what happened to the großrossiya thread

[Bereta_Eder]

oh man, that's hilarious

talking about a pararel universe

Isn't Russia's ally harboring an international terrorist group?

Of course not, it's its mortal enemy, one you promoted (with well known devastating consequnces to that country

Isn't Assad's failure to use one of the middle east's largest militaries to actively suppress them a sign of support?

It's a testament of your support and your FUBAR in Iraq.

Isn't Russia helping clear the way for them by bombing non-ISIS forces that want to help destroy them.

Oh man, assad IS russia's ally. Assad (a secular leader) is the exact antithesis and cannot co-exist with islamic extremists.

That's kids' knowledge.

It seems that Russia is supporting terrorist every where they can.

Change it to US and you have a winner.

Now to a serious answer: ISIS is a threat to the world and an enemy of the United States actively involved in plotting acts of terror against the US.

then guard your ports better, if your pet got out of leach

[Bereta_Eder]

The only proof that any of them ever trotted out was the money. Again I ask then why wasn't there a revolution 8 years back when we started giving them money.

The "There is plenty of proof that you actively sought a regime change there." is crap. Even though it was common knowledge that we preferred one is not proof that we caused it.

Look somewhere else, or show some real proof.

I know you need to believe that since it's your justification for destroying a country that you're claiming you're trying to save.

There is ample proof.

If you mean to say wether without US support if there was going to be a regime change, then I don't know :shrugs:

Who does?

However the key to russia's reaction does not rest (in the tiniest) wether your involvment faciliated the regime change (to the exact same regime) or not.

AND ukraine's current fate has nothing to do wether your support actually led to a regime change or not.

[rah]

There is ample proof.

Yet to see.

If you mean to say wether without US support if there was going to be a regime change, then I don't know :shrugs:

Who does?

I'll give you that one.

However the key to russia's reaction does not rest (in the tiniest) wether your involvment faciliated the regime change (to the exact same regime) or not.

Others at this site have used it extensively as a justification for what Russian has done.

[Bereta_Eder]

Others at this site have used it extensively as a justification for what Russian has done.

It's just the tip of the iceberg and an accumulation of other things.
Also a concrete denial for realistic compromises because they go against inerests.

[Bereta_Eder]

About the proof, do you really look at the US treasury budget and determine what has been given and what has been done?

Even german companies have a 2% unaccounted and "black" fund (to pay bribes)
jeez

(not that it isn't the 8th country with the most opaque taxing system, but I'm playing along the masturbatory fantasies of the forum)

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Most recent discussion discussed the destruction of Ukraine, not Syria.

HE had to change the subject since they have no proof for that one.

Uh oh... we are in Ukraine thread, and it's late (again)... I agree that there is no evidence in public about the US arming Ukraine, it was enough to help encourage the right-wing minority to overthrow democratically elected government for the whole thing to go boom.

[Sava]

Putin probably ordered that plane blown up.

[Dinner]

It was a bomb in the cargo hold.

[Bereta_Eder]

So oerdino, it wasn't a fault in the machine then.
Wrong again.

Btw charlie hebdo and its subtle taste...

http://www.protothema.gr/world/article/524905/salos-me-skitsa-tou-charlie-hebdo-pou-satirizoun-ti-sudrivi-tou-rosikou-airbus/

I guess those that survived in the magazine were left with undiagnozed concussions

[giblets]

LOL wasn't it a French plane? Airbus isn't Russian

[Bereta_Eder]

I don't understand that magazine. They provoke just to provoke and know no limits.
It's actually laughable AT them. (or rather, pitiful)

(airbus is a european plane, many countries participate)

[Thoth]

I laughed at the "Russian Air force intensifies bombardment" cartoon.


But I'm pretty high.

[The Mad Monk]

I found this comment interesting (courtesy of Google Translate):

Chris 07/11/2015 00:39

You do not understand something basic. If you support freedom of expression to him who despise not advocate for anyone. Even you who to curse, you have every right to do. I'm not saying it's easy. Also it is another to advocate freedom of expression and another to support the other's views. There is no doubt that no one agrees with these cartoons. Voltaire said, I disagree with what you say but will support in any way the right to say it. The Chomsky said something even more powerful, that even one who abhor should support it. If you put limits on freedom of speech, then it no longer exists. Thought you lived in the Middle Ages, will insulted Galileo would say that the earth turns around the sun; most likely you wanted to kill him because he said something. Thus the art progresses. The reason is always offensive to someone. Make a suggestion and think if you offend someone. There will always be someone who will be affected. They seem strange, perhaps, but so it is. Obviously I condemn and abhor those writes charlie hebdo, but should have the right to write them. You did you take from that the conclusion that I like these cartoons;

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=el&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.protothema.gr%2Fworld%2Farticle%2F524905%2Fsalos-me-skitsa-tou-charlie-hebdo-pou-satirizoun-ti-sudrivi-tou-rosikou-airbus%2F&edit-text=&act=url

I would add the thoughts of John Stuart Mill, but it is late and I am tired.

[Proteus_MST]

Sounds like Chris lacks the knowledge that already Voltaire said that people should defend the freedom of speech,
especially in defense of people who have another opinion that themselves

[Bereta_Eder]

that's what he said I think.
BTW I heard that voltaire's famous quote is being misinterpreted but it's too early to look in to it.