a single country and an imperial one at that, wanting to expand and bully Portugal, you'd advise your country to not get nukes and to not have a ballisic shield?"

Where's the need to use Nuclear weapons? If we don't suffer a nuclear attack, there's no need to deliver one.
And, who would go down so low in this world as to attack with nukes a non nuclear power?

People won't go throwing nukes as if they're throwing oranges...

That scenario has happened many times and that's why I am all in favour of a net of alliances: Britain, North America, Brazil...

And if that would happen, I'd be considering what would be the most virtuous thing to do. As of now I can only romanticise with being a warrior in the near by Serra de Sintra... playing the guerilha game.

But if you want a more serious answer, we would need a power to contain France first (U.K. probabily). We would need friends to survive.
Then - and I've thought about it - we would abandon most of the country and fortify to it's luck, hoping some guerilla forces would come up. The Western part would be fortified, it would form an informidable barrier with large rivers and ~1000 meters high mountainous ranges that would protect us from the Meseta. We'd had to hold on here with 7 or 8 million people. We would need one of the most powerfull Navies of the Atlantic, who would be capable to guarantee commerce with the rest of the world, as well as protecting effectivly our coast and beyond. It is virtually impossible to create one Navy more powerfull than the French.
We'd also need a Air Force capable of defending the territory and controling the air about 700 Kms into Spain. I estimate that an air force three fourths that of Spain would be sufficient to ensure air superiority over Spain.
But most of all, we'd have to need the favour of God.

Given this intro, let's discuss:

rebelliousvanilla said...

Afonso, you are just proving why the proportional response thing is maximizing damage. If you have a nuke and are willing to use it, you won't be attacked. That's the whole point - obviously, if my country had a nuke, I'd want it just to deterr, not to start nuking people. And especially since my country isn't a nuclear power, the shield would be handy.

By the way, a government has as main duty the safety of the people who instituted it by any means - it's actually immoral for it to not strike as hard as it can in order to minimize the damage to it's people and in doing so gain the surrender of other enemies. I won't really go into how strategy works, but proportional response always lead to just upping the ante. It's simple game theory, really. If both sides have nukes and they launch, then it's a negative sum game, if they don't, it's positive, which leads to nobody launching. If only a side has nukes, they can bully the other country around.

Another thing, proportional response always escalates wars. If you are willing to be ruthless and take devastating military action against your enemies, you will oust their leaders and supporters and make examples of certain regimes/cities and win the surrender of others. Also, for example, related to terrorism, if you inflict suffering on the complicit civilian populations who enable it, you will have them stop doing it. The whole proportional response and rules of engagement stupidity is the reason why the US is still in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Afonso Henriques said...

RV,

"Afonso, you don't understand how wars work. Russia isn't doing what I said. I would do what the Romans did to Carthage."

"I didn't advocate that the Russians should kill off the Chechens."

RV, aren't you contradicting yourself?
Also, I think you are too into the belief that any armed conflict is a total war for survival.

Where's the Virtue of erradicating the Northeastern Caucasus from the map?
What the hell do you gain with
that?

It simply does not make any sense...

"Now, this is the message that would be in the back of every one of these people's minds and when they'll hear of people plotting, they'll ratt them out."

No, they would believe they're already dead. Would consider it evil, wrong and profounding unjust. The populace at large would stand up to Moscow.

And how would the European and Islamic peoples react?
Who would support you/Russia? Not even I would support it then.

I know you're thinking about an optimal response but that has little to do with reality and I believe you would be overreacting.

"This kind of Islamic radicalization is the result of them not being executed or..."

RV, I believe you know the History of that region. Are you telling me the problem there is not enough "repression"?
Pre-1989: Do we support totalitarism and not respect the rights/culture/you name it of a people in its own homeland?

Ok, you're Romanian so you won't identify with Russia much. That's ok.

However, America is becoming a 3rd World Country fast. And as Serbia showed be prepared to when an Obama named Enrico Azteca sends an army to help the poor Gypsies...

---------------------------------

About the missile shield: I never said your country don't need an army.
What you don't need is an American missile shield. As you don't need nukes.
Girl, why are you wanting to destrou so much? It's the NE Caucasus, it's Moscow! Calm down! Can't you see how wrong would it be to destroy something like Moscow or London? Of course you can.

In a minor scale, that's why I have so many reserves on killing innocents in the Caucasus.

An American missile shield at the doors of Russia is a provocation.
Today in Europe there is a balance. The missile shield will upset that balance.

The missile shield is a blow to Russian power because America gets one advantage over Russia which it didn't have. Let America mind it's own business instead of poking Russia every two weeks.

----------------------------

Of course Stalin was a Communist. Of the worst kind. However, the rehabilitation of Stalin in Russia is not due to his Communism. Otherwise "Gulag Archipelago" wouldn't be mandatory reading for Russian children, for instance.

And even I can look to the importance of Stalin. Come on! He was the one who conquered Berlin from Hitler!
And, Germany is down because they are demonised due to their Nazi past.
It's not because they denounced a given ideology but because they look back and feel like they have "guilty DNA". It's exactly because they can't have any pride on their past that they are so down.
If you doubt just ask a German: Was your grandfather a Nazi or something? Or something of the like, so, how many Jews did you kill today? They have no humor. It's such a big taboo.

And I want evidence for numbers 2 and three.

Afonso Henriques said...

"If you have a nuke and are willing to use it, you won't be attacked."

This is too short-sighted. Sooner or later you will be attacked. And it is highly unlikely that a nuclear power (save France or Pakistan or North Korea) would use its nukes. Specially so against a non nuclear power.

But if you have a nuke and are attacked, you'll feel some pressure to use it.
That's why I believe nukes should only be in the hands of great powers.
And no, I'm a bit prejudiced and think countries like Romania shouldn't go nuclear.
In Europe, I believe that only the U.K. and Russia, and maybe Germany can have nukes.
And I consider France's nuclear arsenal a grave threath, surpassing that of Pakistan.

Why do you want the shield? Do you really believe it will protect you from an eventual Russian attack?
I think it's only a Nationalistic move of yours that can harm Europe as a whole. It seems that it will just create the false illusion that America will be closer to you and you also want it in order to give a jingoistic stare at the Russians while you say: In your face! And you don't get us this time.

The first to nuke another one will not be seen with good eyes. No one approves nukes. Russia "bullies" Georgia with its size like America "bullies" Latin America with its superiority in various regards.

That game theory made sense during the USA vs USSR confrontation during the Cold War. Now things are different. REALLY.

I agree with your last paragraph theoretically. But pratically, it depends on the situation.
Every war has a goal. Actually two: A political one and a militar one.

Afghanistan and Iraq are cases that are not comparable.

Natalie said...

Quite an interesting discussion going on here. Regular readers will be familiar with my love of Russia--I'd venture to say that I may be the most Russophilic person on this thread.

It's such a shame that the bombings happened--I feel terrible for the people injured and killed. The one consolation I have is that Russia will, without a doubt, eliminate those responsible. That's what they did to those responsible for the Nevsky Express bombings.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Afonso, there's a difference in between killing off all Chechens and razing two towns. It's just about of a few hundred magnitudes greater, I don't get how you can find them the same and contradicting. And by inflicting damage on the people who support these people you not only discourage them, but make them rat the terrorists out. I'm sure that you'd turn me in if the government would demolish your building and leave you with nothing if you didn't.

Also, Europe wouldn't have to support me. If they'd have a problem with it, they wouldn't get natural gas anymore. In case you didn't figure it out, the European countries are Russia's... I can't say what because the Baron will get pissed off at me. :) What I'm saying is that a response like this from Moscow would discourage these people, just like for example, the US turning Falujah into dust would have made the insurgents stop their crap and I can tell you this from the history of the region since this is what the villages who were harboring anti-communist sympathizers were getting and they gave up when this started. You overestimate people. You first act tough and destroy their villages than after a while you give them amnesty for their past deeds and act merciful when a new government gets instated and they'll love being part of it then. This happened so many times in history that it's not even funny.

By the way, putting words in my mouth is really annoying. If I was the Romanian president, I wouldn't declare war on Russia and nuke Moscow. But if they declared war on my country and occupied it, I would nuke Moscow. And as a Romanian citizen, I think I'm the one having legitimacy in saying what my sovereign country needs, not Putin. If Russia wasn't a threat to my country, I could care the less about the American missile shield. Their reaction to it is a provocation since it's an involvement in the domestic affairs and defense of sovereign countries. Maybe they should return the treasury and act in good will and we won't care about defending ourselves from them.

I didn't say that Stalin is rehabilitated due to his communism. I'm saying that a war criminal, genocidal idiot like him shouldn't be rehabilitated. First of all, if I was Russian I'd feel humiliated that someone who treated my people with contempt and didn't care about it is considered a hero. And don't worry, the Russians have a lot of heroes cooler than Stalin.

rebelliousvanilla said...

About Germany they're down because they're occupied and the purpose of NATO and the EU is just that, to keep it down. In case you didn't figure it out, this Nazi cult was and is enforced from the outside. I'm actually thinking if it would have been better if the Nazis won the war for me or not. I mean, I have relatives who got persecuted by both sides and both sides hurt my country, but in a way, I think I prefer the Axis because the communists were even worse. Oh, and Germans in general have no humour, I don't get why you try that on them. :P

Stalin didn't conquer anything - I guess you failed the part of history where he destroyed the Russian generals and then was horrible at commanding the army and had to get proper leadership back.

Rocha said...

RV,

Germany is down because they got their country destroyed, their men defeated and their women raped. This generally causes anger but there is a nonstop propaganda of germans from 1939 to now. Inglorious Basterds is just a recent example. Germany was planned to be destroyed by the Morgenthau plan, it was not destroyed because much later the red threat began to form. This left the germans a traumatised people dare i say even more than the jews.

Rocha said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Afonso Henriques said...

RV, we differ in some regards:

"if they declared war on my country and occupied it, I would nuke Moscow."

Without any military objective, and only the political objective of retaliate purely to cause terror, it would still pretty much be terrorism on your part.
And also, why would you do that (if not for vengance / spread of terror)?
The Russians would still occupy you, and my guess is that they would despise you and treat you much harshly after you had destroyed 20 million people and "Moscow" - which is glorious city.

So, that would be more bad than good and wouldn't serve as a real option. Also, they could nuke you in retaliation...

So I stand: People will not use their nukes and that's exactly why I am against some instable or not mature countries as great powers like Pakistan or France (yeah and also Spain, Poland and Romania) to get nukes.

A nuclear power will not deliver its nuclear arsenal against a non nuclear power. That would probabily be terrorism also.

It's the current status quo and it is here to stay. No one wants to see nuclear weapons blowing up. And who ever uses them against the weak would certainly be flagged out as a real threat.

It's like an adult men violently punching a 5 years old in the nose.

" And as a Romanian citizen, I think I'm the one having legitimacy in saying what my sovereign country needs, not Putin."

Of course RV! But let's not exagerate and go the Saakashvili way too.

"reaction to it is a provocation since it's an involvement in the domestic affairs and defense of sovereign countries."

No, I believe it is a "proportionate response" (lol) to the conspiracy of near by states and a super power to mess up the current balance of power in Europe.
More, they/you don't even have the guts to say "Yeah Russia, in your face!", you claim it is for deterrent against "a rouge State like Iran".

But anyway, besides Russia's reaction to the idea of the missile shield, why do you actually need it?

And about the reaction of the Russians against the Northeastern Caucasus:
Yes, there is a certain difference. But still the policy of razing towns to dust is still a policy that targets civillians not as collateral damage but as a part of the main mission.

And everyone here has ignored one of my question: What does Russia gain with maintaining the Northeast Caucasus?

Rocha said...

Afonso

What Portugal gained keeping Angola?

Resources, Power, Buffer agsinst encroaching and the certainity that no other nation will fill that space.

What USSR gained with South Caucasus, Turkestan and Iranistan?

Much more of these.

What Brazil gains with Amazonia?

What Algeria gain the Sahara?

What U.S.A. gains with the West?

What Russia gains with Siberia and the Northen Caucasus?

rebelliousvanilla said...

Afonso, terrorism is a legitimate war strategy. And the whole point of having a nuke is to act as a deterrant, not to nuke Moscow(basically, what means is that the Russians would have this in the back of their heads - if they attack, Moscow is gone). You really don't follow what I'm saying at all. As long as Russia will just take care of itself and mind its business, nothing would happen. And my country never invaded and occupied a foreign country in it's whole history - I don't see what would be the problem with having a nuke. Actually, I support the Czechs and Poles getting some of them too.

By the way, terrorism isn't some word who doesn't have a meaning. It's taking military action against non-military things in order to spread panic - the Allies used it in WW2, why don't you call them terrorists? So the US is a nation of terrorists since they nuked Japan who was a non nuclear power? Funny enough, the only instance in history whe nukes were used is the case that you say that it wouldn't happen. I guess you don't know much game theory.

To be honest, I really don't get how you're thinking at all. It's like you want Russia to be an imperial power and control the region and I don't. You border irrationality. At least most Eastern Europeans agree with me and since we are in NATO... I guess NATO does have some uses. And the balance of Europe isn't based on a country being strong and a lot weak - actually that's like saying that if we get on each side of a scales, it would be a balance, even though you probably weigh considerably more than my 115lbs. Actually, getting nukes and a missile shield is a proportionate response to having Russia near you and their response just shows their imperial intentions. Also, the Americans keep saying that it's against rogue states, we want it for the Russians. There's no point in saying it publicly, just like the Russians don't admit publicly they infringe the sovereignity of other countries.

And in war, there's no such thing as civilians. Look, as long as you will cling to your moral superiority complex, you won't win. The terrorists are playing you perfectly. A complicit civilian population ceases to be civilian when they support an act of war. Terrorism is a war strategy so they de facto declared war on Russia.

Afonso Henriques said...

RV,

I follow what you say. Yes I do. But although I'm open to your arguments, they still don't sufice for me to agree with you over terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

"the Allies used it in WW2, why don't you call them terrorists?"

Because I don't want to. It was closer to a total war. However I will recognise that the bombing of Dresden, among other actions, was indeed terrorist.

I will not call them terrorists as I won't call the Nazis terrorists either because both of them used terrorism only sporadically and didn't stood for terrorism as a principle.
But I am sometimes inclined to classify as terrorist Stalin's advance across Eastern Europe.

"So the US is a nation of terrorists since they nuked Japan who was a non nuclear power?"

No, because it actually ended the war quickly and saved many from their death.
Also, it was a novelty, it had to be tested... Now we have the full knowledge of what it is.

"Funny enough, the only instance in history whe nukes were used is the case that you say that it wouldn't happen. I guess you don't know much game theory."

My reasoning... my very own little game theory had already comtemplated and accepted this initial exception in order to formulate the rule. The truth is that there has been confrontations between nuclear and non nuclear powers and never did a nuclear power nuked a non nuclear power ever since.

So, your game theory fails to explain why Afghanistan was not nuked twice by Russia and the United States. Or why Belgrade was bombed instead of nuked. And how come Tiblissi was not nuked two years ago. Or Argentina because of the Falklands...

So, it seems that my "game theory" triumphs over yours RV.

"I really don't get how you're thinking at all. It's like you want Russia to be an imperial power and control the region and I don't."

Yes... (Belarus... Eastearn and Southern Ukraine... the Baltics, who knows?)

"You border irrationality."

No...

And the way you write evidenciates that hunger for power of some Eastern European States (mainly Romania and Poland) that will be exacerbated in the near future.
That's way more dangerous than Russia.

"as long as you will cling to your moral superiority complex, you won't win."

I strongly disagree...

(I can win with my complex and I defy you to show how I can be beaten due to my little complex - assuming it's a complex)

And now I will try to manipulate you but I will not hold Chechen children guilty by the actions of one terrorist who's hidden deep in the mountains. Doing it would be wrong.

Afonso Henriques said...

Rocha, you're comparisons are not good:

Portugal gained much resources, and in the 60s there were more Portuguese people in Angola, both as a percentage and as total numbers then are Russians today in the Caucasian Republics of Ingushetia, Chechnya and Daguestan.

What the U.S.A. gained with the West and Russia with Siberia is an integral part of their entity.

About Brazil, you know very well that I am all for the partition of Brazil into "Brazilian States/Republics", otherwise the Civilised South and Southeast will soon disapear.

Algeria dominates the Sahara and gains virtually all of its oil from the desert.

But, what does Russia gains with the Northeastern Caucasus?
Power? They don't actually rule the region which is cyclicly taken with revolts and uprisings.
Resources? Yes, a window for the Caspian and a little oil but... do the Russians really need it? They could give them independence and still controling the Caspian and the oil reserves there.
Buffer against encroachment? They have a radicalised muslim fifth collumnn growing there.

Not to mention that to have a hated population genetically and culturally different from you is no good. And it shrinkens the power of European Russia with Asiatic elements.

Really, from a Nationalist prespective the only problem of conceeding independence is the eventual radicalisation of other peoples... including perhaps the ethnic Russians in the Far East... who knows.

But it sure seems as if it could possibly be better to Russia.

Rocha said...

Afonso,

They are few russians there because of ethnic cleansing in the Yeltsin years, Russia do need to repopulate these areas.

You miss the point Afonso, the west and Siberia were not integral parts of Russian untill the late XIX century some parts even in the middle XX century. Same thing with the U.S.A. or Brazil.

About the division all you would get is bullyng from this division. weaker countries would suffer in the hands of countries like China and India or do you want the west to invade these countries to dismantle them before? Utopias are sometimes dangerous Afonso.

As for the division of Brazil, the U.S.A. and Russia i do agree in a very limited scope, it would be interesting if we had autonomous areas, really countries inside these real empires. But our problem is not integration it's demograpic.
Brazil was 66% white in 1940, now it's around 50% and in 30 years it will be 30%. Why? Because our f*ck$ng women do not reproduce thenselves! Recent numbers speak of less than 0.9 children for white women. Not that the mestizos are really fecund these days but they are still at 2.4 kids. With enought population you could do wonders. Brazil was 70% black in the XIX century Afonso. In 1940 the blacks were 15%! Now they are 5%! I will tell you again Black, Mulatto, Quadroon (most of the 40%+ mestiços are Quadroons now), Octoroon, Near White, White. I have seen this happen in many families, dirt colored grandmother with white grandchildren (Blue or green eyed with fair or olvive skin). So it works if we have whites entering the country and white residents are reproducing thenselves.

Russia gains a buffer. It could really do some measures to improve security. I have alread told you that i would like to see people inside these areas with no permits to go outside. And tell me do you want to Russia to recede to where? Grozny? Kranodar? Astrakhan?

Also you did not answered me. Russia was the protector of Christians for centuries, what you suggest it to do with the georgians and armenians? leave them to die?

Afonso Henriques said...

Russia is not able to populate those regions. Russia don't need those regions. And Russia should not allow itself to be submerged by Caucasians.

But those regions became important for those three European powers out of Europe, mainly Russia and Brazil. And it was so because there were immigrants willing to settle and the demographical energy of those willing to settle it.

Utopias are always dangerous. As it is an empire you can't maintain.

For the Brazil and all that and its divisions:
The problem is not merely demographics. If you don't recognise that the peoples of Southern Brazil have rights as a people then sooner or later the South will be invaded.

In the XIX century in South America, only whites were citizens, or almost. Today even Peruvians who come to Buenos Aires are considered Argentine.
Your problems are the same of the rest of the West/European Civilisation.
The difference is that you have a tendency to allow equal rights to a formidable crowd of Third Worlders and mixed race people.

And again, your assimilationst policy is very dangerous for obvious reasons.
Yes, I can imagine some regions being recolonised like Mato Grosso, or even the South if you allow the entry to Europeans in an equivalent number of that of the non whites, that would make the European population and culture stronger, more dynamic and put the number of non whites in some 10 to 15% of the population, the great majority already mixed. But you would have 1) To stop non white iminvasion and 2) To find millions of Europeans willing to settle there.

But take the still majority white Southeast. What would you do? There are some 50 million non whites there who will continue to be there. And there some 50 million more up in the Northeast ready to go South. There's no way you can recolonise this region.

Californians can at least claim that Hispanics belong South of the Rio Grande...

I would like Russia to comprise only the regions it can influence, and ultimately colonise.
And Georgians and Armenians will not die because there's a new State hundreds of Kilometers away to the Northeast.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Afonso, his comparisons are great actually. It's just that you don't like them. Just like you don't WANT to call the Allies terrorists, even though they used terrorism in WW2...

By the way, I laughed at the hunger for power. I said border irrationality, now you crossed that border. How the flying kitten is not wanting to be bullied around hunger for power? It's not like I'd demand tribute to Russia or something. It's something very real sadly - independence and sovereignity come only from behind standing armies and maybe you don't get it because you live in the West, but my country was in pretty much constant war since a century before the fall of Constantinople until the late 19th century, been through the world wars and got butchered apart in the second(funny enough, we had to get in the war due to your precious Russia) and so on. I merely want to be free, it's just that you don't get that. Anyway, I really got bored of this since you seem to not get it.

Rocha said...

I'm tired of it, So i will not continue discuss.

But in relation to Brazil you do not know the country. The southwest is already "invaded" we are just waiting for the demographics change as whites dies with no replacement.
And don't be folly the south is already changing for the same reasons. Not that we are alone. I doubt Portugal will be in better shape than the south in 30 years.

Rocha said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Afonso Henriques said...

People, instead of imagining things, just try to read what I write.

Rocha, the demographical situation in Europe is a lot better than in the Southeast. The invasion is almost just felt in the cities and they are seen as de facto foreigners, no matter how many ID cards they have or how many one is for One Humanity, Multiculturalism and Immigration.
Even those most to the left notice that there are "majority white indigenous populations" and "diversity".

RV, I am not going irrational here nor am I discarding "reality" because I just want to.

I explicitly said in my previous comment that I cannot consider the Allies or the Axis as Terrorists BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THEY SPORADICALLY USED TERRORIST TACTICS, THEY DIDN'T STAND FOR TERRORISM AS A PRINCIPLE, nor did they pursued terrorist activities to obtain their goals as a rule.

I opened an exception for the Soviet expansion up 'till Berlin, because I've heard some pretty bad stuff. But even in that case, I don't know enough to claim it was terrorism.

I think that playing with semantics is not the way, and by the way, I got your opinion and I think you all gor mine (to some extent) but the problem here is the lack of openess to explore why does Russia have to encopass that region of the Caucasus.
Not to mention that you forget morality / virtue / rectitude / justice just because you're dealing with Chechens/Muslims. I think that is a little beyond the pale for me although I am all for strong measures.

Like, I understand the plight of the Palestinians I understand the plight of the Chechens - or at least I believe so. It doesn't make me anti Israel or anti-Christian in the Caucasus. Some people here seem to have a hard time when I try to put myself in the place of the other, as if I were to be or stand for the other just for trying to comprehend their cause.

I recently discovered the National Anthem of the United States and girl, let me tell you, it is a nice poem:

"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: In God is our trust."

I don't think that following this lines of the American National Anthem would do us much harm: That we should only advance when our cause is indeed just, or that we should see things or consider things in the Vertical way, and not merely the Horizontal way metaphysically speaking.

Why don't you people want to "trust in God"? Or why don't you want to consider if your cause is just?

(And by God I mean verticality and right vs wrong, not Allah or something)

"It's not like I'd demand tribute to Russia"

Yes, not Russia. But Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary... who knows?
And the same is valid to Poland.
So, didn't your game theory consisted in the reasoning that those who have an advantageous should use it? Where's it now?

And of course I do understand that "independence and sovereignity" is dependent on armies.
That's why I don't like one bit the supremacy of the Spanish Navy in the Atlantic comparing to that of my country.
And how did I threatened or commented negatively upon the freedom of Romania?

Zenster said...

A quick note amongst this trainwreck of a thread:

Armance: My sides are splitting with laughter.
But this is the very example of American stupidity: why do you help your sworn enemies in time of natural or man-made disasters?


Armance, would you care to reveal your nation of origin or current country of residence?

I would bet a tidy sum that it has been the recipient of assistance from America. Let's see if you have the courage to respond.

Zenster said...

Afonso Henriques: I explicitly said in my previous comment that I cannot consider the Allies or the Axis as Terrorists BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THEY SPORADICALLY USED TERRORIST TACTICS, THEY DIDN'T STAND FOR TERRORISM AS A PRINCIPLE, nor did they pursue terrorist activities to obtain their goals as a rule.

Afonso, thank you very much for making this key distinction (although I would argue about the Axis forces and their use of terrorism). It goes to the very heart of my own arguments about Russia. The Soviets, from which modern-day Russia differs very little, were largely responsible for ginning up Islamic terrorism. Read these two articles if you have any doubts:

The Communist Roots of Palestinian Terror

Roots of Islamic Terrorism: How Communists Helped Fundamentalists

Russia continues along this identical path by assisting the Iranian nuclear weapons program plus arming terrorist sponsors and groups. They shrug off the Beslan atrocity along with airliner, train and subway bombings as a cost of doing business with the enemies of America and the West. Need I remind anyone that Russia enjoys membership with an observer's seat in the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conferences)?

Of equal importance is just how little Russia is doing to denounce its Communist past. It is on a par with Japan's inability to fully recognize the atrocities of its Imperialist aspirations and the equivalent of Germany denying its own Nazi heritage, which it most certainly does not.

As laine noted:

Only a fool embraces his poisoner.

The abject failure of government based on Communist doctrine has yet to be deconstructed by its principal progenitor. This, even as Russia continues to poison the well of global stability, just as it poisons its own people by allowing an elite oligarchy such preference and economic predominance as to destroy opprotunity so thoroughly that many Russians are driven to alcoholism.

I believe it was laine that posted some truly damning links to the hidden skeletons in Russia's closet with respect to alcoholism and FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). I invite him (or whomever contributed them), to post these important links once again.

Again, Afonso, you have made a most vital distinction about Allied motives and those of the West in general with regard to terrorism. The same cannot, in any way, be said for Russia and that is where there will be Hell to pay.

Baron Bodissey said...

Zenster --

Armance is Romanian. As are Rebelliousvanilla, costin, and linbetwin. I think we also have one other Romanian regular, but right now I forget who.

One of the pleasant surprises of running this blog is the presence of all these well-educated intelligent Romanians, who bring a perspective to current events that I would not otherwise get.

Rocha said...

Afonso,

The south is still 80% white. But the demographics are changing. Not because of an invasion (like happened here (southwest) in the 60's and 70's) but because people do not have kids. I'm tired of seen farmer sons and daughters with one kid, sometimes two (rarer and rarer)that's it.

Now Portugal have already 4% of immigrants (legal ones) imagine the illegal number. Like i wrote in 30 years you will see dramatic change.
I expect the number to rise to 20%, 25%. Again some of it because indigenous women do not reproduce thenselves.While immigrant do.

I hope i'm wrong.

As for the chechens have you heard the word absorption? Are caucasians so different from russians?

Receding is dangerous, absorption is not. It's like when Portugal force convert indians (from india, you english should get something like we have, indio is an amerindian, indiano is a native of India) the first generation was false but their kids were true catholics.

Zenster said...

Baron Bodissey: Armance is Romanian.

Thank you, Baron. Now, let's see what we have here: (From The Heritage Foundation June 1988)

Since 1962, Romania has received $342 million in loans from U.S. agencies 1.8 billion from the World Bank 23 million in assistance from the United Nations Development Program, and $28 million in loan guarantees from the.Export-Import Bank Yugoslavia. Though this communist nation has maintained a course independent of the Soviet Union, it has done little to warrant treatment as a close friend of the United States. [emphasis added]

That's somewhere between $10.00 and $20.00 for every single Romanian man, woman and child, just from America. Even counting its peak population in 1988 (curiously enough), and excluding all further aid given during the intervening 20 years. This does not factor in contributions by the USA to the World Bank's $1.8 BILLION in aid.

So, Armance, was helping Communist ravaged Romania "the very example of American stupidity"? Even as we "fail, miserably" to "protect American citizens in Detroit and Mexifornia"?

Methinks that without America's "stupidity" of assisting your nation, it might be in far worse condition than it already is. Still, we endure your subatomic gratitude just like we do with so many Muslims.

Please be sure to remind me of how ill-thought-out America's foreign aid policy is whenever your country is in another time of need.

Sean O'Brian said...

Armance only characterised as "stupidity" America's financial aid to its sworn enemies. America and Romania are not sworn enemies or enemies of any description.

If the question is merely one of gratitude then unfree Kuwait, which hires expensive PR companies and cultivates a careful image of indebtedness fro past help, surely makes for the best kind of small ally.

Afonso Henriques said...

Zenster,
we keep disagreeing over Russia. I have identified mainly four points over which we strongly disagree about Russia. You seem to concur that:

1) Russia is just the Soviet Union with another name.

2) The root of Islamic revival and its terrorism was the Soviet Union.

3) The Russians are arming Iran (and possibly other Islamic Terrorist groups).

4) Russia's internal muslim problem, among which the various islamist attacks they have suffered is a consequence of Russia's external policy dealing with muslim terrorists in Iran and in other places. Russia deals with them because they are the enemies of America, and "of the West".

And I will adress them one by one because I've seen for all your previous intreventions that you base your worldview on reality. So, Zenster, I figure that you live in a Russophobic environment and thus the information you get is somewhat distorted.

But Zenster, before that let me just analyse your comment and say just a few words:

We ought not to stigmatisise the Russians or the Japanese in account for their less than perfect past, as it has being done to the Germans, and trough extension, to all those of European descent.
I am deeply against such stigmatisations.
But yes, we should "clear" history.
Yes, excluding Ceausesco no Communist suffered for the Communist practices, and it is loathsome.

But let's forget it. After all, our current "cultural paradigm" doesn't allow that. How can we demand to Russia to punish its Communists when we are empowering our ones?

I find the Japanese attitude way more healthy than that of the Germans (or mr. Brown and the Australian P.M. who have recently apologised for everything imaginable), and I hope the Russians follow their path *while* denouncing Communism and clearing History.
That said, Russia faces many and severe problems and there's no way of denying it.

Afonso Henriques said...

Now, the points of disagreement:

1) Russia has little to resemble the Soviet Union. It is not Marxist in the Economical, Political, or Cultural way. So, how do you claim that both States are somewhat the same? The goals of Russia are not the same as those of the Soviet Union, and Russia, in my view, has not adopted an expansionist policy, nor a specifically anti Western or anti European one.
It simply stands for itself and wants to continue to do that.

2) Yes, the Soviet Union was linked to Islamic uprisings during the Cold War. But that was at the light of Cold War strategy and the United States did the same to such an extent. We could just start with Egypt over the Suez crisis and end up with Afghanistan and Bin Laden or the support for Indonesia to take over Christian Timor. Or into today with Saudi Arabia and that.
The only difference is that the Soviet Union supported the Arabic States in response to Western Support of Israel.
It's all true. But it's all past and it was done in the light of Cold War strategy. And the United States also did the same.
What is worrying is that the United States continues to tactically support Islamic Terrorism more than Russia, and we all know it and find it despicable. But so does the European Union.
So, in this regard, it seems pretty obvious that Russia is the good guy - or at least the lesser evil - when compared to the E.U. or the United States.

3) It is doubtfull that Iran can strike the United States or most of Europe. It is beyond doubt that Iran can strike Russia. As it is beyond doubt that Russia has to deal with Islam - the whole muslim world - while the United States is in a very privilleged position in regard to the Islamic Word.
Therfore it should make no sense to argue that Russia - who's capable of striking the U.S. by the way - is arming Iran in order for Iran to attack the United States or "the West".

It's like claiming the Massai are training Lions to attack New York!!

4) Russia's problem with islam does not exist because they use muslims to undermine "Western" influence/interests.
The same can't be said of what happened in Kosovo, whereby the U.S. behaved in that manner just to break the Russian ally, Serbia.
Also, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, expansion towards Central Asia... it seems that it is the U.S. which is using muslims to poke Russia.

Russia has problems of immigrants, mainly Central Asians and Caucasian muslims but also from the "Russian Empire" into "the land of the Rus". But curiously enough, the only violent islamic insurrection and consequent islamist attacks and terrorism that Russia has suffered recently comes from the Northeastern Caucasus, which belongs to Russia.

It is in no way a consequence of their external policy like the bombings in Madrid were of Spanish foreign policy, but it may be a consequence of their internal policy, which is what I wanted people to think about in here.

5) Russia is not a muslim state. It is an observer of the OIC because it has a plus 10% muslim population which is "native" to some Russian conquered lands.
Also, by being an observer, Russia can over see what's happening there, which is exactly the goal of being an observer of it: To be on pair of what they're planning.
Other States with problems with muslims, like India or the Philipines are also or are wanting to be observers of the OIC.

Zenster, consider my words. I'm open for further discussion.

Zenster said...

This deceased equine has been flagellated quite enough already, but I'll give it one last shot.

Afonso Henriques: You seem to concur that:

1) Russia is just the Soviet Union with another name.


They are not identical but still very similar. For instance, back in the USSR, there was barely a pretense of free and fair elections. Now, there is a pretense of free and fair elections which are so rigged that it still remains a farce. Russia remains a vast kleptocracy, just without all the besprocketed uniforms.

2) The root of Islamic revival and its terrorism was the Soviet Union.

No. Islam's revival can be traced back to Saiid Qut'b and his retinue of fundamentalists. Petro-dollars enabled the dissemination of his views but it was the KGB that instructed Islamic fundamentalists in terror operations and how to game Western psychology.

If you read the two articles that I linked to, this would already be apparent.

3) The Russians are arming Iran (and possibly other Islamic Terrorist groups).

Clearly so, even now, after the object lesson of Beslan.

4) Russia's internal muslim problem, among which the various islamist attacks they have suffered is a consequence of Russia's external policy dealing with muslim terrorists in Iran and in other places.

This is open to debate. Muslims cause strife wherever they go. Soviet brutality only escalates the situation in ways that more conciliatory Western tactics do not.

Russia deals with them because they are the enemies of America, and "of the West".

That and the hard currency or oil supply. But, yes, Russia uses Islam as a proxy aggressor to bleed the West financially with its low intensity warfare and extended front. The slight upside is that we get a chance to refine our weapons and tactics while Russia remains in the stone age.

Zenster said...

So, Zenster, I figure that you live in a Russophobic environment and thus the information you get is somewhat distorted.

Wrong. I live in Silicon Valley which ranks among the most liberal of all regions in America. One of the only mitigating factors is how much high technology that has been looted from this area's companies by the Soviets and Russians.

We ought not to stigmatisise the Russians or the Japanese in account for their less than perfect past, as it has being done to the Germans, and through extension, to all those of European descent.

You are lumping together all sorts of very different issues. Germany, and to a lesser extent Japan, accepted their military defeat. No such decisive win occurred in the Cold War nor was there any subsequent form of Nuremburg trials to identify and punish the Communist apparatus that had committed so many crimes against humanity.

I am deeply against such stigmatisations.

Tough, history tends to dish them out on a pretty routine basis and for a lot of good reasons.

But yes, we should "clear" history.
Yes, excluding Ceausescu no Communist suffered for the Communist practices, and it is loathsome.


Then you contradict yourself. Such "stigmatizations" are all part of the process of "clearing" past history and serve to impose moral censure upon cultures that have earned it.

Liberalism's unwillingness and inability to adjudge such moral crimes has allowed Islam to sidestep such censure and the resulting mayhem is plain to see.

Like Mussolini, Ceausescu also served as an object lesson in tyranny and for all the right reasons. The only unfair part was that Ceausescu did not die slowly enough. Read about the Romanian AIDS "orphanages" and tell me if you disagree.

But let's forget it. After all, our current "cultural paradigm" doesn't allow that. How can we demand to Russia to punish its Communists when we are empowering our ones?

Clearly, you do not comprehend the importance of Russia repudiating the Cultural Marxism that it worked so hard to infect the West with. Were it not for the KGB's efforts, the current empowering of Western Communists would not be happening in such a significant manner.

I find the Japanese attitude way more healthy than that of the Germans (or mr. Brown and the Australian P.M. who have recently apologised for everything imaginable), and I hope the Russians follow their path *while* denouncing Communism and clearing History.

The "Japanese attitude" is not healthy. It is one of the more dramatic and historical cases of denial and has made them pariahs all through East Asia. By comparison Germany has done much better, if a little too well at trying to make amends.

That said, Russia faces many and severe problems and there's no way of denying it.

All the while, Russia's imperial aspirations are fletching up a whole new quiver of nasty covert arrows that will find their targets, not in Moscow, but in the West.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

So, Armance, was helping Communist ravaged Romania "the very example of American stupidity"?

The billions you speak about are from between the years 1962 and 1988, so it was handed to Caeusescu. So America and the World Bank didn't help Communist ravaged Romania with this money, they helped Communism with it. So unless you are in favour of Communism, you should agree with Armance that this was stupidity.

That's somewhere between $10.00 and $20.00 for every single Romanian man, woman and child, just from America.

You seem to live under the same miscomprehension as e.g. Bono, that if millions and billions are handed into the pocket of some banana republic dictator, that it will then somehow. magically, become equally distributed across the population.

Bono thinks that debt relief for banana republic dictators will save the world from poverty etc. The banana republic dictators however (unlike Bono and some others) read this rationally, and see it as a free ticket to spend as much as they want according to their arbitrary, and mostly tyrannical, decisions (since they need not pay for it in the end anyway). I fail to see how you differ from Bono in our way of glorifying the wasting of good money (well it's worse than wasting since such money effectively supports tyranny).

The article you linked is, unlike you, critical of this spending (notice: critical of how the Reagan administration spent stupidly in this way). Handing money to enemies and dictators on a platter does not score any goodness points, none whatsoever, only a dunce cap. Even in spite Bono and his likes believe that they achieve a halo for it (but it is really a dunce cap).

You'll find that the many Romanian commenters here do not speak from a position of chauvinism, but from a position of logic (you should try yourself to let go of chauvinism). E.g. they can speak rationally about Russia, in spite of the highly emotional historical grudge between Romania and Russia (and then take in account that the grudge between them goes deeper than the one between the US and Russia, which is ideological).

Still, we endure your subatomic gratitude just like we do with so many Muslims.

As long as you send your good money to Muslims, who are your enemies, or Romanians, who see through the stupidity of this American wasting of money, you will keep on having to endure quite a lot. But after all you are Protestents, so I guess that you somewhere enjoy the suffering and humiliation, and that you strive for it; it's somehow your ideal.

Please be sure to remind me of how ill-thought-out America's foreign aid policy is whenever your country is in another time of need.

Next time you will also send the money to Ceausescu or corresponding? Any sane people in the world would say no to your perverted "help". Quite as we say no to how you are systematically helping Muslims, helping instituting sharia law across the world, how you bomb white people to save the Muslims etc.

George Soros also fed a lot of money into Eastern Europe. Your logic seems to be that one should kneel to anyone that feeds a lot of money into ones country, coupled with a destructive agenda -- a destructive agenda that is probably founded on a fantasy of ones goodness and self-righteousness and based on ideas as crazy as multiculturalism.

Thanks, but no thanks!

Zenster said...

Conservative Swede: You seem to live under the same miscomprehension as e.g. Bono, that if millions and billions are handed into the pocket of some banana republic dictator, that it will then somehow. magically, become equally distributed across the population.

No. If you have ever bothered to read my own comments here with any degree of comprehension you would know already that I advocate other goverments, like America's, KILLING despots like Ceausescu, Mugabe, Ahmadinejad and their kind.

Perish the thought that you might incorporate such well published and long established information into your argument but you just can't seem to be able to bring yourself to do it whenever you respond to my comments, which is why my response to yours ends here.

Afonso Henriques said...

Zenster,

Let me defy you to reflect and rethink your ways towards Russia un a less emotional way.

"For instance, back in the USSR, there was barely a pretense of free and fair elections. Now, there is a pretense of free and fair elections which are so rigged that it still remains a farce. Russia remains a vast kleptocracy, just without all the besprocketed uniforms."

I would agree if you'd say that Russia is way more corrupt than my country which is usually considered way more corrupt than yours.
But, in that which you described, I can't hardly find any distintion between Russia and our countries, Zenster.
I know that America has Obama now, but he's an exception and his popularity will vane soon.
On the contrary, Russians do like Putin, and his party would genuinely win almost every National election held in Russia. Putin has credentials. And I know even Eastern Europeans who although mistrusting Russia and Putin somewhat admire the men and recognise that he's substantially improved the stance of Russia.

"Soviet brutality only escalates the situation in ways that more conciliatory Western tactics do not."

Although having various muslim Nationalities in itself and muslims from the Middle East and Central Asia in its midst, the problems Russia has with Islam seem to be contained to that particular region in the Northeastern Caucasus.

On the contrary, in the West, I am confronted with a group of young "Austrian" muslims who went to pray in the main Cathedral of the Southern Spanish City of Córdoba. This during the "Holy Week" and despite the local Spaniards had said no to the youths' intention. The police was called to take the muslims out of the Cathedral.

"Germany, and to a lesser extent Japan, accepted their military defeat. No such decisive win occurred in the Cold War nor was there any subsequent form of Nuremburg trials to identify and punish the Communist apparatus that had committed so many crimes against humanity."

One thing is the lack of punishment directed to the Lenines of Stalines of the Communist era. It is loathsome.
Another thing is wanting to downgrade Russians as we've downgraded Germans.
Germany and Japan lost the war. And their "evils" were exorcised from them by alien powers.
The Soviet Union just collapsed. Its peoples denied Communism. There was no exorcism needed. And there's no need to punish a people from something they have repelled by themselves. It's simply not fair.

And I continue to be against the stigmatisation of peoples. What happened after WWII was better than Versailles, but I still prefer the Congress of Vienna, you see?

One thing is to punish the men responsible for given crimes;
Another very different is to insigate a guilt and an inferiority complex into an entire people, which has been done to the Germans and more recently to White Americans and Serbians.

"you do not comprehend the importance of Russia repudiating the Cultural Marxism that it worked so hard to infect the West with."

Hate the game, don't hate the player!
I can't dislike Russians for having created a really effective Inelligence agency.
What I can do is despise those amongst "our" midst that were traitors and helped the KGB.

"It is one of the more dramatic and historical cases of denial and has made them pariahs all through East Asia."

We've a saying: "Better to be alone than with bad companies". Japan can opt for that and respect, or being stepped all the way through.
Wasn't Machievel who said something like it's better to be disliked and respected than being liked and hold with contempt?

That being said, have a Good Easter Sunday you all.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

So you advocate the killing of Ceausescu. But in the absence of such killing you obviously fully support America's sending money to him instead. And moreover, you are extremely proud of it. This is highly ironic, to say the least, wouldn't you say?

So in every factual respect you agree with Armance about the American stupidity, up until it's actually stated. And then you are completely unable to from your lips into a confirmation of this fact. Instead you make a mental switch (from your other stated position) and become a great defender of this stupidity.

Your whole rhetorical figure vis-a-vis the Romanians goes like: We sent you so much money (i.e. to Ceausescu) that each of you owe my country some $20, and therefore you must let me win the argument, regardless of facts and logic.

And yes, the belief that the sending of money to Ceausescu will make this money become equally distributed among the Romanians takes a Bono style level of delusion.

This is an age old pattern. Americans like to sound tough when speaking, such as talking about killing a foreign tyrant. But they always end up being soft when acting (unless it is against Europeans). Which normally means that they send money to the dictator they first declared ought to be killed, or acting otherwise in a counter-productive and useless way.

A recent example is the killing of Saddam Hussein. What did it lead to? Well, a US supported Sharia constitution and an exodus of the Christians of the country. Way to go America! And of course, before they killed Saddam, they sent him loads of money. We should be grateful for that, right?

Already Woodrow Wilson's man in London, Walter Page, said about the Mexico situation in 1913: "Yes. The United States will be here for two hundred years and it can continue to shoot men for that little space till they learn to vote and to rule themselves."

The idea is that American killing will "liberate" a people of another country. In the lack of killing, Americans will believe that their money will have this sort of "liberating" effect. So whether they will kill a tyrant or send him loads of money is really a toss up. And in either way they expect this people to be immensely grateful for it.

PS. When I say "Americans" above, I'm making a generalization. I just refer to the majority, the mainstream and the strong nationalists. There are millions of wise Americans who have seen through this sorry charade. But there's a clear pattern here, as seen from the output of the US foreign policy.

rebelliousvanilla said...

ConSwede, obviously that we have reasons to dislike the Russia, but I have no beef with them when it doesn't hurt my country and I could care the less in the grand scheme of things how they do their domestic policy.

Zenster, I'd like to officially thank you and all of you good hearted Americans who funded the state security in my country which led to some family members of mine being assassinated(I still don't know where they are buried and I will probably never find out), some imprisoned for their political beliefs and then sent to crappy hazardous work that jeopardized their health and for still funding the same state security who starved my parents and family during the 1980s. I don't even know how to thank you for this marvelous opportunity of having my family dehumanized in this way. I'd like to extend my formal thanks to all the Americans who made this possible with the money they gave to Ceaucescu. I don't even know how you can claim moral superiority on this with a straight face. You funded and hence kept in power a genocidal regime. Then after 1990, you just back stabbed us at every step you took.

Also, another thing, my country is one of the few who actually paid off their external debts for which other countries were pardoned.

Conservative Swede said...

Reb.Van,

Also for Sweden, Russia is the age old enemy. It's been so for almost a thousand years. But unlike us, on top of that, your country was invaded by Russian tanks (funded by American money btw) and your women raped by Russian soldiers.

Nonetheless Romanians like you and many others, who have awakened, can reason in a cool and logical way about Russia. It's all about being able to put oneself in someone else's shoes (a corollary of the golden rule). To being able to understand what limitless expansion of NATO, like a knife onto the throat, means to Russia. Such as an marine base in Sevastopol, missile defense in Poland and Czechoslovakia (as Mr. "Cold War" McCain still calls it), Soros funded coloured "revolutions" in Georgia and Ukraine, etc. etc.

Ukraine is of course half Russian. It's the works of Lenin the creation of its current unnatural borders. But the people caught up in Stalinist trash-talk are of course blind to such realities. And no it's not only Glenn Beck who loves to call the "evil" ones "fascists". Most of the so-called "awakened" Westerners love to nail their opponents with this Stalinist trash-talk, such as e.g. Jonah Goldberg with his book "Liberal fascism".

Americans, however, even if "awakened", are unfortunately much less likely to being able to put themselves in the shoes of the Russians. I attribute this to hubris (it's part of the current paradigm, with the US as the beacon of freedom, yada-yada). Actually, in many cases, the more nationalistic an "awakened" American becomes, the more aggressively anti-Russian he will become, and the more constitutionally unable to look at Russia in a cool and reasoned way.

And of course there are so many Swedes and Romanians who are mesmerized by the shining "Western dream". These are the ones being gung ho about the European Union. And they come in two types: i) either as Obama, uselessly leftist and "pacifistic", or ii) as McCain, aggressively anti-Russian and mindlessly pro-American. Both are just as useless as the people being obsessed by the idea that the Jews are the cause of all problems on our planet. I.e. people with an obsessive fixation on a minor detail, and stone deaf to arguments about the bigger picture, are by the end of the day of no use.

So yes, Romanians, and even Swedes, are more able to be cool and reasonable on this issue. We need to go back to the civilized world of before WWI: it's balanced view where the neighbour country is indeed an enemy and properly feared, but at the same time treated with respect and humanity. And get away from the 20th century hell-hole of ideologized Wilson-Stalin-Hitler-Roosevelt style war, where the enemy is described as Satan himself, and with the aim of total destruction and humiliation of the enemy.

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: … terrorism is a legitimate war strategy.

No it isn't. Terrorism is contrary to the established rules of war and is an asymmetrical strategy intended to sway public opinion by way of physical violence used as a form of extortion or coercion. It has little or nothing to do with military war.

By the way, terrorism isn't some word [which] doesn't have a meaning. It's taking military action against non-military things in order to spread panic - the Allies used it in WW2, why don't you call them terrorists?

That is because the Allies were responding-in-kind to clearly terrorist acts committed by the Axis powers and did not initiate the entire sequence of hostile events that caused WWII. Also, since that time, Western powers have largely abandoned such methods.

And in war, there's no such thing as civilians.

The “Palestinian” terrorists use that rationale to commit their terrorism against Israeli schoolchildren. By that same standard, the West is clearly entitled to begin a campaign of unrelenting war against all Muslim civilian populations wherever they may be located.

A complicit civilian population ceases to be civilian when they support an act of war. Terrorism is a war strategy so they de facto declared war on Russia.

Here emerges an actual Root Cause in this matter. A terrorist attack can qualify as an “act of war”. The 9-11 atrocity certainly met all criteria in that respect. However, the primary definition of “war” is:

(1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations

The key issue here is “states or nations”. Islam intentionally conducts its campaign of terrorism as a non-state actor. Supposedly, this enables it to escape any obligations regarding the internationally accepted conventions regarding warfare. It is that same international acceptance which establishes such military practices as “legitimate”, and the rules involved are purposefully designed so that:

They specifically protect people who are not taking part in the hostilities (civilians, health workers and aid workers) and those who are no longer participating in the hostilities, such as wounded, sick and shipwrecked soldiers and prisoners of war.

Terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism, routinely breaches these fundamental definitions and renders itself more of a crime against humanity than anything else. Let us be clear that Islam’s doctrine intrinsically absolves itself from any need to comply with these typically adhered to military conventions but that in no way exempts those who commit terrorist acts−or the nations which harbor and sponsor such activities−from being held responsible for these acts.

This is even more so in the case of a civilian population which is directly “complicit” in the promotion of terrorism. For that reason, the “Palestinians” rank as being among some of the most culpable of all with respect to have knowingly elected by popular vote an active terrorist regime.

Again, terrorism is not a legitimate war strategy

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: I'd like to officially thank you and all of you good hearted Americans who funded the state security in my country which led to some family members of mine being assassinated(I still don't know where they are buried and I will probably never find out), some imprisoned for their political beliefs and then sent to crappy hazardous work that jeopardized their health and for still funding the same state security who starved my parents and family during the 1980s.

Please make sure to apportion blame where blame is properly due. Caeusescu was not put in power by America. Look to the Soviet Union for responsibility regarding that particular bit of handiwork. There is also an issue surrounding cultures that produce individuals like Caeusescu but we can leave that for another time.

Zenster said...

Also, despite repeated requests, no one has yet to heed my request:

Someone please name the upside to Russia's meddling in global politics.