http://www.sott.net/article/300004-Lavrov-Putin-proposes-real-anti-ISIS-coalition-of-Syrian-Iraqi-Kurdish-troops (http://www.sott.net/article/300004-Lavrov-Putin-proposes-real-anti-ISIS-coalition-of-Syrian-Iraqi-Kurdish-troops)
Russian officials are right, double standarts that our government praise don't work anymore. After the US defeating of Saddam terrorists gained power in Iraq, after the casting down of Gaddafi terrorists raised their flags above Northern Africa.
I guess soon ISIS would be eliminated by Russian forces and their allies. And finally we'd say goodbye to Middle Eastern mess-up.
Dream on. Russia fought the crazies in Afghanistan for 10 years and lost.
Quote from: Blacky on August 13, 2015, 10:33:38 AM
http://www.sott.net/article/300004-Lavrov-Putin-proposes-real-anti-ISIS-coalition-of-Syrian-Iraqi-Kurdish-troops (http://www.sott.net/article/300004-Lavrov-Putin-proposes-real-anti-ISIS-coalition-of-Syrian-Iraqi-Kurdish-troops)
Russian officials are right, double standarts that our government praise don't work anymore. After the US defeating of Saddam terrorists gained power in Iraq, after the casting down of Gaddafi terrorists raised their flags above Northern Africa.
I guess soon ISIS would be eliminated by Russian forces and their allies. And finally we'd say goodbye to Middle Eastern mess-up.
You don't get out much do you. :lol:
Quote from: Dori on August 13, 2015, 10:43:30 AM
Dream on.
We'll wait and see.
Quote from: Dori on August 13, 2015, 10:43:30 AMRussia fought the crazies in Afghanistan for 10 years and lost.
It was the USSR.
Israel is in the process of coalition building, even talking with some American politicians who will comprise the post Obama era. I would not rule out Soviet participation. There is a lot of money and power riding on this, and the US Congress is apparently weary of it all.
Quote from: Blacky on August 14, 2015, 03:49:39 AM
We'll wait and see.It was the USSR.
:lol: And you think Mr. KGB Putin is any different?
Wow Blacky, get your head out of the sand and learn a little history. Putin is still mad about what happened to the old USSR and hates us for it.
OPEN YOUR EYES
Quote from: Dori on August 14, 2015, 08:17:57 AM
:lol: And you think Mr. KGB Putin is any different?
Wow Blacky, get your head out of the sand and learn a little history. Putin is still mad about what happened to the old USSR and hates us for it.
OPEN YOUR EYES
This must be some of that new history their rewriting, that he is talking about. The new USSR 101.
I am beginning to wonder about Putin. If he is as smart as we think he is he knows the US is not a threat as long as he behaves. His real enemy is radical Islam and his own people if he totally allows the economy to collapse. Could he becoming paranoid about "putting the band back together"?
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 14, 2015, 02:34:41 PM
I am beginning to wonder about Putin. If he is as smart as we think he is he knows the US is not a threat as long as he behaves. His real enemy is radical Islam and his own people if he totally allows the economy to collapse. Could he becoming paranoid about "putting the band back together"?
Putin's not afraid of us. Especially with wimp-o in office. He loves pulling Obama's chain every chance he gets, and makes him look like a fool. Gen. Odierno just retired. On the news this morning he said our biggest threat is Russia, as have many other generals.
As to Russia being enemies with Islamists, Russia is in bed and allied with them. Who's supplying Iran with all their nuclear material and building their sites? Who just signed contracts for military weapons and aircraft?
Go back in history. The Islamists supported Russia during the cold war. Russia was behind the 6 day war with Israel. How many Islamic Generals and military leaders were trained in Russia?
al-Zawahiri, the mastermind of 9/11, was trained by the former KGB Russian service.
We are still in a cold war with Russia through proxies and the Islamists are part of that.
Quote from: Dori on August 13, 2015, 10:43:30 AM
Dream on. Russia fought the crazies in Afghanistan for 10 years and lost.
I don't think so... Soviet army left Afghanistan in good order, leaving well established afgani government. It lasted for 3 years. Compare it with situation in Irak. And to add - USSR did have in Afghanistan opposition of USA and the rest of the West an East. USA didn't have such an opposition in Irak. But results even worse.
Quote from: kalash on August 15, 2015, 01:30:28 AM
I don't think so... Soviet army left Afghanistan in good order, leaving well established afgani government. It lasted for 3 years. Compare it with situation in Irak. And to add - USSR did have in Afghanistan opposition of USA and the rest of the West an East. USA didn't have such an opposition in Irak. But results even worse.
It contributed to the downfall of the USSR. It was called the "Bear Trap".
Iraq could have been a success had we stayed until they got their government worked out. Thanks to Obama for pulling our troops out, it's become the home to ISIS and Iran controlling Baghdad.
Here is an interesting article.
What is Russia REALLY doing in Syria?
Peter Mellows — September 16, 2015
Retired Russian military analyst 'The Saker' runs the excellent 'Vineyard of the Saker' blog. He is fiercely pro-Russian and pro-Syrian, but from the very beginning of the story about Russia being supposedly about to go to war on ISIS, he has urged caution and said that President Putin will not do so, because the Russian people don't want to go back to the foreign policy 'adventures' of the old USSR. Here is his latest 'take' on the whole affair:
https://www.knightstemplarinternational.com/what-is-russia-really-doing-in-syria/ (https://www.knightstemplarinternational.com/what-is-russia-really-doing-in-syria/)
Quote from: milos on September 16, 2015, 11:59:08 PM
Here is an interesting article.
What is Russia REALLY doing in Syria?
Peter Mellows — September 16, 2015
Retired Russian military analyst 'The Saker' runs the excellent 'Vineyard of the Saker' blog. He is fiercely pro-Russian and pro-Syrian, but from the very beginning of the story about Russia being supposedly about to go to war on ISIS, he has urged caution and said that President Putin will not do so, because the Russian people don't want to go back to the foreign policy 'adventures' of the old USSR. Here is his latest 'take' on the whole affair:
https://www.knightstemplarinternational.com/what-is-russia-really-doing-in-syria/ (https://www.knightstemplarinternational.com/what-is-russia-really-doing-in-syria/)
Unlike Obama, Putin understands radical Islam and the need to defeat it. He has figured out it is OK to prop up a dictator if that dictator has no interest in exporting his terror. We in the USA need to accept that these people are not interested in democracy and freedom. Ee have created many of our own problems by trying to "help" these people.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/5-russian-weapons-war-isis-should-fear-13920
Quote from: supsalemgr on September 17, 2015, 04:54:13 AM
Unlike Obama, Putin understands radical Islam and the need to defeat it. He has figured out it is OK to prop up a dictator if that dictator has no interest in exporting his terror. We in the USA need to accept that these people are not interested in democracy and freedom. Ee have created many of our own problems by trying to "help" these people.
The thing is that everyone looks at others from their own perspective. There are different kinds of peoples in this world with different needs. Some want to have personal freedom, some want to have dictatorship. It is a matter of tradition, of culture, of religion, of genetics, etc. And they shouldn't impose their own perspective on others.
Quote from: milos on September 25, 2015, 02:05:21 AM
The thing is that everyone looks at others from their own perspective. There are different kinds of peoples in this world with different needs. Some want to have personal freedom, some want to have dictatorship. It is a matter of tradition, of culture, of religion, of genetics, etc. And they shouldn't impose their own perspective on others.
One of our faults as Americans, and George Bush proved it n Iraq, is that we believe everyone wants our freedoms and lifestyles. We are slow to learn.
I see Obama is going to meet with Putin about Syria and Ukraine. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that. Putin will make him look like the fool he is - again.
Posted a thread that exposed PKK as the socialists they are, received some flak for it, can't access the thread now, think it's locked or something.
But now there are indications that PKK is a Russian puppet and that Russia want's to form a buffer state or "march" as it was called in the good old days with Kurdistan, Iran and Syria.
So in other words the state department wants to help Russia achieve it's foreign policy goals by helping the Kurds...
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5btt_news%5d=44404&tx_ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=786&no_cache=1#.VgVZaU_sm70 (http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5btt_news%5d=44404&tx_ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=786&no_cache=1#.VgVZaU_sm70)
Quote from: Mountainshield on September 25, 2015, 07:26:28 AM
Posted a thread that exposed PKK as the socialists they are, received some flak for it, can't access the thread now, think it's locked or something.
But now there are indications that PKK is a Russian puppet and that Russia want's to form a buffer state or "march" as it was called in the good old days with Kurdistan, Iran and Syria.
So in other words the state department wants to help Russia achieve it's foreign policy goals by helping the Kurds...
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5btt_news%5d=44404&tx_ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=786&no_cache=1#.VgVZaU_sm70 (http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5btt_news%5d=44404&tx_ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=786&no_cache=1#.VgVZaU_sm70)
Post the link so I can see why it won't open, I doubt it was locked.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/russias-false-hopes-russia-china-and-iran-are-the-three-countries-which-can-constrain-washingtons-unilateral-action/5477952
".... Russia's foreign minister Lavrov seems to believe that now with the failure of Washington's policy of war and destruction in the Middle East, Washington and Russia can work together to contain the ISIS jihadists in Iraq and Syria.
This is a pipe dream. Russia and Washington cannot work together in Syria and Iraq, because the two governments have conflicting goals. Russia wants peace, respect for international law, and the containment of radical jihadists elements. Washington wants war, no legal constraints, and is funding radical jihadist elements in the interest of Middle East instability and overthrow of Assad in Syria. Even if Washington desired the same goals as Russia, for Washington to work with Russia would undermine the picture of Russia as a threat and enemy.
Russia, China, and Iran are the three countries that can constrain Washington's unilateral action. Consequently, the three countries are in danger of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. If these countries are so naive as to believe that they can now work with Washington, given the failure of Washington's 14-year old policy of coercion and violence in the Middle East, by rescuing Washington from the quagmire it created that gave rise to the Islamic State, they are deluded sitting ducks for a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
Washington created the Islamic State. Washington used these jihadists to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent them to overthrow Assad in Syria..."
Quote from: kalash on September 25, 2015, 12:20:45 PM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/russias-false-hopes-russia-china-and-iran-are-the-three-countries-which-can-constrain-washingtons-unilateral-action/5477952
".... Russia's foreign minister Lavrov seems to believe that now with the failure of Washington's policy of war and destruction in the Middle East, Washington and Russia can work together to contain the ISIS jihadists in Iraq and Syria.
This is a pipe dream. Russia and Washington cannot work together in Syria and Iraq, because the two governments have conflicting goals. Russia wants peace, respect for international law, and the containment of radical jihadists elements. Washington wants war, no legal constraints, and is funding radical jihadist elements in the interest of Middle East instability and overthrow of Assad in Syria. Even if Washington desired the same goals as Russia, for Washington to work with Russia would undermine the picture of Russia as a threat and enemy.
Russia, China, and Iran are the three countries that can constrain Washington's unilateral action. Consequently, the three countries are in danger of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. If these countries are so naive as to believe that they can now work with Washington, given the failure of Washington's 14-year old policy of coercion and violence in the Middle East, by rescuing Washington from the quagmire it created that gave rise to the Islamic State, they are deluded sitting ducks for a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
Washington created the Islamic State. Washington used these jihadists to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent them to overthrow Assad in Syria..."
I bet you swallowed that piece of Urinalistic shit whole, didn't you?
One other point, the current administration in the WH has no interest in M/E peace, rather the Marxists prefer Piece, as in total chaos to help radicals achieve their goals of destroying Western culture.
Quote from: kalash on September 25, 2015, 12:20:45 PM
".... Russia's foreign minister Lavrov seems to believe that now with the failure of Washington's policy of war and destruction in the Middle East, Washington and Russia can work together to contain the ISIS jihadists in Iraq and Syria.
This is a pipe dream. Russia and Washington cannot work together in Syria and Iraq, because the two governments have conflicting goals. Russia wants peace, respect for international law, and the containment of radical jihadists elements. Washington wants war, no legal constraints, and is funding radical jihadist elements in the interest of Middle East instability and overthrow of Assad in Syria. Even if Washington desired the same goals as Russia, for Washington to work with Russia would undermine the picture of Russia as a threat and enemy.
Washington created the Islamic State. Washington used these jihadists to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent them to overthrow Assad in Syria..."
I don't believe it is realistic to claim Russia and United States are enemies, I would rather say they are competitors. Enemies are those with whom any kind of negotiations are impossible, like Muslim fundamentalists for example. Also, in Ukraine we saw Russia doesn't care for international law. On the other hand, I cheer for Russian intervention in Syria, which was approved by the Syrian government, and therefore is legal, and crucial for fighting the global Muslim terrorism. I would love to see United States and Russia agree about their zones of interest in the Middle East, so that for example Russia fights Islamic State in Syria, and United States fight Islamic State in Iraq.
Quote from: Solar on September 25, 2015, 01:03:10 PM
One other point, the current administration in the WH has no interest in M/E peace, rather the Marxists prefer Piece, as in total chaos to help radicals achieve their goals of destroying Western culture.
The part of the operation so-called "Arab Spring" was to bring Muslim migrants into Europe and America. The leftist who now rule both European Union and United States have their agenda to redistribute those Muslim migrants to every European and American state. Once these Muslim cells are created, those states will never be able to get rid of them, and will be blackmailed by the leftists and the Muslims forever.
If we look at Libya, for example, Gaddafi was a dictator, but his Libya was a secular state. He had actually created a socialist paradise in Libya, giving all oil incomes to his people, who had free housing, free medical care, free education, free cars, etc. And now, those Libyans are entering Europe as refugees, instead. But Gaddafi is a crucial example of the failure that socialism is. Because people are not happy when you gift them welfare, but when they earn it with their own hands.
obama's made us too weak to compete with Russia in the Middle East. Today, Russian 'groups' have entered Baghdad. Their aircraft are refueling in Iran. So that means air-personnel are there too.
Quote from: milos on September 26, 2015, 01:46:35 AM
I don't believe it is realistic to claim Russia and United States are enemies, I would rather say they are competitors. Enemies are those with whom any kind of negotiations are impossible, like Muslim fundamentalists for example. Also, in Ukraine we saw Russia doesn't care for international law. On the other hand, I cheer for Russian intervention in Syria, which was approved by the Syrian government, and therefore is legal, and crucial for fighting the global Muslim terrorism. I would love to see United States and Russia agree about their zones of interest in the Middle East, so that for example Russia fights Islamic State in Syria, and United States fight Islamic State in Iraq.
The part of the operation so-called "Arab Spring" was to bring Muslim migrants into Europe and America. The leftist who now rule both European Union and United States have their agenda to redistribute those Muslim migrants to every European and American state. Once these Muslim cells are created, those states will never be able to get rid of them, and will be blackmailed by the leftists and the Muslims forever.
If we look at Libya, for example, Gaddafi was a dictator, but his Libya was a secular state. He had actually created a socialist paradise in Libya, giving all oil incomes to his people, who had free housing, free medical care, free education, free cars, etc. And now, those Libyans are entering Europe as refugees, instead. But Gaddafi is a crucial example of the failure that socialism is. Because people are not happy when you gift them welfare, but when they earn it with their own hands.
Thank you for some very astute observations. You make an excellent point that Russia and the US have many reasons to be allies. The primary one is our common enemy of radical Islam. The barrier to that is our two countries are led by two jerks. Ours much worse than Russia's. Putin, however, has figured out that Muslim countries have not interest in freedom and democracy. Let them keep their pig sty countries as long as they don't create problems outside their borders.
Quote from: milos on September 26, 2015, 01:46:35 AM
Also, in Ukraine we saw Russia doesn't care for international law.
What is this suppose to mean?
Quote from: kalash on September 26, 2015, 01:32:09 PM
What is this suppose to mean?
Recognizing unconstitutional referendum in Crimea, it's unconstitutional secession from Ukraine and joining to Russia. Also, unofficially sending military equipment and personnel to ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Which was all breaking of Ukrainian sovereignty. I don't want to confuse you, this doesn't mean I stand against Russians, on the contrary, I believe that Crimea should belong to Russia as it originally did, but if we speak about the international law, then Russia didn't care for it in Ukraine. Probably this was the only remained option for Russia, but I blame the failure of Russian diplomacy in Ukraine for that. Russia saw Ukraine in Eurasian Union, but Ukrainians didn't want to join Eurasian Union, that was the main obstacle and mistake for Russian interests in Ukraine. (I mean, neither I want to join anything which has "Asia" in its name, we were fighting to get rid of Asia for 500 years, OMG.)
http://www.israpundit.org/archives/63609594
"...What does the West set against Russia? It betrays its allies by encouraging the worst enemies. This is done senselessly, mediocrely, harmfully to own strategical interests. The West betrayed Gaddafi, who successfully collaborated with Europeans and held back Islamic fundamentalism and hordes of migrants from Africa. It betrayed Hosni Mubarak, and then tried to push el-Sisi into a corner, hindering his war with terror – in the name of "Muslim brothers" that hate the West. It betrayed the former Yemeni President Abdullah Salah, who helped US in the fight against "al-Qaeda"...
...While Russia is building its Empire, the West is concerned with self-destruction. This is a "suicidal syndrome" in the name of "progressive thinking" that killed both the progress, and thinking. The result of this contest is predictable. History does not like idiots, and especially "useful idiots."
Quote from: kalash on September 27, 2015, 01:29:05 PM
http://www.israpundit.org/archives/63609594
"...What does the West set against Russia? It betrays its allies by encouraging the worst enemies. This is done senselessly, mediocrely, harmfully to own strategical interests. The West betrayed Gaddafi, who successfully collaborated with Europeans and held back Islamic fundamentalism and hordes of migrants from Africa. It betrayed Hosni Mubarak, and then tried to push el-Sisi into a corner, hindering his war with terror – in the name of "Muslim brothers" that hate the West. It betrayed the former Yemeni President Abdullah Salah, who helped US in the fight against "al-Qaeda"...
...While Russia is building its Empire, the West is concerned with self-destruction. This is a "suicidal syndrome" in the name of "progressive thinking" that killed both the progress, and thinking. The result of this contest is predictable. History does not like idiots, and especially "useful idiots."
Just wondering, do you have the ability to discern between "the West" and the Marxist in the WH Hell bent on destroying America?
I'm guessing you are in your early 20s and haven't a clue about American policy prior to Bush, right?
Quote from: kalash on September 27, 2015, 01:29:05 PM
"...What does the West set against Russia?
That is what I dislike in Russian attitude the most. Russia always accuses the so-called "West", like all of the West is homogenous, and all of the Westerners are liberal democrats who think and do the same. When it's simply not true, and it means projecting a false reality. This way, Russia loses her allies in the West she could have had if she wasn't arrogant like that. Russia shares common interests with European nationalists and Western conservatives. It is natural for an European nationalist to stand with Russia, because Russia is the greatest Christian country in Europe and in World, and has always been protector of European nations against Islam.
The period of communism has ruined that Russian role. During the Czarist Russia, you had Romanians willingly allying with Russia and happily fighting together with Russians against Turks. And now, after the communism, Romanians hate Russians. But Russia still can revive her natural role in Europe. I believe that Russian idea of Eurasian Union is the worst Russian mistake ever. No European nation will ever agree to join Eurasian Union, except for Belarus, which is practically the same as Russia. And Eurasian Union will remain just Asian Union. That way, Russia loses her natural influence in Europe. It would be better to embrace De Gaulle's idea of Europe of Nations.
" ... approach as near as possible to Constantinople and India. Whoever governs there will be the true sovereign of the world. Consequently, excite continual wars, not only in Turkey, but in Persia And, in the decadence of Persia, Penetrate as far as the Persian Gulf advance as far as India." -Peter The Great... 1720-ish
Quote from: kit saginaw on September 30, 2015, 08:55:27 AM
" ... approach as near as possible to Constantinople and India. Whoever governs there will be the true sovereign of the world. Consequently, excite continual wars, not only in Turkey, but in Persia And, in the decadence of Persia, Penetrate as far as the Persian Gulf advance as far as India." -Peter The Great... 1720-ish
Well known fabricated fake.
Quote from: kalash on September 30, 2015, 11:54:29 AM
Well known fabricated fake.
He began your Country's 300-year dream of a warm-water port.
Marion Maréchal-Le Pen from Front National invites the French to join the Russians against the Islamic State.
https://www.facebook.com/MMLPen.officiel/posts/975350205884131 (https://www.facebook.com/MMLPen.officiel/posts/975350205884131)
Marion Maréchal-Le Pen à RT: «Il est grand temps de s'atteler avec les Russes contre Daesh»
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmFKrTwF5Nk
Quote from: milos on October 06, 2015, 01:34:48 PM
Marion Maréchal-Le Pen from Front National invites the French to join the Russians against the Islamic State.
https://www.facebook.com/MMLPen.officiel/posts/975350205884131 (https://www.facebook.com/MMLPen.officiel/posts/975350205884131)
Marion Maréchal-Le Pen à RT: «Il est grand temps de s'atteler avec les Russes contre Daesh»
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmFKrTwF5Nk
We are reaping the results of leading from behind. I will repeat what I have said many times before. Putin understands radical Islam. Obama doesn't or doesn't want to.
Quote from: supsalemgr on October 06, 2015, 01:52:08 PM
We are reaping the results of leading from behind. I will repeat what I have said many times before. Putin understands radical Islam. Obama doesn't or doesn't want to.
Yes, I feel very sorry America has Obama in the White House, he would have been a disgrace for any country, and I can understand your pain. I am certainly not one of those European nationalists who would love to see America dead. On the contrary, I believe that a decline of the United States and their original values can bring only bad to the world as a whole, because America will be used as a base for leftist dictatorship over the world. I will try to explain my views on the situation.
To understand Obama's politics, and the politics of liberal democrats in general, one must understand that they are all Trotskyists. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was funded by the bankers of the City of London and their branch in the Wall Street. Lenin and Trotsky were liberal democrats, mondialists, multiculturalists, they were anti-traditionalists, anti-conservatives, and anti-nationalists. Their aim was to destroy Russia from inside, so that Russia would become a cheap prey for the mentioned bankers. But Stalin screwed their plans. While Lenin and Trotsky were anti-Russians and socially liberal, Stalin was pro-Russian and socially conservative. After Lenin died, Stalin did his best to take the control over the Russian Communist Party, and assassinate or expell Leninists and Trotskyists from Russia. Stalin's agents killed Trotsky in Mexico. So, those Trotskyists, who were expelled from Russia by Stalin, took the control over the left on the West. They have two main goals. One is to destroy Western countries from inside, the same they tried to do in Russia before, so that those countries become an easy prey for the bankers. The other is to take revenge over Russia, for destroying their plans and expelling them.
So, if you believe Obama is a Marxist, you are 100% right. Obama is a Marxist, a Trotskyist, a Leninist, and so is Clinton. Obama is American Lenin. And the Wall Street bankers will do just anything to make Hillary sits in the White House after Obama. They are Trotskyists, and that is why they want to destroy traditional American values. On the other side, Vladimir Putin is a kind of a moderate Stalinist. And we have that global clash between Trotskyists in United States and European Union on one side and Stalinists in Russia on another. American conservatives and European nationalists are kind of left behind, they can sit and watch, or they can join one side. And if it is a question "Obama or Putin", it is not a difficult choice. That is why most of European nationalists are siding with Putin and Russia. Because Putin is socially conservative, while Obama is socially liberal. And I see some American libertarians and conservatives, like Ron Paul and Alex Jones, are following them, for obvious reason. They believe it is better to take some action than to just sit and watch.
So we have Western leftists accusing Vladimir Putin of funding European far right nationalist political parties. And it is just a huge hypocrisy and policy of double standards from the left, because it is a known fact that leftists from United States' and European Union's governments are funding political parties which suit them in other countries as well. According to The Guardian, there is a whole list of every European far right, fascist, or neo-nazi extremist political party, supported by Vladimir Putin.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/russia-europe-right-putin-front-national-eu (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/russia-europe-right-putin-front-national-eu)
Putin is anti-European Union, and so are European nationalists, so this alliance is of an obvious mutual interest, in spite of the fact Putin will not allow far right political parties in Russia. And this another list of far right fascist neo-nazi extremists who support Putin makes me laugh.
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/news/featured-news/european-right-wing-extremists-and-other-pro-russian-activists-observed-the-crimean-referendum (http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/news/featured-news/european-right-wing-extremists-and-other-pro-russian-activists-observed-the-crimean-referendum)
They have also mentioned two parties from Serbia. The one they said is a "far right, ultra-Orthodox Dveri Movement". Well, they certainly must have been some "far" or "ultra", even "ultra-Christian", as these leftists claim, in order to be marked as extremists. At least they are not racists. The other is Democratic Party of Serbia, which tries to be moderate in just everything until non-recognition. There are some other pro-Russian right wing parties and movements too, like Serbian Radical Party and Obraz Movement. Since they can now win only some 5% to 10% votes in the elections altogether, and Serbians being traditionally the greatest pro-Russian people, Putin must be asking himself what is he doing wrong here.
Quote from: milos on October 07, 2015, 06:20:41 AM
Yes, I feel very sorry America has Obama in the White House, he would have been a disgrace for any country, and I can understand your pain. I am certainly not one of those European nationalists who would love to see America dead. On the contrary, I believe that a decline of the United States and their original values can bring only bad to the world as a whole, because America will be used as a base for leftist dictatorship over the world. I will try to explain my views on the situation.
To understand Obama's politics, and the politics of liberal democrats in general, one must understand that they are all Trotskyists. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was funded by the bankers of the City of London and their branch in the Wall Street. Lenin and Trotsky were liberal democrats, mondialists, multiculturalists, they were anti-traditionalists, anti-conservatives, and anti-nationalists. Their aim was to destroy Russia from inside, so that Russia would become a cheap prey for the mentioned bankers. But Stalin screwed their plans. While Lenin and Trotsky were anti-Russians and socially liberal, Stalin was pro-Russian and socially conservative. After Lenin died, Stalin did his best to take the control over the Russian Communist Party, and assassinate or expell Leninists and Trotskyists from Russia. Stalin's agents killed Trotsky in Mexico. So, those Trotskyists, who were expelled from Russia by Stalin, took the control over the left on the West. They have two main goals. One is to destroy Western countries from inside, the same they tried to do in Russia before, so that those countries become an easy prey for the bankers. The other is to take revenge over Russia, for destroying their plans and expelling them.
So, if you believe Obama is a Marxist, you are 100% right. Obama is a Marxist, a Trotskyist, a Leninist, and so is Clinton. Obama is American Lenin. And the Wall Street bankers will do just anything to make Hillary sits in the White House after Obama. They are Trotskyists, and that is why they want to destroy traditional American values. On the other side, Vladimir Putin is a kind of a moderate Stalinist. And we have that global clash between Trotskyists in United States and European Union on one side and Stalinists in Russia on another. American conservatives and European nationalists are kind of left behind, they can sit and watch, or they can join one side. And if it is a question "Obama or Putin", it is not a difficult choice. That is why most of European nationalists are siding with Putin and Russia. Because Putin is socially conservative, while Obama is socially liberal. And I see some American libertarians and conservatives, like Ron Paul and Alex Jones, are following them, for obvious reason. They believe it is better to take some action than to just sit and watch.
So we have Western leftists accusing Vladimir Putin of funding European far right nationalist political parties. And it is just a huge hypocrisy and policy of double standards from the left, because it is a known fact that leftists from United States' and European Union's governments are funding political parties which suit them in other countries as well. According to The Guardian, there is a whole list of every European far right, fascist, or neo-nazi extremist political party, supported by Vladimir Putin.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/russia-europe-right-putin-front-national-eu (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/russia-europe-right-putin-front-national-eu)
Putin is anti-European Union, and so are European nationalists, so this alliance is of an obvious mutual interest, in spite of the fact Putin will not allow far right political parties in Russia. And this another list of far right fascist neo-nazi extremists who support Putin makes me laugh.
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/news/featured-news/european-right-wing-extremists-and-other-pro-russian-activists-observed-the-crimean-referendum (http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/news/featured-news/european-right-wing-extremists-and-other-pro-russian-activists-observed-the-crimean-referendum)
They have also mentioned two parties from Serbia. The one they said is a "far right, ultra-Orthodox Dveri Movement". Well, they certainly must have been some "far" or "ultra", even "ultra-Christian", as these leftists claim, in order to be marked as extremists. At least they are not racists. The other is Democratic Party of Serbia, which tries to be moderate in just everything until non-recognition. There are some other pro-Russian right wing parties and movements too, like Serbian Radical Party and Obraz Movement. Since they can now win only some 5% to 10% votes in the elections altogether, and Serbians being traditionally the greatest pro-Russian people, Putin must be asking himself what is he doing wrong here.
I believe you have the situation in America under Obama figured out. I appreciate your position and wish more Europeans would see the danger of Obama and his followers. A strong America is best for all of Europe.
Quote from: milos on October 07, 2015, 06:20:41 AM
Yes, I feel very sorry America has Obama in the White House, he would have been a disgrace for any country, and I can understand your pain. I am certainly not one of those European nationalists who would love to see America dead. On the contrary, I believe that a decline of the United States and their original values can bring only bad to the world as a whole, because America will be used as a base for leftist dictatorship over the world. I will try to explain my views on the situation.
To understand Obama's politics, and the politics of liberal democrats in general, one must understand that they are all Trotskyists. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was funded by the bankers of the City of London and their branch in the Wall Street. Lenin and Trotsky were liberal democrats, mondialists, multiculturalists, they were anti-traditionalists, anti-conservatives, and anti-nationalists. Their aim was to destroy Russia from inside, so that Russia would become a cheap prey for the mentioned bankers. But Stalin screwed their plans. While Lenin and Trotsky were anti-Russians and socially liberal, Stalin was pro-Russian and socially conservative. After Lenin died, Stalin did his best to take the control over the Russian Communist Party, and assassinate or expell Leninists and Trotskyists from Russia. Stalin's agents killed Trotsky in Mexico. So, those Trotskyists, who were expelled from Russia by Stalin, took the control over the left on the West. They have two main goals. One is to destroy Western countries from inside, the same they tried to do in Russia before, so that those countries become an easy prey for the bankers. The other is to take revenge over Russia, for destroying their plans and expelling them.
So, if you believe Obama is a Marxist, you are 100% right. Obama is a Marxist, a Trotskyist, a Leninist, and so is Clinton. Obama is American Lenin. And the Wall Street bankers will do just anything to make Hillary sits in the White House after Obama. They are Trotskyists, and that is why they want to destroy traditional American values. On the other side, Vladimir Putin is a kind of a moderate Stalinist. And we have that global clash between Trotskyists in United States and European Union on one side and Stalinists in Russia on another. American conservatives and European nationalists are kind of left behind, they can sit and watch, or they can join one side. And if it is a question "Obama or Putin", it is not a difficult choice. That is why most of European nationalists are siding with Putin and Russia. Because Putin is socially conservative, while Obama is socially liberal. And I see some American libertarians and conservatives, like Ron Paul and Alex Jones, are following them, for obvious reason. They believe it is better to take some action than to just sit and watch.
So we have Western leftists accusing Vladimir Putin of funding European far right nationalist political parties. And it is just a huge hypocrisy and policy of double standards from the left, because it is a known fact that leftists from United States' and European Union's governments are funding political parties which suit them in other countries as well. According to The Guardian, there is a whole list of every European far right, fascist, or neo-nazi extremist political party, supported by Vladimir Putin.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/russia-europe-right-putin-front-national-eu (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/russia-europe-right-putin-front-national-eu)
Putin is anti-European Union, and so are European nationalists, so this alliance is of an obvious mutual interest, in spite of the fact Putin will not allow far right political parties in Russia. And this another list of far right fascist neo-nazi extremists who support Putin makes me laugh.
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/news/featured-news/european-right-wing-extremists-and-other-pro-russian-activists-observed-the-crimean-referendum (http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/news/featured-news/european-right-wing-extremists-and-other-pro-russian-activists-observed-the-crimean-referendum)
They have also mentioned two parties from Serbia. The one they said is a "far right, ultra-Orthodox Dveri Movement". Well, they certainly must have been some "far" or "ultra", even "ultra-Christian", as these leftists claim, in order to be marked as extremists. At least they are not racists. The other is Democratic Party of Serbia, which tries to be moderate in just everything until non-recognition. There are some other pro-Russian right wing parties and movements too, like Serbian Radical Party and Obraz Movement. Since they can now win only some 5% to 10% votes in the elections altogether, and Serbians being traditionally the greatest pro-Russian people, Putin must be asking himself what is he doing wrong here.
Obama may be a marxist, but he is not a ideologue. His administration has done much harm but if he truly was a marxist he would never have settled for Obamacare which is corporatist or semi-socialist at worst unless he really is pushing the Cloward–Piven strategy in which case he is an ideologue as Obamacare is ruining the Health Insurance industry from what I have read.
But where is your information regarding Stalin as a social-conservative and that this was a real rift with Trotskij and even Lenin? Lenin trusted and liked Stalin, which was why he created the "General Secretary" position to him. The late correspondence that might suggest Lenin mistrusted Stalin and wanted to divide power and even preferred Trotskij has been to the extent we can verify the claim been disproven to be the work of first Lenin's wife must likely and the last drafts/edition
(remember the correspondence letters went through many changes even after lenins death) to the work of Trotskij supporters. The first correspondence was taken and edited by Kamanev I think it was.
The cosmopolitan (international bankers etc) vs traditional value (Stalinism) internal war within the communist party doesn't sound true from what I have read, do you have any sources I can read? If true it changes a lot about the acknowledged history of the USSR.
Quote from: Mountainshield on October 15, 2015, 08:44:47 AM
Obama may be a marxist, but he is not a ideologue. His administration has done much harm but if he truly was a marxist he would never have settled for Obamacare which is corporatist or semi-socialist at worst unless he really is pushing the Cloward–Piven strategy in which case he is an ideologue as Obamacare is ruining the Health Insurance industry from what I have read.
But where is your information regarding Stalin as a social-conservative and that this was a real rift with Trotskij and even Lenin? Lenin trusted and liked Stalin, which was why he created the "General Secretary" position to him. The late correspondence that might suggest Lenin mistrusted Stalin and wanted to divide power and even preferred Trotskij has been to the extent we can verify the claim been disproven to be the work of first Lenin's wife must likely and the last drafts/edition (remember the correspondence letters went through many changes even after lenins death) to the work of Trotskij supporters. The first correspondence was taken and edited by Kamanev I think it was.
The cosmopolitan (international bankers etc) vs traditional value (Stalinism) internal war within the communist party doesn't sound true from what I have read, do you have any sources I can read? If true it changes a lot about the acknowledged history of the USSR.
Well, Marxism was never about ideology on the first place, it was just a fraud from the very beginning. It was invented by the bankers in order to deceive people with false justice and equality, making them start thinking they are perpetual victims, and driving them away from capitalist way of thinking. Marxist revolution in the West couldn't have been done at once as it was in Russia, because after Russia people in the West became aware of the danger. That is why Marxist revolution in the West is being done step by step, so the people would not revolt against it. This is often being compared to boiling a frog, if you increase the temperature step by step, the frog won't notice and will be boiled.
I have gathered information over years from various sources in my language, including school, books, articles, and TV, and I can't provide you with some sources in English. I could try to Google for them, but anyone can do that. I can tell you what I have heard and read, so that you get some clues if you want to research for yourself.
The claim is that Stalin was an agent of the Ohrana czarist secret police, infiltrated into the lines of the communists. Stalin was truly an anti-capitalist, but so was the czar and the Russian Empire before the revolution. When Stalin took control over Pravda newspapers, after the abdication of the czar in February 1917, he published an article in which he stated that the war shall continue, that Russian soldiers have just switched their czarist flags with red flags of revolution, and that it would be the most stupid politics and a treason to give up weapons and go home, because it wouldn't be a politics of peace, but a politics of slavery. But soon after the revolution in October, Lenin signed a separate peace treaty with Germany.
In 1922, Lenin took stand against Stalin, calling him the worst Russian chauvinist, and asking for his replacement. Lenin proposed a special law to protect national minorities from Stalin's russification. But Lenin was a democrat, so he didn't take violent actions to overthrow Stalin, and he probably couldn't do it at that late time anyway. After Lenin's death, Stalin has created a moral cult of Lenin, which had nothing in common with the true Lenin, but it was Stalin's plan to replace Christ with Lenin, in order to preserve czarist regime in Russia after the revolution. That is why Russian communists today are confused, believing Lenin was a strong moral figure, which he certainly was not. Russian communism became Stalinist, pushing moral and national values in society, while Western communism became Leninist/Trotskyist, pushing immoral and anti-national values in society.
Lenin was a social-democrat, he was socially liberal, he introduced abortion for the first time in Russia, he was pushing anti-Christianism and immorality in society, the same Obama does now in America. Contrary to this, Stalin has opened churches again during the WWII, he has re-established Moscow Patriarchy for the first time after czar Peter The Great and had support from Russian Church, he addressed the people as "brothers and sisters" which is a Christian custom. When Stalin expelled Leninists and Trotskyists from Russia, they fled to West, where they came into politics as democrats, liberals, and neocons, who wanted to take revenge over Russia because of Stalin.
I forgot to mention one event.
The Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which existed between WWI and WWII, didn't maintain official diplomatic relationships with the Soviet Union, because of their communism. We have even sent some military troops to fight alongside with the White Army against the Red Army. When the Bolsheviks won, many tens of thousands of White Russians found refuge in Yugoslavia. On March 25th 1941, Yugoslavia has signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, which was actually a great agreement of neutrality of Yugoslavia. On March 27th, a coup was incited by British agents, so that the new government dismiss the Tripartite Pact. After that event, a delegation of Yugoslav government secretly went to Russia to meet with Stalin, to seek for help if Germany and Italy attack us. Stalin received them, but said he couldn't promise them help, because he was at peace with Germany at that time. He encouraged them to stay strong, and sustain all the suffering which was going to occur. Then, at the surprise of the delegation, Stalin made the cross sign on them with his right hand and blessed them, before sending them back home.
So, I have the reason to believe Stalin was a Christian, while I know Lenin was an anti-Christian.
Quote from: Mountainshield on October 15, 2015, 08:44:47 AM
Obama may be a marxist, but he is not a ideologue. His administration has done much harm but if he truly was a marxist he would never have settled for Obamacare which is corporatist or semi-socialist at worst unless he really is pushing the Cloward–Piven strategy in which case he is an ideologue as Obamacare is ruining the Health Insurance industry from what I have read.
But where is your information regarding Stalin as a social-conservative and that this was a real rift with Trotskij and even Lenin? Lenin trusted and liked Stalin, which was why he created the "General Secretary" position to him. The late correspondence that might suggest Lenin mistrusted Stalin and wanted to divide power and even preferred Trotskij has been to the extent we can verify the claim been disproven to be the work of first Lenin's wife must likely and the last drafts/edition (remember the correspondence letters went through many changes even after lenins death) to the work of Trotskij supporters. The first correspondence was taken and edited by Kamanev I think it was.
The cosmopolitan (international bankers etc) vs traditional value (Stalinism) internal war within the communist party doesn't sound true from what I have read, do you have any sources I can read? If true it changes a lot about the acknowledged history of the USSR.
While I realize every historian is going to be a little biased, yeah, I know, you can't be everywhere at once, see everything, know everything...
So, where else in the world has history been ERASED, over and over than the Baltics & Russia? Now we can see ISIS doing the same thing, destroying ancient antiquities - erasing visual historical proof. Two or three generations from now, the children will say, "Yeah, if 'they' were so great, why can't their existence be proven? Where are the monuments? Your history is a fairytale, a bedtime story for children."
Even the Nazi's were known as thorough & accurate record keepers, even if the propaganda for public consumption was otherwise.
Who to believe, what is truth, or is none of it true.
Quote from: Mountainshield on October 15, 2015, 08:44:47 AM
Obama may be a marxist, but he is not a ideologue. His administration has done much harm but if he truly was a marxist he would never have settled for Obamacare which is corporatist or semi-socialist at worst unless he really is pushing the Cloward–Piven strategy in which case he is an ideologue as Obamacare is ruining the Health Insurance industry from what I have read.
Yes, he is an ideologue. Socialist/Marxist through and through. He has said that single payer is the ideal, but that Obamacare is a start. Your correct about this ruining the insurance industry. Several more are dropping at the end of this year.
In our type of governance, as much as Obama tries to dictate and by-pass congress, he runs into road blocks. If you'll notice, not one Republican voted for Obamacare, and the House has voted like sixty times to kill it.
The liberals use regulations to tighten controls over businesses. Some can't keep up with them and go under, and fewer even start up. The more the liberals conjoin business to government, the closer we are getting to government control of the means of production. It's not being done overnight, it's done over decades.
People in the West must be aware that there is an ongoing Marxist revolution in the United States and European Union. It is a slow pace revolution, and while people still believe they are living in capitalism, their capitalism is being declined from year to year, until it is completely replaced by communism. And I see Marxists around the world are so happy and excited, because Marx has predicted that the imperialistic capitalism will be naturally replaced by communism as the end of history. The only thing is that process is not happening naturally, but it is being created. And if Marxists succeed, it will truly be the end of history. The bankers who have created Marxism are not capitalists, as people usually falsely believe. The bankers don't need to earn capital, because they are printing their capital at the expense of the taxpayers. Their fiat money is nothing but an ordinary communist decree. The bankers are communists, not capitalists.
Lenin and Trotsky were true Marxists, and their Bolshevik revolution in Russia was meant to bring the same liberalism Obama is bringing to America right now. Lenin and Trotsky were pushing the rights of minorities in Russia at the expense of the Russian people, the same way Obama and modern liberals are pushing the rights of every single minority at the expense of the American people. Because the Marxist agenda is to oppress the majority by pushing the rights of all kinds of minorities above the rights of the majority. But Stalin has changed the course of the revolution in Russia, because he was a patriot, and he didn't want to see his country dies under Lenin and Trotsky. That is why he was assassinating true Leninists and Trotskyists, and his agents assassinated Trotsky in Mexico. Trotskyists were forced to flee from Stalinist Russia. And now, those Trotskyists are the Neocons, mostly infiltrated in the lines of the Democrats, but there are some with the Republicans, too, and they are still in the service of the bankers. That is why they want to make people believe Russia is the worst enemy of the West, because they see Russia as their worst personal enemy, it is just their own vanity and ego. And they are now waging proxy wars with Russia in Ukraine and Syria.
I have mentioned earlier that as long as Russia controls Iran, there is no danger to Israel. And Ron Paul is confirming that: "Analysis you won't find on CNN: Russia's involvement in Syria is actually keeping Iran at bay and keeping Syria from becoming an Iranian vassal state. They've put their hooks in Syria, but Russian presence will ensure it goes not much further. That's why the Israelis are not kicking up a big fuss about it."
https://www.facebook.com/RonPaulInstitute/photos/a.628590643821562.1073741829.561591777188116/1165051416842146 (https://www.facebook.com/RonPaulInstitute/photos/a.628590643821562.1073741829.561591777188116/1165051416842146)
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/october/18/want-to-understand-syria/ (http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/october/18/want-to-understand-syria/)
Quote from: milos on October 19, 2015, 01:32:50 AM
People in the West must be aware that there is an ongoing Marxist revolution in the United States and European Union. It is a slow pace revolution, and while people still believe they are living in capitalism, their capitalism is being declined from year to year, until it is completely replaced by communism. And I see Marxists around the world are so happy and excited, because Marx has predicted that the imperialistic capitalism will be naturally replaced by communism as the end of history. The only thing is that process is not happening naturally, but it is being created. And if Marxists succeed, it will truly be the end of history. The bankers who have created Marxism are not capitalists, as people usually falsely believe. The bankers don't need to earn capital, because they are printing their capital at the expense of the taxpayers. Their fiat money is nothing but an ordinary communist decree. The bankers are communists, not capitalists.
Lenin and Trotsky were true Marxists, and their Bolshevik revolution in Russia was meant to bring the same liberalism Obama is bringing to America right now. Lenin and Trotsky were pushing the rights of minorities in Russia at the expense of the Russian people, the same way Obama and modern liberals are pushing the rights of every single minority at the expense of the American people. Because the Marxist agenda is to oppress the majority by pushing the rights of all kinds of minorities above the rights of the majority. But Stalin has changed the course of the revolution in Russia, because he was a patriot, and he didn't want to see his country dies under Lenin and Trotsky. That is why he was assassinating true Leninists and Trotskyists, and his agents assassinated Trotsky in Mexico. Trotskyists were forced to flee from Stalinist Russia. And now, those Trotskyists are the Neocons, mostly infiltrated in the lines of the Democrats, but there are some with the Republicans, too, and they are still in the service of the bankers. That is why they want to make people believe Russia is the worst enemy of the West, because they see Russia as their worst personal enemy, it is just their own vanity and ego. And they are now waging proxy wars with Russia in Ukraine and Syria.
I have mentioned earlier that as long as Russia controls Iran, there is no danger to Israel. And Ron Paul is confirming that: "Analysis you won't find on CNN: Russia's involvement in Syria is actually keeping Iran at bay and keeping Syria from becoming an Iranian vassal state. They've put their hooks in Syria, but Russian presence will ensure it goes not much further. That's why the Israelis are not kicking up a big fuss about it."
https://www.facebook.com/RonPaulInstitute/photos/a.628590643821562.1073741829.561591777188116/1165051416842146 (https://www.facebook.com/RonPaulInstitute/photos/a.628590643821562.1073741829.561591777188116/1165051416842146)
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/october/18/want-to-understand-syria/ (http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/october/18/want-to-understand-syria/)
A very astute observation. We, in America, have an ongoing misconception about the ME. The common belief is the idealistic view that it can become like the West. The reality is that will never happen. Russia is a stabilizing force and as long as it does not use its presence in the ME to bring harm to the West we should embrace it. Therefore, the West must accept some unholy alliances for our long term good.
Quote from: milos on October 17, 2015, 01:43:37 AM
The claim is that Stalin was an agent of the Ohrana czarist secret police, infiltrated into the lines of the communists. Stalin was truly an anti-capitalist, but so was the czar and the Russian Empire before the revolution. When Stalin took control over Pravda newspapers, after the abdication of the czar in February 1917, he published an article in which he stated that the war shall continue, that Russian soldiers have just switched their czarist flags with red flags of revolution, and that it would be the most stupid politics and a treason to give up weapons and go home, because it wouldn't be a politics of peace, but a politics of slavery. But soon after the revolution in October, Lenin signed a separate peace treaty with Germany.
I found the source of your allegation to come from something named the "Eremin letter". It sounds logical as Stalin was arrested several times and sent to Siberia work camps but always somehow manages to get out. The current paradigm attributes this to incompetence and corruption within Tsarist Russia, especially in the peripheries. It sounds sort of true, though there are many suggestion the Eremin letter was forged. And judging by the Trotskyites obsession with blackpainting Stalin I would take the Eremin letter with a lot of suspicion.
Quote from: milos on October 17, 2015, 01:43:37 AM
In 1922, Lenin took stand against Stalin, calling him the worst Russian chauvinist, and asking for his replacement. Lenin proposed a special law to protect national minorities from Stalin's russification. But Lenin was a democrat, so he didn't take violent actions to overthrow Stalin, and he probably couldn't do it at that late time anyway. After Lenin's death, Stalin has created a moral cult of Lenin, which had nothing in common with the true Lenin, but it was Stalin's plan to replace Christ with Lenin, in order to preserve czarist regime in Russia after the revolution. That is why Russian communists today are confused, believing Lenin was a strong moral figure, which he certainly was not. Russian communism became Stalinist, pushing moral and national values in society, while Western communism became Leninist/Trotskyist, pushing immoral and anti-national values in society.
I understand it's hard to always remember once sources, and frankly one should not have too as it is impossible unless you have a brain for remembering that type of stuff. I tried to research it myself but I can't find anything in relation to this information in quotation above, except for the obvious truths. Everything I find is just more Trotskyites bullshit. By 1922 Lenin had his first stroke and like I wrote the letters condemning Stalin was written by lenins wife "Nadezjda Krupskaja" and their sycophants at the estate they reside. The signature validating the dictation for Lenin in the letters is also proven forged. She could not stand Stalin especially she felt he was replacing Lenin, and following the logic of Occam Razor with the more simple the explanation the more validity and so on it seems to me that the allegation of Lenin coming out of terms with Stalin is not true. Both Lenin and Stalin wanted the great war to continue as long as possible until they had solidified their power inside Russia, I could not find anything on Stalin wanting to continue the war despite Lenin's order, and even if true it doesn't really prove that he was a British Agent or working for Ohrana czarist secret police. Though it seems rather plausible the latter is true when everything is taken in together. As Churchill said; "the more I talk with the old bear the more I like him".
Quote from: Hoofer on October 18, 2015, 06:18:00 AM
Who to believe, what is truth, or is none of it true.
By that logic it's no bother researching history at all as everything is bullshit. You know the Roman Emperor Nero tried to erase his brother existence from the history books but failed, sure the State has always tried to rewrite history but with so many multiple sources and preservation of documents we can to a very safe certain degree ascertain what is truth and what is bullshit. What we can conclude however is that leftist history always is bullshit, they even have to call it something else.
Quote from: supsalemgr on October 19, 2015, 04:16:36 AM
A very astute observation. We, in America, have an ongoing misconception about the ME. The common belief is the idealistic view that it can become like the West. The reality is that will never happen. Russia is a stabilizing force and as long as it does not use its presence in the ME to bring harm to the West we should embrace it. Therefore, the West must accept some unholy alliances for our long term good.
I disagree regarding Assad, he is waging genocidal war in 2011 against the Sunni's which is what sparked the Jihad in Syria. It was a not a CIA operation that created ISIS or Al-nusra front or whatever they call themselves. As long as Putin keeps Assad on life support there will be perpetual Jihad and with that factor Russia is not a stabilizing force. Though I think Putin wants perpetual Jihad as it will oil prices high and keep refugees flowing into western Europe destroying us.
Quote from: Mountainshield on October 19, 2015, 09:42:02 AM
or working for Ohrana czarist secret police. Though it seems rather plausible the latter is true when everything is taken in together. As Churchill said; "the more I talk with the old bear the more I like him".
Lol, there is a true anecdote, when Stalin once asked Churchill to take a bet who will be able to eat up a whole roasted pig. Churchill refused to take the bet, but Stalin then ate up the whole pig anyway.
As far as I know, Stalin was the only Soviet leader to have a Christian funeral, and that must mean something.
Photographed below are the representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church - Metropolitan Nicholas (Николай), Archbishop Nikon (Никон) and Archpriest Nikolai Kolchitsky (Николай Колчицкий) - part of the honor guard at the coffin of Joseph Stalin.
Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (JMP), 1953, №3, p. 5; №4, p. 3-4 (Журнал Московской Патриархии (ЖМП), 1953, №3, стр. 5; №4, стр. 3-4)(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F38.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_mf3chj9V7O1qktv7n.jpg&hash=75a8203e5c6eba980456e029ff4c939f5c91bee1)
Funeral Speech by most holy patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Aleksii before requiem on I.V.Stalin, told in the patriarchal cathedral in day of Stalin's funeral (1953-03-09)."(...) We, who gathered for a pray about him, can not pass with silence his always benevolent, sympathizing attitude to our church needs. Any question, with which we addressed to him, has not been rejected by him; he satisfied all our requests. And a lot of good and useful, thanks to his high authority, has been done for our Church by our Government.
Memory of him for us is unforgettable, and our Russian Orthodox Church, mourning over his leaving from us, escorting him to last way, "in a way of all word", with a hot pray.
In these sad for us days, from different directions of our Fatherland from bishops, clergy and believers, and from Heads and representatives of Churches, as orthodox and heterodox, from abroad, I receive mass of telegrams which are informing about prays about him and condoling with us on the occasion of this sad loss for us. We prayed for him when the message about his heavy illness has come. And now, when there is no more him, we pray for the world of his immortal soul.
Yesterday our special delegation, composed from high ordained metropolitan Nikolay; the representative of the episcopate, clergy and believers of Siberia of the archbishop Palladium; the representative of the episcopate, clergy and believers of Ukraine of archbishop Nikona and archpriest Nikolay, has placed a wreath to his coffin and has bowed on behalf of Russian Orthodox Church to his dear body-remains.
The pray, fulfilled with Christian love, reaches the God. We believe, as our pray about deceased will be heard by the Lord. And to our loved and unforgettable Joseph Vissarionovich we devoutly, with deep, passionate love proclaim eternal memory."
http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/12264851095 (http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/12264851095)
There is even a movement to proclaim Stalin a saint. Below is an icon of Stalin. The title reads "Saint Martyr Joseph Stalin". On the right side there is a small picture representing Stalin's martyr death, it is believed he was assassinated. I am not sure what the small picture on the left represents, probably his visit to some saint woman.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicaltheology.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2FStalin-icon-04.jpg&hash=5091397d67591a83ccd219295610dae3df62b336)
http://www.politicaltheology.com/blog/saint-iosif-stalin-and-religion/ (http://www.politicaltheology.com/blog/saint-iosif-stalin-and-religion/)
Quote from: Mountainshield on October 19, 2015, 09:42:02 AM
By that logic it's no bother researching history at all as everything is bullshit. You know the Roman Emperor Nero tried to erase his brother existence from the history books but failed, sure the State has always tried to rewrite history but with so many multiple sources and preservation of documents we can to a very safe certain degree ascertain what is truth and what is bullshit. What we can conclude however is that leftist history always is bullshit, they even have to call it something else.
If it's from Russia, you just nailed my opinion of it.
For those that have the time, resources and patience to dig through the mounds of it, you have my applause and respect.
The handful of people I've met from those parts have been "educated" to one political position - there is no other, in their minds.
Not much taste in Australia for US Defense Department, just now.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/24/australia-pm-says-no-global-support-troops-ground-syria/
"I have to report to the House that the consensus of the leaders I met at the G20, at APEC and at the East Asia Summit is that there is no support currently for a large US-led Western army to attempt to conquer and hold ISIL-controlled areas," he said, referring to another term for the Islamic State group. Australia has for months been active in Iraq, and recently started carrying out air strikes against IS targets in Syria as part of a 60-nation, US-led coalition against the jihadists.
Quote from: red_dirt on November 24, 2015, 06:58:04 AM
Not much taste in Australia for US Defense Department, just now.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/24/australia-pm-says-no-global-support-troops-ground-syria/
"I have to report to the House that the consensus of the leaders I met at the G20, at APEC and at the East Asia Summit is that there is no support currently for a large US-led Western army to attempt to conquer and hold ISIL-controlled areas," he said, referring to another term for the Islamic State group. Australia has for months been active in Iraq, and recently started carrying out air strikes against IS targets in Syria as part of a 60-nation, US-led coalition against the jihadists.
I'll translate.
Putting our finest under the charge of Hussein is akin to turning our military over to the UN.
Suicide is not a Aussie trait.
Therefore, in conclusion, Obama, go fuck yourself, Australia wants no part of your Marxist Muscum bull shit.
Quote from: Solar on November 24, 2015, 07:21:06 AM
I'll translate.
Putting our finest under the charge of Hussein is akin to turning our military over to the UN.
Suicide is not a Aussie trait.
Therefore, in conclusion, Obama, go fuck yourself, Australia wants no part of your Marxist Muscum bull shit.
Obama keeps saying he is leading a coalition of 60 plus countries. In reality all our allies have learned he couldn't lead a one car funeral.
Turkish F-16 shot down Russian Su-24, both pilots ejected, but were killed by rebels who also destroyed a Russian rescue helicopter.
Putin condemns Turkey after Russian warplane downed near Syria border
Vladimir Putin has called Turkey "accomplices of terrorists" and warned of "serious consequences" after a Turkish F-16 jet shot down a Russian warplane on Tuesday morning, the first time a Nato country and Moscow have exchanged direct fire over the crisis in Syria.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/turkey-shoots-down-jet-near-border-with-syria (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/turkey-shoots-down-jet-near-border-with-syria)
WATCH: Moment Syrian rebels used AMERICAN missile to blow up Russian rescue helicopter
A RUSSIAN marine was reportedly killed by Syrian rebels who used an American rocket launcher to BLOW UP a rescue helicopter searching for the pilots of a warplane downed by Turkey.
By Nick Gutteridge and Leda Reynolds
PUBLISHED: 11:42, Tue, Nov 24, 2015 | UPDATED: 18:47, Tue, Nov 24, 2015
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/621677/Reports-Russian-helicopter-shot-down-while-searching-downed-jets (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/621677/Reports-Russian-helicopter-shot-down-while-searching-downed-jets)
Turkey Threatened Putin 'Stop Bombing ISIS' Days Before Jet Shoot Down
Paul Watson - November 24, 2015
Turkey shot down a Russian Su-24 fighter jet it claimed had violated Turkish airspace just days after threatening Moscow with "serious consequences" if it continued bombing ISIS in Syria.
The plane was flying at an altitude of 6,000m (19,685ft) when it was shot down by the Turkish military before subsequently crashing on Syrian territory.
http://www.infowars.com/turkey-threatened-putin-stop-bombing-isis-days-before-jet-shoot-down/ (http://www.infowars.com/turkey-threatened-putin-stop-bombing-isis-days-before-jet-shoot-down/)
Flashback: Turkey's Prime Minister Caught Arming ISIS
Months before Turkey shot down Russian jet, prime minister was shipping guns to ISIS
Kit Daniels | Infowars.com - November 24, 2015
http://www.infowars.com/flashback-turkeys-prime-minister-caught-arming-isis/ (http://www.infowars.com/flashback-turkeys-prime-minister-caught-arming-isis/)
Quote from: milos on November 24, 2015, 11:40:57 AM
Turkish F-16 shot down Russian Su-24, both pilots ejected, but were killed by rebels who also destroyed a Russian rescue helicopter.
Putin condemns Turkey after Russian warplane downed near Syria border
Vladimir Putin has called Turkey "accomplices of terrorists" and warned of "serious consequences" after a Turkish F-16 jet shot down a Russian warplane on Tuesday morning, the first time a Nato country and Moscow have exchanged direct fire over the crisis in Syria.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/turkey-shoots-down-jet-near-border-with-syria (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/turkey-shoots-down-jet-near-border-with-syria)
WATCH: Moment Syrian rebels used AMERICAN missile to blow up Russian rescue helicopter
A RUSSIAN marine was reportedly killed by Syrian rebels who used an American rocket launcher to BLOW UP a rescue helicopter searching for the pilots of a warplane downed by Turkey.
By Nick Gutteridge and Leda Reynolds
PUBLISHED: 11:42, Tue, Nov 24, 2015 | UPDATED: 18:47, Tue, Nov 24, 2015
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/621677/Reports-Russian-helicopter-shot-down-while-searching-downed-jets (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/621677/Reports-Russian-helicopter-shot-down-while-searching-downed-jets)
Turkey Threatened Putin 'Stop Bombing ISIS' Days Before Jet Shoot Down
Paul Watson - November 24, 2015
Turkey shot down a Russian Su-24 fighter jet it claimed had violated Turkish airspace just days after threatening Moscow with "serious consequences" if it continued bombing ISIS in Syria.
The plane was flying at an altitude of 6,000m (19,685ft) when it was shot down by the Turkish military before subsequently crashing on Syrian territory.
http://www.infowars.com/turkey-threatened-putin-stop-bombing-isis-days-before-jet-shoot-down/ (http://www.infowars.com/turkey-threatened-putin-stop-bombing-isis-days-before-jet-shoot-down/)
Flashback: Turkey's Prime Minister Caught Arming ISIS
Months before Turkey shot down Russian jet, prime minister was shipping guns to ISIS
Kit Daniels | Infowars.com - November 24, 2015
http://www.infowars.com/flashback-turkeys-prime-minister-caught-arming-isis/ (http://www.infowars.com/flashback-turkeys-prime-minister-caught-arming-isis/)
Those last two articles exhibit exactly why this Turkey situation is so complex. They are a member of NATO. A situation that probably needs some reassessment. Yet they threatened Russia for bombing and they are accused of arming ISIS. Those two facts are diametrically in conflict the members of NATO. ISIS is our enemy, therefore any ally of ISIS is our enemy.
Quote from: supsalemgr on November 24, 2015, 12:06:14 PM
Those last two articles exhibit exactly why this Turkey situation is so complex. They are a member of NATO. A situation that probably needs some reassessment. Yet they threatened Russia for bombing and they are accused of arming ISIS. Those two facts are diametrically in conflict the members of NATO. ISIS is our enemy, therefore any ally of ISIS is our enemy.
It is known that Turkey is shipping weapons and ammunition to Islamic State, and also buying cheap oil from them. Russia has bombed Islamic State's oil facilities in the previous days, so this was a Turkish retaliation.
Of course, Russian aircraft shouldn't break Turkish air space, but it is not a normal reaction to immediately shoot down an aircraft which broke into you air space for less than a minute, and with no hostile intentions. It would be normal to just intercept it and escort it away.
Quote from: milos on November 26, 2015, 03:59:38 AM
It is known that Turkey is shipping weapons and ammunition to Islamic State, and also buying cheap oil from them. Russia has bombed Islamic State's oil facilities in the previous days, so this was a Turkish retaliation.
Of course, Russian aircraft shouldn't break Turkish air space, but it is not a normal reaction to immediately shoot down an aircraft which broke into you air space for less than a minute, and with no hostile intentions. It would be normal to just intercept it and escort it away.
Exactly Milos, and that's something that cuts into Russias bottom line.
Add to that Saudi opening up oil mkts on Russia's front door and you have a very angry tiger eyeing up which hyena to go after.
I am not saying we must do everything in our power to get Assad out of government in Syria, because that is not our problem and the Syrian people just seem to want to run away rather than fix their country's problems. But, as far as Russia destroying ISIS goes, no progress has happened. Russia is simply bombing anti-Assad rebels and trying to piss off as many western countries as they can while doing it. It's a proxy war. If Russia really wanted to combat Islam, then why are they, along with Iran, fueling Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon to aid in their campaign to defend the almighty Bashar-al-Assad? Now that turkey has reacted to their bombing of Turkmen near the Turkish border, Putin will only escalate the tensions by keeping up his bombings near that border. The U.S. must create and lead a coalition of countries that actually want to take out these crazy Islamic Extremists, and forget about Russia's poor example of how to get rid of a terror group. And if fueling Anti-Assad rebels helps in the fight against ISIS, then we should act upon it. Not for the "refugees", but for the security of our nation against ISIS. Also, if Russia escalates the conflict by combatting out progress, then we will fight until we knock the literal shit out of ISIS and then get Assad out of there. After all, Assad mostly sees ISIS as an asset to his power since they are fighting the other Muslims that want to take his head off. He's buying oil from ISIS. And Russia loves him. So tell me again how Russia really wants to work with us to take out ISIS. Oh by the way Obama probably wouldn't mind having some of that oil too Assad, just let him make sure he tells treasury to shun the Russian businessmen who are also buying it.
Turkey Blockades Russian Shipping, Black Sea Fleet Completely Cut off
Super Station 95 - November 29, 2015
http://www.infowars.com/turkey-blockades-russian-shipping-black-sea-fleet-completely-cut-off/ (http://www.infowars.com/turkey-blockades-russian-shipping-black-sea-fleet-completely-cut-off/)
Turkey has begun a defacto blockade of Russian naval vessels, preventing transit through the Dardanelles and the Strait of Bosporus, between the Black Sea and Mediterranean. Both from the Black Sea, and from the Mediterranean Sea, there is a small cluster of ships under the Russian flag, just sitting and waiting. Turkey was authorized to close the Straits to all foreign warships in wartime or when it was threatened by aggression; additionally, it was authorized to refuse transit from merchant ships belonging to countries at war with Turkey. It is important to note two things: 1) Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as is the United States and most of Europe, AND; 2) Turkey took the first shot at Russia when they intentionally shot down a Russian jet last week. It is important to remember these facts because, as a NATO member, Turkey can invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty which requires all NATO members to come to its defense if Turkey is "attacked." So if Russia decides to fight back against Turkey downing its military jet, the Turks might call NATO and claim they've been "attacked" thereby calling-up NATO forces to go to war against Russia. It bears remembering, however, that Turkey shot first. Turkey was the nation which "attacked." Why did the Turks shoot? Because Turkey has been allowing the terrorist group ISIS to sell the oil it has stolen from countries it is conquering. So Turkey shot down one of the Russian planes that was attacking ISIS.
Quote from: Blacky on August 13, 2015, 10:33:38 AM
http://www.sott.net/article/300004-Lavrov-Putin-proposes-real-anti-ISIS-coalition-of-Syrian-Iraqi-Kurdish-troops (http://www.sott.net/article/300004-Lavrov-Putin-proposes-real-anti-ISIS-coalition-of-Syrian-Iraqi-Kurdish-troops)
Russian officials are right, double standarts that our government praise don't work anymore. After the US defeating of Saddam terrorists gained power in Iraq, after the casting down of Gaddafi terrorists raised their flags above Northern Africa.
I guess soon ISIS would be eliminated by Russian forces and their allies. And finally we'd say goodbye to Middle Eastern mess-up.
That's not true at all. After the defeat of Saddam Iraq had it's own, stable government backed by us. It was only after Obama unilaterally withdrew our forces that ISIS came to rise up.
Quote from: daidalos on November 30, 2015, 09:03:36 AM
That's not true at all. After the defeat of Saddam Iraq had it's own, stable government backed by us. It was only after Obama unilaterally withdrew our forces that ISIS came to rise up.
Not only that, but Iran moved in and the Shia's felt emboldened enough to start punishing the Sunni's which split the country.
Quote from: daidalos on November 30, 2015, 09:03:36 AM
That's not true at all. After the defeat of Saddam Iraq had it's own, stable government backed by us. It was only after Obama unilaterally withdrew our forces that ISIS came to rise up.
Lol, if Iraqi government needed US troops to maintain order in the country, then it couldn't have been called stable.
Arab society can't function without some kind of dictator, that's a fact. It is only a question who will be the dictator.
Quote from: milos on December 06, 2015, 12:15:29 AM
Lol, if Iraqi government needed US troops to maintain order in the country, then it couldn't have been called stable.
Arab society can't function without some kind of dictator, that's a fact. It is only a question who will be the dictator.
BINGO!!! Milos...
Nature abhors a vacuum. The US victory/fix played the part of dictator, but only as surrogate till someone filled the void.
It's what these people know, it's what their culture is based on, submission to another, it's why pedophilia is an accepted abhorrence, they are groomed as children to believe they should always submit to the stronger male, that they must do as they are told.
It's textbook Stockholm syndrome in a cultural catastrophe, and the M/E is the testube.
There is no winning the hearts and minds of these people.
Ask any cop what is the worst call to get during a regular shift, and they'll tell you domestic dispute, where the woman called 911 on her abusive husband, only to wind up being attacked by the complainant for handcuffing her assailant.
The M/E being no different.
Looks like ISIS has air force after all...
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/reports-isis-attacks-ayash-base-following-us-led-airstrikes/
"...Following the US-led airstrikes on Ayash military base in Deir ez-Ezzor, it has been confirmed that 1 Syrian Arab Army soldier has been killed with reports circulating that as many as 4 were killed, 13 wounded and 2 tanks destroyed.
It has been confirmed that ISIS immediately attacked Ayash military base immediately following the airstrikes..."
Quote from: kalash on December 07, 2015, 12:14:28 AM
Looks like ISIS has air force after all...
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/reports-isis-attacks-ayash-base-following-us-led-airstrikes/
"...Following the US-led airstrikes on Ayash military base in Deir ez-Ezzor, it has been confirmed that 1 Syrian Arab Army soldier has been killed with reports circulating that as many as 4 were killed, 13 wounded and 2 tanks destroyed.
It has been confirmed that ISIS immediately attacked Ayash military base immediately following the airstrikes..."
Interesting development. But ISIS doesn't have an air 'force' quite yet. There are rumors of pilots being trained.
I can't comment on your President's priorities because our priorities appear to allow time for ISIS to form an air-and-drone fighting-force... in Libya, most-likely.
Quote from: Solar on December 06, 2015, 05:57:53 AM
BINGO!!! Milos...
Nature abhors a vacuum. The US victory/fix played the part of dictator, but only as surrogate till someone filled the void.
It's what these people know, it's what their culture is based on, submission to another, it's why pedophilia is an accepted abhorrence, they are groomed as children to believe they should always submit to the stronger male, that they must do as they are told.
It's textbook Stockholm syndrome in a cultural catastrophe, and the M/E is the testube.
There is no winning the hearts and minds of these people.
Ask any cop what is the worst call to get during a regular shift, and they'll tell you domestic dispute, where the woman called 911 on her abusive husband, only to wind up being attacked by the complainant for handcuffing her assailant.
The M/E being no different.
Yes.
I believe most of Iraqis were supporting Saddam Hussein, or at least they were fine with him, for the reasons you mentioned, they needed a strong manly figure to rule over them. Saddam was an American ally during the 1980s, when he waged a war against Iran, I don't know how he became an enemy during the 1990s. But, with removing Saddam, only a vacuum has left. There was no one to replace him. And the American troops maintaining the order forever at the expense of the American taxpayers and losing their lives doesn't seem as a proper long-term solution. Iraqis, left on themselves, will just surrender to the Islamic State, and after all, they are not that much different anyway, those from the Islamic State are some Iraqis, too. Only to establish a new dictator, I can't see any other solution.
The same was in Libya with Gaddafi. And the same is now in Syria. If Assad goes, who shall replace him? The country will be left to the Islamic State if left without a strong manly figure to rule. Russia must support Assad, because Russia is protecting herself in Syria. If Assad fails, and the Islamic State takes the control over Syria, then it will move to the Caucasus region very soon, directly threatening Russia. And we have already seen Muslim terrorists taking Russian school children as hostages in Chechnya, or taking the people in Moscow theater as hostages. But the Islamic State would be much, much worse than that.
British CNN on russian airstrikes in Syria. Video
https://russian.rt.com/inotv/2015-12-16/CNN-ubedilsya-v-intensivnosti-aviaudarov
Quote from: milos on December 11, 2015, 06:17:00 AM
Yes.
I believe most of Iraqis were supporting Saddam Hussein, or at least they were fine with him, for the reasons you mentioned, they needed a strong manly figure to rule over them. Saddam was an American ally during the 1980s, when he waged a war against Iran, I don't know how he became an enemy during the 1990s. But, with removing Saddam, only a vacuum has left. There was no one to replace him. And the American troops maintaining the order forever at the expense of the American taxpayers and losing their lives doesn't seem as a proper long-term solution. Iraqis, left on themselves, will just surrender to the Islamic State, and after all, they are not that much different anyway, those from the Islamic State are some Iraqis, too. Only to establish a new dictator, I can't see any other solution.
The same was in Libya with Gaddafi. And the same is now in Syria. If Assad goes, who shall replace him? The country will be left to the Islamic State if left without a strong manly figure to rule. Russia must support Assad, because Russia is protecting herself in Syria. If Assad fails, and the Islamic State takes the control over Syria, then it will move to the Caucasus region very soon, directly threatening Russia. And we have already seen Muslim terrorists taking Russian school children as hostages in Chechnya, or taking the people in Moscow theater as hostages. But the Islamic State would be much, much worse than that.
Assad is not unbeatable, ISIS was created because of a "strongman" like Assad and the more Assad wages genocide agains the Sunni's the stronger ISIS will become. Gaddafi would based on what is happening in Syria have fallen himself as the West just used his weakness as an opportunity for a quick successful war to get distraction from domestic issues. To think that the Middle East is in turmoil because of foreign intervention or even vacuum is dismissing all ethnic, religious and political-regional tensions that is bound to take place with so many opposing factors.