Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
But really, when it is about a subject involving the Russian government, especially under Putin, you aren't going to be able to find any reliable objective sources. A source will either be pro-Russia (all Russian media) or anti-Russia (all Western media). RT in those cases is equally unreliable as the BBC or the NY Times for example. If there is any media source in existance that takes an objective middle ground, I have yet to see it.
There are degrees of bias. The existence of bias in every form of media does not mean that every form of media is equally biased. You're once again assuming that all Western media (and all Russian too, for that matter) is a monolith; last time we had this debate you tried linking a paper that explicitly pointed out that Western media is not monolithic as supporting evidence to your claim that Western media is monolithic. There isn't going to be any point in having this debate until you recognize that different media actors have differing views, arguments, and degrees of honesty, and thus different levels of bias in different questions. Otherwise we'd have to assume that the Daily Mail is on the same level of journalistic integrity as Reuters, which is silly. In fact (and I believe I made this point last time we had this discussion as well), I'd probably trust RT over the Daily Mail.
I mostly agree with you. But when it is about Russia, the degrees of bias on both sides are the same. The West is the enemy of Russia, and every westerner has an inherent cultural-historic bias against Russians. What is written by a westerner about the Russian government is therefore just as unreliable as that what the Russian government writes about itself. Less even, because apart from biased, virtually all westerners are also very ignorant of Russia. The same is true for Western stories about the Middle-East. Because the West is so strongly islamophobic, those stories are usually going to have a very, very strong bias. There are exceptions of course, but exceptions prove the rule.
Furthermore, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. The West is a monolithic cultural-historic bloc. That doesn't mean it doesn't have internal differences, but it does mean that those internal differences are not very significant when measured against the differences that exist between the West and say, the Islamic or the Russian world. Of course, if you never leave the West and have never actually lived in a different civilisation, this is not something you are ever going to be able to see.
I had a big long detailed reply to this, but I don't think it will make any difference. Suffice to say, the idea that "the west" is any sort monolithic cultural block (particularly given the dizzying array of definitions of "the west", most of which include Russia on a cultural level) that is so vastly alienated from Russia as to be completely ignorant of its people and events, and so uniformly anti-Russian to its core as to be a natural enemy of Russia, is both ignorant in and of itself, and exceedingly absurd, just as the idea that Russia is a natural and inherent enemy of "the West" and completely ignorant of the "the west". Whatever bias and hate is reserved for Russia by "the west" has been done at least as much amongst the various members of "the west" to each other up until very recently indeed, and there's millions of Russians and people of Russian descent in the EU and US.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
But really, when it is about a subject involving the Russian government, especially under Putin, you aren't going to be able to find any reliable objective sources. A source will either be pro-Russia (all Russian media) or anti-Russia (all Western media). RT in those cases is equally unreliable as the BBC or the NY Times for example. If there is any media source in existance that takes an objective middle ground, I have yet to see it.
There are degrees of bias. The existence of bias in every form of media does not mean that every form of media is equally biased. You're once again assuming that all Western media (and all Russian too, for that matter) is a monolith; last time we had this debate you tried linking a paper that explicitly pointed out that Western media is not monolithic as supporting evidence to your claim that Western media is monolithic. There isn't going to be any point in having this debate until you recognize that different media actors have differing views, arguments, and degrees of honesty, and thus different levels of bias in different questions. Otherwise we'd have to assume that the Daily Mail is on the same level of journalistic integrity as Reuters, which is silly. In fact (and I believe I made this point last time we had this discussion as well), I'd probably trust RT over the Daily Mail.
I mostly agree with you. But when it is about Russia, the degrees of bias on both sides are the same. The West is the enemy of Russia, and every westerner has an inherent cultural-historic bias against Russians. What is written by a westerner about the Russian government is therefore just as unreliable as that what the Russian government writes about itself. Less even, because apart from biased, virtually all westerners are also very ignorant of Russia. The same is true for Western stories about the Middle-East. Because the West is so strongly islamophobic, those stories are usually going to have a very, very strong bias. There are exceptions of course, but exceptions prove the rule.
Furthermore, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. The West is a monolithic cultural-historic bloc. That doesn't mean it doesn't have internal differences, but it does mean that those internal differences are not very significant when measured against the differences that exist between the West and say, the Islamic or the Russian world. Of course, if you never leave the West and have never actually lived in a different civilisation, this is not something you are ever going to be able to see.
I had a big long detailed reply to this, but I don't think it will make any difference. Suffice to say, the idea that "the west" is any sort monolithic cultural block (particularly given the dizzying array of definitions of "the west", most of which include Russia on a cultural level) that is so vastly alienated from Russia as to be completely ignorant of its people and events, and so uniformly anti-Russian to its core as to be a natural enemy of Russia, is both ignorant in and of itself, and exceedingly absurd, just as the idea that Russia is a natural and inherent enemy of "the West" and completely ignorant of the "the west". Whatever bias and hate is reserved for Russia by "the west" has been done at least as much amongst the various members of "the west" to each other up until very recently indeed, and there's millions of Russians and people of Russian descent in the EU and US.
We must live in different worlds. Maybe you could at the very least explain why you think it is absurd? Or why you think the West is not a monolithic cultural bloc? Or even provide examples where Russian is included in "the West", which is one of the most laughable things I have ever heard, considering that Russia's whole national identity has been pretty much formed by contrasting and comparing itself with the "other" i.e. the West. You said "the West" wasn't ignorant of Russia and its people, so surely you, as westerner, should have known that? I don't think your argument has much worth if you don't elaborate on it. Calling something absurd is nothing but an appeal to the stone.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/10 14:55:07
But really, when it is about a subject involving the Russian government, especially under Putin, you aren't going to be able to find any reliable objective sources. A source will either be pro-Russia (all Russian media) or anti-Russia (all Western media). RT in those cases is equally unreliable as the BBC or the NY Times for example. If there is any media source in existance that takes an objective middle ground, I have yet to see it.
There are degrees of bias. The existence of bias in every form of media does not mean that every form of media is equally biased. You're once again assuming that all Western media (and all Russian too, for that matter) is a monolith; last time we had this debate you tried linking a paper that explicitly pointed out that Western media is not monolithic as supporting evidence to your claim that Western media is monolithic. There isn't going to be any point in having this debate until you recognize that different media actors have differing views, arguments, and degrees of honesty, and thus different levels of bias in different questions. Otherwise we'd have to assume that the Daily Mail is on the same level of journalistic integrity as Reuters, which is silly. In fact (and I believe I made this point last time we had this discussion as well), I'd probably trust RT over the Daily Mail.
I mostly agree with you. But when it is about Russia, the degrees of bias on both sides are the same. The West is the enemy of Russia, and every westerner has an inherent cultural-historic bias against Russians. What is written by a westerner about the Russian government is therefore just as unreliable as that what the Russian government writes about itself. Less even, because apart from biased, virtually all westerners are also very ignorant of Russia. The same is true for Western stories about the Middle-East. Because the West is so strongly islamophobic, those stories are usually going to have a very, very strong bias. There are exceptions of course, but exceptions prove the rule.
Furthermore, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. The West is a monolithic cultural-historic bloc. That doesn't mean it doesn't have internal differences, but it does mean that those internal differences are not very significant when measured against the differences that exist between the West and say, the Islamic or the Russian world. Of course, if you never leave the West and have never actually lived in a different civilisation, this is not something you are ever going to be able to see.
I had a big long detailed reply to this, but I don't think it will make any difference. Suffice to say, the idea that "the west" is any sort monolithic cultural block (particularly given the dizzying array of definitions of "the west", most of which include Russia on a cultural level) that is so vastly alienated from Russia as to be completely ignorant of its people and events, and so uniformly anti-Russian to its core as to be a natural enemy of Russia, is both ignorant in and of itself, and exceedingly absurd, just as the idea that Russia is a natural and inherent enemy of "the West" and completely ignorant of the "the west". Whatever bias and hate is reserved for Russia by "the west" has been done at least as much amongst the various members of "the west" to each other up until very recently indeed, and there's millions of Russians and people of Russian descent in the EU and US.
We must live in different worlds.
Maybe you could at the very least explain why you think it is absurd? Or why you think the West is not a monolithic cultural bloc? Or even provide examples where Russian is included in "the West"
Pretty much every cultural definition of the western world. There's a reason that Tolstoy and Anton Chekov are featured on the Wikipedia page for "Western Culture".
which is one of the most laughable things I have ever heard, considering that Russia's whole national identity has been pretty much formed by contrasting and comparing itself with the "other" i.e. the West.
In a post early 20th century *political* sense, sure, but it's a defining feature of the last few decades built around shoring up a centralized government, but before that, for the hundreds of years before the firsr world war, was Russia defining itself on its opposition to "the west"? Not really, especially not with hundreds of years of conflict with steppe peoples, and no unified "west" to speak of.
Politically, Russia has remained a very distinct entity, resisting integration, but *culturally* isn't any more distant from other European (or politcally "western") nations than they are from each other. Literary and artistic traditions, religion, social concepts, etc are not more vastly different in Russia vs "the west" than between say, Portugal and Poland or Greece and Ireland or Australia and Slovenia. Theres vast amounts of overlap.
If you took an average Russian and plopped them in the middle of a ranom Greek, UK, US, German, Spanish, Hungarian, Swiss, Italian, Portugese, etc city, would they immediatley stand out? No. Language barriers aside, would daily life be massively foreign? Not really. Certainly not anymorso than a Hungarian in the US or a Swede in Italy or a Czech in Portugal might find, and certainly far less so than for say, a Saudi dropped into a random European or US city.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/10 15:35:06
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
The "West" is less a cultural thing and more an economical and political thing, and from that pov there is a very clear distinction between the "West" aka the EU and NATO; and Russia.
And Russia always compared itself with the "West", even before the was a "West". It is funny if you think about it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/10 15:36:23
Tyran wrote: The "West" is less a cultural thing and more an economical and political thing, and from that pov there is a very clear distinction between the "West" aka the EU and NATO; and Russia.
This I would agree with.
And Russia always compared itself with the "West", even before the was a "West". It is funny if you think about it.
Well, it compared itself with various powers that were west of it, but thats because mostly there wasnt much in the way of nation states to the north (lol), south (except for the Ottomans, which they also competed with) or east (until you got waaaayyyyyyy east)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/10 15:41:06
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
We must live in different worlds. Maybe you could at the very least explain why you think it is absurd? Or why you think the West is not a monolithic cultural bloc? Or even provide examples where Russian is included in "the West"
Pretty much every cultural definition of the western world. There's a reason that Tolstoy and Anton Chekov are featured on the Wikipedia page for "Western Culture".
Okay, I just googled for a map of the Western world (typing in Google image search just "Western world") and literally not a single one of the hundreds of pictures that came up included Russia. Clearly not "pretty much every cultural" definition of the Western world includes Russia. Certainly, an argument can be made for that including Tolstoy and Chekov under Western culture. They have had a lot of influence not just on Russian, but on European literature in general, and thus also contributed to Western culture. Just because Russia and the West are different worlds doesn't mean that there hasn't been overlap or that there hasn't been mutual influence.
which is one of the most laughable things I have ever heard, considering that Russia's whole national identity has been pretty much formed by contrasting and comparing itself with the "other" i.e. the West.
In a post early 20th century *political* sense, sure, but it's a defining feature of the last few decades built around shoring up a centralized government, but before that, for the hundreds of years before the firsr world war, was Russia defining itself on its opposition to "the west"? Not really, especially not with hundreds of years of conflict with steppe peoples, and no unified "west" to speak of.
Russia's struggle with Western powers (primarily Poland, Sweden and Germany) goes back centuries before the beginning of the 20th century, and Russia's internal political conflict of whether to try to become part of Europe and the West or to go on its own way goes back to at least the days of Ivan the Terrible. Even if there wasn't an unified "West" in reality at the time, it certainly did already exist that way in the Russian mind even back then. Being a Westerner yourself, you might have trouble seeing why the rest of the world considers (and always has considered) the "West" as a monolithic whole. An outsider has a massively different perspective on something like that than an insider.
Vaktathi wrote: Politically, Russia has remained a very distinct entity, resisting integration, but *culturally* isn't any more distant from other European (or politcally "western") nations than they are from each other. Literary and artistic traditions, religion, social concepts, etc are not more vastly different in Russia vs "the west" than between say, Portugal and Poland or Greece and Ireland or Australia and Slovenia. Theres vast amounts of overlap.
True. But there exists also huge overlaps between the West and the Middle East. Cultures influence each other a lot, which means there is always going to be a lot of overlap between neighbouring cultures. That doesn't mean that they aren't distinctively different though. There are vast differences in literary, artistic, religious traditions and social concepts between the West and Russia. Depending on whether you emphasise the similarities or the differences you can use this argument both ways.
Vaktathi wrote: If you took an average Russian and plopped them in the middle of a ranom Greek, UK, US, German, Spanish, Hungarian, Swiss, Italian, Portugese, etc city, would they immediatley stand out? No. Language barriers aside, would daily life be massively foreign? Not really. Certainly not anymorso than a Hungarian in the US or a Swede in Italy or a Czech in Portugal might find, and certainly far less so than for say, a Saudi dropped into a random European or US city.
The average Saudi watches TV and has most likely been exposed to Western culture at some point or another. Life in a European city wouldn't be massively foreign to them. Certainly it is not to the few Saudis and other Middle Easterners I know in The Hague. You could plop an average Russian down in an American city and he/she would adapt without problems. The same goes for an average Chinese. Thanks to the globalisation of Western culture, this argument has become meaningless. And even without globalisation, daily human life tends to look largely the same everywhere in the entire world. However, would it go the other way? Could you put an average American in an average Russian city and would he/she then adapt without much problems? Even leaving the language aside, I think that person would be having a lot of trouble fitting in. Thanks to globalisation, the average Russian will have had a lot of exposure to American culture, yet the average American not at all to Russian culture.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/10 16:31:40
Unfortunately I dont have the time currently to address each of those points as much as I'd like, and you make some good ones in places like with respect to globalization.
However, circling back to the original topic, I would agree with Tyran's point about there being a major distinction between the *Political/Economic* "western world" and Russia. Denying that would be absurd on my part.
In terms of any sort of inherent *cultural* bias from "western culture", that is both monolithic (with fewer variations between members than between any of them and Russia) and exclusive of Russia, with an inherent alienness and bias against Russia (and meaningfully moreso than between the ostensible members of such a sans-russia "western" cultural world, such as between say Iceland and Greece or Spain and Poland or Italy and Norway or Germany and France or the US and Slovenia), that would simply naturally engender biased reporting against Russia on *cultural* grounds, I think that is far harder to accept.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/10 17:10:33
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're going to have to explain what that has to do with freedom and democracy.
Calling on covert military operations to kill Iranians and Russians in Syria in order to make them to come with the political terms of the US and its allies vision for political future of Syria has nothing to do with "freedom and democracy" the NATO members like proclaim they are so fond off in other countries. You've missed the obvious sarcasm.
This guy has been out of the CIA for several years and his job is now as a talking head on TV. He's in no position to do anything.
So you wouldn't mind if Russia or Iran snatch this guy and charge him with ethnic hate and inciting the political killings for political gains (a.k.a propaganda of terrorism)?
This guy has been out of the CIA for several years and his job is now as a talking head on TV. He's in no position to do anything.
So you wouldn't mind if Russia or Iran snatch this guy and charge him with ethnic hate and inciting the political killings for political gains (a.k.a propaganda of terrorism)?
Given that he's making those statements in the US where such statements are not a crime, yes I would have a problem with that. However, I also would not take his statements as official US policy and acknowledge that he is in no position to act on them. Same way I brush off most of the "Death to America" drivel that we see come out of Iran from time to time or when we get loony bin conspiracy theories from people like Gennady Onishchenko about how the US is trying to use Zika virus to attack Russia with secret basis in Georgia.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Vaktathi wrote: Unfortunately I dont have the time currently to address each of those points as much as I'd like, and you make some good ones in places like with respect to globalization.
However, circling back to the original topic, I would agree with Tyran's point about there being a major distinction between the *Political/Economic* "western world" and Russia. Denying that would be absurd on my part.
In terms of any sort of inherent *cultural* bias from "western culture", that is both monolithic (with fewer variations between members than between any of them and Russia) and exclusive of Russia, with an inherent alienness and bias against Russia (and meaningfully moreso than between the ostensible members of such a sans-russia "western" cultural world, such as between say Iceland and Greece or Spain and Poland or Italy and Norway or Germany and France or the US and Slovenia), that would simply naturally engender biased reporting against Russia on *cultural* grounds, I think that is far harder to accept.
Aye, but you have to think beyond mere politics. Politics is only the surface, the result of deeper social and cultural currents. How did the political divide between Russia and the rest of Europe come to be? Why have Russia and the rest of Europe always seen each other as "the other" rather than as fellow Europeans, like most of the other European nations have always seen each other? Why is the "europeanness" and "westerness" of Russia so often rejected, in both Europe as well as in Russia itself? There is no denying that in both continents (If Europe for some vague reasons gets to be a seperate continent, then so should Russia really be a continent of its own ) there has always been a tradition of seeing the other as not being part of the own cultural and social world. That is undeniable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/10 19:54:41
At least from my view, Politics does have a lot to do with that, it served the interests of certain governments outside of Russia to advance their agendas as well as the various governments of Russia to go with that idea to maintain power. I liken it to Austria and Germany, in many ways. These are two nations that really are composed of the same people from the same underlying culture that share the same language and a very intertwined history and for most of written history were not considered distinct people until the last few decades, but have only briefly ever been part of a unifird state. First it was convenient for the Prussians to push out the Hapsburgs to unify Germany under their rule, then it was convenient in the aftermath of WW1 for the victors to prevent a merger once the royal families were gone to prevent a resurgent and even stronger Germany, then after ww2 it was convenient to the victors to break them up again and for the Austrians to be able to distance themselves from the crimes of the Nazis, then it was convenient to maintain and independent Austria as a cold war buffer state, and now with the EU there's very little reason to push for reintegration since the EU accomplishes most of the functionality. With Russia and the rest of Europe, there are lots of similarities in terms of convenience for the power structures within and without. Racism against central and eastern asian peoples that compose some of the modern Russian population has also played into that too.
Europe has only very recently come together the way it has and started to view itself in some ways as a unified bloc, and still has many voices that reject that entire concept. Go back a century or two and things were very different. In another hundred years I expect Russia will be much more integrated. That said, economic factors also play a role, with Russia exporting largely resources and not in manufactured consumer goods and services the way most EU nations do.
As for Europe being its own continent, Russia up to the Urals is generally included in that as far as Ive ever seen.
Edit: I also dont mean to imply that Russia has no cultural differences with other peoples, they clearly do, but rather that such cultural differences are not so vast that they aren't within the same broad spectrum as other "Western" nations, but rather that economics, geography, and politics both internal and external are the primary drivers of "otherness" as opposed to a radically alien culture.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/10 21:08:20
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Aye, but you have to think beyond mere politics. Politics is only the surface, the result of deeper social and cultural currents. How did the political divide between Russia and the rest of Europe come to be? Why have Russia and the rest of Europe always seen each other as "the other" rather than as fellow Europeans, like most of the other European nations have always seen each other? Why is the "europeanness" and "westerness" of Russia so often rejected, in both Europe as well as in Russia itself?
There is no denying that in both continents (If Europe for some vague reasons gets to be a seperate continent, then so should Russia really be a continent of its own ) there has always been a tradition of seeing the other as not being part of the own cultural and social world. That is undeniable.
I blame Attila.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/11 00:26:59
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Russian Air Force hit multiple targets in Binesh, Syria. Among them a building where the terrorist leaders were having a meeting. As a result of that 32 terrorist are killed, among them 12 field commanders. A few armored trucks and two tanks T-55 and T-72) around that building were also destroyed.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're going to have to explain what that has to do with freedom and democracy.
Calling on covert military operations to kill Iranians and Russians in Syria in order to make them to come with the political terms of the US and its allies vision for political future of Syria has nothing to do with "freedom and democracy" the NATO members like proclaim they are so fond off in other countries. You've missed the obvious sarcasm.
I didn't miss your sarcasm, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that there was some sort of thought behind the statement rather than it being a complete non sequitur.
But really, when it is about a subject involving the Russian government, especially under Putin, you aren't going to be able to find any reliable objective sources. A source will either be pro-Russia (all Russian media) or anti-Russia (all Western media). RT in those cases is equally unreliable as the BBC or the NY Times for example. If there is any media source in existance that takes an objective middle ground, I have yet to see it.
There are degrees of bias. The existence of bias in every form of media does not mean that every form of media is equally biased. You're once again assuming that all Western media (and all Russian too, for that matter) is a monolith; last time we had this debate you tried linking a paper that explicitly pointed out that Western media is not monolithic as supporting evidence to your claim that Western media is monolithic. There isn't going to be any point in having this debate until you recognize that different media actors have differing views, arguments, and degrees of honesty, and thus different levels of bias in different questions. Otherwise we'd have to assume that the Daily Mail is on the same level of journalistic integrity as Reuters, which is silly. In fact (and I believe I made this point last time we had this discussion as well), I'd probably trust RT over the Daily Mail.
I mostly agree with you. But when it is about Russia, the degrees of bias on both sides are the same. The West is the enemy of Russia, and every westerner has an inherent cultural-historic bias against Russians. What is written by a westerner about the Russian government is therefore just as unreliable as that what the Russian government writes about itself. Less even, because apart from biased, virtually all westerners are also very ignorant of Russia. The same is true for Western stories about the Middle-East. Because the West is so strongly islamophobic, those stories are usually going to have a very, very strong bias. There are exceptions of course, but exceptions prove the rule.
Furthermore, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. The West is a monolithic cultural-historic bloc. That doesn't mean it doesn't have internal differences, but it does mean that those internal differences are not very significant when measured against the differences that exist between the West and say, the Islamic or the Russian world. Of course, if you never leave the West and have never actually lived in a different civilisation, this is not something you are ever going to be able to see.
If "the West" is a monolithic cultural-historic bloc then Russia is part of that bloc. Russia has always operated in the contexts of being a Western country, from the influences of the Orthodox church to the rivalry with the Ottoman empire. Part of the cultural differences are due to diverging religious history, but that's still within a decidedly Western religious context. The whole deal about being the "Third Rome" illustrates the point rather well; Russia claimed a direct continuation from the Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire and then the Russian Empire. Considering that the Roman Empire is the bedrock of "Western" civilization, this claim would make little sense if Russia was not part of Western culture.
You've yet to provide any sort of evidence for your claims that all biases are equal to each other when it comes to Russia. You're also making sweeping statements about millions of people, while claiming that those that disagree with you are incapable of seeing "the truth". In short, you're being an donkeycave, even if that is not your intention.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
I didn't miss your sarcasm, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that there was some sort of thought behind the statement rather than it being a complete non sequitur.
You are lucky I didn't tell to go pound sand after yours "You're going to have to explain..." like I usually do when people try to be frivolous when addressing me. Consider it a freebie. As for my statement, I tried to be as precise and short as I could considering who I am dealing with here.
I'm pretty sure the content of Yaraton's posts could be boiled down to 'Russia is right, everyone else can pound sand', though...
I still find it hilariously Ironic that he complains about the corruption and evil of NATO and EU aligned powers and media, whilst living in a NATO country.
Though, giving Russia credit, I absolutely love the fact that they are trying to burn ISIS down. And I can understand why Russia takes offence to the USA trying to get rid of their guy and put in one of their own.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/11 11:51:57
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
Crazyterran wrote: I'm pretty sure the content of Yaraton's posts could be boiled down to 'Russia is right, everyone else can pound sand', though...
I still find it hilariously Ironic that he complains about the corruption and evil of NATO and EU aligned powers and media, whilst living in a NATO country.
Though, giving Russia credit, I absolutely love the fact that they are trying to burn ISIS down. And I can understand why Russia takes offence to the USA trying to get rid of their guy and put in one of their own.
Asaad would not of recaptured palmeria without Russian air power.
Next stop raqqa and to go root the damn rats out there nest.
Time to bring back the 203mm stalins sledgehammer?
If the rats are going to fight for the nest. Bring the barricade breakers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/11 21:29:37
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
I didn't miss your sarcasm, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that there was some sort of thought behind the statement rather than it being a complete non sequitur.
You are lucky I didn't tell to go pound sand after yours "You're going to have to explain..." like I usually do when people try to be frivolous when addressing me. Consider it a freebie. As for my statement, I tried to be as precise and short as I could considering who I am dealing with here.
By all means, tell me to pound sand if that's what you feel like, but that still doesn't explain how one individual arguing for the US to make a show of force to deterr other nations from covertly counteracting the US has anything whatsoever to do with "freedom and democracy". Your argument is flawed and now you're resorting to personal attacks, as usual.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Though, giving Russia credit, I absolutely love the fact that they are trying to burn ISIS down.
Sadly, these images are not ISIS. Aleppo has long been a stronghold of ISIS adversaries, and Binesh is on the Turkish boarder at the extreme opposite end of the country from ISIS.
Also, Russia hasn't been too shy about bombing US and British positions either. Back in July they nailed a US position on the Jordanian boarder with a cluster bomb. After being called and warned off, they hit it again 90 min later. Four Jordanians working with US forces were killed.
There's also been a surprising number of 'secret' silver stars getting handed out. It suggests that US ground involvement might be classified, but it's getting heavier.
Though, I suppose with Obama being ISIS founder and all....
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/12 01:35:01
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Also, Russia hasn't been too shy about bombing US and British positions either. Back in July they nailed a US position on the Jordanian boarder with a cluster bomb. After being called and warned off, they hit it again 90 min later. Four Jordanians working with US forces were killed.
Downside is that SDF took a lot of casualties in the mean time north of Aleppo from Russian bombings. Took US air cover to keep them away from Manbji.
I'll say this, the SDF was the most interesting experiment in practical army construction I've seen in a while: "I wonder what happens if we just drop 45 tonnes of weapons and ammo amid the surviving forces that held Kobani?"
20 odd groups suddenly came together like Voltron and declared a direct democracy in Syria. Was a hell of a lot chapter than spending $500m trying to create your own rebel army.
I've very interested to see how this pans out. And what mental gymnastics Putin will use to declare them terrorists. Probably the Kurd connection, or one of those 20 groups might have been former Hezbollah fighters.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/13 02:00:27
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
And closer ties to a dictator led Nato ally causes all sorts of glee within the kremlin.
Turkey are untrustworthy terrorist sympasizers, aiders and helped the barbarians in raqqa....
Some ally to anyone but it's presidents pockets.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
In good news, Manbij has been liberated from ISIS by the Kurds in alliance with the SDF.
Saw some videos on facebook of the peoples reactions upon being liberated. Women burning niqabs and being able to wear clothing which isn't plain black, people having a smoke in peace, just normal everyday things which most of us would take for granted but which these people had taken away by a load of nutjobs.
Hopefully the town can stay liberated and avoid attack by other groups in Syria.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
‘Koran for Dummies’: Most ISIS recruits ignorant about Islam, AP survey shows
Most ISIS recruits know little about Islam or hardly care about religion at all, an AP investigation has shown. Meanwhile another study found that the few with the most religious knowledge among the ranks of the terror group do not rush to become martyrs.
As many as 70 percent of the recruits were said to have had only “basic” knowledge of Islam – one of the three possible choices on an ISIS recruitment form, according to a study conducted by Associated Press. The agency looked at thousands of leaked Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) documents collected by a Syrian site, Zaman al-Wasl, and conducted numerous interviews with former IS fighters.
The probe found that some 24 percent of IS recruits could boast “intermediate” knowledge of Islam and only about 5 percent considered themselves to be “advanced” learners. Only five recruits claimed to have memorized the Quran.
Among the documents studied by AP were entry forms filled out by around 4,030 foreign recruits who crossed into Syria in 2013 and 2014. Upon joining IS, recruits had to fill out a special employment form which asked them to rank their knowledge of Islam on a scale from one to three. The findings indicated that most jihadist newcomers had trouble answering questions which tested their knowledge of Islam.
“I realized that I was in the wrong place when they began to ask me questions on these forms like 'when you die, who should we call?'”a 32-year-old European recruit told AP on condition of anonymity.
Among those interviewed by AP were a European convert who identifies as gay, a group of Frenchmen and two Britons. The latter two were said to have bought “The Koran for Dummies” and “Islam for Dummies” from Amazon in order to prepare for jihad.
Those interviewed said that after filling out the recruitment form they were then lectured by a group of imams on Islam who repeatedly praised martyrdom.
On the whole, the findings suggest religion has nothing to do with people joining IS. They also indicated that the extremist group feeds on people who have little knowledge of Islam and the more ignorant a person is about the faith the easier it is to recruit them.
“Religion is an afterthought,” Patrick Skinner, a former CIA case officer and director of special projects at security consultancy the Soufan Group told AP. According to Skinner, very few people join IS out of religion. Most of the recruits are people in need of “a sense of belonging, a sense of notoriety, a sense of excitement.”
New recruits who do not know much about the religion are easily brainwashed by the extremist group which imposes their own faith on newcomers in such a manner that it would match their goals of expansion and carnage.
According to a Frenchman Karim Mohammad-Aggad who traveled to Syria to join IS in 2013, extremists used “smooth talk” for recruitment. “Islam was used to trap me like a wolf,” he said. Mohammad-Aggad's brother was one of the three assailants who stormed the Bataclan in Paris November attacks in 2015.
The gay European recruit said he converted to Islam as it required no prior knowledge: “People like me were tricked into something that they didn't understand. I never meant to end up with IS.”
Another study carried out by the US military’s Combating Terrorism Center showed that IS recruits who had advanced knowledge of Islam were less likely to become suicide bombers, AP reported.
“If martyrdom is seen as the highest religious calling, then a reasonable expectation would be that the people with the most knowledge about Islamic law (Shariah) would desire to carry out these operations with greater frequency,” the report stated.
However, it appears that “those with the most religious knowledge within the organization itself are the least likely to volunteer to be suicide bombers,” the study found.
According to Muslim scholars, IS members concoct their own notions about what is allowed and forbidden in Islam which are fully contrary to the faith. Scholar Tariq Ramadan said that it is important to make it known to the world that what IS teaches has nothing to do with Islam.
“The people who are doing this are not experiencing martyrdom, they are criminals,” he said. “They are killing innocent people. Nothing in Islam, nothing ever can justify the killing of innocent people, never, ever.”
So that confirms what I have been argueing somewhere earlier in this thread. IS has nothing to do with actual religion. The religion is just an excuse, an ideological tool through which those at the top of the organisation can establish and maintain power. In other words: IS is not really islamic, and IS fighters are not true muslims.
It is funny if you think about it.
) there has always been a tradition of seeing the other as not being part of the own cultural and social world. That is undeniable.
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
