The Vladimir Putin appreciation thread.

Herpes Cineplex

SamHarris wrote: »

There is no need for rendition when torture is used routinely by all law enforcement agencies in the country, as well as by the FSB.

Yet it's probably a lot safer than the United States. Where a week can't go by, with several people getting blown away by cops, for possessing a pair of hands or for turning their backs.

SamHarris

fran17 wrote: »

That's fine because I'm not here to appease anyone.Do you believe that the US state department neither seeks nor receives any preferential treatment as a result of these excessive contributions?
Personally I believe they do and they would be foolish not to seek this.Amnesty international do a lot of very commendable work but because of there continued denial regarding receiving state donations they leave themselves open to very valid criticism.

Well if your not trying to convince anyone that your position has any validity beyond your own opinion then well done, you've established that pretty well.

So they do very valued work, I take it, when their findings coincide nicely with your politics? And when they do not, well, it is clearly a piece of Western "propaganda" and is absolute lies. Wow. Didnt see that coming :rolleyes:

So your saying the only evidence you have that this particular article is false is that the organisation gets money from governments? Nothing else? At all?

Well I figured your rebuttal would be... weak... and therefore quick so I took the liberty of posting another study that finds the exact same problem.

SamHarris

Herpes Cineplex wrote: »

Yet it's probably a lot safer than the United States. Where a week can't go by, with several people getting blown away by cops, for possessing a pair of hands or for turning their backs.

What?

Is it an Irish thing that people honestly think "I dont like America because..." is a good rebuttal concerning pretty much any national or international criticism? It's honestly neurotic for some people at this point.

And just for the record, no, the murder rate is three times higher in Russia than in the States. And given Russias level of development throughout much of its territory and the rampant corruption those numbers could very well be much, much higher.

Eugene Norman

SamHarris wrote: »

What?

Is it an Irish thing that people honestly think "I dont like America because..." is a good rebuttal concerning pretty much any national or international criticism? It's honestly neurotic for some people at this point.

And just for the record, no, the murder rate is three times higher in Russia than in the States. And given Russias level of development throughout much of its territory and the rampant corruption those numbers could very well be much, much higher.

The real problem with the U.S. is its actions outside its borders. What happens inside is its problem, although with its ideology of "white privilege" shootings of American blacks get disproportionate coverage, unlike the U.S. and it's genocidal activities in the Middle East, it's mass murdering drones, it's support of invasions everywhere and anywhere.

SamHarris

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The real problem with the U.S. is its actions outside its borders. What happens inside is its problem, although with its ideology of "white privilege" shootings of American blacks get disproportionate coverage, unlike the U.S. and it's genocidal activities in the Middle East, it's mass murdering drones, it's support of invasions everywhere and anywhere.

I'd love to ignore this as it clearly has nothing to do with anything discussed here but boy am I curious.

Where are these genocides, and do you know what a genocide is?

"Its support of invasions everywhere and anywhere" - could you name, say, 3 of these "anywhere and everywhere" that has occurred in the last, say, 5 years?

Eugene Norman

SamHarris wrote: »

I'd love to ignore this as it clearly has nothing to do with anything discussed here but boy am I curious.

Where are these genocides, and do you know what a genocide is?

"Its support of invasions everywhere and anywhere" - could you name, say, 3 of these "anywhere and everywhere" that has occurred in the last, say, 5 years?

Can you name any major invasion of the last few years that wasn't American.

SamHarris

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Can you name any major invasion of the last few years that wasn't American.

Last few years, gonna have to be a bit more specific. And yes, plenty because I dont learn all I know about foreign relations from watching American movies.

A very valuable lesson that you might know if it is in fact the case that that is where you get your information - just because you dont know much about South America, Africa, the Indian sub continent or anywhere where the West is not intimately involved does not even begin to mean that there is nothing going on there.

But you were asked first, please. You were pretty clear that you had some invasions "anywhere and everywhere", not to mention some genocides to get to.

Ill try ignore that your already back-pedalling at a furious pace from your original statement.

Eugene Norman

The U.S. has invaded or destabilised Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, libya, and Syria. The invasion of Iraq, as neo con Michael Ledeen enthused, was designed to destroy civil society there. It arms the rebels throughout the Middle East while decrying Iran -- a potential stabiliser. It will eventually invade, and quite possibly nuke, Iran based on whatever tissue of lies it feels like coming up with.

Of course it has form with nukes. And genocide.

Eugene Norman

SamHarris wrote: »

Last few years, gonna have to be a bit more specific. And yes, plenty because I dont learn all I know about foreign relations from watching American movies.

A very valuable lesson that you might know if it is in fact the case that that is where you get your information - just because you dont know much about South America, Africa, the Indian sub continent or anywhere where the West is not intimately involved does not even begin to mean that there is nothing going on there.

But you were asked first, please. You were pretty clear that you had some invasions "anywhere and everywhere", not to mention some genocides to get to.

Ill try ignore that your already back-pedalling at a furious pace from your original statement.

I've answered. And trust me I know vastly more than you on any subject you might feel free to vomit up.

Notavirus.exe

Why do I keep seeing memes about this guy? I hate the c*nt. He's more than likely developing nuclear weapons even though nobody needs them.

SamHarris

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The U.S. has invaded or destabilised Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, libya, and Syria. The invasion of Iraq, as neo con Michael Ledeen enthused, was designed to destroy civil society there. It arms the rebels throughout the Middle East while decrying Iran -- a potential stabiliser. It will eventually invade, and quite possibly nuke, Iran based on whatever tissue of lies it feels like coming up with.

Of course it has form with nukes. And genocide.

So, none in the last 5 years is what your saying?

You mentioned "destabilisation" just now, clearly because you could not even think of one invasion. I wont bother debating them because I know full well all you will require for "proof" of destabilisation will be any contact with the US (in the distant past or following the period of destabilization, I know it will be irrelevant) followed by a country being destabilized - all local and historical factors will, of course be ignored. So no, you cant go ahead and add new headlines just because you realize you cant think of any that meet YOUR original criteria.

Just as an example - you say Somalia. You honestly think the US destabilised that country in the last 5 years? I would advice you to just read the wiki page on the state and maybe just skim back over the last few decades. Out of curiosity, though, what US action caused the country to become "destabilized" from its previous oh-so-stable position five years ago?

And your post goes on to elaborate on the destabilization point that you felt the need to introduce when you realized you had nothing to say. Am I close enough?

Ah! So your reference to "genocidal activities" in the Middle East was, in fact, a reference to THE FUTURE! excellent, it makes much more sense now. Well I guess you should repost that cutting critique of American foreign policy when your prophecy comes to pass. Until then you're basically saying nothing.

fran17

SamHarris wrote: »

Well if your not trying to convince anyone that your position has any validity beyond your own opinion then well done, you've established that pretty well.

So they do very valued work, I take it, when their findings coincide nicely with your politics? And when they do not, well, it is clearly a piece of Western "propaganda" and is absolute lies. Wow. Didnt see that coming :rolleyes:

So your saying the only evidence you have that this particular article is false is that the organisation gets money from governments? Nothing else? At all?

Well I figured your rebuttal would be... weak... and therefore quick so I took the liberty of posting another study that finds the exact same problem.

"To insure our independence we do not seek or accept money from governments or political parties for our work researching and campaigning on human rights abuses."
Now this is amnesty international's official line on the matter from there official website.This organisation,which you believe to be above reproach,are being wholly misleading regarding this issue and that is the opinion of many including former board members.
You believe me using this as a defence to be weak,but still a defence.So again,in contradiction to there official press release,do you believe that amnesty international receive,either directly or indirectly,funding from the US state department?

Irish Praetorian

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The U.S. has invaded or destabilised Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, libya, and Syria. The invasion of Iraq, as neo con Michael Ledeen enthused, was designed to destroy civil society there. It arms the rebels throughout the Middle East while decrying Iran -- a potential stabiliser. It will eventually invade, and quite possibly nuke, Iran based on whatever tissue of lies it feels like coming up with.

Of course it has form with nukes. And genocide.

You forgot to add 'they are icky and bad and I hate em I hate em!!!'

SamHarris

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I've answered. And trust me I know vastly more than you on any subject you might feel free to vomit up.

I'm sure, you're doing just wonderfully.

Is it that you just get a little excited then, hence all the back pedalling and the desperate shoehorning in of new criteria? Maybe just think before you type and you wont have to spend so much energy digging yourself out of your own holes.

SamHarris

fran17 wrote: »

"To insure our independence we do not seek or accept money from governments or political parties for our work researching and campaigning on human rights abuses."
Now this is amnesty international's official line on the matter from there official website.This organisation,which you believe to be above reproach,are being wholly misleading regarding this issue and that is the opinion of many including former board members.
You believe me using this as a defence to be weak,but still a defence.So again,in contradiction to there official press release,do you believe that amnesty international receive,either directly or indirectly,funding from the US state department?

I never said anything about their funding, you did.

I never said it was above reproach, you did. It's entirely reproachable, just debunk the article in question. Prove that the scource of funding is the reason the article reached the conclusions it does. Or, at the very least, show some proof that the State Department exercises editorial control over the findings.

If all the proof you have to debunk the findings is that some of the organizations funding comes from a country then that really proves nothing at all.

And like I said there is another organization that pretty much reached the same conclusions, you can find it at the top of the page. I'm sure I could find more.

I believe the findings are more likely than not true because it is a widely reported issue (I gave you two examples) and anything I have read on the issue reaches broadley the same conclusions. You chose not to believe them because ...?

DetroitSpinR

Grayson wrote: »

I'm always amused by comparisons between the USSR/Russia & the USA. It's like saying who's worse the Lannisters or the Tyrells.
They're both cnuts.

There is one big difference between USA and USS/Russia. That's the amount of personal freedom that their citizens have. People in the USA did have a more freedom than people in the USSR. Even now they don't have the restrictive anti gay laws and their press is unrestricted. Whereas Russia has mainly state controlled media.

When it comes to foreign policy both have been utter dicks for the last 70 years. There have been occasions of altrusim but mainly they've been dicks.

I didn't think that Russia outlawed homosexuality only the promotion of same sex relationships to children.

SamHarris

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I've answered. And trust me I know vastly more than you on any subject you might feel free to vomit up.

Scratch that, please dont respond to anything I posted. I think we both know its over.

If you want to start a thread on the planned nuclear genocide of Iran, there is a CT forum.

I'm sure you can find other forums for the other topics you brought up, none of which belong here.

I have a feeling there is more than enough "I DONT LIKE AMERIKKKA!" threads on this thing.

PopePalpatine

DetroitSpinR wrote: »

I didn't think that Russia outlawed homosexuality only the promotion of same sex relationships to children.

And how is this "promotion" defined? It seems like saying so much as "don't hunt LGBT people" is "promotion of homosexuality" to the average Putinbot.

SamHarris

DetroitSpinR wrote: »

I didn't think that Russia outlawed homosexuality only the promotion of same sex relationships to children.

"Promotion" was outlawed, true. As was any authority figure, including teachers, doctors and social workers acknowledging it as a legitimate sexual preference to a minor.

The problems caused by Putins little crusade against the terrifying gays are well documented, implying it is harmlessly stopping children being encouraged to be gay is disingenuous, at best.

https://news.vice.com/video/young-and-gay-in-putin-39-s-russia-part-1-5 this doc does a good job of documenting the real problems and violence faced by LGBT people in Russia. It has since gotten worse, but it should make it pretty clear that those blowing off the legislation as nearly harmless are either ignorant or lying.

Eugene Norman

SamHarris wrote: »

So, none in the last 5 years is what your saying?

You mentioned "destabilisation" just now, clearly because you could not even think of one invasion. I wont bother debating them because I know full well all you will require for "proof" of destabilisation will be any contact with the US (in the distant past or following the period of destabilization, I know it will be irrelevant) followed by a country being destabilized - all local and historical factors will, of course be ignored. So no, you cant go ahead and add new headlines just because you realize you cant think of any that meet YOUR original criteria.

Just as an example - you say Somalia. You honestly think the US destabilised that country in the last 5 years? I would advice you to just read the wiki page on the state and maybe just skim back over the last few decades. Out of curiosity, though, what US action caused the country to become "destabilized" from its previous oh-so-stable position five years ago?

And your post goes on to elaborate on the destabilization point that you felt the need to introduce when you realized you had nothing to say. Am I close enough?

Ah! So your reference to "genocidal activities" in the Middle East was, in fact, a reference to THE FUTURE! excellent, it makes much more sense now. Well I guess you should repost that cutting critique of American foreign policy when your prophecy comes to pass. Until then you're basically saying nothing.

You keep not "wanting to debate" and yet continue to spew all kinds of nonsense after you had hopefully exited the debate. A keen reader would notice that you have apparantly taken 5 years out of somewhere close to your hip.

As for de-stabilisation I mean exactly that. America after invading Iraq has gone on to support Isis in genocide. By support I mean Isis are armed by the U.S. and probably helped by special forces. In fact the entire "Arab spring" was a U.S. and western provoked uprising. As nobody denied at the time. Isis arose in Syria and moved to Iraq. Rand Paul admitted as much in the presidential debate, the rest of the lunatics equated Sunni Isis to Shia Iran.


When I said recently I didn't mean 5 years. But can you explain what South American wars you think come close to Americas belligerence? Or India? I mean external wars.

SamHarris

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You keep not "wanting to debate" and yet continue to spew all kinds of nonsense after you had hopefully exited the debate. A keen reader would notice that you have apparantly taken 5 years out of somewhere close to your hip.

As for de-stabilisation I mean exactly that. America after invading Iraq has gone on to support Isis in genocide. By support I mean Isis are armed by the U.S. and probably helped by special forces. In fact the entire "Arab spring" was a U.S. and western provoked uprising. As nobody denied at the time. Isis arose in Syria and moved to Iraq. Rand Paul admitted as much in the presidential debate, the rest of the lunatics equated Sunni Isis to Shia Iran.


When I said recently I didn't mean 5 years. But can you explain what South American wars you think come close to Americas belligerence? Or India? I mean external wars.

Yes yes we have established that you were just running your mouth and have nothing.

I made it pretty clear that Im done talking, like I said if you want to debate any of that start a new thread.

You had your chance to make a good point but fumbled. No need to feel bad. Just do it in the right thread for a start. From a lot of what your saying I would suggest the CT forum.

Eugene Norman

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes yes we have established that you were just running your mouth and have nothing.

I made it pretty clear that Im done talking, like I said if you want to debate any of that start a new thread.

You had your chance to make a good point but fumbled. No need to feel bad. Just do it in the right thread for a start.

If you are done talking stop talking. You saying "I am running my mouth" with no reply to my question about India and South America is clearly running scared. And the thread has moved onto American actions long before me.

That entire post is in fact playing the man.

To steer back on topic here is a list of countries invaded by the U.S. recently (with drone attacks ) to limited horror from the "Putin invaded Ukraine the bad bad man" brigade.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/aug/02/us-drone-strikes-data

I assume we all accept that drone attacks are acts of war? Imagine if China or Russis were doing this.

Let's agree that Russia shouldn't invade other countries. Anybody want to explain the lack of outrage here.

DetroitSpinR

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

So an Estonian investigating russian smuggling gangs gets kidnapped by the Russian secret police and then gets 15 years in a sham trial. Russia is so phenomenally corrupt at this stage, it's beyond a joke.

Is there the slightest possibility that the Estonian was guilty of subterfuge or absolutely not?

SamHarris

Eugene Norman wrote: »

If you are done talking stop talking. You saying "I am running my mouth" with no reply to my question about India and South America is clearly running scared. And the thread has moved onto American actions long before me.

That entire post is in fact playing the man.

To steer back on topic here is a list of countries invaded by the U.S. recently (with drone attacks ) to limited horror from the "Putin invaded Ukraine the bad bad man" brigade.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/aug/02/us-drone-strikes-data

I assume we all accept that drone attacks are acts of war? Imagine if China or Russis were doing this.

Yes, yes America is arming ISIS there is nothing they wont do to dominate the world. Ill watch Iran for the nuclear cloud etc etc I didnt want to come out and say it but I dont debate with CTers. Lets just say they are WAY to clever and well read for me and leave it at that.

"Invaded (with a drone)" :rolleyes: So you didnt mean invasion at all, did you? This is one of the many reasons I dont debate CTers and why Im not going to reply to you again - every time they realize they messed up instead of saying "ok maybe I was using hyperbola" and getting on with the discussion they instead have to continually add caviates and new criteria until they are discussing nothing like what they THEMSELVES originally tried to postulate.

Its funny to watch but I would much rather get in a debate with someone on a topic I actually have some interest in, that can remain focused on making the same point over more than one paragraph and does not really too much on their crystal ball.

And yes, I'm running scared. It was one erudite, concise evidence based comment from you after another until I just had to throw in the towel.

Irish Praetorian

DetroitSpinR wrote: »

I didn't think that Russia outlawed homosexuality only the promotion of same sex relationships to children.

Actually its the promotion of 'non-traditional sexual relationships' and it applies to all places children might be present - IE in public. Apparently they didn't see the irony when Russian schoolkids themselves started getting prosecuted and fined under this law because, who would have thought it, young people can be gay too!

DetroitSpinR

robindch wrote: »

Russia suffers from seriously low self-esteem - compare the amount of state money spent in Russia telling their citizens how awful the USA is with the amount of cash spent in the USA slagging off Russia - the ratio must easily be in double digits, if not triple. Or, compare the number of Russians living in the USA or wanting to, with the number of Americans living in Russia, or wanting to. Russia knows that many, and possibly most, of its own citizens can't stand it either.

All Russia can do these days is play out the low-self-esteem, schoolyard bully act via the medium of its bare-chested "action" president.

As Russia can't ever be the USA with its current criminal political leadership, all it can do instead is just insult the USA.

It's embarrassing really.

Strikes me that your observation of global political issues can be summarised in an episode of the Jerry Springer Show, replete with "talk to the hand"!

Forget innovations anywhere, forget industry, education, forget everything. Just reduce it all to a slag-off match. I can almost see Katie Price, yapping "Yeah, see! I'm beh-ah! yeah."

DetroitSpinR

SamHarris wrote: »

What?

Is it an Irish thing that people honestly think "I dont like America because..." is a good rebuttal concerning pretty much any national or international criticism? It's honestly neurotic for some people at this point.

And just for the record, no, the murder rate is three times higher in Russia than in the States. And given Russias level of development throughout much of its territory and the rampant corruption those numbers could very well be much, much higher.

What has the murder rate got to do with anything? Would you cite the murder rate in South Africa as a stick to beat Mandela with?

And actually I'm not so sure about your murder rate claim....but I'm open to correction. Do you have figures?

Thanks if you do, no bother if not.

BoJack Horseman

Can't we get back to how awesome czar Vladi is?

Leave the America hatin for that thread.

fran17

SamHarris wrote: »

I never said anything about their funding, you did.

I never said it was above reproach, you did. It's entirely reproachable, just debunk the article in question. Prove that the scource of funding is the reason the article reached the conclusions it does. Or, at the very least, show some proof that the State Department exercises editorial control over the findings.

If all the proof you have to debunk the findings is that some of the organizations funding comes from a country then that really proves nothing at all.

And like I said there is another organization that pretty much reached the same conclusions, you can find it at the top of the page. I'm sure I could find more.

I believe the findings are more likely than not true because it is a widely reported issue (I gave you two examples) and anything I have read on the issue reaches broadley the same conclusions. You chose not to believe them because ...?

You are a slippery fish aren't you,I imagine your two degrees equipped you with all the tactics you need to dodge the many questions people have asked of you in this thread.I liked the three degrees myself,I thought "When will I see you again" was a classic.
No you may not have initiated the issue regarding there funding but you continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that they receive funding from the US government.Your argument,just like amnesty international,is flawed on the matter.
You requesting for me to "prove" that the US state department is exercising editorial control over the findings is akin to me asking you to prove they are not exercising control.Both would be,if I was to attempt it,unprovable fallacies.
I continue to believe that amnesty international must be scrutinised closely regarding matters which are of interest to the US media propaganda war that is being waged against any nation,or leader,who has the balls to stand up to uncle SamHarris.Sorry,uncle Sam.

SamHarris

DetroitSpinR wrote: »

What has the murder rate got to do with anything? Would you cite the murder rate in South Africa as a stick to beat Mandela with?

And actually I'm not so sure about your murder rate claim....but I'm open to correction. Do you have figures?

Thanks if you do, no bother if not.

Not that hard to decipher - the post I quoted in that very same post said he believed Russia was much safer than the US. I pointed out thats not the case given the murder rate and the violent crime rate (many times higher in Russia).

I dont know what your talking about with regards to Mandella.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Russia/United-States/Crime its not very good for some crime stats, for example sexual violence where it should come as no surprise that countries that either make it very difficult for the woman/man to come forward for any number of reasons always have very low ones, as it only measures reported crimes.

But for murder and violent crime (not including rape) in two advanced states they can be compared well.