what happened to the großrossiya thread

[BeBMan]

trustno1 fight the future resist or serve

season 9 sucked

[Dauphin]

I don't trust Putin. However, I do not trust our Western governments either.

There is a possibility, to my mind, that our dearly beloved western governments may be telling porkies for whatever reason.

I do not have complete confidence in this "investigation".

Whether to believe or not is irrelevant, most people don't even know or care what their position is.

If it wasn't for Ellestar pulling out the video just to disprove it, I wouldn't even know about the video, and even now I don't actually care and only watched the few seconds he called out.

[Serb]

Once and forever - идите на хуй, долбоебы западные!
Долбоебизм - это диагноз.

[Ellestar]

So, USA:
1) Asked for a ceasefire agreement in Syria. Russia agreed to it.

2) USA helped ISIS by bombing Syrian government forces during a ceasefire.

3) USA failed to persuade their "moderate opposition" to stop figthing, "moderate opposition" continued to fight together with Al-Nusra.

4) USA blamed Russia for bombing of an empty humanitarian aid convoy. While it's obvious how (2) benefits USA (they're still trying to overthrow Assad, so working with ISIS is understandable), it's not obvious how bombing an empty humanitarian aid convoy can possilby help Russia. Screenshots with a magical bomb craters of a magical bombs that can't damage or burn paper were also included in the "proof".

5) USA continued to whine about Syria and Russia freeing Aleppo. Apparently, fighting Al-Nusra, a branch of Al-Quaeda, is no longer a good thing. After all, 9/11 was many years ago, and now USA has bigger problems like Assad, so for USA it's totally fine to protect the ones who done 9/11. Then again, absolute majorty of terrorists who did 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, and USA continues to be Saudi Arabia ally, so there is nothing new here.

6) And USA, without even starting honoring their part of the ceasefire deal (see 2 and 3), said that USA terminates ceasefire deal. Blaming Russia in a process, of course. Epic fail.

Did i miss something?

[Egbert]

Whether to believe or not is irrelevant, most people don't even know or care what their position is.

If it wasn't for Ellestar pulling out the video just to disprove it, I wouldn't even know about the video, and even now I don't actually care and only watched the few seconds he called out.

True.

I have no "position" on "who did it".

[Ellestar]

Yes ... how convenient that the sun was on the right side to cause glare on the windshield as the car was passing by on the left. The West obviously moved the sun to cause that glare and thus obscure their video editing!

West obviously painted Buks where it's convenient to explain why Buks are always in 120p resolution while the rest of the video is at least in 360p, and modern devices make video in at least 720p quality.

And Russia obviously moved Buk in a tour all over Donetsk and Luhansk oblast, through both major cities completely open on a trailer so to shoot down civilian airliner and return back to Russia next day? Yeah, that's exactly the story Western morons will believe. After all, they're stupid enough to do just that, so they see no reason to question such fairy tales.

[Aeson]

You aren't giving me the impression of "not stupid" with your arguments, central to which is the absurd grouping of many divergent groups and ideologies into one monolithic "the West".

[Ellestar]

You aren't giving me the impression of "not stupid" with your arguments, central to which is the absurd grouping of many divergent groups and ideologies into one monolithic "the West".

Show me non-monolithic western mainstream media that has a different opinion about MH17.

[Aeson]

Almost all the news I've seen on it has been from Apolyton ... the rest has been basic reporting of facts or statements. I don't tend to read opinion pieces. You seem to think "the West" is a monolithic block and that western media consists entirely of opinion pieces trying to indoctrinate mindless westerners. You're obviously wrong, regardless of what the real facts end up being in this case.

[Ellestar]

Almost all the news I've seen on it has been from Apolyton ... the rest has been basic reporting of facts or statements. I don't tend to read opinion pieces. You seem to think "the West" is a monolithic block and that western media consists entirely of opinion pieces trying to indoctrinate mindless westerners. You're obviously wrong, regardless of what the real facts end up being in this case.

Correction: i have no idea about your internal politics, so maybe that's where your "free press" really works as a free press. But when it comes to any matters in any way involving Russia, your western press, owned by western capitalists clearly and undisputely shows that it isn't free, it's indeed owned by capitalists with a centuries-long anti-Russian sentiments. And in that case your press works as a single anti-Russian brainwashing block.

So, you see your part of the western press, where it may act fair (but i don't know your internal things so i have no way to judge and see it), and i see my part of your western press, where it is always anti-Russian no matter what, and facts and truth be damned. You see, it's not just biased, it's intentionally anti-Russian no matter what.

As a result of it, you think hey, we have a normal free western press, everything is fine with it. And, i see, what a bunch of spinners of liars is there in that "free" western press that is owned by anti-Russian capitalists.

[Ellestar]

And by the way, i also see obvious signs that this brainwashing is successful. Just look at MH17 article in english wikipedia, for example.

It cites Bellingcat of all things as a "reliable source". And it doesn't even mention most of what alledged manufacturer of a missile, Almaz-Antey, says. How some obviously rampantly anti-Russian source that appeared, like 2 days before the crash of MH17, can be more reliable source than a manufacturer?
What about rt.com? Again, it's "unreliable" source, while western media is "reliable". Given that all mainstream western media is anti-Russian, english wikipedia automatically becomes anti-Russian because it presents "facts" from only one side.

So, all that brainwashing definitely works. Actually, it works so well that it's now written in people's encyclopedia as "facts".

[Aeson]

No, it's not always anti-Russian. And no, it's not always in agreement over Russia. (Or anything.)

Check stories about Mitt Romney calling Russia our "number one political foe", and all the heat he got from the media for that. We elected Obama, who was defending his Russian reset at that point ... not Romney who was presenting a "cold war mentality" as commonly referred to at the time.

Russia isn't really even an issue this time around. Unless it turned out Trump or Hillary shot down MH17, it's unlikely to get much coverage.

[Aeson]

Also, treating Wikipedia as if each and every article on it is accepted as gospel by all in the West is ridiculous. People use wikipedia to support their arguments if it agrees with them, and then point out that anyone can edit Wikipedia if it disagrees with them.

[Ellestar]

You can't edit some articles in wikipedia. You'll get banned if you'll try it on MH17 article, for example. It's rigorously protected to stay anti-Russian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully.

[Aeson]

Completely meaningless in how readers will view the article.